Category Archives: Libertarianism

Exclusive: No official records of personal meeting between Institute of Economic Affairs and Jacob Rees-Mogg  NationalWorld

Continue reading here:
Exclusive: No official records of personal meeting between Institute of Economic Affairs and Jacob Rees-Mogg - NationalWorld

Jason Furman recently gave a talk in which he described how he teaches economics. He says that early in the course, he describes perfect competition. This is when the free market is most likely to be optimal. Then, over the course of the semester, the students learn all of the preconditions that must be assumed in order to have perfect competition. Since these preconditions are almost surely not satisfied, market failures will occur, and students learn how government intervention can produce better outcomes. (His talk began four hours into the conference, and the remarks that I am paraphrasing are at about the 4:15 mark.)

Furman comes close to making what I call the straw-man argument against libertarianism and for technocracy. That argument goes:

Libertarianism relies on markets.

Markets are optimal only under conditions of perfect competition.

The conditions for perfect competition are rarely satisfied.

There are many instances of market failure.

Therefore, libertarianism does not work.

This argument constantly emanates from economists of Harvard and MIT and their disciples. Students and journalists, who are inclined to resent markets and despise libertarians, feel vindicated when they hear this argument. They come away believing that markets are never any good, even when professors who teach this way, like Jason Furman, are less dogmatically anti-market.

What is wrong with the argument? Step (2) is a swindle. It sneaks in the assumption that markets have to be optimal in order to be preferable to government intervention.

Instead, long ago I offered the aphorism Markets fail. Use markets. That is, I readily concede that the market economy is not at some theoretical optimum. The question is what will lead to improvement. I believe that government intervention will often make things worse. Meanwhile, entrepreneurial innovation and creative destruction tends to solve economic problems, including market failures.

Suppose you see conditions in a current market (say, the market for electric cars) and think society deserves something better. To advocate government intervention is to assume that the intervention will achieve your goal.

Instead of thinking in terms of a one-time intervention relative to current conditions, libertarian economists look at markets and government intervention as processes for changing economic performance. We compare one process to another, not one set of market conditions to some theoretical outcome.

As a process, markets tend toward improvement, because business profits ultimately depend on satisfying consumers. As a process, government intervention is unreliable, for many reasons. The interests of government officials often diverge from the interests of voters. The disciplinary forces of competition and the profit-and-loss system are absent. The internal processes of bureaucracy tend to reward conformity and repression of innovation.

If market fundamentalism is the belief that markets are perfect, then I do not know anyone on the libertarian side who is a market fundamentalist. Economics professors do not have to spend a whole semester arguing against this straw man. I wish that they would spend more time discussing government fundamentalism, which is what you are guilty of when you assume that government intervention consists of wise, technocratic solutions.

At the conference where I heard Furman talk, the last speaker, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, gave an impassioned argument against government intrusion into economic decisions. He argues that intervention leads to corruption and polarization. His talk begins about the 7:40 mark. Recommended.

Share

See the rest here:
Markets Fail. . .And Libertarianism Still Works, 10/16

Note: The following text is a transcription of the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum. The spelling and punctuation reflects the original.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution. The 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the amendments is on display in the Rotunda in the National Archives Museum. Ten of the proposed 12 amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15, 1791. The ratified Articles (Articles 312) constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, or the U.S. Bill of Rights. In 1992, 203 years after it was proposed, Article 2 was ratified as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. Article 1 was never ratified.

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the fifth... No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth... In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

ATTEST,

Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of RepresentativesJohn Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the SenateJohn Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate

Amendments 11-27

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendments 11-27

Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.

Back to Main Bill of Rights Page

Read the original:
The Bill of Rights: A Transcription | National Archives

'Centre, states need to work together for a developed India': FM Sitharaman on 'Atmanirbhar Bharat'  The Economic Times

Follow this link:
'Centre, states need to work together for a developed India': FM Sitharaman on 'Atmanirbhar Bharat' - The Economic Times

Libertarians embrace political values and principles that differ from those held by members of the two main political ideologies in the United States. Chief of these differences is the role they believe government should play in citizens' daily lives. In this article, we'll explore these differences in detail to understand the libertarian mindset better.

Gary Johnson, 2016 Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Pixabay License, Free for commercial use. No attribution required

Libertarians strongly oppose any government interference in your personal, family, and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.

- Libertarian party's official website

Libertarianism is a political outlook that places the rights of the individual above the rights of the government. Libertarians believe in a capitalist market economy free from government interference and a society where people can choose to live their lives as they see fit. They only ask the government to offer basic protections of freedom and security.

Libertarians generally have the following views:

Libertarians believe in a free market economy with minimal to no government interference

Libertarians advocate for the reduction or elimination of taxes, believing that high taxes stifle the flow of the market

Libertarians believe in minimal government spending. Allowing the economy to function and prosper will resolve many of the issues around inequality

Police and military should receive minimal funding, just enough to protect basic personal and property rights and to safeguard against emergencies

The government should not get involved in the personal lifestyle choices of individuals as long as those actions arent hurting anyone

Parents and guardians should have school choice

Libertarians are often fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Libertarians believe that the ultimate power in society rests in the hands of the individual, as opposed to the government. Economically, they believe the government should remain largely uninvolved. The free market will resolve its issues if it is left alone.

Morally, libertarians maintain their preference for minimal government interference. Libertarians argue that as long as what someone is doing doesnt directly hurt another person, they should be allowed to live their lives as they choose.

What follows is an overview of libertarian views and how they are similar to or different from conservative and liberal perspectives. In some cases, libertarian ideas overlap with one or the others' ideas.

Issue

Liberal

Conservative

Libertarian

Economy

Prefer more regulation to help the needy and equalize opportunities.

Value a capitalist system and reduced government regulation of the economy to allow the market to flow.

Believe in a free market economy, with the least amount of government involvement possible.

Taxes

The wealthy should be taxed more heavily; lower taxes for the poor and middle classes.

Lower taxes, especially for the wealthy.

Lower taxes for all, regardless of income. They believe that high tax rates stifle the economy.

Government Spending

It is the governments job to spend to address social inequalities. The government should fund programs to benefit people in need.

The government should avoid spending money on social programs and instead invest in the military and police to maintain the social order.

Keep government spending to a minimum.

Police and Defense

Those undergoing trial have rights that must be respected. Decriminalize victimless crimes like drugs and sex work.

The police and military should be funded to ensure the United States is safe and protected from outside threats.

Minimize government spending on security and defense, decriminalize victimless crimes, and establish basic protection of property and personal freedom.

Education

Advocacy for public schools; tend to be against private education and school of choice, believing it takes away from the value of public schools.

Support educational flexibility around religious beliefs and favor charter schools and schools of choice.

Values schools of choice and privatization of schools. The competition of a market model will improve education for everyone.

Lifestyle and Personal Freedoms

Appreciates greater freedom when it comes to personal and lifestyle choices.

Values more government involvement in social and moral issues, which is necessary to maintaining a healthy social order.

Believes in a hands-off government approach to social and lifestyle choices, as long as they do not hurt others.

The Libertarian party is a U.S. political party founded in 1971 by David Nolan in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Libertarians believe in a free-market economy and minimal government intervention. They support the rights of the individual alongside small government.

Libertarianism was founded by individuals spanning political party lines. The founders wanted to develop something different from the traditional Democratic and Republican parties. While the libertarian party hasnt had much measurable political success, its numbers have grown over the years to over 600,000 registered party members.

The Libertarian party is considered a third party. Except for a few very close elections, the party doesnt play a major role in American politics. Since libertarianism isnt currently a viable political party platform, much of its work focuses on trying to establish itself further and broaden its appeal to voters.

Libertarianism is a draw for young Republicans who share the economic ideals of their party but dont align with its social conservatism.

Libertarians represent a cross-section of liberal and conservative views. Economically, libertarians take a more conservative approach, preferring that the government avoid intervening in the flow of the free-market economy. However, libertarians differ from many conservatives when it comes to social and moral issues. They maintain a hands-off government stance, while many traditional conservatives prefer the government to involve itself in certain aspects of society.

Libertarians are conservative regarding the economy, preferring minimal government involvement, and liberal about personal and moral choices. Libertarians often align with Republicans regarding fiscal views but veer away from Republican politics, believing that the government should not involve itself in personal affairs that do not impact others directly. There is a notable crossover between Republican and Libertarian policies and adherents.

Libertarians share many traits with liberalism regarding the role of the government in social affairs. Libertarians prefer a hands-off and tolerant approach and oppose government efforts to regulate morality or lifestyle. However, while liberals would like the government to become involved in the economy by assisting those in need and equalizing opportunities, libertarians do not. Libertarians oppose government interference in the economy, believing it harms society.

Authoritarianism is the opposite of libertarianism. By definition, authoritarianism refers to people submitting to the government's will. Authoritarianism values blind obedience to authority figures. In contrast, libertarians do not believe in heavy-handed government authority. They consider this overreach. Libertarians believe government involvement beyond ensuring public safety and maintaining property rights harms society.

Ron Paul speaking to supporters at a town hall meeting in Iowa. Wikimedia Commons. Photo by Gage Skidmore, CC-BY-SA-2.0

Over the years, several notable libertarian candidates have run for president. The following section details the most prominent libertarians to impact American electoral politics.

Ron Paul is a physician with a military background who began his political career in 1971. He served as a Republican congressman in Texas and was a presidential candidate who ran unsuccessfully under the Libertarian party in 1988. He later ran as a Republican in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, albeit unsuccessfully.

Gary Johnson is the former Republican governor of the state of New Mexico. He ran as a fiscal conservative in the 2012 and 2016 Presidential elections, valuing the economic ideals of the Republican Party. However, he took a more liberal position on social issues, including decriminalizing marijuana. In the 2012 Presidential election, Johnson received over 1.2 million votes, a record-breaking amount for a Libertarian candidate.

Visit link:
Libertarianism: Definition & Examples | StudySmarter

I have always felt a libertarian streak in my view of society, but Im not sure that the term hasnt taken a turn for the worse (Free Staters test limits of N.H. libertarianism, Page A1, Sept. 4). As I recall how William Weld had to promise the Libertarian party that he would remain a Libertarian for the rest of his life in order to be nominated as the vice presidential candidate of that party in 2016, and as I read about Free Staters in Brian MacQuarries article, I wonder where the liberty is.

If democracy is soft communism, then Free Staters seem to be soft fascists, dictating to others what they may think and forcing them to leave their lifelong homes if they dont fall in line. They dont want to be told what to do but are ready to tell others, and with a totalitarian attitude.

Read the rest here:
In N.H., its live Free State or leave thats libertarianism? - The Boston Globe

Crypto was taking off, and governments were finally starting to act like it. In 2013, when a young writer and software developer named Vitalik Buterin wrote an impassioned screed defending the blockchain gospel for his publication, Bitcoin Magazine, cryptocurrencies were still a niche curiosity. But a series of regulations was spooking the nascent industry, threatening the sort of anti-government ethos that has always been core to the project. For Buterin the panic felt a little overblown. Crypto, he argued, couldnt truly be regulated. After all, this was the whole point of the new system: an internet with no masters, no mediators, and no guardrails. The future of crypto-libertarianism is fine, he wrote. Stop worrying.

This is the promise crypto advocates have sold consumers and politicians over the past decade, as crypto has blown up into a trillion-dollar behemothin the process making Buterin, now best known as the founder of the Ethereum network, very, very rich. (Buterins Ethereum Foundation did not respond to a request for comment.) Even as crypto has wormed its way into the mainstream, the argument goes, the tech was constructed in such a way as to prevent meddling on the part of banks and governments. For example, Jesse Powell, CEO of the Kraken exchange, has referred to crypto networks as censorship-resistant rails of last resort. And the venture-capital powerhouse Andreessen Horowitz, now the foremost backer of crypto start-ups, has invoked that same idea in promoting its multibillion-dollar funds.

But what might have rung true in 2013 doesnt hit quite as hard in 2022. Thanks in part to its attempts to garner mainstream recognition, crypto is now rubbing up against renewed governmental scrutiny. In recent weeks, a subtle yet significant move from the Treasury Department has exposed some of the rhetorical misconceptions at the heart of the industry, suggesting that the tech can be meddled with after all.

Read: Have the crypto bosses learned anything at all?

For all the talk of crypto as a slick new alternative to a corrupt and outmoded banking system, companies have now found themselves backed into a corner: Either they can comply with regulations that could essentially defang the promise of the technology, or they can stay the course, at great cost to their bottom lines. And for the most part, companies look to be choosing the easy way out, principles be damned. Its a sign that crypto is growing up from its youth oriented around building a new financial system, instead evolving into something like a new wing of Big Tech. The more crypto matures, and the more it integrates into the existing scaffolds of American capitalism, the more it strays from its core ideals.

The panic began in early August, when the Treasury Department decided to sanction a program called Tornado Cash, essentially forbidding any person or business in the U.S. from interacting with it in any capacity. Tornado Cash is a tool that makes Ethereum transactions more or less untraceable, scrambling the paper trail on a famously transparent blockchain. Its great for well-meaning privacy enthusiasts worried about prying eyes, but its also great for cleaning up dirty money: State-backed North Korean hackers reportedly used the program to launder more than half a billion dollars worth of Ethereum in April.

Tornado Cash isnt all that popular of a program, but the implications of the sanctions are far-reaching. It threatens to affect how the entire Ethereum blockchainnow the second-largest crypto network after bitcoinfunctions in practice. Permit me a moment of crypto-splaining: When you ask your computer to send some Ethereum to a friend, you need to wait for another computer in the network to verify the transaction, ensuring that you have enough money to send and that its going to the right address. Without that go-ahead, the money is stuck in limbo.

Right now, that happens through a process called mining, though Ethereum plans to replace its miners with a new, more energy-efficient system of validators later this month. Technically anyone can be a validator, but because validation requires having lots of crypto on hand, its mostly companies that do this work, pooling together customer funds and taking a cut of the profits. According to Decrypt, more than 60 percent of the validation will go through four companies. And if the computer doing the validating belongs to an American company (even if you yourself are not based in the U.S.), it will need to abide by the sanctions, making it harder for anyone anywhere in the network to use Tornado Cash.

Read: The petty pleasures of watching crypto profiteers flounder

The end result risks what crypto has always wanted to avoid: censorship. Because the companies behind these validators are subject to punishments for violating the sanctions, the reality is that your money can be effectively frozen by a watchful government. Its a small dent in the armor that is Ethereums resistance to censorship, and one that may not necessarily affect more casual usersbut the fact that the armor can be dented at all is telling. Who knows what the Treasury might decide to sanction next? It reveals what was true all along, Angela Walch, a law professor at St. Marys University who studies crypto, told me. The cats out of the bag for both regulators and the crypto sector that [censorship resistance] is kind of a myth.

American validators have no good options here. If they choose to comply with the sanctions, theyre conceding that governments can meddle in transactions after all, and potentially allowing innocent bystanders to get caught in the crossfire. If they dont, they risk violating Treasury Department guidelinesa move thats not particularly sustainable for a growing industry.

In practice, companies will need to either comply with the sanctions and renege on their Dont Tread on Me roots, or simply halt their validation businesses altogether, skipping out on gobs of money in the process. For crypto companies, this is where the rubber is meeting the road, Walch said. Their talk about this being a democratizing force, and neutrality is important, and everyone should have the ability to freely transactokay, are you going to follow the law, or are you going to follow the purported ethos of the space? Were hitting the point where youre not going to have it both ways anymore.

No one should be surprised that the denizens of crypto Twitterthat twisted artery through which all blockchain-related discourse seems to floware lobbying for the latter option. To the faithful, the choice of how to respond to these sanctions is almost a moral issue. If youre willing to comply with the Tornado Cash sanction, the thinking goes, maybe you never really cared about what made the blockchain special to begin with. A crypto YouTuber suggested that if Ethereum validators capitulate to the sanctions, the whole system would be for beta males.

A few crypto leaders are not backing down. Buterin, more a technologist than a company man, is on record as saying he would opt to punish validators who comply with the sanctions. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, arguably the most influential executive in the American crypto sphere, has said the same of his companys validators; yesterday, the exchange announced that its bankrolling a lawsuit against the U.S. Treasury over the sanctions. When Ethereum upgrades later this month, Coinbase will control an estimated 15 percent of the market for the networks validation process, making it one of the most powerful individual actors in the system. Shutting down a portion of a business thats poised to create major gains for Coinbase, especially on the heels of a particularly bad quarter, would be borderline disastrous. (A spokesperson for Coinbase pointed me to a webinar it hosted to discuss the fallout of the sanctions, but declined to comment further.)

But by and large, most companies have so far stayed mum on this question. For some, the silence could represent genuine confusion as to how exactly theyre meant to conform to the sanctions. For others, though, it may be just a way of passing the buck: The industry seems to be more concerned with enshrining its place in the American financial system than with taking an ideological stand at the expense of profit, and its possible an official statement to that effect would only inflame the community. Last week, a spokesperson for Kraken, which runs an Ethereum validation business alongside its exchange, said in an email that the company is carefully monitoring the discussion on the potential implications of Tornado Cash sanctions for validators, but refrained from expanding on how it plans to comply with the new sanctions. A 2018 mission statement from Jesse Powell might give you a hint as to where the company is headed, however: He wrote that his ideological motivation to build a world-class exchange was entirely dependent on working with regulators. Lido Finance, another prominent source of validators, didnt respond to multiple requests for comment.

That companies are finally confronting these issues is a sign the industry is maturing, for better or for worse. Crypto was originally conceived as an alternative to traditional finance, a way of sidestepping the big banks. But what happens when the new system grows into the old one? When Buterin wrote his blog post a decade ago, a single bitcoin cost $120. At the heart of last years surge, that price hit $69,000. In 2022, venture-capital firms and investment banks are putting billions into the idea that crypto will have some role in the future of global finance. Blackrock has a private Bitcoin trust for its clients, and JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs all have dedicated crypto divisions.

In this new era, companies will have to decide: accept the reality of regulation and continue to grow their businesses, or find some way of skirting the new rules entirely. At least, theyll finally have to pick a side.

Read more from the original source:
Cryptos Libertarianism Is Running Headfirst Into Reality - The Atlantic

There are few things in politics as dangerous as a sure thing.

Maybe thats because when a political party believes victory is certain, the kooks and grifters come out in droves to profit off it generally eroding whatever advantage that party might have had to begin with in the process.

And so, with the possibility of a red wave in 2022 widely considered to be a sure thing, it really shouldnt have been surprising that some of Team Reds candidates are almost comically damaging to Republican prospects.

Given Nevadas unique position in national politics, its only fitting that many of the GOPs unforced errors would take place here especially because much of the Republican consulting class in this state appears to be more interested in the grift than they are in propelling credible and qualified candidates to victory.

A recent case in point would be Michele Fiores inexplicable decision to brag even campaign on the fact that a disgraced former councilman-turned-lobbyist, Ricki Barlow, endorsed her campaign for treasurer.

Certainly, most campaign consultants would jump at the chance to have an endorsement from someone in the opposing party a phenomenon some Democrats have enjoyed several times this election cycle. Nonetheless, most competent campaigns would also give at least a modicum of consideration to the reputation of the person giving the endorsement before bragging about it to potential voters.

The grifters who comprise certain factions within the Republican Party, however, apparently dont consider such nuanced considerations to be important. And so, the woman who has, herself, been investigated for shady financial practices is publicly promoting the endorsement of a disgraced colleague.

Fiores trademarked poor judgment, however, is not an isolated incident.

Sigal Chattah, the Republican running for attorney general, has demonstrated a similar level of incompetent politicking in her race. Her comments, demeanor and political views aside, her recent lawsuit to remove the (ineligible) Libertarian candidate from the ballot had the fingerprints of rank political amateurs all over it.

One can presume her attempt to boot the Libertarian candidate from the ballot stems from a belief that he would siphon votes from the Republican ticket on election day therefore further frustrating what is already turning out to be a challenging race for her. Since the Libertarian has already sought to withdraw his candidacy, it makes sense Chattah would seek to remove the spoiler-candidates name from the ballot.

However, her lawsuit was filed months later than it should have been if there was ever going to be any hope of removing his name and after the last legal day for name changes to be made to the ballot. Chattahs team effectively waited until ballots were ready to roll off the printers and get stuffed into envelopes leaving Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, the judicial branch, or even the lowly-paid employee responsible for hitting print on the big machine at the ballot factory, incapable of actually doing anything about it.

It should come as no surprise that Chattahs lawyer for this matter was Joey Gilbert the very same man who threw a litigious temper-tantrum after his entirely predictable primary loss to Republican Sheriff Joe Lombardo. If the last headline-grabbing lawsuit he was a part of was any indication of future performance, reasonable observers should have known this one wouldnt pan out well for team red.

And sure enough, a district court judge ruled last week that the ineligible Libertarian candidates name will, indeed, remain on the ballot.

Beyond these specific examples, theres also a growing (and ill-advised) belief among many Republican candidates that being actively hostile toward the news media is, somehow, a winning campaign strategy.

Adam Laxalt, for example, has effectively built a wall around his campaign to keep out reporters who might ask occasionally difficult questions. So far, Laxalt has even refused to agree to a debate with his Democratic opponent putting him out of step with other high-profile Republicans, such as Joe Lombardo, who have already agreed to the pretty standard practice of public debates in major political contests.

Of course, to be fair, Laxalts apparent inaccessibility isnt a uniquely Republican trait. For example, his opponent Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto has refused to grant The Nevada Independent the kind of long-form interview that Republicans Mark Amodei and Joe Lombardo have already provided.

But why would she? Why risk being asked a handful of difficult questions when Laxalt is willfully limiting his own ability to talk to voters through the media? In a very tangible way, Laxalts resistance to engaging with reporters has given Cortez Masto the freedom to be highly selective about when (or if) she decides to engage with objective news outlets and that freedom is a pretty welcomed gift to any incumbent trying to defend their office.

By many measures, 2022 should have been a very successful election year for the GOP with economic challenges, midterm trends and a deeply unpopular Democratic president setting the stage for a red wave in November. However, that advantage effectively gave rise to a goldrush of amateurs, opportunists, and grifters seeking to profit quickly off such a sure thing.

And those are exactly the types of people capable of turning a predicted red wave into something more like a ripple.

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and founder of Schaus Creative LLC an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist, and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him at SchausCreative.com or on Twitter at @schausmichael.

Read more from the original source:
The 'red wave' was such a sure thing, of course Republicans are blowing it The Nevada Independent - The Nevada Independent

You may think Nevada Republican candidate for secretary of state Jim Marchant is just a despicable election denying conspiracy peddler who, given the opportunity, would eagerly reject the will of Nevadas citizens if more of them voted for a Democrat than a Republican.

And he is.

But hes also a businessman! Or was? Whatever.

Last week the Review-Journal reported that Marchants entrepreneurial enterprises had a habit of getting sued over the years, and losing, for breaching contracts and not paying bills. You can see why Donald Trump, Americas deadbeat-in-chief, would call Marchant a legendary businessman. Well, a Marchant campaign person told the Review-Journal thats what Trump said once.

Maybe Trump said that in 2020, when Marchant was losing an election for Congress. Trump endorsed him that year. Trump does not appear to have endorsed Marchant this year as yet.

Marchant has however been endorsed by Adam Laxalt. And Trump has endorsed Laxalt. So Marchant is only one degree removed from a Trump endorsement? Hmm, I seem to be digressing. Where was I?

Oh right. Deadbeat businessman. In fairness to Marchant, the qualifications required to run a business haphazardly and ineffectively or even right into the ground may be entirely different from the skill-set (hate, paranoia, hostility to facts, affection for QAnon, etc.) needed in any effort to deprive voters of their choice and steal an election from them. Apples and oranges. Maybe.

***

You may think Nevada Republican candidate for attorney general Sigal Chattah is just a rootin tootin MegaMAGAhead who coined this campaign cycles most distinctive if disturbing campaign slogan when she said the Black man who currently has the job should be hanging from a f***ing crane.

And she is.

But shes also a lawyer! Granted, shes a lawyer who, when asked a question about the legal status of abortion rights in Nevada, gave the wrong answer. But a lawyer nonetheless.

Which is an important point in this instance because the Legislature passed a law that says you cant be attorney general unless you are a member of the state bar.

And thats an important point in this instance because a Libertarian non-lawyer filed to run for AG, so Chattah got fellow rootin tootin MegaMAGAhead and Republican gubernatorial primary loser (though hes in denial, sniffle) Joey Gilbert to sue to get the Libertarian off the ballot. To which the office of Nevadas Republican secretary of state said yikes you should have asked earlier because its too late now, or words to that effect, and a judge agreed, the Nevada Independent reported Wednesday.

Before you start sending sympathy cards to Chattah, you should know the Libertarian non-lawyer says he wanted to be taken off the ballot and has no intention of campaigning because goshdarnit the laws the law. Which seems sort of a squishy position for a libertarian to take if people want to elect a non-lawyer AG they should have the liberty to do that, amirite? Darned burdensome freedom-crushing government regulations.

Come to think of it, how come instead of trying to get Big Government to uphold that law, Sigal, and Joey too for that matter, arent calling out its underlying un-Americanness? Why arent Sigal and Joey championing her fellow freedom-loving libertarians rights and Hmm, I seem to be digressing. Where was I?

Oh right, squishy Libertarian will probably be on the ballot whether he likes it or not.

Yes, Libertarian votes are votes that otherwise would go to the Republican. Conceptually. In practice, though, you may have noticed over the years that Libertarians rarely if ever perform as well as polling might suggest, or as Republicans might fear, or as Democrats might hope. It seems a gut check kicks in when its time for right-wing voters to cast their ballots, and they vote for the candidate they think has the best chance of winning, i.e., the Republican. Whether Chattah wins or loses wont hang, er, hinge on the performance of a third party candidate.

***

You may think Republican state treasurer candidate Michele Fiore is a scandal-ridden grifter and carnival loon barking at the moon and hoping for the moon and the loons to notice her.

And she is.

Some things never change.

Read more:
Jim, Sigal, and Michele just living their best lives - Nevada Current

Among the many explanations or interpretations of the roaring buzz that followed the death of the queen of England and the proclamation of the new king, I note three plausible ones, from the most comforting to the most concerningin a classical-liberal or libertarian perspective.

The first, optimistic, interpretation is that people (by which I mean most people) like a hands-off distant sovereign as opposed to an omnipresent harasser. They would rather see the photograph of a constitutional, i.e. limited, monarch in government offices than a meddling and divisive fifty-percent-plus-one president. The queen has arguably never done anything against one of her subjects, contrary to Trump or Biden. In a fertile imagination, the queen might evoke Anthony de Jasays capitalist state, which reigns but does not govern, that is, does not impose costs on some subjects for the benefit of others, and whose only role is to prevent the establishment of a state that would govern.

This overly optimistic view is attenuated by the fact that the queen did allow the decline of English liberty (although she could probably not have prevented it). As a symbolic representation, compare the 96 cannonballs that mourned her passing with the interdiction for any subject who is not in her majestys service to have a revolver in his nightstand drawer. Moreover, by any account, the start of the decline of English liberty preceded Elizabeth IIs reign anyway.

A second interpretation is that people simply like ceremonial rites, decorum, and tradition, which is very different from what they get under egalitarian and totalitarian democracy, a sausage factory of discriminatory laws that take sides for some subjects and against others, and change every few years under the cheers of a passing numerical majority and the shouts of an exploited minority. Passing through checkpoints is not a ride in a carriage drawn by white horses. A ceremonial king or queen makes the subjects feel above all that.

As de Jasay notes, however, a state that looks innocuous may just serve to disarm mistrust. In this perspective, the main benefit of the good queen may be a fairy tale for her subjects to dream about. They love royalty like they are fans of celebrities. The propaganda power of the state should not be ignored. Instead of a queen or a king, the French have the timeless Marianne, an attractive woman who represents the republic (see image below). How can that be dangerous?

The third and most pessimistic interpretation of the buzz around Elizabeth II and Charles III, is that people may long for a glamorous and powerful sovereign to obey. James Buchanan was caught wondering if individuals really want equal liberty as classical liberals have assumed for a few centuries. The British cry long live the King could be analogous to the proud Trump is my president or possibly Biden is my president of Americans.

The actual mix of these explanations across the different individuals may determine how far we are down the road to serfdom.

Here is the original post:
Long Live the King (My President)! - Econlib