Category Archives: Libertarianism

WESTPORT Controversy has erupted over who the third selectman should be after Democratic First Selectman candidate Jonathan Steinberg declined to take the seat following the election.

Libertarian First Selectman candidate, TJ Elgin, believes he is the rightful candidate to take the seat. The Democratic Town Committee believes that as the defeated party with the next highest number of votes, they get to fill the spot.

Their choice is Candice Savin, who ran alongside Steinberg. She and Steinberg received 4,168 votes, while Elgin and his running mate, Louis DOnofrio, Jr., received 64 votes, according to results posted on the Secretary of the States website.

First Selectwoman-elect Jennifer Tooker said the decision will be made after she is sworn into office Nov. 15, but in the meantime, she will be meeting with the town attorneys to discuss the town charter and what to do in this situation.

I am meeting with our town attorneys later this afternoon to make sure that we really understand the charter wording, Tooker said on Monday. The process will be decided by the charter wording and our understanding of it.

Steinberg said that he declined the opportunity to become the third selectman in order to continue being Westports state representative in Hartford.

Since the announcement, Elgin said he and his legal team have reviewed the Connecticut state statue, specifically Section 9-188, which discusses the first selectman, selectmen, election procedure, dual candidacy prohibition, minority representation, restricted voting and a tie vote.

The team has also reviewed Westports town charter and found the following passage:

The candidate for First Selectman having the highest number of votes shall be elected First Selectman, and the candidate for Selectman combined with the elected First Selectman on the ballot or machine shall be elected a Selectman. The defeated candidate for First Selectman having the highest number of votes shall be elected a Selectman.

Elgins legal team said with their readings of these two provisions together, they believe the seat should go to Elgin, if Steinberg passes. They said Savin was a candidate for second selectman and therefore not eligible.

The team is waiting for a response from Town Hall.

I will accept the tasks of third selectman and be very honored to work with Ms. Tooker and Ms. Moore, Elgin said.

The Democratic Town Committee issued a statement recognizing the third selectman as a valuable member of Westports leadership team. They also sought to address any questions people may have had surrounding the potential appointment of the third selectman in the newly elected administration.

The DTC said that in accordance with the Town Charter, if Steinberg chooses not to accept this role, the DTC gets to recommend a candidate to the newly elected first and second selectmen for their consideration.

Candice Savin, who ran for Second Selectman, is interested in being considered to fill the position of Third Selectman should Jonathan Steinberg choose not to accept it. Candice has expressed enthusiasm for the opportunity to work with Jen Tooker and Andrea Moore for the benefit of the town. The DTC appreciates the significant contributions that Third Selectmen have made to Westport over the years and looks forward to recommending a new Democratic member to the Board of Selectmen, the DTC statement said.

If Savin is selected, Westports three selectmen would all be women, for the first time in history.

Continue reading here:
Controversy arises: Will Savin or Elgin be appointed Westport's third selectman? - CTPost

In my middle school classroom, I had some simple rules and mantras: Dont lie, cheat, or steal. Cant is a swear word. Be respectful of one another. Its not you as a person but your behavior Im disappointed in.

Those principles should apply to the grown ups in the school district, too. The continued infighting, dishonesty, dysfunctional leadership, climate of fear and retaliation, cronyism (and possible misuse of millions of dollars in public money for select contractors) was and is unacceptable. Enough is more than enough. The agenda item to remove Clark County schools Superintendent Jesus Jara last week was sorely needed and past due.

I know the seven trustees care about the students, parents, staff, and community. But you wouldnt know it because Jara's so-called leadership created mistrust and divisiveness, leading to a paralyzing situation in which nearly no one was acting in the best interests of the districts children.

Sometimes, you can fix whats broken. Sometimes you shouldnt even try. In 2019, Jaras appalling behavior, ill-conceived actions and lack of proper and professional communication prompted a vote of no confidence by administrators. Their letter stated, and I quote, You are selfish and without moral code or compass.

The following year, Gov. Sisolak said Jara tried to "mislead" the public and blame others for his own poor decisions. State Superintendent Ebert said that as a leader in education, Jara had a responsibility to set an example, adding that blatantly altering the truth is not only a bad example, its a disservice to our educators. Speaker Jason Frierson said to Jara, The Trustees will do nothing, and you will be the benefactor of their failure to act. By your own behavior and dishonesty you have neutered yourself and rendered yourself universally ineffective.

Enough was enough, even back then.It should have been dealt with by the trustees. An opportunity to act arose again this past summer, but instead, fourtrustees voted to extend Jara's contract.

If you need more evidence of a problem, consider that no fewer than 26 cabinet-level administrators left before the current buyout. That much turnover is indicative of leadership and management problems. Notably, some who resigned were people Jara brought with him from Florida.

Then theres the concern about the hiring of overpriced, out-of-country companies, and paying businesses to produce materials that our teachers could easily have produced. (This still needs to be investigated despite Jaras termination.)

There are longer-term issues in play, too. As a body, the board essentially has been neutered since former Superintendent Carlos Garcia persuaded a majority of former trustees to give up their policy making authority, rendering them subordinate to the superintendent. Dont be fooled into thinking it was a good idea. The calculated policy change was first pushed by a national advocacy group, starting in Florida and under the guise of training and supporting non-traditional superintendents. Trainees of that program? Former Clark County school Superintendents Garcia, Jones, Martinez and Jara.

The current trustees now have an opportunity to undo the board governance policies, which truly are a lot of gobbledygook. I hope they do.

They also need to choose an interim superintendent. That person and the one subsequently hired need to have experience, integrity and true leadership skills. They need to listen to each concerned group including teachers, students, parents, administrators, support staff, community leaders, legislators and retired staff. Out of that, they need to adopt a cohesive vision and carry it out, working collaboratively with peers.

Its well past time for our long public school nightmare to end.

Chris Guinchigliani served in the Clark County School District for 30 years as a special education teacher. She also is a former Clark County commissioner.

More:
Trustees need to shake off the recent Clark County public school nightmare - The Nevada Independent

Rick Scott is in a difficult position. As chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, his job is to elect Republicans to the Senate. But the unwritten rule is that he is expected to do this and protect incumbentsand sometimes those goals are in conflict.

Consider Lisa Murkowski. The senior senator from Alaska is up for re-election this cycle. In the last cycle, she handily defeated the Trump- and Palin-supported Libertarian party candidate, Joe Miller. Six years earlier, though, in 2010, Miller had primaried Murkowski on the right and won the GOP nominationin response to which Murkowski ran as a write-in Republican in the general election and . . . won! Turns out that being an appropriator who cares about your states best interests resonates with voters.

The 2010 race was an aberration, and it put the NRSC in an awkward position: Should it side with the GOP incumbent or the GOP nominee? Murkowskidespite having first come to the Senate controversially, as a 2002 appointment by her father, the states governoris a native who knows the states issues, cares about the nitty-gritty things like casework, and is skilled at commandeering money for Alaska. But Miller was, by 2,006 votes, the partys nominee.

Ultimately, the NRSC pretended Murkowski did not exist, cutting ads for Miller. The NRSC even helped pay for Millers failed general-election recount efforts against Murkowski.

All of which is to say that, while the goal of the NRSC is to elect Republicans, the messy realities of politics mean that some of the decisions that have to be made arent cut and dry.

While senators step up for two-year terms to be the figurehead for the NRSCRick Scott at the moment, and over the last fourteen years Todd Young, Cory Gardner, Roger Wicker, Jerry Moran, John Cornyn (who was chairman during the Murkowski campaign of 2010), and John Ensign. But over those fourteen years, the NRSC has really been directed by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell. No NRSC chairman could cross him and live to tell the tale.

Of course, well-funded outsiders routinely challenge McConnells role as kingmaker. Former Senator Jim DeMint from South Carolina and his Senate Conservatives Fund, for example.

This go-around, Murkowski isnt the problem: She has the NRSCs support, even though former President Trump has endorsed her opponent in the primary.

No, the problem facing the NRSC going into 2022 is the rise of allegedly abusive candidates. Heres reporter John Wagner in the Washington Post:

Sen. Rick Scott, who heads the group that works to elect Senate Republicans, declined Monday to say whether Sean Parnell, a GOP hopeful in Pennsylvania who has been accused of strangling his wife and abusing his children, is the right candidate for the job.

Scott . . . was asked about the candidacy of Parnell, who has been endorsed by former president Donald Trump, during an interview on CNN. Scott maintained that in his role as NRSC chairman he should remain neutral in primaries, except in the cases of GOP incumbents.

Well see who comes out of the primary, Scott said. Facts will come out. Well find out exactly what people think. I think what ultimately happens is people are going to look at somebodys background and say is that the type of person they want and also are they talking about the issues I care about.

Other potential problems beyond Parnell? Herschel Walker. Eric Greitens.

Herein lies the fundamental tension between Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump: McConnell wants the candidate (he thinks is) most likely to win to be the nominee. Donald Trump wants the nominee to be the person who has demonstrated the most fealty to him.

These are not good choices given the races McConnell needs to win to become, once again, Senate majority leader. Looking at these Trump-endorsed candidates in Senate primary races, were left to wonder: Where are all the good men deadin the heart or in the head?

Correction:An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that Murkowski ran as an independent in 2010. She ran as a write-in Republican.

See more here:
The Trump vs. McConnell War Is Upon Us - The Bulwark

Guilford County Board of Elections Director Charlie Collicutt answers your questions.

GUILFORD COUNTY, N.C.

In North Carolina, the statewide primary is Tuesday, March 8, 2022. During this election, voters can choose which candidates they prefer to be on the general election ballot in November. The purpose of a primary is to narrow the field of candidates for the general election.

Races on the ballot include:

Additionally, many voters will find municipal contests on their ballot due to rescheduled municipal elections. This applies to voters in municipalities that delayed their 2021 elections to finalize new electoral districts. This also applies to voters who live in cities and towns that conduct their elections during even-numbered years.

Registered voters across the state can vote in the primary. However, voters affiliated with any political party will be given a ballot of candidates for their party. Unaffiliated voters can choose the ballot of candidates for any party: Democratic, Libertarian, or Republican.

Am I registered to vote?

Use the North Carolina Board of Elections Voter Search Tool to determine if you are registered to vote in North Carolina and verify if your voter record needs to be updated.

Who can register to vote?

You may register to vote in Guilford County if you are:

You must register or re-register if you:

When do I need to register?

Do I have to declare a party?

Party affiliation determines the primary in which a voter is eligible to vote. You may register with the Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian parties, or you may register as unaffiliated. Unaffiliated voters may vote in a party primary if authorized by that party. If you do not declare a party you will be registered as unaffiliated.

Do I have to contact the Board of Elections if I want to change my voter registration information?

You may change your address, name, or party by filling out the back of your voter information card and returning it to the elections office or filling out a mail-in registration form. This information must be received by registration deadlines for elections.

Read the original:
Get ready for election 2022: What you need to know before the primaries - WFMYNews2.com

Biosimilars can save states billions of dollars annually, according to a new report from a libertarian think tank in California.

Total 2021savings from biosimilars are on pace to reduce total healthcare expenditures by $7.8 billion compared to spending prior to the introduction of biosimilar competition, the Pacific Research Institute Center for Medical Economics and Innovation said in a new report. The Pacific Research Institute is a California-based think tank with a libertarian, pro-market point of view.

Should biosimilars grow to 75% of the market, which is still less than the share of the market for generic medicines in the U.S. or for biosimilars in many EU countries, the total potential savings in 2021 could be as high as $14.1 billion, said the groups report.

The group says reduced prescription spending would be associated with an approximately $814 million reduction in patient out-of-pocket costs.

The institute also created a tool that calculates biosimilar savings on a state-by-state basis. The Biosimilars Forum, an advocacy and research organization supported by the biosimilars industry, has the tool on its website. According to calculations made by this tool, California could save more than $1 billion annually with a 75% biosimilar adoption rate and Florida, $960 million. Texas and New York could save more than $820 million each.

By increasing biosimilar competition, states stand to save billions if policymakers enacted simple reforms to foster a more robust biosimilars market, said Meaghan R. Smith, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum.

Increasing biosimilar use among physicians and patients will require a commitment from our lawmakers to remove the anticompetitive barriers to biosimilar uptake and minimize disincentives, Smith continued. Without competition from biosimilars, the cost of biologics will continue to increase and limit access to treatment for patients.

Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM), a trade association for generic and biosimilar manufacturers, has performed similar calculations. By the associations figuring, generics and biosimilars saved U.S. healthcare system almost $340 billion in spending in 2020. Biosimilar drugs saved $7.9 billion in 2020, more than tripling the $2.5 billion saved in 2019, according to AAM.

However, biosimilars were still less than 30% of volume share in markets where they competed, Christine Simmon, executive vice president of policy and strategic alliances at AAMand executive director of the organizations Biosimilars Council, toldManaged Healthcare Executive.

As more biosimilars are approved and brought to market, patients and taxpayers will save billions while treating serious illnesses like cancer and Crohns disease, she predicted.

The Biosimilars Forum says political support for biosimilars continues to grow in Washington. Several months ago, President Biden issued an executive order directing HHS to take steps to promote biosimilar competition. The pieces of proposed legislation that would give a boost biosimilars include the BIOSIM Act (H.R. 2815) would tweak Medicare Part B payment. Simmon explained: Currently, providers in Medicare Part B are reimbursed for administering biosimilars at the biosimilars average sales price (ASP), plus 6% of the brand-name biologic. The BIOSIM Act would increase reimbursement for biosimilars by 2% to ASP+8% and would apply only when the biosimilars ASP is lower than the brand-name biologics ASP.

TheIncreasing Access to Biosimilars Act(S. 1427/H.R. 2869) would direct the CMS to establish a voluntary, national demonstration project under Medicare Part B to evaluate the benefit of providing a shared savings payment for biosimilars.

See the rest here:
Biosimilars Could Wind Up Saving $7.8 Billion in 2021, Says California Think Tank - Managed Healthcare Executive

Marco Rubio may not perceive the lack of historical awareness (and ironic comedy) in his speech to a conservative conference last week, but you might.

Last week, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) addressed the National Conservatism Conference in Orlando, Florida. According to the National Conservatism website, the gathering is dedicated to reviving the nationalism that binds us, so that we can flourish together. We see the rich tradition of national conservative thought as an intellectually serious alternative to the excesses of purist libertarianism, and in stark opposition to political theories grounded in race, they say, with a nod to the specter of CRT.

Since the conference brings together the best the modern American conservative movement has to offer and defines the future conservatives want, I thought it most profitable to really dig into Rubios speech. As the lightly edited transcript on his site says, The thing I really like about this conference is about thinking, listening, learning and ultimately defining what it means to be a conservative in the 21st century. When people in power offer this kind of insight, its best to listen up.

To get at the heart of what Marco Rubio is offering to us, Im going to delve into (and quote heavily from) the more-polished, cleaned-up version that The American Conservative printed as a Rubio op-ed, titled We Need Corporate Patriotism To Defeat American Marxism.

There was a time when, to paraphrase Charles Wilson, what was good for big American companies was good for America. But today, led by a generation of leaders who feel no obligation to our nation, corporate America is the instrument of anti-American ideologies. This is a bold opening for Marco Rubio, who has taken a great deal of money in contributions from individuals and PACs associated with the likes of Raytheon, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America. However, it is clear that the sort of nationless rich and companies that would hide their money overseas really dont feel an obligation to our nation. Go on, Marco, tell us more.

The collapse of corporate patriotism opened the door for these companies to fall for anti-American ideologies The companies that control the vast majority of Americas economic resources and curate the information we see and hear on a daily basis now say that America is a racist or sexist country. A country based upon stealing land by displacing or outright killing the original residents, built by enslaved people brought in chains because they were perceived as stupid and servile and because their darker skin would make them stand out, and which, even now, still reverberates with cries of build the wall! by people who cheered separating brown children from their parents, is racist? I wonder how anyone could get that impression.

These oligarchs believe the very existence of America is fatally flawed, and they are devoting hundreds of billions of dollars to advance corporate propaganda that reflects these beliefs. They aim to remake our society, our culture, and our country. They aim to redefine what constitutes a good life in America. Is Marco Rubio objecting to companies being able to spend money as a form of speech? Im sure hell get to work right away to help pass a law overturning Citizens United, then. As far as what constitutes a good life in America, I have some suggestions. How about not poisoning Americans via decaying lead plumbing? Or earning a wage that lets you raise your kids above the poverty level? Or mitigating sea level rise in Florida? Rubio had the chance to support a package like this, but voted it down and called it socialist.

For over a century these have been the tactics used by Marxists to take over countless nations and societies. Marxists use corporate oligarchs to promote the struggle of the working class to seize the means of production? For real? If we do not fight back, we will lose America. No, Marco dear, youre losing America by feeding the oligarchs. I didnt start paying attention yesterday, you know. This is not hyperbole. In fact, is it very familiar to the Americans I was raised by and those I still live among, who witnessed Marxist revolutions take over their homelands. Is Marco Rubio asserting that corporations have taken over Cuba?

But the battle against cultural Marxism will not be won by relying on an outdated Wall Street Journal Conservatism that does not fully address the challenges faced by working Americans in our 21st century economy. No, the Chamber of Commerce wing of the Republican party has no interest in addressing the problems of working Americans, except to hold them further underwater. That is why big businesses have funded both major American parties for so long.

Defining conservatism as just cutting regulations and taxes works well for the nationless companies headquartered in America. However, those companies have no incentive to reinvest in Americas families, communities, or future. If Rubio is firing a shot over the bow of Corporate America here, well know in the coming months as his voting record begins to evidence his support for more regulations and higher taxes on these nationless companies, in order to invest in American families, communities, and future. If he doesnt, this is so much hot air. Keep an eye on him.

It is time we push companies to meet their obligations to America. The GOP has long been a coalition party that brought together free market libertarians and social conservatives in order to enact policies that please both. In practice, this results in a worldview that grants corporations rights as if they were flesh-and-blood people, but without the moral obligations that real people feel. Is Rubio leaving behind the free market ideology that now defines his party? What would Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand say?

What does that look like? Since these nationless companies got many of their corporate privileges from the policies of the United States government, we should use those policies to reward and incentivize corporate decisions that promote a strong and prosperous America. This is edging very close to the planned economy that conservatives have long derided as failed Communism, but OK.

First, that means getting wokeness out of the boardroom. At a minimum, we should require that the leadership of large companies be subject to strict scrutiny and legal liability when they abuse their corporate privilege by pushing wasteful, anti-American nonsense. Its interesting that Marco Rubio suddenly wants to police corporations this closely. If companies are getting woke (that is, supporting human rights, alleviating poverty, caring about the environment, and other similar goals), its because theyve decided that these actions are profitable and serve the interests of the shareholders. Henry Ford, capitalist icon, knew that his workers needed to be able to afford his products. Maybe Ford was too woke for Rubios taste.

For example, we can use the current shareholder primacy argument against these companies. Right now, the burden is on the shareholder to prove these woke, anti-American stanceslike boycotting a state for governing its own election lawsare bad for shareholders. Instead, we should place the burden on the company to prove it is acting in the best interest of shareholders. If companies like Coca-Cola, Major League Baseball, and Delta Airlines are bowing to public pressure and leaving Georgia, perhaps keeping their customer base is more in line with shareholder interests than is supporting voter disenfranchisement. If their politically active customers (and Georgias voters) are Americans, its hard to consider these positions to be anti-American.

Second, that means a stock market that holds companies accountable for pro-American goals hahahahahaha gasp pardon me rather than left-wing social engineering or globalist profiteering. We should require that companies disclose to investors and be held to account for their investment in Americafacilities, workforce training, number of Americans hiredas opposed to off-shoring jobs overseas, or showing how diverse their workplaces are. Oh, Marco Rubio, your memory is so short that youre failing to remember how proud your fellow conservatives were of St. Ronald Reagans stance regarding globalization. Free and open markets, not a komissar in every boardroom. In 2018, the Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed into law by President Trump and which Marco Rubio himself voted for, which incentivized offshoring of American jobs. It passed the Senate with only Republican support. Whos woke now?

[W]e should have requirements that companies boards of directors be free of any conflicts of interest with foreign adversaries such as China. Suddenly conflicts of interest bother Marco Rubio.

When regular workers save for retirement, they shouldnt have to give over the control of their investments to investment funds that will command the company to act against those workers own interests 401(k) retirement accounts exploded during the Reagan administration. Reagan ran on the idea of privatized retirement savings (like IRAs), and changed the law to expand adoption of the 401(k). As a result, employers started offering them as a benefit, instead of actual pensions, while the resulting increase in stock market investment made the investor class even richer. Conservatives have long favored dismantling, even privatizing, Social Security, forcing those who want to save for retirement to turn to investment funds instead of employers and the Government. Rubios commentary here is comedy gold.

For example, the retirement fund for Americas service members, the TSP, should be banned from investing in Chinese military companies, or using service members savings to push American companies off-shore to China. That is something Congress can fix right now and on which there is bipartisan agreement OK, do it, Mr. Rubio. See if your fellow conservatives will bite.

One solution would be to mandate that these institutional shareholders merely send in the votes of the ultimate beneficiaries of these funds, rather than vote on their behalf. There would be a lot less craziness in Americas corporations if the people voting their shares were firefighters and teachers rather than their union bosses or Wall Street. I wonder if he would soon find just how many woke firefighters and teachers we have.

The ultimate way to stop the current Marxist cultural revolution among our corporate elite is to replace them with a new generation of business leaders who consider themselves Americans, not citizens of the world. I simply cant get over just how badly Marco Rubio wants to stop Marxism via state control of corporations.

That is how we defeat this toxic cultural Marxism and rebuild an economy where Americas largest companies were accountable for what matters to America: new factories built in America, good jobs for American families, and investments in American neighborhoods and communities. It sounds like Marco wants what actual Socialists have pushed for while his conservative pals have been shoveling jobs out the door and failing to invest in our communities or our future, to better enrich the already-rich. Welcome to the dark side, Comrade, heres your commemorative hammer-and-sickle lapel pin.

It is not too late to get it right, but we have no time to waste in restoring what has made this nation great for so many generations. What made this nation great is mostly the practices and policies that Marco Rubio and his party have opposed since at least the time of Nixon, if not the Gilded Age. Ill be interested to see if his voting starts to match his rhetoric, or if this pretty patriotic speech is simply opening the door to something much uglier. If this is the best, most intellectually serious discourse that the conservative movement has to offer, though, we should all be a little worried over whats become of the American political scene.

Related: If MLB is a State Actor, Who Else is Too?

Read this article:
The BS is Strong with Marco Rubio - Legal Reader

Nov 6th 2021

ONE EVENING last month Francisco Sagasti, who was Perus interim president for eight months until July, launched his new book in Barranco, a bohemian district of Lima. Mr Sagasti, an academic, is a centrist who steered the country through a divisive election. The event was disrupted by demonstrators who surrounded the bookshop chanting corrupt and murderer at the author while punching a journalist. They belonged to The Resistance, a group formed in 2018 under the banner of God, Fatherland and Family to oppose communism and liberalism. They are one of many facets of a new, more aggressive right wing in Latin America.

Your browser does not support the

Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Its breakthrough came with the election in 2018 of Jair Bolsonaro as president of Brazil. A former army officer scornful of democracy and nostalgic for his countrys military dictatorship of 1964-85, Mr Bolsonaro marked a break with previous political norms in the region. Since democratisation in the 1980s, with one or two exceptions, conservative political forces were generally moderate, often influenced by Christian Democracy.

Mr Bolsonaro has spawned would-be imitators, of different kinds. They include Guido Manini, a retired army commander who promised to crack down on crime and who as a political outsider won 11% of the vote in Uruguays presidential election in 2019. In Peru Rafael Lpez Aliaga, a businessman who is a member of Opus Dei, a Catholic movement, won 12% in an election in April on a platform of social conservatism and extreme economic liberalism. In Argentina Javier Milei, a libertarian economist, is poised to win a seat in Congress in an election this month, running against the main centre-right coalition as well as the ruling Peronists.

Closest to power is Jos Antonio Kast, a former legislator who in his first presidential campaign in 2017 said that, if he were alive, General Pinochet, Chiles dictator in 1973-90, would vote for him. For the presidential election later this month he has promised to restore Chile with mano dura (a firm hand) against crime and violent disorder, a border ditch to stop immigrants, withdrawing from international human-rights bodies and tax cuts to promote economic growth. He also claims to defend Chiles European heritage and national unity against the lefts espousal of indigenous groups and multiculturalism. Mr Kast looks set to contest a run-off election for the presidency against Gabriel Boric of the hard left.

Mr Kast is not Mr Bolsonaro. Rather, he represents a radical populist right, more in the mould of lvaro Uribe, Colombias president from 2002 to 2010. He insists he is not extremist and now doesnt deny that there were abuses under Pinochet. Not all of the new rightists represent a clear threat to democracy itself. But some do. All of them are less conciliatory than the old conservative parties. Minority groups have reasons to worry.

What explains the rise of the new right? One factor is the formation in recent years of grassroots groups with Catholic and evangelical ties which have campaigned against abortion, gay rights and feminism. Another is a popular demand for protection against crime. As with the radical left, the radical right is benefiting from public disillusionment with economic stagnation and mainstream democratic politicians, who are seen as self-serving if not corrupt. But what unites all these new right-wing forces, says Ariel Goldstein, a political scientist at the University of Buenos Aires, is the spectre of Venezuela which has sought to export its poverty-spreading leftist dictatorship. In that sense, the radicalisation of the right is a mirror of the same process on the left. If Mr Kast has a chance of winning, as he does, it is partly because Mr Boric, though himself a democrat, espouses a statist economic programme and has communist allies.

Latin Americas new right is also part of a broader international trend. Donald Trumps victory in the United States in 2016 paved the way for Mr Bolsonaro. Mr Bolsonaros son Eduardo has close links to the nativist fringe of the Republican Party. Now Vox, a Spanish anti-immigrant party, is acting as an agent uniting the new right in Latin America. In September it published a Letter from Madrid, denouncing communism in the Iberosphere and signed so far by almost 9,000 politicians or activists including Messrs Kast, Lpez Aliaga and Milei, as well as Eduardo Bolsonaro. Liberal democrats in Latin America now have to deal not just with an authoritarian left but with a right that is far more intolerant than in the recent past.

This article appeared in the The Americas section of the print edition under the headline "Spooked by Venezuela"

Original post:
Revulsion at Venezuela is fuelling the hard right in Latin America - The Economist

This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved.

Minarchism could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed.

Minarchists advocate for a "night-watchman state" that is not responsible for the education, health care, employment or transportation of its citizens, neither makes it any use of natural resources in its territory. All of this is instead held privately or publicly, but is never susceptible to any interference of the state, its law or its representatives. Minarchy is, of course, different from anarchy, since the latter term means a complete absence of a government with all services, including even law and security, done or exercised by people themselves.

The following two sections describe how a person supporting and another opposing minarchism would argue.

Even the Austrian Economists do not advocate for this.[citationneeded] The almighty free market fails utterly when dealing with Public Goods, that is, goods that are non-rivalrous my consumption of the good doesn't diminish your ability to consume it and non-excludable you can't stop me from consuming it. For example, there are only so many fish in a location, and Alice can't stop Bob from fishing there, so Alice and Bob catch too many fish and next year there are practically no fish left. Alice and Bob could make some sort of agreement, but nothing prevents Charlie, Denise and Emily from still fishing. So everyone is poorer than had there been some sort of limit on over-fishing.

Next comes Externalities, which are detriments (or benefits) that the producer of the good or service doesn't have to deal with. An example of this is pollution. If a firm can lower their average costs in order to make significantly more profit by dumping their waste in the local river, so long as the owners don't drink from said river, it will probably do so to maximise its profit margins. This generally harms the local population far more than the company gains from not properly disposing its waste, so overall it's a net loss for society. The third party effects arising from production of this good are greater than that of the private benefits incurred.

Things like education, safety regulations, roads, research subsidies, and so forth often add to the economy more than they cost. Welfare and subsidised housing are often far more effective at reducing crime for cheaper than extra police alone.[citationneeded] What Minarchists have a hard time understanding is that their income depends on things like roads and communication systems being available, that having access to adequate healthcare increases worker productivity, and a whole slew of other things. Even if you built your business out of gumption and bootstraps alone, virtually all of your customers and employees relied on something provided via government, and without those customers you wouldn't have that business to be taxed in the first place. It's far better to pay 50% tax on $200,000 than pay 5% on $20,000.

Without international bodies imposing rules on corporations (such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) there also wouldn't be any universal standards and regulations to which all corporations should abide, meaning that literally every single corporate entity has to expand or cooperate with another one to form any sort of coherent universal standard and even then you'd be lucky if every corporation in the world agreed by it. While that may not seem all that shocking at first, this means that there will be situations where you can't phone some of your friends because their telephones don't know how to register your telephone signal or that you can't do your job abroad without re-learning how to do it because the machines they work with have notably different architecture from the ones you are used to work with. In the end it ends up complicating the life for corporations and people alike.

Proponents[Who?] argue that classic property rights assignment would solve both the externality and public good issues. Using the above examples, we can see that applying property rights to both the fisherman and pollution allows the market to perform efficiently. In the fishing example, if we give property rights of the lake to Bob, he will have an active interest in keeping the level of fish in the lake constant. He would likely set up a fishing permit, or maximum quota for fishermen using his property, which would solve the scarcity issue. Although this is not a true public good as asserted, property rights will still solve the presumed market efficiency.

Pollution would be solved in a similar manner. We can assign the property rights to a dumping lake to either the polluter or the victim of pollution with both similar results. If awarded to the polluter, victims of the pollution will determine a proper level of payment to the polluter to avoid overdone pollution. This will often end up with a complete lack of pollution, if the cost benefit from dumping is offset by the payment completely, they will seek other methods of waste management. If awarded to the victims of pollution, the polluter will determine a proper level of payment to the victims in order to pollute, or will look for other methods. In theory, both methods end up with the same price point per pollution reduced, which is the full economic cost.

The assertions that the free market would be unable to provide services like education, regulation, and infrastructure have been long debunked. Although hard to imagine for those who have grown dependent on government, all these services would be provided more freely and more efficiently under a free market. You could argue that the reason these services are operating in completely failed markets under our current system.

Corporate regulation comes freely and naturally by its nature in a free market as well. It has even done so in the US, despite the overwhelming regulation already in place. Professional associations create standards and give "seals of approval" to businesses that adhere to their guidelines, and in turn the consumer is protected from predatory practices by the people who understand the business the most.

Minarchy has also been advocated by some non-anarchist libertarian socialists and other left-libertarians.[1] Minarcho-Socialism is also an ideology that combines the principles of minarchy with socialism.[2]

Go here to read the rest:
Minarchism - RationalWiki

Voters in most Connecticut communities face a traditional choice between Democrats and Republicans on Election Day, but in West Hartford the town council race features four political parties and a petitioning candidate.

The outcome could be as few as two parties sharing power, and but theoretically could end up with an unprecedented five-way split: Democrats, Republicans, A Connecticut Party members, a Libertarian and an unaffiliated councilor.

Fifteen people are vying for the nine town council seats, and the Election Day outcome could leave the winners trying to put together a coalition government for the next two years.

Democrats have held control of the council for the past 21 years, and are the only party that could come out in this years election with a majority: Theyre running six candidates. If five or more win, the party keeps power.

Republicans are fielding just three candidates, and the A Connecticut Party ticket has only four.

Because theyre not running full slates, neither the GOP nor the ACP could win a council majority. That means even if one of them wins on Nov. 2, theyll still have to work with another party and possibly two to pass anything on the council.

The possibilities become even more complex because of two contenders who are running alone: petitioning candidate Aaron Sarwar and Libertarian David Dehaas.

If Sarwar or Dehaas wins, for example, while Democrats, Republicans and the ACP each get only two to three seats each, the major-party winners might need cooperation from Sarwar or Dehaas to pass controversial measures after they take office.

And on matters where the charter requires a super-majority - six votes - for approval, the negotiations could get even more complex.

In all, this years ballot will have the second most council candidates in more than half a century. In 1979, Republicans and Democrats each fielded six while, and six more people ran on the Independent line, said Town Clerk Essie Labrot.

Story continues

This is the first time from 1969 to present that we have had two major parties, two minor parties and one petitioning candidate on the same ballot for town council, Lebrot reported.

Only one petitioning candidate won in that time: Barbara Carpenter, whod previously been elected to the council as a Republican.

Among the new councils first tasks will be choosing a new mayor; traditionally the dominant party makes that decision, but this time around it could be very different.

Most of the complexity this year results from a huge fracture within the local Republican Party in the spring. At the time, Democrats held a 6-3 majority, the largest any party is allowed.

Minority Leader Lee Gold, the top voter-getter from the Republicans ballot in 2019, announced he was leaving the GOP along with party Chairman Mark Merritt and residents Rick Bush and Roni Rodman.

They said the national Republican Party had swung too far right, and declared theyd resurrect the dormant A Connecticut Party - founded by Lowell Weicker 31 years earlier. All four renounced their GOP registration, and are running on the ACP line.

Local Republicans leaders claimed Gold had sided too often with tax increases and spending measures, and the party produced a more conservative slate for this fall. Incumbent Mary Fay along with Mark Zydanowicz, a school board member, and Al Cortes, who previously ran in 2019, are running on the GOP line.

Democrats are running Mayor Shari Cantor and incumbents Liam Sweeney, Ben Wenograd, Leon Davidoff and Carol Blanks along with Adrienne Billings-Smith.

Labrot is encouraging residents who vote by absentee ballot to carefully check that theyve voted for no more than six candidates in the council race. Ballots with too many selections are disqualified.

View original post here:
Crowded race for West Hartford council: 14 candidates from four parties plus an unaffiliated challenger - Yahoo News

The Act party looks set to reject the Government's new housing policy, which will make it easier to build more houses on land in cities. Photo / Mark Mitchell

The Act party looks set to reject the Government's new housing policy, which will make it easier to build more houses on land in cities.

Act leader David Seymour called the bill a "hollow stunt".

"The Auckland Unitary Plan has said for the last four years 420,000 additional dwellings are theoretically possible but prices went up 35 per cent - why? Because councils don't have the funding for the infrastructure and they'll do everything they can to stop development.

Act has yet to come to a formal position on the bill - Seymour was once able to take a position on things himself, but he said this would have to go to caucus.

It is unusual for Act, an historically libertarian party, to oppose a bill which will remove red tape for people wanting to develop land.

The bill will allow up to three homes of up to three storeys each to be built on most sites without the need for a costly and frustrating resource consent.

"I've got to go to caucus on these issues now," Seymour said.

Seymour said his opposition was on the grounds of principle and certainty.

"This is not so much deregulation, it is sweeping aside a system of rules that Auckland agreed to over a pretty tumultuous three or four years for the Auckland Unitary Plan, which already allows 420,000 additional dwellings," Seymour said.

Seymour disputed the idea that he was opposing the policy because of opposition to urban density from his leafy central Auckland seat of Epsom.

"That's a very cynical thing to say - my view is if we want to solve a very serious problem of housing affordability, those are real problems we need to solve.

"We've been thinking about this for years now, and planning law is part of the solution, but planning law alone is not going to solve this. If it did the AUP would have solved it years ago," he said.

National and Labour agreed to an historic truce on housing, agreeing to introduce and support the Housing Supply Bill which they say will see at least 48,200 and as many as 105,500 new homes built in the next five to eight years.

It is a significant political step for both parties, which face pressure from urban property owners who are unhappy with more housing being built in their neighbourhoods.

By both backing the bill, the parties have essentially agreed to not capitalise on that vote.

"Today is truly a historic moment for New Zealand: a time when our two major political parties stepped up together to give Kiwis the Right to Build," National leader Judith Collins said.

See the rest here:
David Seymour not keen on housing bill, promises he is still a libertarian - New Zealand Herald