Category Archives: Libertarianism

In case youve been living under a rock for the last three months, let me fill you in briefly as to whats been happening: ith the exception of the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, the actions of the Trump Administration have been a mixture of good, bad, and seemingly good but actually bad. My greatest concern regarding this new regime is Trumpism, whatever it means each day, is beginning to replace the formerly dominant conservatism or libertarianism of the Republican Party. With only the strongest surviving, many of our principles first heroes have fallen victim to Trumpism. They will go along with any and everything that Donald Trump says for fear of losing their positions of good graces with the King. The nationalist, populist, mercantilist, isolationist, and/or borderline Leftist movement that is Trumpism now has control of the House, Senate, and presidency.

Back in October 2016, I wrote:

My biggest issues with this entire election cycle is not with Trump. We knew who he was going in. My issue is with conservatives who are changing their own fundamental belief systems in order to fit Trumps mold. From my peers, to Breitbart News, up to Sean Hannity, people are claiming they believe in, and have always believed in, things they were vehemently against before Trump showed up. These are the same people who are perpetuating the delusion that Trump is only losing because of people like me who will not bend the knee.

It was as important during the election as it is now that we do not delude ourselves that Trump is a conservative. As I said at the time,I understand your reasoning if you thought you were faced with a binary choice and Trump was a better option than Hillary, or that you were voting for a Supreme Court justice. However, it is unacceptable to just sit back and let the principle of small government die because we dont want to stand up to Trump. Paul Ryan needs to do his job, and should be able to without fear of the consequences of making his master angry. The time for holding our noses and letting Trump be Trumpy in the name of stopping Hillary Clinton is over. He won the election; now its time to demand that he stick to the promises and principles he ran and won upon.

Of course, history proved me wrong about my prediction that he wouldnt win, and I am still glad that I was wrong in this case. I honestly wish I would be proven wrong about Trump more often. Ive long held that Trump doesnt truly believe in anything. As should be obvious from his actions of the last few months, he is greatly concerned with his ego. During the campaign, he would say anything that he believed would get him elected. Now, he is torn between fulfilling his campaign promises and doing popular things. Nothing demonstrates this internal struggle with more clarity than the American Health Care Act debacle.

The entire world has talked about this bill ad nauseam, so I dont feel the need to go into its specifics. Ill just say that the single biggest issue is the retention of the Pre-existing Conditions Mandate. Insurance companies are businesses and businesses are started to make profits. Insurance companies make their profits on the gamble that you wont need their help. How can an insurance company make money if there is a 100% chance that they will be needed? A basic understanding of economics tells you the answer is skyrocketing premiums. They used to make their money by charging a low monthly premium to all of the young people who probably wouldnt need anything, and used that money, in conjunction with the higher premiums based on risk-factors, to maintain a profit margin even after helping their clients who need the most assistance. When the government forces insurances companies to take on already very sick people, thereby removing the gamble, the obvious result should be that prices skyrocket, which leads to the young people canceling their plans and gambling on themselves to not get sick, then paying out of pocket for anything that does happen. This leads to even higher premiums because the insurance companies have less people enrolled. Would you expect to be able to buy low-price fire insurance for your house after it has already burned down?

So, why would the Republicans keep these provably damning facets of Obamacare in their definitely not Obamacare bill? This is what happens when your party is being led by a leftist: he uses leftist metrics to gauge the success of leftist goals. One of the first sure-fire signs of this bills failure was the very clear difference in goals of Trump and Paul Ryan. Trumps metric was the same as Obamas: how many people will be covered? Ryan, a staunch conservative until about three months ago, had the goal of lowering premiums and getting government out of the business as much as possible. Those two visions are not compatible, and the result was the half-assed, disastrous pile of horse manure called Trumpcare Ryancare RINOCare Obamacare2.0 ObamacareLite Obamacare The American Health Care Act.

So, what happens now? Trump has been very inconsistent on pretty much everything for the past year and a half, especially on his political philosophy. The only idea that remains the same is Trumps desire to be well-liked. This makes the least sense to me of any of the Trumpian philosophies because the reality is that he has never been well-liked according to polling, and especially isnt right now (currently, he sits between 36-44% approval rating depending on which polls you are quoting). The right wants to love Trump, even as he spits in the face of their values; the left will never approve of him, even when he does a lot of what they want. As Ive said before, he utilizes a language very similar to that of Bernie Sanders, especially when he talks about trade.

Based on the news coverage of the last few days, it appears Trump is giving up on working with those on the right who wont cooperate, and is planning on shifting his aim to those on the moderate left. This is stupid. There is simply no way that any elected Democrat would be able to return to their constituents, who all hate Trump (he has about an 8% approval rate among Democrats), and say that they worked with and yielded to him on anything. The left is never going to support Trump; this should be obvious by what seems to be an eternal state of hair-on-fire over every single move Trump makes.

What would be the much smarter political move, and one that I hope Paul Ryan, Reince Preibus, and his other cabinet members are encouraging him to do, would be to unite those on the right who really do want him to succeed so he can actually push through some successful legislation. Even the fiercest #NeverTrump-er is happy when they are proven wrong about Trump. I, for example, was ready to buy a MAGA hat after Gorsuchs selection. I love what hes doing as far as scaling back the power of the executive branch, I love his cutting overreaching regulations, I love the slashing of programs, I love his immigration policies (when he actually commits to them/roles them out properly), and I love a majority of his cabinet picks. None of this changes the plethora of big government tendencies that exist in this administration but it is important to look at which moves by Trump are popular not only among his base, but by those who didnt support him in the election.

The Trump Administration is going to have to choose whether they are going to reach out to Rand Paul and the Freedom Caucus, or if theyre going to try their luck with Chuck Schumer and company. As Ive said, I think theres a snowballs chance in hell that any decent number of Democrats give Trump even an inch, but I dont think that will stop him from trying. He has a bit of a history of doing the wrong thing.

Trump tweeted that he plans on fighting both the Freedom Caucus and the Democrats. This is beyond idiotic for several reasons. Many members of the Caucus were huge Trump supporters in the election. He could have negotiated with them for more than a week and reached a compromise. It is also infuriating and predictable that he attacks those who stand firm on their principle. Hes pretty much a leftist, and theres no tolerance for principle on the left. If he wont play ball with the Freedom Caucus AND the Democrats, he his left with 216 votes in the House, and he needs 218 to get anything accomplished.

If Trump can stay consistent in small-government principles, relying on the promises and ideologies upon which he got elected, he will be able to find a common ground with the dominant federal party. If he continues to let his pride get in the way, refusing to compromise with those farther right than he is, he wont only cost us the presidency in 2020, but he will destroy the small scrap of hope that we can return to the founding principles of small government and personal responsibility. If we really want to make America great again, we cannot abandon the ideals that made it great in the first place.

Luke Garrison is currently studying criminal law and constitutional theory at Seattle University Law School, and is a graduate of The Catholic University of America. He is the Editor-in- Chief of StepIntoTheRight.com. For questions, comments, or hate mail, he can be reached at [emailprotected] To hear more from Luke, follow him on Twitter: @_lukegarrison.

Photo: Esquire

Like Loading...

Read the original:
Trumpism Is Not Compatible With Small Government - Being Libertarian

Being Libertarian

The Chief's Thoughts: The Myth of the Libertarian 'Utopia' Being Libertarian It is important for libertarians to consciously and with purpose reject the notion of a 'libertarian utopia,' as it detracts from the substantive practicality of the libertarian political philosophy. I had an extended debate on Facebook recently about ...

Originally posted here:
The Chief's Thoughts: The Myth of the Libertarian 'Utopia' - Being Libertarian

January 5, 2013

Libertarianism and Christianity

We have noticed many conservative Christians these days claiming to hold to a libertarian political philosophy. Libertarianism is the idea that government should allow complete freedom, except in the case when one person directly harms another. While this often sounds appealing to Christians, we see a dangerous clash of worldviews in trying to mix Christianity with libertarianism. We think that Christian libertarians have been unwittingly duped into adopting a philosophy that has much in common with liberal secularists--and is contrary to the Bible at key points. One appealing thing about libertarianism is that it espouses that the state has been given too much authority. However, we will argue that libertarianism and Christianity really do not mix like some think. Among the problems are these:

Their worldview is determined by a secular philosophy rather than a biblical worldview. Even Christians frequently quote Ayn Rand for support of their theory. The fact that Rand was an ardent atheist and hater of Christianity should give considerable pause. Another libertarian stalwart was Ludwig von Mises, who was agnostic. While libertarianism is not exclusively atheistic or agnostic, a Christian that walks into that sphere is giving the devil a foothold, against which there is a strong commandment from Scripture (Ephesians 4:27).

Libertarianism is ultimately arbitrary. It is an attempt to define morality without God. But as Dostoevsky said, "If there is no God, everything is permitted." Any view of government not based on an unchangeable objective standard (the Bible!) is subject to be altered at the whims of political power brokers. Christianity, on the other hand, is not arbitrary. Our website is dedicated to demonstrating through reason and evidence that Christianity is objectively true.

Any philosophy (whether Jean-Paul Sartre's Existentialism, Darwin's Evolution, or Ayn Rand's Objectivism) that has a non-theistic foundation ultimately bumps into the problem of nihilism. This means, ultimately, no basis for meaning and purpose for life. (We come from nowhere, we go to nowhere, but somehow life in between has meaning?)

Despite attempts to meld biblical Christianity with this political philosophy, libertarianism inevitably interferes with the individual Christian's reliance on his faith as the sole lens from which to see the world, moving him away from a biblical worldview. Libertarianism, at its core, is a non-religious philosophy. This thinking is a dangerous diversion for the Christian and can be insidiously damaging to his or her faith, indeed to the Christian's soul. That libertarianism is divisive to the Christian's worldview is evident when, as we have noticed is often the case, "libertarian Christians" howl louder when someone attacks their libertarianism than when someone attacks their Christianity! This curious reaction seems to reveal their true allegiance.

We should remember that the law is a teacher. Before the Civil War, when slavery was legal, many Christians believed that slavery was OKand even biblical! After the Civil War, Christians abandoned that dangerous notion. I believe there is a parallel with gay marriage. Making gay marriage legal drives some Christians to think that it is OK--and even biblical.

Libertarian Christians usually think that Christians can segregate their faith--relegating their faith to their private lives. This is falling for the secularist mentality! It's a trap that marginalizes Christianity just like secularists want! Secularists say, "Sure. You can have your faith. Just leave it over there in the corner of society somewhere and don't bother anyone else with your stupid ideas." Falling for this has numerous negative consequences, including giving the impression to potential converts to Christianity that our faith is not universally applicable, that it is only one of many possible worldviews, and Christianity is only a crutch for weak individuals. Jesus' was given "all authority on heaven and earth" (Matthew 28:18)--not just some authority. This notion--that the Christian faith can be marginalized from society--is directly responsible for the decline of Christianity in America. The inclination to segregate one's faith so as not to "impose" our values on others smacks of "true for me but not for you." It is amazing that any Christian would buy into this post-modern relativism. Further, attempting to segregate our faith is dishonoring to God: God is god of ALL or He is not God AT ALL. (Psalm 24:1)

Our COMPASSION as Christians demands that we institute biblical values in society. What other basis for a successful and compassionate society could possibly be better than the Bible?! Who are you going to go with: Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, or Jesus? Jesus allowed no human partner; we are either with Him 100% or we are against Him. (Matthew 12:30)

Christians, make no mistake about this: The homosexual marriage movement is not about freedom. It is about banishing Christianity from the culture. To say that "the state has no authority to sanction marriage" is simply abdicating the role Christianity should play in the culture. Remember, Jesus has authority over all things, not just the church and not just individuals.

Libertarianism is at its core a selfish worldview. The mantra of libertarianism is individualism. This is distinctly different from biblical Christianity. Christianity subjugates the self to God, and to other people (Matthew 22:34-39). In contrast, classic libertarianism and liberalism alike are opposed to, or have no need for, a moral authority above the individual self.

Libertarian Christians have, amazingly, adopted other concepts and the language of liberal secularists. They say to other Christians, "We don't want a theocracy." This charge is a red herring. Theocracy is when the church, as an institution, has all political power, including administering civil law. Biblical Christians want no such thing. We support the separation of church and state, properly understood. And we certainly do not want Old Testament civil and ceremonial laws instituted in society. Such laws were repealed in the New Testament (Acts 10:12-15; Colossians 2:11-16; Romans 14:17).

While civil and ceremonial laws were repealed in the New Testament, moral law stands forever. Biblical moral law is applicable to everybody whether they believe it or not. Judicious application of biblical moral law to civil law is infinitely compassionate and positive for society. The idea that "you cannot legislate morality" is also an idea adopted from liberal secularism. It is a false idea. Virtually every law is a put in place based on someone's idea of morality.

Christianity does not bring bondage; it brings freedom. The truth sets you free (John 8:32)! The more Christian principles are put in society, the more true freedom we have. America's Founding Fathers noted this passage to support their cause of freedom: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (2 Corinthians 3:17). Our message to Christians and non-Christians alike is this: If you want both true freedom, vigouous capitalism, and a compassionate society--the answer is biblical Christianity WITHOUT COMPROMISE AND WITHOUT BEING WATERED DOWN BY OTHER WORLDVIEWS.

Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. (Psalms 9:17; 33:12)

Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain. (Psalm 127:1)

Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. (Matthew 6:10)

Bits & Blog is a monthly blog from Faith Facts. We will not overload your Inbox with messages. But if you would like to subscribe to this infrequent communication we promise to try to bring you bits of information we hope will be of interest to you. Just complete the Faith Facts Update form on the home page.

Visit link:
How Libertarianism and Christianity intersect - Faith Facts

The first seventeen years of the 21st century, have been ones of expeditious and unprecedented technological advancements: from social media interconnectedness, and text message marketing, to the digitization of our lifestyles and the conducting of commerce via the Internet (instead of physical, interpersonal, interactions).

This is the millennium of the digital revolution.

On the other hand, within the political landscape, we saw President Obama capitalize on the sophistication of social media, which played a pivotal role in his victory in the 2008 election, and again in his re-election in 2012. Weve seen the creation of viral sensations via the Internet and various people like Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos and many others, from multiple sectors of society, generate billions from their computers, software, phones, and tablets.

Additionally, we have noticed the politicization of a lot of millennials through the utilization of the internet; where progressive outlets like Vice inculcate and propagate their liberal oriented ideals of fairness, government regulation, redistribution, socialism and other ideals that are paradoxical to freedom for the masses.

The age of the hash tag has lead to the augmentation of liberal and leftist ideologies which, in actuality, are deprivations to freedom globally.

The clich is that libertarians lack the skill of marketing. However, libertarianism has been around since the Enlightenment era three centuries ago, only under the designation of classical liberalism. It was the guerilla marketing of socialism, Marxism, communism, populism and progressivism that caused the popularity and acceptability of these ideologies throughout out the United States.

If libertarianism is going to prevail in this century, then libertarians will have to maintain the ideal of individualism as an ideology, as well as add the concomitant factors of synergy and cohesion to enhance the marketability so others will be drawn to this way of thinking.

A lot of people believe that government regulations and interventions are altruistic and deregulation and economic freedom are unjust.

So, libertarians need to promote the benefits and incentives of embracing this perspective and show how this will benefit all individuals, when compared to progressivism, in creating opportunities of freedom and fairness.

Libertarians may have to affiliate themselves with celebrities, like how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did during their campaigns, because the laws of association and affiliation are extremely important if the liberty movement wants to proselytize more people towards our ideals. In order for the libertarian movement to grow globally we will need to reevaluate ourselves. We need to not be as condescending and degrading to the ideologies of progressivism, socialism, and even welfare statism, and move strategically so that various influential figures, throughout society, can help promote the doctrines of libertarianism.

The end of this century could look promising for the posterity of the world. The liberty movement has a lot of potentiality to grow immensely, but it is time to not just focus on scholarship and exclusivity, but to focus on marketing so that liberty can prevail; both in the middle, and later parts of this century, and beyond.

Liberty matters.

This post was written by Baruti Libre.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Baruti Kafele, who is affectionately known as Baruti Libre, is an intellectual entrepreneur, social scientist, proud libertarian, and real estate broker who ensures quality and superiority from his enterprises to his scholarship. Baruti Libre is the chief executive of the successful fashion and multimedia firm called LiBRE BRAND-Freedom of Flyness which is a globally-recognized and viable brand based on the ideals of liberty and freedom. Follow him on Instagram and Twitter @BarutiLibre and visit his websites for literature and apparel.

Like Loading...

Read the original post:
Will the Liberty Movement Prevail in the 21st Century? - Being Libertarian

The first of the two times I've met Donald Trump was at a 2015 rally protesting the nuclear deal President Obama had announced with Iran. As he rumbled off the stage past the press area, I asked him, "Hey Donald, what do you think about libertarianism?" "I like it, alotta good things," he said, shortly before brushing me and saying, "I don't want to talk you right now."

Assuming he still likes libertarianism and thinks it comprises "a lot of good things, a lot of good points," he's very much at odds with his senior adviser Steve Bannon. From Robert Draper's masterful New York Times Magazine account of the relationship among Trump, Bannon, and House Speaker Paul Ryan:

"What's that Dostoyevsky line: Happy families are all the same, but unhappy families are unhappy in their own unique ways?" ([Bannon] meant Tolstoy.) "I think the Democrats are fundamentally afflicted with the inability to discuss and have an adult conversation about economics and jobs, because they're too consumed by identity politics. And then the Republicans, it's all this theoretical Cato Institute, Austrian economics, limited government which just doesn't have any depth to it. They're not living in the real world."

Don Irvine, Flickr, WikimediaIt's always nice to be attacked as delusional and out of touch, especially by a Hollywood-cum-Wall Street millionaire whose boss falsely insists that cities have never been less safe, that American manufacturing has never created so little, and that we're just one or two border walls and torn-up free trade deals away from once again being a nation of factory workers. (Side note: I'm younger than Bannon but old enough to remember when the factory jobs I worked as a teenager and young adult weren't romanticized.)

President Trump is so famously post-factual that he cites riots that never happened as pretexts for executive orders, invents crime statistics out of thin air, and insisted for years that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. But it's libertarians who are nuttier than a squirrel's turd? Sure, why not.

Earlier today, Matt Welch mapped out some of the political problems that the Trump administration is creating and compounding for itself by reviling libertarian-leaning Republicans and congressional budget hawks. On a broader cultural stage, it's worth underscoring that Bannon is simply wrong that libertarians are living in a "theoretical" world of, what, exactly? Across-the-board calls for lower levels of regulation in all aspects of life (also known as believing government is trying to do too many things that should be left to businesses and voluntary groups such as churches and nonprofits)? That increasing majorities of Americans are comfortable with pot legalization and gay marriage even as they are losing trust in law enforcement, the education system, and the federal government (now headed by, er, Donald Trump and his own GOP party that can't even pass a healthcare reform bill they've been promising for nigh-on seven years)? That most people in Americaincluding self-identified Trump supporters!actually like immigrants and want to see even illegal immigrants given a chance to live legally in the United States? These are not small things, and neither is the fact that libertarians as an ideological group (as discerned by Gallup) are the single-biggest bloc of Americans.

Cato.orgThe tell in Bannon's way of thinking is how he confuses Tolstoy with Dostoevsky. Neither Russian novelistOMG, is he channeling Putin or what!is particularly sunny but the Christian apologetic Tolstoy allowed for some sort of transcendence while about the best-case scenario you find in Dostoevsky is getting marched off to pre-communist Siberia with your prostitute-wife for a life sentence. Like Captain Ahab in Moby-Dick, Bannon looks around and only sees himself and his own obsessions.

His vision of a post-apocalyptic America where folks are so scared of crime that they don't walk down city streets anymore; where living standards are declining year over year in absolute terms; and where resentment against the Other is the only thing keeping hearts beating is as fundamentally false as it is opposed to a broad-based libertarianism that has always animated America. Yes, Donald Trump eked out an impossible electoral victory mostly be playing to the fears of a handful of non-representative voters in the dead, old, post-industrial Midwest (a place I call home at least half of the year, by the way). Yes, of course it helped that Trump ran against Hillary Clinton, a candidate who was as unliked as she was arrogant (seriously, she visited Chipotle more than she did Wisconson in 2016!). But that doesn't take away from Trump winning in the end.

Still, the president (and Bannon) will not be able to govern by pursuing economically nativist policies that raise prices for food and items at Walmart, and they certainly won't create many jobs either.

Originally posted here:
Steve Bannon Hates Libertarians Because *We're* Not Living in the Real World? - Reason (blog)

Forbes

Libertarians And Charity Forbes I count myself as a libertarian, but I think libertarians need to do a better job overall. Not all libertarians, but too many, have utopian views of what markets can accomplish that lacks realism. One area where utopianism reigns is their view of what ...

More:
Libertarians And Charity - Forbes

It is hardly surprising that the phrase Taxation is theft has become a popular slogan in libertarian circles. After all, the closest thing to a universal tenet of the movement is the desire for the elevation of individual liberty over the collective, which usually translates to the minimization of the states intrusion on citizens affairs that, almost of a necessity, means less taxes. It probably also helps that libertarians skew young and have a deeper-than-mainstream relationship with meme culture. So the slogan has both a receptive audience and an ecosystem in which to propagate.

And the idea is hardly new. The economist Murray Rothbard did a great deal to propagate the concept in libertarian circles. Rothbard argued that taxation was fundamentally appropriation without consent, and thus theft by definition. He even encouraged the view that there is no moral requirement to tell the tax collector the truth about ones assets or income; just as no one is morally required to answer a robber truthfully when he asks if there are any valuables in ones house, so no one can be morally required to honestly answer similar questions asked by the State, e.g., when filling out income tax returns. So, the idea is that the government is doing something to you (i.e. taking your property without your expressed permission) that no private citizen could do without being imprisoned for theft.

The eminent philosopher Robert Nozick even did Rothbard one better he argued that taxation was, since it resulted in individuals effectively working without compensation part of the time, tantamount to slavery (it is somewhat unfortunate that Nozick has gone unloved by the current generation of libertarians; his influence on libertarianism as a serious branch of philosophy cannot be overstated).

Yet these titans of libertarian thought spent virtually the entirety of their careers within the academic milieu. They were concerned with theories of justice that did not necessarily take into account their applicability within the context of society as it is. The problem of that disconnect between the theoretic and real becomes glaringly obvious when it is moved from the safe harbors of academic cloisters and libertarian web groups.

The problem is that ordinary people going about their daily lives do not believe taxation is theft. Neither do the many so-called economically conservative and socially liberal cohorts who are obvious candidates for conversion to a libertarian view of the world. The claim that taxation is theft is not intuitive to those of us (read: virtually everyone) who spend our lives within the bands of what might be called mainstream political discourse. Because it is so alien a concept, it can cause knee-jerk rejection by prospective libertarians.

When you are trying to convince people to change their ideology and to adopt a new way of looking at the world, and the proper relationship of state and citizen, you need to engage with them on a level that will bring them in, not push them away or alienate them. A big statement like calling taxation theft demands a defensive posture from the start, and that is hardly a position of strength from which to change hearts and minds. Instead, we need to focus our attacks on the failures of statist ideologies in practice and offer an alternative to those on the fence that they will find palatable. People are naturally conservative in the sense that they fear radical change. Taxes are such a fundamental part of life that trying to build a case around their total rejection will meet with failure. No one likes paying taxes. But there is a default belief in our society that they are a necessary evil, if not a positive good. When we open with taxation is theft we have to defend a big proposition, and we have to do it in the face of intuitive cognitive opposition. That is just bad argumentation strategy. Successful arguments have to play to peoples intuitions and gradually shift their thinking. Beginning in an adversarial posture guarantees that the people we approach are on mental defense, when we need them to be open to change.

There is also the simple fact that not all (likely a wide majority, in fact) libertarians actually believe that all taxation is truly theft. in practice, many libertarians are willing to accept taxes as a legitimate mechanism for funding certain frontline services, such as the military and courts. These libertarians may differ as to what sort of tax would be most legitimate (or least invasive), but they do not waste the energy to question the idea of taxes qua taxes. Whether the minimal state is funded by a flat-rate (or just flat) income tax, or through a sales tax or value-added tax, or even a broader-based economic transaction tax, there is still the perceived need for some kind of tax regime. The debate is about changing taxes to maximize freedom and limit the imposition of such taxes on individuals while retaining a sufficient tax-base to furnish the necessary basic services of a state apparatus. Yet even for these libertarians, the refrain of taxation is theft is still an easy fallback phrase; it is now something of a shibboleth of the movement. It is also sometimes just fun to say and it can spark a debate, something we fractious libertarian types relish.

None of this is to say that no one actually believes that taxation is theft. Many do, to be sure. How else could the phrase have gained such traction within libertarian circles? And those true believers are frequently the most active and vociferous voices in many libertarian communities. Unfortunately, that is a problem for libertarianism if it is going to be a movement for change.

Of course, the idea of an organized libertarian movement as a change agent is not viewed credibly by some libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and other fellow travelers. Instead, many favor purity of ideology and the echo-chamber of those already initiated, to the harder task of engaging with the world as it is rather than it ought to be.

In all this I do not mean to argue that libertarians who are of the uncompromising persuasion are bad libertarians. Far from it! Libertarianism can ill afford factionalism and in-fighting. Rather, what I contend is that we should all reevaluate how we present our arguments to the outside world, and to the significant mass of citizens who might well be won over by our arguments if we are given a fair chance to explain ourselves. The way we get that chance is by positioning our outward persona, and our internal discourse, in such a way as to give us the widest chance to make those first vital inroads.

So lets try to think of something better than taxation is theft to lead off discussions. We can do better. The country and the world need us to do better.

This post was written by John Engle.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

John Engle is a merchant banker and author living in the Chicago area. His company, Almington Capital, invests in both early-stage venture capital and in public equities. His writing has been featured in a number of academic journals, as well as the blogs of the Heartland Institute, Grassroot Institute, and Tenth Amendment Center. A graduate of Trinity College Dublin, Ireland and the University of Oxford, Johns first book, Trinity Student Pranks: A History of Mischief and Mayhem, was published in September 2013.

Like Loading...

View original post here:
The Problem with Saying Taxation is Theft - Being Libertarian

Over the past weekend in Westminster, Colorado there was a gathering of a political party that values your privacy above all else the Libertarians. All political parties are private clubs that hold conventions annually, in every level of government, to determine their platform, the candidates they want to promote or nominate and to rally the support of their base. We caught up with the young third party that is starting to make real waves in the political landscape. After upsetting the 2016 presidential election their foot is in the door and they are not going to back down until they are fully on the national stage. Pulling values from the center left and right politically whileputting full focus on personal freedom andlaissez-faire capitalism the LibertarianParty might be exactly what the framers had in mind.

The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 in Colorado and had its first national convention one year later in 1972. The 70s were the prime time for a party focused on personal freedoms and non-government interference to spring up. At that time, the mistrust of government spurned by the Vietnam war, the highly active civil rights movement and the oncoming War on Drugs that would cost trillions of dollars would push certain citizens of theUnited States to say back off to the federal level of government and watch it to the local levels. The Libertarian Platform continues to reflect these simple principles today. As of July 2016, 144 Libertarians held elected seats in 34 states including three congressional seats. But many Americans had not heard about the Partyuntil the 2016 presidential election when Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson and running mate Bill Weld swept up 4.4 million votes nationwide 3.3 percent of all votes counted and more than all other third party candidates combined. The Libertarian presence in Colorados 2016 presidential election was even larger than the national average with the Libertarian ticket pulling in 5 percentof the vote five times as much as the next largest third party, the Green Party.We went to the Colorado Libertarian Convention to find out what the party can bring to Coloradans and what a Libertarian country would look like.

Libertarians Are the Largest Third Party in the US Photo by Traci Hanner

Saturday and Sunday morning were given to in-house Party Business at the Westin Hotel in Westminster. Higher ups and those passionate about policy, which in Libertarian terms usually means removing it, set to updating guidelines, giving reports and tallying membership to try and get more delegates to the National Convention. Having additional delegates from Colorado at the national convention raises the say they have in picking a presidential nominee and with the success of the last election there was a renewed urgency to get people officially signed up and counted.

Saturday afternoon is where the real discussions of applying the platform to daily life took place. Many seminars tackled attempting to get a third party onto a ballot, into a national debate or were just about the best way to spread the message of the party. While laws vary depending on where you are running they are set by the two parties already in control (Democrats and Republicans) and often require extensive support or membership and sometimes there is a financial component making it very difficult for third party candidates to break through the bureaucracy and be seen on the national stage. Local elections can be easier but without membership there is no cash flow and without money it can be hard to promote a candidate or get a strong media message across.

Approval Based Voting Was a Huge Discussion In the Effort to Support 3rd Parties Photo by Traci Hanner

Other seminars were related more to what a Libertarian world would look like: The effects of government interference in business, ending the war on drugs and the prohibition of all controlled substances and legalizing prostitution and sex work. Sarah Peterson is a travelingspeaker and sex worker rights advocate. Her seminar on full legalization of prostitution was titledWhen Helping is Hurtingand discussedthe resources that would be freed up by allowing consenting adults to perform sexual acts for money or goods. She opened up about a common belief in the Libertarian community that arresting non-violent offenders is tantamount to putting humans in cages for no reason:

We, [libertarians], offer solutions and care about people. We have been working to decriminalize drugs since 1971 and prostitution since the beginning. We want people to have personal liberty and personal responsibility, they go hand in hand. Liberty, when in place, will create a happier environment, we wont have people in cages for non-violent crimes [] Libertarianism is where were going to end up. It will be a natural progress.

Sarah Stewart is a Sex Worker Rights Advocate and Circuit Speaker Photo by Brittany Werges

In addition to the seminars and party business, Saturday offered an array of Libertarian business, entertainment and related organizations to showcase their goods, platforms and wares. The young men from Major League Libertarians came to promote their podcast and live streamed videos. The MLLs Facebook Pagehas a ton of content and discussions relevant to young libertarians in Colorado, they also posted a ton of content from the convention itself.

The MLL Podcast Crew Discusses their Views Photo by Traci Hanner

Saturday night culminated in a gala style banquet with high profile circuit speakers talking about upcoming legislation and their respective bids to bring Libertarian values to different levels of government across the United States.

Brian Rogers summed up two very important parts of Libertarian doctrine in his seminar titled Government Interference in Business, What then is business if government is going to interfere in it? This question drives the majority of Libertarian Principle the idea that a free and unregulated market will regulate itself. Libertarians believe that the majority of restrictions that the government places on the free market are designed to eliminate competition of existing special interests or to gross extra funds for the government in the form of fees, dues and fines. They believe this to be a violation of the fourth amendment, an example of unlawful search and seizure.

The Presidential Ticket in 2016 from the Libertarian Party Photo by Brittany Werges

Rogers also commented on prohibition, which in its various forms is another sticking point for the party, Prohibition almost always ends up more dangerous and more expensive to society. This theme plays large rolls in the Libertarian arguments to legalize drugs and prostitution. The idea that attempting toprevent something that will happen anyway (as is documented in both these realms) simply costs taxpayers limitless funds and creates unsafe environments and back alley dealings.

While Libertarians differ on the amount of government that is actually necessary (on a scale of none to severely limited), they do agree that given the opportunity many of the services provided by the government with tax dollars would be provided through volunteering of funds and charitable workers on a community to community basis based on need. John Keil is running for City Council in Lovelands Third District and we asked him what Libertarianism can bring to a city council. Im running to oppose subsidies [] we need new ideas for generating funding, Keil said. We want to encourage volunteer funds, not wait for votes and taxes. If a lot of people believe in something its easy to get it going

John Keil is Running for City Council in Loveland District 3 Photo By Brittany Werges

Kim Tavendale is running for State Representative in House District 33, in the Broomfield area, we asked her what Libertarian principle she wanted to bring with her to office, Libertarianism embodies the spirit of Colorado,Tavendale said. The sense of independence and self-reliance that permeates throughout the state.

Kim Tavendale is Running for State Representative in House District 33 Out of Broomfield Photo by Brittany Werges

Austin Peterson, who debated Gary Johnson for the 2016 Presidential nomination had a grander picture of what the party offered, More freedoms, all the freedoms! Coloradans dont know how often Libertarians are fighting for your freedoms. We are present for all ballot access issues, when recreational marijuana was legalized we helped. We are trying to restore the gun rights that were recently lost in congressional bills.

Austin Peterson ran for President of the United States in 2016 Photo by Brittany Werges

It is unclear what the future will hold for the Libertarian party but the growing (in numbers and votes) third option is certainly here to stay andtheir consistency in message and platform helps to set them apart.

Photography by Brittany Werges andTraci Hanner

303 Magazine303 PoliticsApproval Based VotingAustin PetersonBrittany WergesBrittany Werges PhotographyJohn KeilKim TavendaleLibertarianLibertarian ConventionLibertarian Convention ColoradoLibertarians DenverLocal politicsMajor League LibertariansMLLsarah heathSarah StewartTraci Hanner

Continued here:
What You Missed at the Colorado Libertarian Convention - 303 Magazine

These days, libertarianism tends to be quite discredited. It is now associated with the goofy candidature of Gary Johnson, having a rather narrow range of issueslegalize weed! less taxes!, cucking ones way to politics through sweeping all the embarrassing problems under the carpet, then surrendering to liberal virtue-signaling and endorsing anti-white diversity.

Now, everyone on the Alt-Right, manosphere und so wieser is laughing at those whose adhesion to a bunch of abstract premises leads to endorse globalist capital, and now that Trump officially heads the State, wed be better off if some private companies were nationalized than let to shadowy overlords.

To Americans, libertarianism has been a constant background presence. Its main icons, be them Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard or Friedrich Hayek, were always read and discussed here and there, and never fell into oblivion although they barely had media attention. The academic and political standing of libertarianism may be marginal, it has always been granted small platforms and resurrected from time to time in the public landscape, one of the most conspicuous examples of it being the Tea Party demonstrations.

To a frog like yours trulyKek being now praised by thousands of well-meaning memers, I can embrace the frog moniker gladlylibertarianism does not have the same standing at all. In French universities, libertarian thinkers are barely discussed, even in classes that are supposed to tackle economics: for one hour spent talking about Hayek, Keynes easily enjoys ten, and the same goes on when comparing the attention given to, respectively, Adam Smith and Karl Marx.

On a wider perspective, a lot of the contemporary French identity is built on Jacobinism, i.e. on crushing underfoot organic regional sociability in the name of a bureaucratized and Masonic republic. The artificial construction of France is exactly the kind of endeavour libertarianism loathes. No matter why the public choices school, for example, is barely studied here: pompous leftist teachers and mediocre fonctionnaires are too busy gushing about themselves, sometimes hiding the emptiness of their life behind a ridiculous epic narrative that turns social achievements into heroic feats, to give a fair hearing to pertinent criticism.

When I found out about libertarianism, I was already sick of the dominant fifty shades of leftism political culture. The gloomy mediocrity of small bureaucrats, including most school teachers, combined with their petty political righteousness, always repelled me. Thus, the discovery oflaissez-faire advocates felt like stumbling on an entirely new scene of thoughtand my initial feeling was vindicated when I found about the naturalism often associated with it, something refreshing and intuitively more satisfying than the mainstream culture-obsessed, biology-denying view.

Libertarianism looked like it could solve everything. More entrepreneurship, more rights to those who actually create wealth and live through the good values of personal responsibility and work ethic, less parasitesbe they bureaucrats or immigrants, no more repressive speech laws. Coincidentally, a new translation of Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged was published at this time: I devoured it, loving the sense of life, the heroism, the epic, the generally great and achieving ethos contained in it. Arent John Galt and Hank Rearden more appealing than any corrupt politician or beta bureaucrat that pretends to be altruistic while backstabbing his own colleagues and parasitizing the country?

Now, although I still support small-scale entrepreneurship wholeheartedly, I would never defend naked libertarianism, and here is why.

Part of the Rothschild family, where nepotism and consanguinity keep the money in

Unity makes strength, and trust is much easier to cultivate in a small group where everyone truly belongs than in an anonymous great society. Some ethnic groups, especially whites, tend to be instinctively individualistic, with a lot of people favouring personal liberty over belonging, while others, especially Jews, tend to favor extended family business and nepotism.

On a short-term basis, mobile individuals can do better than those who are bound to many social obligations. On the long run, however, extended families manage to create an environment of trust and concentrate capital. And whereas individuals may start cheating each other or scattering their wealth away, thanks to having no proper economic network, families and tribes will be able to invest heavily in some of their members and keep their wealth inside. This has been true for Jewish families, wherever their members work as moneylenders or diamond dealers, for Asians investing in new restaurants or any other business project of their own, and for North Africans taking over pubs and small shops in France.

The latter example is especially telling. White bartenders, butchers, grocers and the like have been chased off French suburbs by daily North African and black violence. No one helped them, everyone being afraid of getting harassed as well and busy with their own business. (Yep, just like what happened and still happens in Rotheram.) As a result, these isolated, unprotected shop-owners sold their outlet for a cheap price and fled. North Africans always covered each others violence and replied in groups against any hurdle, whereas whites lowered their heads and hoped not to be next on the list.

Atlas Shrugged was wrong. Loners get wrecked by groups. Packs of hyenas corner and eat the lone dog.

Libertarianism is not good for individuals on the long runit turns them into asocial weaklings, soon to be legally enslaved by global companies or beaten by groups, be they made of nepotistic family members or thugs.

How the middle classes end up after jobs have been sent overseas and wages lowered

People often believe, thanks to Leftist media and cuckservative posturing, that libertarians are big bosses. This is mostly, if not entirely, false. Most libertarians are middle class guys who want more opportunities, less taxation, and believe that libertarianism will help them to turn into successful entrepreneurs. They may be right in very specific circumstances: during the 2000s, small companies overturned the market of electronics, thus benefiting both to their independent founders and to society as a whole; but ultimately, they got bought by giants like Apple and Google, who are much better off when backed by a corrupt State than on a truly free market.

Libertarianism is a fake alternative, just as impossible to realize as communism: far from putting everyone at its place, it lets ample room to mafias, monopolies, unemployment caused by mechanization and global competition. If one wants the middle classes to survive, one must protect the employment and relative independence of its membersbankers and billionaires be damned.

Spontaneous order helped by a weak government. I hope they at least smoke weed.

A good feature of libertarianism is that it usually goes along with a positive stance on biology and human nature, in contrast with the everything is cultural and ought to be deconstructed left. However, this stance often leads to an exaggerated optimism about human nature. In a society of laissez-faire, the libertarians say, people flourish and the order appears spontaneously.

Well, this is plainly false. As all of the great religions say, after what Christians call the Fall, man is a sinner. If you let children flourish without moral standards and role models, they become spoiled, entitled, manipulative, emotionally fragile and deprived of self-control. If you let women flourish without suspicion, you let free rein to their propensities to hypergamy, hysteria, self-entitlement and everything we can witness in them today. If you let men do as they please, you let them become greedy, envious, and turning into bullies. As a Muslim proverb says, people must be flogged to enter into paradiseand as Aristotle put forth, virtues are trained dispositions, no matter the magnitude of innate talents and propensities.

Michelle The Man Obama and Lying Crooked at a Democrat meeting

When the laissez-faire rules, some will succeed on the market more than others, due to differences in investment, work, and natural abilities. Some will succeed enough to be able to buy someone elses business: this is the natural consequence of differences in wealth and of greed. When corrupt politicians enter the game, things become worse, as they will usually help some large business owners to shield their position against competitorsat the expense of most people, who then lose their independence and live off a wage.

At the end, what we get is a handful of very wealthy individuals who have managed to concentrate most capital and power levers into their hands and a big crowd of low-wage employees ready to cut each others throat for a small promotion, and females waiting in line to get notched by the one per cent while finding the other ninety-nine per cent boring.

Censorship by massive social pressure, monopoly over the institutions and crybullying is perfectly legal. What could go wrong?

On the surface, libertarianism looks good here, because it protects the individuals rights against left-hailing Statism and cuts off the welfare programs that have attracted dozens of millions of immigrants. Beneath, however, things are quite dire. Libertarianism enshrines the leftists right to free speech they abuse from, allows the pressure tactics used by radicals, and lets freethinking individuals getting singled out by SJWs as long as these do not resort to overt stealing or overt physical violence. As for the immigrants, libertarianism tends to oppose the very notion of non-private boundaries, thus letting the local cultures and identities defenseless against both greedy capitalists and subproletarian masses.

Supporting an ideology that allows the leftists to destroy society more or less legally equates to cucking, plain and simple. Desiring an ephemeral cohabitation with rabid ideological warriors is stupid. We should aim at a lasting victory, not at pretending to constrain them through useless means.

Am I the only one to find that Gary Johnson looks like a snail (Spongebob notwithstanding)?

In 2013, one of the rare French libertarians academic teachers, Jean-Louis Caccomo, was forced into a mental ward at the request of his university president. He then spent more than a year getting drugged. Mr. Caccomo had no real psychological problem: his confinement was part of a vicious strategy of pathologization and career-destruction that was already used by the Soviets. French libertarians could have wide denounced the abuse. Nonetheless, most of them freaked out, and almost no one dared to actually defend him publicly.

Why should rational egoists team up and risk their careers to defend one of themselves after all? They would rather posture at confidential social events, rail at organic solidarity and protectionism, or trolling the shit out of individuals of their own social milieu because Ive got the right to mock X, its my right to free speech! The few libertarian people I knew firsthand, the few events I have witnessed in that small milieu, were enough to give me serious doubts about libertarianism: how can a good political ideology breed such an unhealthy mindset?

Political ideologies are tools. They are not ends in themselves. All forms of government arent fit for any people or any era. Political actors must know at least the most important ones to get some inspiration, but ultimately, said actors win on the ground, not in philosophical debates.

Individualism, mindless consumerism, careerism, hedonism are part of the problem. Individual rights granted regardless of ones abilities, situation, and identity are a disaster. Time has come to overcome modernity, not stall in one of its false alternatives. The merchant caste must be regulated, though neither micromanaged or hampered by a parasitic bureaucracy nor denied its members right for small-scale independence. Individual rights must be conditional, boundaries must be restored, minority identities based on anti-white male resentment must be crushed so they cannot devour sociability from the inside again, and the pater familias must assert himself anew.

Long live the State and protectionism as long as they defend the backbone of society and healthy relationships between the sexes, and no quarter for those who think they have a right to wage grievance-mongering against us, no matter if they want to use the State or private companies. At the end, the socialism-libertarianism dichotomy is quite secondary.

Read Next: Sugar Baby Culture In The US Is Creating A Marketplace for Prostitution

Dec 1, 2016Andr du Ple

Here is the original post:
6 Reasons Why I Gave Up On Libertarianism

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

by Ram Jayaraman

It seems nowadays that people cannot have a conversation about politics without setting fire to any possible notion of perceived tranquility. Debates seem to irrevocably devolve into ad hominem assaults. However, in the interest of tranquility, I ask that you humor me while I try to describe my political inclinations, and why I think libertarianism is essential to free thought.

The concept of libertarianism is eponymous. At the core of the movement is the idea that ones liberty must be unfettered, necessarily unrestricted provided it does not interfere with the liberty of another. Very broadly speaking, this aligns mostly with the social perspectives of modern liberalism and the economic perspectives of modern conservatism. However, there is an important distinction that must be made which is best highlighted through example. Take the recent gay marriage ruling, for instance. The socially conservative stance, owing primarily to the philosophical tenets set forth by the Judeo-Christian pantheon, posits that marriage is an institution between a biological man and a biological woman. The socially liberal stance posits that marriage is an institution of love and therefore is not confined to heterosexual norms. In contrast, the libertarian stance is simply that the government has no business telling you who you can or cannot marry in a consensual relationship. At first glance, one would argue that the liberal and the libertarian perspectives are synonymous. However, upon closer inspection, this argumentation is deemed specious. Under liberalism, marriage between homosexuals is permissible; id est there exists an implication that the government is allowing its existence. Alternatively, libertarians advocate that the government should not have any leverage to regulate the institution of marriage. This example highlights, in brevity, what libertarianism is: provided I am not harming anyone else, the government should not act to restrict my agency.

Let us take this example a bit further. Assume that someones family does not condone homosexuality and views the practice as an abomination against God. He considers it nothing less than mortal sin, and to those for whom he cares, he vehemently preaches these beliefs. In the system of libertarian thought, his views are irrelevant. Regardless whether he thinks that LGBTQ+ people are destined for eternal damnation, their activities do not disrupt his agency. If one were to assume that these two constructs are mutually exclusive, consider this. The libertarian party has been pro LGBTQ+ rights for decades longer than either of the current duopoly. However, at the time, a sizable proportion of libertarians did not personally espouse gay marriage; they just advocated that they had no business enforcing their beliefs on others.

The current system of political duopoly in the United States has developed the false notion that the government need function as a moral executor. However, morality is relative. Our cultures and our beliefs are relative. My criteria for morality is not necessarily congruent to yours. As such, assuming that neither of our practices harms the other, there is no logical reason that the government should interfere. In the common vernacular, there is no logical reason, within the sphere of libertarianism, to enforce punitive measures for victimless crimes. Moreover, there is also no need to enforce such measures resulting from differences in morality that do not result in a disruption of individual agency. This notion is antithetical to the current paradigm of the duopoly, culminating in the development of a false binary with regard to political ideology.

The hypocrisy of the political binary can be evidenced as follows. Currently, liberals appear to have a disdain for firearms, yet they also believe that Muslim people are not responsible for the acts of war that terrorist cells commit under some perverse banner of Islam. In contrast, conservatives tout the existence and usage of firearms, yet they believe in the restriction of Muslim entry to domestic territory. Statistically, an infinitesimal percentage of firearms that are used in the United States are used for nefarious purposes. Statistically, an infinitesimal percentage of Muslims act in the name of terrorism. If one claims that the potential damage of an event outweighs the statistical insignificance of its occurrence, this would logically imply that liberals would deny Muslims entry to the United States. Analogously, if one claims that the statistical insignificance of an event outweighs its potential damage, this would logically imply that conservatives would allow unbarred entry of Muslims into the United States. Obviously, this is not the case. Both parties exhibit hypocrisy in their logical reasoning.

In summation, here is why libertarianism appeals to me. I barely know what is best for myself. Why on earth, then, would I try to enforce my views on other people? Obviously, there are far more intricacies that cannot be described transiently, but the core of the philosophy remains. Your thoughts are your own. A political party does not own my ideologies. Why should they enforce them upon me? Let me think, and Ill let you think. Thats what libertarianism is: freedom to think, freedom to act, and freedom to be. Liberty.

libertarianLibertyphilosophythought

Read more here:
The Necessity of Libertarian Thought - The Libertarian Republic