Category Archives: Libertarianism

The rat-tat-tat of takedowns was a striking display of the tech industrys power to shape the fate of even the president of the United States. And it comes after years of efforts by both Democrats and Republicans in Washington to cut Silicon Valley down to size including lawsuits that Trumps antitrust enforcers have filed in recent months against Facebook and Google, plus efforts on both the right and left to challenge Section 230, the provision in communications law that limits online platforms liability for what users post to them.

Those lawsuits, legislative efforts and a potential antitrust investigation of Apples App Store echo the complaint that, remarkably, Trump supporters, civil libertarians and some prominent Democrats are airing this weekend: No handful of companies should have this much unilateral authority.

[I]t should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions especially when political realities make those decisions easier, American Civil Liberties Union senior legislative counsel Kate Ruane said in a statement.

Of course, many on the left cheered Twitters takedown of Trump. Rashad Robinson, president of the advocacy group Color of Change which has long argued that Trump and his allies have used social media to stoke racism in the United States called the move in a statement overdue but monumental progress. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, called himself relieved, and House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) tweeted that social media companies have allowed this vile content to fester for too long, and need to do much more.

Democrats' anger at the tech industry remains real, however and their looming full control over Congress and the executive branch will give them the opportunity to try to tame Silicon Valley.

President-elect Joe Biden's administration is expected to continue pursuing the big-tech antitrust cases that Trump's agencies filed. Just this week Biden chose a prominent Facebook critic, civil rights attorney Vanita Gupta, to be the No. 3 official in his Justice Department. House Democrats have proposed a raft of major legislative changes over some Republicans' objections to make it easier to break up giant tech companies and keep them from getting bigger.

Conservatives' Trump-era grievances against Silicon Valley have focused largely on accusations of censorship and cancel culture. The left has a different critique: If powerful companies like Twitter and Facebook had more competition, theyd behave more responsibly even before that became the smart political move.

It took blood and glass in the halls of Congress and a change in the political winds for the most powerful tech companies in the world to recognize, at the last possible moment, the profound threat of Donald Trump, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) in a statement. And tweeted Jennifer Palmieri, former communications director both in the Obama White House and the 2016 presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, It has not escaped my attention that the day social media companies decided there actually IS more they could do to police Trumps destructive behavior was the same day they learned Democrats would chair all the congressional committees that oversee them.

As a long line of court cases points out, online platforms are private businesses that can host or kick out anyone they want. Still, for four long years, Silicon Valleys companies had tried to carve out paths through the Trump presidency that minimized the harm he could cause while skirting the idea that it was censoring the political free speech of Americans. All the while, they were under intense pressure from Democrats, many in the civil rights world, and others to simply turn off Trumps digital microphone.

So why did Silicon Valley decide it had had enough of Trump now, this week, after so many years of turmoil?

In retrospect, the arc of Trumps presidency and the course of recent events conspired to make what we're witnessing nearly inevitable.

Jump back to last winter. Twitter and others in Silicon Valley have said that their experience with tackling bad information circulating about Covid-19 in its early days was a powerful lesson: They could throttle information they thought threatened the public good and the sky wouldnt fall down.

Fast forward some months, and in November Trump became a lame duck and a much less scary political enemy.

Trumps loss also undercut one of the social media companies loudest arguments for keeping Trump on board: Voters should know what their elected leaders thinks so they can decide whether to vote for them. As of Nov. 3, that ship had sailed.

More recently, and most horrifically, was this weeks violence on Capitol Hill that left five people, including a Capitol police officer, dead. Tech companies had, in recent years, landed on the idea that they had to act when online rhetoric caused offline harm. The facts smacked them in the face: What Trump was saying online was fueling violence in the real world.

POLITICO NEWSLETTERS

Technology news from Washington and Silicon Valley weekday mornings, in your inbox.

And, they feared, the worst was yet to come. Inauguration Day is looming, less than two weeks away, and the companies worried that Trump and his supporters would use social media in their bid to cause havoc around Biden's swearing-in.

Then Trump, on Friday, tweeted that he wouldnt be attending the transfer of power, tweeting: "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th. (With Trumps account suspended, the tweet is no longer viewable.)

While a bland and fairly unsurprising statement of facts on its face, the post was interpreted inside Twitter as a potential signal to supporters that they should feel free to once again gather in D.C. and get violent.

Twitter said as much in its blog post announcing the Trump ban. Factoring into its decision, the company said, was that [p]lans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings in the run-up to the inauguration.

Kicking Trump off right now solved both a long-term headache and immediate crisis for Twitter.

Also, importantly, it had the benefit of a bit of cover from Facebook. When it comes to politics, Silicon Valley companies have traditionally been extraordinarily reluctant to get ahead of others in their industry. Facebook opened the door with its short-term restriction on Trump, freeing Twitter to jump through it.

But as popular as Silicon Valleys moves were with many Democrats newly in power in Bidens Washington, it is at best a brief reprieve for the industry.

An overdue step, tweeted Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. But its important to remember, this is much bigger than one person. Its about an entire ecosystem that allows misinformation and hate to spread and fester unchecked.

Read the original here:
The war between Silicon Valley and Washington takes a new turn - POLITICO

The News Herald

Two years ago, the CBS broadcast of "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer"was attacked by cancel culture. Somecalled for its removal, due to Rudolph being bullied. Yet, they fail seeing Rudolph overcomes it and becomes Santa's lead reindeer.

There's also a libertarian message, in a subplot.

More: Have an opinion? Submit a Letter to the Editor

My favorite characterof this specialis Yukon Cornelius. He struck meas the main comedy relief. As I watched him in my adulthood, I discovered a hidden fact. Yukon is a libertarian.

Libertarianism always existed in the U.S.While the Libertarian Party beganin 1971, libertarianism was well before then. This includes our pop culture. Yukon's character, is a libertarian personificationin a Christmas icon.

He owns the land Rudolph and Herbiemeet him in. He originally prospectsfor silver and gold, which libertarians say is real/solid wealth. He voluntarily asks Rudolph and Herbieto join himin his prospecting. After escaping from Bumbles, he changes his mind and decides to prospect silver.

When going through the fog, Yukon calls it "thick as peanut butter."Herbie tries correcting him, saying, "You mean pea soup." Yukon replies, "You eat what you like and I'll eat what I like." After rescuing Rudolph and friends from Bumbles, he helps Bumbles reform. Bumbles voluntarily changes and accepts Yukon's help. He learns new skills and takes a job, helping Santa decorate tall Christmas trees.

At the special's end Yukon discovers a peppermint vein. Knowing he's now in Christmas Land he decides to open a peppermint mine and sell the mineralfor future Christmases. He makes Bumbles his partner and they go into business together.

His story continuesin the DVD sequel, "Rudolph and the Island of Misfit Toys."

He and Bumbles' peppermint vein runs out and he'sfacing closing the mine. Underneath the final vein, Yukon discovers gold. His hard workpays off.

On a final note, Yukon carries a pistol, but he never uses it. The fact he carries itshows he believes in private gun ownership.

Overall, Yukon Cornelius proves he's a libertarian and shows the long-term successesthat come from it. See it yourself, next time you watch it.

David Agosta, Secretary Bay County Libertarian Party

More here:
LETTER: Yukon the Libertarian friend of a reindeer? - The News Herald

For the past few years, Ive been keeping track of everything I read, watch, listen to, and experience in my media diet posts. As a media diet wrap-up, heres the most compelling content & experiences from 2020, stuff that helped stimulate and sustain me in a year of isolation and pandemic.

Portrait of a Lady on Fire. This was the final movie I saw in a theater before the pandemic hit; I chose well. Not a week has gone by this year that I didnt think about some aspect or another of this film.

Youre Wrong About. By far my favorite episodic podcast. The joy with which the hosts delight each other with insights and humorous asides is the engine that drives the show. Literally my only complaint: I wish they hadnt changed the theme music.

The Queens Gambit. Seems like everyone watched this miniseries this fall and I loved it just as much as anyone.

The Rain Vortex at Singapores Changi Airport. An enchanting oasis in the middle of an airport indicative of Singapores incorporation of natural elements into urban spaces.

MASS MoCA. For my birthday, I treated myself with a road trip to this superb museum. The Sol LeWitt, James Turrell, and Jenny Holzer exhibitions alone were worth the trip. I sorely miss museums.

Ted Lasso. Mister Rogers Neighborhood + Major League. Who knew you could make radical empathy funny? Everyone Ive recommended this show to has loved it.

The Land That Never Has Been Yet from Scene on Radio. An essential series on American democracy. Like, do we even have one? Its hard to choose, but the episode on how the libertarianism of the contemporary Republican Party was the result of a deliberate campaign by just a few people that increasingly came to dominate American politics is my favorite.

Carol. I remember liking this back when it came out, but my rewatch a couple of months ago was a revelation. A remarkable, sparkling film.

Caste by Isabel Wilkerson. Wilkerson has a gift for finding new ways for her readers to think about entrenched systems and behaviors.

Devs. This show got neglected a little in the end-of-year lists because of an early-in-the-pandemic release, but it was one of my top 2-3 shows this year.

The Great. I really enjoyed this Hulu show as I watched it and its grown in my esteem in the months since. Its one of the first shows I recommend when friends ask what Ive been watching lately. Huzzah!

Nintendo Switch. To distract themselves from the pandemic, did America spend more hours playing video games or watching TV? I did both. Mario Kart 8, Super Mario 35, Rocket League, Fortnite, Minecraft, Among Us, and all the old NES games were popular in our household this year.

Conversations with Friends by Sally Rooney. I found reading difficult for most of the year I only finished three books in the past 10 months. But this one I couldnt put down; finished it in two days.

Exhalation by Ted Chiang. Perfect little stories expertly told. Dont miss the endnotes, where Chiang reveals where the ideas for each of his stories came from.

AirPods Pro. The best augmented reality device yet devised the music feels like its actually in your head more seamlessly than ever before.

Little Women. Fantastic casting, performances, and direction. Waiting patiently for whatever Gerwig does next.

My Brilliant Friend (season 2) & Normal People. I didnt think anyone could effectively adapt either of these authors, but somehow the shows nearly equalled the books.

The Splendid and the Vile by Erik Larson. Everything from Larson is great and this book about the Battle of Britain and the triumph of leadership resonated throughout this pandemic year.

Future Nostalgia. I listened to this more than anything else in 2020. Also notable because IMO there are no skippable songs on this album.

Tomidaya shoyu ramen. This tiny ramen shop in the Little Tokyo section of Saigon is supposed to closely resemble Japan shops. One of the best bowls Ive ever had.

The Mandalorian. I was lukewarm on season one but loved season two. Of all the recent Star Wars things, this show best channels the sometimes goofy/campy magic that made the original movie so compelling.

The image above is an overhead view of my home office, where all the kottke.org magic happens.

More about...

Original post:
21 Things That Kept Me Going In 2020 - kottke.org

In the 2020 presidential election, the Libertarian Party candidate, Jo Jorgensen, gained 1.2 percent of the vote, less than half the partys 2016 election result.Jeffrey MichelsandOlivier Lewiswrite that despite signs that pointed towards the potential for libertarian voters to beking makersin the 2020 election, their dislike of DonaldTrump turned many to Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.

In the 2016 US Presidential election,the former RepublicanGovernor of New Mexico,Gary Johnsongained3.3 percentof the national vote share,the highest on record foraLibertarian Partypresidential candidate.This modest milestonecould have been written off as the result of a race featuring two highly unpopular mainstream candidates, Donald Trump andformer Secretary of State,Hillary Clinton. But itmightalso haveportendeda more meaningful movement inUSelectoral politics,onein which a growing Libertarian Party or at least an increasingly independent bloc of libertarian voters gainsthecriticalmass totip the race.Infiercely competitive bipartisancontests, protests voterscould position themselvesaspower brokers.

When we entertained this possibilityduring the primary season,plenty ofsigns were pointing toanother strongresult for the LibertarianParty.The frontrunners of the Democratic Party primaries were relativelyradicalcandidateslike Senators Elizabeth Warren and BernieSanders,who were proposinga new pushofstateintervention in the economyanathemaof courseto libertarian ideology.Meanwhile,Trumps dominanceofthe Republic Party was unquestioned, blocking any attempt to move the party away from the incumbents brand ofblunt nativism.And the one RepublicanHouse Representative, JustinAmash,whodiddare questionthisdominanceand in doing so became a minorcult hero threw in his hatfor the Libertarian Party ticket.

But then, alotchanged. Democratsrallied behindmoderateformer Vice-President Joe Biden, while LibertarianschoseJo Jorgensen, a familiar face within the partybuta strangerbeyond it.TheCOVID-19 pandemicthenrenderedimpossible thein-personcanvassingnecessaryto raise Jorgensens profile. And itleftlittle place for libertarian discourse in public debate. In the run up to the election, thequestionwasnot whethergovernment interventionwasjustifiable, butratherhow much and what kind was needed.

As a result,inLibertarian candidatesfinished withjust under 1.2 percentof the vote in the 2020 election, losingnearlytwo-thirdsof theirsharecompared to 2016.

Did the2020setbackconfirm that theLibertarian spike of2016wasnot asignbut a fluke?Looking at the bigger picture,was it rash to consider thatlibertarianvoterscould becomekingmakersin US Presidentialelections?

One straightforwardresponsewas put forthimmediately after the electionbycommentatorsandpoliticianswho argued that the Libertarian Party nonetheless decided the election, spoiling a Republican victory. Despite underperforming relative to the previous election, Jo Jorgensons ticket still was the second-best result in Libertarian Party history, and it was enough to cover the difference between Trump and Biden in several swing states.

Thisspoiler argument rests on the false assumption that voters of the Libertarian Party, and moregenerallyvoterswhoseidentificationwithlibertarian valuesrivals their loyalty toany particular party, belong, in the end,totheGOP. It was precisely the extent to which this assumption was false thatprovides a key to answering the questions set out above.TheRepublican Party showed in 2016 that its turn to Trump could cost it a large portion of voters to a Libertarian Party protest ticket. Doubling down on Trump in 2020, the GOP proved it could pushthelions share of these same voters into the enemy camp,assuringits defeat.

Indeed, the story of 2020 is not the number of those who turned to the Libertarian ticket, but those who turned away from it, in favour of the Democrats.Among theeightmillion peoplewho voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 (half of which voted for the Libertarian Party), an overwhelming majority sided with Biden in 2020.The main indicator is thatwhile Trumps 2020 results are similar to those of 2016,Bidens are much better than Clintons in 2016.Some of these not-Clinton-but-yes-Biden votersmight be new votersor former Republicans, butexit poll surveyscorroborate the hypothesis that a significant number of 2016 Libertarian voters opted for Biden in 2020.

They did this despitethe fact thatJoe Bidenscareerrecord andelectoralcampaignstillpresenteda number of red flags for libertarians.Mostnotably, heproposedwhat could be become the mostambitious planof government spending in decades.But these concerns were evidently outweighed by the prospect of another four years of a Trump presidency. If there is any libertarian case for Biden, as onelibertarian commentatorput it, its situational, and that situation ends on January 20.

The 2020 elections showed then that theblocfrom 2016is still there and is still important, but that itspotential to determine electionscomes fromswingingfrom one party toanotherinstead of settling onand leveragingits own.

Unfortunately for libertarian-minded voters, thisleavesthem with onlyrelatively pooroptionsin future elections. There is apossibilitythat many of them will turn back to the Republican Party once it puts forth a less offensive candidate. ButtheGOPwill likely remain in thrall of thebloc that Trump forged,a bitter reality for libertarians whojust a decade ago seemed totake the reinswiththesuccess of theTea Party movement.The Democratic Party will surely keep some of the votes it won from this bloc as well.But the pressure to placate its far-left wing will likely outweigh its desire to permanently win over the moderate libertarians. And for the Libertarian Party to beanything more than a last resort,it wouldhave to prove itself capable of exactly that which it failed to do this election: rally this bloc under a common banner with a shared strategy, in so doing convincing mainstream parties that it cannot be ignored.

In the next Presidential election, theblocs voteswill likely be dividedbetween thesethree options,weakening theefficacyof eachand likelystokinga fourth option:abstention.

There is aparadox that limits the blocs potential.The same characteristics that predispose libertarians to be swing voters their pride in rational, independent behaviour,and their resistance to organised politics,if not outrightanarchism also makes them unlikely tocoordinate their actionon a large scale to optimallyleverage this position.Perhaps they could rally together through another groundswell movement like the Tea Party, not a totally fantastic scenario considering that resistance to governmentspending and restriction ofcivil liberties willsurely mount as Covid-19 recedes. Butcould this feed into an independent forcethat would break thetwo-party doom loop,withoutbeing co-opted by the general anti-establishment rage buoying the Republican Party?

Instead,Libertarian Party and independent libertarian voterswill havetosettle forgettingcreative andpickingsmallerstrategically placedbattles. We have alreadyobservedthis inthe elections for Senate, where libertariancandidates in Georgiahelped toforce two run-offs, the results of which will decide the majority. Therun-offsarestillmostly alose-losefor libertarians, butthereissurely athrill in throwinga spanner in the workingsof the major parties, especially if thisincitesthe opposition to offermore libertarian policies.AsLibertariancandidatein Georgia Shane Hazelnoted:I hope people understand that creating a run-off should be the primary mission until the party is much stronger.

Of course, the Libertarian Party can also think global, act local. In Wyoming,Marshall Burtbecame the first Libertarian to win a statehouse seatsince 2002, andthe fifthin US history. Via its Frontier Project, the Libertarian Party hopes to wina fewmore state-level seatsinNorth and South Dakota, Montana, Utah, and Wisconsin.There is also the possibility of winning more specific, less party-political ballots,viareferendums.In 2020,many referendumspassed seemingly libertarianproposals ondrugs, taxes, rent, voting rights,ranked-choice voting,andlabour regulations.Californian referendumsare a prime example of this, butAlaskaandColoradoare also interesting cases.

The questionofwhether the Libertarian Party or a bloc of libertarian voters emerges as a swing factor andkingmakerin future US elections will depend on the success of a project to carve a common identity and settle on a shared strategy.They could do this autonomously with their own party or by fitting into a spaceleft by one of themainstream parties.But neitherscenarioappears likely in the short-term,meaningthe battle for libertarian values will likely be waged where it has been waged best,far from the centreofthebiggestelectoral stage.

Please read our comments policy before commenting.

Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.

Shortened URL for this post:https://bit.ly/34EqYVU

Jeffrey MichelsCollege of EuropeJeffrey Michels is a Parliamentary Assistant at the European Parliament and an Academic Assistant at the College of Europe,Natolincampus.

Olivier LewisCollege of EuropeOlivier has been a Research Fellow at the College of Europe, Natolin campus, since August 2019.Olivier is currently writing his first book,Security Cooperation between Western States, to be published with Routledge. He is also working on shorter publications related to counterterrorism, counterinsurgency,and Brexit.

See more here:
What Happened?: The 2020 election showed that libertarians have a long way to go before they can become a national movement. - USAPP American Politics...

opinion

Joe Bruno| Sarasota Herald-Tribune

As we are nearing the end of 2020 the most tumultuous year that I, a Libertarian Republican, has ever experienced in my more than seven decades onEarth what disturbs me the most is that our country, our state and our city are more divided than ever before.

In this community, for example, the extreme divides are among Democrats and Republicans, as well among conservatives and liberals. But what's most disturbing is our division on racial lines: I have lived in Sarasota for more than 25 years, and Ive seen racism rear its ugly head here much more often than I saw during nearly 50 years of living in New York City.

This sense of division didn't just happen, but it has gotten worse under the last two presidents: neither Barack Obama norDonald Trump made much of an effort to unite us. That's why we're now in a situation where even though Joe Biden clearly defeated Trump in last month's presidential election, we're still being inundated with unsubstantiated claims that the presidency has been stolen from Trump.

As a lifetime member of a members-only, nonprofit Sarasota establishment an entitythat also hasa bar that I visit on occasion I still hear people state without equivocation that Trump was robbed. These people are genuinely indignant, but when I ask them for definitive proof rather than circumstantial evidence, they only give me angry glares. I actually think that some people feel that even though I am a Republican, I'm somehow betraying my own party.

What is also disturbing is how divided we are regarding how to combat the coronavirus. Locally the rules and regulations concerning COVID-19 are different based on which jurisdiction you'rein and which political party happens to control that jurisdiction.

Sarasota County is run by the Republicans. They have issued a public advisory for people to wear masks in public if social distancing is not possible. But mask-wearing is not mandated in public outdoor spaces; restaurants in the county can mandate mask-wearing in their establishments, but they are not compelled by the county to do so.

However, the Democrats who run the city of Sarasota have applied more stringent requirements. In July the city passed an ordinance that requires face coverings be worn in indoor and outdoor public locations and businesses within the City of Sarasota" in order to help with the spread of COVID-19.

The ordinance also states, In short, if you are inside or outside a public place in the City of Sarasota, cant physically or socially distance (six feet away from others) and do not fall within one of the exceptions listed in the ordinance, you need to wear a face covering. In addition the city threatened to fine those who violated the ordinance.

But once again partisan politics came into play.

In September Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, issued an executive order that effectively cut the legs out from under the city of Sarasotas mask ordinance and suspended the collection of fines and penalties associated with COVID-19 enforced upon individuals.

So what should we Sarasotans, regardless ofour political affiliation, do to best safeguard ourselves and our families against a virus that remains deadly as we wait for widespread distribution of the vaccines to combat it?

I can't influence what others do in the communitynor is it what I would want to do.

But this is what I do.

When I go to a grocery store or a department store anywhere in Sarasota County, I always wear a mask. Yes, its uncomfortable, but thats what the business requires. So thats what I do. Why be obnoxious and cause unnecessary problemsfor the employees of that establishment?

But when it comes to restaurants, I refuse to go to any dining establishment in Sarasota County that requires me to wear a mask to come inside. I find that rule silly onceyou are seated, you can take off your mask and not be required to put it back on at any time, even when you leave the restaurant. So whats the point of the rulein the first place?

In other words, I actively respect the rights of others to remain safe without sacrificing my right to make my own choices in living my life.

It can done, and it is thiseven-handed, civil approach that I would like to see all of us embrace more often as we face COVID-19 and many other issues during the year ahead.

This is my New Year's wish for all Sarasotans.

Let's embrace the famous line that the late actor Wilford Brimley would always utter in his popular commercials for Quaker Oats years ago: Its the right thing to do.

Joe Bruno is a Sarasota resident and the author of 60 books, both fiction and nonfiction. He is also a Media Member of the Florida Boxing Hall of Fame.

More:
My New Year's wish for Sarasotans - Sarasota Herald-Tribune

A small group of Republican state representatives have signed onto a termination of the state document that declares New Hampshires government illegitimate and says the November election was void.

In a two-page letter that largely reproduces the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the representatives call Gov. Chris Sununu a tyrant and say that it is time to dissolve the entire New Hampshire government.

We the people, the good Citizens of the State of New Hampshire declare the Nov. 3, 2020 election void for fraud and of no effect leaving no Constitutionally elected body, and further we declare that the statutory state and all of its affects are void for fraud, the letter reads.

Signing onto the letter are Rep. JosCambrils, of Loudon; Rep. Anne Copp, of Derry; Rep. Raymond Howard, Jr., of Alton; Rep. Dave Testerman, of Franklin; Rep. Mike Sylvia, of Belmont; and Rep. Scott Wallace, of Danville.

However, despite calling for the dissolution of state government, none of the representatives appeared to be resigning from their seats in the Legislature as of Monday. A Twitter post from the House Clerk Paul Smith Monday morning said that he had not received any letters of resignation, pursuant to RSA 14-A:2.

In an interview Monday, Testerman said that he wasnt resigning, but that the letter was intended as a message that the way Sununu has approached his COVID-19 emergency orders has been unconstitutional. He argued the law passed last year that expanded absentee voting contravened the state constitution.

I will continue to serve, Testerman said. But I dont really think that we went through a valid election. Because we did things in an unconstitutional way, and weve got toquit it.

The letter represents the latest effort by a group of libertarian-minded Republicans in the House to protest emergency measures taken by Sununu in response to the pandemic. In the past, that campaign included an aborted attempt to impeach Sununu, attempts to override Sununus declaration of emergency powers implemented in March, and protests at the State House and outside the governors house.

And it dovetails with an ongoing attempt by President Donald Trump to discredit the results of the Nov. 3 election and scrap the outcome, in which Democrat Joe Biden won with 81 million votes.

Throughout the first part of the letter, the signatories reproduce the Declaration of Independence nearly verbatim, swapping in Sununus name for the king and New Hampshire for the state.

The ends of government have become perverted, and public liberty is now manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the letter reads. A Governor whose character is thus marked by every act which may define him a tyrant, is unfit to be the executive of a free people of the State of New Hampshire.

The letter moves on to appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world another phrase from the Declaration of Independence.

We declare that the State of New Hampshire is, and Right ought to be a Free and Independent State as defined by Part I, Bill of Rights, Article VII; that we are Absolved from all allegiance to the statutory state of New Hampshire and all political connection between the Citizens of the State of New Hampshire and the state is and ought to be totally dissolved; and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

In total, 37 people signed the document, including Karen Testerman, a conservative who launched an unsuccessful primary challenge against Sununu earlier this year, and who is married to Dave Testerman.

The letter was sent to Secretary of States office, and marked as received Dec. 21. But whether the letter has any legal effect remains unclear.

In a statement Monday reacting to the letter, Sununu did not respond to the characterization of him as a tyrant, but instead focused on the allegations of election fraud.

In New Hampshire, our elections were conducted with the utmost integrity, Sununu said. Recounts were conducted across the State and verified with no results overturned. While some may not like the outcomes, our elections were fair, transparent, and accurate.

Link:
Splinter Republican representatives sign "termination of the state" document calling Sununu a 'tyrant' - Concord Monitor

"I don't need a mask!" declared the San Diego woman to a Starbucks barista. The woman apparently believed she had a right to enter mask-free, contrary to the coffee bar's policy.

A surprising number of Americans treat expectations of mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic in a similar way as if these expectations were paternalistic, limiting people's liberty for their own good. They are dead wrong.

Their thinking reflects what we might call "faux libertarianism," a deformation of the classic liberal theory. Libertarianism is the political and moral philosophy according to which everyone has rights to life, liberty and property and various specific rights that flow from these fundamental ones.

Libertarian rights are rights of noninterference, rather than entitlements to be provided with services. So your right to life is a right not to be killed and does not include a right to life-sustaining health care services. And your right to property is a right to acquire and retain property through your own lawful actions, not a right to be provided with property.

Libertarianism lies at the opposite end of the political spectrum from socialism, which asserts positive rights to such basic needs as food, clothing, housing and health care. According to libertarianism, a fundamental right to liberty supports several more specific rights, including freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom of religious worship. Neither the state nor other individuals may violate these rights of competent adults for their own protection. To do so would be unjustifiably paternalistic, say libertarians, treating grown-ups as if they needed parenting.

Why do I claim that Americans who resist mask-wearing in public embrace faux libertarianism, a disfigured version of the classic liberty-loving philosophy? Because they miss the fact that a compelling justification for mask-wearing rules is not paternalistic at all not focused on the agent's own good but rather appeals to people's responsibilities regarding public health. This point is entirely consistent with libertarianism.

Consider your right to freedom of movement. This right does not include a right to punch someone in the face, unless you both agree to a boxing match, and does not include a right to enter someone else's house without an invitation. Rights extend only so far.

Once we appreciate that rights have boundaries, rather than being limitless, we can see the relationship between liberty rights and public health.

Your rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association, and so on do not encompass a prerogative to place others at undue risk. This idea justifies our sensible laws against drunk driving. So even a libertarian can, and should, applaud Starbucks and its barista for insisting on mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic.

The fallacy of faux libertarianism is thinking that liberty rights have unlimited scope. That would mean there could be no legitimate laws or social norms since all laws and norms limit liberty in some way or another. Then the only legitimate government would be no government at all. And if no social norms were legitimate, then each of us would lack not only legal rights but also moral rights. In that case, we would have no right to liberty or anything else.

I am no fan of libertarianism, which I find problematic. But it is far more compelling than its incoherent impostor, faux libertarianism. Mask up, people, before you enter crowded, public spaces!

David DeGrazia is the Elton Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University.

More:
Theres no right to infect - Sarasota Herald-Tribune

We have now reached peak Libertarianism, and this bizarre experiment that has been promoted by the billionaire class for over 40 years is literally killing us.

Back in the years before Reagan, a real estate lobbying group called the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) came up with the idea of creating a political party to justify deregulating the real estate and finance industries so they could make more money. The party would give them ideological and political cover, and they developed an elaborate theology around it.

It was called the Libertarian Party, and their principal argument was that if everybody acted separately and independently, in all cases with maximum selfishness, that that would benefit society. There would be no government needed beyond an army and a police force, and a court system to defend the rights of property owners.

In 1980, billionaire David Koch ran for vice president on the newly formed Libertarian Party ticket. His platform was to privatize the Post Office, shut down all public schools, privatize Medicare and Medicaid, end food stamps and all other forms of welfare, deregulate all corporate oversight, and sell off much of the federal governments land and other assets to billionaires and big corporations.

Since then, Libertarian billionaires and right-wing media have been working hard to get Americans to agree with Ronald Reagans statementfrom his first inaugural address that, [G]overnment is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

And Trump is getting us there now.

Every federal agency of any consequence is now run by a lobbyist or former industry insider.

The Labor Department is trying to destroy organized labor; the Interior Department is selling off our public lands; the EPA is promoting deadly pesticides and allowing more and more pollution; the FCC is dancing to the tune of giant telecom companies; the Education Department is actively working to shut down and privatize our public school systems; the USDA is shutting down food inspections; the Defense Department is run by a former weapons lobbyist; even the IRS and Social Security agencies have been gutted, with tens of thousands of their employees offered early retirement or laid off so that very, very wealthy people are no longer being audited and the wait time for a Social Security disability claim is now over two years.

The guy Trump put in charge of the Post Office is actively destroying the Post Office, and the bonus for Trump might be that this will throwa huge monkey wrench in any effort to vote by mail in November.

Trump has removed the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, and fossil fuel lobbyists now control Americas response to global warming.

Our nations response to the coronavirus has been turned over to private testing and drug companies, and the Trump administration refuses to implement any official government policy, with Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar saying that its all up to individual responsibility.

The result is more than 140,000 dead Americans and 3 million infected, with many fearing for their lives.

While the Libertarian ideas and policies promoted by that real estate lobbying group that invented the Libertarian Party have made CEOs and billionaire investors very, very rich, its killing the rest of us.

In the 1930s and 1940s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt put America back together after the Republican Great Depression and built the largest and wealthiest middle class in the history of the world at the time.

Now, 40 years of libertarian Reaganomics have gutted the middle class, made a handful of oligarchs wealthier than anybody in the history of the world, and brought an entire generation of hustlers and grifters into public office via the GOP.

When America was still coasting on FDRs success in rebuilding our government and institutions, nobody took very seriously the crackpot efforts to tear it all down.

Now that theyve had 40 years to make their project work, were hitting peak Libertarianism and its tearing our country apart, pitting Americans against each other, and literally killing hundreds of people every day.

If America is to survive as a functioning democratic republic, we must repudiate the greed is good ideology of Libertarianism, get billionaires and their money out of politics, and rebuild our civil institutions.

That starts with waking Americans up to the incredible damage that 40 years of libertarian Reaganism has done to this country.

Pass it on.

Continue reading here:
The Disastrous Handling of the Pandemic is Libertarianism in Action, Will Americans Finally Say Good Riddance? - CounterPunch

Amash isn't runningfor anything. After Rep. Justin Amash's brief foray into seeking the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination, many thought that Amasha Tea Party Republican turned Trump-era independent and, now, Congress' first and only Libertarian membermight try to hold his seat representing Michigan in the House of Representatives. That's not to be.

Following a Detroit News report Thursday night that Amash's congressional campaign was inactive, Amash tweeted:

I love representing our community in Congress. I always will. This is my choice, but I'm still going to miss it. Thank you for your trust.

Amash adviser Poppy Nelson had told The Detroit News earlier that Amash "hasn't been campaigning for any office and doesn't plan to seek the nomination for any office."

The paper notes that Amash's campaign "raised only $24,200 for the quarter ending June 30another indication he's not running for federal office. He previously raised over $1.1 million toward re-election."

Amash was first elected to Congress in 2010 and has served five terms.

Nicholas Sarwark, former chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, told The Detroit News that with Amash "as our first Libertarian congressmanI would like to keep that seat. But I understand if he thinks there's a better way for him to advance the Libertarian Party and improve the conditions of this countrythat he has to do what he thinks is right."

More horrifying scenes out of Portland.Earlier this week, it was federal agents shooting impact munitions at protesters in Portland, Oregonhitting one man directly in the head, knocking him over and putting him in the hospital. At the time, Sen. Ron Wyden (DOre.) accused the feds of acting like an "occupying army." Now, unidentified federal agents wearing camouflage have been driving around Portland, snatching people off the streets, and taking them away in unmarked vehicles.

"Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14," Oregon Public Broadcasting reports.

Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off.

The tactic appears to be another escalation in federal force deployed on Portland city streets, as federal officials and President Donald Trump have said they plan to "quell" nightly protests outside the federal courthouse and Multnomah County Justice Center that have lasted for more than six weeks.

Another good reason to wear a mask. A May 22 memo from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explores the agency's fears that widespread mask wearing will thwart federal facial recognition programs. The memo was "drafted by the DHS Intelligence Enterprise Counterterrorism Mission Center in conjunction with a variety of other agencies, including Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement," and brought to the public's attention by The Intercept.

In its own words, the intelligence memo discusses "the potential impacts that widespread use of protective masks could have on security operations that incorporate face recognition systemssuch as video cameras, image processing hardware and software, and image recognition algorithms."

"Violent extremists and other criminals who have historically maintained an interest in avoiding face recognition" may "opportunistically seize upon public safety measures recommending the wearing of face masks to hinder the effectiveness of face recognition systems in public spaces by security partners," the feds fret, while noting that they have "no specific information" about this actually happening.

The Homeland Security memo also "cites as cause for concern tactics used in recent pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong," notes The Intercept.

D.C. efforts to decriminalize psilocybin draw interference. Yesterday members of Congresswhich still has veto power over local D.C. lawsdebated a proposal to decriminalize psychedelic mushrooms in the District. "We certainlydon't want to be known as the drug capital of the world," said Rep. Andy Harris (RMd.), who had introduced an amendment to forbid D.C. from putting the issue up for a vote this fall.

"We all can agree that policies that increase the availability of psychedelic drugs in the nation's capitalthat's dangerous," Rep. Tom Graves (RGa.) said at the House Appropriations Committee hearing.

Not all of the committee agreed.

"If the district's residents want to make mushrooms a lower priority and focus limited law enforcement resources on other issues, that is their prerogative," said Rep. Mike Quigley (DIll.).

Harris ultimately withdrew his amendmentfor now. "This is a new issue to the committee," he said in a statement. "Between now and the meeting of the conference committee this fall, the issue of whether this will be on the ballot will be resolved. Fortunately, in that time, members will also have time to learn more about this complicated medical issue."

America is seeing a dramatic shift in party affiliation. Since the start of the year, "what had been a two-percentage-point Republican advantage in U.S. party identification and leaning has become an 11-point Democratic advantage, with more of that movement reflecting a loss in Republican identification and leaning (down eight points) than a gain in Democratic identification and leaning (up five points)," notes Gallup:

Currently, half of U.S. adults identify as Democrats (32%) or are independents who lean toward the Democratic Party (18%). Meanwhile, 39% identify as Republicans (26%) or are Republican leaners (13%).

These results are based on monthly averages of Gallup U.S. telephone surveys in 2020.

Another federal execution took place yesterday:

It's impossible to reform policing without taking on police unions.

Florida man does a few things right.

Originally posted here:
Justin Amash's Tenure as the Libertarian Party's First Member in Congress Will Be Shortlived - Reason

Newsday is opening this story to all readers so Long Islanders have access to important information about the coronavirus outbreak. All readers can learn the latest news at newsday.com/LiveUpdates.Your subscription is important because it supports our work covering the coronavirus outbreak and other strong local journalism Newsday provides. You can find the latest news on the coronavirus outbreak at newsday.com/LiveUpdates.

"I don't need a mask!" declared the San Diego woman to a Starbucks barista. The woman apparently believed she had a right to enter mask-free, contrary to the coffee bar's policy. A surprising number of Americans treat expectations of mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic in a similar way as if these expectations were paternalistic, limiting people's liberty for their own good. They are dead wrong.

Their thinking reflects what we might call "faux libertarianism," a deformation of the classic liberal theory known as libertarianism. Libertarianism is the political and moral philosophy according to which everyone has rights to life, liberty and property and various specific rights that flow from these fundamental ones. Libertarian rights are rights of noninterference, rather than entitlements to be provided with services. So your right to life is a right not to be killed and does not include a right to life-sustaining health care services. And your right to property is a right to acquire and retain property through your own lawful actions, not a right to be provided property.

Libertarianism lies at the opposite end of the political spectrum from socialism, which asserts positive rights to such basic needs as food, clothing, housing and health care. According to libertarianism, a fundamental right to liberty supports several more specific rights including freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom of religious worship. Neither the state nor other individuals may violate these rights of competent adults for their own protection. To do so would be unjustifiably paternalistic, say libertarians, treating grown-ups as if they needed parenting.

Why do I claim that Americans who resist mask-wearing in public embrace faux libertarianism, a disfigured version of the classic liberty-loving philosophy? Because they miss the fact that a compelling justification for mask-wearing rules is not paternalistic at all not focused on the agent's but rather appeals to people's responsibilities regarding public health. This point is entirely consistent with libertarianism.

Consider your right to freedom of movement. This right does not include a right to punch someone in the face, unless you both agree to a boxing match, and does not include a right to enter someone else's house, without an invitation. Rights extend only so far. They do not encompass prerogatives to harm others (without their consent) or violate their rights. Once we appreciate that rights have boundaries, rather than being limitless, we can see the relationship between liberty rights and public health.

Your rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association, and so on do not encompass a prerogative to place others at undue risk; to endanger others in this way is to violate their rights, which you have no right to do. This idea justifies our sensible laws against drunk driving. So even a libertarian can, and should, applaud Starbucks and its barista for insisting on mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic. Whether or not the woman who said she didn't need a mask had a right to ignore her own health, she had no right to put other customers and Starbucks employees at risk either directly, by possibly spreading infection, or indirectly, by flouting a norm of mask-wearing that is reasonably related to public health and protecting other people from harm and rights violations.

The fallacy of faux libertarianism is thinking that liberty rights have unlimited scopes, that one's right to freedom of association, for example, means a right to get together with anyone, at any time, under any circumstances, even if doing so endangers others. If liberty rights had unlimited scopes, then there could be no legitimate laws or social norms since all laws and norms limit liberty in some way or another. That means that, if faux libertarianism were correct, then the only legitimate government would be no government at all, which is to say anarchy as opposed to civil society. And if no social norms were legitimate, then each of us would lack not only legal rights but also moral rights. In that case, we would have no right to liberty or anything else.

Go inside New York politics.

By clicking Sign up, you agree to our privacy policy.

Unlike libertarianism, which is a coherent outlook, faux libertarianism refutes itself by destroying any intelligible basis for rights to life, liberty, and property. I am no fan of libertarianism, which I find problematic at various levels. But it is far more compelling than its incoherent impostor, faux libertarianism. Mask up, people, before you enter crowded, public spaces!

David DeGraziais the Elton Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University. This piece was written for The Baltimore Sun.

Visit link:
You don't have the right to put others at risk by not wearing a mask - Newsday