Category Archives: Libertarianism

Filing ended today for the May 24 party primaries and non-partisan elections for prosecuting attorneys and judgeships.

No major surprises on the final day.

You can view all the candidates here. The Republican Party had more than twice the number of candidates as Democrats with more than 200 filing for state offices. The Republicans also said there was a surge of Republican filings at the county level. Not in Pulaski County, however. A Republican filed for only one countywide office sheriff. Republicans are vying for nine of the 15 Quorum Court seats, where they currently hold five. Four of the five are unopposed and Doug Reed, whos been challenging the county mask mandate, is not seeking re-election.

Five Democrats, two Republicans a Libertarian and four write-ins filed for governor.

Democrats did field candidates in all four congressional races and the race for U.S. Senate as well as all the statewide offices.

Among judicial contests, incumbent Justice Rhonda Wood, despite facing an ethics complaint over her embarrassing involvement in matters related to dubious fund-raising exposed in the Gilbert Baker bribery trial (he also raised money from the same sources for her), drew no opponent.

Two other incumbents face challengers. Justice Robin Wynne has two opponents, state agency lawyer David Sterling and Circuit District Judge Chris Carnahan, both running for the non-partisan race while touting Republican credentials. Justice Karen Baker is faced by another Republican-branded opponent, former state Senator Gunner DeLay.

Three Democrats, four Republicans, a Libertarian and two write-ins were joined by Stuart Shirrell of Little Rock, an independent, in the race for John Boozmans Senate seat.

Get ready for millions in ads for Republicans running for governor and Senate, all vying to be the most Trumpian in their races. Good time to turn off the TV. The six-Republican race for the meaningless office of lieutenant governor remains one of the most interesting from the loony Chris Bequette to the bombastic bully of Bigelow, Jason Rapert, with the attorney general, a former Republican state chair, a county judge and the surgeon general in between.

View post:
Election filing closes. Get ready for the TV deluge - Arkansas Times

Cheers, Beer Nerd!I just wanted to proclaim my appreciation of Mike Riedel and the Beer Nerd column. My father, mother and various brothers all eagerly await it as a weekly delightpulling it out, pinning it up and discussing with an eager eye toward sampling these new beverages so kindly placed on our culinary horizons.JACOB WILKSDraper

American IgnoranceToday, America conducts democracy by opinion polling. What do the people think about Ukraine? Let's be guided by that.

But what if the people are not thinking straight? What if they are burdened by emotional distress, debilitating physical ailments, unhappy employment?

What if they did not pay attention in school and did not get a college education? What if they did get a degree, but after college they have not cracked a serious book about public policy in years?

What if they blindly parrot what self-interested political party leaders beg them to believe? What if the average citizen polled on a given day has never read an actual book of American history, or any other history?

How good is our bright, shiny, breaking-news poll then? It becomes a measure of our ignorance, not our wisdom. Democracy requires knowledge and participation, not polls.KIMBALL SHINKOSKEYWoods Cross

"'Diplomacy' Is the Problem," Feb. 24 Soap BoxAfter reading Thomas Knapp's op-ed in City Weekly, I see that he and Tucker Carlson both have a very skewed view of the situation in Eastern Europe.

Does it matter that the vast majority of Belarussians and Ukrainians want nothing to do with an autocratic Russia? Does it matter that Putin is directly responsible for undermining democracy in both those countries and others? Does it matter that Putin is so afraid of the truth that he has been willing to countenance numerous deaths of journalists reporting on his regime over the years?

Does it matter that he locks up his political competitors like dogs purely for their opposition? Does it matter that he has recklessly endangered the lives of foreign nationals in order to poison dissidents living abroad? Does it matter that he has invented a fake history of Ukrainian-Russian relations to justify plunging Europe into barbarism simply to exercise control over a neighboring sovereign country?

I think Knapp's blind spots can largely be explained by his blind adherence to an Ayn Randian philosophy that has little to do with reality. Libertarianism sounds great on the surface. Dig a little deeper, though, and you see that it's really all about justifying excess at the expense of others. This is exactly what plutocrats like Putin base their ugly behavior on. The only thing that matters to him is himself and his co-conspirators. The little people need to just stay out of the way and, if they intervene in any way, they shouldn't expect any more than a bullet between the eyes.

It's true that America has a lot to answer for with its many misadventures abroad over the years. But it is Putin that's on the wrong side of history this time around.DAVID HARRISSalt Lake City

Care to sound off on a feature in our pages or about a local concern? Write to comments@cityweekly.net or post your thoughts on our social media. We want to hear from you!

Read more:
Feedback from February 24 and Beyond - Salt Lake City Weekly

Not to be confused with Liberalism. Libertarianism"DON'T TREAD ON ME!!!"

Libertarianism, or more simply Right-Libertarianism or Libertarian Capitalism, is a civically libertarian, laissez-faire capitalist and culturally variable ideology. He inhabits the libertarian right quadrant of the political compass, generally being in the middle of it unless specified.

He believes in a very limited government and the individual's natural self evident rights of life, liberty, and property. He likes the use of militias to watch them.

He technically believes in the same principles of classical liberalism of equality before the law and the basic rights to life, liberty, and property, along with most librights, although some people debate most libertarians are only libertarians because of the precise ideology and not the principles of it.

A narrative often held up by Left-wing Libertarians is that the term "Libertarian" was originally a socialist term, which was later appropriated by the right. This conception is a half truth.

There are two origins of the term.

The term "Libertarian" was originally coined in the enlightenment to describe supporters of free will (as opposed to determinism) and with it generally free action. With the first recorded usage of the term being in 1789 in reference to metaphysics. While the first political usage belongs to the libertarian communist, Joseph Djacque, who used the French word libertaire in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Djacque also started employing the term Anarchism at a similar time to Proudhon, but conceded it to him, calling Proudhon a " center right anarchist, liberal and not libertarian (...) you want free trade for cotton and the candle...", in favor of identifying as a "Libertarian" only.

Djacque, from 1858 to 1861, ran a paper titled The Libertarian, but it wasnt very successful, and only lasted around 3 years.After that, from 1861 to 1884, the term was rarely used, before being revived by Benjamin Tucker to refer to individualist anarchists, alongside of course the term anarchism. The term thus gained more popularity, during these times, in the United States than in Europe.The term libertarian communism was also used at some French regional conferences in the 1880s but it was popularized by Benjamin Tucker before it was reclaimed by anarcho-communists.

After this resurgence of the term Libertarian brought about by Tucker, the term once again started to be popularly used as an euphemism for anarcho-communism and other radical left-wing ideologies, half a century before it became widely used within right-wing circles.

The term "Libertarianism" only acquired its present meaning at the split from liberalism before the 30s. Put simply, what was originally Liberalism split into what we now know as classical liberalism and social liberalism.The term Liberalism had been associated with the Democratic party ever since Grover Cleveland became president. However, during the campaign of Franklin D. Roosevelt the term started to be associated with the social liberalism.This, in turn, created two definitions of the term liberalism, the American definition, by which Liberalism was associated to the modern Democratic Party, and the definition in the rest of the world, where Liberalism kept its meaning being about the same thing as modern day libertarianism.Later, with the radicalization of the classical liberal circles in the later 20th century, and taking inspiration from some already radical classical liberal thinkers of the 19th century, some of them prefered to stop being called classical liberals and adopted the term "Libertarian" completely. Classical liberalism thus started to be associated to Chicago economics and the free-market wing of Neoclassical economics, while Libertarianism became closer to the Austrian School of Economics.The western definition is also closely tied to anarcho-capitalism as the radical wing that sought to split itself from more moderate classical liberals was predominantly made up of Rothbardians.

While Libertarian ideals could be considered to be rooted in history since antiquity (with examples being the 6th century B.C. Chinese Philosophers Lao-Tzu and Chuang-tzu), the modern incarnation of them can be traced to the radicalisation of Classical Liberal principles that occurred through the later half of the 19th century and through the 20th.

The most influential of these 19th century movements is generally considered to be French Liberal School, of Frederic Bastiat and Gustave de Molinari fame. With the former being known for positing that law becomes unjust and corrupted when it punishes the right of self-defence of one individual in favour of other individuals' plunder and the latter for being originator of ideas that were essentially Voluntaryist.

Libertarianism's design is based on the Gadsden Flag.

For more detail add "DONT TREAD ON ME" or the simpler "NO STEP" under the rattlesnake.

Original post:
Libertarianism - Polcompball Wiki

Many might say that the intimate group that I am going to be addressing is just a bit larger than the African American membership in the Klu Klux Klan, or maybe the number of Black people in the White Citizens Council in the 1960s in the South, or such.

You get the picture. For some reason, there are not many of us.

But many of you who are reading this at this moment, although not of African roots, could be or might indeed be a political or a philosophical libertarian, or both. And if so, you might be inclined to recruit and support more Afro American participation in a political movement of the future that is not attached to the special-interest gravy train. I submit that the latter thought conveys what is responsible for so much of the failure of prosperity and harmony in our nation today.

So, lets begin with who is a libertarian, since so-called blackness is pretty apparent?

Many define a libertarian as a person who calls themselves one, or loves liberty, or some abstract definition, all the way to the opposite more thoughtful definition: A libertarian is a person who believes that no individual has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force, fraud, or coercion against another, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Thus, those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim, in the words of my esteemed libertarian author friend, L. Neil Smith.

So, who are the prominent Black or African American (or Afro American) libertarians in this nation today?

Larry Sharpe, in the Big Apple, comes to mind first, with his podcast and his announcement he is once again running for governor of New York. Sharpe is a businessman with the gift of gab and an ability to translate the complexity of libertarian principles in easy-to-understand language. I would love to have a society that is based only on volunteer associations. That would be amazing. I dont think Ill see that in my lifetime, so the closest I can get to that thats what I want, Sharpe once said.

Dr. Anne Wortham was the Black presence and one of the few female voices in the Libertarian Party and movement prior to my activism that began in 1983. Her academic prowess took precedence over her political involvement up until her retirement as an esteemed professor at Illinois State University a few years ago.

The harmony and stability of the collectivist society envisioned by Rousseau and Durkheim depends on people viewing the constraints of society and the sovereign will of the state as the natural order of things, she wrote in a 2012 critique of President Barack Obama. They must also transfer to civil society the commitment they had traditionally held for the sacred, and schools must teach children the importance of the political communitys claim to their loyalty and of their commitment to the morality of the collective.

Libertarians, with Wortham, understand well the dangers of such collectivistic societies.

Duke University grad, scientist and marathon runner Wilton Alston became a significant Black libertarian voice as a prolific writer for the past two to three decades or so, while yours truly spoke, wrote, appeared on radio and television, and ran for public office as a Libertarian for many years.

In May 2020, Alston bravely spoke out against the lockdowns. Not only does remaining in lockdown hurt the economically vulnerable, it could hurt the entire population going forward. It seems clear that the damage done because of the lockdown has far outstripped even the imagined benefit from flattening the curve, he wrote in a commentary for the Libertarian Institute.

Then theres radio host Brian Thomas in New Bedford, Massachusetts, former LP National Committee member Joseph Brennan, previously of Brooklyn, now in London, for many years.

Considering the vast size and diversity of our nation, changes are that there are others who have recently joined LP groups throughout the country, and will soon be heard from, when one considers the times and the entrenched policies of the Bi-Partisan Party throughout.

I am also aware of a few almost and former Libertarians of Color (couldnt resist that): Maj Toure of Black Guns Matter from Philadelphia, who promotes and defends lawful gun ownership in the Black community. And oh yes, theres Larry Elder, who claimed to be one of us for a while, but in the early 2000s appeared to excuse and become an apologist for the non-libertarian U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East in Iraq and other interventions.

I bet you have questioned why, having read this far, two of the most famous Black libertarians ever have not been mentioned. I wanted to see if you were paying attention. Who are they? Of course none other than the economists Thomas Sowell, and the late, great Walter E. Williams, who left us in December 2020.

Both of these intellectual giants generally downplayed the libertarian label, but if you actually understand the philosophy of liberty upon which this nation was founded hundreds of years ago, along with the additional understanding and mastery of non-Keynesian economics, they qualify quite clearly as libertarian.

I used to joke that there were only three Afro American or Black libertarians on earth: Williams, Sowell and me, and that we made a pact to never fly on the same plane at the same time, for fear of losing all Black libertarians in one accident.

Grasping basic economic concepts tends to enhance ones understanding of the real world, and most Americans dont even begin to comprehend anything economic, not to mention my ethnic counterparts, who are still trying to gain parity in the basics of life, no less trying to comprehend even basic economics.

Historically, Black Americans were mostly Republicans from that partys inception. However, FDRs promises under the New Deal shifted almost all Black voters to the Democrats from the 1930s on. I submit that neither group has freed us, and the latter seem to take Black people for granted these days, or treat us more like pets than free people. We Afro Americans happen to be, just as all citizens are, separate and distinct individuals, not a voting block, tribe or such. Republican or Democrat, name your poison. The heavy hand of the state under both parties has failed us all.

And in my almost four decades of activism in the Libertarian Party at all levels as well as the freedom and liberty movement, I can say the Libertarian Party has always stood for true freedom. That very freedom that has eluded us and that so many have been seeking and dying for for centuries, is what libertarian principles are all about. The Founders understood that, and so can you, not just Black folks, if you actually think about it.

The Black national anthem, Lift Every Voice and Sing, in its very first stanza speaks of liberty, not equality, two very different things. When my African American culture finally recognizes that, then the long struggle can finally end. Early 20th century Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist William Allen White so eloquently reminded us: Liberty is the only thing that you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others.

Finally I must say that the most important African American libertarian to ever grace this planet was one Frederick Douglass, my mentor, muse and exemplar. Douglass not only courageously fought against the represensible institution of slavery, but did so while always strongly defending classical liberalism.

If you are so moved after reading about the few of us, join us, Black, White, Blue or Green.

Richard Boddie is a member of the Southern California News Groups editorial board.

Read more from the original source:
Why arent there more Black libertarians? - San Bernardino County Sun

Our history is so steeped in a two-party political system its natural to assume that political parties are government entities. They arent. They are nonprofit corporations. And those two corporations have formed a cartel that shuts out competing parties. For a partys candidate to be taken seriously, the candidate must be in the televised presidential debates. To get in the debates, a candidate must receive at least15 percent support in national polls. But to receive significant support in the polls, a candidate needs to appear in the debates. Who created this catch-22? The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).

But the CPD isnt a government entity either. Its a nonprofit corporation established bywait for itthe Democratic and Republican Parties. Any other corporations that colluded to bar competitors like this would long ago have been charged with antitrust violations. Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court has turned a blind eye to collusion between the major political parties.

If the Democratic and Republican Parties adequately served voters, that might be a less pressing concern. But evidence shows they dont. In 2004, voters were evenly split among Republicans, Democrats, and independents. By January 2021, the number of voters self-identifying as independents equaled the number identifying as Republicans or Democrats combined. If that trend continues, independents will constitute a supermajority of voters within the next generation.

When a party cant attract a majority of voters, that party no longer represents the will of the people. When the major parties together cant attract a majority of voters, the political apparatus itself no longer represents the will of the people.

For evidence, look at our own behaviors. Many who voted for Donald Trump did so because they disliked him less than they disliked Hillary Clinton. And many who voted for Joe Biden did so because they disliked him less than they disliked Donald Trump. We no longer hope to choose the best candidates but to avoid the worst ones.

Weve always had two major parties, but they havent been the same two. Lincolns Republican Party replaced Henry Clays Whig Party, which replaced Hamiltons Federalist Party, and Jacksons Democratic Party replaced Jeffersons Democratic-Republican Party. Its again time for a third party to replace one of the major two.

This is a rare opportunity for the Libertarian Party. But its one they will squander. The Libertarians have no Lincoln, Clay, or Hamilton. The Libertarians have no great leaders because the Libertarians dont take themselves seriously. And consequently, no one else does either.

Political success requires compelling and clearly articulated principles, and the ability to compromise. Libertarians have compelling and clearly articulated principles, but they refuse to compromise. Too many Libertarians happily reject practical ideas for better government in favor of impractical ideas for a perfect one. And in fighting over minutiae as to what constitutes a perfect government, they tear themselves apart, ending up less a cohesive party than a loose confederation of malcontents.

Yet, Libertarians do provide value. The compromise that politics demands erode principles, and erosion of principles is what ails the major parties. The Democratic and Republican Parties have ceased to be associations of voters upholding principles and instead have become electoral machines delivering preferred outcomes to the highest bidders. In the face of necessary compromise, someone needs to keep a steady light shining on principle. On their present course, Libertarians will never rise to power as a political party. But as keepers of philosophical principles, they may well provide guidance to the third party we desperately need.

What is certain is that either a viable third party must soon emerge, or the two major parties will split the country as they continue desperately to hold to power in the name of an ever-shrinking minority of the people.

See the original post here:
The Third Party InsideSources - InsideSources

This might not seem news, except that the Trump era catalyzed an ongoing, intense and sometimes personally nasty debate among writers and thinkers on the right about how much emphasis should be put on freedom. One faction associated with populists, nationalists and various critics of classic liberalism argues that the traditional conservative celebration of freedom has become fetishistic and is now an anachronism that is irrelevant to ordinary people and an obstacle to grappling with the struggles of the working class.

This position has gained adherents in recent years, but it is hard to tell amid the rights reflexive support of a protest movement flying under the banner literally! of freedom.

Indeed, if you were sitting on the couch during prime time anytime over the last 20 years and switched over to Fox News and saw that Sean Hannity was robustly supporting something called the Freedom Convoy, youd think that the planets were in alignment and nothing had ever disturbed the conservative consensus.

The Canadian protest is a unifying moment for the American right. To simplify for the sake of clarity, the populists are drawn to the truckers as representatives of the working class, of a rejection of government by experts, and of a willingness to shock and defy the progressive governing class as embodied by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Limited-government conservatives, on the other hand, tend to sympathize with the opposition to the vaccine mandate on truckers as an irrational, completely unnecessary regulation and with the push to begin lifting Covid restrictions more broadly.

Both elements on the right have denounced Trudeaus invoking of emergency powers. For the populists, the action is a dangerous sign of an impulse to smash anyone crossing elite opinion. For limited-government types, its a dangerous sign of a government that can too easily slip free of constitutional constraints.

It adds up to a kind of populist-inflected libertarianism, with an enhanced accent on cultural combat and class conflict.

It was predictable that the first contact with Biden administration policies would revivify a conservative distrust of government, and pandemic restrictions have supercharged a Do Not Tread on Me response across the right, focused on mandates and shutdowns.

Of course, the GOP has changed over the last decade or so. Trump broke with the conventional post-Reagan Republican rhetoric and elevated national cohesiveness, sovereignty, and strength over and above freedom. He showed that economic conservatives werent the dominant partners in the Republican coalition that many had believed.

Notably, Bidens spending plans get very little Republican support, but the opposition to the red ink is muted compared to the backlash to the early Obama administration agenda, when opposition to debt and governmental aggrandizement were at their high tide on the right.

The sense now is less the government is bankrupting us and more these out-of-touch, self-appointed experts are telling us what to do because they have too much power and like lording it over us, with the press, social media, corporations and nonprofits all on their side.

This gives the opposition to government a distinct culture war charge, although this isnt necessarily new. In the post-World War II conservative coalition, classical liberals and social conservatives united in opposition to big government because it was believed that an overweening government was a threat both to freedom and traditional values.

If this dynamic still holds in a slightly different form, that doesnt mean that there arent going to be intraconservative debates going forward on tax, trade and tech policy, with the populists willing to unabashedly wield government power in pursuit of their policy goals.

The defense of freedom, though, will retain a central place. Consider the politicians who, at this juncture, look to be the future of the conservative opposition in Canada and the U.S.

Pierre Poilievre, whose chances to be the next conservative leader in Canada have been enhanced by the trucker protests, criticized a government that is too big and bossy in his strong video announcing his bid. Ron DeSantis, the early favorite in a 2024 Republican nomination fight should Trump decide not to run touts the successes of the Free State of Florida.

The issues and the emphases might change, but in conservative politics, freedom is unlikely ever to go out of style.

Here is the original post:
Opinion | How Canadian Truckers Brought Peace to the GOP's Warring Tribes - POLITICO

We are living in an authoritarian moment. It has sparked a libertarian pushback.

The authoritarian nature of the moment needs little elaboration. In the last 2 years, Western democracies have used a problematic health rationale to close businesses, restrict movement, censor speech, force unwanted inoculation, and ban alternative medical treatments for Covid. The growing conversation within the federal government to implement no-fly lists, mandated kill switches in cars, and increased surveillance to stop domestic terrorism speaks to how authoritarian governance has crept in even without the Covid rationale.

Other examples of government overreach that existed before the pandemic have expanded in response to it. Federal government spending is now 30% of GDP; national debt has exploded to 133% of GDP; and federal money supply has seen unprecedented expansion, setting the groundwork for years of inflation.

This mix of economic self-sabotage and civil liberty infractions has given Americans the growing sense that their government has too much control of the countryand is causing it to unravel. 72% of those polled believe America is on the wrong track.

This is why a libertarian moment has also arisenand not just in the U.S. From American parents demanding that school boards unmask their kids, to horn-honking Canadian truckers, to anti-lockdown protests across Europe and Australia, theres a renewed language in the West favoring individual rights and bodily autonomy rather than control by unelected bureaucrats.

The question is what will this moment yield in respect to tangible pushback against government abuse. The answer lies in detecting two layers within the movementa Libertarianism 1.0 that pits classical liberal ideals against entrenched governing systems, and a Libertarianism 2.0 that either weakens these systems or escapes them all together, using technology to reduce the power of political actors.

Libertarianism 1.0

By now most people understand what this is: an ideology calling for small government, personal liberty and open economies.

While the concept has several intellectual origins, it is linked today with the classical liberal tradition pioneered by Adam Smith. Libertarianism is distributed in the media sphere nowadays through outlets like Reason Magazine and the Cato Institute; and in the political sphere through mainstream politicians like Rand Paul and the Libertarian Party.

The premise of their advocacy is that liberty-minded ideas should compete in the marketplace against the statist ideas peddled by the Democratic and Republican duopoly. By virtue of being a political movement, libertarianism is fighting against entrenched government structures, especially since its a minority position.

But this can realistically be seen as a losing fight, since governance in democracies will never produce libertarian outcomes. Public choice economists have shown why: democracy creates a freeloader problem where people vote for benefits they dont pay for, and special interests elect leaders who favor them at the expense of the whole. Libertarian governance is even less likely to surface in non-democratic administrative stateswhich the U.S. now resembles. Political actors in such systems are even more incentivized to raise taxes, increase debt, trample human rights and enrich themselves.

Rather, the march towards statism and authoritarianism seems inevitable across the West, with Covid just showing an accelerated version, and it seems there is little libertarians can do to stop itno matter how hard they fight.

Libertarianism 2.0

But an alternate course of libertarianism stresses flight over fight, action over activism, building things rather than saying things, and escaping rather than reforming current systems. It uses technology for these goals, amounting to a Libertarianism 2.0.

I didnt invent this slogan. A 2010 academic paper used the 2.0 term to describe cyber-libertarianism or techno-libertarianism. But technological advances since then speak to its greater current potential. Silicon Valley and other tech hubswhich, ironically, have assisted in the rise of authoritarianismhave also produced ways to fight it through this 2.0 model.

That is, many people working in tech have libertarian leanings, and it inspired them to build decentralized processes that allow escapes and workarounds from state violence. Such technologies (many of them interrelated) include:

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations: these are digital platforms with autonomous operating agreements that are enforced with (or without) member participation. As Ethereum.com notes, they are an internet-native business thats collectively owned and managed by its members. They have built-in treasuries that no one has the authority to access without the approval of the group. Decisions are governed by proposals and voting to ensure everyone in the organization has a voice.

DAOs can be structured to disperse voting power based on what an individual pays into the system (try doing that with raw democracy), and are generally without an executive leader.

Blockchain: DAOs run on blockchain technology, which is a peer-to-peer network that moves and stores information through a database and prevents it from being manipulated by individuals. Blockchain is a way to store sensitive infocurrencies, land titles, voting ballotswith less threat of theft or hacking.

Smart contracts: these run on the blockchain and are often at the heart of DAOs. IBM describes them as programs that run when predetermined conditions are met. They typically are used to automate the execution of an agreement so that all participants can be immediately certain of the outcome, without any intermediarys involvement or time loss. They can also automate a workflow, triggering the next action when conditions are met.

An example would be if two people want to bet on the Super Bowl but dont trust each other to pay upon losing. So they create a smart contract that triggers the payment automatically once the games over. This removes the need for trust between parties.

Cryptocurrency: Also running along the blockchain, these are currencies that have prearranged, coded rules, so as to prevent dilution or other manipulation by central banks. The blockchain aspect of cryptocurrency also ensures the privacy of transactions, so that governments cannot track, seizeor potentially even taxmoney.

Metaverse: this might sooner be called the network state, but metaverse is a more popular term. Societies of like-minded individuals create their own digital communityexcluding unwanted outsiders and operating on the above-mentioned technologieswhere they can conduct business and share common interests. Eventually, writes investor Balaji Srinivasan, who has become a face of techno-libertarianism, this can lead them to create physical communities that, again, are ideally insulated from outside interference.

Speaking ofthe best merging of these Libertarianism 2.0 technologies into a larger governing vision seems to be happening in the private city space. A proposed city in the Texas Hill Country called Montanoso looks to operate on a leaderless DAO (however, it will still answer to the Texas state and U.S. governments).

Prospera, a city being built on an island off mainland Honduras, takes this further. It wants to incorporate these technologies, but has signed an agreement that gives it near-full autonomy from the Honduran government. Estonia is perhaps the most advanced current example of an entity that has used blockchain technology to streamline services, secure public records and reduce the need for human administrators.

As more microstates like these continue to surface, there will be concern that surrounding host nations might invade them if they get too successful (see Hong Kong). However, this will be harder in a techno-libertarian system; if a city runs on algorithms that only internal members grasp, itll be harder for unwanted outsiders to exploit any aspect of it, even if they choose to plunder it outright.

But these technologies can be used to increase the transparency of, or even disempower, current regimes. To name one recent example: when the Canadian government pressured GoFundMe to shutter its crowdfunder for protesting truckers, people started sending the truckers Bitcoin, which is more difficult for the government to track. Another example would be to launch blockchain-based social media platforms that have no curation and automatically elevate the most popular posts, making it harder for politicians to censor.

At the heart of Libertarianism 2.0 is the ethos to become ungovernable by using technology to isolate and outfox the state.

In conclusion, I like both versions of libertarianism. 1.0 gives a framework for how we should think about state power and its downfalls. 2.0 offers a system that helps avoid creating such states in the future, weakens existing ones, and even sets a blueprint for new societies.

This latter aspect is why I think 2.0 will be the future of the libertarian movement. Why bang our heads against a wall within governments that will never change, when we can start from scratch using charter cities, special economic zones, and other experimental communities? If libertarians manage to incorporate these decentralized tech cities around the world, it could help turn their ideas into reality.

Excerpt from:
The rise of a Libertarianism 2.0 | Scott Beyer - Catalyst

To the editor:

A recent letter proudly, if erroneously, proclaimed Libertarian wisdom in calling for the withdrawal of the U.S. from NATO. As an 18-year U.S. Army veteran and having served seven years in what was West Germany, I write this in order to refute both the stated desire to withdraw and the self-proclaimed wisdom of the Libertarians.

First, we should address the origins of NATO. A three-point purpose was stated as NATOs charter. Those three points are:

The first point stands front and center as it pertains to the current Ukraine crisis. With the dissolution of the USSR, the entire European continent is a changed picture from that of 1949 when NATO was formed.

While there is no more Soviet Union, there is still a very belligerent Russia. Putin is a former KGB operative and from the old state state of mind. While he has yet to actually invade Ukraine, I would submit that should he, it would be little different from Iraqs invasion of Kuwait.

The world reacted then, and I think it would be right that the world react again if need be.

The second point calls for us to reexamine the isolationist policies of the U.S. throughout the 1930s. Had those policies persisted, and they nearly did, perhaps Japan would not have invaded Pearl Harbor. Seeing no need to counter our Pacific fleet, the Japanese might not have drawn us into the war and had we not been drawn into the Pacific War, we most likely would not have been drawn into the European one either.

The end result? Imperial Japan would have won out in mainland China. For the result of that, see the Japanese occupation of Nanjing. The Philippines, Guam and New Zealand would have also been occupied, as would have Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia and Laos. See the Bataan Death March for the likely comparison there.

Australia would most likely have fallen as well, without the aid of British and U.S. military forces. With militant Japanese imperialism undefeated, Japan would be a far different nation/people from what we see today.

As for Europe? Without the U.S. industrial might and without the U.S. destroyers in the Atlantic, it is probable that Nazi Germany would have strangled the United Kingdom with its U-boat forces.

There would have been no defeat of Rommels Afrika Corps and Nazi fascism would control North Africa from the Suez Canal to the Straits of Gibraltar. The invasions of Sicily/Italy would not have occurred, and Italian Fascism would control Greece and Crete, along with Ethiopia on the African continent.

Mussolini would not have been deposed and hung, and his ideals of fascism would have grown. Hitlers Nazi Party was modeled on Mussolinis Fascist Party in Italy. Without U.S. forces and without being able to import adequate amounts of steel and oil, Great Britain would not have been able to stave off simple attrition long enough to defeat Nazi Germany.

With no D-Day and no need to create an Atlantic Wall, it is even possible that Hitler would have succeeded with his invasion of Russia. Bear in mind, the much needed by Russia Lend-Lease program via the port of Archangel would not have occurred had we maintained our isolationist policies.

It is likely that Nazi Germany would control the European mainland from the French border with Spain all the way to Moscow and then south through the Middle East and its oil.

Had we in the U.S. been choked off then from the many millions upon millions of tons of imports we have received over the past 75 years, can we imagine where we would be today? Let me also remind my fellows that it was NATO that responded in our defense following the events of 9/11/2001.

So, sure, support isolationist Libertarians if you wish to stand in support of fascism. And if you wish to call wise the support of fascism, then by all means applaud the Libertarian wisdom.

Jim DirksRedding, California

Read the rest here:
Letter to the editor: Libertarians are wise if you like fascism - theperrynews.com

Jim HartmanCourtesy Photo

Gov. Steve Sisolak abruptly dropped Nevadas mask mandate Feb. 10 by issuing Emergency Directive 052 that masks would not be required in public places effective immediately.In doing so, Sisolak was way behind the national curve in dumping mask edicts. Nevada was among the mask mandate holdouts, with just three states Hawaii, New Mexico and Washington still forcing residents to mask up at public indoor settings.Even California announced it would end its indoor masking requirement earlier than Nevada. Thats notable because California is the state most identified with an addiction to heavy-handed government.Last July 27, Sisolak issued a directive that reimposed an onerous indoor public place mask mandate following a recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that fully-vaccinated people should wear masks in indoor settings.The governors directive also mandated masks for all teachers, staff and students in Nevadas 17 school districts.As a result of parental backlash and pressure from school superintendents, Sisolak backed off his all-student mask mandate. He issued another directive on Aug. 4 giving 15 rural school districts, those outside Clark and Washoe, the flexibility to determine their own student masking rules.Mask mandates for children in schools have come under increasing scrutiny given the virus represents little danger to young people. The case against masking children in class has been convincingly made by many with serious credentials for many months, but resisted by powerful teachers unions.Six months later theres little evidence Sisolaks July directive has led to fewer COVID infections. Nor do results in the eight other deep-blue states imposing an indoor mask mandate demonstrate any different outcome.The great majority of governors Democrats and Republicans declined to impose a similar requirement. Sisolaks ongoing mask order was extreme and outside the mainstream.Sisolak said his new Directive 052 is based on science and reflects the precipitous drop in positive cases, the considerable drop in hospitalizations. However, the CDC guidance is unchanged and continues to be to wear a mask indoors in public.Republicans characterized Sisolaks decision as politically expedient.The science changes when its politically convenient, Assembly GOP Leader Robin Titus, a physician, said in a statement.The science hasnt changed, only the political science has, she added.From the beginning, Sisolaks response to COVID has been strongly authoritarian in a state with a long tradition of live and let live libertarianism. His Draconian lockdown orders in March 2020 were devastating to Nevadas economy.By April 2020, Nevada set the record for the highest unemployment rate ever recorded, 30.5%, which sent the states unemployment system into meltdown.During 2021, Nevadas monthly unemployment rate was regularly the highest in the nation. While the states unemployment declined to 6.4% in the December U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report, thats still the second-highest unemployment rate in the U.S. after neighboring California.Sisolaks lockdowns also destroyed many non-essential small businesses, closing them permanently. His arbitrary capacity orders wildly fluctuated from 50% to 25%, then back to 50%, making it difficult for businesses to plan and comply.Joey Gilbert, a GOP far-right firebrand candidate for governor, labeled Sisolak a tyrant and a bully for his COVID directives.Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman called Sisolak a dictator.Hes been a dictator with whom we have complied every step of the way, Goodman, formerly a Democrat and now an independent, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Weve had no choice.A comprehensive State Pandemic Scorecard issued by Politico on December 15 placed Nevada tied for 48th with Mississippi in ranking the states overall COVID response. Only Wyoming ranked lower than Nevada in handling COVID issues, according to the report.For Sisolak, his COVID response has become a serious liability. Its a delusion for Democrats to believe the movement against mandates is driven only by right-wing crazies.Email Jim Hartman at lawdocman1@aol.com.

Read more from the original source:
Jim Hartman: Nevada near last to unmask | Serving Carson City for over 150 years - Nevada Appeal

Its not 2010 again in GOP politics and never will be, but you could be forgiven for having flashbacks to the beginnings of the tea party.

A leaderless grassroots revolt has emerged from almost nowhere, causing outrage in the media and among elected officials, as it opposes government overreach in high-spirited demonstrations.

So, yeah, this is happening in Canada and not the United States.

Still, the embrace of the Canadian trucker protesters by the American right is a sign that the tea party spirit circa the early Obama years was never fully extinguished. It is freedom that remains the most natural and powerful Republican rallying cry.

The Trump era catalyzed an ongoing debate among writers and thinkers on the right about how much emphasis should be put on freedom. One faction associated with populists and nationalists argues that the traditional conservative celebration of freedom has become fetishistic and is an anachronism irrelevant to ordinary people and an obstacle to grappling with the struggles of the working class.

This position has gained adherents in recent years, but it is hard to tell amid the rights reflexive support of a protest movement literally flying under the banner of freedom.

The Canadian protest is a unifying moment for the American right. To simplify, the populists are drawn to the truckers as representatives of the working class, of a rejection of government by experts, and of a willingness to shock and defy the progressive governing class as embodied by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Limited-government conservatives, on the other hand, tend to sympathize with the opposition to the vaccine mandate on truckers as an irrational, completely unnecessary regulation and with the push to begin lifting COVID-19 restrictions more broadly.

Both elements on the right have denounced Trudeaus invoking of emergency powers. For the populists, the action is a dangerous sign of an impulse to smash anyone crossing elite opinion. For limited-government types, its a dangerous sign of a government that can too easily slip free of constitutional constraints.

It adds up to a kind of populist-inflected libertarianism with an enhanced accent on cultural combat and class conflict.

It was predictable that the first contact with Biden administration policies would revivify a conservative distrust of government, and pandemic restrictions have super-charged a Do Not Tread on Me response across the right.

Of course, the GOP has changed over the last decade or so. Donald Trump broke with the conventional post-Reagan Republican rhetoric and elevated national cohesiveness, sovereignty and strength over and above freedom.

The sense now is less the government is bankrupting us and more these out-of-touch, self-appointed experts are telling us what to do because they have too much power and like lording it over us, with the press, social media, corporations and non-profits all on their side.

This gives the opposition to government a distinct culture war charge, although this isnt necessarily new. In the post-World War II conservative coalition, classical liberals and social conservatives united in opposition to big government because it was believed that an overweening government was a threat both to freedom and traditional values.

The issues and the emphases might change but in conservative politics, freedom is unlikely ever to go out of style.

Rich Lowry is editor in chief of the National Review.

View post:
Lowry: Freedom still the Republican rallying cry - Boston Herald