Category Archives: Libertarianism

Excursions, Ep. 28: Neoconservatism Versus Libertarianism, Part 1
George H. Smith begins his series on neoconservatism by exploring some of its fundamental differences with libertarianism. Read this essay: http://bit.ly/1K7...

By: Libertarianism.org

Read more here:
Excursions, Ep. 28: Neoconservatism Versus Libertarianism, Part 1 - Video

A Left-Libertarianism I Dont Recognize
Intro/Outro by Jeff Riggenbach Written by Jeff Ricketson Read by Tony Dreher Edited by Nick Ford Online article: http://c4ss.org/content/29301 Excerpt: "In f...

By: C4SS Feed 44

Read more from the original source:
A Left-Libertarianism I Dont Recognize - Video

Im delighted to announce that my new book, The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom, goes on sale today. Published by Simon & Schuster, it should be available at all fine bookstores and online book services.

Ive tried to write a book for several audiences: for libertarians who want to deepen their understanding of libertarian ideas; for people who want to give friends and family a comprehensive but readable introduction; and for the millions of Americanswho hold fiscally responsible, socially tolerant views and are looking for a political perspective that makes sense.

The Libertarian Mind covers the intellectual history of classical liberal and libertarian ideas, along with such key themes as individualism, individual rights, pluralism, spontaneous order, law, civil society, and the market process. Theres a chapter of applied public choice (What Big Government Is All About), and a chapter on contemporary policy issues. I write about restoring economic growth, inequality, poverty, health care, entitlements, education, the environment, foreign policy, and civil liberties, along with such current hot topics aslibertarian views of Bush and Obama; Americas libertarian heritage as described by leading political scientists; American distrust of government; overcriminalization; and cronyism, lobbying, the parasite economy, and the wealth of Washington.

The publisher is delighted to have this blurb from Senator Rand Paul:

They say the libertarian moment has arrived. If you want to understand and be part of that moment, read David Boazs The Libertarian Mind where youll be drawn into the eternal struggle of liberty vs. power, where youll learn that libertarianism presumes that you were born free and not a subject of the state. The Libertarian Mind belongs on every freedom-lovers bookshelf.

I am just as happy to have high praise from legal scholar Richard Epstein:

In an age in which the end of big government is used by politicians as a pretext for bigger, and worse, government, it is refreshing to find a readable and informative account of the basic principles of libertarian thought written by someone steeped in all aspects of the tradition. David Boazs Libertarian Mind unites history, philosophy, economics and lawspiced with just the right anecdotesto bring alive a vital tradition of American political thought that deserves to be honored today in deed as well as in word.

Find more endorsements here from such distinguished folks as Nobel laureate Vernon Smith, John Stossel, Peter Thiel, P. J. ORourke, Whole Foods founder John Mackey, and author Jonathan Rauch. And please: buy the book. Thenlike it on Facebook, retweet it fromhttps://twitter.com/David_Boaz, blog it, buy more copies for your friends.

View post:
The Libertarian Mind Now Available

City Police Commissioner A.B. Venkateswara Rao on Sunday advised students to understand various philosophies and study libertarianism that helped develop society.

He was addressing a workshop on Free Enterprise and Entrepreneurship organised by the Department of Business Management, V.R. Siddhartha Engineering College, in association with the Language of Liberty Institute, USA.

Self-philosophy

He said students should develop self-philosophy to gain clarity in personal and professional lives.

College convenor M. Rajaiah observed that the difference between developing and developed nations was the concept of free market reforms.

Please Wait while comments are loading...

1. Comments will be moderated by The Hindu editorial team. 2. Comments that are abusive, personal, incendiary or irrelevant cannot be published. 3. Please write complete sentences. Do not type comments in all capital letters, or in all lower case letters, or using abbreviated text. (example: u cannot substitute for you, d is not 'the', n is not 'and'). 4. We may remove hyperlinks within comments. 5. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name, to avoid rejection.

Read the original:
Students told to study libertarianism

Republican Makes the Case for Libertarianism: Restaurant Workers Should NOT Have to Wash Their Hands
GOP Senator Thom Tillis has a real problem with Employees Must Wash Hands signs and doesn #39;t believe food workers should be forced to have to wash their han...

By: Sam Seder

See more here:
Republican Makes the Case for Libertarianism: Restaurant Workers Should NOT Have to Wash Their Hands - Video

Criticism of libertarianism includes ethical, economic, environmental, and pragmatic concerns. Critics have claimed the political philosophy does not satisfy collectivist values, and that private property does not create an egalitarian distribution. It has also been argued that laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily produce the best or most efficient outcome, nor does its policy of deregulation prevent the abuse of natural resources. Furthermore libertarianism has been criticized due to the lack of any actual such societies today.

Some critics, including John Rawls in Justice as Fairness, argue that implied social contracts justify government actions that violate the rights of some individuals as they are beneficial for society overall. This concept is related to philosophical collectivism as opposed to individualism.[1]

Libertarian philosophers such as Michael Huemer have raised criticisms targeted at the social contract theory.[2]

In his essay "From Liberty to Welfare," philosopher James P. Sterba argues that a morally consistent application of libertarian premises, including that of negative liberty, requires that a libertarian must endorse "the equality in the distribution of goods and resources required by a socialist state." Sterba presents the example of a typical conflict situation between the rich and poor "in order to see why libertarians are mistaken about what their ideal requires." He argues that such a situation is correctly seen as a conflict of negative liberties: the right of the rich not to be interfered with in the satisfaction of their luxury needs is morally trumped by the right of the poor "not to be interfered with in taking from the surplus possessions of the rich what is necessary to satisfy their basic needs."

According to Sterba, the liberty of the poor should be morally prioritized in light of the fundamental ethical principle "ought implies can" from which it follows that it would be unreasonable to ask the poor to relinquish their liberty not be interfered with, noting that "in the extreme case it would involve asking or requiring the poor to sit back and starve to death" and that "by contrast it would not be unreasonable to ask and require the rich to sacrifice their liberty to meet some of their needs so that the poor can have the liberty to meet their basic needs." Having argued that "ought implies can" establishes the reasonability of asking the rich to sacrifice their luxuries for the basic needs of the poor, Sterba invokes a second fundamental principle, "The Conflict Resolution Principle," to argue that it is reasonable to make it an ethical requirement. He concludes by arguing that the application of these principles to the international context makes a compelling case for socialist distribution on a world scale.[3]

Jeffrey Friedman argues that natural law libertarianism's justification for the primacy of property is incoherent:

[W]e can press on from [the observation that libertarianism is egalitarian] to ask why, if [...] the liberty of a human being to own another should be trumped by equal human rights, the liberty to own large amounts of property [at the expense of others] should not also be trumped by equal human rights. This alone would seem definitively to lay to rest the philosophical case for libertarianism. [...] The very idea of ownership contains the relativistic seeds of arbitrary authority: the arbitrary authority of the individual's "right to do wrong."[4]

Robert Hale has argued that the concept of coercion in libertarian theory is applied inconsistently, insofar as it is applied to government actions but is not applied to the coercive acts of property owners to preserve their own property rights.[5]

Jeffrey Friedman has criticized libertarians for often relying on the unproven assumption that economic growth and affluence inevitably result in happiness and increased quality of life.[6]

Critics of laissez-faire capitalism, the economic system favored by some libertarians, argue that market failures justify government intervention in the economy, that nonintervention leads to monopolies and stifled innovation, or that unregulated markets are economically unstable. They argue that markets do not always produce the best or most efficient outcome, that redistribution of wealth can improve economic health, and that humans involved in markets do not always act rationally.[citation needed]

View original post here:
Criticism of libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right-libertarianism (or right-wing libertarianism) refers to libertarian political philosophies that advocate both self-ownership and the unequal appropriation of natural resources,[1] leading to strong support of private property rights and free-market capitalism. This position is contrasted with that of left-libertarianism, which maintains that natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.[2] Right-libertarianism includes anarcho-capitalism and laissez-faire, minarchist liberalism.[note 1]

The non-aggression principle (NAP) is the foundation of most present-day right-libertarian philosophies.[3][4][5] It is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what constitutes aggression depends on what rights a person has.[6] Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threat of violence against a person or his legitimately owned property. Specifically, any unsolicited action that physically affects another individual's property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's will and interfere with his right to self-ownership and self-determination.

Supporters of the NAP often appeal to it in order to argue for the immorality of theft, vandalism, assault, and fraud. In contrast to nonviolence, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or the defense of others.[7] Many supporters argue that the NAP opposes such policies as victimless crime laws, coercive taxation, and military drafts.

There is a debate amongst right-libertarians as to whether or not the state is legitimate: while anarcho-capitalists advocate its abolition, minarchists support minimal states, often referred to as night-watchman states. Minarchists maintain that the state is necessary for the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. They believe the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts, though some expand this list to include fire departments, prisons, and the executive and legislative branches.[8][9][10] They justify the state on the grounds that it is the logical consequence of adhering to the non-aggression principle and argue that anarchism is immoral because it implies that the non-aggression principle is optional, that the enforcement of laws under anarchism is open to competition.[citation needed] Another common justification is that private defense agencies and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough.[11]

Anarcho-capitalists argue that the state violates the non-aggression principle by its nature because governments use force against those who have not stolen or vandalized private property, assaulted anyone, or committed fraud.[12][13] Many also argue that monopolies tend to be corrupt and inefficient, that private defense and court agencies would have to have a good reputation in order to stay in business. Linda & Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market and that a government's citizenry can't desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency.[14]

Libertarian philosopher Moshe Kroy argues that the disagreement between anarcho-capitalists who adhere to Murray Rothbard's view of human consciousness and the nature of values and minarchists who adhere to Ayn Rand's view of human consciousness and the nature of values over whether or not the state is moral is not due to a disagreement over the correct interpretation of a mutually held ethical stance. He argues that the disagreement between these two groups is instead the result of their disagreement over the nature of human consciousness and that each group is making the correct interpretation of their differing premises. These two groups are therefore not making any errors with respect to deducing the correct interpretation of any ethical stance because they do not hold the same ethical stance.[15]

While there is debate on whether left, right, and socialist libertarianism "represent distinct ideologies as opposed to variations on a theme," right-libertarianism is most in favor of private property.[16] Right-libertarians maintain that unowned natural resources "may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims themwithout the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them." This contrasts with left-libertarianism in which "unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner."[17] Right-libertarians believe that natural resources are originally unowned, and therefore, private parties may appropriate them at will without the consent of, or owing to, others (e.g. a land value tax).[18]

Right-libertarians (also referred to as propertarians) hold that societies in which private property rights are enforced are the only ones that are both ethical and lead to the best possible outcomes.[19] They generally support the free market, and are not opposed to any concentrations of economic power, provided it occurs through non-coercive means.[20]

Libertarianism in the United States developed in the 1950s as many with Old Right or classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as libertarians.[21]H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock were the first prominent figures in the United States to call themselves libertarians.[22] They believed Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word liberal for his New Deal policies, which they opposed, and used libertarian to signify their allegiance to individualism. Mencken wrote in 1923: "My literary theory, like my politics, is based chiefly upon one idea, to wit, the idea of freedom. I am, in belief, a libertarian of the most extreme variety."[23]

In the 1950s, Russian-American novelist Ayn Rand developed a philosophical system called Objectivism, expressed in her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, as well as other works, which influenced many libertarians.[24] However, she rejected the label libertarian and harshly denounced the libertarian movement as the "hippies of the right."[25] Philosopher John Hospers, a one-time member of Rand's inner circle, proposed a non-initiation of force principle to unite both groups; this statement later became a required "pledge" for candidates of the Libertarian Party, and Hospers himself became its first presidential candidate in 1972.[citation needed]

Here is the original post:
Right-libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has become the Rand Paul pattern: A few weeks paddling vigorously in the mainstream, followed by a lapse into authenticity, followed by transparent damage control, followed by churlishness toward anyone in the media who notices. All the signs of a man trying to get comfortable in someone elses skin.

The latest example is vaccination. I have heard of many tragic cases, said Dr. Paul, of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. Following the ensuing firestorm, the Republican senator from Kentucky insisted, I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related.

In effect: I did not sleep with that causation.

Paul blamed his troubles on the liberal media which, after a little digging, reported that, in 2009, he had called mandatory vaccinations a step toward martial law.

When Chris Christie commits a gaffe on vaccination and reverses himself, it indicates a man out of his depth. With Paul, it reveals the unexplored depths of a highly ideological and conspiratorial worldview.

The same dynamic was at work when Paul accused public health authorities of dishonesty about the true nature of the Ebola threat; or when he raised the prospect of Americans typing an e-mail in a cafe being summarily executed by a Hellfire missile; or when he accused Dick Cheney of supporting the Iraq war to benefit Halliburton; or when he accused the United States of provoking Japan into World War II; or when he criticized the application of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to private enterprise. Wherever you scratch the paint, there is some underlying, consistent philosophy at work.

This, of course, is true of any thoughtful politician (which Paul certainly is). But while many prospective presidential candidates seek catchier ways to express their political philosophy, Paul must take pains to conceal the ambition of his ideals.

His domestic libertarianism provides no philosophical foundation for most of the federal government. As a practical matter, he can call for the end of Obamacare but not for the abolition of Medicare or Medicaid or the National Institutes of Health. Yet these concessions to reality are fundamentally arbitrary. The only principle guiding Pauls selectivity is the avoidance of gaffes. Of which he is not always the best judge.

The same is true of Pauls constitutional foreign policy, which he now calls (as evidence of his evolution) conservative realism. There is no previously existing form of realism that urges a dramatically weakened executive in the conduct of foreign and defense policy which is Pauls strong preference. He denies the legal basis for the war on terrorism, warns against an oppressive national security state and proposes to scale back American commitments in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Paul is properly described as a libertarian noninterventionist.

His father, Ron Paul, is gleefully specific in his charge that American aggression creates the blowback of terrorism. The son qualifies the argument without repudiating it. Some anger is blowback, he now says. In 2009, he called his fathers theory a message that can be presented and be something that Republicans can agree to. A recommended reading list posted (briefly) last year on Pauls Senate Web site included Chalmers Johnsons Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire and Ron Pauls A Foreign Policy of Freedom.

Read the original post:
Rand Pauls gaffes offer a glimpse of his worldview

By The Washington Post5 p.m.Feb. 5, 2015

It has become the Rand Paul pattern: A few weeks paddling vigorously in the mainstream, followed by a lapse into authenticity, followed by transparent damage control, followed by churlishness toward anyone in the media who notices. All the signs of a man trying to get comfortable in someone elses skin.

The latest example is vaccination. I have heard of many tragic cases, said Dr. Paul, of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines. Following the ensuing firestorm, Paul insisted, I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related.

In effect: I did not sleep with that causation.

Paul blamed his troubles on the liberal media which, after a little digging, reported that Paul, in 2009, had called mandatory vaccinations a step toward martial law.

When Chris Christie commits a gaffe on vaccination and reverses himself, it indicates a man out of his depth. With Paul, it reveals the unexplored depths of a highly ideological and conspiratorial worldview.

The same dynamic was at work when Paul accused public health authorities of dishonesty about the true nature of the Ebola threat; or when he raised the prospect of Americans typing emails in a cafe being summarily executed by a Hellfire missile; or when he accused Dick Cheney of supporting the Iraq War to benefit Halliburton; or when he accused the United States of provoking Japan into World War II; or when he criticized the application of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to private enterprise. Wherever you scratch the paint, there is some underlying, consistent philosophy at work.

This, of course, is true of any thoughtful politician (which Paul certainly is). But while many prospective presidential candidates seek catchier ways to express their political philosophy, Paul must take pains to conceal the ambition of his ideals.

Pauls domestic libertarianism provides no philosophic foundation for most of the federal government. As a practical matter, he can call for the end of Obamacare but not for the abolition of Medicare, or Medicaid, or the National Institutes of Health. Yet these concessions to reality are fundamentally arbitrary. The only principle guiding Pauls selectivity is the avoidance of gaffes. Of which he is not always the best judge.

The same is true of Pauls constitutional foreign policy, which he now calls (as evidence of his evolution) conservative realism. There is no previously existing form of realism that urges a dramatically weakened executive in the conduct of foreign and defense policy which is Pauls strong preference. He denies the legal basis for the war on terrorism, warns against an oppressive national security state and proposes to scale back American commitments in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Paul is properly described as a libertarian noninterventionist.

See more here:
Michael Gerson: Unmasking Rand Paul

In a scathing editorial this week, The Oregonian called on Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber -- a Democrat whom the paper has supported for decades -- to step down following revelations that he may have allowed his fiance, Cylvia Hayes, to use her position for private gain and professional advancement.

"To recite every reported instance in which Hayes, ostensibly under Kitzhaber's watchful eye, has used public resources, including public employee time and her 'first lady' title, in pursuit of professional gain would require far more space than we have here," the editors wrote. "Suffice it to say there's a pattern, and the person who bears the responsibility for allowing it to form and persist is Kitzhaber, who should know better. After all, as he pointed out during Friday's press conference, he's been serving in public office on and off since the 1970s."

That press conference was in response to reporting by the paper revealing that Hayes had been paid as a consultant for advocacy organizations while she was working as an unpaid adviser on energy policy to Kitzhaber's office, and that the two men who arranged these gigs for her subsequently got jobs in the administration.

Hayes has left her policy role in the administration, and the governor has said that his office took steps to separate Hayes's work as a paid consultant and her public duties. He has said he has no intention of resigning and intends to do the job Oregon's citizens elected him to do.

"For a newspaper editorial board to call for a governor's resignation is rare," notes The Washington Post's Hunter Schwarz.

Welcome to Wonkbook. To subscribe by e-mail, clickhere. Send comments, criticism or ideas to Wonkbook at Washpost dot com. Follow Wonkblog onTwitterandFacebook.

What's in Wonkbook:1) The immigration stalemate 2) Opinions, including Gerson and Strassel on vaccines and the G.O.P. primary 3) Conservatives object to climate science in the classroom, and more

Number of the day: $57 trillion. That's the increase in global public and private debt since the financial crisis, according to a new report from McKinsey. Neil Irwin in The New York Times.

1. Topstory:Congress at impasse on immigration

It's unclear whether and how lawmakers will extend funding for border security past this month. "With just two legislative weeks to go before the Homeland Security Department shuts down, Republicans still don't have a plan. For the third time, Democrats blocked a funding bill that would keep the department running on Thursday, and they show no signs of letting up. If Democrats remain unwilling to accept anything less than a clean DHS billwith no provisions blocking President Obama's executive actions on immigrationRepublicans will be forced to pick from an arsenal of limited options. And of those that remain, none look good for the GOP. If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has a plan, he isn't sharing it with his members, much less the public. Sen. John Thune, McConnell's number three, said Thursday that his party's strategy had 'yet to be determined' and called it 'a work in progress,' while Sen. Jeff Flake said simply: 'We don't know yet.' " Sarah Mimms and Lauren Fox in National Journal.

Go here to see the original:
Wonkblog: The politically toxic relationship between Oregons governor and his fiance