Category Archives: Libertarianism

The fact is, America is a country fundamentally shaped by libertarian values and attitudes. Our libertarian values helped to create the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and those documents in turn shape our thinking about freedom and the limited powers of government. David Boaz, Who Killed Gun Control?

What is a libertarian? According to Wikipedia, libertarians wish to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association. In essence, the libertarian is anyone who upholds liberty as their core guiding principle and wants to preserve their own rights as well as the rights of others.

Libertarians also want to limit state power, albeit to varying degrees. Anarcho-capitalists want only a night-watchman state, the purpose of which is limited to protecting people from aggression, enforcing private property, and a few other aspects of private life which the free market typically doesnt concern itself with. (This is not to be confused with anarchism, an ideology that usually rejects private property.) Consequentialist libertarians who believe free trade must benefit society as a whole may tolerate greater government power if it does genuine good rather than merely hinder individual autonomy.

People hearing about libertarianism for the first time might assume its some fringe ideology. You could argue that it is, but you would have to acknowledge a large reason why: Libertarians seek to take power away from the government and not give it to anyone else. Any powerful person or organization which owes their lofty position to the status quo has every incentive to marginalize libertarianism.

Summarizing a complete political and economic philosophy in a few paragraphs is a hefty task. It took Murray Rothbard (aka Mr. Libertarian) over 300 pages to do about as much when he penned For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.

But lets set the books aside for a moment and briefly explain what libertarians believe, with the understanding that libertarians disagree on many things as well.

Libertarians believe everyone should enjoy total autonomy. Do as you please with your life. Spend it with whomever, doing whatever, wherever. Just dont forcibly interfere with anyone elses liberty and were all square.

Libertarians believe in entrepreneurialism and the free market. Innovation is wrought from passion and hard work, not duty. A government that taxes the industry is only stealing products to give to those who havent earned it. With less government control comes greater access to the free market, and more opportunity to create wealth for all.

Libertarians do not recognize official authority in most cases. The man in Washington, the man in Moscow, the man in the Vatican none of them can nullify your right to live free and independently. The libertarian rejects authoritys need to violate their rights for the greater good. To the libertarian, there is no greater good beyond the preservation of those very rights.

Why is the Libertarian Partys symbolic animal a porcupine? Because it bothers nobody and expects the same favor in return. But if you do decide to bother it, you may reasonably expect a snoot full of barbs.

No true libertarian country exists. One might argue the political ideology has a built-in kill switch, as the very people who value individualism and economic freedom seldom want to helm an organization which controls people and taxes them.

While conservatism and liberalism are espoused by Americas two dominant political parties, either of which proffers a very noisy presidential candidate every four years, libertarianism remains something of a question mark in most peoples minds.

What are the libertarian positions on the big issues? They are seldom publicly advised or officially implemented, so you have to examine them for yourself if you want greater insight into libertarian beliefs.

Democrats and Republicans both believe that a war is an awful, awful thing whenever the rival party has started one. In contrast, the libertarian is unequivocally opposed to war. At its very core libertarianism is a rejection of militarism, which by definition entails the implementation of violence to force others to do as the state wishes.

War breeds nationalism, an ideology diametrically at odds with individualism. It incentivizes corruption, as Smedley Butler elaborates in War Is a Racket, and ultimately poses a net loss to society as Ludwig von Mises explains in Nation, State, and Economy. The state at war demands its citizens to forfeit their rights and their own lives for the good of the collective. Although war invariably increases state power, its cessation almost never decreases it. And while this may go without saying, the natural rights of individuals do include not getting killed.

Libertarianism condemns war as a facet of foreign policy, yet it does not prescribe absolutist pacifism. You have every right to strike a man who is attacking you. The non-aggression principle forbids the initiation of force, not forceful defense. Likewise, many libertarians accept that war is a necessary evil in some cases. Few libertarians argue that the United States ought to have remained a British colony, and fewer still would prefer to ignore Kim Jong-un if he decided to glass San Francisco. Yet the staunchest libertarians may also advocate unwavering pacifism to the extent where war could never be an option. Whether their ideology is practicable in so hostile a world is a matter of speculation.

Most libertarians advocate for limited government not zero government as they agree some degree of official intervention is required to protect citizens from aggression, theft, and other transgressions against their private property and civil liberties.

Unfortunately, the current state of the American criminal justice system could hardly be described as limited. The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws, as Tacitus wrote, and indeed America currently has so many laws in place that most citizens would become felons if they were only formally arrested and convicted. As Hunter S. Thompson (who is not to be confused with Tacitus) once put it, In a closed society where everybodys guilty, the only crime is getting caught.

Libertarians would advocate several measures to fix the broken criminal justice system. Qualified immunity, which effectively permits government officials to violate individuals liberty, would have to go. (The Cato Institute better explains why.) So too would police unions, which make it nigh impossible to terminate terrible police officers. Libertarians also call for an immediate end to the war on drugs, as conservative libertarian Milton Friedman supported when he endorsed legalizing marijuana. (Hence why the Libertarian Party is occasionally referred to as the Dude Weed Party.)

A libertarian understands that their civil rights are not special permissions granted (or revokable) by their government. Rather, civil rights are intrinsic to humanity itself. To be born is to have the right to free speech, press, religion and so on. Certain civil rights only apply to those in special circumstances, such as the prisoners right to a speedy trial as protected by the Sixth Amendment (which is arguably violated when a criminal trial can last longer than five years).

A libertarian is soundly in favor of preserving existing civil rights as well as creating additional ones. For example, the Libertarian Party views government officials reading your emails as a very bad thing. A libertarian would also support the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, which would guarantee equal legal rights for all Americans regardless of their sex.

Equal rights are not to be mistaken for equal results, however. Friedrich Hayek explains how so in The Constitution of Liberty: From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. The equality before the law which freedom requires leads to material inequality.

Gun ownership is the civil liberty which modern liberalism likes to conveniently forget. The Republican Party is friendlier to gun rights, but not nearly enough. Many GOP supporters were unhappy when President Trump instructed the ATF to treat bump stocks as machine guns, or when he said he would think about banning suppressors.

Ron Paul summed up the libertarian view on guns like so: Nobody should tell you you cant own a gun because it might be misused. And George Orwell, a socialist of all things, explained why: That rifle on the wall of the labourers cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.

One of the libertarian ideas people often struggle with is this: Any political party or form of government has the potential to turn tyrannical. More than 250 million people were killed by their governments during the 20th century alone. Guns preserve political freedom by equipping people to fight back against the only organization which is legally allowed to kill them. In a country where gun confiscation has quite literally concluded with democide, it is crucial to remember that guns arent simply fun toys for rednecks.

Just like it places a premium on property rights, libertarianism maintains that you have total autonomy over your own body. You have the right to accept or refuse any medical treatment you wish to, just as you have the right to take any recreational drug that you please. (But if you get drunk and do something foolish, the consequences are all yours to enjoy.)

Libertarianism rejects the welfare state, including the governments nationalization of healthcare. As Walter E. Williams put it, There is no moral argument that justifies using the coercive powers of government to force one person to bear the expense of taking care of another. Thomas Sowell completed the libertarian argument against nationalized healthcare: It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.

Free-market healthcare is subject to competitive forces that continually improve medicine; government-controlled healthcare must only satisfy whichever criteria impassionate bureaucrats create for it. As is always the case, incentivizing innovation is the surest way toward progress not yoking it to government officials who are more concerned with polls than they are public health.

John Locke summed up the duty we have to children in Some Thoughts Concerning Education: Children are strangers to all we are acquainted with; and all the things they meet with, are at first unknown to them, as they once were to us: and happy are they who meet with civil people, that will comply with their ignorance, and help them to get out of it. (Not all of the libertarian movements preeminent thinkers get it quite so right. Murray Rothbards assertion that parents have no legal obligation to feed their kids can be considered frosty at best.)

The experience offered by public education suffers greatly for its dependence on tax revenue. When teachers must place the demands of government officials before the diverse needs of their students, and when the public education system indoctrinates children with whatever ideologies the dominant political party prescribes, we fail our children. Many libertarians wish to shield vulnerable children from politicians and their special interests by divorcing education from the government entirely.

You have likely noticed that we peppered this article with mentions of several people. These are the thinkers whose work you should explore if you want a firmer grasp of libertarianism. (You had better add Ayn Rand to the list while youre at it.) Keep learning, and one day soon you too may be able to bore your friends to tears with long-winded explanations as to why taxation is theft and the government should bugger off.

Link:
What Is a Libertarian? A Brief Summary of Their Beliefs

Im not going to pretend I know what critical race theory is. Refusing to do so, however, apparently puts me ahead of a lot of Nevadans.

Dont get me wrong, I have some ideas of what it might be. Im not alone in that the Washoe County school board recently sat through an 11 hour lecture on critical race theory delivered via a near-endless parade of public comment. According to some of the comments, when a vehicle with California plates parks in the school district parking lot, thats critical race theory. When God isnt mentioned in public schools, thats also critical race theory even though white people are consistently less religious than most minority groups. Birth rates plummeting below replacement levels? Thats critical race theory. Loveless sex, suicidal despair, drug abuse, pornography, sexual chaos, and the districts sexual education program behind it all? All critical race theory.

What about females getting elected to school boards? What about treason, Marxism, 19 million (wholly imaginary) dead Black babies, and (wholly imaginary) instructions on how to safely lick an anus in our school curriculum? Yes, Nevada its all critical race theory, at least according to one especially colorful public commenter improvising during open mic night at the Washoe County school district administration building.

If it seems to you like complaining about critical race theory is just a way for certain people to gripe about social changes they disapprove of, youre not alone. In certain corners of conservative punditry, in fact, this behavior is explicitly encouraged. The goal, as the Manhattan Institutes Christopher Rufo describes it, is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think critical race theory.

In other words, the current moral panic surrounding critical race theory is an explicit attempt by conservatives to motivate their political base using the worst argument in the world. Just as certain lazy libertarians like to yell Taxation is theft! with the goal of getting people to transfer their instinctive dislike of theft to taxation, conservatives are hoping people will transfer their instinctive dislike of whatever critical race theory summons in their minds upon incantation to whatever sociopolitical changes they wish to fight.

This sort of rhetorical maneuvering was easier during the Cold War when communism was an obvious villain and partisan hacks could claim everything they opposed was cultural Marxism. The Soviet Union, however, collapsed three decades ago. The best Marxism can do nowadays is mildly annoy everyone with depressing prop comedy and obnoxious teens on Twitter. The idea that a borderline-suicidal stand-up comic and COMRADE_HOXHADIST1945s twelve followers on some social media platform are going to somehow undermine anything more consequential than a household chore schedule sounds downright delusional at this point.

As complaining about cultural Marxism does little to motivate anyone who isnt actively collecting Social Security these days, conservative activists have been searching desperately for an alternative. This isnt the first time they have looked for one within the musty halls of the academic wing of the social justice movement. Brietbart.com, for example, has an entire section devoted to intersectionality. Why anyone should be worried about intersectionality, however, always requires an explanation. Critical race theory merely requires an imagination.

So what is critical race theory?

Again, Im not going to pretend I know, but I can tell you the Washington Post has a handy explainer of the concept, as well as conservative reactions to it. Thats admittedly not a primary source, however nor, for that matter, is Citizens for Renewing Americas explanation, which explicitly draws the connection in the conservative universe between cultural Marxism and critical race theory.

Subtle.

On the other hand, I can tell you were not going to find out what critical race theory is by attaching body cameras to teachers so we can all collectively surveil one others children in their classrooms. Frankly, advocating for widespread, ubiquitous surveillance of our children sounds like something straight out of George Orwells 1984 in other words, it sounds like cultural Marxism, except that its being advocated for by people who claim to be conservative. Granted, this wouldnt be the first time communist and far-right interests allied with each other, but it still seems a little counterproductive.

What I can tell you is that the term critical race theory is searched for far more often than intersectionality these days, especially (though not exclusively) in Republican-leaning states. Thats why, if I had to guess, critical race theory appears to be the latest pavlovian bell conservatives are ringing to raise funds and crowds by grabbing the attention of people whose minds race whenever they hear someone talk about race. If our school board meetings are any indication, that bell is ringing loud and clear.

Somebody should make a theory about how and why that works.

David Colborne was active in the Libertarian Party for two decades. During that time, he blogged intermittently on his personal blog, ran for office twice as a Libertarian candidate, and served on the Executive Committee for his state and county Libertarian Party chapters. He is now the father of two sons, an IT manager, and a registered non-partisan voter. You can follow him on Twitter @DavidColborne or email him at [emailprotected].

View post:
Thinking critically about critical race theory - The Nevada Independent

History shows Libertarian ideas are winning

Since the founding of the United States of America (The Great Experiment) the world has evolved from where only Nobles had rights, were landowners, and there were no free markets. Today, the world generally has religious freedoms, personal freedoms, freedoms of speech, property rights, free markets, and the rule of law prevails.

For most of our worlds history, no country had those things. There was little to no economic growth, human rights or justice. Emperors, kings, and dictators ruled, enslaving people, stealing property, and waging wars that would last for decades.

Around the time of the founding of the United States as if by magic, limited government, property rights and free markets appeared in the world. There was a sudden increase in markets expanding, common people could petition local authorities for justice, more tolerance of different religious beliefs.

Today, people who wish to stir the pot tell us that the poor get poorer, however, this is not true. To put things into a better economic perspective, a poor American today is 30 times richer than a noble (rich person) was when the United States was founded.

When private property is allowed and protected and markets are free, innovation happens in ways that allow ordinary people to live better. Over time, that innovation multiplies. It is why, today, most of us live better than emperors, kings and dictators once did.

Emperors, kings and dictators had hundreds of servants who prepared them meals. Today, my supermarket offers me a buffet they could not imagine. Thanks to trade, property rights and free markets, each one of us lives as if we had more servants than kings.

The direction of history over these past 200 years or so has been in the direction of free markets, personal freedom, human rights, rule of law, democratic governance, and that is what Libertarians advocate.

As a Libertarian, I also advocate teaching people correct principles then letting them govern themselves.

-- Don Butterfield, Salt Lake City

See the original post:
Letter: History shows Libertarian ideas are winning | Letters to the Editor | heraldextra.com - Daily Herald

The position of Libertarians as it relates to the variously available COVID-19 vaccines is that we must take them so long as we are physically fit and able to do so. We should do so not because of any mandates by the state, nor from any coercive measures by the mechanization of capital. We should do so because we, as free people, must accept that only we, as responsible members of society, can reduce the harm caused by the plague that has taken so many of our loved ones.

The great Libertarian philosopher Mikhail Bakunin said,In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult the architect or the engineer. ("What Is Authority?," 1871). Therefore, it follows that in the matter of public health and vaccines, one must consult the scientific authority of doctors and public health professionals. No person who is a layperson can claim to know the effects of vaccines on the inner workings of the human body. This knowledge belongs to the specialists, and to their knowledge we must defer - not because of government or business mandates, but because we are a free people capable of managing society ourselves.

We should show those who would seek to use the crisis to impose a deepening authoritarian bend in our society that their hunger for power and control is unwarranted because we are a capable, responsible community able to manage and direct our own affairs and to deal with various crises as they arise. To those who draw skepticism to the vaccines because of propaganda online: remember that those in control of the authoritarian mechanisms of society have just as much reason to end the crisis as do the working classes - even though theirs may be because they wish to continue enriching themselves from our labor, while ours is a genuine interest in the protection of our community. Nonetheless, the interest is there, and so we should place our trust, just as our masters have, in the specialists and their cures.

So I call on Libertarians of good conscience to make the right choice, and to get the vaccine. Do it as responsible, free people, do it to spite authoritarians if you must, but do it you should, so that we may continue on with our lives.

Brandon Wald lives in Fargo.

This letter does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.

More:
Letter: The Libertarian position is pro-vaccine - INFORUM

THERE may be signs of green shoots in the economy, but for the man charged with spearheading its recovery, significant challenges lie ahead.

On the libertarian end of the DUP and a natural back-bencher, Paul Frew will now be responsible for leading that recovery with a department suffering from a high staff vacancy rate.

What he has going for him, is real world knowledge of business and the private sector.

The son of a lorry driver turned newsagent, the Broughshane MLA spent 20 years as an electrician and foreman, and once quipped that his university was the building sites of Belfast.

As familiar as he is with negotiating scaffolding, the 46-year-old now takes charge of the economic recovery effort as the UK Government prepares to dismantle the scaffolding and supports propping up the norths economy since March 2020.

The furlough scheme will begin winding down next month, with all support due to be withdrawn by the end of September. The last official count from HMRC showed 90,000 jobs still registered under the scheme at the end of April.

An escalation in redundancies appears inevitable in the second half of 2021.

Protections around company insolvency will be also begin winding down from July 1, with analysts warning of a surge in business failures.

The incoming economy minister appears well aware of what lies ahead.

Perhaps with his new job in mind (and possibly his seven years as a part-time RIR soldier), Paul Frew told an assembly budgetary debate on Monday that the economy is in a phoney war period, warning that business is on life support.

As a self-professed libertarian, Mr Frew no doubt has his own views on the economy. He appearsto have strong views on energy policy,particularly around Irish state-owned Eirgrid's involvement withthe Northern Ireland electricity grid.

We know hes not a fan of lockdowns. As recently as yesterday, he told the assembly that restrictions should never be classed as the default position.

We should always strive to remove them, where and when we can, in order to allow people to live their lives and get on with their business."

He tweeted on Tuesday that he hopes to outline his own economic plans very soon.

Whether he takes his cue from Diane Dodds remains to be seen.

The outgoing minister was in mid-flow rolling out a series of new strategic papers for various aspects of the economy over the next 10 years when she was cut off at the knees.

Unlike the incumbent, Paul Frew won't have 1 billion of extra cash from London to save businesses from dying.

But what he can thank Diane Dodds for is a freshly printed 29-page economic action plan, which the executive has already agreed to fund to the tune of 270 million.

The greater part of that plan involves the 140m high street voucher scheme, due to roll out in September.

For a party in dire need of some positive PR, a 100 cash card in the pocket of every adult in Northern Ireland cant come soon enough.

Continue reading here:
Paul Frew: The libertarian electrician now charged with sparking the north's economic recovery - The Irish News

By Brendan LaChance on June 8, 2021

CASPER, Wyo. The Libertarian Party along with other activists and community members will be delivering two marijuana-related ballot initiatives to the Wyoming Secretary of State on Friday.

One initiative would legalize medical marijuana for personal use in Wyoming. The other would decriminalize marijuana for personal use.

85% of Wyoming residents support legalizing medical marijuana, according to a University of Wyoming Survey and Analysis Center (WYSAC) survey conducted in Oct. 2020. 75% support decriminalizing marijuana in Wyoming and 54% are in favor of full legalization.

Article continues below...

The Wyoming state legislature has introduced cannabis decriminalization bills on and off for 30 years; however, this year was the first year the legislation was voted out of committee (6-3), a Tuesday press release announcing the ballot initiatives states. Unfortunately, the legislative session year ended before the full House could take up the bill for a vote. These ballot initiatives would allow the people of Wyoming to vote on these issues directly in the general election of 2022.

Organizers of the ballot initiatives will hold a press conference at 1 pm Friday, June 11 on the steps of the Wyoming State Capitol, located at 200 West 24th Street in Cheyenne.

People speaking at the press conference will include:

Wyoming NORML Executive DirectorBennett Sondeno said in an email on Monday that they are also collaborating on the ballot initiatives with the Libertarian Party, TRUCE out of Utah and the Wyoming Patients Coalition.

Related Stories from Oil City News:

Report a correction or typo.

Link:
Libertarian Party submitting two marijuana ballot initiatives in Wyoming ahead of 2022 election - Oil City News

Tired of the Republican Party? Fed up with the Democrats? Dont despair. There are dozens of political parties out there begging for your attention, including many you probably never knew existed.

At a time of increasing dissatisfaction with the major parties, voters appear to be shopping for alternatives, both nationally and on the state level.

People join third parties for a variety of reasons. Some are dissatisfied with the parties in power. Others are looking for an organization that better represents their personal political philosophies. Some want to push a single issue.

Regardless of the reason, political parties primarily exist to get candidates elected who share ideological and policy goals. On that front, nontraditional parties continue to be crushed by red and blue behemoths.

The long-established Libertarian, Green and Constitution parties are well known. In fact, Libertarian Gary Johnson did better in 2016 than any third-party presidential candidate since Ross Perot under the Reform Party 20 years earlier. State-level minor party candidates have also made inroads in some states, though it hasnt necessarily resulted in election wins.

But there is also a host of more obscure or single-issue parties on the menu of American politics.

Take the Transhumanist Party. Trans what? Transhumanist.

The party, according to its website, supports significant life extension achieved through the progress of science and technology; a cultural, societal, and political atmosphere informed and animated by reason, science, and secular values; and efforts to use science, technology, and rational discourse to reduce and eliminate various existential risks to the human species.

Then theres the United States Pirate Party. It has nothing to do with Capt. Jack Sparrow or that faux holiday in September where people say argh or matey. It does, however, have something to do with piracy. The Pirate Party aims to reform intellectual property laws, foster true governmental transparency, and protect privacy and civil liberties.

No political party outside of the Democrats and Republicans can currently claim a member of Congress, though there are two independents in the U.S. Senate, both of whom caucus with the Democrats.

Talk of a third major political party heated up recently among some prominent conservatives who are disillusioned with the fractured GOP, including 2016 independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin, Should they form a new party, the odds of putting someone in office are decidedly against them.

A Gallup poll released in February found support for a third political party in the United States at a high point. The survey found 62% of adults say the parties do such a poor job representing the American people that a third party is needed.

The poll was conducted before news reports that dozens of government officials in prior Republican administrations were discussing an anti-Donald Trump third political party, according to Gallup.

Some Republican voters in Utah are concerned about Trumps influence in the GOP, said Chris Karpowitz, co-director of the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University.

The U.S. Capitol insurrection and, to a lesser extent, the booing of Sen. Mitt Romney at the Utah GOP convention, have raised worries about where the party is headed and what it stands for, he said. The events of the Trump era has resulted in young Utahns being less attached to the Republican Party, he said.

Whether that decreased willingness to identify with the Republican Party benefits third parties is an open question, Karpowitz said.

Nontraditional parties might be more attractive to some who are not ready to become Democrats, but most voters care about electability, and thats where third parties struggle, he said.

Only one third-party candidate, William Carney, has won a U.S. House election since 1960. New Yorkers voted Carney in as a member of the Conservative Party of New York State in 1979. He switched to the Republican Party in 1985.

Another Conservative Party candidate in New York, James Buckley, served one term in the U.S. Senate before losing reelection as a Republican in 1977. Former Sen. Joe Lieberman won reelection in a party created by his supporters, Connecticut for Lieberman, after losing the 2006 Democratic nomination.

The success rate in the modern era has not been good on a national level for third-party candidates.

But what about on a state level?

The track record isnt good there either, with one notable exception.

A Deseret News review of 50 state legislatures showed only four current officeholders from outside the two major parties a Libertarian in Wyoming, a Libertarian in Maine who switched from the GOP after being elected, a Working Families Party member in New York and member of the Independence Party of New York. There are also a few independents here and there.

But the Vermont General Assembly has more members from a minor party than the rest of the statehouses combined.

The Vermont Progressive Party is perhaps the most effective nontraditional party in the country.

Seven members of the Vermont House of Representatives and two state senators are Progressives. The Vermont House formally recognizes the Progressive caucus alongside the Democrats and Republicans.

In addition, the party holds a plurality on the 12-member Burlington City Council, with six members. (Four Democrats and two independents maintain the other seats). Progressives also held the mayors office for nearly 30 years.

Weve been successful because we primarily focus on local and legislative races, said Josh Wronski, Vermont Progressive Party executive director.

Though it homes in on local races, the Progressive Party does claim a big name: Bernie Sanders. Hes listed as a Progressive endorsed independent on the partys website.

Work closely with him, Wronski said. He accepts our nomination and politely chooses to run as an independent.

The Vermont Progressive Party also does well partly because of a thing called fusion voting. The practice gives candidates the ability to run on multiple party tickets. The parties are listed separately on the ballot but votes for the candidate are pooled. Only eight states in the country allow electoral fusion or multi-party nominations.

Progressives in the Vermont legislature are officially listed as Progressive/Democrat. Another seven members are listed as Democrat/Progressive.

Wronski said fusion voting has been a good way for the party to reach voters who have the perception that there are only Democrats and Republicans.

It has been a really good way to break through that and say were willing to work with not necessarily the Democratic establishment leaders but with Democratic voters who havent been exposed to the kind of work were doing, he said. That has absolutely been effective.

In Utah, Jim Bennett, the son of the late Republican Sen. Bob Bennett, and BYU political science professor Richard Davis, a Democrat, grew weary of extreme views co-opting their parties. They and other disaffected Republicans and Democrats formed the United Utah Party in 2017 to carve out a middle ground in the state.

As of this month, the party had only 2,501 registered members, according to the Utah elections office. Registered Republicans number more than 909,000, and Democrats 270,000 but there are 556,000 unaffiliated voters in the state.

Weve got a niche here that weve established, said Davis, who served two terms as the centrist partys chairman. His involvement in the fledgling party spurred him to look deeper into third parties resulting in a book last year titled Beyond Donkeys and Elephants: Minor Political Parties in Contemporary American Politics.

A United Utah candidate has yet to win an election. Party candidates captured a slightly smaller percentage of the overall vote in the state in 2020 compared to 2018, as the COVID-19 pandemic hampered their campaign efforts.

While the percentage was smaller, the number of votes cast for United Utah hopefuls was up last year, including more than 173,000 for its candidate for state auditor.

We saw that as progress given the fact that were still not known, Davis said.

Davis said hed like to have fusion voting in Utah to help get more moderate candidates elected to office rather than those who appeal to the more extreme Republican and Democratic bases.

In states where its used, third parties typically do better, Davis said. Unfortunately, theres not much encouragement on the part of Republicans and Democrats to do that.

Davis wonders if former Utah Rep. Ben McAdams, a conservative Democrat, would have benefitted from nominations in the Democratic and United Utah parties. He also thinks GOP Sen. Mitt Romney could have a sort of hedge with a United Utah nomination if he were to lose a Republican primary.

Fusion voting has popped up in the Utah Legislature a couple of times in the past, but never went anywhere, said Justin Lee, state elections director.

While the United Utah Party often inserts itself in debates on the issues of the day, its voice, like most third parties, goes largely ignored.

Too often the media can overlook the efforts of parties like us, Wronksi said.

For example, in 2008 the Vermont Progressive Party candidate for governor finished second in a three-way race. But network news outlets listed him as other next to the Democrat and the Republican even though he bested one of the major party candidates.

Some minor parties have tried to find strength in numbers. At least nine independent parties scattered across the country merged to form the Alliance Party over the past three years. Davis said the United Utah Party declined to join because it didnt care for the new partys presidential nominee and it prefers to concentrate its efforts on state and local races.

A third partys existence can also be tenuous. Many states require political parties to win a certain percentage of the overall vote in an election to maintain status as a recognized party. The Moderate Party in Rhode Island failed to do so in 2019, leaving officials to notify about 4,000 registered party members that they were now unaffiliated.

And whether you call them third parties, nontraditional parties or minor parties, not everything has to be red or blue.

Giraffe Party, anyone?

Original post:
Third parties in the U.S. What options do voters have? - Deseret News

I recently wrote a well-received piece about the political positions of the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW), and a ferocious discussion erupted in the comments regarding Dave Rubins political philosophy.

To a modern liberal, Libertarian basically means someone who cares only about themselves.

Rubin calls himself a Classical Liberal, but it turns out that people on Twitter and Reddit arent sure exactly what that means. Rubin himself says hes undergone a Conservative Transformation lately, leading many liberals to claim hes simply become a Libertarian. Meanwhile, Libertarians are saying those are completely different things.

I was confused myself.

A cursory look at the definitions of Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism had them looking nearly identical. So I decided to do a deep dive on the differences. Heres what I found, combined with my analysis of the situation.

Classical liberalism is the philosophy of political liberty from the perspective of a vast history of thought. Libertarianism is the philosophy of liberty from the perspective of its modern revival from the late sixties-early seventies on.

Mario Rizzo

Over the last week or so I watched a ton of Dave Rubin videos, and what I found will likely upset readers both on the left and the right.

First, I dont think Rubin is being academically or politically accurate in branding himself as a Classical Liberal. And from what Ive seen, he isnt actually claiming this.

Dave is a bit confused right now, but you probably would be too if you were gay, Jewish, previously liberal, and were currently going through a conservative awakening.

Hes not a Conservative in the common use of the word, and he doesnt want to use the term Libertarian because it has negative connotations. So I think hes reached back into history for a loftier-sounding synonym that doesnt make him feel as uncomfortable.

I make an argument here that the IDW is basically a collection of upset liberals looking for honest conversation.

Thats the part that will upset readers on the right. The part that will upset readers on the left is that Ive yet to find evidence of actual hatred or malice in his videos. Yes, he gives props to Trumpwho I cannot standand yes, hes all over the place on healthcare and climate change. But to me he is behaving exactly like a liberal with a severe case of PTSDnot like an evil or hateful person. I see him as good-natured and wrong, which is much different than someone like Rush Limbaugh or Trump.

Rubin is using Classical Liberalism because it gives liberals a tiny moment of confusion before they attack, but its really just new packaging for his individualand very fluidbrand of Libertarianism.

In short, Classical Liberalism is being used by some on the right today as a somewhat pseudo-intellectual way of claiming that their unwillingness to use taxation and government programs to help the ailing and unfortunate masses is somehow a superior policy because 1), the phrase is old, and 2) because the liber in Classical Liberalism (insert Kung-fu here) means freedom.

(eagle sound)

So its not that theyre selfish or uncaringits just that they value freedom from government more than they value helping people they dont know (and who should be helping themselves anyway).

But dont call them Libertarians. Theyre Classical Liberals.

(wink)

Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism came from different times, and had different catalysts. The former was removing the oppression of theocracies, monarchies, and the very notion of it being permissible for a small group to rule over the masses, while the latter is addressing the overreaches of imperialism, bureaucracy, and progressivism.

The similarity is that both are movements to reduce the influence of powerful, centralized authorities over individualswhich is why both of them have freedom- (liber) at their center.

The issue is that not all centralized authorities are equally good or bad. While it might be great to be free of the King of England, thats not the same as desiring to be free of taxes to pay for public health and education.

Both terms are colored by perspective and context. Gaining freedom from something implies that its bad, but that judgment depends on who you ask. For some, taxation is a path to an ideal society, and for others its legalized government oppression.

Rubin is attempting to borrow the righteousness of the term Classical Liberalism to fight modern battles. They dont agree with how tax money is being spent in modern, 21st-century societies, and instead of calling themselves Libertarians (which makes them sound selfish), they prefer to be Classical Liberals.

Its as if the term will somehow remove the stain of selfishness, and replace it with the heroism of musketeers opposing the British.

Link:
The Difference Between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism

For the final episode of The Daily Dive for the trading week, we sit down with Todd Bubba Horwitz of BubbaTrading.com. Bubba joins us this afternoon to discuss the latest in the crypto space including recent comments by Elon Musk and the current regulatory risk as well as the topics of hot commodities and recent action or inaction by the Fed.

The founder and chief strategist of BubbaTrading.com, Todd has spent nearly four decades in the financial industry. An original market maker in the OEX Trading Pit at the Chicago Board of Options Exchange, he comes highly experienced in the world of trading. Now, Bubba looks to provide mentorship and education to all levels of traders and investors by teaching them the ins and outs of professional trading.

You can catch more of Bubba atBubbaTrading.com, where he provides daily market content, as well as on Twitter,@Bubba_Tradingand YouTube,@The Bubba Show.

The author has no securities or affiliations related to any organization mentioned. Not a recommendation to buy or sell. Always do additional research and consult a professional before purchasing a security. The author holds no licenses.

As the founder of The Deep Dive, Jay is focused on all aspects of the firm. This includes operations, as well as acting as the primary writer for The Deep Dives stock analysis. In addition to The Deep Dive, Jay performs freelance writing for a number of firms and has been published on Stockhouse.com and CannaInvestor Magazine among others.

Read more here:
Bubba Horwitz: Crypto Is The Currency Of The Libertarian And Free Markets The Daily Dive - The Deep Dive

Don Devines ambitious new volume is that rare published work that delivers an even larger and broader message than its title promises. A focus on the practice, history, and ethics of capitalism would itself be enough for several volumes, but Devines work is nothing less than a history of Western civilization, including the origins of human society, religion, and morality itself. Readers looking for a digestible survey of business ethics or a mere guide to socially responsible investing will quickly find themselves in over their heads.

As the titles tensionand the covers bold half-orange, half-silver designsuggests, we are in for a study of dichotomies, in which twin opposing visions struggle for dominance. Starting his narrative in ancient times, Devine describes the early cosmological societies, like ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Persia, in which religious belief and civic life were seamlessly combined. These societies were challenged by the rise of Christianity, which emphasized the importance of individual belief and acknowledged the distinction, and occasional antagonism, between religious and civil authority.

The Reformation presents another great dichotomy of religious and political legitimacy. Martin Luther launched a revolution against the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, but did not attempt to turn his theology into a systematic anti-Catholic movement. As Devine writes, some of Luthers followers wanted to go further than he, including in endorsing radical social and religious changes that horrified Luther himself. By analogy, Luther is more like Americas Founding Fathers, while the Anabaptists, who wanted to abolish private property, were more like the Jacobins of the French Revolution.

More familiar to students of American political theory is the dichotomy to which Devine pays the most attentionthat between John Locke and Edmund Burke on one side and Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire on the other. Locke and Burke, and their intellectual offspring, believed in a practical approach to morality and politics that encompasses both reasoned analysis and a respect for tradition, while the Rousseauians insisted on a rigidly rational system in which any competing source of legitimacy, including religion and tradition, must be attacked and excluded.

With this philosophical dichotomy established, most of modern political history can be fitted into one or the other side of the aisle, however imperfectly. The Lockeans are mostly conservatives and centrists, while the rationalists are mostly socialists, progressives, fascists, and most contemporary leftists. This framing is not unique to Devines work, even in recent conservative writing. Thomas Sowells A Conflict of Visions (1987, 2007) and The Vision of the Anointed (1995) are informed by a similar philosophical dichotomy, which Sowell refers to as an antagonism between the Lockean constrained vision of politics and the Voltaire-ish unconstrained vision. (Ironically, Steven Pinker, whom Devine criticizes as a materialist intellectual who undervalues religious faith, described a version of Sowells constrained vs. unconstrained tensionas tragic vs. utopianin his own 2002 book, The Blank Slate.)

Devines impressive career is on full display, as he makes several references to his tenure leading the Office of Personnel Management under Ronald Reagan and the almost-half century anniversary of his Nixon-era analysis The Political Culture of the United States: The Influence of Member Values on Regime Maintenance (1972). Devine moves confidently between the original texts of early modern and Enlightenment figures like Locke, Montesquieu, and Burke, to more recent writers like Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin, and Friedrich Hayek, to contemporary political authors, including Jonah Goldberg, Charles C.W. Cooke, and Yuval Levin, connecting them, for the most part, to one of the two main sides of the political philosophy divide.

That said, Devines wide-ranging mastery of political theory and public policy may also be one of the books few drawbacks. The Enduring Tension jumps between discussions of the origins of social cooperation in prehistoric times and the metaphysical nature of the human soul to skeptical assessments of anti-discrimination statutes, civil service reform, and common core curriculum standards. Conservative and libertarian readers will likely experience few disagreements, but the rollercoaster of emphasis from the eternal and sublime to the recent and specific will likely cause some readers whiplash.

The citations also seem to cover everything that has crossed Devines desk in the last several decades, including much of his own published work. The index starts with Thomas Paines Age of Reason, Friedrich Nietzsches The Anti-Christ, and several references to Aristotle, but also includes plenty of works by modern pundits like Juan Williams and Fareed Zakaria, and even several of Devines own columns for Newsmax. This isnt a dissertation, of course, but the range of sources is certainly heterogeneous, to say the least.

Putting aside the authorsoccasionally fascinatingside excursions into topics from musical theory to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, however, his championing of the Lockean view of political theory is relatively straightforward. A free and prosperous society needs more of the things that made the nation great in the first place: limited government, free markets, and individual rightsand a belief in a creator that is the ultimate source of those rights.

There is a long list of ways in which attacks on those institutions have produced misery and failure. Devine covers many of them, but pays little attention to attacks on the market economy itselfa surprising lack of emphasis for a book with the word capitalism in the title. Progressive critics of markets have long sought to undermine the private control of capital and bring the alleged robber barons of the industrial world to heel under the guidance of enlightened expert opinion. But we dont hear about many of those developments.

From the New Deal to the birth of the corporate social responsibility movement in the 1950s to the rise of anti-capitalist environmentalism in the 1970s and the emergence of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) theory in the mid-2000s, shareholders rights of property, speech, and association have been under assault for some time. Those efforts, including new statutes, regulations, and guidelines from quasi-governmental institutions, have aimed at eroding the right to dispose of ones property and subjecting economic activity to supervision and approval by supposed expert officials.

Developments like these may be less grand in scope than our eroding national commitment to Enlightenment values in general, but they would arguably fit better in a book about the tension between capitalism and morality than some of the (admittedly persuasive) examples of economic and social policy failure that Devine includes.

The rationalistic progressive assumption that all will basically agree in the end is simply wrong.

Several other contemporary authors have written books more closely focused on defending the moral status of capitalism per se. The late economist David Henderson championed the traditional understanding of property against leftist bureaucracy in Misguided Virtue: False Notions of Corporate Social Responsibility (2001) and The Role of Business in the Modern World (2004). The University of Notre Dames James Otteson presented a traditional, Adam Smith-focused defense of modern capitalism in Honorable Business: A Framework for Business in a Just and Humane Society (2019). More recently (and more didactically), finance professional and political commentator Steve Soukup has taken on the socialization of corporate America in The Dictatorship of Woke Capital: How Political Correctness Captured Big Business (2021), covering some of the same intellectual developments as Devine, from Rousseau to Marx to Woodrow Wilson and the modern administrative state.

The Enduring Tension is fascinating, informative, substantive, and entertaining, though it covers so much territory that it is difficult to properly categorize. Yet, it is worth the price of admission for a few deep passages alone. For example, Devine strikes at the condescension of much leftist posturing when he writes, Americans disagree about moral values and governance. The rationalistic progressive assumption that all will basically agree in the end is simply wrong. He also gives a good summary of fusionism when he says, Something distinguishes both conservatives and libertarians from the progressive Left: they do not insist on telling people hundreds or thousands of miles away how to go about their lives.

Finally, though, it is his emphasis on the core institutions of our civilization that contains his most vital message: The moral assumptions of the Western traditional mythos, in which individuals have been created free and equal, are indispensable to legitimizing a pluralist, federalist, traditionalist, capitalist society with free markets and localized powers under a limited central statea society where liberty and order coexist in a creative tension. Our forefathers bequeathed this heritage to us. Lets hope, even at this late date, that we can keep it.

More:
What 'The Enduring Tension' Can Teach Us about the Core Institutions of Our Civilization | Richard Morrison - Foundation for Economic Education