Category Archives: Libertarianism

Most Virginia voters go for candidates with a D or R next to their name, but who should have dibs on the L?

This year, election officials preparing Novembers ballots were faced with the dilemma of how to differentiate the Libertarian Party from the Liberation Party, the newly formed initiative from gubernatorial candidate and social justice activist Princess Blanding.

We didnt want to list them both as L. Because thats a really bad idea, Dave Nichols, elections services manager for the Virginia Department of Elections, said at a state Board of Elections meeting Tuesday.

To resolve the issue, the state reached out to both parties for ideas.

We believe the identification of L for Libertarian has long been used in Virginia and voters understand that L officially represents a vote for the Libertarian Party, Joe Paschal, the chair of the Libertarian Party of Virginia, wrote in response. We believe it would be unfair to ask our party to change the ballot identification of L after spending years establishing this familiarity with voters. As such, we request L for the Libertarian Party on all ballots in Virginia.

The Liberation Party, which Blanding chairs, seemed to concur. In her own letter, Blanding suggested LP, LTP, or LBP as possible abbreviations for her party.

The state board voted to go with LP as the default abbreviation for the Liberation Party, keeping the other two suggestions on file for backup use.

Libertarian Robert Sarvis was on the ballot for governor in 2013 and the U.S. Senate in 2014. The party does not have any statewide candidates this year. However, there are a few Libertarians running for seats in the House of Delegates, meaning some voters will see both Libertarian Party and Liberation Party options on their ballots.

Read more here:
Libertarian vs. Liberation creates third-party conundrum on Virginia ballots - Virginia Mercury

What are the odds that California would elect a conservative Republican governor in the 2020s? Slim to none, one might have said. But that was before Larry Elder entered the room.

When the California Patriot Coalition launched an effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom in February 2020, their effort looked hopeless. It still seemed implausible in April 2021, when the secretary of state certified that the effort had enough signatures to trigger a vote. Most polls showed a majority or a substantial plurality opposing the recall, and no other high-profile Democrat entered the race to succeed Mr. Newsom if he is recalled. There was little enthusiasm for the Republicans whod joined the race, including Caitlyn Jenner, former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer and John Cox, who lost to Mr. Newsom in 2018.

But suddenly its a contest. Ballots for the Sept. 14 vote will start being mailed in the coming weeks, and three recent polls show Mr. Newsom is vulnerable. An Inside California Politics/Emerson poll this week found that only 48% of registered voters would vote to keep Mr. Newsom in office while 46% would remove him, within the margin of error. On Wednesday Survey USA released a poll that showed Mr. Newsom losing the recall vote, 51% to 40%.

A California recall ballot has two parts. The first asks a yes-or-no question: Shall the officeholder be recalled? The second offers a list of successor candidates46 have qualified in this recall. Each voter chooses one of them, and if the recall is successful, whichever candidate earns a plurality fills out the term.

Mr. Elder was a late entrant to the race, announcing his candidacy on July 12. He was motivated by fire in the belly to see if I can do something ... to move the needle in the right direction, he told a reporter. He instantly emerged as a front-runner, polling 10 points ahead of the closest would-be GOP Newsom successor. (The new Survey USA poll has him slightly behind Democrat Kevin Paffrath, a 29-year-old YouTube personality.) That was before he even qualified for the ballot, which ended up requiring a trip to court.

Go here to read the rest:
Could a Conservative Replace Gavin Newsom? - The Wall Street Journal

Thoughts on housing

To the Editor:

Im so old that all my communications once required licking the back of an envelope. So I try to not just hit send when I have something to say.

Sometimes stated facts are not really facts. They are conclusions resulting from incomplete or false assumptions. I found two examples at the June 24 Community Housing Board presentation. The first I term the cancer canard, in our case, linking housing density to increased nitrates. Californias Proposition 65 lists over 900 cancer-causing chemicals. Enjoy swimming in your pool? As a potential carcinogen, chlorine is banned in Germany. Feasting on your BBQ meats? MD Anderson, the renowned cancer center, has concerns.

A water treatment expert I spoke to assured me that for well under $1,000, nitrates could be filtered from drinking water. My point: Using cancer as a political tool to stop housing may be convenient, but is dishonest.

The second error, invoking the Libertarian argument that the free market should decide all economic issues, is more complex. What was presented the anticipated inability of the fixed-income elderly to pay increased town taxes and thus remain in their homes was disingenuous from a Capitalist model for two reasons: 1) All elderly do not rely solely on fixed incomes. Many do, but many have diverse income sources and equity in their homes. These can and do rise with markets. 2) Sadly, its not only the elderly who are struggling to make ends meet. So are young families and single parents. What Libertarian free marketers are not supposed to do is create a protected class in this case Social Security recipients at the expense of others. That is pure socialism, the town picking winners and losers.

Historically, the elderly have moved to smaller residences, lower-cost communities, or taken out home equity loans. Dont we all know civil servants who retire from town jobs in their 40s and promptly move south? A community is a living thing. Denying services or negating the needs of people for whom housing is an issue should be an Island-wide discussion and decision, of which taxes are only one aspect.

Theres a strong Libertarian streak in my political thinking. However, affordable housing opponents claims to free market thinking and anti-socialist agendas should not be twisted into denying the community what it needs to thrive and survive.

JONATHAN RUSSO, Shelter Island

Concerned

To the Editor:

I am opposed to any special permit requested by Gardiners Bay Country Club (GBCC) to downzone a double A (AA) zone to build multiple residency units for any purpose.

I have lived at my home in Hay Beach, for 42 years. This GBCC request is an attempt to undermine the zoning which protects Hay Beach and Dering Harbor from being denigrated in water/aquifer quality, quality of life and security in a well-established community, and in the quality of real-estate values.

The GBCC is trying to pretend that any downzoning will only affect properties that abut the course. This is far from the truth. Any downzoning in a traditional AA zone will affect all the Island and set precedents for future pillaging of our island.

Shelter Island is not any place. An island is not an ordinary place. It may be that people who come from Southampton do not appreciate our island and intend to siphon off all the water and leave their waste behind. Do Shelter Islanders want that? Is Shelter Island to be a colony of Southampton transients? Elected and appointed officials are in their places to protect the rights of the Shelter Island residents. A business cannot put a boot into the face of property owners. Anybody can shill for a corporation and I am sure monetary rewards will follow.

But Shelter Island should not be destroyed by one business a business already using much water and flexing its muscles. Former employment partnerships or friendships should not interfere with decisions that are Island-wide concerns. Of course, anyone with a conflict of interest should recuse himself/herself from judging and deciding the GBCC Special Permit Appeal.

It seems a group of people, most with no ties to the island, want to cheapen the area by using the cheapest labor possible, if the huge dormitory is to be for housing of transient workers a plantation barracks. Multiple unit housing does not belong in a neighborhood of AA zoning. Multiple unit housing does not belong on a fragile aquifer.

Once any downzoning is established Shelter Island will be under pressure for other dominoes to fall, and then the marauders with contempt for our island will turn this precious place into a hodgepodge of over-developed, water-deprived, crowded monstrosities for off-Island control and profit. The Island will be destroyed.

Concerned? Attend Town Hall, August 25, 7:30 PM, hearing on Notice of Appeal.

VIRGINIA SHIELDS WALKER, Shelter Island

Opposed to Country Club project

To the Editor:

I have lived full-time in Hay Beach for 43 years. I am totally opposed to the employee housing building proposal, violating our zoning, made by the Gardiners Bay Country Club.

The plans show what looks like a hotel. Nothing being said by the Country Club sounds honest.

R. NEEDHAM, Shelter Island

For the birds

To the Editor:

What a summer this has been, and still six more weeks to go.

To every person who participated in A Hill of Beans, thank you! It was summer theater and Shelter Island at its best.

My osprey family, Tom, Tillie, Tom Jr. and the two little ones, keep me entertained daily. Flight lessons are beyond entertaining. Tom seems to find the best looking fish for lunch everyday its amazing how programmed they are. This place really is for the birds. If my feeder is not full by 8 a.m., I hear about it, and the bird bath is a steady job keeping it full. However, the blue jays have no manners whatsoever.

Theres lots of animosity within our little town. It seems there aint nobody happy about one thing or another. So what to do? Ferry fares, water quality, affordable housing, ticks, jelly fish, Range Rovers, bicycle people, joggers, all seem to perpetrate angst against some citizens. I guess we need to get creative somehow, but how? Possibly by exercising our right to vote and finding qualified Islanders to run their town. My town.

Theres lots more to come this summer, so lets all enjoy and be nice to all creatures great and small. And as the mole said to the boy, when the boy seemed perplexed, One of our greatest freedoms is how we react to things. Think about that statement for a moment.

GEORGIANA KETCHAM, Shelter Island

Start time

To the Editor:

I was surprised and dismayed to learn that the town has no restrictions regarding the time construction can begin in the morning. There is a house being built near us and they start hammering away at 7 a.m.

Bang, bang, bang. Thats what I hear while trying to enjoy my morning coffee. I think a law should be passed with a start time of 8 a.m.

MELANIE CORONETZ, Shelter Island

Go here to see the original:
Shelter Island Reporter Letters to the Editor: Aug. 5 - Shelter Island Reporter - Shelter Island Reporter

One potentially obvious answer to the question of which"Parks and Recreation" season was the worst is the six-episode first season. In addition to there being substantially less episodes overall, the show was very clearly still figuring itself out during year one. The pilot episode was just that a pilot, with all the pitfalls that come along with them. Moreover, there was a lot of focus on Leslie Knope's ill-fated "romance" withMark Brendanawicz (Paul Schneider), a ho-hum B-story that was quickly dropped. However, Season 1 was actually the No. 2 choice in this survey after just over 16.3% of respondents chose it.

Curiously, Season 3, which yielded the arrival of fan-favorite charactersChris Traeger (Rob Lowe) and Ben Wyatt (Adam Scott), finished a close third with 16% of the vote. In the end, the top pick for the worst "Parks and Recreation" season as chosen by more than 20% of respondents was the seventh season of the show. And really, its placement here should come as no surprise.

After playing the push-and-pull dynamic of occasionally-reluctant but always there for each other friends Leslie and Ron Swanson to perfection for six years, the show made a sharp left turn and the two became bitter enemies for a significant portion of the season. The final, 13-episode run also featured some jarring time jumps. It still featured some great moments but the show had clearly run its course by that point.

More here:
The Worst Season Of Parks And Recreation According To 20% Of People - Looper

Following is a summary of current health news briefs.

Japan COVID cases hit 1 million as infections spread beyond Tokyo

Japan reached the milestone of one million coronavirus cases on Friday, domestic media reported, as infections soared in Olympic host Tokyo and other urban areas as the country struggled to contain the Delta variant. New cases in Tokyo hit 4,515, the second-highest after Thursday's record 5,042, while the neighboring, populous prefecture of Kanagawa saw its cases soaring to more than 2,000, quadrupling in less than two weeks.

U.S. nurses' COVID-19 grief pours out online: 'I just don't want to watch anyone else die'

Nichole Atherton couldn't take it anymore. The intensive care nurse watched helplessly last year as COVID-19 sufferers died in her Mississippi hospital - slowly, painfully and alone. Then in July she was again confronted with a wave of deathly ill patients, even though almost all likely could have saved themselves by getting the coronavirus vaccine.

Delta spreads in Sydney as Australia widens COVID-19 restrictions

Australian officials warned Sydney residents on Friday to brace for a surge in COVID-19 cases after the country's largest city logged record infections for the second straight day despite a weeks-long lockdown to stamp out an outbreak of Delta variant. "Just based on the trend in the last few days and where things are going, I am expecting higher case numbers in the next few days and I just want everyone to be prepared for that," New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian told reporters in Sydney, the state capital.

EU regulator advises updating J&J shot label with new disorders

Europe's drugs regulator on Friday advised that low platelets, dizziness and ear ringing be added as adverse reactions following vaccination with J&J's COVID-19 shot, and said it had not found a link between coronavirus vaccines and menstrual disorders so far.

EU: too early to say if COVID booster needed as Germany, France press ahead

There's not enough data to recommend using COVID-19 vaccine boosters, the European Union's drugs regulator said on Friday, after major EU states said they would roll out a third dose for the most vulnerable from September. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) had said in mid-July that more data was needed before it could make a recommendation on boosters, but the EU's biggest countries Germany and France are ploughing ahead with plans to roll out some anyway.

Factbox-COVID-19 and the U.S. courts: challenges to vaccine requirements

The resurgence of COVID-19 cases in the United States due to the Delta variant has prompted public and private employers and schools to mandate coronavirus vaccines, drawing legal challenges from civil libertarians and vaccine skeptics. Below is a selection of some key cases.

Seven die after outbreak of Colombian variant of COVID-19 at Belgian nursing home

Seven residents of a nursing home in Belgium have died after being infected with the Colombian variant of the coronavirus, despite being fully vaccinated, the virology team that conducted tests said on Friday. The variant of COVID-19 that originated in Colombia, or B.1.621, has been detected in recent weeks in the United States but cases in Europe have been rare.

Senegalese doctors, cemetery workers battle COVID-19 surge

At Dalal Jamm hospital in Dakar, only the whooshing sound of a ventilator and beeps from a monitor indicated that the pregnant COVID-19 patient in the intensive care bed was still alive. A few cubicles down, another woman was on oxygen after giving birth while sick with the coronavirus as a third wave threatened to overwhelm Senegal's hospitals and some of its cemeteries.

Early signs COVID-19 vaccines may not stop Delta transmission, England says

There are early signs that people who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 may be able to transmit the Delta variant of the virus as easily as those who have not, scientists at Public Health England (PHE) said on Friday. The findings chime with those from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which last week raised concerns that vaccinated people infected with Delta could, unlike with other variants, readily transmit it.

United Airlines makes COVID-19 shots compulsory for U.S. employees

United Airlines Inc on Friday became the first U.S. airline to require all its domestic employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. The airline said employees would need to show proof of vaccination, five weeks after the U.S. drug regulator fully approves any of the vaccines from Pfizer Inc, Moderna Inc or Johnson & Johnson - expected sometime in the fall - or by Oct. 25, whichever is earlier.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Read more from the original source:
Health News Roundup: Japan COVID cases hit 1 million as infections spread beyond Tokyo; U.S. nurses' COVID-19 grief pours out online: 'I just don't...

FILE PHOTO: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic

By David M. GreenwaldExecutive Editor

Since the start of the pandemic, issues of government and health based restrictions have been framed by thoseespecially on the right, though not exclusivelyas an issue of freedom and rights. The argument goes that the individual and not the government should determine issues like masking, social distancing, and the like.

That issue has been amplified severalfold with the issue of vaccinations and whether or to what extent government and/or employers can mandate them.

In this piece I will argue that, while there are issues of freedom and rights embedded into this debate, for the most part and this extends well beyond the realm of COVID, we have misconstrued the issue of freedom way too narrowly.

When people yell freedom in this society, most often they are thinking along narrow self-interested lines. I want the freedom to do what I want.

The problem is that the government cannot operate along those lines of freedom. The government generally thinks not in terms of freedom but in terms of rights. Allowing someone to exercise their rights is relatively straightforward. Where government exists, however, is at the point where rights conflictgovernment has a responsibility to arbitrate and weigh on situations where my rights conflict with yours.

Many people yelling freedom forget this fact. The government has the obligation in my view of not only arbitration in the conflict of rights, but ensuring that the laws, to the extent possible, offer equal protection.

We may often think of freedom versus safetythe but reality is that safety is another way of designating other peoples rights. You may have the right to run down the street. But when you run into the street, you are putting other peoples rights in jeopardynot only their freedom of movement but also their freedom to live.

So the government preemptively steps in to create a set of rules that we follow. So we have traffic laws that prescribe and proscribe movements and govern when and where pedestrians can cross roadways and which laws that drivers have to obey to create as safe of an environment as possible.

What determines those laws? In part, community standards. But in part, a risk assessment.

Let us use speed limit as a case example here. In most places there are laws governing the maximum speed. Those laws generally allow people to drive at a faster rate of speed on the open road than on narrow and crowded city streets where there are more likely to be pedestrians and traffic controls.

Speed limits are limits on freedom. Thats one way to look at it. But another way is it is the governments decision to arbitrate between competing rights. My freedom of movement is circumscribed by your need to be able to safely move from point A to point B.

How does the government determine speed limits? A lot of it is based on risk assessment. The faster you go, the more freedom you have to determine your own safe rate of speed. But we know from studies, the faster you go the more likely driver error or roadway conditions are to create hazards, and so we weigh freedom against risk and arrive at a somewhat subjective limit for upper speed. That can vary state to state and also by location, but at the end of the day, risk assessment guides it.

In general, in the non-economic realm, I tend to be more libertarian. In fact, I generally consider myself a civil libertarian. I oppose government limits on free speech, think that most drugs should be legalized and, if not, decriminalized. I think things like sex work should be legalized but regulated.

I am more libertarian on things like gun laws than many on the left.

But I have a hard time understanding the freedom dimension to reasonable regulations with regard to COVID.

The problem again with COVID is that regulations are not about individual liberty exclusively. For example, if COVID were such that the precautions only impacted your own healththen by all means take whatever risks you want.

Let us take smoking as a good example here. If someone wants to smoke, that puts their health at risk. I am fine with that (we can debate the extent to which society should have to pay the bill for cancer treatment or the extent to which it is fair that we have to pay higher health insurance premiums to mitigate that risk, but thats a slightly different question).

But most places determined that you may have the right to smoke by yourself outside, but smoking can also impact others. Second hand smoke poses a health risk, and so most indoor places in most states have now forbidden ityou used to be able to smoke on planes, in restaurants, at bars, now you cant.

Wearing a mask is pretty much the same issue. When you dont wear a mask, you actually put other peoples health at risk, not your own.

Government therefore has a compelling interest in mandating masks to prevent disease spread.

I have heard people argue that if you want to live in fear, thats fine, but they dont choose to. But the mask issue is more complicated. If it again were merely about you avoiding getting sick if you didnt wear a mask, there would be a more compelling argument. But the mask issue is actually the opposite, it prevents you from spreading the virus to others. Thats a little different.

Vaccination, of course, is more complicated. You are not talking about a temporary and passive use of masks. You are talking about whether the government has an interest to compel an individual to inject something into their body.

I would argue that they dont.

However, freedom to act is not freedom to live without consequences or choices.

The government in my view, does have a compelling interest in regulating who can operate in the public realm and create increased levels of risk. Therefore the government I think has the ability to regulate who can enter public buildings, it has the ability to regulate who can go to restaurants, bars, and gyms, and it has the ability to weigh your freedom to not vaccinate against societys freedom to incur undo risk at entering the public realm.

Bottom line, I think the government does have the right to place restrictions on those who CHOOSE not to vaccinate. They are making a choice.

I have seen people say that they can choose not to wear a mask or not vaccinate and if I dont like it, I can choose not to leave my home.

Sorry, but we both have equal freedoms here. Our rights conflict. And there when rights conflict, the government has the duty to arbitrate those conflicts and they do so by managing risk. Right now in the middle of a pandemic, the government interest in protecting health and safety outweighs other factors.

When that risk is reducedas we have seen at various timesgovernment can and will remove those restrictions.

See the original post here:
Commentary: We Have Misconstrued Freedom in the Fight against COVID - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

This is a daily newsletter covering Virginia politics. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber today for $5/month to receive all of the insider information on what is happening in Virginia politics.

Subscribe now

Welcome to Wednesday!

Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin was hit with two editorials in the last 24 hourscritiquing his campaign.

Glenn Youngkin, the blankest of blank slates ever to run for Virginia governor, has finally started to fill in some of those blanks on policy, wrore theRoanoke Time editorial board. The result is pretty disappointing, and something of a gut punch for the rural areas that are the base of his own Republican Party.

The editorial board continued by calling Youngkinsrecent announcementto invest in all Virginians a recitation of standard Republican talking points mostly tax refunds and tax breaks.

Read more

Youngkin was also critiqued by Josh Kraushaar at the National Journalwith Kraushaar writing: The GOPs gubernatorial nominee in Virginia is reminiscent of Michael Bloomberg: He has lots of money to spend, but lacks a clear campaign argument. Kraushaar then continued: Youngkins early efforts at introducing himself to Virginians are more reminiscent of Romney than McDonnell. There are only three months until the election against Democrat Terry McAuliffe, yet his campaign message is unclear. His advertisements, blanketing the airwaves all summer thanks to his willingness to self-fund his campaign, show him playing basketball but dont offer clarity on what hed actually do as governor. Hes kept his distance from former President Trump, but isntoutright rejecting the election conspiracy theoriesthat drive the right-wing base.

Read More

Greg Schneider from the Washington Postwrote an in-depth lookat Youngkins timespent with global investment firm The Carlyle Group. After talking to several people within the company, Schneider wrote that Youngkin had taken on more of an administrative role within the firm in recent years and was not very involved in the individual deals being made. Youngkin said this year on a campaign stop, however, that he will own anything that the firm did while he was working there.

Taking on those roles, another former Carlyle executive said, was something of a sacrifice for Youngkin leaving behind the more exciting world of deals for the sometimes thankless task of corporate operations, Schneiderwrote.

More from the Washinton Post article:One longtime Carlyle joint-venture partner, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly about the firm, said Youngkin was smart and personable but not one to shake up the status quo. A phrase that was kicked around is hes like Wonder Bread dipped in whole milk, the joint-venture partner said.

Continue Reading

Republican candidates Jason Miyares (Attorney General) and Winsome Sears (Lieutenant Governor) confirmed (first with the Richmond Times-Dispatch) that they will not be attending theelection integrity eventbeing held at the Liberty University this weekend. Both candidates will be stumping for a Republican House candidate in Northern Virginia instead.

Glenn Youngkin, the Republican candidate for governor hasrecently saidthat he will be stopping by the event to discuss voter ID laws. His campaign has not said anything different since that statement.

FromRichmond Times-Dispatch:GOP gubernatorial nominee Glenn Youngkins campaign would not say whether he still plans to attend the event at Liberty University in Lynchburg, which is coordinated by the 5th congressional district Republican committee and includes a banquet on Friday and forums on Saturday. Asked if he was still scheduled to speak, campaign spokeswoman Macaulay Porter declined to answer on Tuesday and sent the Richmond Times-Dispatch a statement attacking Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe.

Continue Reading

Tim Anderson, a firebrand Republican House of Delegates candidate in Virginia Beach is facing backlash after he campaigned against COVID-19 relief but accepted $750K in relief funds for his own company. According toThe Virginian-Pilot: since April 2020, however, his businesses have taken in over $742,000 in federal COVID relief money, according to data from the U.S. Small Business Administration.

This news comes less than one month after Andersonwrote on his Facebook pagethat it should all be given back. We should give it back. We dont need it. Virginia has hundreds of millions in Surplus already. This is borrowed money and we should only spend what we absolutely need which is Zero.

Anderson did not respond to multiple requests for comment from The Virginian-Pilot.

Anderson is running against Democratic Delegate Nancy Guy in House District 83.

Read More

The Virginia Gazette wrote about Princess Blanding, the Liberation Party candidatewho is running against Terry McAuliffe and Glenn Youngkin for governor.

From Virginia Gazette: As a longtime educator, Middlesex resident Princess Blanding said she never imagined she would follow a path into politics. She had worked her way up to an administrative position at the Essex County public school division and there, she planned to stay. But, her path veered in 2018, when her brother, Marcus David-Peters was fatally shot by the Richmond City Police Department. He was suffering from a mental health crisis and was unarmed.

Continue Reading

Graham Moomaw from Virginia Mercury wrote about the conundrum facing election officials with a new L party on the ballot. McAuliffe with have a D next to his name, Youngkin will have an R next to his name, but while L usually stands for Libertarian on the ballot, officials now have to figure out how to decipher between Libertarian and Liberation.

Moomaw reports:

To resolve the issue, the state reached out to both parties for ideas.

We believe the identification of L for Libertarian has long been used in Virginia and voters understand that L officially represents a vote for the Libertarian Party, Joe Paschal, the chair of the Libertarian Party of Virginia, wrote in response. We believe it would be unfair to ask our party to change the ballot identification of L after spending years establishing this familiarity with voters. As such, we request L for the Libertarian Party on all ballots in Virginia.

Continue Reading

General Michael Flynn is set to headline Republican congressional candidate Jarome Bells Rally to Right the Shipin Virginia Beach this weekend. Bell is seeking the Republican nomination to run in Virginias second congressional district, currently represented by Congresswoman Elaine Luria.

Flynn was President Trumps national security advisor for a short time before being fired 25 days into the administration for lying to the FBI and vice president about his contacts with Russia. After pleading guilty to the charges, Flynn was eventually pardoned by President Trump. It is my Great Honor to announce that General Michael T. Flynn has been granted a Full Pardon,Trumpsaid at the time

Now Flynn is endorsing Bell in the VA-02 nomination contest. Bells 27 years of service in the U.S. Navy as a Chief Petty Officer, as well as his understanding that his oath never expires, proves Jarome will stand his ground against the constant onslaught by the socialist left, anti-American attacks, Flynn said in an announcement for the event. I am strongly and wholeheartedly endorsing Jarome for the Commonwealth of Virginias 2nd Congressional district.

Continue Reading

by Greg Schneider and Laura Vozzella

Two minutes. Thats what House Minority Leader Del. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah) figured the GOP had on Tuesday to try to score some political points over the spending plan that Virginia Democrats have engineered for $4.3 billion in federal coronavirus relief funds.

Democrats who control the General Assembly had reached an agreement with Gov. Ralph Northam (D) on how to allocate the federal relief money even before the special legislative session started on Monday, including $800 million for the unemployment trust fund, $250 million for school ventilation systems, $700 million for rural broadband and more.

Continue Reading

By NED OLIVER AND GRAHAM MOOMAW

Republicans in the Virginia House of Delegates offered their own proposal Tuesday for how to spend billions in federal rescue funds, floating a plan they said would ban door-to-door vaccination campaigns, give $5,000 bonuses to every police officer in the state and limit how students are taught about race and discrimination.

After a two-minute floor speech by House Minority Leader Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, the measure was promptly voted down by the Democratic majority.

Continue Reading

Like Loading...

Read more here:
Editorial pieces critique Youngkin; two L's on the ballot; VA Beach Republican gets caught red-handed saying one thing and doing the opposite -...

Special thanks to all my libertarian friends who read this before I published it and still continue to be my friend.

The Gadsden Flag

Wouldnt you like to live in a world where the government didnt interfere in your private life, where you paid minimal taxes, and were free to do whatever you wanted as long as it didnt infringe on others freedoms?

Well then, you might be a libertarian Or you might not.

Libertarianism is a sexy concept right now. You might have heard about it because of third party candidate Gary Johnson, or from the Republican Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul. Or you turned into one overnight after completing Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged. But what do libertarians believe in?

The core value of libertarianism is small government, which is a vague concept meaning pretty much whatever any individual Libertarian wants it to mean. So, anything from keeping the government out of your bedroom to the privatization of almost every function of government from education to the police force can fall under the libertarian agenda.

So it shouldnt be a surprise that fiscally conservative Republicans are more likely to vote libertarian than Democrats. However, on social issues some of the libertarian policy positions are actually more progressive than a Occupy Wall Street drum circle. The Libertarian stance on social issues include making prostitution legal and legalizing all drugs even the good ones. Libertarians also believe that no military action should be taken against foreign nations unless the U.S. is attacked first. All of which sounds great to me.

What doesnt sound as great are the libertarian ideals on the economic front.

Libertarianism comes down to belief that the principles that drive a free market economy can be applied to how humans govern themselves. Its this idea that an invisible hand that guides the free market will also drive human interaction with social order. This foundation is one that I disagree with, when unchecked man motivated by self-gain will not ultimately do the right thing. This is why there are criminals, those who commit crimes even when there is a system that actively tries to prevent it.

The whole purpose of civilization should be to ensure that everyone is fed, clothed, housed and NOT to create the conditions so that the few can secure a substantially greater portion of resources while others are left with virtually none. In a libertarian society, who protects the unprotected, who defends the rights of the defenseless? Even libertarians acknowledge that a free market will drive a larger wealth disparity which some believe will be offset by the trickling down of wealth and technology. But wealth inequality paired with deregulation creates an opportunity for haves to rule the have-nots. This is one of the many reasons for regulation to ensure that the rich few do not impose their will unjustly or destructively on the poor multitudes.

Another libertarian belief is the idea that the government should not be allowed to impose its will on the citizenry. However, in a truly free market that promotes freedom of contract and de-regulation employers have a right to force rules that would never be permitted in our current Democratic systems. Libertarianism is a rich mans ideal. It ostensibly gives ultimate freedoms and choice to everyone at the cost of helping the helpless. It completely ignores the reality of economic forces, which compel the poor to take jobs they dont want and live where they dont want to just because they have to.

While individual freedoms extending to property rights are in the forefront of the core principles of libertarianism deregulation and a free market economy that will lead to an even bigger wealth gap sounds like the prologue to the movie Elysium starring Matt Damon. Or Snowpiercer. Or any other dystopian future pic where classism runs rampant and the massive lower income classes rise against their small but incredibly wealthy oppressors.

If you want to understand what would happen in a libertarian society, watch the movie Elysium. Thats a libertarian utopia. Where the wealth disparity is abysmal and the eroding middle class has fully shifted well below the poverty line. Yes, we will likely continue to make technological advancements, but increasingly in service to a narrower and narrower segment of the population.

You may see the poor or underclass as weak the losers in the giant meritocratic experiment that is the libertarian ideal, but weak as they are, there are going to be a hell of a lot more of them than there are of you. So in the hopes of avoiding the fate of the monarchy during the French Revolution, maybe its best to retain welfare and at least a modest social safety net if for no other reason than to keep them from grabbing their pitchforks and turning on you. Think of it as a Riot Tax.

Lamartine in front of the Town Hall of Paris rejects the red flag on 25 February 1848 by Henri Felix Emmanuel PhilippoteauxThis is what happens when the poor majority revolts against the wealthy minory

In the end, libertarianism is similar to communism. On the face theyre both noble, but impossibly ambitious theories one has individual freedom as its core principle and the other, equality. However, in practice, both concepts lead to outcomes that arent as pure. Unlike communism, we have yet to see libertarianism crumble after application, but, given the current state of the Republican party, we may see its influence soon enough.

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

Continued here:
The Problems With Libertarianism | HuffPost

Social Libertarianism"Free market good, Starvation bad."AliasesLibertarian Social Democracy

Human-Centered CapitalismCentrist LibertarianismNeo-YangismYangism SocBert

Social Libertarianism, clipped to SocBert, is a LibUnity ideology that leans culturally left. He advocates for a robust decentralized government, free markets, and social welfare. SocBert believes that both negative liberty (ie freedom to do stuff) and positive liberty (ie freedom from forces (such as poverty, bad health, pollution)) are equally important and therefore libertarian ideology should be reformed to view liberty & justice as being free from all forms of domination instead of only freedom from the state. Socbert tends to agree with libertarianism on most issues, but disagrees on economics and welfare, believing that a welfare state (ideally a UBI or NIT) and some forms of regulation are needed to guarantee positive liberties.

The SocBert ball is a very altruistic, happy, energetic, and pro-freedom ball. Although he likes a lot of people, not that many people like him back. He's too much of a "Socialist" for libertarians, so he's called a "fake libertarian" by LibRights. On the other hand, he's also called a "Libertarian Trojan Horse" by socialists. Usually, he hangs out with his mom Social Democracy, his half-sister Social Georgism and his dad Libertarianism every other weekend.

Flag of Social Libertarianism

Videos

Wacky ideologies 37 Social Libertarianism by Knights of the alternate histories

View post:
Social Libertarianism | Polcompball Wiki | Fandom

The comedian and podcaster Dave Smith, a rising presence in Libertarian Party (L.P.) circles, says he's considering running for the party's presidential nomination in 2024.

Smith says a major reason he expects to run is that even though the 2020 nominee, Jo Jorgensen, got the second-highest vote total in L.P. history, he thinks she didn't push back hard enough on government lockdowns and overreach in its fight against COVID, which he sees as a missed opportunity to build a bigger libertarian movement.

A vocal opponent of wokeness and political correctness, Smith is quick to attack fellow libertarians whom he thinks are naive about how the state maintains its power. He's said that he'd "take a red-pilled leftie over a blue-pilled libertarian any day."

After the Biden administration revealed it was pushing Facebook to restrict accounts it says are spreading misinformation about COVID-19, Smith tweeted, "This administration has exposed the useful idiots who call themselves libertarians. Saying 'it's a private company' for the last few years, ignoring what is obviously the biggest threat to liberty. They unwittingly support the largest government in human history."

After that take was discussed on a recent Reason Roundtable podcast, Smith tweeted that my fellow panelists and I had misrepresented his views. So I reached out to him so he could clarify his views on the intersection of big government and Big Tech, and discuss the future of the L.P., why he has no plans to vaccinate himself or his young daughter, and why he believes libertarians should be more engaged in the culture war.

Original post:
Dave Smith: Libertarians vs. Big Tech, Big Government, andOther Libertarians - Reason