Page 1,396«..1020..1,3951,3961,3971,398..1,4101,420..»

Category Archives: Transhuman News

Phil Collins Recalls Offering to Quit Genesis to Join the Who – Ultimate Classic Rock

Posted: January 18, 2020 at 11:30 am

Phil Collins recalled telling Pete Townshendhed quit Genesis in order to replace the late Keith Moon in the Who.

By the time he made the offer, Kenney Jones had already been hired as the Whos new drummer despite his initial reservations meaning Collins missed out. In the same interview with Classic Rockmagazine from 2017, Collins also recalled how he missed out on appearing on asong with George Harrison, which later resulted in the ex-Beatle playing a complex practical joke on him.

I played Uncle Ernie in Tommy[in a 1989 concert with the Who], which I loved doing, though it was very politically incorrect playing a pedophile, Collins said. But it was greatbecause I was with the Who. I was working with Townshend just after Moon died [in 1978], and I said to him, Have you got anybody to play the drums?Because Id love to do it. Ill leave Genesis. And Pete said, Fuck, weve just asked Kenney Jones.Because Kenney Jones, unbeknown to most people, played on stuff when Keith was too out of it. He was far too polite for the Who. But I would have done the job. I would have joined them.

Collins also remembered being asked to play bongos on Harrisons 1970 song All Things Must Pass. He found the experience so stressful that he resorted to cadging cigarettes off Ringo [Starr], even though he didnt smoke. By the timeCollins was asked to record his part, hed been playing the unfamiliar instrument for two hours.

"Everybody laughed, but my hands were shot," he recalled. "And just after that, they all disappeared someone said they were watching TV or something and I was told I could go. A few months later I buy the album from my local record shop, look at the sleeve notes and Im not there. And Im thinking, There must be some mistake! But its a different version of the song, and Im not on it.

Years later,Collins was told by race-car driver Jackie Stewart that his friend Harrison was remixing All Things Must Pass. "He said, You were on it, werent you?" Collins explained. "And I said, Well, I was there. Two days later, a tapes delivered from George Harrison with a note saying, Could this be you?

I rush off and listen to it, and straightaway I recognize it. Suddenly, the congas come in too loud and just awful. And at the end of the tape, you hear George Harrison saying, Hey, Phil, can we try another without the conga player? So, now I know they didnt go off to watch TV. They went somewhere and said, Get rid of him,because I was playing so badly.

Collinssaid Stewart called andtold him, "Ive got someone here to speak to you, and puts George on, and he says, Did you get the tape? And I said, I now realize I was fired by a Beatle. And he says, Dont worry, it was a piss-take. I got Ray Cooper to play really badly and we dubbed it on. Thought youd like it! I said, You fucking bastard!

Reflecting on the amount of effort Harrison out into the practical joke, Collins concluded, It was lovely, wasnt it?

Follow this link:
Phil Collins Recalls Offering to Quit Genesis to Join the Who - Ultimate Classic Rock

Posted in Politically Incorrect | Comments Off on Phil Collins Recalls Offering to Quit Genesis to Join the Who – Ultimate Classic Rock

Hank Azaria says he won’t voice Apu on The Simpsons anymore after controversy – The Week Magazine

Posted: at 11:30 am

Some major changes are apparently coming to Springfield.

Hank Azaria has revealed he'll longer voice Apu on The Simpsons, telling /Film, "All we know there is I won't be doing the voice anymore, unless there's someway to transition it or something."

The Simpsons faced renewed criticism over Apu since the release of the 2017 documentary The Problem with Apu, in which comedian Hari Kondabolu and others discuss the character who Kondabolu has described as "a white guy doing an impression of a white guy making fun of my father."

The documentary sparked a conversation about whether The Simpsons should write out the character some view as an offensive Indian stereotype, though others suggested keeping Apu but recasting Azaria with an Indian voice actor. Azaria, who also voices other characters on the show like Moe and Chief Wiggum, appeared to allude to that option Friday by referencing a possible "transition." But while Azaria said it's "up to them and they haven't sorted it out yet," he made clear that "I won't do the voice anymore," also saying, "We all made the decision together."

The Simpsons previously addressed the criticism over Apu in a meta 2018 episode, in which Lisa, looking directly at the camera, says, "Something that started decades ago and was applauded and inoffensive is now politically incorrect." She then looks at a picture of Apu and asks, "What can you do?" Marge and Lisa, again addressing the audience, promise this will be "dealt with at a later date," "if at all." That later date is evidently coming up.

Azaria previously expressed his willingness to step down from the role of Apu, saying on The Late Show, "the idea that anybody who is young or old, past or present, was bullied or teased based on the character of Apu, it just really makes me sad." No official announcement about the future of the character has been made. Brendan Morrow

See original here:
Hank Azaria says he won't voice Apu on The Simpsons anymore after controversy - The Week Magazine

Posted in Politically Incorrect | Comments Off on Hank Azaria says he won’t voice Apu on The Simpsons anymore after controversy – The Week Magazine

Morning Report: Gompers Teachers Union Effort Hits a Snag – Voice of San Diego

Posted: at 11:30 am

An ongoing unionization effort at Gompers Preparatory Academy has led to infighting between the schools divided teacher corps and its administration.

Gompers is a charter school serving more than a thousand middle and high schoolers. It has been lauded for its push to help under-served student groups get into college, but tarnished by reports of grade inflation.

A majority of Gompers teachers voted to unionize last year, but now some 30 percent of the schools teachers are trying to get the new union decertified, reports Ashly McGlone. Any decision about whether the union can be removed may be a long time away, however.

Thats because of other grievances surrounding the union. The Gompers union has filed an unfair practice charge against the schools administration. The union alleges that the schools administration bargained in bad faith, retaliated against a teacher and tried to dissuade employees from becoming union members.

That formal complaint could essentially delay any decertification vote from taking place.

The union is seeking, among other things, higher pay. Average pay for San Diego Unified School District teachers hovers around $80,800, but pay at Gompers was around $56,400.

A lawyer for one of the teachers who wants the union decertified accused the union of legal trickery to trap teachers in a union they oppose by blocking their right to hold a decertification election.

Mayor Kevin Faulconer promised to continue to focus on addressing the citys homelessness and housing crises in his final State of the City address on Wednesday night.

And he said he was done being politically correct about homelessness.

What Im talking about tonight is obvious to almost anyone walking our streets but considered politically incorrect by many insiders. These are ideas that most people in power actually believe in, but are afraid to say, let alone do, Faulconer said. Drug laws that hurt people, tragic mental illness, public health scares, a historic housing shortage They all must be addressed to solve the homeless crisis.

Faulconer committed Wednesday to championing reforms to state policies he said have hampered cities ability to aid homeless Californians struggling with addiction. He did not elaborate on the specifics of those efforts Wednesday night but cited Proposition 47, which reduced many drug crimes to misdemeanors, and Proposition 57, which led to an overhaul of the states prison parole system.

The mayor said he also plans to work with county officials to open a county-run shelter, move people with substance abuse issues into residential care and deploy mental health teams at existing city shelters. County spokespeople did not immediately respond to requests from VOSD about those initiatives on Wednesday night.

On Faulconers watch, the city has ramped up police enforcement affecting homeless San Diegans, an approach that advocates and the citys new homelessness action plan have scrutinized. Hes also vastly expanded homeless services in the city and pursued a slew of reforms to try to address lagging housing production, particularly for middle-class and low-income San Diegans.

Faulconer pledged to stay committed to those efforts in his final year in office.

He said he plans to push forward this spring a series of reforms hes dubbed his Complete Communities initiative that are meant to encourage more homebuilding citywide, particularly near transit stops.

The mayor also encouraged city voters to back Measure C, a March hotel-tax measure that would fund a Convention Center expansion, homeless initiatives and road repairs. He noted that the measure would provide the citys first dedicated funding for homelessness and road repairs and pay for a Convention Center expansion supporters have said would bolster the local economy.

If you cant believe this is the 10th State of the City when a mayor talks about the Convention Center expansion, you can make it the last time by voting yes on Measure C, Faulconer joked.

Californias homeless crisis has provoked many tense, uncomfortable discussions but rarely are the fears laid out as openly as they were during an Encinitas forum last week about a city decision to open a safe parking lot for homeless people with cars.

Kayla Jimenez was there and reports that it got tense. Speakers complained that the city, among other things, was misusing taxpayer funds and putting child safety at risk. One resident even called for the removal of the four Council members whod approved the lot.

County Supervisor Kristin Gaspar did not organize the event, but she emerged as its leader. She called the lot well-intentioned but misguided. Proponents of the lot say the program will focus on getting residents into permanent housing, but Gaspar disagreed.

I fundamentally believe that housing will not end homelessness, she said. It is a community that will.

Michael McConnell, a homeless advocate in San Diego who attended the meeting, called the event a whole new low.

Chula Vistas city attorney is backing away from a proposal to use new tax dollars to hire more people in his office who can aid with criminal charges against illegal pot shops. When Chula Vista residents approved Measure A in 2018, they did so on the promise that the money would be primarily spent on police officers and firefighters.

The U-T reports that City Attorney Glen Googins informed elected officials this week he was surprised by the intensity of the pushback. In a hand-written letter, District Attorney Summer Stephan urged the Chula Vista City Council not to go forward with the hires, in part, because her office is already responsible for prosecuting crime in the South Bay.

Because the sales tax money goes into the general fund, it can be used on any lawful municipal purpose. Last month, Googins told a financial oversight committee that his proposal to hire a paralegal and investigator remained within the spirit of Measure A.

The Morning Report was written by Jesse Marx, Lisa Halverstadt and Will Huntsberry, and edited by Sara Libby.

Read more:
Morning Report: Gompers Teachers Union Effort Hits a Snag - Voice of San Diego

Posted in Politically Incorrect | Comments Off on Morning Report: Gompers Teachers Union Effort Hits a Snag – Voice of San Diego

Henry Golding loved cursing in Guy Ritchie’s ‘The Gentlemen’ – Toronto Sun

Posted: at 11:30 am

NEW YORK Crazy Rich Asians star Henry Golding breaks into a laugh as he tries to explain his meteoric career trajectory that has seen him go from being a travel host to rom-com leading man to foul-mouthed villain in Guy Ritchies gangster romp, The Gentlemen out this Friday.

Its crazy isnt it? Golding muses as a wedge of sunlight pushes its way into a suite of a midtown Manhattan hotel.

The 32-year-old British-Malaysian actor, who just a few years ago was working in New Zealand for the BBC and Discovery Channel Asia, was plucked out of obscurity to play Nick Young in 2018s crowd-pleaser Crazy Rich Asians. He then played Blake Livelys husband in the thriller A Simple Favor. Just a few months ago, Golding starred opposite Emilia Clarke in the frothy holiday rom-com Last Christmas.

This week, hes back onscreen as the Chinese gangster, Dry Eye, opposite an ensemble cast that includes Matthew McConaughey, Charlie Hunnam, Hugh Grant, Colin Farrell and Michelle Dockery.

McConaughey plays Mickey Pearson, an American heavily invested in the London drug trade who is looking for a way out. Goldings Dry Eye is one of several villains angling to take over his business.

Ive played fairly similar characters to who I am as a person, Golding says. Nick Young (Crazy Rich Asians) and Tom Webster (Last Christmas) are very happy-go-lucky guys who wont let much put them down. But then this character in The Gentlemen, he has a big chip on his shoulder He thinks he can muscle in on something. So playing Dry Eye was a licence to let go.

After his success behind the camera for Disneys live-action Aladdin last year, The Gentlemen marks Ritchies return to the fast-paced crime comedies he became famous for at the beginning of his career, including Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch.

He dipped his toe back in with (2008s) RocknRolla, but I dont think that film hit the same patina Lock, Stock and Snatch had. The Gentlemen is definitely in the vein of those two earlier pictures This throws it back to those classic Guy movies.

After a whirlwind weekend in New York, Golding is heading back to Japan where hes in the midst of filming the lead role in Paramounts G.I. Joe spinoff Snake Eyes.

Golding says the variety of projects and the diverse directors hes worked with has made him want to be more than just a rom-com star, but so far being in front of the camera has been a dream come true.

Its crazy, because I used to stay up with my friends, after a house party and wed stick in Snatch and wed all just watch and crack up all the way through. I dont know how many times Ive watched that film, but its countless now Im working with Guy Ritchie, he says, grinning.

On an unseasonably warm January morning, Golding traced his arc from hairdresser to box office star, mused on the politically incorrect barbs he and his castmates hurl in The Gentlemen and told us why critics were wrong about Last Christmas.

Youve been having a great couple of months. First Last Christmas, which my wife and I had a fun time watching, and now The Gentlemen.

Last Christmas was definitely a crowd-pleaser. Not much of a critic-pleaser (laughs). But Ive had much more of a response off of the backend of Last Christmas than Crazy Rich Asians. It really meant so much to people It was lovely. Moviegoers understood what it was. Its just that bubbly sort of Christmas movie thats like eating a pile of chocolate. You just cant help but love it.

So you were nice guy Tom Webster in Last Christmas and now youre the baddie Dry Eye in The Gentlemen. What was that transition like?

I was filming both of them in London during the same time. One day I was Tom Webster and I woke up the next day and I had to play Dry Eye. But it was less challenging than people would think. It was a lot of fun to play someone so far from my own reality.

Henry Golding as the villainous Dry Eye in Guy Ritchies The Gentlemen. (VVS Films)

What was the best part of playing the villain?

In this case, the barrage of swear words (laughs). Just being able to reel off as many profanities as you can possibly think of in the most creative ways was immense fun. Thats what Guys films are about. Theyre about trying to insult the other person in funny ways. Its what we grew up with watching Snatch and Lock, Stock theyve got so many classic one-liners that we can quote to this day. So working in that environment, especially alongside Matthew and Michelle, was phenomenal. It was one of my favourite experiences Ive had.

Why do you think those early Guy Ritchie gangster movies still resonate?

Some of the scenes in Lock, Stock and Snatch had never been done in British cinema. So when it came to heist movies, he was definitely a trendsetter in that sense. The only other British director from that time that was creating groundbreaking movies in a similar vein was Danny Boyle with 28 Days Later.

Some of the early reviews for The Gentlemen have talked a lot about the films political incorrectness. But thats the world Guy Ritchie is playing in. It wouldnt have occurred to me that some people could take offense.

You know what these films are about. Back in the early days, no one would have complained about the political incorrectness. But now, people are a lot more sensitive, and while they are entitled to their opinion, this is a world which is exaggerated and its full of the bottom of the barrel characters, who arent going to be nice to you. If you met any of the people in this movie, theyd insult you in the most demeaning manner.

Sometimes thats casual racism or sexism or things like that. Youd be fooling people to pretend that doesnt happen. But you have to take it with a pinch of salt. Its entertainment. Its not meant to be seen as a racist film. Everyone in this movie is giving as good as they get. All these characters are, in my words, c- trying to kill each other. Of course theyre going to be nasty Look, we can talk about it til were blue in the face, but its not for everyone (laughs). Thats all I can say. But if youre not too sensitive, youre going to have the time of your life. Its a hoot. Its just a lot of fun.

Two years ago, people hadnt been introduced to you yet. Tell me about your crazy rise?

I dont know how to explain it. It feels earned, for sure. I can safely say that I have worked so hard at doing the best I can and adapting as quickly as possible to this. People often dont realize how much work goes into making a movie, not only the production part, but this part. Coming out, flying 12 hours, getting zero sleep, to promote a movie for three days, non-stop. They see the clips and the interviews, and maybe they think it looks easy.

You not only have to be able to do your job in front of the camera, you have to be able to function inside a marketing machine. But, in terms of the movies, Ive been able to work with some amazing filmmakers. Paul (Feig) twice, John (M. Chu), Guy (Ritchie), Hong Khaou, Robert Schwentke. After this, Im just excited to get myself involved in more eventful movies and Snake Eyes is going to be huge.

Speaking of Snake Eyes, what can fans expect of that movie?

This is an origin story. Its interesting because you have the long-time fans and they have a vision of Snake Eyes in their head, and thats a character that theyve loved for years and years. So, of course, we want to be able to do justice to them. But, at the same time, we want to bring something fresh to it as well. I think weve been able to create a balance within Robert Schwentkes script that pays homage, but at the same time creates our own identity.

You became famous at 30 years old after being a hairdresser and a TV presenter. What was the best part of finding fame as an older person?

I think it helped that I had been able to live a regular existence. You often hear of young stars who get a little taken away by it all. I know that if it all ends tomorrow, Id be pretty fing happy. It wouldnt be as fun, but Id still be going to the cinema to watch movies.

Of course Id be longing to be back in this industry, but Ive had many careers. I was a hairdresser, I was a journalist, and I was a television presenter. Now Im a movie star. Where it goes from here? I dont know. Im just along for the ride.

But I give 110% to it. Thats why I think I can be successful at it. The dedication is real. I think a lot of people, if you just throw yourself into whatever it is you want to do and do the best job and expend the most energy you possibly can, you can succeed at most things. Or at least thats what I hope.

The Gentlemen opens Friday.

View post:
Henry Golding loved cursing in Guy Ritchie's 'The Gentlemen' - Toronto Sun

Posted in Politically Incorrect | Comments Off on Henry Golding loved cursing in Guy Ritchie’s ‘The Gentlemen’ – Toronto Sun

Apple v. Attorney General Barr: Giving feds access to smartphones is a bad call | TheHill – The Hill

Posted: at 11:30 am

It is easy to be sympathetic to Attorney General Bill Barrs frustration with Apple just as it was easy to be sympathetic in 2016, when the Justice Department was equally frustrated with the tech giant after jihadists in San Bernardino murdered 14 innocent people.

This time, another jihadist, Saudi air force lieutenant Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, murdered three members of the U.S. Navy and wounded several others after opening fire at a naval training base in Pensacola, Fla. The jihadist was in possession of two iPhones. He was sufficiently concerned about the contents of one that, during the firefight in which he was killed, he took the time to place it on the floor and fire a round into it, obviously hoping to destroy its contents. But the FBIs adept technicians have the phones working again.

Theres just one problem the same problem that plagued the San Bernardino investigation: The investigators cannot get access to the phones contents without the passwords.

The presumption, just like last time, is that Apple has the trade-secret algorithm that would unlock the phones without triggering any defensive privacy programs. Such a program might erase the contents after a few unsuccessful attempts to break the code, were the FBI to try.

Apple, yet again, is reluctant to help the bureau. And, just as I argued in the San Bernardino case, the company is making an important point. In fact, notwithstanding my admiration for the attorney general and my sympathy for his effort to protect the country, it is a point that has gotten stronger in the ensuing four years. That owes to the governments misconduct and its arrogant indifference to the rights of Americans and the authority of Congress to conduct oversight.

Lets first rehearse the liberty and privacy stakes. These are usually given short shrift, if they are mentioned at all, because these disputes between the states investigators and private tech firms invariably arise after some horrific incident, which we badly want law enforcement to solve.

Its a natural response, but it gives us tunnel vision.

It is not the presumption of our constitutional society that the state is entitled to every private actors assistance in solving crime, nor that the peoples privacy rights are limited by the states claimed need to breach them whenever it declares some emergency. On the contrary, in our republic, the people are sovereign. The government does not have an inherent power to press private actors into its service. (An exception is military service in wartime because, as the Supreme Court observed during World War I, the Constitution expressly empowers Congress to raise armies.)

When legitimate privacy interests exist, it is the governments burden to overcome them, not the publics to justify them. The government is the servant, not the master, and very often the master tells the government no, regardless of how dire the emergency appears to be. The state does not get to ride roughshod over, say, the privilege against self-incrimination, the attorney-client privilege, or the spousal privilege just because its investigators really, really need the information for the purported greater good of solving a case, or even protecting lives.

These are not easy questions, consideration of which is confined to public-safety cases. They have broad implications, calling for excruciating cost-benefit analyses. In modern society, terrorists and dangerous criminals make up a negligible percentage of information-technology consumers. Vastly more common are innocent interlocutors. So are corporations, health care providers and financial institutions, responsible for safeguarding business records, identification data, intellectual property, trade secrets, medical information, financial assets, credit transactions and power grids, to say nothing of protecting their own formulas for thwarting hackers, fraudsters, identity thieves and so on.

In any society with such a premium on information exchange, and therefore such vulnerability to the compromise of vital or personal information, privacy is not merely a desire. It is a valuable commodity. It would be commercial suicide for Apple to ignore that fact to fail to appreciate that, if a tech company shows insufficient zeal in safeguarding its customers privacy, the customers will shop elsewhere.

The government does not want to hear this, but it has made the situation immeasurably less attractive for companies inclined to cooperate. In an era of increasing regulation and criminalization, the unintended revelation of private information can lead to prosecution and civil liability. Crusading state attorneys general use the power to compel production of sensitive information as a painful financial weapon.

In the post-9/11 era, moreover, government has become cavalier about privacy rights, rationalizing that mass intrusions on law-abiding citizens are the necessary price for minimizing the chance of a terrorist attack, and for avoiding the politically-incorrect use of more discriminating surveillance that would spur complaints about profiling.

The public largely tolerated this approach as long as it believed that the threat was severe, and that the government was sincerely confining its efforts to counterterrorism. Over time, however, as 9/11 has faded from memory, the perception of threat is not profound. Indeed, many entering college today were not yet born when those attacks happened. Perhaps more significantly, the government has serially abused and politicized its investigative powers.

The most worrisome aspect of the Russia collusion caper is the erosion of trust in government investigators. National security is one aspect of governance in which our agencies must be able acquire and use intelligence covertly if the mission is to be accomplished. They have to be able to look the public in the eye and say, You can trust us to wield these awesome powers responsibly to use them only for their intended purpose of protecting the American people.

When these awesome powers are used, instead, for political purposes, or to interfere in our electoral process or when the government makes misrepresentations to courts and harvests the sensitive communications data of innocent people then the public becomes convinced that the government cannot be trusted to respect privacy.

And when no one is ever held accountable when officials close ranks to castigate and frustrate examination of their agencies performance the public is apt to say the government cant be trusted with new powers to intrude on privacy. Americans and their congressional representatives may even decide that the powers already conferred need to be reconsidered.

I worry about this a lot. I worked on terrorism cases. Attorney General Barr is right to suggest that we cannot protect the country without robust investigative authorities, and without the cooperation of public-spirited private actors.

It would be nice if Apple could help the Pensacola investigation without weighing all the competing concerns, and if the Justice Department could afford to make its demands for investigative assistance without self-awareness of its role these last years in fueling public skepticism. But that is not the world were living in.

The government does not have an absolute right to commandeer private assistance and intrude on privacy. And tech companies cannot create a backdoor for good-faith investigators to breach the confidentiality of jihadists without making everybodys confidentiality vulnerable to bad actors, who will figure out how to exploit that backdoor.

This is not a problem for Apple to solve. Nor is it a problem for the courts and the Justice Department to navigate based on case-by-case exigencies. It is a difficult challenge in which Congress needs to weigh all the competing concerns and enact a solution if there is one.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow atNational Review Institute, a contributing editor at National Review, and a Fox News contributor. His latest book is Ball of Collusion. Follow him on Twitter@AndrewCMcCarthy.

Read the rest here:
Apple v. Attorney General Barr: Giving feds access to smartphones is a bad call | TheHill - The Hill

Posted in Politically Incorrect | Comments Off on Apple v. Attorney General Barr: Giving feds access to smartphones is a bad call | TheHill – The Hill

Uyghur Real Estate Magnate Confirmed Jailed Along With Brothers, at Least 20 Employees – Radio Free Asia

Posted: at 11:30 am

The Uyghur head of a successful real estate firm in northwest Chinas Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) and two of his brothers have been confirmed jailed on charges including extremism, along with at least 20 of his employees, according to official sources.

Ekber Imin, the 51-year-old head of the Guzel Makan (Beautiful Land) Real Estate firm, as well as several other companies, in the seat of the XUARs Hotan (in Chinese, Hetian) prefecture went missing in mid-2018, a Uyghur source living in exile in Turkey told RFAs Uyghur Service, speaking on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal.

The source said that Imin, who was also known as Ekber Dalu, first became wealthy working in the jade trade and had been targeted by authorities after he amassed more than 1 million yuan (U.S. $146,000).

While investigating the whereabouts of Imin, RFA learned from publicly available records that Guzel Makan, which also had dealings with foreign entities, was established in 2007 and had total combined assets of 13.3 million yuan (U.S. $1.9 million).

RFA recently called the Hotan City Public Security Bureau and spoke with a staff member who said they were not familiar with this situation, when asked about Imins disappearance.

An employee with the citys Tax Bureau told RFA that she was unable to answer questions like this when asked whether Guzel Makan was still operating, due to an order issued by the Public Security Bureau, and referred further inquiries to her superiors.

However, a third source, who used to work with a Hotan prefectural legal and political bureau, told RFA in an interview that Imin owned some 30 16-story apartment buildings in Hotan city which together are known as the Baht (Happiness) Apartment Complex, and cited a colleage as saying that he had been imprisoned for reasons that were not immediately clear.

It was about two years ago that they said hed been taken, said the source, who also declined to provide his name, adding that, Where he is, where hes gone, whats happened to himI know nothing.

We heard 25 years, the former legal worker said, referring to the length of Imins sentence.

When asked whether the nature of Imins business had led to his imprisonment, the former legal worker said he was unsure, but that he heard that the company had foreign ties.

Everyone, young and old, knows about [his sentence], he said.

RFA also spoke with a police officer in Hotan city who said he had heard from members of his social circle that Imin was detained, but was unsure when.

They detained him when he was going through a [border] checkpoint, he said, without specifying which one. The XUAR shares borders with Mongolia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and the region of Jammu and Kashmir, which is the subject of a territorial dispute between India, Pakistan, and China.

The police officer said he believed Imin had been sentenced for life, but admitted that he did not know for sure.

Brothers and staffers

However, a police officer at Hotans Ilchi Market told RFA that not only Imin, but his brothersMemetturdi Imin, 56, and Memetjan Imin, 48were jailed along with at least 20 of Imins employees.

The police officer said that one of the crimes Imin was convicted for was propagating extremist ideology by incorporating ethnic and religious elements into building designs.

I am aware that drivers and staffers of Ekber Imin and his brothers were sentenced, but I dont know the exact number, he said, adding that some of them are serving sentences in a prison run by the Bingtuana name used to refer to the quasi-military Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC).

Ekber and his brothers were sentenced for five different reasons. One was providing so-called cover for a criminal. Memetturdi Imin provided housing to a [camp] detainee who had been released. He was arrested for that reason.

Other sources also confirmed that Imins brothers and staffers had also been either sentenced or sent to camps.

There were two people from our township who had worked at Ekber Imins company and I attended their court hearing, a ruling Communist Party secretary from Hotan citys Ilchi township told RFA, without providing a date for the proceedings.

There were two sessions. One was related to Ekber Imins case. In that case, more than 30 were sentenced.

A businessman from Hotan city who is familiar with the Imins told RFA he knew that Imins two brothers had each been sentenced to 20 years in prison, but I dont know about the names and number of their partners who were jailed.

Another businessman from Hotan prefecture said that seven people, including Ekber Imin, his brothers, and business partners, were sentenced in the last months of 2018.

They are serving their sentences in a prison in Aksu (Akesu) prefecture, he added.

Recent sentences

Last month, sources told RFA that one of the wealthiest Uyghurs in Hotan prefecture had been confirmed jailed for life after his whereabouts were unknown for more than three years, and that dozens of his relatives and employees had also been sentenced to prison.

Eli Abdulla, the CEO of Xinjiang Yu Cheng (Jade City) Real Estate Development Ltd.a company based in the XUAR capital Urumqi that deals in real estate, development, and rentals, as well as the sale of construction materials, chemicals, electronics, and mechanical equipmentwent missing in mid-2016, and was believed to have been arrested by authorities and sentenced a year later.

His situation could not be confirmed amid an information clampdown in the XUAR, where authorities are believed to have detained some 1.8 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities accused of harboring strong religious views and politically incorrect ideas in a vast network of internment camps since April 2017. Camp incarcerations are largely extra-judicial decisions.

In September 2018, multiple reports from official media said that Chinas central government had ordered local authorities to investigate the finances of all owners of private companies throughout the XUAR, at the same time that internment camps were being built in the region.

According to the directive, the reports said, private business owners were required to fill out declaration forms at the time that provided detailed financial information about their assets and submit them to relevant government departments, where they were subjected to strict review.

Reported by Shohret Hoshur. Translated by Alim Seytoff, Mamatjan Juma, and Elise Anderson. Written in English by Joshua Lipes.

Visit link:
Uyghur Real Estate Magnate Confirmed Jailed Along With Brothers, at Least 20 Employees - Radio Free Asia

Posted in Politically Incorrect | Comments Off on Uyghur Real Estate Magnate Confirmed Jailed Along With Brothers, at Least 20 Employees – Radio Free Asia

Tyler Cowen on "State Capacity Libertarianism" I: Is it the Wave of the "Smart" Libertarian Future? – Reason

Posted: at 11:19 am

In a much-discussed recent blog post, economist Tyler Cowen advocates what he calls "state capacity libertarianism" (which I will call "SCL" for short). He makes two claims: that "state capacity libertarianism" is the view that "the smart classical liberals and libertarians" are already moving towards even as traditional libertarianism is in decline, and that SCL is the right world-view for libertarians to adopt.

Tyler's mini-manifesto has already attracted insightful responses from David Henderson, John McGinnis, Vincent Geloso and Alex Salter, Nick Gillespie, Henry Olsen of the Washington Post, and John Cochrane. But I think there is more to be said.

In particular, it's important to emphasize that Tyler's normative argument is distinct from his positive claim about what libertarians are actually doing. One can be right even if the other is wrong.

Although I'm a big fan of Tyler's work, I am skeptical about both the normative and the positive aspects of his case for SCL. This post takes up the positive issue. I will cover the normative one in a subsequent piece.

Here's Tyler's positive analysis of where libertarians have been headed over the last few years:

Having tracked the libertarian "movement" for much of my life, I believe it is now pretty much hollowed out, at least in terms of flow. One branch split off into Ron Paul-ism and less savory alt right directions, and another, more establishment branch remains out there in force but not really commanding new adherents. For another, smart people are on the internet, and the internet seems to encourage synthetic and eclectic views, at least among the smart and curious. Unlike the mass culture of the 1970s, it does not tend to breed "capital L Libertarianism." On top of all that, the out-migration from narrowly libertarian views has been severe, most of all from educated women.

Along the way, I believe the smart classical liberals and libertarians have, as if guided by an invisible hand, evolved into a view that I dub with the entirely non-sticky name of State Capacity Libertarianism."

Tyler's definition of state capacity libertarianism is not a simple one. But, in so far as it differs from previous versions of libertarianism, largely boils down to a focus on expanding and improving the quality of government, including performing at least some substantial range of functions that most libertarians have traditionally argued should be left to the private sector.

Both the claim that there is an outmigration from libertarianism and the claim that "smart" libertarians are turning towards SCL strike me as wrong, or at least unsupported by the available evidence. Here's why:

I. Is there an Outmigration from Libertarianism?

Has libertarianism experienced a large outmigration of "alt right directions?" We can certainly find examples of notorious alt rightists who used to be (or at least used to claim to be) libertarians. But none of them were actually at all prominent within the libertarian movement, and there is no indication they are a large group of people (even relative to the total number of libertarians out there).

It is also fair to point out that there have long been some libertarian-leaning people who are sympathetic to various of right-wing nationalism and have tried to make alliances in that quarter. But this is not a new problem, and such people have long been condemned by the majority of the libertarian intellectual community. The issue actually came to public prominence in 2008 and 2012 during the controversy over Ron Paul's 1990s racist newsletters, at which time numerous prominent libertarians condemned them.

The genuinely prominent defectors from libertarianism in recent years, have actually gone not to the right, but to the center and left. The most notable are probably Jerry Taylor, Will Wilkinson, and some of their associates at the Niskanen Center. I took issue with Taylor's rejection of "ideology" here, and Wilkinson's views on democracy and libertarianism here and here. Taylor and Wilkinson are important figures, and we should take their critiques of libertarianism seriously (as I have tried to do). But, so far at least, their shift has not triggered a more general exodus from libertarianism.

Various measures of the number of libertarian-leaning voters in the general public show that their numbers are roughly the same as they were 15-20 years ago (somewhere between 8 and 20 percent, depending on which measures you use). The number of self-conscious, rigorously consistent libertarians is surely much smaller. But the same can be said for adherents of other ideologies. Many studies show that most voters don't take a carefully consistent and rigorous approach to political ideology, and often don't even understand the basics of those world-views.

I don't know of a good measure of the number of libertarians in the intellectual word, such as in academia or policy analysis. Quantitative studies of academic ideology (at least those I am familiar with) fail to differentiate libertarians from other non-left scholars. But my admittedly anecdotal impression is that the percentage is at least as high as a decade or two ago, and perhaps modestly higher. In my own academic field (law), there are more libertarians now than when I started my career in 2003.

Finally, I see no evidence that there has been a "severe" outmigration by "highly educated women." There is no doubt that self-identified libertarians are disproportionately male, and this is a problem for the movement (by contrast libertarians are much more racially and ethnically diverse than many think). But this is not a new problem, and has not gotten worse in recent years than it was before.

If anything, the percentage of women among younger libertarian intellectuals strikes me as higher than that in my own generation and those that came before. This is another point on which we lack systematic data, so I could be wrong. But the percentage of women in groups such as Students For Liberty (I have spoken at several of their conferences) is much higher than that in libertarian groups I saw when I was a student in the 1990s. Ditto for the percentage of women among younger libertarian academics in law, economics, and political science (the fields I am most familiar with).

It's also worth noting that virtually all the prominent defectors from libertarianism in recent years have been men, not women (Taylor and Wilkinson are, again, notable examples). Though, in fairness, that's in substantial part because there were more men in the initial population.

Perhaps Tyler's claim of an exodus can be defended on the ground that it only applies to "narrow" libertarianism, as he puts it. Much depends on what counts, as "narrow." But if that term means categorically rejecting all government intervention beyond the most strictly defined minimal state or endorsing absolute property rights that can never be overcome by any other considerations, then most libertarian thinkers already rejected those views a decade or two ago. That was certainly true of nearly all who were at that time prominent in the academic and intellectual worlds. Perhaps even more have rejected that position since then. But if so, it's not a major trend.

It is, I think, more useful to define libertarianism as the ideology that has a very strong presumption against government intervention in both the "economic" and "social" spheres, and therefore rejects a very high percentage of the activities of modern states. By that definition, there has been no major exodus to speak of.

Thus, Tyler is, I think, wrong to claim that there has been a substantial exodus from libertarianism in recent years. That does not mean libertarians can afford to rest on our (very modest) laurels. Far from it. After all, it is also clear there has been little, if any, significant expansion of the libertarian movement in that time. Our position has also weakened because of the rise of nationalism on the right and "democratic socialism" on the left, both of which are deeply inimical to libertarianism. Even if the number of libertarians has not declined, we face more hostility from adherents of other ideologies than was the case 10-20 years ago.

A group that was a small minority to begin with needs to more than just maintain its position. It badly needs growth. On that point, I very much agree with Nick Gillespie's response to Tyler's post.

II. Are "Smart" Libertarians Adopting SCL?

What of Tyler's claim that "the smart classical liberals and libertarians" have moved towards SCL? A lot here turns on who qualifies as "smart." If it means those who have the highest IQ or other forms of raw intellectual ability, then we don't have the evidence we need to figure out the answer. Who knows whether the libertarian intellectuals who agree with Tyler's position are smarterin this sensethan those who don't?

It may be more productive to interpret "smart" as referring to the most prominent and successful libertarian thinkers. The quality and reach of thinkers' ideas surely matters more than how high their IQs are.

Consider those American libertarian thinkers whose work has had the biggest mainstream impact over the last decade, as measured by both public and academic attention. The three cases that most stand out are Jason Brennan's work on democratic theory and related issues, Bryan Caplan's work on education and immigration, and Deirdre McCloskey's series of books on the nature and history of liberalism. Little if any of their work focuses on enhancing state capacity. To the contrary, all three emphasize the case for limiting and constraining government power, albeit in quite different ways.

The same is true for nearly all the most notable recent libertarian scholarship in my own field: law. Here too, state capacity is mostly notable by its absence. My impression is that the same is true of recently successful libertarian-leaning scholars in economics, philosophy, and political theory, such as John Cochrane, Casey Mulligan, Michael Huemer, and John Tomasi, among others. As David Henderson points out in his response to Tyler, state capacity is also largely absent from the recent research agendas of the most prominent and influential libertarian think tanks and publications, such as the Cato Institute, the Mercatus Center, and Reason.

With the important exception of Tyler himself, I am hard-pressed to name any prominent libertarian thinker who has found success in recent years by focusing on state capacity. The most plausible exception that comes to my mind is Brink Lindsey, who unlike many of his Niskanen Center colleagues, might still be considered a libertarian, at least in some important respects. His excellent and widely discussed 2017 book, The Captured Economy (coauthored with Steve Teles, who is not a libertarian), does indeed advocate a number of state capacity-focused reforms, which are combined with a more traditional libertarian emphasis on deregulation of licensing and zoning (I assessed the book's arguments here and here). I am not at all sure Lindsey would embrace the SCL label. But he may be the closest thing to an example of the phenomenon of "smart" libertarians moving in an SCL direction.

While I follow libertarian intellectual developments closely and know many people in the movement, I have to admit that Tyler knows more. Perhaps he can point to notable examples of libertarian SCL-ers whom I have missed. I would be happy to post any response to my argument that he cares to make. For the moment, however, the available evidence suggests that there is no significant outmigration from libertarianism, and that very few "smart" libertarians are adopting an SCL perspective.

The fact that SCL seems to have very few adherentseven by comparison with conventional libertarianismdoesn't mean SCL is wrong. Many, perhaps most, great ideas start out with very few supporters. In my next post on this issue, I will take up the question of whether libertarians should embrace SCL, regardless of whether any significant number have done so already.

View original post here:
Tyler Cowen on "State Capacity Libertarianism" I: Is it the Wave of the "Smart" Libertarian Future? - Reason

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on Tyler Cowen on "State Capacity Libertarianism" I: Is it the Wave of the "Smart" Libertarian Future? – Reason

A Conversation with a Libertarian Observed | Mark Shea – Patheos

Posted: at 11:19 am

Heres some of a conversation that happened in my comboxes recently, illustrating what I believe to be one of the core failings of Libertarianism: its essential narcissism.

Reader 1: Why not vote Libertarian? They dont have a clear position on abortion, but wont fund PP, and also oppose the death penalty.

Reader 2: Libertarians tend to be amoral, which is better than immoral, and favor the powerful which can lead to dehumanizing the vulnerable.

Reader 1: I understand your concerns, and this America Magazine writer can answer them here.

Reader 2: The author suggests that Libertarians can learn from and be checked by good will adherence to CST, which I believe is true for all political systems. The problem is that subsidiarity, while always necessary in practice, is always woefully inadequate beyond a very small community. Those I call casserole Christians believe their small and subjective acts of charity, however noble and well intended, will resolve the massive social inequalities and cycles of poverty we face in the US. Subsidiarity can work well in tandem with larger governmental systems of care that should be focused on the common good, but cant replace them. One example in Massachusetts, church-sponsored Take and Eat ministries work in tandem with state/federally funded Meals on Wheels programs to provide weekend meals for the elderly and those with disabilities. Wonderful concept and practice as a supplemental effort, but beyond that is inadequate. And my parish struggles even to find the funding and volunteers to fulfill our once every 6 week commitment.

The notion that a combination of libertarian neutrality and voluntary neighborliness will inspire our consciences to provide for the poor died with the wild west.

Any reasonable assessment of the real world would have to conclude that Reader 2 is simply right about this. Before Social Security, 50% of seniors were poor. Blue states do vastly better economically than red ones do and, what is more, blue states, by their contributions to the federal budget, keep afloat the social programs upon which the poor in red states depend to keep body and soul together. Cultures full of the agitprop about how money will trickle down and spontaneously generous Libertarians will supply what the state need not supply have a name: poverty-stricken.

But Libertarianism is founded on a couple of crippling lies. One of the greatest of these is that property rights trump the right to live. In some extreme cases such as Murray Rothbard, the insanity is so deep that even the claim of a child to deserve care of its parents is denied since the child cannot pay for these goods and services. But even if a Libertarian is not quite that demented, Libertarianism insists that all help given somebody outside the immediate circle of family is charity. That is the other and core falsehood. Why?

Because much of the help we are expected to give, according to the Churchs teaching, is not charity, but justice.

The rich man was not damned because he did not give Lazarus charity, but because he denied him justice. The priest and the Levite were not condemned, nor the Good Samaritan commended, because they did not and the Samaritan did give the beaten man charity, but because they did not (and the Samaritan did) give him justice.

Justice pertains to what is owed. We owe our neighbor his life if he needs saving and we have the power to do it. You arent giving charity when you find somebody lying in a pool of blood and call 911 or find him hungry and give him something to eat. You are giving them simple justice. If you walk past them and do nothing, you are not denying them charity that you didnt owe them. You are being a sinner in grave danger of the fires of hellbecause you selfishly denied what you owed them in justice. And if the best way to get that person help involves food and shelter paid for by the state, somebody who cares about the person in need cares about them getting food and shelter, not about getting the credit for helping them. But Libertarianism has a very different agenda. To wit:

Reader 1: Libertarians dont necessarily believe that government has no place in anything, but rather than its involved in much more than it needs to be. The states duty is to protect the weak from the strong. That does not include mandating a minimum wage that could kill businesses who cant afford it, nor does it include forcing people to pay income tax on the threat of jail. I dont know if youve heard of Andrew Yang, but he actually has better alternatives to these things.

Translation: Im theoretically for the weak and vulnerable being protected against the the strong and powerful, but I dont want to actually pay for it, or do anything about it, or think about it.

Libertarianism is the teenage fantasy that I will be so super-generous that the state will wither awayone of the whimsical notions that Libertarian fantasists share with Communist fantasists. In reality, Libertarianism is the ideology committed to the use of the state against the weak by the strong. It doesnt really want the state to wither away. It wants it to protect the rich from the poor and the powerful from the weak. But that is not the function of the state. The function of the state is to ensure justice. And since justice means treating equals equally and unequals unequally, it is perfectly right and fitting for the state to obey the preferential option for the poor since they have no defender while the rich and powerful have tons of money and armies of lawyers.

Note the rhetorical feint to leftists such as yourself. Reader 2 has not used that term as a self-descriptor. Libertarian Reader 1 chose to do so in order to dismiss the Churchs teaching on the right to a living wage as leftism. Thats because, contrary to his claim, the real and only function of the state for Libertarians is to protect the rich and powerful from the cry of the poor for a just wage. Curiously, the refusal to pay workers a just wage is one of four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance.

Reader 2 to Reader 1: I support a living wage because Im Catholic, kiddo. You can start lecturing me after you earn your first paycheck.

Reader 2 returns the leftist serve with a hard return volley that Libertarian Reader 1 is in no way prepared for, because Reader 1 gets his thinking, not from the teaching of the Magisterium, but from the bits and pieces cannibalized from it by Libertarians. The reply is simple: a living wage is not charity, it is justice. And it is the right and proper duty of the state to ensure justice.

But I digress. Here is where Libertarian Reader 1 gets down to the essential narcissism of the Libertarianand is rightly defeated in clean combat by Catholic Reader 2:

Reader 1 to Reader 2: And if you seriously think libertarians are that selfish, google libertarian disaster relief. Libertarianism isnt about being selfish, its about making sure government isnt your mother or babysitter.

You know, being this young, I should be as left-wing as you, but Im not. You cannot force people to be charitable. That is wrong. That is what government does.

Reader 2 to Reader 1:My point is that being young, you likely havent had the opportunity to experience the hardships people face. There is that no evidence that corporate America or even average citizens would band together to voluntarily provide sustainable systems of care for the working poor, the elderly, the disabled, and in fact much evidence to show that the United States under trump is motivated primarily by greed and self preservation.

No, you cant force charity, which is why basic human needs should not be dependent on charitable whims, but on equitable and just laws and systems of care.

You might benefit from watching this:

Note that the sole concern of Libertarian Reader 1 is not with those in need of help, but with himself. Hes not interested in the question of whether Libertarian charity actually provides sufficient help to those in need, only that Libertarians get the credit for being charitable. Does a family face a choice between living in a tent or getting treatment for their 4 year old with leukemia? The one and only thing that matters is not the family or their need being met, but whether Reader 1 gets the warm fuzzy feeling of being charitable for throwing five bucks in their GoFundMe set up to raise $300,000 (and currently standing at $230).

This is the essential evil of Libertarianism. Because it denies any claim of justice and insists that anything beyond helping ones own family and a small circle of friends is charity it teaches its adherents to take a completely narcissistic view of what we owe to others. Rather than allow a nickel to be taken from his paycheck by the state, the allegedly generous Libertarian would rather make a poor mans family starve to death or freeze in his car than have a system where the state insures universal health carebecause it is not the poor man but the power and vanity of the Libertarian that is all that matters. The Libertarian gets to decide life and death for the poor he deems deserving or undeserving. The Libertarians only real interest is in getting to take credit for his generosity, not in whether Lazarus gets the help he needs.

Libertarianism is essentially narcissistic. It offers nothing good that Catholic teaching does not already offer while it distorts and denies nearly all Catholic teaching about the Common Good and Solidarity. Skip it and stick with Catholic Social Teaching.

View original post here:
A Conversation with a Libertarian Observed | Mark Shea - Patheos

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on A Conversation with a Libertarian Observed | Mark Shea – Patheos

The Evolving Libertarianism of Neil Peart – National Review

Posted: at 11:19 am

Rush drummer Neil Peart performs during a sold-out show at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas, Nev., July 17, 2004.(Ethan Miller/Reuters)

Like every true rock fan I was saddened to hear of the passing of Neil Peart, the lyricist and virtuoso drummer for the prog group Rush. We all love the bands key albums, the handful culminating in 1981s Moving Pictures, and we inevitably have some opinions about the others too. I absolutely loved their 2007 effort Snakes and Arrows, for example, and I cant stand the really synth-heavy stuff they did in the mid and late 80s. (Before anyone asks, in my definition that includes Power Windows but not Signals.)

We on the right, of course, have a special debt to Peart for being the rare entertainer to espouse political beliefs other than lefty ones. The incredible first side of 2112 is based on Ayn Rands Anthem, and in The Trees, from Hemispheres, Peart makes a point about equality: All trees can be the same height . . . if you cut them all down.

But like a lot of us who had strong libertarian tendencies when we were young, Peart saw his views evolve as he aged. The Larger Bowl (A Pantoum), from the aforementioned Snakes and Arrows, is a heartfelt meditation on the different fortunes and fates human beings find themselves subjected to. And in an interview with Rolling Stone in 2012, Peart identified as a bleeding-heart libertarian rather than the Randian kind:

For me, [the work of Ayn Rand] was an affirmation that its all right to totally believe in something and live for it and not compromise. It was a simple as that. On that 2112 album, again, I was in my early twenties. I was a kid. Now I call myself a bleeding heart libertarian. Because I do believe in the principles of libertarianism as an ideal because Im an idealist. Paul Therouxs definition of a cynic is a disappointed idealist. So as you go through past your twenties, your idealism is going to be disappointed many many times. And so, Ive brought my view and also Ive just realized this libertarianism as I understood it was very good and pure and were all going to be successful and generous to the less fortunate and it was, to me, not dark or cynical. But then I soon saw, of course, the way that it gets twisted by the flaws of humanity. And thats when I evolve now into . . . a bleeding-heart libertarian. Thatll do.

May he rest in peace.

See the original post here:
The Evolving Libertarianism of Neil Peart - National Review

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on The Evolving Libertarianism of Neil Peart – National Review

Why Libertarians Have a Love-hate Relationship With the 10th Amendment – HowStuffWorks

Posted: at 11:19 am

Advertisement

Libertarians just want to get along. They don't want you messing with them, and they won't mess with you. More than anything else, they don't want some suffocating government telling people what they can or cannot do.

That is the heart of the Libertarian Party pitch. Those ideas are neither some crazy everybody-hold-hands socialist dream or some wild-eyed, anarchist, down-with-the-feds manifesto. Libertarians just want everybody to enjoy the liberty to do what they want to do as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. And, again, they don't want anybody, especially the federal government, messing with that.

Of course, if life were only that simple.

In their crusade, many Libertarians like every other political party in America, Libertarians don't agree 100 percent on everything point to the 10th Amendment as the constitutional basis for their way of thinking. Added as part of the Bill of Rights in 1789, the 10th Amendment is somewhat striking in its simplicity. It goes like this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Of course, if the Constitution were only that simple.

The 10th Amendment, even in those 28 short words, four clauses, three commas and single period, is open to a great deal of interpretation. But let's, for the moment, take it literally: If the Constitution doesn't spell out a certain power or powers to the federal government (the "United States"), those powers belong to the states or the people.

"They [the constitutional framers] didn't want the federal government to be huge," says Honor "Mimi" Robson, the chair of the Libertarian Party of California. "They didn't want the federal government to be involved in the citizens' day-to-day lives."

Some people, both in and out of the Libertarian Party, view the 10th Amendment very narrowly. They contend that many powers that the federal government now claims things represented by, for example, the U.S. Department of Education, or even Supreme Court decisions that allow for things like same-sex marriage throughout the U.S. should not be held by the feds. The U.S. government is infringing on the states' rights to decide how children are taught in their state, for example, or whether same-sex marriage should be allowed. That should be up to the states, they say. Those are states' rights.

Now, you might argue, government is government, whether it's at the state or federal level (or both). And multiple levels of government, some absolutely will argue, is bad.

But most out there understand the need for some government. And government at the state level, close to home, the argument goes, is better than edicts being flung from the feds in Washington. From the Tenth Amendment Center:

People arguably have more control and influence over smaller governmental units. Even if they don't, multiple small power centers make it possible to flee from particularly oppressive jurisdictions and create an environment of "competition" between governments.

Few would suggest that no federal government is needed, either. And, indeed, the Constitution enumerates certain powers solely to the U.S. government, including the ability to tax, to provide for the national defense, to regulate commerce (both within the states and internationally), and to determine who becomes a citizen.

But many Libertarians, and many others, argue that the U.S. government has vastly overstepped those powers enumerated to it and, in doing so, has trampled on the 10th Amendment. The disagreements, inside the Libertarian Party and out of it, are exactly where the line between federal rights and states' rights should be drawn.

"If you look at states' rights as allowing states to do bad things to people to take away their rights, that is absolutely not Libertarian," Robson says. She points to the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, which held that a ban on interracial marriage by the state of Virginia violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. That case provided, in effect, a new enumerated power for the federal government; to protect individuals from states. "States shouldn't be able to say that people who love each other can't get married. Same thing with same-sex marriage.

"I don't believe that that was ever intended to allow states to do bad things to infringe on people's rights just because it's more of a local level," Robson says. "I think that's where some people get kind of confused, in my opinion."

For almost 200 years, the 10th Amendment and its apparently straightforward language was viewed very narrowly. According to the National Constitution Center, when legal questions were raised about the use of some federal power, they didn't center on whether the use of the power was violating someone's rights, but rather if the federal government had the right to use the power in the first place. Was it something granted to the government under the Constitution? If not, it's the states' and the people's.

That has changed, though, in the past several decades as the courts have granted more power to the federal government, powers that are often argued to be implied by the Constitution, if not enumerated. The 10th, now, is regularly rolled out as a defense against an overreaching U.S. government. Some used it as an argument against "Obamacare." Some are citing it as a reason to block President Donald Trump's move to stop a California law declaring it a "sanctuary state."

The struggle, in many ways, is exactly what the writers of the 10th Amendment saw coming. They tried to spell things out. But we're still trying to figure out what they really meant in those 28 simple words.

"I think what we all agree on is that we're looking for a society where there's no government infringement of personal rights. That's what we're looking for," Robson says. She's talking about Libertarians, though she could be speaking for many others. "We want freedom and we want no government coercion, and I believe states can be just as coercive as the federal government when it comes to individual liberties.

"It's the nuances that we aren't quite clear on. To use a train analogy, we're all on this train that's going from point A which is California right now, which is basically socialism to point B or C or X or Y or Z, which is complete non-government intervention, non-government. There's going to be people that get off the train at different places. I'm not going to be on the train all the way to the end, to pure anarchy. But you know what? Right now, we're up on blocks. We're nowhere close. We have to agree on what we agree on and move forward."

Excerpt from:
Why Libertarians Have a Love-hate Relationship With the 10th Amendment - HowStuffWorks

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on Why Libertarians Have a Love-hate Relationship With the 10th Amendment – HowStuffWorks

Page 1,396«..1020..1,3951,3961,3971,398..1,4101,420..»