Category Archives: Libertarianism

The 45th House District seat wasn't supposed to be on the April ballot.

Former state Rep. Kip Kendrick was re-elected to the post in November, his final term representing residents in Boone County.

Kendrick, however,announced his decision to leave the position later that month, opting to join Greg Razer, D-Kansas City, as his chief of staff this year.

Gov. Mike Parson called the special election Jan. 27, and Libertarian candidate Glenn Nielsen and Democratic candidate David Tyson Smith on Tuesday will vie for votesto become the 45th District state representative.

Nielsen, a member of the Missouri Libertarian Party for over two decades, decided to run after the events of the death of George Floyd last summer and the economic downfall due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

More: Columbia City Council Sixth Ward election preview: Minchew, Merriman challenge incumbent Peters

Smith is a local attorney at Smith & Parnell. His potential election would make him the first Black legislator to represent Columbia and the first African American legislator elected outside of St. Louis or Kansas City.

Here is a summary of where thecandidates stand on a variety of issues:

The state legislature last week voted downa bill aimed at restricting the power of local health departments during health emergencies, such as the coronavirus pandemic.

Local control is imperative, Nielsen contends,but not health department orders instead he wants individuals to make decisions for themselves.

I am for local control but with proper checks and balances regarding COVID and other things, Nielsen said. I think individuals, families and businesses should have access to all the available information, recommendations and make decisions on what they feel is the best interest for them for their health and business.

That philosophy extends to COVID-19 regulations for businesses,mandates for citizensand strict property rights in regardto concentrated animal feeding operations.

More: School board candidates talk free speech, transgender student-athletes in final forum before election

Forcing a solution on the public generates resentment, Nielsen said.

Nielsen supports measures to require voter identification. The better the ability to validatevotes and auditvotes, the less polarization Missouri will face in future elections, Nielsen said.

"I agree that voters should have to provide ID when they vote," Nielsen said.

Nielsen advocated the state should waive fees associated with photo identifications to help create more access to voting if photo ID laws are enforced. He also believes charitable organizations will step up to help pay for additional costs.

The Missouri House did notinclude funding for Medicaid expansionin the passed budget proposal Thursday. Nielsen sees Medicaid and its expansion as a band-aid for the real issues in health care for Missourians.

More: 45th District candidates Smith, Nielsen discuss voting rights, local control, Medicaid expansion

The real problem is underscored by the excessive cost of health care, Nielsen said. That is the real underlying problem. Medicaid is just the band-aid that the government tries to apply to that problem. You need to address the problem with health care.

The Certificate of Need from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services and added regulations over health care are driving prices up, according to Nielsen. The CON is a way to protect larger health systems from competition, Nielsen said.

More: Q&A: Columbia school board candidates share their views on pandemic, racial disparities and isolation rooms

Nielsen reported less than $500 of contributions and expenditures during the election in a report to theMissouri Ethic Commissions on March 28.

Missouri residents voted in favor for Medicaid expansion last August, and ever since, Smith has been wary of it actually receiving funding. Those fears were realized this week when the House passed a budget without funding for Medicaid expansion.

Smith always knew it was gong to be a fight in Jefferson City to implement the wishes of Missouri voters. He's hopeful he'll be able to advocate to secure funding if elected.

The voters of Missouri voted to have Medicaid expansion, and the majority is ignoring them, Smith said. ... For them to cut it against the will of the voters is hard to fathom. People need to rise up and call their legislators.

Smith's campaign, which started with an emphasis on COVID-19, has shifted to Medicaid expansion fundingand voting rights.

More: Boone County clerk to offer expanded Saturday hours

Smith has been an outspoken adversary of voter ID laws that require photo identification. Those provisions have nothing to do with voter fraud, Smith said.

The majority knows in Missouri and in America that if everybody votes, theyre not going to win, Smith said. If everybody votes, theyre not going to stay in power. They are doing everything in their power to suppress the vote.

... We are not far behind Georgia. House Bill 334 requires photo IDs to vote, which will significantly reduce the number of people that can vote. Every layer you add just reduces the voter pool.

More: Who leads in campaign funds for the Columbia school board race

A potential wayfair tax is another measure Smith plans to support if elected. It's a way to level the playing field for local brick and mortar businesses, according to Smith. Missouri municipalities need the wayfair fix to help generate more revenue, Smith said.

Smith also supports a potential increase in gas taxes in Missouri.The state legislature passed a bill aimed at increasing the state's gas tax by 12.5 cents per gallon by 2025 earlier this month.

Im not opposed to the gas tax, Smith said. Itll be the first gas tax increase in 25 years. Its about two and a half cents over five years … and allowspeople to get a rebate if they keep their receipt. ... I think Missourians are ready for it."

The state "desperately" needs that money to help repair I-70, Smith said.

Smith raised $17,153 during this campaign cycle, according to Missouri Ethics Commission's April Report. He had $8,526 on hand on Friday.

Here is the original post:
Glenn Nielsen and David Tyson Smith race toward the 45th District special election - Columbia Daily Tribune

Time to reopen AmericaIt has been one year since America shut down because of COVID-19. The closures have devoured our small businesses, resulting in a sharp rise in unemployment. Suicide rates have gone up as well. The problem is, some of our national leaders just don't seem to care anymore. They choose to incite racism as a weapon in order to get what they want. They want to remove our statues by any means necessary while doing absolutely nothing about riots or businesses being destroyed by perpetrators. They want to silence the Americans by erasing or canceling as much of our culture as they can. They want to steal our Second Amendment, our right to bear arms.And the saddest part? We, as Americans, are allowing this to happen. It is time for us to grow some spines and backbones. We need to tell our national leaders how extremely disappointed we are with them. I will not allow them to destroy America or let our U.S. Constitution crumble.Lastly, I want no more masks or social distancing ever again; reopen America now!Joshua DealyCarson CityPlain as dayLetter regarding Republican voter suppression/cheating #14. Never stops.Anyone with half a Trump brain, and paying some attention to life (Appeal columnists perhaps), has seen the non-stop assault by Republican-led state legislatures on the voting rights of Americans. Beyond stunning and appalling, this latest barrage on our civil liberties is the last ditch effort of a minority ideology doing whatever it takes to keep power.Face it folks, being anti-fill in the blank just ain't playing like it used to. So what else is there to do but cheat! Big time!The recent signing of abhorrent voter suppression laws by the governor of Georgia is beyond comprehension. It goes without saying that polling places will be reduced to one per 100,000 voters. Mail ballots/drop boxes will be harder to find than Ted Cruz telling the truth.And finally, as a late-night talk show fella from the past once said, I believe Jack Parr, "I kid you not." It will be against the law to offer food or drink to those Americans waiting in line for hours to vote. I can only imagine that Brian Kemp will reduce unemployment by hiring, monitoring and patrolling the election process.I can see it plain as day.The party of hate, the party of the big lie (Biden won, dudes), the party of insurrection... has gone beyond disgusting.Rick Van AlfenCarson CityBiden created border crisisRegarding Robert Simpsons letter criticizing my recounting of President Trumps accomplishments: Most importantly, Trump had implemented successful measures to control our southern border, starting with the wall. Illegal immigrants were turned away, asylum applicants were fairly treated, and remain in Mexico allowed an orderly process manageable by the Border Patrol and ICE.Now, the exact same libs who were hysterical about kids in cages (an Obama creation) support Bidens political weaponizing of illegal immigration. Coyotes and drug smugglers sexually abuse children on their journey north; mothers are sending their little girls to the border with Plan B pills. The surviving kids who get lucky are vaccinated for COVID, then are dumped onto our military bases while theyre still contagious, putting our soldiers and DOD civilians at risk.The Border Patrol is overwhelmed by sprawling camps with scabies, lice, the flu, COVID, crime, and drugs on a scale never before seen. Kamala Harris, who was appointed to be in charge of this ongoing human tragedy, has yet to visit the border.The Biden administration deliberately created this crisis because their goal is to grant millions of illegal immigrants U.S. citizenship and full voting rights to create a permanent voting Democrat majority.If Simpson thinks this is an improvement over Trumps border policy, in the words of his Uncle Joe, cmon man!Lynn MuzzyMindenLibertarian Party plans to become more visibleLast November, one-third of Douglas County voters surprised the status quo by supporting a Libertarian candidate for commissioner. That's more than any non-Republican candidate has won in this county in decades.Libertarians come from all political persuasions, from extreme liberal to ultra-conservative. What they have in common is the desire to pursue their interests, operate businesses, educate their children, and strive for prosperity without interference from intrusive government regulations.Basically, the party's mantra is "Do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone." As simple as that sentence is, it seems to be a radical idea in this age when both the GOP and the ever-more-progressive Democratic Party want to control everyone's health care, business activities, and use of private property. Libertarians just want to be left alone and allow you the same freedom.If you're one of those who want an alternative, investigate the Libertarians, either on Facebook or http://www.lpnevada.org. Or come to the next meeting April 23 at 6 p.m. at Cook'd in Minden.Meanwhile, be on the lookout for Libertarians at local events, fairs, farmers' markets, wine walks, anywhere where you can meet and discuss issues with people who want to return America to a time where people said, "it's a free country" rather than "there oughta be a law."Sue CauhapeMinden

See original here:
Letters to the Editor for March 31, 2021 | Serving Carson City for over 150 years - Nevada Appeal

In an interesting recent article, Dartmouth economist Meir Kohn describes how he gradually shifted from being a socialist to eventually becoming a libertarian. A key role was his experience of living on a kibbutz, the famed Israeli socialist agricultural settlement:

A kibbutz is a commune of a few hundred adults, plus kids, engaged primarily in agriculture but also in light industry and tourism. Members work wherever they are assigned, although preferences are taken into account. Instead of receiving pay, members receive benefits in kind: they live in assigned housing, they eat in a communal dining hall, and their children are raised communally in children's houses, and can visit with their parents for a few hours each day. Most property is communal except for personal items such as clothing and furniture, for which members receive a small budget.

Kibbutz is bottomup socialism on the scale of a small community. It thereby avoids the worst problems of state socialism: a planned economy and totalitarianism. The kibbutz, as a unit, is part of a market economy, and membership is voluntary: you can leave at any time. This is "socialism with a human face" as good as it gets.

Being a member of a kibbutz taught me two important facts about socialism. The first is that material equality does not bring happiness. The differences in our material circumstances were indeed minimal. Apartments, for example, if not identical, were very similar. Nonetheless, a member assigned to an apartment that was a little smaller or a little older than someone else's would be highly resentful. Partly, this was because a person's ability to discern differences grows as the differences become smaller. But largely it was because what we received was assigned rather than earned. It turns out that how you get stuff matters no less than what you get.

The second thing I learned from my experience of socialism was that incentives matter. On a kibbutz, there is no material incentive for effort and not much incentive of any kind. There are two kinds of people who have no problem with this: deadbeats and saints. When a group joined a kibbutz, the deadbeats and saints tended to stay while the others eventually left. I left.

As Kohn explains, the kibbutz experience did not lead him to become a libertarian (that came later). But it did persuade him to reject socialism.

Kohn is far from the only person who reached that conclusion after getting a taste of kibbutz life. Margaret Thatcher's daughter Carol had a similar reaction after spending some months as a volunteer living on a kibbutz. The experience left with her with an "unromantic view of the kibbutz," and (as her father, Denis Thatcher put it), "inoculated [her] against socialism."

Over time, the flaws of the socialist kibbutz model became sufficiently glaring that most kibbutzim gradually abandoned key parts of the socialist model, such as equal pay, rejection of private property, and communal child-raising. See also this 2007 discussion by Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker, who himself spent some time on a kibbutz during its pre-reform heyday.

In 2016, I myself visited a kibbutz as part of a trip to Israel with a group of other American legal academics. Our guide admitted that her community had abandoned several key socialist institutions over time, including communal child-raising. She herselfa socialist Zionist immigrant from Canadadecried these ideological deviations. But much of the community evidently felt they could not be avoided.

For reasons mentioned by Kohn and Becker, kibbutzim present the best-case scenario for socialism. At least initially, most participants were self-selected, highly motivated volunteers. Abuses of power and information problems typical of large-scale socialism were mitigated by the right of exit and the relatively modest scale of the community. Strong support from Israeli government and civil society helped alleviate financial and resource problems. Nonetheless, kibbutzim eventually had to adopt market incentives, expanded property rights, private child-raising, and other "capitalist" institutions in order to survive.

By contrast, Israeli "moshavim" have been much more successful. A moshav is an agricultural settlements with private property in both houses and land, though some equipment and communal facilities (e.g. schools) are collectively owned. On the same 2016 trip, we also visited a moshav in southern Israel. The people we met seemed happy with their institutions. But our guide lamented the fact that "the kibbutz has better PR" than moshavim do. People all over the world have heard of kibbutzim. But hardly anyone outside Israel knows what a moshav is, except for property scholars.

Most moshavniks are far from libertarian. Many, including the ones we met, are left-wingers strongly opposed to the right-wing government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But they do appreciate the benefits of individual and family autonomy, private property, and economic incentives.

The lessons of the kibbutz and the moshav are worth remembering at a time when socialist ideology is enjoying something of a resurgence in much of the Western world. For reasons I summarized here, many of shortcomings of full-blown socialism are also shared by the "democratic socialism" advocated by the likes of Bernie Sanders in the United States and former Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn in Britain.

Read more:
How Living on a Socialist Kibbutz Reveals the Value of Private Property - Reason

A movements strength is sustainable and popular when it is filled with the culture of diversity too. Because movement does not consist of only ideas and advocacy. It consists of the very basic pillar: People. What is the value of any movement, without people?

When I am using the term people here, I am referring to the aggregation of individuals with similar thoughts, contexts and motives. Even if there are dissidents in this movement, revolution is surely inevitable. And without revolution, theres no social scope of evolution! There have been many movements that came up and went aloof, depending on the nature of ideas, tolerance of views, projection of thoughts, monetary subsistence, social acceptance, etc. since nothing stays static in the system. No movement, irrespective of our views, is a waste unless it calls for physical violence and violation of basic human rights/liberties.

Gone are the days when people would be taken for granted. Take a quick look at any part of political history, you will find authoritarians have a tough time with their own people. Although authoritarians have been replaced with a new authoritarian, the rat cycle of fascism does not seem to end because humans are here to stay.

Contextually, libertarians paradise Somalia had been an anarcho-capitalist society for 10 years after the break-up of the Soviet Union but later on, Somalians found the new government eventually. Freedom can be paradoxical too, due to its inherent properties and intrinsic limitations. Yes, its beautiful to know that in this span of 10 years, the free market in Somalia could manage to look after peoples needs. Yumi Kim and Robert Murphy have factually written the same.

Libertarianism, ideologically, is a vast maxim and consists of many schools of thoughts, like Buddhism. There are multiple sects that differ on vital economic questions like wages, property rights, environmental protection, affirmative action, gender equity, queer, abortion, etc. To equate it with only one particular spectrum would weaken the movement, ideology and participation. Thus, it makes sense to observe the diversity and mobilize as per the standpoint experiences, plight and cognitive acceptance.

Contextually, there are libertarians who believe in the minimization of statism in India but on the other hand, support CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act). Now, verily, CAA is another Orwellian statism against citizens and others which does not come at the cost of minimum government and maximum governance.

Then, there are libertarians like me who do not belong to the General or OBC category. And, unfortunately, I do not see more SC/STs in the libertarianism movement in India. For libertarianism to succeed, it has to be diverse like communists (although politburo members on top seats are not dalits or shudras). This equation is vital here; the reason is that representation matters. Its the representation that tells us about diversity and tolerance, otherwise, everyone knows how the Zoroastrianism movement is religiously failing today.

Human nature has always been an output of spontaneous order and chaos, like this whole universe, and thus it is quite incoherent to scientifically assume that human nature is driven by the instincts of monotonous characteristics.

The current epoch of Hindutva, no doubt, has altered the social consciousness of many people, including families, friends, relatives, colleagues, etc. The majority of them seem to be quite angry at dissidents, heretical thoughts, etc. Libertarians too joined this bandwagon effect.

Before 2014, with Mithun Dutta, a staunch Libertarian, I was able to set up the Libertarian community on Facebook and elsewhere. We educated people, especially my students, with learnings of Austrian economics (the major pillar of libertarian school of thoughts), blockchain technology, cryptocurrencies, etc. Libertarians hailed us then. A few years ago, I was featured in the mainstream (TV) media and also in a newspaper for doing graffiti #TaxationIsTheft on the public walls.

I have been interviewed and podcasted by few American libertarians for their YT channels and other platforms, and it went well. Libertarians loved it. When I was a Hindu, I authored Vedic Anarchism, libertarians almost had an orgasm. When I was featured in a Polish conference, a few years ago, on the ideas of liberty, libertarians loved it. But as soon as I turned out to be an anti-Hindutva critic and later since I have expressed my decision to accept my original religion; Buddhism, as Dr Ambedkar would call it, the libertarian clan has come hard on me.

For I am being certified I am not a true libertarian and this and that. Well, I cant help if my litmus test just introduced the distinction between libertarians and lolbertarians. No sort of any libertarian came to support me when BJPs IT cell came down on me on Facebook which ultimately led me to deactivate the account. Now, when I am identifying myself as an Ambedkarite Libertarian on Twitter, I am being judged as if my identity is not eligible in this savarna libertarianism movement.

I know libertarians disagreement or hate for Dr Ambedkar comes not only from his socialistic views but also from his anti-Hinduism views. But what made Dr Ambedkar anti-Hinduism, if he was not belonging to an untouchable caste?

The same libertarians do not mind highlighting his book Pakistan or Partition when it comes to their political convenience. Is there any universal policy that an Ambedkarite cant be a Libertarian?

If some libertarians are OK with their mild support for Hindutva (enabler of casteism), then I am OK to identify myself as an Ambedkarite (annihilator of casteism) and a Libertarian too.

I know Ambedkarism and Libertarianism would not run parallel but Ambedkar had some libertarian views too as he was a product of his time. I do not think that Ambedkar was just a personality. The icon is an ideology too, for it helps us introspect upon the status of casteism and social osmosis in Indian communities.

Its the 21st century and NCRB data (2019) continues to point how India is unsafe for Dalit and tribal girls. Nevertheless, endogamy does not go beyond 5% on the census (2011) amidst 130 crores of population.

I am an Ambedkarite Libertarian because I believe in the ideas of liberty and social democracy too, or else are these savarna libertarians in the position to produce any alternatives to the representation of the avarnas like me?

The libertarians often tell me that casteism is to do with freedom of association but do they even know that Dalits are killed for sitting on a chair, flaunting moustache, drinking water from a public tank, etc.

What happened to their non-aggression principle now? Casteism in itself, existentially, represents a hierarchical violent format infringing on the liberties and lives and also basic decency of people in the lower strata. If casteism can determine my jati and varna, then I have every right to identify myself as an Ambedkarite Libertarian to smash the oldest social statism in todays time because I own myself and do not owe anything to your opinion.

Follow this link:
I Am An Ambedkarite And A Libertarian And I Do Not Owe Anything To Your Opinion - Youth Ki Awaaz

Classical liberalism rests on a presumption of libertythat is, on the presumption that the exercise of liberty does not require justification but that all restraints on liberty do. Libertarians have attempted to define the proper extent of individual liberty in terms of the notion of property in ones person, or self-ownership, which entails that each individual is entitled to exclusive control of his choices, his actions, and his body. Because no individual has the right to control the peaceful activities of other self-owning individualse.g., their religious practices, their occupations, or their pastimesno such power can be properly delegated to government. Legitimate governments are therefore severely limited in their authority.

According to the principle that libertarians call the nonaggression axiom, all acts of aggression against the rights of otherswhether committed by individuals or by governmentsare unjust. Indeed, libertarians believe that the primary purpose of government is to protect citizens from the illegitimate use of force. Accordingly, governments may not use force against their own citizens unless doing so is necessary to prevent the illegitimate use of force by one individual or group against another. This prohibition entails that governments may not engage in censorship, military conscription, price controls, confiscation of property, or any other type of intervention that curtails the voluntary and peaceful exercise of an individuals rights.

A fundamental characteristic of libertarian thinking is a deep skepticism of government power. Libertarianism and liberalism both arose in the West, where the division of power between spiritual and temporal rulers had been greater than in most other parts of the world. In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), I Samuel 8: 1718, the Jews asked for a king, and God warned them that such a king would take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day. This admonition reminded Europeans for centuries of the predatory nature of states. The passage was cited by many liberals, including Thomas Paine and Lord Acton, who famously wrote that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Libertarian skepticism was reinforced by events of the 20th century, when unrestrained government power, among other factors, led to world war, genocide, and massive human rights violations.

Libertarians embrace individualism insofar as they attach supreme value to the rights and freedoms of individuals. Although various theories regarding the origin and justification of individual rights have been proposede.g., that they are given to human beings by God, that they are implied by the very idea of a moral law, and that respecting them produces better consequencesall libertarians agree that individual rights are imprescriptiblei.e., that they are not granted (and thus cannot be legitimately taken away) by governments or by any other human agency. Another aspect of the individualism of libertarians is their belief that the individual, rather than the group or the state, is the basic unit in terms of which a legal order should be understood.

Libertarians hold that some forms of order in society arise naturally and spontaneously from the actions of thousands or millions of individuals. The notion of spontaneous order may seem counterintuitive: it is natural to assume that order exists only because it has been designed by someone (indeed, in the philosophy of religion, the apparent order of the natural universe was traditionally considered proof of the existence of an intelligent designeri.e., God). Libertarians, however, maintain that the most important aspects of human societysuch as language, law, customs, money, and marketsdevelop by themselves, without conscious direction.

An appreciation for spontaneous order can be found in the writings of the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu (6th century bce), who urged rulers to do nothing because without law or compulsion, men would dwell in harmony. A social science of spontaneous order arose in the 18th century in the work of the French physiocrats and in the writings of the Scottish philosopher David Hume. Both the physiocrats (the term physiocracy means the rule of nature) and Hume studied the natural order of economic and social life and concluded, contrary to the dominant theory of mercantilism, that the directing hand of the prince was not necessary to produce order and prosperity. Hume extended his analysis to the determination of interest rates and even to the emergence of the institutions of law and property. In A Treatise of Human Nature (173940), he argued that the rule concerning the stability of possession is a product of spontaneous ordering processes, because it arises gradually, and acquires force by a slow progression, and by our repeated experience of the inconveniences of transgressing it. He also compared the evolution of the institution of property to the evolution of languages and money.

David Hume, oil painting by Allan Ramsay, 1766; in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, Edinburgh.

Smith developed the concept of spontaneous order extensively in both The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). He made the idea central to his discussion of social cooperation, arguing that the division of labour did not arise from human wisdom but was the necessary, though very slow and gradual, consequence of a certain propensity in human nature which has in view no such extensive utility: the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another. In Common Sense (1776), Paine combined the theory of spontaneous order with a theory of justice based on natural rights, maintaining that the great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government.

According to libertarians, free markets are among the most important (but not the only) examples of spontaneous order. They argue that individuals need to produce and trade in order to survive and flourish and that free markets are essential to the creation of wealth. Libertarians also maintain that self-help, mutual aid, charity, and economic growth do more to alleviate poverty than government social-welfare programs. Finally, they contend that, if the libertarian tradition often seems to stress private property and free markets at the expense of other principles, that is largely because these institutions were under attack for much of the 20th century by modern liberals, social democrats, fascists, and adherents of other leftist, nationalist, or socialist ideologies.

Libertarians consider the rule of law to be a crucial underpinning of a free society. In its simplest form, this principle means that individuals should be governed by generally applicable and publicly known laws and not by the arbitrary decisions of kings, presidents, or bureaucrats. Such laws should protect the freedom of all individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways and should not aim at any particular result or outcome.

Although most libertarians believe that some form of government is essential for protecting liberty, they also maintain that government is an inherently dangerous institution whose power must be strictly circumscribed. Thus, libertarians advocate limiting and dividing government power through a written constitution and a system of checks and balances. Indeed, libertarians often claim that the greater freedom and prosperity of European society (in comparison with other parts of the world) in the early modern era was the result of the fragmentation of power, both between church and state and among the continents many different kingdoms, principalities, and city-states. Some American libertarians, such as Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard, have opposed all forms of government. Rothbard called his doctrine anarcho-capitalism to distinguish it from the views of anarchists who oppose private property. Even those who describe themselves as anarchist libertarians, however, believe in a system of law and law enforcement to protect individual rights.

Much political analysis deals with conflict and conflict resolution. Libertarians hold that there is a natural harmony of interests among peaceful, productive individuals in a just society. Citing David Ricardos theory of comparative advantagewhich states that individuals in all countries benefit when each countrys citizens specialize in producing that which they can produce more efficiently than the citizens of other countrieslibertarians claim that, over time, all individuals prosper from the operation of a free market, and conflict is thus not a necessary or inevitable part of a social order. When governments begin to distribute rewards on the basis of political pressure, however, individuals and groups will engage in wasteful and even violent conflict to gain benefits at the expense of others. Thus, libertarians maintain that minimal government is a key to the minimization of social conflict.

David Ricardo, portrait by Thomas Phillips, 1821; in the National Portrait Gallery, London.

In international affairs, libertarians emphasize the value of peace. That may seem unexceptional, since most (though not all) modern thinkers have claimed allegiance to peace as a value. Historically, however, many rulers have seen little benefit to peace and have embarked upon sometimes long and destructive wars. Libertarians contend that war is inherently calamitous, bringing widespread death and destruction, disrupting family and economic life, and placing more power in the hands of ruling classes. Defensive or retaliatory violence may be justified, but, according to libertarians, violence is not valuable in itself, nor does it produce any additional benefits beyond the defense of life and liberty.

More here:
Libertarianism - Libertarian philosophy | Britannica

Libertarianism, political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. It may be understood as a form of liberalism, the political philosophy associated with the English philosophers John Locke and John Stuart Mill, the Scottish economist Adam Smith, and the American statesman Thomas Jefferson. Liberalism seeks to define and justify the legitimate powers of government in terms of certain natural or God-given individual rights. These rights include the rights to life, liberty, private property, freedom of speech and association, freedom of worship, government by consent, equality under the law, and moral autonomy (the ability to pursue ones own conception of happiness, or the good life). The purpose of government, according to liberals, is to protect these and other individual rights, and in general liberals have contended that government power should be limited to that which is necessary to accomplish this task. Libertarians are classical liberals who strongly emphasize the individual right to liberty. They contend that the scope and powers of government should be constrained so as to allow each individual as much freedom of action as is consistent with a like freedom for everyone else. Thus, they believe that individuals should be free to behave and to dispose of their property as they see fit, provided that their actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others.

John Locke, oil on canvas by Herman Verelst, 1689; in the National Portrait Gallery, London.

Visit link:
libertarianism | Definition, Doctrines, History, & Facts ...

A grade six classroom awaits students at Hunters Glen Junior Public School in Scarborough, Ontario, Canada, September 14, 2020.(Nathan Denette/Reuters)

Charlie Cooke is a friend and a treasured colleague, but I am finding it a little difficult to launch the next volley in the conversation about education policy, because I dont think Charlie has really written a response to my piece.

Instead, Charlie has offered up some simple-minded applause lines (Thereis nothing wrong with the Department of Education that could not be solved with a tactical nuclear strike) that do not address the substance of my argument and that are based on an unmerited metaphysical certitude that the U.S. government simply cannot produce or implement useful education policy. The United States is not an especially well-governed country, and I do not expect it to achieve the level of bureaucratic competence that we might expect of a Denmark or a Switzerland, but it has from time to time shown itself able to develop and implement policy in a programmatic way. It isnt Norway, but it isnt Pakistan, either.

That the United States could address in a meaningful way the complex issue of education simply by shuttering a federal department and patting itself on the back for a job well done is precisely the kind of thinking that has made todays Republican Party the intellectual powerhouse we all know and admire so deeply. If I were in the market for that kind of thing . . . I think I have a number for Rick Perry around here somewhere.

The U.S. government has a rich and complex relationship with education, especially with institutions of higher education. That means it has to make decisions about what sorts of things it will fund, encourage, or, at certain extremes, even allow. There are better and worse ways to make those decisions. Pretending that these issues can simply be ignored out of existence is the worst kind of nave libertarianism.

For example, Chinas rising eminence as a funder of and collaborator in research around the world, including in partnership with such important U.S. allies as the United Kingdom, presents real questions and challenges for the U.S. government challenges that are not going to be resolved by saying, Let the free market take care of it. I am a big, big fan of letting the free market take care of economic questions, but there are non-economic questions in play, too.

Whether there exists something called the Department of Education or whether these endeavors are organized in some other way, the policymaking and implementation are not going to be carried out by Smurfs, wizards, or libertarian unicorns with rainbows for manes. You could make education policy in the Department of Defense (one of the few federal departments that conservatives broadly trust), or you could make it at Treasury or Commerce or hand it off to the Federal Reserve, in which case you simply will have created an education department in disguise. The basic issues and the need for positive engagement with them do not go away, for the same reason that you cant cause an earthquake by shaking a desktop globe.

Dissolving the DOE as it exists might be a useful or even necessary administrative measure, but it would hardly render the underlying issues resolved. And conservatives are going to need something more than nuke-the-DOE banalities to deal with those issues if conservativism is to be something more than a rhetoric and a countercultural posture something more than words about words.

See the original post here:
Education and Naive Libertarianism - National Review

Former U.S. Rep. Justin Amash will be keynote speaker for the NH Libertarian Partys annual convention. Courtesy Photo

CONCORD, NH The Libertarian Party of New Hampshires annual convention is taking place this weekend March 19 21 at the Holiday Inn, North Main St. in Concord. Party members will elect Executive Committee members for the coming year, as well as considering changes to the Bylaws and Platform.

Justin Amash will be the Keynote Speaker during the Banquet Saturday night. He will be speaking remotely from Michigan and his keynote will be followed by a Q&A session. Amash, former U.S. Representative from Michigans 3rd Congressional District was elected and served as a Republican for nine years before joining the Libertarian Party in 2020. Amash was the highest-seated Libertarian in the partys history. He was the founder and chair of the House Liberty Caucus, saying his votes reflect Limited government, economic freedom, and individual liberty.

Tara DeSisto, Development Director of the National Libertarian National Committee, and Cara Shultz, Candidate Recruitment Specialist for the LNC, are slated to be featured speakers.

A social mixer is open to all Friday night and media is welcome to attend the business sessions of the convention Saturday & Sunday.

Related

See more here:
March 19-21: Libertarian Party of NH convention with keynote from former US Rep. Justin Amash - Manchester Ink Link

YAL. Most of our campus knows this group has been very prevalent in recent conversations amongst students. President Conner has even spoken up on the issue. I would like to give an unbiased explanation of who the Young Americans for Liberty are and why their presence on campus has been debated by students so much recently.

Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) is a political organization with chapters in colleges across the country. Their ideologies align with libertarian views, and they strongly preach the importance of free speech within the college environment. The libertarian mindset emphasizes the importance of constitutional rights and independence (think Ron Swanson, a fictional but very by-the-books libertarian figure that you can use as a reference). I am by no means an expert on libertarianism, and I will not try to explain the party further due to my lack of sufficient knowledge.

In theory, a club that promotes freedom of speech on campus can accommodate those who feel silenced in their communities and would like an outlet to express their opinions without judgment. In reality, however, this creates a space where students express views that are ultimately harmful to marginalized students existence. The club was introduced following a controversy on campus last fall involving a white student mocking the eyes of an Asian student as part of a TikTok trend called the Fox-Eye trend. Some students took sides on whether or not this was acceptable, creating division on campus. Some were adamantly opposed to the backlash the student faced, calling it cancel culture over what they deemed an act of accidental racism. Some became directly affiliated with and even gained leadership positions in YAL following the incident. This affiliation was the initial cause for outrage in many campus communities, who felt the club was created to allow a safe space for students who aimed to incite more threatening incidents like this under the umbrella of free speech.

Those involved in YAL have posted on their Instagram page about accepting all students, only aiming to break the stigma that Skidmore is a partisan school. Clubs exist on campus for both Democrats and Republicans; however, there arent any that specifically talk about more specific political leanings; e.g., liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, centrism, socialism, etc. Students who dont specifically fall under those two labels but still want to be politically involved on campus typically resort to the one that better represents them. While this is not a perfect system, it allows safe spaces for students to find others with like-minded views on different issues happening in the United States.

I say we dont need more political clubs on campus because, despite the lack of specific political spaces to align with every students view, I fear that this will create more division. I think the goal should be to create different areas for expression outside of the political spectrum. Many students are overwhelmed with the number of political events occurring daily, and as we become adults, we must stay on top of current events. This can be very exhausting (except for political science majors, perhaps.) I think that clubs should be outlets for students to express their interests and find new passions and that we should shift our focus from trying to create political safe-spaces to just creating safe spaces!

Clubs are supposed to be inclusive and enjoyable, but many clubs on campus do not get much attention or attendance. We should promote clubs with little awareness and create clubs for students who genuinely do not have a safe campus space. For instance, neither physically nor mentally/learning disabled students have a club or organization on campus. This is not because Skidmore does not care about disabled students, but rather because there is not enough student involvement, whether it be lack of interest or lack of club promotion. These organizations on campus only exist as long as students continue to be a part of them. We as a student body need to be more vocal and take more initiative to create spaces for students who do not currently have access to supportive resources on campus. I am now part of a commission to start a club that promotes sobriety on campus for students who struggle with addiction. Alcoholics Anonymous or similar organizations are other examples of clubs that existed on campus but were discontinued, not because students werent struggling with addiction, but because of lack of student involvement.

Before we jump to creating clubs for students and aiming for all-around inclusion, we as a student body need to think about the nearly 130 clubs and 19 sports we have on campus and how we utilize them. Most of us have gone to club fairs, signed up for an email list, and never received an email. How can we change this? If youre not receiving emails from a club you thought was interesting, how can you take the initiative and make the club more active? If you dont see your clubs meeting times on SkidSync, how can you contribute to their presence on campus? Skidmore students first need to help boost the under-appreciated clubs and safe-spaces on campus collectively before we jump to start new ones. This way, students can involve themselves more in different campus circles and activities, and we can have more unity all around.

YAL was not approved by Skidmores student government (SGA) due to the national clubs foundation in discriminatory practices and prejudiced ideology. Although Skidmore College prides itself on students having a place to discuss politics surrounding politics freely, they also strive to protect marginalized populations voices on campus. Herein lies the central moral and ideological dilemma: should Skidmore College ban YAL to prevent creating a platform for possible hate-speech or allow a YAL chapter on campus to uphold the first amendment right to free speech?

The Student Government will be hosting their recurring open Senate meeting tomorrow, Tuesday March 23, at 8pm. At 8:45, SGA plans to reconvene on the approval of YALs trial period. You can tune into the meeting by joining the Zoom meeting using the meeting code 423 957 5121.

Go here to read the rest:
Why We Don't Need Any More "Political" Clubs on Campus The Skidmore News - Skidmore News

History matters because it tells us that there will be another pandemic at some point and, due to certain features of the way we live now, this is more likely than it was a few decades ago. There are lessons to be learnt, and learnt fast, yet already we are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. We are fixating on an inquiry that will be extremely costly and achieve little rather than focusing on what the last 12 months tells us about our society, our governance, and the alarming degree to which fear trumps freedom.

During the pandemic the government has exercised coercive powers over its citizens on a scale never before seen in modern-day Britain. And it has done so without opposition, not least from the Opposition, which has done little more than blithely suggest measures should have been tougher or brought in sooner. But it is the publics response that has handed government the legitimacy it needed to pursue a path of state authoritarianism.

93% supported the first national lockdown. Three in ten English people wanted the government to go further with the second. 46% supported the roadmap when it was announced on 22nd February, with 25% thinking the timeline was too rapid. When presented with a binary choice between freedom and safety the British public chose option three: more repression. Disregarding personal liberty when the risk is uncertain, immediate and absolute is defensible. Allowing government to "wrap its arms" around us while trampling on our freedom when that threat has manifestly been downgraded is not.

Professor Neil Ferguson told The Times in December that, in the chaos of February and March 2020, SAGE never thought the UK government couldnt get away with imposing Chinas lockdown policy. Then Italy did it, and soon thereafter we were all prisoners in our own homes. Will policymakers be so hesitant in shutting down social interaction in response to the next crisis? I doubt it.

Further, over the course of this pandemic the government has been engaged in a liberty-crushing side-hustle. No modern-day vice hasnt come under the microscope, scapegoated for its possible role in transmission or the severity of our symptoms. Alcohol, obesity, smoking, vaping. At the end of this month, the governments gambling consultation will draw to a close, and you can bet further legislation will be on the cards. Councils are introducing nil-caps for entertainment venues. Its an exhaustive, one-way ratchet, coming at a time when politicians are already stampeding on the fundamental principles that underpin our democracy.

It will be incumbent on us all to ensure the nation is unlocked as soon as it is safe to do so and there is a strong case for bringing the roadmap forward. But it is equally important that we become a freer society than we were pre-pandemic, not a more paternalistic one. Doing so will require that we all rediscover our libertarian spirit starting with the Prime Minister.

Follow this link:
If we don't rediscover our libertarian spirit, the next pandemic will crush us - Telegraph.co.uk