Category Archives: Libertarianism

This article originally appeared on PA Post.

This months off-year election in Pennsylvania was fascinating not so much because of the electoral shakeups in once reliably red or blue counties, but mainly because of all the new parties and political faces that showed up on the ballot and won!

In Berks County, for example, instead of a blue wave or red army, the Libertarians painted their color (gray, maybe?) on the map. ChannelingRon Swansons limited-government energy,close to a dozen different libertarians ran in uncontested races this past election. They won Birdsboro and Kenhorst borough council seats and five township auditor seats. One mission is to show people that our ideology and methodology works and that people can trust us to help run these governing units, said the partys county chairman, Jerry Geleff. Geleff conceded that it may seem out of place for the party ofnogovernment to be campaigning to run some government, but he was quick to note that most Libertarians believea littlegovernment is necessary.

And while the greater Philly area saw a shakeup in historically Republican areas, arguably the largest upset (at least what most news organizations focused on) was Kendra Brookss election to the city council carrying the banner of the Working Families Party. Putting aside whether or not you agree with Brookss progressive platform, it will be interesting to see how the 14 council Democrats work with her and the two elected Republicans.

Finally, there was Paige Cognetti an independent whowon the mayors racein Scranton. Cognetti, a Democrat, was spurned by the party machine in the city. So she switched her registration to independent and ran on boosting small business while also increasing funding for infrastructure (true middle of the road politics).

So if youre looking to steer the dinner table political conversation away from the red vs. blue cliche, steer the topic to third party candidates and what their rise means in an increasingly polarized state and nation.

See the original post here:
3rd party wins promise to shake up Thanksgiving dinner table talk - WHYY

Our ideological confusion, always great, is growing still greater as political conservatism becomes redefined as whatever Donald Trump tweets and political liberalism becomes increasingly indistinguishable from radical leftism.

Clarity on ideological matters can usually be enhanced not just by more precisely defining ideological terms and acquiring a better understanding of political theory, but also by examining what movement from the political "center" to the political "right" or "left" produces.

This is not particularly difficult to do for leftism, which can be rather neatly plotted along the leftward side of the continuum by moving in increments from American Progressivism and European social democracy to democratic socialism and Marxism-Leninism. The further left you go, the more hostile the view of capitalism and the greater the desire to maximize state power over the individual.

Things are more complicated on the rightward side, however, because the right can't be represented in increments and forks off sharply to reach ideological positions that have virtually nothing in common with each other, despite the shared "right-wing" appellation.

Along these lines, the earliest strain of self-conscious political conservatism, the European conservatism of the 18th and 19th centuries, was genuinely conservative in the sense of wishing to preserve a feudal order increasingly beset by liberalism on one side and socialism on the other. It stood for monarchial authority and distinct class hierarchies, with a fusion of church and state (or at least deference to ecclesiastical authority) buttressed by a rigid set of social customs and mores. Its desire to preserve the status quo in the face of demands for reform helps explain our everyday understanding of the word "conservative."

That kind of conservatism was largely finished off by the Great War, which destroyed what was left of European monarchy and supposedly made the world "safe for democracy."

As what Louis Hartz famously called the "first liberal nation," America never had much of a feudal order or a form of politics supporting it, with the possible exception of a certain agrarian populist conservatism associated with the Confederacy (the part of America that most resembled in its political culture and social arrangements European feudalism).

As the feudal order faded in Europe in the face of the liberal and socialist challenges, "right-wing" by the interwar years came to be defined by the noxious fascism of Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and a motley crew of related regimes in Eastern Europe.

The fascism that provoked World War II was thus an ideological mish-mash of extreme authoritarianism, worship of state power, anti-Semitism and militarism. It was destroyed by World War II in the same sense as monarchial conservatism was by World War I, although whiffs could still be found thereafter in European politics in the Catholic authoritarianism of Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal.

Neo-Nazis might show up in small numbers these days in the streets of Charlottesville but they represent a minuscule percentage of the citizenry, lack political influence, and are reflexively condemned across the political spectrum.

With monarchial conservatism long gone and genuine fascism largely irrelevant since Hitler committed suicide in his Berlin bunker, what is now called right-wing, at least in American politics, has become synonymous with conservatism and the Republican Party.

But our ideological confusion deepens when recognizing that the conservatism of Herbert Hoover, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan isn't really conservatism at all but the most direct ideological descendant of the classical liberalism upon which the American experiment is based. In most other democracies, with a more developed understanding of political theory, such folks are more accurately called "liberals" or "neo-liberals" rather than conservatives.

The essential "liberalism" of what is mistakenly called American conservatism is best captured by George Will, who recently argued that what American conservatives seek to "conserve" is the American founding, with its core values of the rule of law, individual rights, market economics, and self-government limited by a system of checks and balances.

These are the defining historical values of liberalism, and much more the values of a Goldwater or Reagan than an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.

As such, there can probably be no political movements more dissimilar than classical liberalism (which includes contemporary libertarianism) on the one hand and European fascism on the other (the central project of the former is limiting state power; for the latter, removing all such limits). And the classical liberalism contemporary conservatives seek to protect is the same liberalism that undermined monarchial conservatism in nation after nation in 19th and early 20th century Europe.

In short, "right-wing," referring as it does to ideological movements as incompatible as Nazism, Jeffersonian liberalism and contemporary libertarianism, has become a meaningless label.

Properly understood within the historical ideological spectrum, American conservatism is not conservatism but classical liberalism. And New Deal liberalism isn't liberalism but part of a broader socialist movement which developed historically apart from and in direct opposition to classical liberalism.

American conservatism is "right-wing" only in the sense of opposing the illiberal left.

------------v------------

Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.

Editorial on 11/25/2019

Print Headline: BRADLEY R. GITZ: What is 'right-wing'?

Read the original post:
BRADLEY R. GITZ: What is 'right-wing'? - NWAOnline

For a self-styled digital native who stresses "21st century solutions" to today's problems, presidential hopeful Andrew Yang has a decidedly 20th century way of addressing what he considers to be problems: spend more, regulate more.

As Reason's Billy Binion noted, the tech entrepreneur's proposals about "Regulating Technology Firms in the 21st Century" involve a lot of unwise monkeying around with "Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act; the landmark legislation protects social media companies from facing certain liabilities for third-party content posted by users online." Like many other critics of online platforms (including progressives such as Elizabeth Warren and conservatives such as Josh Hawley), Yang buys into the nonexistent distinction between "publishers" and "platforms" as a means of regulating the speech and economic freedom of social media companies and website operators.

In the same document, Yang also proposes to

It's this sort of "new" thinking that loses libertarians. In what way does a new, presumably cabinet-level, agency do anything other than expand the size, scope, and spending of government in a way that will inevitably limit speech and expression? That it's being done in the name of "the children" makes it seem like a punchline from a mid-1990s episode of The Simpsons. Yang asserts that "we are beginning to understand exactly how much of an adverse effect" social media is having on kids and that Facebook, Twitter, and the rest face no "real accountability" even as he rhapsodizes about his 20th century childhood: "I look back at my childhood and I remember riding a bike around the neighborhood, but now tablets, computers, and mobile devices have shifted the attention of youth."

Spare me the nostalgia and moral panic, which is highly reminiscent of the '90s panic over the supposed effects on kids of sex and violence on cable TV (lest we forget, Attorney General Janet Reno and other leaders threatened censorship if the menace of Beavis and Butt-headand other basic cable fare wasn't cleaned up). The social science is far from settled on any of this stuff and the first reaction to perceived problems should never be creating a series of government controls. Social media companies face all sorts of pushback in the marketplace, too, including lack of interest from users (Facebook has posted two years of declining use in the U.S.).

What would any of Yang's plans cost in terms of dollars and cents? It doesn't really matter because the visionary will pay for everything with a value-added tax on digital advertising.

Lord knows Republicans, including Donald Trump, are hardly avatars of a new way of governing, but the Democratic presidential candidates have yet to meet a problem that can't be solved by creating a whole new program or bureaucracy. South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg wants to shell out $1 trillion to make housing, child care, and college more affordable. Elizabeth Warren wants to raise taxes by $26 trillion and Bernie Sanders wants national rent-control laws while washout Beto O'Rourke yammered on about the right to live close to work before bidding adieu to the 2020 race. Joe Biden wants to spend $750 billion over the next decade to deliver what Obamacare was supposed to do.

Over the last 40 years, federal spending averaged 20.4 percent of GDP while federal revenue averaged just 17.4 percent. That gap, says the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is only going to get wider, saddling future Americans with more and more debt, which dampens long-term economic growth, among other bad outcomes.

The federal government spent about $4.4 trillion in fiscal year 2019 (while posting a $1 trillion deficit). Surely there is more than enough savings to be found in that massive sum before proposing big new programs that will be layered on top of a seemingly infinite number of existing efforts to fix all the big and small problems of the world. It shouldn't be too much to insist that all candidates for president (and every other federal office) explain how they are going to bring revenues and outlays into some sort of balance. But at the very least, we shouldn't stand for yet more spending and regulation that simply gets layered on top of what is already there.

Continued here:
Andrew Yang's 'Department of the Attention Economy' Is Why Libertarians Don't Trust Democrats - Reason

Photo by Isabella Castillo | The State Press

"Dear State Press, you've got mail." Illustration published on Friday, March 3, 2017.

Earlier this month, The State Press published an opinion piece calling on ASU clubs to sign a resolution supporting the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The resolution would also prohibit signees from collaborating with student organizations that express support for the state of Israel. In response to this, ASUs College Libertarians and College Republicans would like to publicly announce that we, as student organizations, will not be signing this resolution.

We recognize that this is part of a larger, more complex issue and that there are good-faith arguments on every side. We believe that each individual has a right to choose where they stand on this issue. But as two different political clubs on campus who believe in peace, liberty and freedom, we feel the need to explain the three primary reasons why we will not be signing this resolution nor supporting this movement.

Firstly, the calls for a boycott of Israeli products wholly misses the mark. If the goal of BDS is to send a message to the Israeli government, a boycott of goods made in Israel will directly hurt the citizens of Israel long before the government feels any real effects.

Additionally, the calls for sanctions against Israel continue this trend, considering the mountains of evidence that suggest sanctions are largely ineffective. Instead, the BDS movement seems to be more so aimed at delegitimizing the state of Israel rather than trying to influence change. We do not believe that refusing to acknowledge the very existence of either party will do anything to pacify the conflict at hand.

Secondly, BDS and their often aggressive tactics have the unintended consequence of discouraging any negotiations toward peace in the region. This is why the current president of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas, a supporter of a two-state solution, said in 2013 that Palestinians do not support a boycott of Israel.

Finally, it is important to note that the Anti-Defamation League has said that many of the founding goals (and) strategies employed in BDS campaigns are anti-Semitic.

Both of our clubs strongly condemn anti-Semitism of all forms. There is no reason to support a cause that actively marginalizes ASUs rich Jewish community. This is not to mention the recent uptick in anti-Semitic activity on campus.

As such, our student organizations will not be signing onto any such resolution, and we will continue to work tirelessly to fend off anti-Semitism on all fronts. We urge other organizations and students of all sides of the aisle to join us in this effort to stamp out hate and promote civil dialogue.

Sincerely,

David Howman, President, ASU College Libertarians

Joseph Pitts, Vice President, ASU College Republicans

Editors note: The opinions presented in this letter to the editor are the authors and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors. This letter to the editor was submitted by David Howman, president of the ASU College Libertarians and Joseph Pitts, vice president of the ASU College Republicans.

Reach the authors at david.j.howman.44@gmail.com and jdpitts4@asu.edu.

Want to join the conversation? Send an email toopiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 500 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.

LikeThe State Press on Facebook and follow@statepress on Twitter.

View post:
Letter to the Editor: College Libertarians and College Republicans oppose BDS movement - The State Press

A wise king never seeks out war, but he must always be ready for it. ~ Odin

These words of wisdom from the pages of Marvel Comics and the Marvel Cinematic Universe are truer than many choose to believe.

At the time Odin speaks them, Thor (Odins son), is brash and full of himself. Thor is strong, mighty, self-confident and ready to take over his fathers throne so he can force his will upon whomever he wishes.

Many of the people seeking political office these days view our military might the same way Thor saw his fathers. These individuals anticipate ascending to power so they may flex our military might to force our will upon whomever they/we wish.

This way of thinking has been the accepted norm throughout our history but it should not be this way.

In George Washingtons farewell address he wrote: Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. ~ George Washington

The Libertarian Party Non-Aggression Platform is reflected by both George Washingtons words and the words of Odin.

As a nation, it is imperative that we seek out a harmonious coexistence with all nations in the world.

We tend to prosper whenever there is a mutually pleasant demeanor between countries.

An environment where fair trade and commerce can be made in addition to safe travel.

This is how nations grow in culture, knowledge and ideas.

The internet has made obtaining information from far away quicker and easier, but actually venturing to a location gives a more hands-on and enriching experience that you can not get from reading off a screen.

Even with all the good and reliable information on the web, there is also lots of unreliable misinformation.

Firsthand knowledge is always the best and that is only attainable through peaceful travel.

Unfortunately, we will not always be able to live in peace with all countries in the world.

Not all leaders are capable of being reasoned with.

This is when Odins quote about war comes into play, ...we must always be ready for it.

A strong military is essential for our nations defense, but the key word is defense.

Whenever a leader sends our military abroad without provocation, we are now on the offense instead of defense.

Non-Aggression is what separates the Libertarian Party from the other two major political parties that have controlled our government for the past 100-plus years.

Under their leadership, we have sent troops abroad on offensive maneuvers under every president.

If not directly, we have had a hand in manipulating the outcome of other countries political landscapes through rebellions and insurrections funded and managed by our CIA.

All of these actions the past hundred years have resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of American lives and millions of foreign civilian lives across the globe.

It is time to change. It is time to relearn our history, hearken back to the words of George Washingtons farewell address and observe good faith and justice with all nations while cultivating peace with all.

And, like Odin said, always be prepared for those who do not subscribe to that mentality.

It was a joy that we celebrated Veterans Day this month.

Now, lets make it a point to diminish our need to celebrate Memorial Day in May. God Bless and cultivate peace and harmony with all.

Anthony was the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Congress in district 15 of Texas.

Read more here:
Cristo: The Libertarian Party and its non-aggression policy - Seguin Gazette-Enterprise

Jeanne Dietschs Nov. 12 letter against people with libertarian views (Bad actors are why Im not libertarian) has me befuddled.

If I understand her position, being a libertarian means supporting slavery. She further goes on to state that without government, slavery would exist in the United States today. What the ...? Really?

State Sen. Dietsch confuses libertarians with the Democrats. Democratic Party founder Thomas Jefferson loved slaves as both a prolific owner and an early #MeToo participant.

She either has no knowledge of history or intentionally ignores it; the Democratic Southern states held on to slavery until 1865. The New England states and New Jersey were done with the practice by 1804 without big government intervention. After the Civil War, the Democrats continued another century of suppression through the creation of the Ku Klux Klan, enactment of Jim Crow laws, high bars, like literacy tests, to vote and segregation.

Today, the Democratic Party promotes inefficient big brother policies and programs that take away freedom, discourage self-sufficiency and make people reliant on the government for basic needs. Some have stated that such dependency is a modern, benevolent slavery.

In contrast, libertarians promote freedom, individualism, voluntary association, personal responsibility and autonomy. While libertarians have an understandable skepticism of authority and state power, most recognize that a limited government is necessary for things like roads, police and fire.

Recently, the local Democratic party had to change the name of its annual dinner several times to find party leaders who did not kill the natives or use their position to molest and harm women.

So, Ms. Dietsch, with all these bad actors why are you a Democrat?

Go here to see the original:
Bad actors? You have your parties confused, by Cole Mills - The Keene Sentinel

A one-time candidate for Congress in Pennsylvania is charged with perjury and other offenses in connection to a grand jury investigation over allegedly forged signatures on candidate petitions in 2018's midterm elections.

Jake Towne, 40, of Easton was charged in district court Thursday with false signatures and statements in nomination petitions; perjury; tampering with records or identification; unsworn falsification to authorities; and tampering with public records or information, according to the Morning Call.

Towne was released on unsecured bail, according to the Morning Call.

Towne ran for U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania's then-15th District in 2010 as an Independent candidate and lost, garnering 7.5% of the district's 204,000 votes. More recently, he was elected auditor of Lower Nazareth Township in 2017, then resigned when he moved to Easton. In 2018, Towne ran for state representative in the 138th District as a Libertarian and lost.

The charges filed in court this week relate to petitions to add Libertarian candidates to the U.S. Congress race ballot in Pennsylvania's 7th District. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro's Office alleged this week that Towne signed petitions claiming to be the circulator, despite paying another person to gather the signatures.

Because of noticeable similarities in handwriting, agents from Shapiro's office interviewed people whose names and signatures appeared on the petition, and found 23 people who stated they hadn't signed the document, according to the Morning Call.

Amber Correll, 39, of Nazareth, the woman who Towne paid to circulate the petitions, is charged with 25 counts each of forgery, identity theft, false statements and tampering with records, along with one count of tampering with public information. Correll was also released on unsecured bail, according to the Morning Call.

Towne's attorney told the Morning Call that Towne was unaware some of the petition's signatures were forged, and did not mean to deceive anyone.

Follow Adam & PhillyVoice on Twitter: @adamwhermann | @thePhillyVoiceLike us on Facebook: PhillyVoiceAdd Adam's RSS feed to your feed readerHave a news tip? Let us know.

Read more:
Former Pennsylvania congressional candidate charged with perjury over forged signatures - PhillyVoice.com

Dozens ofprogressive and libertarian-leaning lawmakers on Wednesday threw their support behind significantly revising a set of government surveillance authoritiesthat are set to expire within months.

Leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and conservative House Freedom Caucus signed onto a letter calling for "meaningful, bipartisan surveillance reform" just as Congress voted to extend those controversial provisions for another three months.

At the last minute, lawmakers tucked the 90-day surveillance authority extensioninto the temporary government funding measure, which passed theHouse 231-192 onTuesday. Thecontinuing resolution (CR), which allowed Congress to avoid an immediate government shutdown, gavekey committees three more months to debate what they want to do about the set of controversial surveillance authorities.

The House Judiciary Committee and House Intelligence Committee have jurisdiction over the USA Freedom Act, the bill that isset to expire, which allows the government to comb through phone records on millions of Americans and tracktargets during terrorism investigations.

Its unfortunate that we still have no agreement on critical privacy and civil liberties provisions that must be included in any final reauthorization of the USA Freedom Act," Rep. Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalTlaib introduces bill to repeal 'opportunity zones' Bicameral group of Democrats introduces bill to protect immigrant laborers Hillicon Valley: Google to limit political ad targeting | Senators scrutinize self-driving car safety | Trump to 'look at' Apple tariff exemption | Progressive lawmakers call for surveillance reforms | House panel advances telecom bills MORE (D-Wash.) said in a statement on Wednesday. "Ive been deeply engaged with my Judiciary and Intelligence colleagues to make significant changes to any reauthorization billwere making good progress and hope to complete our work before this 90-day extension period ends."

Jayapal said the short-term extension was necessary because without it, the Senate might have pushed a "full reauthorization through with no changes" ahead of the original Dec. 15 expiration date. Now, the provisions likely won't expire until March 15.

"Our goal now is to ensure the final reauthorization contains our critical limits and protections on surveillance and privacy," Jayapal said.

In the letter sent to the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees on Tuesday, a group of 49 lawmakers called for significant reforms. Theyasked for a total repeal of the call detail records program, whichallows the government toaccess phone records on millions of Americans every year during terrorism investigations, and strict restrictions on surveillance "that threatens First Amendment protected activities."

The lawmakers are asking to "prevent large-scale collection" of information on U.S. citizens and impose "strict limits" around how the government is allowed to use information obtained during criminal investigations.

"Disclosures over the past several years make clear that existing expansive surveillance powers pose an unacceptable threat to civil rights and civil liberties," the letter reads. "These laws contain numerous loopholes that can be exploited to improperly surveil people based on speech, race, religion, and other impermissible factors."

"Members should be given the opportunity to consider and vote on surveillance reform legislation as a standalone measure in the House, and not tucked into an expansive omnibus or budget bill," they wrote.

One of the expiring provisions, known as Section 215,is particularly contentious because it enables the phone records program, which was originally disclosed by whistleblower Edward Snowden. That program was pared down by the USA Freedom Act in 2015, and the National Security Agency (NSA) disclosed this year that it shuttered the effort entirely amid insurmountable technical difficulties.

Bipartisan lawmakers in both chambers have questioned whetherto extend the NSA's ability to reopen that program at any point, as the Trump administration has requested.

Under the CR,the provisions are set to expire on March 15 rather than next month.

Continued here:
Dozens of lawmakers call for government surveillance reforms | TheHill - The Hill

The anti-discrimination legislation in the country offers protection for disabled people. Every employer is required to adhere to anti-discrimination laws during all stages, including recruitment, after hiring, and when terminating employment contracts.

The legal provisions protect disabled people against unfavorable treatment from employers due to their disability. A person must have a medical condition that is classified as a disability by the law. Also, they are protected against any form of harassment in the workplace.

Employers are required to make reasonable adjustments in the workplace to ensure that their premises and practices do not discriminate against employees with disabilities. The aim of the legal provision is to ensure fair access to the premises.

For example, employers can make adjustments such as wheelchair access, modifications to equipment, reallocating duties of the disabled people, and changing the working hours. Failure to provide reasonable accommodation for people with a form of disability is also considered as discrimination, more facts and cases about this you can read on Mosheslaw.com .

Forms of Disability Disabilities Discrimination in the Workplace

Discrimination in the workplace based on disability can be either direct or indirect. If a job applicant with a disability is not offered the same choices that others have is an example of direct disability discrimination.

An example of indirect disability is when an employer makes a flyer about a job advert, which is not easy to read. Potential candidates with a learning disability may have a hard time when accessing the information.

Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act

It defines a disabled person as one who has a mental or physical impairment that prevents them from undertaking one or more activities in their daily routine.

The legal provision affects private employers, local and state governments, employment agencies, and labor unions. It protects Americans with disabilities when it comes to job applications, recruitment, termination, training, remuneration, among other areas.

The Rehabilitation Act

It protects individuals with a disability in programs initiated by the federal government, programs funded by the Federal government, Federal employment, and employment practices among Federal contractors.

The standards of identifying incidences of disabilities discrimination in the workplace under this act are the same as those applied in the Americans with Disabilities Act. Other legal provisions that protect individuals with disabilities include the Fair Housing Act and the Disabilities Education Act.

The Fair Housing Act protects individuals against discrimination when it comes to the sale, rental, and financing of housing projects based on disability. On the other hand, the Disabilities Education Act aims to ensure that all disabled people have access to free public education.

Some states have different provisions for determining who is covered by disabilities discrimination in workplace laws. Therefore, you can consult an attorney to help you understand the laws that apply in your jurisdiction.

Disability and Job Interviews

The law prohibits employers from asking about whether a candidate has a form of disability or the severity of their disability during a job application. However, they can ask whether you can perform specific duties of the job you are interested in.

Employers are also allowed to ask job applicants do illustrate how they can perform specific tasks with or without being offered a reasonable accommodation. Pre-employment inquiries are also allowed if they are required by federal regulation. The inquiries aim to enable employers to provide special services.

Medical and Physical Exams during Job Applications

It is unlawful for an employer to ask applicants to take medical or physical exams before offering them a job. However, there are exemptions, which include if the exams are job-related and in line with the employers business.

Employers are not allowed to decline job applications due to the disabilities that may be revealed during medical and physical exams unless they are related to the job you are interested in. You have a right to get a job if you can perform the essential roles of a job with reasonable accommodation. Once you are hired, the law does not require you to take medical or physical exams unless they are needed to assess your ability to conduct the employers business. However, an employer can conduct voluntary medical exams. Employers are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of the medical information obtained from the exams.

The medical records must be kept separate from the other files for employees. It is unlawful for employers to disclose that an employee needs or is receiving a reasonable accommodation due to disability. In some situations, disclosure of disability information is allowed. For example, an employer can disclose the information to supervisors to make informed decisions about accommodation, if first responders need the information for special evacuation procedures, if government workers need the information to determine if an employer has complied with relevant regulations, or for insurance purposes.

Filing Complaints and Legal Action for Disabilities Discrimination in the Workplace

If you think that you are a victim of discrimination based on disability, you should consider explaining your rights to your employer. The explanation may make them reconsider their decision. Use the internal procedures to file a formal complaint, as this gives the employer an opportunity to correct the issue. The management may take your complaint seriously and correct the problem. Another benefit of an internal complaint is that if the issue is solved, you will not need to take some legal action.

If the employer fails to solve the problem or you are unsatisfied, you can hire discrimination attorneys to help you get justice. A NY attorney will assess your problem and advise on the legal action to take. The law sets limits for filing charges. The law in most states requires individuals to file their charges within 300 days of a discriminatory action or decision by an employer. If you live in a state that does not have its own anti-discrimination legislation, then you have to file the charges within 180 days.

Once you have filed a charge, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will process it and ask your employer to make a response. The commission will then initiate an investigation into the problem. Discrimination attorneys will help you through the entire process.

Here is the original post:
Legal Provisions on Disabilities Discrimination in the Workplace - The Libertarian Republic

Senator Marco Rubio speaks at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, March 14, 2018.(Joshua Roberts/Reuters)We put plenty of restraints on economic activity. What we dont need is unfettered government.

Enemies of unfettered capitalism, unite!

For as long as I can remember, people on the left have complained about unfettered capitalism. Moderate liberals do it, and of course flat-out Marxists do it.

In his new book, A Bit of Everything: Power, People, Profits and Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz contends that the only way well be able to confront climate change is through a new social contract.

Capitalism will be part of the story, but it cant be the kind of capitalism that weve had for the last 40 years, Stiglitz writes. It cant be the kind of selfish, unfettered capitalism where firms just maximize shareholder value regardless of the social consequences.

Senator Bernie Sanders said earlier this year that we have to talk about democratic socialism as an alternative to unfettered capitalism.

History texts insist that the New Deal followed in the wake of the unfettered capitalism of the 1920s. The Progressive Era, were told, was in part a response to the unfettered capitalism of the late 19th century and the Gilded Age. In 1987, the Milwaukee Journal reported that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev planned to visit Trump Tower, that glittering monument to unfettered capitalism. In 2016, The Nation, a journal that has been at war with unfettered capitalism for nearly a century, ran an essay explaining that America got President Donald Trump because of Americas brand of largely unfettered capitalism.

Recently, the concern with capitalisms unfetteredness has become bipartisan. Senators Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio have taken up the cause in a series of speeches and policy proposals. Conservative intellectuals such as Patrick Deneen and Yoram Hazony have taken dead aim at unrestrained capitalism. J. D. Vance, the author of Hillbilly Elegy, and Tucker Carlson of Fox News have suggested that economic policy is run by ... libertarians.

My response to this dismaying development is: What on earth are these people talking about?

If the Progressive Era was a response to unfettered capitalism, did it accomplish nothing? Teddy Roosevelt broke up the trusts, regulated the food supply, created the National Park System, and fettered the railroads. The Labor Department was established (by President Taft, a conservative) in 1913. The Federal Employees Compensation Act, enacted in 1916, provided benefits to workers injured on the job. The Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act was passed in 1927. And then theres the New Deal, another famous attempt to slap fetters on the rough beast of capitalism. It created Social Security, formally banned child labor, and established the minimum wage, among countless other restraints on capitalism run amok.

I could go on and on. I mean, I havent even mentioned the Great Society.

A fetter is a chain, manacle, or restraint. If you think there are no restraints on the market or on economic activity, why on earth do we have the Department of Labor, HHS, HUD, FDA, EPA, OSHA, or IRS?

The United States has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world (i.e., the share of taxes paid by the rich versus everyone else). If you take into account all social-welfare spending, we spend more on entitlements than plenty of rich countries.

Now, if you think we dont spend, regulate, or tax enough, fine. Make your case. If you think we should spend and tax differently, Im right there with you. But the notion that the United States is a libertarian fantasyland is itself a fantasy. I mean, by the Hammer of Thor, every summer we get stories of kids being fined for running lemonade stands without a license.

My frustration stems from the fact that we fetter the market constantly. And whenever the fetters yield an undesirable result such as, say, the financial crisis of 2008 the blame always lands on eternally unfettered capitalism.

Just to be clear: Im not an advocate for unfettered capitalism. But I am sick and tired of hearing people advocate unfettered government to fight an enemy that doesnt exist. And Im particularly dyspeptic about the fact that conservatives are now buying into the same fantasy.

2019 Tribune Content Agency LLC

See the article here:
Opponents of Unfettered Capitalism Are Fighting a Phantom - National Review