Category Archives: Libertarianism

There are three duties two-time Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate swore to uphold upon retaking office in 2014: compliment Senator Joni Ernst on her timeless hairdo, consume plenty of local cold brew coffee, and legitimize any third party that met established criteria. And earlier this week, Patewho we assume ran for secretary 20 years removed from his first tenure because Cedar Rapids Mayordidnt flow so seamlessly with his surnamegot to execute that latter privilege.

Upon releasing an inscrutable document detailing Iowas final voter-registration totals from the 2016 general election, Pate took to social media and declared that the Libertarian Party now had an official place on state voter-registration forms as of 2018s primaries.

Credit is due to Gary Johnson (not an oft-used phrase in 2017), who secured just under four percent of Iowans presidential votes. And sincea candidate need only exceed two percent of the in-state vote to have their party officially recognized, Johnson and his followers in the Hawkeye State can take a bow and bask in their authenticity.

According to local publication Daily Nonpareil, there are close to 10,000 registered Iowa Libertarians, a roughly five-fold increase since Barack Obamas 2012 re-election. Now if only one of those nearly 10K citizens knew how to update the state-party website.

[Daily NonPareil | photo: Getty]

Original post:
Iowa makes Libertarianism official - Death and Taxes

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

Dries Van Thielen

TLR: Why will the 2017 elections be more successful than the one in 2012?

VALENTINE: Like the American Libertarian Party, the Dutch Libertarian Party was inspired by dogmatic anarchists. However, similar to the American Libertarian Party, we recently had a strong disagreement on approach. On the one side, we had dogmatic theorists, stating that the libertarian ideology could not dilute. On the other side, we had an uprising of pragmatics favoring a more conciliatory attitude. We went along with the pragmatics and thus far we reached a wider audience and I myself, receive more phone calls from journalists. Without betraying our ideology, we composed a more attractive program which resulted in more and younger members.

TLR: Your campaign shows similarities with Gary Johnsons presidential campaign which was unable to attract major media attention. What is the approach of the LP towards media?

VALENTINE: For 2017, our strategy consists out of two approaches. First, we try to attract political attention for the upcoming elections. In doing so, we make efforts to draw attention by focusing on social media Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or LinkedIn and mixing ourselves in online discussions by creating our own content. You see, similar to Johnson, we are never asked for political debates. When we are debating on a local level, the audience is drawn into our ideas since we pose a different concept than spending more money on topic A or B as our colleagues propose. Political TV debates are somnolent since no party offers solutions for ongoing problems (like poverty, ).

Secondly, we try to look further than the upcoming elections. In 2017, we will work to introduce three cornerstones (political, intellectual and social) of libertarianism in the LP. A political cornerstone since it is the only way to become more influential in the Netherlands. An intellectual cornerstone since we are too often drawn to American media outlets (FEE, Libertarian Republic, CATO, and Mises.org,), focusing on the United States. Instead, we would introduce our own articles and platform focusing on the Netherlands.

Third, a social cornerstone, showing the power of freedom and individual cooperation. We missed out on a strong equip of volunteers throughout the years, being active in the fibers of society will change that. Currently, we are working to maintain and professionalize our team.

TLR: According to your recent Twitter campaign (#Nexit), the Netherlands have to opt out of the EU and NATO. Why would this be a good idea?

VALENTINE: People who join politics are well-intended, I presume. They join a party with the firm belief to change the mishaps in their respective country. So did the EU: it started with good intentions free movement of goods, people and capital, a lessening of trade restrictions These ideas are utterly libertarian-inspired, but the reality and elaboration differ from these well-intended ideas. Nowadays, we have an army of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and Luxembourg, designing our society! This is as un-libertarian as can be.

Without sounding too much like Geert Wilders (the entire Preliminary Election Program of PVV is 1 page long), I believe that the EU-agreements can be summed up on 1 page: freedom and free trade doesnt need codices. Brussels needs to disappear and The Hague needs to retake control.

As an alternative to the European Union, I would suggest the model Switzerland holds up. Granted, it isnt a libertarian utopia, but it only has 8 million inhabitants divided amongst 26 cantons, each with its respective constitution. The smallest particle decides which results in a more involved population. The citizens witness first handed the effects of their own policies.

TLR: And NATO?

VALENTINE: The same goes up with NATO. The NATO pact took off with good intentions, for we have to defend ourselves against invaders: libertarians arent pacifists. However, similar to the EU the intentions are overtaken by reality.

See, the moment we centralize our countrys interests, it gets troublesome since the organization you transfer your own interests to, has incentives of their own. In the case of NATO, the interests of its largest member the United States prevail on the ones of smaller member states (Netherlands and Belgium).

It is untenable to keep this relic from the Cold War alive as you take into account what it is used for nowadays: bombing sovereign states. Consistently bombing neighboring countries will not lead to a more secure Europe.

TLR: Can free trade solve the question of security, as a reaction for the dismantling of NATO? The majority of wars are fought for a lack of free trade.

VALENTINE: If goods dont pass the border, troops will. No sane country will put well-functioning commercial relations at risk since every interaction is advantageous for both participants. It would benefit the world if the world-wide free trade would be allowed (decline of poverty as the main advantage).

TLR: Besides free movement of goods and capital, your program mentions the open border solution based on the 19th-century European model. Will every individual integrate into this model?

VALENTINE: We favor the open border policy. Every individual is free to cross borders but we will check in your country of origin, whether you have ties with terrorist organizations.

Also, we encourage immigrants to work as soon as they enter the country instead of being pampered by the government, as is the case nowadays. Only, we will not allow immigrants to make use of the social benefits. In doing so, we counter the argument (theyll ruin our welfare) made by advocates of closed borders.

I find our system logical. Therefore, we counter the argument made by Geert Wilders. He states: We have to close borders, no one is allowed to cross borders and the Muslims already residing in the Netherlands will soon be kicked out! These accusations are nonsense and will harm the economy.

TLR: You grew accustomed to libertarianism by the writings of Ron Paul. Do you have any book recommendations for our readers?

VALENTINE: As an introduction into libertarianism, I highly recommend Revolution: A Manifesto by Dr. Ron Paul. Besides the classics (Economics in One Lesson or The Law), I was impressed by Matt RadleysThe Evolution of Everything. He refers to himself as a libertarian in minuscule. Many libertarians are attracted to libertarianism for its moral or economic aspect. It never goes both ways. The entire world is driven by invisible natural laws so it is unnecessary and illogical to set up structures according to Radley.

Since it is election season, I am currently reading The audacity to win by David Plouffe, Obamas Senior Advisor. It was he who was responsible for his (re-)election which interests me nowadays and I think it is a good read for many (non-pragmatic) libertarians. Unfortunately, the story does not tell itself.

TLR: I heard a passionate libertarian. When do you call the elections successful?

VALENTINE: The goal of the American Libertarian Party was to reach for 5% of the votes mainly to become a household name. The same goes up for us: the long-term is more important than these elections. If we reach 1 seat in parliament, it will be considered a grandiose success. Even if we reach 0.5 seats, which will correspond with about 20 thousand votes, these elections will be considered successful. This way, we will become a party worth taking into account.

EUGlobal Politicsimmigrationlibertarian partyNAvoNetherlandsRobert Valentine

See the article here:
Dutch Libertarian Party Pres. Robert Valentine: If Goods Don't Pass ... - The Libertarian Republic

Being Libertarian

Social Conservatism and Libertarianism Are Not Mergeable - So ... Being Libertarian It goes without saying that libertarianism, as a political philosophy, is fiscally conservative i.e. that on a policy level, the State must 'conserve,' rather than spend ... A Look into NYU Political Clubs: NYU College LibertariansNYU Local all 2 news articles »

Go here to read the rest:
Social Conservatism and Libertarianism Are Not Mergeable - So ... - Being Libertarian

"Are we a chosen marginalized group that is going to be forever hanging around together? Is this just our social gang?," asks Jeffrey Tucker, director of content for the Foundation of Economic Education (FEE). "I think that is a problem."

When FEE was first founded in 1946 by Leonard Read, libertarianism was a little known concept. Thanks to regularly featured works by noted scholars like Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, Henry Hazlitt, and George Stigler, the ideas of human liberty and freedom became more accessible and familiar to a larger audience.

The growing distaste for the current two-party system (both major party candidates set historic records for negative ratings in 2016) has increased the appeal of the libertarian perspective and the ideology has grown into a movement with real political momentum. Gallup Poll's 2015 Politcal Governance survey found that 27 percent of respondents could be ideologically classified as libertarianthe highest number recorded to date.

But Tucker warns that the growing popularity of libertarianism presents new challenges: "Because we have become a movement... it does give rise toI thinkcertain temptations to speak in our own vernacular or our own really high liturgical language with each other. Then normal people can't understand."

Tucker states he has looked to the past as inspiration for revitalizing FEE's current mission.

"There weren't a lot of what we call libertarians around at the time," Tucker explains. "They had to speak in a way to everybody or to anyone who would listen. And I think that affected the way they thought and the way they wrote. Every piece had to make sense for anybody who happened to pick it up."

To reach a larger audience, Tucker has expanded FEE's editorial scope by including entertainment reviews of popular shows like HBO's The Young Pope and Netflix's The Crown in addition to policy and political coverage.

Reason's Nick Gillespie sat down with Tucker at the International Students for Liberty Conference to discuss the history of FEE and how popular culture can be used by libertarians to spread their ideas to a mainstream audience.

Edited by Alexis Garcia. Cameras by Mark McDaniel and Todd Krainin. Music by Podington Bear.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Follow this link:
Changing the Way We Talk About Libertarianism - Reason

The past week has been a wild one in the libertarian movement that resulted in a great deal of soul-searching and reflecting. With left-libertarians triggered and showing their nasty, totalitarian colors under the pressure, many rational libertarians are realizing that this poison must be removed from the movement post haste before even more damage is done.

Anarcho-capitalist author and philosopher Christopher Chase Rachels has taken the lead in this valiant effort. In an apparent response to the growing acceptance of violence, harassment, and mob tactics by left-libertarians, Rachels is striking back. He drafted a manifesto for his new right-libertarian alliance that he published earlier today.

We as the libertarian right seek first and foremost to promote a society whose prevailing legal system(s) is/are firmly rooted in the private property ethic and the NAP, Rachels said in his manifesto. That this is the fundamental core of the peaceful, civilized, and prosperous society.

Those words sound like doctrinaire libertarianism, but Rachels manifesto definitely could appeal to those on the right as well. Rachels cleverly outlined language to satisfy right-wingers who are growingly interested in forming model communities to rid themselves of leftists completely, a noble goal if there ever was one.

People have the right to pool their property and form whatever type of community they wish based on whatever cultural values they have so long as insodoing they do not violate the private property of others, Rachels said.

This means that right-wing people could clique up with fellow right-wingers, even if they happen to be white, and form exclusionary communities. While this notion may make a left-libertarian run shrieking to the safety of a lynch mob, right-libertarians understand that this is true freedom. Rachels alliance might finally be the vehicle to promote a consistent, unapologetic strain of libertarianism that unabashedly promotes freedom, no matter what the outcome.

Jared Howe of Being Libertarian has provided a great deal of intellectual ammunition on Rachels behalf as he embarks upon his new mission.

When the left organizes, the right traditionally does nothing, though this is rapidly changing, Howe said. When the right organizes, the left spergs the fuck out and lapses into hysterical purity spiraling, gaslighting and Kafkatrapping.

This tells me that the left is TERRIFIED of the right. As Brexit, the election of Trump, and the rise of the Alt-Right have demonstrated, the left clearly isnt going to prevail through verbal abuse alone. Thats why theyve been escalating and provoking violent conflicts with Trump supporters. For them, it isnt about being right; its about survival through parasitism.

As the libertarian movement inevitably splits along partisan lines, opportunities will arise for libertarians to regroup, strike back, and make a lasting impact. Rachels and Howe clearly understand the need to combat the stasis in the libertarian movement. Their project has the real potential to focus libertarian resources toward achieving necessary ends.

The alliance does not have a website at the current time, but interested individuals are encouraged to email [emailprotected] for more details.

Originally posted here:
Rothbard's Revenge: The Developing Libertarian-Right Alliance To Crush Leftist Influence In Modern Society - The Liberty Conservative

'Moonlight'I had already prepared myself for the disappointment of La La Land beating out Moonlight for the Academy Award for best movie. I saw both movies and thought Moonlight was superior in all the ways that matter to mestrong characters, powerful storytelling, and emotional impact. But Hollywood loves itself above all things, and I was prepared for another Crash versus Brokeback Mountain train wreck.

When La La Land was initially declared the winner, I simply shrugged and started shutting everything down for the night. It was only by circumstance that I powered down my computer first and still had the television on when the mistake was revealed. It was a happy surprise to me that Moonlight won, and I just wanted to take a moment to recommend anybody who identifies as a libertarian to go so the movie if they haven't yet.

If I were to describe a movie as being about a young gay black man coming of age in an extremely poor Miami neighborhood surrounded by drug culture, violence, and bullies, it may be a natural inclination to expect something very preachy and full of "Something must be done about this!" messages.

That's not Moonlight. What makes Moonlight work is that it's almost the exact opposite. It throws the viewer into the life of young protagonist Chiron and has the confidence to let us come to terms with the combination of awfulness and hopefulness of his experiences. It's a deeply personal story informed by the real world experiences of the two men behind it.

What does this have to do with libertarianism? Government institutions are shown as failing Chiron, and there's no effort to present these systems as part of the solution. School does nothing to protect him. And when he finally acts out in frustration when the violent bullying becomes too much, he finds the criminal justice system ready to come crashing down on him.

There is no lecturing about this institutional failure. It's presented as a lived-in experience. The story of Moonlight trusts the viewer to understand its deeper meaning. It's not complicated, but it is subtle. That the time jump between teen Chiron and adult Chiron includes a prison stint is handled almost like an aside.

But the movie is far from hopeless, and it's not a tragedy. This is not Brokeback Mountain recast in an urban setting during the crack epidemic. It's challenging and at times very difficult to watch play out (particularly if you were, for disclosure's sake, a gay man who also grew up dirt poor in Florida and had a mother with drug issues), but Chiron does find a path that suggests a way toward personal happiness even as it embeds him further into a life operating through some shadowy options (I'm trying not to spoil too much).

Consider Moonlight to be the film equivalent of the personal stories Reason shares about those who have been granted mercy from harsh mandatory minimum sentences. When we look at the cruelty of the drug war, the use of police in schools, and the failures of prohibition and their disparate impact on minorities, it's easy to want throw out data and just hope that makes an impression. Moonlight attaches it all to a story and invites the audience to live through the consequences of this harsh dynamic partly created by government officials (at the demand of their constituencies) without judging them and putting them on the defensive. The movie illustrates a fight for self-determination and personal happiness in a harsh environment where authority is stacked against the protagonistsomething every libertarian should be able to identify with.

Continue reading here:
Libertarians Should Go See Moonlight - Reason (blog)

Photo Credit: Fibonacci Blue / Flickr

I once had a conversation with a libertarian friend who insisted that freedom was the answer to everything, ironic since he was getting married the following week.

Freedom to have sex with others while married? I asked.

Of course not, he said.

Freedom for your children to do whatever they want?

No, thats different, he said.

Freedom for everyone to have a nuclear bomb?

No, that wouldnt be good.

Freedom for people to steal?

No, that has to be controlled.

You dont really think that freedom is the answer to everything, I said. The real question is what to constrain and what to let go free. The question in social engineering is the question in all engineering. Its a question of tolerances: What to constrain with tight tolerances and what to let run free with loose tolerances. That question is built right into the paradoxical declarations that we should all, be intolerant of all intolerance, or tolerate all intolerance.

Sorry, thats not my question, he said.

But why? I asked.

Because its hard and I dont want to bother with it.

I applauded his honesty. If you want to know why its not obvious to everyone by now that the question is what to tolerate and not tolerate, its simply this. The question is difficult.

Its so much easier to be a hypocrite, to claim that total freedom or total constraint are the only possibilities and that you favor one and oppose the other. Its easier to pretend that youre crusading for absolute freedom against absolute control or vice versa than it is to deal with the messy complexity of trying to sort out what to free and what to constrain.

Hypocrisy is the alternative to praying for the wisdom to know the difference between what to constrain and what to let run free. Just pretend that you already have theperfect wisdom to know the obvious difference. Pretend that theres no question, control is always bad, freedom is always good. Or vice versa.

And with hypocrisy, you can even have it both ways depending on your momentary needs and whims. You can claim that you always favor one as you can switch back and forth.

I dont like that this constrains me. We should all be free always.

Always?!

Yes, judgment is always bad. People should never be judgmental.

But isnt should a judgment?

No. And why do you always have to disagree with me?

I dont always and anyway, didnt you just say that people should be free always? Doesnt that apply to me too? Shouldnt I be free to disagree with you?

No. People should always do the right thing. People should always be controlled by the moral principles I know and espouse.

Butbutyou just said

Theres a difference between being and feeling consistent. To be consistent you have to tame the tendency to extrapolate to universal principles from whatever youre feeling in the moment. You have to be able to notice your inconsistencies.

Since thats difficult and self-compromising, its easier to just feel consistent. For that you need only hold one idea constant. Just always chant, Im consistent. I have integrity. Im not like all of the other people around me. Other people are inconsistent hypocrisy. Im not.

If you hold that one thought with all your heart then you dont have to pay attention to your flip-flopping. You can have all your cakes and eat them too.

You wont live by your inconsistent standards, but if youre insistent enough, youll be able to convince yourself that you do, and maybe youll be able to convince others too. There are lots of hypocrisy cults you can join, mutual admiration societies that claim some absolute truth, thereby liberating themselves to follow their whims, confident that theyre consistent.

These days, libertarianism is one such cult, growing in popularity, in large part through sponsorship by the Koch brothers network of donors, spending billions through private charities to achieve a cabal of about 400 billionaires ultimate aim, to be unconstrained in everything they do. The cabal was inspired by a self-serving misreading of the Soviet Union. Fred Koch, the Koch brothers father was a key provider to Stalin as he built the Soviet Unions oil industry. When Fred saw the devastation wrought by his client Stalin he wrote that, What I saw in Russia convinced me of the utterly evil nature of communism. What I saw there convinced me that communism was the most evil force the world has ever seen and I must do everything in my power to fight it, whichI have done since that time.

Rather than bite Stalins hand that fed him he conveniently focused on the rationalization that Stalin employed to justify his dictatorship. Fred went on to say in 1938 that "Although nobody agrees with me, I am of the opinion that the only sound countries in the world are Germany, Italy, and Japan, simply because they are all working and working hard." He loved fascism; he hated communism.

Thus was born the hypocritical Koch campaign, control for freedom; constrain for liberty, dictate anarchy. It was easy to get other wealthy donors enthusiastic about the movement, donors like our new education secretary Betsy Devos, a self-declared libertarian who donated over $200 million to hypocritical campaigns for state-imposed religious education in the name of libertarianism. And its been easy to find politicians who will mouth and defend the hypocrisy for the money.

Thats what happened to what once was the Republican party. The Republicans who embraced American traditions bent to the Kochs will or were chased out by Koch-funded candidates from the Tea Party. If youre wondering whatever happened to our country, what explains the weird jack-knifing lurch toward libertarianism, the Koch brothers are a good place to find answers. The Tea Party wouldnt have lasted any longer than the Occupy movement if it werent orchestrated and funded by the Kochs.

Do I sound like a conspiracy theorist? If the alternative to conspiracy theory is the assumption that there are never any conspiracies, were in real trouble. There are conspiracies. The difference between conspiracy theorists and people who reveal real conspiracies is in whether the eagerness to find oneor the evidence leads one to the conclusion that there is one. If you read the facts on the Koch brothers, I think youll find that the evidence stacks up pretty conclusively.

But no matter how much money you pour into selling something, it wont sell if theres no latent appetite. With libertarianism as a rationalization, theres plenty of appetite, the appetite for some alternative to having to think about whats worth and not worth constraining.

Libertarians have bought themselves the ultimate freedom, paid in full with a commitment to hypocrisy, the freedom to never have to wonder about or learn from anything ever again, the freedom to feel consistent without having to trouble themselves with the hard question that shows up everywhere since sometimes freedom turns out well and sometimes it turns out badly:

In engineering:There are bolts and there are ball bearings. We bolt some things down and we let other things run free.

Computer engineering:Algorithms are constraints that enable you to input a free range of variables and get reliably constrained results.

Social engineering:We want people to have freedom to do what they want so long as it doesnt cause more damage than their freedom is worth. Laws, at their best, are constraints that maximize freedom.

Liberty and justice for all:Justice constrains us, liberty frees us. Justice is security. Government at its best seeks the best mix.

Freedom and responsibility:Youre free on the dance floor, but unless youre special (P.S., youre not) your freedom comes with responsibility for not constraining other peoples freedom. You dont get to crowd everyone into the corner by dancing wildly with your eyes shut shouting I believe in freedom!

Social movements:The best and worst movements in human history have all had the same rallying cry, a proud "We demand more!" That's the cry of those crowded out but also those who already have more than their fair share. It's the cry of the women's and civil rights movement but alsoof the Nazi's. So what's the difference between the good and bad versions of that rallying cry? Hypocrisy, demand for more dancefloor when you're already taking up plenty of it.

Player vs. married:A player is free to date whomever but the freedom comes with a loss of security, no reliable partner to come home to. A married person is more constrained but in the bargain gains some security.

Freelance vs. salaried:Salaried workers are more constrained than freelancers, but in exchange, they get a bit more security.

Evolution:Life is a trial and error process and we are the trials. This makes us ambivalent, rooting for ourselves as trials and rooting for the trial and error process. In our hearts, we cry let the best man win and it damned well better be me!

Sore losers:Sore losers smash the game board if they lose. Libertarians are like that. They think that if they dont win, the game is rigged against them and must be destroyed so that they always win.

Free willvs. determinism:We claim that free will as better than determinism but actually were ambivalent. What wed really like is the freedom to advance and the determinism that locks in the advances weve already made. What we really want is a ratchet, freedom to climb, constraint against falling.

We can have that ratchet if we shut our eyes, dance impulsively and shout freedom is the only answer! while crowding everyone else into the corners by meaning only our personal freedom, the hell with theirs.

Jeremy Sherman is an evolutionary epistemologist studying the natural history and practical realities of decision making. Read his work at Psychology Today.

Original post:
Self-Indulgent Libertarian Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds - AlterNet

New York Times

Jerome Tuccille, Libertarian Author and Trump Biographer, Dies at 79 New York Times Jerome Tuccille, who wrote one of the first manifestoes of the American libertarian movement and the first biography of Donald J. Trump, died on Feb. 16 at his home in Severna Park, Md. He was 79. The cause was complications of multiple myeloma, his ...

See original here:
Jerome Tuccille, Libertarian Author and Trump Biographer, Dies at 79 - New York Times

All it takes is a Hoppe, skip and a jump for those, who are joking online about throwing communists from helicopters, to justify their actions.

A growing wave of libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are finding themselves drawn to the world of anti-communist rhetoric, which extends to the nth degree. So, is commie killing a justified response to the violation of the NAP, or is this simply lunacy concocted to ideologically discriminate? Where does the line between threat and belief system exist?

To discover this, we must first look at the emerging resurgence of Hans-Hermann Hoppe and his beliefs, through the Facebook page Hoppean Snake Memes. Its a page which has amassed nearly seventeen thousand likes for its ideological tint, which takes heavy opposition to Marxism and Leninism; ideologies which are acting in opposition to anarcho-capitalism.

Just as one must fight to maintain their freedom, one must also work to secure their own free society. The difference between an anarcho-capitalist society and an anarcho-individualist society is based on the premise of the left and right dichotomy, with anarcho-capitalists representing the right-wing and property rights, and the anarcho-individualists representing the left-wing and communism.

Anarcho-individualism, as indicated through the works of Max Stirner, completely disregards pragmatism, societal progress and morality to favour the Ubermensch perspective of Friedrich Nietzsche, which essentially involves giving complete reign of ones life and actions over to the people to allow them to decide their life based on their own moral compass.

Essentially, given the rise of groups such as Antifa which run contrary to the libertarian principles of personal and property rights Hoppean Snake Memes takes a hyperbolic approach to Hoppes original views by mixing them with Augusto Pinochets historically notorious habit of dropping communists from helicopters.

The death of communists is seen very much in the same way that one would see the killing of ISIS regardless of whether or not individual ISIS members have committed atrocities, their group is reason enough for suspicion and consequential action to be taken to stop it. Given that groups such as Antifa and ISIS threaten the peace and prosperity of societal participants (since communism and Islam represent the two biggest terror threats in the world at the moment), it is clear that action must be taken.

I interviewed the administrator of the Facebook page who simply went by the monicker Snek for the purposes of conversation; he elaborated on his disdain for communism, which he saw as antithetical to a society which follows along a pathway of objective self-servience and capital-based individualism.

When I say communist, I am referring to one who advocates gulags. Not simply worker control of the means of production. I have nothing against worker control of the MOP, provided its all voluntary, et cetera et cetera.

Upon being pressed as to how this runs contrary to freedom of association and freedom of speech, the terminology of threat was used to justify the way in which communist advocacy works; their ideals stomping over the civil liberties of person and property.

This, paired with the forced radicalism of groups such as Antifa, is now acting as the basis for an emerging ideology that pairs anarchism with practicality, in order to minimise big government to small government and gradually make the transition to a stateless society. This is why the forces in question have fallen in love with the bombastic reductions taken by Donald Trump; reductions which run counter to the prior Democratic tendency to slip down a slippery slope and fall into a pit of authoritarian tripe (think Franklin D. Roosevelt). This heavy focus on pragmatism for libertarianism has led followers to co-opt the alternative right and expand its audience in the retaliation against leftism.

Snek detailed the following:

It should be noted that the helicopter memes are, for the most part, an exaggeration; the purpose, though, is to provoke thought on what is to be considered legitimate self-defence. The argument that Pinochet did nothing wrong stems from the argument that Allende would have been worse. Allende had very close ties to MIR and Castro, judging by Castros actions we know that if Allende was even remotely like him, Allende would have been objectively worse than Pinochet, in terms of human rights violations.

Given the low polling numbers of the Libertarian Party and the fact that the ideology has as much momentum behind it as a Snorlax on a bridge, can one really blame a frustrated branch of Austrian economics for a kneejerk reaction to the left and their omnipresent threat of attack on our fundamental rights?

Out of the philosophical and epistemological questions that lie behind the nebulous terminology of the NAP, it should be determined (at least to some extent) by the public consensus what is considered justifiable retaliation.

Do you approve of the commie killin freedom fighters, or do you simply see them as being full of Pinoshit?

We here at Being Libertarian are not at liberty (ironically) to disclose our personal position on ideological discrimination, however, we must advocate peace towards your fellow man, to set a good example for the thieves more extreme members of the left.

And stay up to date with all my articles on my personal Facebook page.

This post was written by David McManus.

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

David McManus has an extensive background in youth politics and of advocacy with regards to the libertarian and anarcho-capitalist movements. David draws his values from the works of Stirner, Hoppe and Rothbard. He is currently a student in Australia with a passion for writing, which carries into a healthy zest for liberty-based activism. Despite an aspiring career in politics, he considers himself a writer at heart with a steady niche for freelance work.

Like Loading...

Here is the original post:
Libertarianism, Helicopters, and Leftists - Being Libertarian

Local Libertarians eyeing city, state government seats Mid-City Messenger The Libertarian Party of Orleans Parish is looking to gain notoriety with a few local government seats, but they're still searching for locals who want to get involved. We're not going to start winning offices right off the bat, Kirk Coco, party ...

Read the original post:
Local Libertarians eyeing city, state government seats - Mid-City Messenger