Category Archives: Libertarianism

Among the political parties, the libertarian party is often confused with being either conservative or liberal.

Many even confuse libertarianism with liberalism.

Part of that is due to libertarianisms origin in Classical Liberalism.

However, there are several differences between libertarianism and liberalism.

Well dig into them and the different types of each.

The primary difference between a libertarian and a liberal is the way in which they view the government.

A libertarian believes that the government should have minimal involvement in economic and social policies.

They believe that the government coerces society too much.

Instead of the government, they believe that individuals can hold themselves accountable.

Liberals believe that the government is something society needs to help them achieve freedom and equality.

Liberals use peaceful protests to push their agendas.

However, theyre not afraid to use civilized violence to also state their cases.

Civilized violence is something like intimidation.

They differ in how they approach protesting from libertarians.

Libertarians believe in non-violent protests.

They rely on rational debate.

The very foundation of their philosophy is an ethical one.

Their belief in 100% voluntary contracts without coercion means that they are responsible for themselves and their behavior.

There are a few different ways to measure equality.

One is equality of outcome.

This type of equality means that the processes or methods used arent equal, but the end result is equal.

An example is the taxation of the rich.

A rich individual needs to pay more taxes than a poorer individual.

As a result, everyone in society is able to receive equal benefits like healthcare, security, and income.

While everyone is equal in the end, the method in which they achieve that equality is not equal.

The rich have to contribute more than the poor.

This type of concept is something that liberal philosophy adopts.

They believe in equality of outcome.

They also rely on the government to determine whats fair for everyone involved in society.

Then the government must reinforce those regulations.

The other type of equality is equality of opportunity.

This type of equality means that everyone follows the same rules.

If they break the rule, then theyre punished the same.

An example is two individuals that get caught speeding on the highway.

Theyre arrested and taken to court.

If one of those individuals is able to hire a rich attorney, then they may be able to bend the rules in their favor.

Equality of opportunity means that both individuals have the same access to the same resources for their defense.

They are both given the same punishment regardless of their wealth or identity because they broke the law.

You follow the rules like everyone else, or you receive punishment like everyone else.

Libertarians believe in equality of opportunity.

When everyone has to follow the same rulebook, then society is equal.

Originally, libertarianism was a part of Classical Liberalism.

It shared many of the same views on the economy as Classical Liberalism.

It wasnt until the 1960s and the Vietnam War that libertarianism started to branch out on its own.

During the Vietnam War, anti-war protests were common.

Americans were being drafted and forced to fight in a war that they didnt believe in.

Individuals started to see it as the government forcing itself into the lives of people when it had no business doing so.

Libertarianism suggested that society should live without most, if not all, forms of government coercion.

The idea attracted both liberals and conservatives to it.

While there are several types of libertarianism, there are two main schools of thought.

One is that society should exist without government involvement entirely.

Instead, control comes either from corporations or labor forces.

The other school of thought, one that Modern Libertarians adopt, is that the government needs minimal involvement.

Limited government control is primarily over the military defense and thats it.

Otherwise, they believe that individuals can hold themselves accountable.

Liberalism began with Classical Liberalism.

Its a school of thought that believes people are bound by their own agreements, contracts, and decisions.

They also believe in voluntary association, self-interest, and incentives.

This means that an individual has the right to make the choice to work a job that they dont want to because it pays well.

That same person also has the right to work at a job that they enjoy.

Out of Classical Liberalism came many different types of liberalism.

One of the main types that contrast from Classical Liberalism is Welfare Liberalism.

Welfare liberals believe that the people deserve certain welfare guarantees.

They also expect the government to fund and enforce those welfare guarantees.

Welfare liberals also focus on social obligations.

Theyre less concerned with basic rights.

They believe that those who are financially fortunate have a social obligation to help those who are not.

They have a right to help and serve their community.

As a result, theyre more inclined to seek help from the government to enforce those rights and social obligations.

This is different from Classical Liberalism which favors incentives.

They believe that individuals can better themselves through their upbringing and participation in certain jobs and organizations.

Libertarians have ties to both left-wing and right-wing policies.

Many consider them extreme radicals of the left or right.

In truth, they reside at the center of the political spectrum.

Some types of libertarianism are even more liberal or more conservative than the actual political parties themselves.

Some of the right-wing policies that libertarians share with conservatives are their stances on the economy.

Libertarians are in favor of tax cuts to stimulate the economy.

Their tax cuts arent reserved solely for corporations and big businesses, however.

Both conservatives and libertarians believe that the government needs to stay out of the market.

Follow this link:
Libertarian Vs. Liberal (Whats The Difference?) - The Cold Wire

Libertarianism Defined

Larry is a libertarian. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that places the political and social value of personal liberty over all other political values, even those like equality. Liberty is a political concept that means to be free from undue or oppressive restraints on a person's actions, thoughts or beliefs imposed by the State. A person with liberty possesses certain social, political and economic rights protected from improper private and public interference.

Keep in mind that from the standpoint of political thought, liberty is different from freedom. Freedom is, in its purist form, unrestrained action. Liberty is more restrained. For example, while Larry has the liberty of movement, he does not have the liberty to move his fist into someone's face.

Basically, you can think of libertarianism as valuing personal autonomy above all else - to be left alone, free from the coercion of other people, and especially the State. Consequently, Larry and other libertarians are pretty much hostile to all but the bare minimum of government, whose role is simply to prevent coercion and acts of fraud.

While the roots of libertarianism can be traced back to the 18th and 19th centuries and the writings of philosophers such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill, the modern formulation started in the 1950s. Some contemporary leaders of libertarian political thought include Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek.

Larry has been pretty politically active as a libertarian and decided to go to a libertarian convention. While at the convention, he was quite surprised to find out that not all libertarians think like he does. In fact, there are different types of libertarian philosophies. Let's take a quick look.

Larry's form of libertarianism is grounded upon natural rights, based in large part on the writings of the English philosopher John Locke. Locke believed that all people had certain rights pursuant to 'natural law,' which are universal principles that govern all human action.

Under natural rights libertarianism, the sole role of the State should be to protect the individual rights of its citizens. In other words, the government's role should be restricted to providing for the personal security of citizens against crime, preventing citizens from being coerced into doing something against their will and ensuring that personal property rights are protected.

Larry meets Charlie at the convention. Charlie adheres to consequentialists libertarianism, which means that Charlie doesn't rely upon a complicated theory of natural rights to support a limited government. Instead, Charlie and other followers of consequentialists libertarianism believe a minimalist government provides for better consequences than a large amount of government intervention. Charlie believes resources are allocated more efficiently through private market transactions and people are better at looking after their own interests than a government. Thus, the consequences of libertarianism lead to a better society overall.

Larry also meets Ayn at the conference. Ayn believes in anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists believe that there is no need for even a minimal State. According to Ayn and her fellow anarcho-capitalists, private firms can perform all functions traditionally performed by a government. For example, instead of a police force, people would simply contract with private security firms to provide protection and private court systems to enforce contracts. Even money would be a private affair, where firms would compete for individuals to use their private currencies. This type of society would be based almost entirely on voluntary contractual relations.

Let's review what we've learned. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that has roots in the 18th and 19th centuries but didn't come into its own until the 1950s. Libertarianism holds personal liberty above all other political values. Libertarians advocate for a minimal government that should only protect individual liberty from coercion and fraud.

You can actually divide libertarian theory into a few different schools of thought. Natural rights libertarianism holds personal liberty above all else and believes the government's role should be restricted to protecting that liberty. Consequentialists libertarianism believes that individual choice and markets free of government intervention lead to a better society. Anarcho-capitalists believe that society can function perfectly well without any government whatsoever by relying on voluntary exchanges between individuals and firms.

After this lesson is done, you should be able to:

See the rest here:
Libertarianism Philosophy and History - Study.com

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday rejected a Republican effort to remove a host of Libertarian candidates from the November ballot, saying the GOP did not bring their challenge soon enough.

In a unanimous opinion, the all-GOP court did not weigh in on the merits of the challenge but said the challenge came too late in the election cycle. The Libertarian Party nominated the candidates in April, the court said, and the GOP waited until earlier this month to challenge their candidacies.

We explain the voting process with election-specific voter guides to help Texans learn what is on the ballot and how to vote. We interview voters, election administrators and election law experts so that we can explain the process, barriers to participation and what happens after the vote is over and the counting begins. Read more here.

Instead of letting only politicians set the agenda, we talk to voters and scrutinize polling data to understand ordinary Texans top concerns. Our readers questions and needs help inform our priorities. We want to hear from readers: What do you better want to understand about the election process in Texas? If local, state or congressional elected officials were to successfully address one issue right now, what would you want it to be? Whats at stake for you this election cycle? If were missing something, this is your chance to tell us.

We do not merely recount what politicians say, but focus on what they do (or fail to do) for the Texans they represent. We aim to provide historical, legal and other kinds of context so readers can understand and engage with an issue. Reporting on efforts that make voting and engaging in our democracy harder is a pillar of our accountability work. Read more here.

We arent able to closely cover all 150 races in the Texas House, 31 in the Texas Senate or 38 for the Texas delegation in the next U.S. House. We need to choose what races we cover closely by using our best judgment of whats most noteworthy. We take into account factors like power, equity, interest and competitiveness in order to determine what warrants more resources and attention. Read more here.

In reporting on falsehoods and exaggerations, we clearly explain why it is untrue and how it may harm Texans. Sometimes, we choose to not write about misinformation because that can help amplify it. Were more likely to debunk falsehoods when they are spread by elected officials or used as a justification for policy decisions. Read more here.

On Aug. 8, a group of Republican candidates asked the Supreme Court to remove 23 Libertarians from the ballot, saying they did not meet eligibility requirements. The Republicans included Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and others in congressional and state legislative races.

State law requires Libertarian candidates to pay filing fees or gather petition signatures, the amount of each depending on the office sought. The Libertarian Party has been challenging that law in federal court, arguing it is unfair because the fees do not go toward their nomination process like they do for Democrats and Republicans.

Republicans also tried and failed to kick a group of Libertarian candidates off the ballot in 2020. In that case, the state Supreme Court said the GOP waited until after the deadline to challenge candidate eligibility. This time, the Republicans filed their challenge before that deadline but apparently still did not satisfy the courts preference to deal with election challenges as soon as the alleged issues arise.

In its opinion Friday, the court suggested the emergency timeframe argued by the GOP is entirely the product of avoidable delay in bringing the matter to the courts.

"The Libertarian Party of Texas is thrilled with this outcome," Whitney Bilyeu, who chairs the Texas Libertarian Party, said in a statement. "As we did last time, we resisted this haphazard attempt by Republicans to limit voter choice and obstruct free and fair elections."

Republicans have long sought to marginalize Libertarians under the thinking that they siphon votes from the GOP. Democrats, meanwhile, see the Green Party as a threat.

Among the 23 races in which the GOP challenged Libertarian candidates this time, few are expected to be close. The most clear exception, though, is the 15th Congressional District, the most competitive congressional race in the state and a top target of Republicans nationwide. Libertarian Ross Lynn Leone will remain on the ballot there against Republican Monica De La Cruz and Democrat Michelle Vallejo.

Patricks race could also be competitive. He won reelection by 5 percentage points in 2018, while the Libertarian candidate then took 2% of the vote.

The full program is now LIVE for the 2022 Texas Tribune Festival, happening Sept. 22-24 in Austin. Explore the schedule of 100+ mind-expanding conversations coming to TribFest, including the inside track on the 2022 elections and the 2023 legislative session, the state of public and higher ed at this stage in the pandemic, why Texas suburbs are booming, why broadband access matters, the legacy of slavery, what really happened in Uvalde and so much more. See the program.

More here:
Republican effort to remove Libertarians from November ballot rejected by Texas Supreme Court - The Texas Tribune

A coalition of news organizations, including the Arizona Mirror, and civil libertarians filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday to block a new law that would make it a crime to take video of police officers in some situations, arguing that it violates the First Amendment.

If it goes into effect, HB2319 would have a dramatic chilling effect on Arizonans who wish to exercise their First Amendment right to record video of law enforcement officials performing their duties in public, attorneys for the Mirror and other plaintiffs wrote in a motion asking a federal judge to stop the law from being enforced, known as a preliminary injunction.

The new law is scheduled to go into effect on Sept. 24, and would outlaw video recording of police officers within eight feet of where law enforcement activity is taking place. If a person does not stop after being told to, they face a class 3 misdemeanor and up to 30 days in jail.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

States Newsroom and the Arizona Mirror are dedicated to informing people about the decisions and activities of public officials, said Andrea Verykoukis, the deputy director of States Newsroom, which publishes the Mirror. There is nothing more essential to this task than the First Amendment right of every Arizonan to gather and share information about their elected representatives and law enforcement officers paid with public money.

We look forward to a ruling that will prevent this chilling and unconstitutional law from taking effect.

The plaintiffs in the legal challenge are the Mirror and States Newsroom; the Arizona Broadcasters Association; the Arizona Newspapers Association; the parent company of Fox 10 Phoenix; the parent company of KTVK 3TV, KPHO CBS 5 News and KOLD News 13; KPNX 12 News; NBCUniversal, which owns Telemundo Arizona; the National Press Photographers Association; Phoenix Newspapers Inc., which owns The Arizona Republic; Scripps Media, which owns ABC15 in Phoenix and KGUN9 in Tucson; and the ACLU of Arizona.

The law, which was created by House Bill 2319 earlier this year, is an obvious violation of the First Amendment rights of all Arizonans, including journalists, the lawsuit states. The new laws legislative sponsor, Fountain Hills Republican state Rep. John Kavanagh, knew there were constitutional problems, as did legislative attorneys, who warned lawmakers that the restrictions flew in the face of previous court rulings.

Courts have long ruled that the First Amendment protects not only the publication of videos, but also the act of recording them particularly videos of public officers in public places.

In striking down an Idaho law that barred video recordings in agricultural facilities, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument that such videos werent protected by the First Amendment, ruling that would be akin to saying that even though a book is protected by the First Amendment, the process of writing the book is not.

And the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently recognized a right to gather news, and recording police and other government officials is newsgathering, attorneys for the news organizations and the ACLU noted in their filings. In a 1972 case, the high court ruled that freedom of the press could be eviscerated without First Amendment protections for seeking out the news.

The new Arizona law also targets video recordings specifically, while ignoring other types of speech, the lawsuit claims. While it purports to prevent interference with officers, the law does nothing to forbid anyone from approaching within eight feet of an officer for any other reason even while holding up a phone for some other purpose, such as catching a Pokemon, or video recording non-law enforcement activity, or being within eight feet of an officer taking a still photo, or writing notes about what the officer is doing, or even making an audio recording of a police encounter.

The lawsuit points to existing state and local laws that prohibit interfering with police officers that can already be enforced. And those laws are clear, unlike HB2319, the lawsuit claims.

There is no evidence to show that a person holding a cell phone that happens to be recording is an interference with law enforcement activity, while a person walking by on the same sidewalk holding the same phone but texting or taking pictures with it is not, the plaintiffs argued. This irrational distinction highlights the laws true purpose: preventing recording, not interference or distraction.

The way the law is written, it effectively creates moving bubbles around every officer within which it might be a crime to record video. And that gives every police officer in Arizona the authority to create the crime simply by approaching someone who is filming them.

Where a group of police officers making an arrest do not want to be recorded, one officer from that group can order a halt to recording, move towards the person recording and, as soon as that officer comes within eight feet of the person, immediately find them in violation of the law and subject to arresteven though it is the officers approach that triggered the alleged violation, the attorneys for the media and ACLU argued.

The law requires that a warning to stop recording must be issued before filming can be considered a crime, but its not at all clear how that would work, as theres no guidance as to what qualifies as previously receiving a warning.

Is it five minutes? An hour? A day? Does the warning have to be from an officer involved in the activity being recorded? What if another officer arrives after the no recording order is given and tells the videographer to go ahead and start recording again? the attorneys argued.

***UPDATE: This story has been updated to include documents related to the lawsuit.

Read this article:
Media organizations and civil libertarians sue to stop a law that restricts recording videos of cops - Arizona Mirror

Those who favor freedom may be tempted to despair. We seem hopelessly outnumbered. The masses dont appreciate freedom, so they support or acquiesce to rulers who are hellbent on abolishing it.

To free ourselves of these tyrants, we must turn the people toward liberty. But the masses seem too far gone for that: too economically ignorant, too morally unmoored, too hoodwinked by government propaganda. The prospect of getting such a benighted and deluded populace to understand and embrace libertarian political philosophy and free-market economics seems like a tall orderan impossible one, even.

The good news is, we dont actually need to get the masses to master the freedom philosophy to get them to embrace it.

As Leonard E. Read wrote in Elements of Libertarian Leadership, A study of significant political movements or vast social shifts will reveal that every one of themgood or badhas been led by an infinitesimal minority. Never has one of these changes been accompanied by mass understanding, nor should such ever be expected.

Now Read didnt discount the importance of understanding and the power of ideas. Quite the opposite: Read started the Foundation for Economic Education because he believed that the prospects for liberty depend on the success of the ideas of liberty. Indeed, all successful liberty movements of the past arose in the wake of advances in the ideas of liberty.

The American Revolution in the 18th century, for example, was led by an infinitesimal minority of individuals like the American founders who were avid students of John Locke and other philosophers of liberty.

The liberal economic reforms of the 19th century that resulted in the Industrial Revolution were led by an infinitesimal minority of individuals like Richard Cobden and John Bright who were devotees of Adam Smith and other free-market economists.

However, the average 18th-century American did not pore over Lockes Second Treatise of Government or comprehend his natural law philosophy. And yet, under the intellectual and moral leadership of those who did, he stood up for his rights and opposed tyranny anyway.

Similarly, your run-of-the-mill 19th-century Briton did not study Smiths Wealth of Nations or grasp the Invisible Hand. And yet, under the intellectual and moral leadership of those who did, he supported free trade and opposed mercantilist policies anyway.

The same is true for major movements away from liberty, as well. The typical twentieth century Russian did not read Marxs Das Kapital or understand his labor theory of value. And yet, under the intellectual and moral leadership of those who did, he supported class warfare and opposed capitalism anyway.

As a famous saying (commonly misattributed to Samuel Adams) has it, It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in the minds of men.

And as Margaret Mead has been (also dubiously) quoted, Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

In FEE seminars, Read would illustrate this dynamic by drawing a normal curve on the chalkboard. One end of the curve represented the infinitesimal minority of the population who actively advocate freedom and oppose tyranny. The other end represented another infinitesimal minority: those who actively oppose freedom and advocate big government.

The vast bulk of the curve in the middle represented the many millions, more or less indifferent, as uninterested in understanding the nature of society and its political institutions as are most people in understanding the composition of a symphony; who, at best, can only become listeners or followers of one camp or the other.

Its not so much that the masses are incapable of becoming music theorists or political philosophers (although aptitude is a factor). Its more an issue of the time required to master such specialist pursuits. We cant all specialize in political philosophy, after all.

The good news is, we dont all need to. The fate of freedom, Read explained, depends on which of the two infinitesimal minorities wins over the heart and minds of the majority. But that is not a matter of turning the masses into philosophers and economists. Its a matter of which group of opinion-influencers earns the peoples esteem and trust and thus gains influence.

Here, then, Read wrote, is the key question: What constitutes an influential opinion? In the context of moral, social, economic, and political philosophy, influential opinion stems from or rests upon (1) depth of understanding, (2) strength of conviction, and (3) the power of attractive exposition. These are the ingredients of self-perfection as relating to a set of ideas. Persons who thus improve their understanding, dedication, and exposition are the leaders of men; the rest of us are followers, including the out-front political personalities.

Liberty advances when libertarians manifest these virtues. When other libertarians see them, it brings out the best in them, leading them to let their "light so shine before men as well. When non-libertarians with a latent affinity for understanding liberty see them, it activates their potential, beckons them over to the light side, and can turn them into liberty leaders as well. And when the multitudes who are just not that into in-depth social studies see them, it elicits well-earned admiration and trust.

Read extracted from this analysis a pill that can be hard for libertarians to swallow. If the masses are rejecting liberty and accepting tyranny, that means the anti-freedom thought-leaders are outperforming the pro-freedom thought-leaders in attaining and manifesting the above qualities. It means the inheritors of the grand tradition of liberty are failing to do their homework, as Read put it: failing to do the self-work necessary to improve their understanding, dedication, and exposition. As a result they are not manifesting the qualities of attraction and leadership of which they are capable and that are necessary to lead the people toward liberty.

As Read concluded:

...the solution of problems relating to a free society depends upon the emergence of an informed leadership devoted to freedom.

In short, this is a leadership problem, not a mass reformation problem.

And, as he elaborated, the solution to that leadership problem is self-improvement: the reformation, not of the masses, but of ourselves.

If we who profess liberty each devote ourselves to self-improvement, we will become leaders of our communitiesand ultimately of society at largeas a natural byproduct. Inspired by our genuine example, the individuals who make up society will reform themselves and turn toward liberty: even those who dont fully comprehend its underlying rationale.

Those who deeply understand the freedom philosophythe Remnant as Read called them, following his friend and influence Albert Jay Nockwill always be outnumbered. But that is no excuse for despair.

To paraphrase Mead mixed with Read, never doubt that an infinitesimal minority of individuals committed to self-improvement can improve the world.

Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

P.S. In the video below, Leonard E. Read gives the "normal curve" presentation discussed above.

Read more:
How a Tiny Minority Can Lead the World Toward Liberty | Dan Sanchez - Foundation for Economic Education

A Republican candidate running for a seat in Oklahoma's state House once said it is "totally just" to kill gay people in comments that have resurfaced amid his campaign.

Scott Esk is running to represent Oklahoma's 87th House District, which includes parts of Oklahoma City. He is set to face another Republican Gloria Banister in a Tuesday runoff, but his campaign has faced scrutiny in recent days over the resurfaced comments, which began nearly a decade earlier. The comments resurfaced last year in a Facebook comment thread as many in the LGBTQ community have warned about a rise in homophobic rhetoric in politics.

In 2013, when Esk was running in a different race, the candidate commented on an article about the Pope asking "who I am to judge?" about gay people. According to MSNBC, Esk responded with Bible verses condemning homosexuality, prompting another user to ask if he believes "we should execute homosexuals (presumably by stoning)?"

"I think we would be totally in the right to do it," he said, according to MSNBC. "That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I'm largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss."

Local news outlet TheMooreDaily.com also pressed him on the remarks, to which he responded that it was "totally just" to kill gay people in the Bible's Old Testament.

"What I will tell you right now is that was done in the Old Testament under a law that came directly from God. And in that time, it was totally justit came directly from God. I have no plans to reinstitute that in Oklahoma law. I do have very big moral misgivings about those kinds of sins, and I think that those kinds of sins will not do our country any good and certainly doesn't do anything to preserve the family," he said.

He responded to criticism in a YouTube video on July 15, when a local news station reported on his old comments. In the video, he asked if having "an opinion against homosexuality" makes him "a homophobe." However, he added that he believes it "simply makes me a Christian."

In the video, he said that he is "not for expanding the death penalty for homosexuality," but still denounced what he views as the "obscene things homosexuals do."

Newsweek reached out to the Esk campaign for comment. In remarks to The Oklahoman, Esk dismissed previous coverage of his comments as a "hit piece."

Esk is not the only prominent conservative figure in the United States to push anti-gay, and at times violent, rhetoric in recent months.

Pastor Mark Burns, who ran and lost a primary challenge for a South Carolina House seat, also called for the execution of gay people. He said that parents and teachers who discuss the LGBTQ community with children should be found guilty of "treason."

"We need to hold people for treason; start having some public hearings and start executing people who are found guilty for their treasonous acts against the Constitution of the United States of America. Just like they did back in 1776," he said.

See the original post:
GOP Candidate Saying it's 'Totally Just' to Kill Gay People Resurfaces - Newsweek

ALABAMA (WHNT) As November approaches, some candidates said it has been difficult to get their names listed on the ballot for the general election.

Its very difficult to bring political competition to Alabama, said Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate John Sophocleus.

The Libertarian Party had to obtain more than 50,000 signatures so its candidates could appear on the Alabama ballot in the upcoming general election.

Sophocleus is running to replace retiring U.S. Senator from Alabama Richard Shelby.

Libertarians think there is a well-defined role for government, Sophocleus said.

Many Libertarian candidates emphasize the importance of decentralization, reassigning federal power to the states and individuals. In order to share its views, the Libertarian Party had to petition for the right to appear on the ballot. Sophocleus said the time and funds that went into collecting signatures for a petition created an additional barrier for Libertarian candidates.

The campaign trail for not just me, but Libertarians in general, is when you have to spend a quarter of a million dollars and a lot of time and effort to just get on the ballot, Im not sure where youre going to make up for the time and money spent there, Sophocleus said.

Sophocleus said he and the members of his party offer a third option for Alabama voters.

The results of this years general election could impact Libertarian candidates in future races. If the party receives 20% of the votes cast in the election, the Libertarian Party can appear on the ballot in the next general election without filing a petition.

If we get ballot access upfront, we can actually run a real campaign for the entire cycle, Sophocleus said. I cant tell you how difficult it was to round up candidates when we cant tell them for certain that theyll be on the ballot.

More than 60 Libertarian candidates will be listed on the ballot in November. Sophocleus will appear alongside his opponents for U.S. Senate, Republican Katie Britt and Democrat Will Boyd.

Follow this link:
Third Party Candidates: Alabama Libertarians to appear on general election ballot - WHNT News 19

You can listen to the latest episode of Today in Pa at this link, or on any of your favorite apps including Alexa, Apple, Spotify, and Stitcher. Episodes are available every weekday on PennLive. Feel free to subscribe, follow or rate Today in Pa. as you see fit!

The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania is seeing the most legislative candidates its had in nearly 30 years ahead of elections, indicating a surge in interest due to many who are sick and tired of a two-party system. Meanwhile, the Steelers continue their acrimonious battle with the Sports & Exhibition Authority (SEA) over 2018 scoreboard improvements which cost millions of dollars. One of Philadelphias biggest employers wants workers back in the office. Plus, one man proves the sky isnt the limit.

Those are the stories we cover in the latest episode of Today in Pa., a daily weekday podcast from PennLive.com and hosted by Claudia Dimuro. Today in Pa. is dedicated to sharing the most important and interesting stories pertaining to Pennsylvania that lets you know, indeed, whats happening today in Pa.

Todays episode refers to the following articles:

If you enjoy Today in Pa., consider leaving us a review on Apple Podcasts or on Amazon. Reviews help others find the show and, besides, wed like to know what you think about the program, too.

Originally posted here:
Sick and tired of the two-party system: Pa. Libertarian Party sees surge in interest | Today in Pa. - PennLive

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Read the rest here:
Voter registrations in North Carolina continue to trend mostly unaffiliated and slightly Republican - The Mountaineer

Hey, remember back in 2018 when Politico Magazine told us Chase Koch, son of Charles Koch, "wants to steer the conservative juggernaut his family created toward a kinder, gentler libertarianism?" Or what about in 2020, when the Wall Street Journal's Doug Belkin helped Charles "call me 'Chuckie'" Koch attempt to rebrand as a "philosopher and, he hopes, unifer?"

Well if you were, like us, more skeptical than the "journalists" who credulously served up this PR as "reporting", then congratulations! You're not stupid enough to be a political access-driven DC journalist.

Because it turns out that even as ol' Chuckie was telling the WSJ how much he laments his past partisanship, he was still steering ungodly amounts of money into the election. Belkin claimed that "Koch Industries PAC and employees donated $2.8 million in the 2020 campaign cycle to Republican candidates and $221,000 to Democratic candidates," but that seems to have undersold things by an order of magnitude or two.

It's taken two years for all the paperwork to go through, but Connor Gibson crunched the numbers for the Center for Media and Democracy, and tallied up that "Koch Industries spent only $22.4 million on federal lobbying and campaign contributions in the 2020 election cycle."

But even that is "only" a fraction of the total spend, as across the 28 organizations that Koch controls, plus his family and Koch Industries executives, the total Koch spend on the 2020 election cycle was at least $1.1 billion.

Yes, billion, with a "B"!

The supposedly post-partisan Koch network spent $1,100,000,000 influencing American politics, in just one election cycle!

And even THAT is a conservative figure, Gibson notes, because "these calculations likely fail to account for the total policy and political spending overseen by Charles Koch since Koch Industries and a fleet of Koch-controlled limited liability companies (LLCs) do not disclose similar finances."

Over a billion dollars, and that's just from what they're forced to disclose!

"Even though Koch told reporters he was so displeased with Trump," Gibson writes, "that he might even support Democrats a rhetorical trick he pulls every few years the tens of millions of dollars his organizations invested in U.S. Senate and House races went almost exclusively to Republicans."

And it's not just the "good" Republicans who respect norms and traditions like not overthrowing Democracy because you're a loser: "Koch has financed groups involved in extremist activity, including the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In 2022, Koch Industries is still financing many politicians who worked to invalidate the results of the 2020 presidential election, despite signaling to Politico that it would discontinue such support."

He's certainly getting what he paid for, too: "His astroturf organization Americans for Prosperity (AFP) spent "seven figures" on efforts to support the confirmations of Trump nominees Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney-Barrettfor a total price tag of between $3 and $10 million."

Regardless, who wants to guess which supposedly DC-savvy, access-driven journalistic mockery will fall for it the next time Chuckie Koch wants some sympathetic press?

See the article here:
After Koch's Kinder, Gentler Rebrand Attempt, He Spent Over $1 Billion On 2020 Elections - Daily Kos