Category Archives: Libertarianism

There are several federal, state and local elections on the ballot for the upcoming general election see who is on the docket. File photo.

Unofficial results from Tuesday night show that Johnson County voter turnout hit more than 53% for the 2022 primary election.

Next up is the Nov. 8 general election, during which voters will decide who becomes the new chair of the Board of County Commissioners, as well as races for U.S. Senate, the Third District U.S. House of Representatives seat, a slew of local statehouse contests and some other statewide and local offices.

The Post put together the following list using Johnson County Election Offices unofficial final results and the Kansas Secretary of State unofficial Kansas election results of candidates who have either already filed for November or who won their primary Tuesday and are set to advance.

Read the original post:
The primary is over Here's who you can expect to see on JoCo ballots in November - Shawnee Mission Post

Hey,

I set out to write this new effort to launch a third party and then, a few hundred words in, I started putting out a cigar on my face just to remind myself Im alive. So, Im starting over.

Dont get me wrong, Id be delighted to see a third party emerge that could send either the GOP or the Democrats the way of the Whigs. Its just that the topic has been so exhaustingly chewed-over you could drink it with a straw. So let me at least try to come at it from a different angle.

First, I do think that conditions have not been better in my lifetime for a third party to emerge.

Think of it like a man with three buttocks. No, wait, dont do that.

Think of it like our national forests, where bears continue to defecate with libertarian impunity. Weve spent a century suppressing natural fires to the point that theres an enormous amount of fuel lying around, making a much bigger fire inevitable.

Read more:
Discontent Is Never Enough - by Jonah Goldberg - The G-File - The Dispatch

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, which in June gutted the Biden administrations ability to reduce the electrical power industrys carbon emissions, may be the Supreme Courts most reckless and lawless decision (in an extremely competitive field). The court comes close to anarchism, crippling Congresss capacity to protect the country from disaster and undermining the fundamental purpose of the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, embraced a newly bloated version of the major questions rule for interpreting statutes, one that Congress could not have known about when it gave the president the power to create environmental regulations: there are extraordinary cases . . . in which the history and the breadth of authority that the agency has asserted and the economic and political significance of that assertion provide a reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress meant to confer such authority. The challenged Obama-era plan would have restructured an entire industry, and Roberts declared that there was little reason to think Congress assigned such decisions to the Agency.

If you need a reason, how about the plain words of the statute? Section 111of the Clean Air Act instructs the EPA to select the best system of emission reduction for power plants, as part of its mandate to regulate stationary sources of any substance that causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution and may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

Roberts says the court should look to the history and breadth of the authority asserted by the agency as well as the economic and political significance of the regulation, and then speculate as to whether Congress really meant to confer such authority. But the best evidence of what Congress meant is the language it enacted.

The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it, wrote Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the major questions doctrine magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards. (A few months ago, she made the same point about the courts invalidation of OSHAs rules to limit COVID-19 in workplaces.) The courts decision is already being cited in challenges to regulations of pipelines, asbestos, nuclear waste, corporate disclosures and highway planning.

Roberts observes that the EPA has rarely used its Section 111 power. But statutes dont disappear because they arent being used. They remain in effect until they are repealed. Right now, we are seeing antiabortion laws that have been dead for half a century suddenly spring back into life.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, concurring, offers a more specific account of how one decides what counts as a major question, explaining that the first question a court should ask is whether an agency claims the power to resolve a matter of great political significance.

How does a court know what gives a matter great political significance? Gorsuch cites earnest and profound debate across the country not at the time of enactment, but decades later. OSHAs effort to prevent thousands of COVID-19 deaths was improper because it came at a time when Congress and state legislatures were engaged in robust debates over vaccine mandates.

I thought I was offering a reductio ad absurdum last January when I wrote that the Supreme Court was making Fox News a source of law. But Gorsuch isnt even hiding it: If the conservative press raises enough of a fuss to trigger a political fight, then government action that was previously authorized will become illegal.

Congress in the 1970s was under the impression that air pollution and workplace dangers were unquestionably evils, and that creating agencies was the best way to address those threats. The court declared way back in 1819 that Congress has broad discretion to choose the most convenient means for carrying out its powers. Kagan observed: A key reason Congress makes broad delegations like Section 111 is so an agency can respond, appropriately and commensurately, to new and big problems. Congress knows what it doesnt and cant know when it drafts a statute.

It knew that scientific knowledge would improve. For instance, now we understand that coal the leading source of water and air pollution is the worst fossil fuel: When one accounts for the costs it imposes, every unit that is burned has negative economic value. The EPA aimed to have coal provide 27 percent of the nations electricity by 2030, down from 38 percent in 2014.

Most Americans once would have been astounded to learn that anyone would ever try to block efforts to contain a pandemic or prevent environmental catastrophe. The courts decision reflects the growing influence of libertarianism, which thinks that liberty means a government that is small and weak. Libertarians have been unable to think clearly about environmental harms. Thats why, for all their purported cold rationality, they are drawn to daffy climate change denialism and, more recently, antivaxx ideology. The libertarians capture of the Republican Party is so complete that its members will not give President Biden a single vote for his climate plan. Actually, from a libertarian standpoint, the effects of climate change involve clear violations of property rights that the state must remedy: One isnt permitted to devastate other peoples land.

The slogan abolish the police, embraced by some on the left, is foolish because it focuses on government dysfunction while failing to notice what government is for. The court has now embraced its own form of reckless anarchism and at the worst possible time. In the midst of a deadly plague and worsening climate catastrophe, it has blocked Congresss ability to choose the tools it deems most effective and left unclear what Congress or the EPA is now allowed to do to protect the human race from impending disaster.

Gorsuch presumes that an agency exceeds its authority when it seeks to regulate a significant portion of the American economy, or require billions of dollars in spending by private persons or entities. Both he and Roberts tell us, in effect, that the bigger the problem, the less capacity Congress has to address it by delegation. This is like a weirdly selective form of police abolition that abolishes only the homicide squad or yanks police out of high-crime neighborhoods.

There have always been some Americans who did not like the Constitution, who thought that it created government that was too powerful. In 1788 they almost prevented it from being ratified. Most voters, however, have repeatedly rejected the radical libertarian notion that liberty means a government too feeble to solve the nations most urgent problems. They voted that way when the Constitution was adopted, and again when Congress created these agencies. Todays Supreme Court perversely interprets law as if the Constitutions opponents had won.

Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law at Northwestern University, is the author of Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martins Press, forthcoming).Follow him on Twitter@AndrewKoppelman.

View original post here:
Climate change and the Supreme Courts version of police abolitionism - The Hill

Q&A with Frank Buckley

With polls showing that Republicans stand a good chance of recapturing control of the U.S. House and possibly the Senate in the November election, many Americans are asking what the party will do if it holds the reins of power next year.

In the House, Republicans are attempting to provide an answer to that question by rolling out a series of proposals which they are calling their Commitment to America aimed at addressing high energy prices, rising violence, and some of the other key challenges Americans face.

In the Senate, Republicans appear to be of two minds about which is the proper course to take. Some, such as Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, believe the focus of the upcoming election should be on what Democrats have done or failed to do over the past two years. Others, such as Florida Senator Rick Scott, believe the party need to follow the Houses lead and put down in writing what they hope to achieve if they hold the majority next year.

Frank Buckley is taking an even broader view. Buckley is a professor at George Mason Universitys Scalia School of Law who is perhaps better known in Republican circles as the author of several speeches Donald Trump delivered during the 2016 presidential campaign. Buckley is no longer a supporter of the former President he calls him toxic. But he is a supporter of some of the positions that Trump took and some of the messages that he conveyed.

Buckley believes it is time for Republicans to move beyond the former President and get behind a vision that not only encapsulates some of these positions and messages, but appeals to the broad swath of working class Americans who supported Trump in response. Buckley lays out just such a vision in a new book. Called Progressive Conservatism: How Republicans Will Become Americas Natural Governing Party, the book recommends that members of the GOP look to three leading statesmen from the GOPs past for guidance about the path to follow, and argues that issues relating to improving economic mobility, fighting corruption, and making government work will be keys to the partys success in the years ahead.

The Forum spoke with Buckley recently about his book, his vision for progressive conservatism, and where he would like to see the party go in 2022 and beyond.

________________________________

RF: First things first explain to our readers, what is a progressive conservative?

FB: A progressive conservative is someone who is faithful to the leading statesmen of the Republican Party Eisenhower, Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln. There are several themes that are associated with those statesmen.

Lincoln was the one who invented the American Dream the idea that whoever you are, wherever you come from, you should be able to get ahead and your kids will have it better than you did. When polled in 2014, Americans said, We no longer believe in the American Dream. We dont think its happening. And the economic evidence bears them out. That should have been a sign of a revolution in American politics. But the only person who picked up on that was Trump, and they elected him president.

So I think the Republican Party has to take on mobility economic intergenerational mobility as a big theme, and specifically point out how its the Democrats who are holding people back with their immigration policies and their education policies and their regulatory policies. They have placed a boulder in front of the people who want to get ahead. So that should be an important element of what progressive conservatism means. And it all goes back to Lincoln.

Teddy Roosevelt came to government as a reformer an anti-corruption reformer. And, you know, the GOP has given away the issue of corruption to Democrats. And thats just wrong. There are things we should be doing. We should be taking up the issue of corruption, specifically with respect to regulating lobbyist contributions to politicians and closing the revolving door between K Street and Congress. Those should be Republican themes.

And then finally, like Ike, we have to make our peace with the welfare state and recognize, as Lincoln did, that we want equality of opportunity, not equality of results. And the government has a role to play in achieving this goal. The government has a role in providing good, decent school choice, for example. Were on the right side of that. These are all themes that define progressive conservatism.

RF: Lets talk about the progressive conservative vision on some of the challenges facing America today. You mentioned school choice. To expand on that, where do progressive conservatives come down on the issue of education?

FB: Well, were in favor of good education. The guy who really was an education president was Lincoln, who supported the land grant colleges through the Morrill Act, and who was not merely in favor of the equality of opportunity, but who lived it himself, rising from a hardscrabble farm to the presidency. What was really basic to Lincoln was the idea that all Americans both white and black should have the opportunity to get ahead. And a good part of that is education. Lincoln is the only president to hold a patent, and loved the idea of education for farmers as a means by which everybody can get ahead.

RF: Were in the middle of a heat wave right now. What about climate change?

FB: Climate change is an issue on which I think one is permitted to be skeptical. Ive read what Bjorn Lomborg has had to say in the Wall Street Journal. I agree theres such a thing as global warming. Im something of a skeptic as to the subject of spending a vast amount of money to try to cure the problem. At this particular point, you ask whats to be done today. Well, the big issue today is inflation. So big government spending programs right now arent going to be the answer.

RF: What about defense and foreign policy. What is the progressive conservative view towards Ukraine and the importance of American leadership abroad?

FB: You know, if there was a pro-Russian fellow in the Trump campaign, that wouldve been me. I helped draft Trumps foreign policy speech in the beginning of the campaign, I put in a line to the effect that I could see why the Russians were troubled by the expansion of NATO. That line was taken out. And what was substituted was a line that said, They say we cant trust the Russians to cut a deal. I intend to find out. Thats what Trump said. I think thats, thats what we should have done.

The tragedy of the idiotic Russian collusion paranoia was it prevented anything like a deal with the Russians. And clearly, a deal was the way to solve the problem. Even now in Ukraine, even at this moment, we should be getting on the blower with Putin as Macron does, as the Pope does and try to craft a deal. I mean, you do peace deals with your enemies, not with your friends. Putins very much an adversary who we threw into the lap of the Chinese, which is madness.

I dont think we should be spending money fighting a proxy war which gets Ukrainians killed. I think what we should be trying to do is craft a peace treaty that would solve the problem. Indeed, the opportunity for such a deal even now I think exists with Putin. That also, by the way, is what Henry Kissinger thinks.

RF: Picking up on your earlier point about corruption, you dedicate an entire chapter in your book to draining the swamp, First, what is your definition of the swamp? Is it entrenched bureaucrats, entrenched special interests, or both? And how do you propose to go about doing it?

FB: Well, I have some specific suggestions geared towards reining in the lobbyists and closing the revolving door between K Street and Congress. Its been said that Congress is a farm team for K street, right? People come here and they never leave they just move down to K Street. Those are the kinds of issues that I think Republicans should take on.

RF: You write about the importance of having a government that is aligned to the whole of the voters and say Republican Virtue will be required to reach that goal. Could you talk about that for a moment?

FB: The idea of Republican Virtue is traced back to the Founders in 1776. They thought that the revolution wouldnt succeed unless it was supported by Americans who had a disinterested desire to promote the common good of Americans. Republican Virtue is also something I identify with the West. Im from the West. And so I buy into Frederick Jackson Turners story of the frontier as being crucial in American history and, and history as being a contest between the West which is democratic, egalitarian, mobile, and virtuous, as opposed to an aristocratic and corrupt East. So Republican Virtue thus means that what is for the common good of all Americans let us support that.

The cynical view, which I associate with Madison, is that were also intrinsically corrupt and we cant be trusted to promote Republican Virtue. Were disinterested in virtue in any way, and the best we can do is just have people bargain with one another. Thats called pluralism, and its an idea that traditionally was associated with the Democratic Party a party of coalitions. The notion is that everybody is bargaining at the table. Everybody will be well taken care of. And that obviously didnt happen.

I think we have to break away from that idea of dividing us up by race or gender or whatever leave that job for the Democrats. Instead, ask for people to speak to that which is for the common good of all Americans. And that historically has been what the Republicans have done as opposed to the Democrats.

RF: Lets return to progressive conservatism and the politics of today. You wrote speeches for Donald Trump in 2016, yet write that you believe Republicans need to move beyond Trump in 2024. Why do you no longer support him? And what kind of candidate do you believe the party needs to get behind the next time around?

FB: Well, I think hes toxic for any number of reasons. January 6th, obviously, but even before that, he was a failed President by virtue of his inability to know which levers to pull when he was in office. He didnt have a sense as to the kinds of people who should be appointed. He surrounded himself with the most knavish of people. I hope that the January 6th hearings persuade the American people that the fellow should be toast. If they do that, what theyll have done in the end is help the GOP more than the Democrats.

So yes, we have to say goodbye to Trump. But I think what we want to do at the same time is remember that this guy won in 2016, and he brought to the party a whole bunch of people who had never voted Republican before. And were not going to win an election if we say goodbye to them. If we revert to the old right wing party of Barry Goldwater, thats not going to work.

What well need is a party that recognizes the limitation of 60 years of libertarianism and of being a party that was indifferent to issues like mobility and corruption.

RF: I think the term you used in your book is that Republicans need a happy warrior in 2024

FB: Which is to say I rather like Ike. We need a smiling person who doesnt communicate a sense of hostility. And thats certainly not Trump. Its more like Ike.

###

Read the original:
Progressive Conservatism: How Republicans Will Become America's Natural Governing Party - The Ripon Society

Former Kansas City anchorman Mark Alford emerged from the crowded GOP primary in the 4th Congressional District on Tuesday.

In the sprawling 24-county 4th District, Alfort bested his main rivals Sen. Rick Brattin, farmer Kalena Bruce and former Boone County Clerk Taylor Burks in a race that saw massive outside spending from political action committees lined up behind their preferred candidate.

Alford will now face Jack Truman of Lamar, who was unopposed in the Democratic primary, and Libertarian Randy Langkraehr.

The seat opened up after the incumbent, U.S. Rep. Vicky Hartzler, decided to run for Senate.

Alford, who worked as a news anchor at Fox 4 in Kansas City before retiring, boasted support for former President Donald Trumps border wall, gun rights, congressional term limits and school choice, along with total opposition to abortion.

We must deport illegal aliens, Alford said during a debate last month. And no, we have enough jobs here in America for Americans to fill.

Continue reading here:
Former TV anchorman wins GOP nomination in Missouris 4th Congressional District - Missouri Independent

Donnie Brown

NEW MADRID, Mo. Donnie Brown of New Madrid will be the next representative from the 149th District.

According to unofficial vote totals from the office of New Madrid County Clerk Amy Brown, Republican Brown received 1,255 votes in New Madrid County. His opponent on the Republican ticket Eric Garris had 396 votes. There were no Democrats seeking the office.

The 149th District also includes Mississippi County and a portion of Pemiscot County. Brown had 727 votes in Mississippi County and 310 votes in Pemiscot County for a total of 2,292. Garris had 331 votes in Mississippi County and 285 votes in Pemiscot County giving him 1,012 votes overall.

Brown offered his thanks following his win.

I had so many generous people that donated to the campaign, that walked with me, put signs up. I couldnt have done it without them, Brown said.

According to Brown, he will make jobs a priority when serving as the 149th District representative along with technical skills education to provide the work force to fill those jobs. Also he said he hopes to serve on the states budget committee.

Nearly 87 percent of the 1,972 voters casting ballots Tuesday opted for a Republican ballot. There were a total of 1,701 voters picking up the GOP primary ballot and 270 who selected a Democratic ballot. Only one person voted the Libertarian ticket and there were no Constitution Party voters in the county.

Overseeing her second election since appointed New Madrid County Clerk, Amy Brown said overall the election on Tuesday went smoothly.

With no locally contested primary races, turnout in New Madrid County was just under 18 percent, or 1,972 of the countys 11,030 registered voters.

There will be one contested county election in November.

Mary Hunter Starnes had 239 votes cast for her by Democrats for the office of New Madrid County treasurer. Republicans cast 1,226 votes for Renee Westmoreland Smith as their partys nominee for New Madrid County treasurer. They will face one another in the November election.

The remaining candidates for county office were without opposition in the August primary.

Listed on the Democratic ballot for county office was incumbent Recorder of Deeds Kim St. Mary Hall, who had 250 votes.

On the Republican ticket for county office were incumbents Josh Underwood, associate circuit judge, 1,304 votes; Mark Baker, presiding commissioner, 1,262 votes; Amy Brown, county clerk, 1,276 votes; Shannon Harris-Landers, circuit clerk, 1,259 votes; Andrew C. Lawson, prosecuting attorney, 1,259 votes; and Dewayne Nowlin, collector, 1,331 votes.

In Portageville, voters approved a proposal to issue combined waterworks and sewerage system revenue bonds for $7 million. The money will be used to acquire, construct, improve, extend and equip the citys water and sewage system. The principal and interest of the bonds will be paid through the operation of the system.

There were 195 votes in favor of the issue compared to 105 opposed.

For U.S. representative from the Eighth District, Republican incumbent Jason Smith received the nod from New Madrid County voters over challenger Jacob Turner. Smith had 1,405 votes to 186 votes for Turner.

In November, Smith will face Democrat Randi McCallian, who had 237 votes cast in his favor in New Madrid County and Libertarian Jim Higgins, who received 1 vote in Tuesdays county primary.

The top vote-getter from a long list of Republicans vying to be the partys nominee for U.S. senator in New Madrid County was Eric Greitens. The candidates and their vote totals in New Madrid County were: Patrick A. Lewis, 21; Eric Schmitt, 650; Billy Long, 7; Eric Greitens, 680; Bernie Mowinski, 3; C.W. Gardner, 2; Deshon Porter, 4; Vicky Hartzler, 240; Dave Sims, 2: Mark McCloskey, 14: Eric McElroy, 2; Dennis Lee Chilton, 0: Robert Allen, 2; Dave Schatz, 1; Hartford Tunnell, 1; Kevin C. Schepers, 1; Rickey Joiner, 1: Robert Olson, 2; Russel Pealer Breyfogle Jr., 2; Darrell Leon McClanahan III, 1: and Curtis D. Vaughn, 3.

New Madrid County residents who picked up a Democratic ballot picked Trudy Bush Valentine as their candidate for U.S. senator. The vote tally was as follows: Lewis Rolen, 26: Gena Ross, 18; Carla Coffee Wright, 20; Josh Shipp, 9; Spencer Toder, 11; Lucas Kunce, 60; Jewel Kelly, 12; Clarence (Clay) Taylor, 16: Pat Kelly, 16: Valentine, 62: and Ronald (Ron) William Harris, 7.

Jonathan Dine, the Libertarian Party candidate, garnered 1 vote and no votes were cast for Paul Venable, the Constitution Party candidate for U.S. senator.

For state auditor on the Republican ticket, New Madrid County residents opted for Scott Fitzpatrick, who received 868 votes over David Gregory, who had 569 votes. Alan Green, who was the sole Democrat on the ballot for state auditor, polled 224 votes and John A. Hartwig Jr., the Libertarian Party candidate, had 1 vote.

Go here to see the original:
Local News: Donnie Brown elected as 149th representative (8/2/22) | Standard Democrat - Standard-Democrat

Today's episodemy absolute favorite to date, after almost six years!is a marathon session with Penn Jillette, the larger, louder half of the fantastical and magical duo Penn & Teller.

Since the 1980s, Penn & Teller have been part of a broad movement to freakify and weirdo-ize American culture in a way that is profoundly individualistic and idealistic. They have helped to create a world where conformity has increasingly given way to self-expression. Before them, to me at least, magic was something dull, something mostly old men did, with boring card tricks, hokey gimmicks, capes, and magic wands. It was Doug Henning on Broadway with feather bangs and Harry Blackstone Jr. making Jiffy Pop on the stove.

Penn & Teller were so different, so alive and fresh, deconstructing magic at the very time they were blowing your mind. They were the reincarnation of Harry Houdini, with a punk attitude, and to me as a kid growing up in suburban New Jersey, they helped make me believe all things were possible, that you could create the life you wanted. Their fantastic show Bullshit! ran for eight seasons on Showtime, during which they debunked everything from alien abductions to the drug war to penis pumps to xenophobia (they even had me on that episode, speaking up for loosening the borders).

Penn especially captivated me: For my entire adult life, he's been one of the most vocal and visible self-identified libertarians out there, always insisting that, as a starting point in any discussion of any issue or problem, we should start by asking, "Can this be addressed by giving people more freedom to make their own choices?"

As impressive: In the mid-2010s, he dropped 100 pounds in three months for health reasonspersonifying the personal responsibility and self-improvement near the very center of libertarianism (check out my 2016 interview with him on all that).

But then, in July 2020, he told the excellent website Big Think that the combination of Donald Trump's election four years earlier and the onset of the COVID pandemic was forcing him to rethink his libertarianism. In a video interview titled "The Year That Broke America's Illusions," he went so far as to say that "libertarianism has been so distorted, I don't know if I have to pull my name out of that ring. It's been adopted by people who don't seem to hold the responsibility side of it and don't seem to hold the compassion side of it." He even likened not wearing masks to drunk driving.

As you can imagine, his comments sent shock waves through the libertarian movement. For many of us, trillions in wasted spending, contradictory guidance from public health officials, arbitrary school and business shutdowns, and absurd policies like closing beaches and outdoor dining have made us even more skeptical of government power.

Why did the 2016 election and the pandemic cause one of the best-known libertarians to seemingly go in the other direction?

I recently attended FreedomFest in Las Vegas, where Penn & Teller have a longstanding residency at the Rio Casino, and caught up with Penn on the set of his popular podcast Penn's Sunday School to talk about Donald Trump, COVID restrictions, and whether his view of the world has really changed. Also joining the conversation was Matt Donnelly, a cohost of Penn's Sunday School.

Over nearly two hours, I talked with Penn about Trump, COVID, Bob Dylan, and the $64,000 question: Has libertarianism changedor has he?

Today's sponsors:

View post:
Penn Jillette: Did His Libertarianism Survive Trump and COVID? - Reason

Libertarian and Anti-functionalist: What Is the Memphis Design Movement?

Facebook

Twitter

Mail

Pinterest

Whatsapp

Or

Far from the US state of Tennessee, the Memphis movement emerged in Milan in the 1980s and revolutionized design. Its gaudy colors, exaggerated patterns and conflicting prints were intended to overturn the minimalism status quo of the time, also contradicting the functionalist design postulated by the Bauhaus with its purely aesthetic and ornamental forms.

+ 10

Led by Italian designer Ettore Sottsass, the collective called itself Grupo Memphis in honor of Bob Dylan's song Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again, which was played repeatedly at early meetings. However, it is in the ambiguous meaning of the word that the group's real intention lies: Memphis can mean both the North American city and the capital of Egypt. An ambivalence that is later seen in the group's controversial works of philosophy.

When leaving music for the history of architecture, the semantic chaos that characterizes the works was determined by the profusion of identities and references that its members carried. Influences that came from India, from the colors of Guatemalan cemeteries, from Japanese television, from the plastic laminates in bars on the outskirts of Milan, among many others. Related to the postmodern, the movement, with its bold and screaming compositions, shaped the parody less is a bore, by Robert Venturi.

Under this concept, numerous products such as furniture, objects, fabrics, patterns, ceramics were created in a postmodern style that also mixed traces of Kitsch, Art Deco and Pop Art. One of the most emblematic pieces of the movement is the Carlton, a shelf that raises the question: why do book shelves need to be the same as all the others? As a domestic artifact, the piece's deconstructed shapes and colorful planes mock the aesthetic codes in force at the time, stating that the object didn't have to be just functional, it was the protagonist.

The group's official debut was in 1981 with 55 pieces exhibited at the famous Salone del Mobile in Milan. Within the group's libertarian philosophy, the objects presented mixed different materialities, such as ceramics, metal and cheap plastic laminates, creating shapes that ranged between geometric and organic designs. An exaggerated composition that did not pass unscathed from comments and criticisms that claimed that the works were an affront to what was considered beautiful. Researcher Bertrand Pellegrin joked years later that the move was a forced marriage between Bauhaus and Fischer Price. However, despite the negative reception, the Memphis movement's new approach to design, characterized by creativity and humor, crossed over into the 1980s.

After seven years of existence, in 1988, the group disbanded, and in 1985 its founder Ettore Sottsass had abandoned the movement, disturbed by the media circus that was created around him. Despite its short existence, Memphis left a fundamental legacy for the history of architecture and design and today, more than 30 years later, it is experiencing a curious resurgence.

In 2011, the movement was revived in organza skirts with shiny cubic pieces from a Christian Dior collection, which a few years later returned to influence architectural interior projects around the world. Surrendering to gaudy curves, vibrant colors and exaggerated compositions, Google's Amsterdam Headquarters and Esquire Office in India are examples of projects that show the global trend of Memphis' resurgence.

By prioritizing art, the Memphis movement attributed aesthetic and emotional value to design with references that border on the fantastic. In its fearless mixture of styles, it created its own approach,attractive and controversial at the same time, that broke the rules in force at the time and that even today brings boldness to everyday life. In this sense, serving as a reference for contemporary projects, Memphis assumes its original intention to provoke an emotional response in people, whether touching the creative chaos of a company or the hustle of a morning in the kitchen at home. Ambiguous and striking sensations as the movement's name itself.

Follow this link:
Libertarian and Anti-functionalist: What Is the Memphis Design Movement? - ArchDaily

Even the staunchest libertarians deserve love. So throw away the pot you only smoke out of principle and take a shower, you son of liberty! You're going to need to put a little effort into a girl if you ever find one.

Here are some pickup lines to add to your repertoire:

"I don't believe in big government, but it should be illegal to look that good." Classic.

"Are you made of gold? Cause you're the standard by which women should be measured." Awwwww yeah!

"Hello, I am wearing deodorant." This will set you apart from the rest of the Libertarian herd.

"When I saw you my heart experienced runaway inflation." Romantic!

"Are you the federal reserve? 'Cause I'd like to audit you." Groan.

"Girl, you almost make me want to sign a government document confirming my eternal love for you. Almost." The government doesn't have the right to define or license your love!

"I don't need a reckless monetary policy to increase my interest rate in you!" Get it? No? Ok...

"How about you and I go somewhere quieter and listen to my podcast?" It's getting serious.

"I must be an artificially inflated dollar, cause I'm falling for you." You can never compare your feelings to irresponsible economic policies enough.

"Taxation is theft. Wanna make out?" Works every single time.

"Please hang out with me. I'm extremely lonely." Maybe you should just be honest.

In a collaboration with The Babylon Bee, Professor Gorb McStevens lists all the countries where communism hasn't turned into a totalitarian hellscape where you have to eat your dog.

See the original post here:
11 Pick Up Lines For Libertarians To Use If They Ever Meet A Girl - The Babylon Bee

Behavioral economists Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein are known for advocating a sort of paternalistic libertarianism. The basic idea is to nudge people toward more rational behavior through non-coercive means. Indeed, their book on the subject is entitled Nudge.

While there is much to be said in favor of this idea, especially when compared with more coercive governmental alternatives, this approach is not without risks. Joshua Madsen and Jonathan Hall studied the effect of electronic highway signs designed to frighten motorists into driving more carefully. The Economist reports that their study found some unintended consequences:

The study focused on Texas, where the years cumulative death toll from road accidents was displayed on highway signs one week in four. The authors found that, between 2010 and 2017, there were more accidents in the weeks when death counts were shown. Most excess crashes happened in the kilometre after a sign, but for several kilometres there was still an elevated risk (see top chart). . . .

The authors think that the sombre messages may be distracting drivers.

Luckily, the story has a happy ending:

The study highlights how seemingly innocuous nudges, used by governments to try to change behaviour, can backfire.

Luckily Americas government has given a nudge of its own. Last year the Federal Highway Administration released a memo clarifying that it was inappropriate to use electronic highway signs to display death tolls.

See original here:
Nudged into the oncoming lane - Econlib