Page 1,783«..1020..1,7821,7831,7841,785..1,7901,800..»

Category Archives: Transhuman News

List of ‘100 Most Influential Libertarians’ Topped by Ron and Rand Paul, Riddled with Reasonites – Reason (blog)

Posted: June 1, 2017 at 10:10 pm

ReasonWho is the most influential libertarian in the United States? Ron Paul, according to this fun top-100 list put together by the conservative outlet Newsmax, working from (and supplementing) a poll put together by our friends at FreedomFest, the annual liberty-movement/free-market gathering in Las Vegas. (See Reason's coverage of Ron Paul, read Senior Editor Brian Doherty's book on the man, and browse through Paul's archive in our pages.)

Paul's son Rand (coverage, most recent Reason interview, 2011 cover story) came in second place, and let the furious arguments begin! But first, a few words from the creators about their parameters:

To compile this list, our editors defined a libertarian as a consistent advocate of free-market capitalism, minimal government, and social tolerance (thus distinguishing libertarians from conservatives). Their motto might be "Keep government out of the boardroom and the bedroom." [...]

Still, a list like this is subjective at best, and should be viewed as interesting and informative, rather than definitive. We very likely missed people who should have been on the list, and we welcome your input and correction for future editions. Moreover, while selecting only 100 is difficult, coming up with a ranking is even more subjective. We tried to rank the entrants in what we believe is a somewhat logical order of influence, but we certainly recognize that many readers (and perhaps even some people whose names are on the list!) may take exception to the ranking.

Finally, it is important to note that we chose to leave out a few individuals whose credentials as libertarians might be less convincing, such as Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Howard Stern.

The list definitely tilts to the right, and some libertarian credentials have already been greeted with skepticism by the listees themselves, such as #75 Charles Gasparino of Fox News ("Ok I guess I'm a libertarian sort of"). But these things are fun, and, well, let's go ahead and get the most controversial sequence out of the way:

22) Nick Gillespie

23) Clint Eastwood (Reason archive about)

24) Matt Welch

SMDH!

The Reason family overall is well represented on this list, which is as good a reminder as any to subscribe to the damn magazine, donate to the Foundation that makes it all possible, re-read Brian Doherty's great 2008 oral history of the magazine, and by all means come out to FreedomFest this year to see me and Nick and Katherine Mangu-Ward from the main stage, and also a whole universe of futuristic Reason Day goodness on Saturday, July 21.

After the jump, the rankings of our employees, donors, contributors, ex-staffers, and friends.

Reason4) John Stossel (Reason archive, most recent Reason interview, 2004 cover story)

6) Reason Trustee David Koch (archive about)

8) Andrew Napolitano (archive, most recent Reason interview)

17) Trustee Drew Carey (archive, Reason Saves Cleveland)

19) Robert Poole, Jr. (archive, most recent interview)

40) Courtney and Ted Balaker (archive, archive about, 2015 interview)

48) Radley Balko (archive, archive about, most recent interview)

51) Kennedy (archive, archive about)

62) Trustee Joan Carter and John Aglialoro (archive about, 2014 interview)

84) Veronique de Rugy (archive)

87) Deirdre Nansen McCloskey (archive)

Plenty of other friends, contributors, donors, and interview subjects on the list, including Penn Jillette (21), Matt and Terry Kibbe (28), Trey Parker and Matt Stone (43), Andrea and Howie Rich (53-54), Jeffrey Miron (76), Matt Ridley (83), and many more. Only non-Paul politicians on the list are Gary Johnson (7), Justin Amash (20), and Thomas Massie (55).

Am I giving away too much? Go read the full list! And then check out Reason's 35th anniversary "35 Heroes of Freedom" feature, which features several people from this list, and several others who no sane person would precisely describe as "libertarian." And though you need no urging from me, let's hear it in the comments: What's your own top 10? Greatest omission/worst inclusion? And who deserves the top slot on the "100 Most Influential Libertarian Commenters" list?

Read the rest here:
List of '100 Most Influential Libertarians' Topped by Ron and Rand Paul, Riddled with Reasonites - Reason (blog)

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on List of ‘100 Most Influential Libertarians’ Topped by Ron and Rand Paul, Riddled with Reasonites – Reason (blog)

Ron Paul: Are We Fighting Terrorism, Or Creating It? – Mintpress News (blog)

Posted: at 10:10 pm

How long until we accept that collateral damage is just another word for murder?

A Kurdish boy, center background, walks between buildings that were destroyed during the U.S. bombing campaign in Kobani, north Syria.

When we think about terrorism we most often think about the horrors of a Manchester-like attack, where a radicalized suicide bomber went into a concert hall and killed dozens of innocent civilians. It was an inexcusable act of savagery and it certainly did terrorize the population.

What is less considered are attacks that leave far more civilians dead, happen nearly daily instead of rarely, and produce a constant feeling of terror and dread. These are the civilians on the receiving end of US and allied bombs in places like Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, and elsewhere.

Last week alone, US and coalition attacks on Syria left more than 200 civilians dead and many hundreds more injured. In fact, even though US intervention in Syria was supposed to protect the population from government attacks, US-led air strikes have killed more civilians over the past month than air strikes of the Assad government. That is like a doctor killing his patient to save him.

Do we really believe we are fighting terrorism by terrorizing innocent civilians overseas? How long until we accept that collateral damage is just another word for murder?

The one so-called success of the recent G7 summit in Sicily was a general agreement to join together to fight terrorism. Have we not been in a war on terrorism for the past 16 years? What this really means is more surveillance of innocent civilians, a crackdown on free speech and the Internet, and many more bombs dropped overseas. Will doing more of what we have been doing do the trick? Hardly! After 16 years fighting terrorism, it is even worse than before we started. This can hardly be considered success.

They claim that more government surveillance will keep us safe. But the UK is already the most intrusive surveillance state in the western world. The Manchester bomber was surely on the radar screen. According to press reports, he was known to the British intelligence services, he had traveled and possibly trained in bomb-making in Libya and Syria, his family members warned the authorities that he was dangerous, and he even flew terrorist flags over his house. What more did he need to do to signal that he may be a problem? Yet somehow even in Orwellian UK, the authorities missed all the clues.

Related: Manchester Bomber May Have Been Groomed By UK Intelligence

But it is even worse than that. The British government actually granted permission for its citizens of Libyan background to travel to Libya and fight alongside al-Qaeda to overthrow Gaddafi. After months of battle and indoctrination, it then welcomed these radicalized citizens back to the UK. And we are supposed to be surprised and shocked that they attack?

The real problem is that both Washington and London are more interested in regime change overseas than any blowback that might come to the rest of us back home. They just do not care about the price we pay for their foreign policy actions. No grand announcement of new resolve to fight terrorism can be successful unless we understand what really causes terrorism. They do not hate us because we are rich and free. They hate us because we are over there, bombing them.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Mint Press News editorial policy.

See the original post:
Ron Paul: Are We Fighting Terrorism, Or Creating It? - Mintpress News (blog)

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul: Are We Fighting Terrorism, Or Creating It? – Mintpress News (blog)

Ron Paul Compares Trump To JFK – Opposing Views

Posted: at 10:10 pm


Opposing Views
Ron Paul Compares Trump To JFK
Opposing Views
"The President goes back and forth, one minute saying 'we're not going into Syria,' while the next seeming to favor another surge," Paul wrote on his website on May 14. "He has given the military much decision-making latitude and may be persuaded by ...

Continued here:
Ron Paul Compares Trump To JFK - Opposing Views

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul Compares Trump To JFK – Opposing Views

Ron Paul: Are We Fighting Terror? Or Creating More Terrorists … – FITSNews

Posted: at 10:10 pm

RE-THINKING OUR APPROACH

When we think about terrorism we most often think about the horrors of a Manchester-like attack, where a radicalized suicide bomber went into a concert hall and killed dozens of innocent civilians. It was an inexcusable act of savagery and it certainly did terrorize the population.

What is less considered are attacks that leave far more civilians dead, happen nearly daily instead of rarely, and produce a constant feeling of terror and dread. These are the civilians on the receiving end of US and allied bombs in places like Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, and elsewhere.

Last week alone, US and coalition attacks on Syria left more than 200 civilians dead and many hundreds more injured. In fact, even though US intervention in Syria was supposed to protect the population from government attacks, US-led air strikes have killed more civilians over the past month than air strikes of the Assad government. That is like a doctor killing his patient to save him.

Do we really believe we are fighting terrorism by terrorizing innocent civilians overseas? How long until we accept that collateral damage is just another word for murder?

The one so-called success of the recent G7 summit in Sicily was a general agreement to join together to fight terrorism. Have we not been in a war on terrorism for the past 16 years? What this really means is more surveillance of innocent civilians, a crackdown on free speech and the Internet, and many more bombs dropped overseas. Will doing more of what we have been doing do the trick? Hardly! After 16 years fighting terrorism, it is even worse than before we started. This can hardly be considered success.

They claim that more government surveillance will keep us safe. But the UK is already the most intrusive surveillance state in the western world. The Manchester bomber was surely on the radar screen. According to press reports, he was known to the British intelligence services, he had traveled and possibly trained in bomb-making in Libya and Syria, his family members warned the authorities that he was dangerous, and he even flew terrorist flags over his house. What more did he need to do to signal that he may be a problem? Yet somehow even in Orwellian UK, the authorities missed all the clues.

But it is even worse than that. The British government actually granted permission for its citizens of Libyan background to travel to Libya and fight alongside al-Qaeda to overthrow Gaddafi. After months of battle and indoctrination, it then welcomed these radicalized citizens back to the UK. And we are supposed to be surprised and shocked that they attack?

The real problem is that both Washington and London are more interested in regime change overseas than any blowback that might come to the rest of us back home. They just do not care about the price we pay for their foreign policy actions. No grand announcement of new resolve to fight terrorism can be successful unless we understand what really causes terrorism. They do not hate us because we are rich and free. They hate us because we are over there, bombing them.

Ron Paulis a former U.S. Congressman from Texas and the leader of the pro-liberty, pro-free market movement in the United States. His weekly column reprinted with permission can be foundhere.

Got something youd like to say in response to one of our stories? In addition to our always lively comments section (below), please feel free to submit your own guest column or letter to the editor via-email HERE or via our tip-line HERE

Banner via iStock

Read the original post:
Ron Paul: Are We Fighting Terror? Or Creating More Terrorists ... - FITSNews

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Ron Paul: Are We Fighting Terror? Or Creating More Terrorists … – FITSNews

Internet Gambling Ban a Losing Bet For Liberty – Townhall

Posted: at 10:10 pm

|

Posted: Jun 01, 2017 12:01 AM

Controversies over surveillance of President Trump and members of his administration, including the leaks that forced President Trumps first National Security Advisor to resign, have brought new attention to Section 702 of the FISA Reform Act. Section 702, which was added to the law in 2008, authorizes wiretapping of non-U.S. persons. The statue explicitly forbids the intentional targeting of U.S. citizens, but allows agencies to collect information on U.S. citizens if it is incidental to a 702 investigation.

The National Security Agency (NSA) has exploited the incidental loophole to turn Section 702 into a routinely-used justification for wiretapping America citizens, including General Michael Kelly and (allegedly) other members of Donald Trump's campaign staff and transition team.

Given the way the federal snoop state uses every inch of (unconstitutional) power granted them to take a mile of liberty, the last thing Congress should do is pass legislation giving the surveillance state a new excuse to spy on us -- especially if the legislation also violates the Tenth Amendment. Yet Congress will do just that if it listens to the special interests pushing the Restoration of Americas Wireless Act (RAWA).

RAWA makes online gaming a federal crime. Thus, it gives federal agents another excuse to monitor our Internet usage. Those tempted to say, I dont gamble online, so I have no need to worry, should ask themselves what if their name appeared in the email contacts of friends or relatives who gambled online. Individuals may also be targeted if their browsing habits match that of a profile of an online gambler.

One of the justifications for RAWA is the claim that Internet gaming sites are controlled by drug cartels and terrorists groups. This claim gives law enforcement all the justification it needs to bring the full weight of the post-9-11-surveillance state down on those suspected of gambling online.

The irony of this argument is if Congress passes RAWA, they would be helping terrorists and other criminals. Criminalizing online gaming is not going stop individuals from seeking out opportunities to gamble online, any more than prohibition stopped people from wanting to drink alcoholic beverages. Instead, just as prohibition lead to the rise of organized crime, banning online gambling will ensure that only criminals (and terrorists) will run online casinos.

In contrast, if Congress leaves regulation of Internet gambling to individual states and the free-market, websites owned and operated by legal casinos would likely dominate the online gaming market. In order to avoid any legal troubles, as well as bad public relations, these sites would likely use technology that enables them to identify those prohibited from gambling online. Those who support RAWA should ask themselves who is more likely to use this technology: a website controlled by legal casinos who want to stay within the boundaries of the law or an offshore website controlled by a drug cartel or a terrorist organization?

Even if this technology did not exist, the Constitution does not grant Congress any authority regarding any type of gaming, and the Tenth Amendment does not expand Congressional power to create new federal crimes in order to protect state laws. In fact, the idea that federalism requires federal action to ensure one states laws do not interfere with laws in other states turns federalism on its head! This bizarro federalism promoted by RAWA supporters could be used to justify other expansions of federal power, including new gun control laws.

Federal laws outlawing Internet gambling are also incompatible with the fundamental principles of a free society. Gambling is a peaceful activity that does not violate anyones rights. Therefore, the government has no legitimate reason to forbid adults from gambling online. This is not to say that gambling is a good thing, only that government force should not be used to discourage it.

RAWA usurps state authority over gambling in order to further empower the surveillance state to snoop into our personal lives. Instead of ending online gaming, RAWA guarantees the online gambling marketplace will be dominated by criminals. Congress should reject RAWA rather than gamble our liberties away.

Read more:
Internet Gambling Ban a Losing Bet For Liberty - Townhall

Posted in Ron Paul | Comments Off on Internet Gambling Ban a Losing Bet For Liberty – Townhall

Thatcherism – Wikipedia

Posted: at 10:10 pm

"Right-wing Neoliberalism" redirects here. For other uses of the term, see neoliberalism.

Thatcherism describes the conviction politics, economic, social policy and political style of the British Conservative Party politician Margaret Thatcher, who was leader of her party from 1975 to 1990. It has also been used to describe the beliefs of the British government under Thatcher as Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990, and beyond into the governments of John Major, Tony Blair and David Cameron.[1] An exponent or supporter of Thatcherism is regarded as a Thatcherite.

Thatcherism represented a systematic, decisive rejection and reversal of the post-war consensus, whereby the major political parties largely agreed on the central themes of Keynesianism, the welfare state, nationalised industry, and close regulation of the economy. There was one major exception: the National Health Service, which was widely popular. She promised Britons in 1982, the NHS is "safe in our hands".[2]

Both the exact terms of what makes up Thatcherism as well as its specific legacy in terms of British history over the past decades are controversial. In terms of ideology, Thatcherism has been described by Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, as a political platform emphasising free markets with restrained government spending and tax cuts coupled with British nationalism both at home and abroad.[3]The Daily Telegraph stated in April 2008 that the programme of the next non-conservative British government, Tony Blair's administration with an emphasis on 'New Labour', basically accepted the central reform measures of Thatcherism such as deregulation, privatisation of key national industries, maintaining a flexible labour market, marginalising the trade unions, and centralising power from local authorities to central government.[4]

Thatcherism attempts to promote low inflation, the small state, and free markets through tight control of the money supply, privatisation and constraints on the labour movement. It is often compared with Reaganomics in the United States, Economic Rationalism in Australia and Rogernomics in New Zealand and as a key part of the worldwide economic liberal movement. Nigel Lawson, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, listed the Thatcherite ideals as "free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism".[3]

Thatcherism is thus often compared to neoliberalism. Milton Friedman said that "the thing that people do not recognise is that Margaret Thatcher is not in terms of belief a Tory. She is a nineteenth-century Liberal."[5] Thatcher herself stated in 1983: "I would not mind betting that if Mr Gladstone were alive today he would apply to join the Conservative Party".[6] In the 1996 Keith Joseph memorial lecture Thatcher argued that "The kind of Conservatism which he and I... favoured would be best described as 'liberal', in the old-fashioned sense. And I mean the liberalism of Mr Gladstone, not of the latter day collectivists".[7] However, Thatcher once told Friedrich Hayek: "I know you want me to become a Whig; no, I am a Tory". Hayek believed "she has felt this very clearly".[8]

But the relationship between Thatcherism and liberalism is complicated. Thatcher's former Defence Secretary John Nott claimed that "it is a complete misreading of her beliefs to depict her as a nineteenth-century Liberal".[9] As Ellen Meiksins Wood has argued, Thatcherite capitalism was compatible with traditional British political institutions. As Prime Minister, Thatcher did not challenge ancient institutions such as the monarchy or the House of Lords, but some of the most recent additions: such as the trade unions.[10] Indeed, many leading Thatcherites, including Thatcher herself, went on to join the House of Lords: an honour which Gladstone, for instance, had declined.[11]

Thinkers closely associated with Thatcherism include Keith Joseph, Enoch Powell, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. In an interview with Simon Heffer in 1996 Thatcher stated that the two greatest influences on her as Conservative leader had been Joseph and Powell, who were both "very great men".[12]

A number of commentators have traced the origins of Thatcherism in post-war British politics. The historian Ewen Green claimed there was resentment of the inflation, taxation and the constraints imposed by the labour movement, which was associated with the so-called Buttskellite consensus in the decades before Thatcher came to prominence. Although the Conservative leadership accommodated itself to the Attlee government's post-war reforms, there was continuous right-wing opposition in the lower ranks of the party, in right-wing pressure groups like the Middle Class Alliance and the People's League for the Defence of Freedom, and later in think tanks like the Centre for Policy Studies. For example, in 1945 the Conservative Party chairman Ralph Assheton had wanted 12,000 abridged copies of The Road to Serfdom (a book by the anti-socialist economist Friedrich Hayek later closely associated with Thatcherism),[13] taking up one-and-a-half tons of the party's paper ration, distributed as election propaganda.[14] The historian Dr. Christopher Cooper has also traced the formation of the monetarist economics at the heart of Thatcherism back to the resignation of Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer Peter Thorneycroft in 1958.[15]

Thatcherism is often described as a libertarian ideology. Thatcher saw herself as creating a libertarian movement,[16][17] rejecting traditional Toryism.[18] Thatcherism is associated with libertarianism within the Conservative Party,[19] albeit one of libertarian ends achieved by using strong and sometimes authoritarian leadership.[20] British political commentator Andrew Marr has called libertarianism the "dominant, if unofficial, characteristic of Thatcherism".[21] However, whereas some of her heirs, notably Michael Portillo and Alan Duncan, embraced this libertarianism, others in the Thatcherite movement, such as John Redwood, sought to become more populist.[22][23]

Some commentators have argued that Thatcherism should not be considered properly libertarian. Noting the tendency towards strong central government in matters concerning the trade unions and local authorities, Andrew Gamble summarised Thatcherism as "the free economy and the strong state".[24]Simon Jenkins accused the Thatcher government of carrying out a 'nationalisation' of Britain.[25] Libertarian political theorist Murray Rothbard didn't consider Thatcherism to be libertarian, and heavily criticised Thatcher and Thatcherism stating that: "Thatcherism is all too similar to Reaganism: free-market rhetoric masking statist content."[26]

Another important aspect of Thatcherism is the style of governance. Britain in the 1970s was often referred to as "ungovernable". Thatcher attempted to redress this by centralising a great deal of power to herself, as the Prime Minister, often bypassing traditional cabinet structures (such as cabinet committees). This personal approach also became identified with personal toughness at times such as the Falklands War, the IRA bomb at the Conservative conference and the miners' strike.[citation needed]

Sir Charles Powell, the Foreign Affairs Private Secretary to the Prime Minister (198491 and 1996) described her style thus, "I've always thought there was something Leninist about Mrs Thatcher which came through in the style of government: the absolute determination, the belief that there's a vanguard which is right and if you keep that small, tightly knit team together, they will drive things through... there's no doubt that in the 1980s, No. 10 could beat the bushes of Whitehall pretty violently. They could go out and really confront people, lay down the law, bully a bit".[27]

Thatcherism is associated with the economic theory of monetarism. In contrast to previous government policy, monetarism placed a priority on controlling inflation over controlling unemployment. According to monetarist theory, inflation is the result of there being too much money in the economy. It was claimed that the government should seek to control the money supply to control inflation. However, by 1979 it was not only the Thatcherites who were arguing for stricter control of inflation. The Labour Chancellor Denis Healey had already adopted some monetarist policies, such as reducing public spending and selling off the government's shares in BP.

Moreover, it has been argued that the Thatcherites were not strictly monetarist in practice. A common theme centres on the Medium Term financial Strategy. The Strategy, issued in the 1980 Budget, consisted of targets for reducing the growth of the money supply in the following years. After overshooting many of these targets, the Thatcher government revised the targets upwards in 1982. Analysts have interpreted this as an admission of defeat in the battle to control the money supply. The economist C. F. Pratten claimed that "since 1984, behind a veil of rhetoric, the government has lost any faith it had in technical monetarism. The money supply, as measured by M3, has been allowed to grow erratically, while calculation of the PSBR is held down by the ruse of subtracting the proceeds of privatisation as well as taxes from government expenditure. The principles of monetarism have been abandoned".[28]

Thatcherism is also associated with supply-side economics. Whereas Keynesian economics holds that the government should stimulate economic growth by increasing demand through increased credit and public spending, supply-side economists argue that the government should instead intervene only to create a free market by lowering taxes, privatising state industries and increasing restraints on trade unionism.[citation needed]

Reduction in the power of the trades unions was made gradually, unlike the approach of the Heath Government, and the greatest single confrontation with the unions was the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) strike of 198485, in which the miners' union was eventually defeated. There is evidence that this confrontation with the trade unions was anticipated by both the Conservative party and the NUM. The outcome contributed to the resurgence of the power of capital over labour.[29]

Thatcherism is associated with a conservative stance on morality.[30] The Marxist sociologist and founder of the New Left Review, Stuart Hall, for example, argued that Thatcherism should be viewed as an ideological project promoting "authoritarian populism", since it is known for its reverence of "Victorian values".[31] The Social Democrat Party supporter David Marquand claimed that Thatcher exploited "authoritarian populist" sentiment in 1970s Britain: "Go back, you flower people, back where you came from, wash your hair, get dressed properly, get to work on time and stop all this whingeing and moaning."[32][non-primary source needed]Norman Tebbit, a close ally of Thatcher, laid out in a 1985 lecture what he thought to be the permissive society that conservatives should oppose.[relevant? discuss]

Bad art was as good as good art. Grammar and spelling were no longer important. To be clean was no better than to be filthy. Good manners were no better than bad. Family life was derided as an outdated bourgeois concept. Criminals deserved as much sympathy as their victims. Many homes and classrooms became disorderly; if there was neither right nor wrong there could be no basis for punishment or reward. Violence and soft pornography became accepted in the media. Thus was sown the wind; and we are now reaping the whirlwind.[33]

Examples of this conservative morality in practice include the video nasties scare, where, in reaction to a moral panic over the availability of a number of provocatively named horror films on video cassette, Thatcher introduced state regulation of the British video market for the first time. Despite her association with social conservatism, Thatcher voted in 1966 to legalise homosexuality.[34] That same year, she also voted in support of legal abortion.[35] However, in the 1980s during her time as Prime Minister, Thatcher's government enacted Section 28, a law that opposed promotion of homosexuality by local authorities and the promotion of the teaching of "the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" in schools. The law was opposed by many gay rights advocates, such as Stonewall and OutRage! and was later repealed by Tony Blair's Labour government in 2003.[36][37]

However, Thatcher was one of only a handful of Conservatives to vote for the Sexual Offences Act 1967.[38]

Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron later issued an official apology for previous Conservative policies on homosexuality, specifically the introduction of the controversial Section 28 laws from the 1980s, viewing past ideological views as "a mistake" with his own ideological direction.[39]

In May 1988 Thatcher gave an address to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. In the address, Thatcher offered a theological justification for her ideas on capitalism and the market economy. She said "Christianity is about spiritual redemption, not social reform" and she quoted St Paul by saying "If a man will not work he shall not eat". 'Choice' played a significant part in Thatcherite reforms, and Thatcher said that 'choice' was also Christian, stating that Christ chose to lay down his life and that all individuals have the God-given right to choose between good and evil.

Whilst Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, she greatly embraced transatlantic relations with the US President Ronald Reagan. She often publicly supported Reagan's policies even when other Western allies were not as vocal. For example, she granted permission for American planes to use British bases for raids on Libya and allowed American cruise missiles and Pershing missiles to be housed on British soil in response to Soviet deployment of SS-20 nuclear missiles targeting Britain and other Western European nations.[40]

Towards the end of the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher (and so Thatcherism) became increasingly vocal in its opposition to allowing the European Community to supersede British sovereignty. In a famous 1988 Bruges speech, Thatcher declared that "We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them reimposed at a European level, with a European superstate exercising a new dominance from Brussels".

While Euroscepticism has for many become a characteristic of Thatcherism, Margaret Thatcher was far from consistent on the issue, only becoming truly Eurosceptic in the last years of her time as Prime Minister. Thatcher supported Britain's entry into the European Economic Community in 1973, campaigned for a yes vote in the 1975 referendum[41] and signed the Single European Act in 1986.[42]

It is often claimed that the word "Thatcherism" was coined by cultural theorist Stuart Hall in a 1979 Marxism Today article,[43] However this is not true as the phrase "Thatcherism" was first used by Tony Heath in an article he wrote that appeared in Tribune on 10 August 1973. Writing as Tribune's Education Correspondent, Heath wrote "It will be argued that teachers are members of a profession which must not be influenced by political considerations. With the blight of Thatcherism spreading across the land that is a luxury that only the complacent can afford".[44][45] although the term had in fact been widely used before then.[46] However, not all social critics have accepted the term as valid, with the High Tory journalist T. E. Utley believing that "There is no such thing as Thatcherism."[47] Utley contended that the term was a creation of Mrs Thatcher's enemies who wished to damage her by claiming that she had an inflexible devotion to a certain set of principles and also by some of her friends who, "for cultural and sometimes ethnic reasons" had little sympathy with what he described as the "English political tradition." Thatcher was not an ideologue, Utley argued, but a pragmatic politician; and he gave the examples of her refusal to radically reform the welfare state, and her avoidance of a miners' strike in 1981 at a time when the Government was not ready to handle it.

Some leftist critics such as Anthony Giddens claim that Thatcherism was purely an ideology, and argue that her policies marked a change which was dictated more by political interests than economic reasons:

Rather than by any specific logic of capitalism, the reversal was brought about by voluntary reductions in social expenditures, higher taxes on low incomes and the lowering of taxes on higher incomes. This is the reason why in Great Britain in the mid 1980s the members of the top decile possessed more than a half of all the wealth.[48] To justify this by means of economic "objectivities" would be an ideology. What is at play here are interests and power.[49]

The Conservative historian of Peterhouse, Maurice Cowling, also questioned the uniqueness of "Thatcherism". Cowling claimed that Mrs Thatcher used "radical variations on that patriotic conjunction of freedom, authority, inequality, individualism and average decency and respectability, which had been the Conservative Party's theme since at least 1886." Cowling further contended that the "Conservative Party under Mrs Thatcher has used a radical rhetoric to give intellectual respectability to what the Conservative Party has always wanted."[50]

Critics of Thatcherism claim that its successes were obtained only at the expense of great social costs to the British population.[how?] There were nearly 3.3million unemployed in Britain in 1984, compared to 1.5million when she first came to power in 1979, though that figure had reverted to some 1.6million by the end of 1990.

While credited with reviving Britain's economy, Thatcher also was blamed for spurring a doubling in the relative poverty rate. Britain's childhood-poverty rate in 1997 was the highest in Europe.[51] When she resigned in 1990, 28% of the children in Great Britain were considered to be below the poverty line, a number that kept rising to reach a peak of nearly 30% during the government of Thatcher's successor, John Major.[51] During her government Britain's Gini coefficient reflected this growing difference, going from 0.25 in 1979 to 0.34 in 1990, at about which value it remained for the next 20 years, under both Conservative and Labour governments.[52]

The extent to which one can say Thatcherism has a continuing influence on British political and economic life is unclear. In 2002, Peter Mandelson, a member of parliament belonging to the British Labour Party closely associated with Tony Blair, famously declared that "we are all Thatcherites now."[54]

In reference to modern British political culture, it could be said that a "post-Thatcherite consensus" exists, especially in regards to economic policy. In the 1980s, the now defunct Social Democratic Party adhered to a "tough and tender" approach in which Thatcherite reforms were coupled with extra welfare provision. Neil Kinnock, leader of the Labour Party from 1983 to 1992, initiated Labour's rightward shift across the political spectrum by largely concurring with the economic policies of the Thatcher governments. The New Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were described as "neo-Thatcherite" by some on the left, since many of their economic policies mimicked those of Thatcher.[55]

Most of the major British political parties today accept the trade union legislation, privatisations and general free market approach to government that Thatcher's governments installed. No major political party in the UK, at present, is committed to reversing the Thatcher government's reforms of the economy. Although in the aftermath of the Great Recession from 2007 to 2012, the then Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband, had indicated he would support stricter financial regulation[56] and industry focused policy,[57] in a move to a more mixed economy. In 2011, Miliband declared his support for Thatcher's reductions in income tax on top earners, her legislation to change the rules on the closed shop and strikes before ballots, as well as her introduction of Right to Buy, claiming Labour had been wrong to oppose these reforms at the time.[58]

Moreover, the UK's comparative macroeconomic performance has improved since the implementation of Thatcherite economic policies. Since Thatcher resigned as British prime minister in 1990, UK economic growth was on average higher than the other large EU economies (i.e. Germany, France and Italy). Additionally, since the beginning of the 2000s, the UK has also possessed lower unemployment, by comparison with the other big EU economies. Such an enhancement in relative macroeconomic performance is perhaps another reason for the apparent "Blatcherite" economic consensus, which has been present in modern UK politics for a number of years.[citation needed]

Tony Blair wrote in his 2010 autobiography A Journey that "Britain needed the industrial and economic reforms of the Thatcher period". He described Thatcher's efforts as "ideological, sometimes unnecessarily so" while also stating that "much of what she wanted to do in the 1980s was inevitable, a consequence not of ideology but of social and economic change."[59]

On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of Thatcher's 1979 election victory, BBC conducted a survey of opinions which opened with the following comments:[60]

To her supporters, she was a revolutionary figure who transformed Britain's stagnant economy, tamed the unions and re-established the country as a world power. Together with US presidents Reagan and Bush, she helped bring about the end of the Cold War. But her 11-year premiership was also marked by social unrest, industrial strife and high unemployment. Her critics claim British society is still feeling the effect of her divisive economic policies and the culture of greed and selfishness they allegedly promoted.

The dictionary definition of Thatcherism at Wiktionary

See original here:
Thatcherism - Wikipedia

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on Thatcherism – Wikipedia

How Has Liberalism Impacted Libertarianism? – Being Libertarian

Posted: at 10:10 pm

How Has Liberalism Impacted Libertarianism?
Being Libertarian
Throughout modern politics, liberalism and conservatism have dominated and overshadowed other philosophies. However, the dynamic of libertarianism and liberalism is rarely discussed. Despite common misconceptions, these two ideologies are not similar ...

See the rest here:
How Has Liberalism Impacted Libertarianism? - Being Libertarian

Posted in Libertarianism | Comments Off on How Has Liberalism Impacted Libertarianism? – Being Libertarian

We all want to live longer. But someone must pay – The Guardian

Posted: at 10:10 pm

We have long taken it for granted that the rich can privilege their offspring with unearned income on their deaths, subject only to estate duty. Photograph: Alamy

The Oxford professor of gerontology Sarah Harper this week declared that the life expectancy of a British baby born today is an astonishing 104 years. Modern medicine is lengthening the average life span by 15 minutes with every passing hour. Seventy is the new 50. Pensioner marriages aresoaring.

As a result, Harper points out, we are in the crazy situation where the young can be in education right up until their mid-20s, and then retired from their early 60s until their 90s. For over half a lifetime, people will be economically inactive, living off and not contributing to the common weal.

Longevity may be good news for people such as me, who wish, with Woody Allen, to gain immortality by not dying. But someone must pay. For most of history, old age has been a charge on families and local communities. Since there was not much of it about, the burden was sustainable. Todays old people live longer, but they are ever more voracious consumers of health and social care. The cost has been creeping up, the elderly already consuming close to half the NHS budget.

That is why the more I ponder Theresa Mays U-turn on care for the aged the more disastrous it seems. It was not just an election gaffe. It rightly challenged a critical feature of the welfare state; that there should be free care fromcradle to grave. As such it should never have been tossed into the middle of an election campaign, when the merchants of petty populism are in command. In the event, the U-turn has locked down debate for a parliament. As on national insurance, business rates and Hinkley Point, May is emerging not as a strong, stable leader, but as weak and wobbly.

Money for the care of the elderly has to come from somewhere; from general taxation or from the insurance and savings of the elderly themselves. Pundits of the actuarial sciences such as Andrew Dilnot have struggled to find an acceptable mix of subsidy, charging and insurance. None had found favour, until Mays office thought it a good idea to shock the campaign with her dramatic proposal.

She declared that the state would not have a cap on how much private assets should contribute to care costs, and she would expect those assets at risk to include houses. Only a maximum residue of 100,000 would be left in estate hands. In an age of long-term incurable diseases such as Alzheimers, Parkinsons and dementia, she and her advisers felt that to saddle the state with the cost of home care was simply unrealistic. Looking after those unable to look after themselves should revert to being what it was throughout history a family responsibility.

As the health secretary Jeremy Hunt put it: The assets that you build up over your lifetime should be used to pay for your own care costs. Where someone owns a house worth 1m or 2m, and has expensive care costs of perhaps 100,000 or 200,000, he said, it was only fair on other taxpayers for them to bear the burden. It meant that even a house worth the UK average of 218,000 would be at risk of disposal, even if disposal and payment were postponed until after death. To Hunt and May, the rich had saved against a rainy day. When it rains, they should spend.

What baffles me is that May could not see this was ideological dynamite both to the left and the right. It was, first, a substantial act of privatisation, shifting the burden of care from the welfare state to individuals and families, whose estates would be wholly at risk in the case, for instance, of prolonged dementia. It was also a substantial redistribution of wealth. The cost of incapacity in old age would fall on the state only if you were very poor. It could prove a colossal supertax on the rich.

Cynics could see the proposal popularising living wills and giving new urgency to the cause of regulated euthanasia and assisted suicide. Back in the mid-20th century, the distressed aristocracy had to donate their country houses to the National Trust, disinheriting their heirs, if they wanted to go on living in them for life. For the aristocracy, now read the property-owning middle classes; for the National Trust, read at-home care.

Despite decades of intermittent socialism, we have long taken it for granted that the rich can privilege their offspring with unearned income on their deaths, subject only to estate duty. Bequeathing assets is seen as a right attaching to the parent. The child is merely the lucky bystander. Harper points out that life expectancy is changing this. Todays children may not inherit anything until they themselves are pensioners.

Do we really believe that we accumulate savings, not to help ourselves through old age, but to enrich our children?

The trouble for Hunt, as for May, is that generous care in old age may seem unfair and even unsustainable but it is inherent to the NHS. When the explosive reaction duly occurred, Mays U-turn was the more humiliating for her assertion that nothing has changed from the principles on social care policy that we set out on our manifesto. Of course it had. She first said estates would haveopen-ended liability for the cost of elderly care. Now she says they will not. All politicians lie, but they would best not do so with their backs to the wall and the cameras rolling.

The prime minister was indeed brave in opening up a classic area of political reform, plunging into the ideological entrails of Tory privatisers and Labour egalitarians alike. She asked: Do they really think the welfare state can handle life expectancy to 100 free of charge? Do they really expect taxpayers to bear the now soaring burden of long-term care? Do they really believe that we accumulate savings, not to help ourselves through tolerable old age, but simply to enrich our children?

May has proposed a social care green paper. This will have to tackle the fiendishly difficult question of where the new cap will be fixed to place an absolute limit on the amount that people would have to pay. It should also examine the role of estates and inheritance in relieving burdens on the welfare state.

It may be misery for children to watch their future wealth drain away, as their parents fail to die. But that is what families are about. They should accept the risks and hardships that may come with the boon of longer life. Last month, May asked the electorate a challenging question that needed to be asked. Then she lost her nerve.

Continue reading here:
We all want to live longer. But someone must pay - The Guardian

Posted in Immortality Medicine | Comments Off on We all want to live longer. But someone must pay – The Guardian

New Thematic Series for BMC Immunology: Cancer Immunotherapy … – BMC Blogs Network (blog)

Posted: at 10:10 pm

BMC Immunology is delighted to announce the launch of a new thematic series: "Cancer Immunotherapy and Vaccines". Here, Guest Editor Francesco Pappalardo gives an introduction to the series and discusses the progress and the difficulties faced by researchers in the field.

Professor Francesco Pappalardo 31 May 2017

Pixabay

Vaccines are the most effective and cost-efficient weapons that can be used to prevent (preventive vaccines) or cure (therapeutic vaccines) diseases caused by infectious agents or cancer cells. Usually, when one thinks about the word vaccine, the first thought that comes into the mind is related to an artificial administration of a stimulus that instructs the immune system to fight against the cause of a particular pathological state (the pathogen). However, in the case of cancer vaccines, the main view, still unknown to the majority of the people not working in the field, is represented by the exploitation of the hosts immune system to treat or prevent cancer. The idea, however, dates back decades.

In the same way a traditional vaccine works, a cancer vaccine can promote the eradication of malignant cells during their initial transformation from safe to harmful cells. This eradication process, commonly referred to as immune surveillance of tumors [1], is carried out by the immune system and, most of the time, it happens without any external intervention. Tumors are the result of a particular combination of factors related to genetic and epigenetic changes that enable immortality.

In the same way a traditional vaccine works, a cancer vaccine can promote the eradication of malignant cells during their initial transformation from safe to harmful cells.

This is not a completely undetectable process: during the transformation of a normal cell into a malignant one, foreign antigens (neo-antigens or, to be more specific, onco-antigens) are created; these should render neoplastic cells visible by the immune system that can target them for elimination. Tumors cells, like every living organisms, want, nevertheless, to live. Hence, tumors try to become resistant and invisible to immune system attacks by developing multiple resistance mechanisms that include local immune evasion, induction of tolerance and systemic interference of T cell signaling. Besides, mimicking the metaphor of Darwins natural selection, immune recognition of cancer cells enforces a selective pressure on developing ones. This favors the development of less immunogenic and more apoptosis-resistant neoplastic cells, through a mechanism well known as immune editing [2].

Due to the fact that cancer cells are particularly good at evading any action from the immune system, most anti-cancer treatments are based on other means like surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. Nowadays, however, it is clear that the various arms of the immune system play an essential role in protecting humans from cancer. After unsatisfactory efforts and explicit clinical failures, the field of cancer immunotherapy has received a significant boost, thanks mainlyto the development in 2010of an autologous cellular immunotherapy, sipuleucel-T, for the treatment of prostate cancer [3] and the approval of the anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) antibody ipilimumab (2011) andanti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1) antibodies (2014) for the treatment of melanoma [4]. These achievements haverenovated the field and brought attention to the opportunities that immunotherapeutic approaches can offer [5,6].

The field of cancer immunotherapy has recently received a significant boost

Pixabay

There are still, however, some difficulties to be overcome when developing effective immunotherapy strategies against cancer. The general lack of understanding of the mechanisms of immunization, the role of dendritic cells, the ability of cancer to induce tolerance, and the identification of the most suitable antigens to use are just some examples of how the development of effective strategies is still problematic [7-10]. There are several biotechnological methodologies, based on both in silico and in vivo techniques, that study and suggest possible candidates for use in immunotherapies. However, they are not able, on their own, to quantify and analyze the immune system response globally. Moreover, there are now several computational techniques to predict T cell epitopes (and,to some extent, also B cell epitopes) [11,12]. Computational simulations may help in solving these issues, but these need to be integrated with the in vitro and in silico molecular analyses [13,14]. So, a complete computational/biological pipeline that allow the best integration of in silico, in vitro and in vivo methodologies may potentially boost and improve cancer immunotherapy development and effectiveness.

The aim of the thematic series is to bring together the latest advances in both biological and computational research, looking broadly at the basic biological aspects of immunotherapy, emerging immunotherapies (both prophylactic and preventive) and different vaccination approaches. The novel, and, at the same time, established character of computation in immunology greatly improves and speeds-up the development of novel vaccination strategies, both therapeutic and preventive, against cancer. We welcome original research, methodology, software, and database article submissions.

The deadline for submission of manuscripts is 30thNovember2017. For more information, visit the BMC Immunology website.

References

View the latest posts on the BMC Series blog homepage

By commenting, youre agreeing to follow our community guidelines.

Read the original post:
New Thematic Series for BMC Immunology: Cancer Immunotherapy ... - BMC Blogs Network (blog)

Posted in Immortality Medicine | Comments Off on New Thematic Series for BMC Immunology: Cancer Immunotherapy … – BMC Blogs Network (blog)

Colin McEnroe: It’s 2027, Hartford’s On The Cutting Edge – Hartford Courant

Posted: at 10:08 pm

Hartford. 2027.

The city has seen several big companies notably Aetna pull out. It has razed its old civic or XL center and ripped apart its expensive Riverfront Recapture Project. It has endured a long and painful highway reconstruction.

The city is thriving.

"Do you see those new riverfront condos? J.K. Rowling just bought one. She's not in America that much, but she doesn't like what happened to New York. She likes the pace and the creative vibe here."

The person speaking is Arunan Arulampalam, one of Hartford's two mayors. The other one is a computer.

"We're the first major city to use URBOXX, an Artificial Intelligence mayor," says Arulampalam. "As mayor, URBOXX runs 2,000 simulations per day of every city function. It has statutory authority to make micro-adjustments to save money or improve services. We're always on, always synchronous, always optimizing. There are no surprises, whether you're talking about the grand list or on-street parking. So I have more time for deep thoughts about policy."

When Aetna departed, its former campus was converted into shared "maker space," rented cheaply to designers and inventors and owned by a public-private partnership. The formerly deserted building now hums with 3D and 4D printers, holographics and hydroponics.

Very quickly, the real estate around Old Aetna became New Brooklyn a magnet for arts innovators, trend leaders and hipsters priced out of the five boroughs and the Bay Area.

"It was weird," said J. 8.0 Scallion, a transhuman restaurateur who relocated from Boston. "They had all this semi-built space they weren't using, including this fabulous old diner that has been sitting with a For Sale sign for years."

Voila, the Coasis, Scallion's edgy "scientific dining" establishment in partnership with nearby Jackson Labs. Each meal is customized for the individual diner, whose genetic and biometric data is crunched way before the celery sticks.

"Everything we were doing and thinking was wrong, but nobody knew that." So says Colin McEnroe, 72-year-old columnist for the Hartford Courant, now in the 45th year of his column.

"We were worried about big insurance companies when that industry was going to be brought to its knees. Autonomous cars are 15 times as safe as the old kind, and this generation hates owning stuff anyway. The National Public Option was essentially the end of private health insurance as we knew it. What's left for these companies to do?"

Former Aetna employees fondly known as Aefugees have drifted back into the maker spaces where they're collaborating on new products like short-span micro-insurance.

"This generation doesn't want to insure a car or a house. It wants to insure Tuesday afternoon. So we find ways to do that," explained Qi Qi, a principal in Crystal Blue Math, a three-person innovation lab in the old Georgian brick Aetna headquarters.

Across the street from the old campus is the former Cathedral of St. Joseph, now Godspace, a high-tech religious co-worship site that reconfigures itself with holographic overlays to comfort and inspire each of the 11 religious denominations that share it. When the Roman Catholic Archdiocese underwent parish consolidation in 2017, "we saw the handwriting on the apse," Auxiliary Bishop Adam Wang recalled. "We're still a Roman Catholic cathedral. In fact, using virtual reality, we can give you your choice of Catholic cathedrals from six different centuries and five different countries."

Hartford finally stopped patching up its creaky civic center, kicked its addiction to ice hockey and, in its place, put up a new state-of-the-art arena with the 10-gigabit capacity needed for new sports like competitive spectator video gaming. The new facility is operated almost entirely by robots, programmed to slide walls and seating sections around depending on the combination of events on a given night.

Tonight's bill includes an intimate concert by singer-song writer Luke Bronin, the former Hartford mayor who re-devoted himself to music when his wife Sara was named Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Murphy administration.

Bronin finished third on "America's Got Second-Career Talent," and his new album "Bro-Storm" is being heavily downloaded.

"There was a moment there in 2017 when we seemed to be planning a 1987 city," he recalled. "Thank God we ditched that idea!"

Colin McEnroe appears from 1 to 2 p.m. weekdays on WNPR-FM (90.5). He can be reached at Colin@wnpr.org.

Continue reading here:
Colin McEnroe: It's 2027, Hartford's On The Cutting Edge - Hartford Courant

Posted in Transhuman | Comments Off on Colin McEnroe: It’s 2027, Hartford’s On The Cutting Edge – Hartford Courant

Page 1,783«..1020..1,7821,7831,7841,785..1,7901,800..»