Category Archives: Transhuman News

Libertarianism"DON'T TREAD ON ME!"Likes

Militias, Capitalism, Liberty, Limited Government, Negative Rights

Statists, government

He believes in a very limited government and the individual's natural (negative) rights of life, liberty, and property. He likes the use of militias to watch them.

They technically believe in the same principles of Classical Liberalism of equality before the law and the basic rights to life, liberty, and property, along with most librights, although some people debate most Libertarians are only Libertarians because of the precise ideology and not the principles of it.

While now associated with free-market capitalism and right-wing politics, there are Left-Wing Libertarian ideologies. And thus, by this definition, Libertarianism is essentially a broad category of ideologies that all oppose large government and support civil liberties.

A narrative often held up by Left-wing Libertarians is that the term "Libertarian" was originally a socialist term, which was later appropriated by the right. This conception is a half-truth.

There are two origins of the term.

The term "Libertarian" was originally coined in the Enlightenment to describe supporters of free will (as opposed to determinism) and with it generally free action. With the first recorded usage of the term being in 1789 in reference to metaphysics. While the first political usage belongs to the Libertarian Communist Joseph Djacque who used the French word libertaire in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. As such, to say that "Libertarianism" is a strictly leftist term is not intellectually honest.

Although, it is true that the term "Libertarian" came in a wider use within left-wing circles in the 1890s as a euphemism for Anarchism, and different variations as Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho-Communism, and Anarcho-Syndicalism solid decades (Almost half a century) before the term was popularised within right-wing circles.

Although the term Libertarianism was present at the time, it acquired its current meaning that we use at the split from Liberalism before the 30s. Put simply, what was originally Liberalism split into what we now know as Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism. Although, during the campaign of Franklin D. Roosevelt the term started to be associated with the Democratism of the United States.This, in turn, created two definitions of the term Liberalism, the American definition, by which Liberalism was associated to the Democratic Party and the definition in the rest of the world Liberalism kept its meaning being borderline the same thing as modern day Libertarianism, but later, with the radicalization of the Classical Liberal circles, Libertarianism some of them prefered to stop being called Classical Liberals to adopt the term "Libertarian" completely and Classical Liberalism started to be associated to Classical Economics only while Libertarianism became closer to the Austrian School of Economics.The western definition is also closely tied to Anarcho-Capitalism, as they share similar beliefs.

While Libertarian ideals could be considered to be rooted in history since antiquity (with examples being the 6th century B.C. Chinese Philosophers Lao-Tzu and Chuang-tzu), the modern incarnation of them can be traced to the radicalisation of Classical Liberal principles that occurred through the later half of the 19th century and through the 20th.

The most influential of these 19th century movements is generally considered to be French Liberal School, of Frederic Bastiat and Gustave De Molinari fame. With the former being known for positing that law becomes unjust and corrupted when it punishes the right of self-defence of one individual in favour of other individuals' plunder and the latter for being originator of ideas that were essentially Voluntaryist.

Flag of Libertarianism

Libertarianism's design is based on the Gadsden Flag.

For more detail add "DONT TREAD ON ME" or the simpler "NO STEP" under the rattlesnake.

Excerpt from:
Libertarianism | Polcompball Wiki | Fandom

Neo-Libertarianism AliasesNeolibertarianismNeobertBootlickertarianLibertarian Neoconservatism Shapiroism

LiberventionistsNeoconservatarianism

The first neolibertarians to use the term did so in response to the Iraq War. Distancing themselves from the generally anti-war response of the mainstream libertarian movement, neolibertarians proudly set out their reasons for supporting the War on Terror and an effort to secure the freedom of the Iraqi people.

While most libertarians tend to adopt isolationist positions in issues and matters of war, neolibertarians range anywhere from ambivalent to strongly for intervention. The largest debate is actually the American Civil War, where mainstream libertarians take the side of the Confederates against the Union, generally holding that the right of secession in principle trumps other concerns. The neolibertarian position favors the Union, primarily for the reason that freeing the slaves represents a moral justification to bring down the Confederacy. The Iraq War and to a lesser extent the U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan represent ongoing disputes between these factions.

Another key difference is regards to domestic policy, where neolibertarians are strong advocates of incrementalism, i.e. making many small changes over time. By contrast, mainstream libertarians tend to advocate for drastic, almost-immediate policy changes.

Despite getting along better with Neoconservatism, they have arguments with them as well. Where neoconservatives strongly support the building of democratic governments in the wake of militarily defeated dictatorships, neolibertarians are more concerned with letting Capitalism operate after any military victory. If capitalism is allowed to operate, they argue, the former subjects of militarily defeated governments will naturally arrange governments (whatever the form) which are, if only out of political expediency, more friendly to their subjects' newfound economic freedoms and therefore much less likely to jeopardize the benefits which neolibertarians believe capitalism offers.

Flag of Neo-Libertarianism

Neolibertarianism is usually represented with a gold and black version of the NATO flag.

And you're done.

Flag of Neo-Libertarianism

Neolibertarians are often made fun of by other libertarians because of their support of foreign wars and their willingness to pay tax to the state. Subsequently, they are sometimes called "Bootlickers".

See the original post:
Neo-Libertarianism | Polcompball Wiki | Fandom

The fact is, America is a country fundamentally shaped by libertarian values and attitudes. Our libertarian values helped to create the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and those documents in turn shape our thinking about freedom and the limited powers of government. David Boaz, Who Killed Gun Control?

What is a libertarian? According to Wikipedia, libertarians wish to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association. In essence, the libertarian is anyone who upholds liberty as their core guiding principle and wants to preserve their own rights as well as the rights of others.

Libertarians also want to limit state power, albeit to varying degrees. Anarcho-capitalists want only a night-watchman state, the purpose of which is limited to protecting people from aggression, enforcing private property, and a few other aspects of private life which the free market typically doesnt concern itself with. (This is not to be confused with anarchism, an ideology that usually rejects private property.) Consequentialist libertarians who believe free trade must benefit society as a whole may tolerate greater government power if it does genuine good rather than merely hinder individual autonomy.

People hearing about libertarianism for the first time might assume its some fringe ideology. You could argue that it is, but you would have to acknowledge a large reason why: Libertarians seek to take power away from the government and not give it to anyone else. Any powerful person or organization which owes their lofty position to the status quo has every incentive to marginalize libertarianism.

Summarizing a complete political and economic philosophy in a few paragraphs is a hefty task. It took Murray Rothbard (aka Mr. Libertarian) over 300 pages to do about as much when he penned For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.

But lets set the books aside for a moment and briefly explain what libertarians believe, with the understanding that libertarians disagree on many things as well.

Libertarians believe everyone should enjoy total autonomy. Do as you please with your life. Spend it with whomever, doing whatever, wherever. Just dont forcibly interfere with anyone elses liberty and were all square.

Libertarians believe in entrepreneurialism and the free market. Innovation is wrought from passion and hard work, not duty. A government that taxes the industry is only stealing products to give to those who havent earned it. With less government control comes greater access to the free market, and more opportunity to create wealth for all.

Libertarians do not recognize official authority in most cases. The man in Washington, the man in Moscow, the man in the Vatican none of them can nullify your right to live free and independently. The libertarian rejects authoritys need to violate their rights for the greater good. To the libertarian, there is no greater good beyond the preservation of those very rights.

Why is the Libertarian Partys symbolic animal a porcupine? Because it bothers nobody and expects the same favor in return. But if you do decide to bother it, you may reasonably expect a snoot full of barbs.

No true libertarian country exists. One might argue the political ideology has a built-in kill switch, as the very people who value individualism and economic freedom seldom want to helm an organization which controls people and taxes them.

While conservatism and liberalism are espoused by Americas two dominant political parties, either of which proffers a very noisy presidential candidate every four years, libertarianism remains something of a question mark in most peoples minds.

What are the libertarian positions on the big issues? They are seldom publicly advised or officially implemented, so you have to examine them for yourself if you want greater insight into libertarian beliefs.

Democrats and Republicans both believe that a war is an awful, awful thing whenever the rival party has started one. In contrast, the libertarian is unequivocally opposed to war. At its very core libertarianism is a rejection of militarism, which by definition entails the implementation of violence to force others to do as the state wishes.

War breeds nationalism, an ideology diametrically at odds with individualism. It incentivizes corruption, as Smedley Butler elaborates in War Is a Racket, and ultimately poses a net loss to society as Ludwig von Mises explains in Nation, State, and Economy. The state at war demands its citizens to forfeit their rights and their own lives for the good of the collective. Although war invariably increases state power, its cessation almost never decreases it. And while this may go without saying, the natural rights of individuals do include not getting killed.

Libertarianism condemns war as a facet of foreign policy, yet it does not prescribe absolutist pacifism. You have every right to strike a man who is attacking you. The non-aggression principle forbids the initiation of force, not forceful defense. Likewise, many libertarians accept that war is a necessary evil in some cases. Few libertarians argue that the United States ought to have remained a British colony, and fewer still would prefer to ignore Kim Jong-un if he decided to glass San Francisco. Yet the staunchest libertarians may also advocate unwavering pacifism to the extent where war could never be an option. Whether their ideology is practicable in so hostile a world is a matter of speculation.

Most libertarians advocate for limited government not zero government as they agree some degree of official intervention is required to protect citizens from aggression, theft, and other transgressions against their private property and civil liberties.

Unfortunately, the current state of the American criminal justice system could hardly be described as limited. The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws, as Tacitus wrote, and indeed America currently has so many laws in place that most citizens would become felons if they were only formally arrested and convicted. As Hunter S. Thompson (who is not to be confused with Tacitus) once put it, In a closed society where everybodys guilty, the only crime is getting caught.

Libertarians would advocate several measures to fix the broken criminal justice system. Qualified immunity, which effectively permits government officials to violate individuals liberty, would have to go. (The Cato Institute better explains why.) So too would police unions, which make it nigh impossible to terminate terrible police officers. Libertarians also call for an immediate end to the war on drugs, as conservative libertarian Milton Friedman supported when he endorsed legalizing marijuana. (Hence why the Libertarian Party is occasionally referred to as the Dude Weed Party.)

A libertarian understands that their civil rights are not special permissions granted (or revokable) by their government. Rather, civil rights are intrinsic to humanity itself. To be born is to have the right to free speech, press, religion and so on. Certain civil rights only apply to those in special circumstances, such as the prisoners right to a speedy trial as protected by the Sixth Amendment (which is arguably violated when a criminal trial can last longer than five years).

A libertarian is soundly in favor of preserving existing civil rights as well as creating additional ones. For example, the Libertarian Party views government officials reading your emails as a very bad thing. A libertarian would also support the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, which would guarantee equal legal rights for all Americans regardless of their sex.

Equal rights are not to be mistaken for equal results, however. Friedrich Hayek explains how so in The Constitution of Liberty: From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. The equality before the law which freedom requires leads to material inequality.

Gun ownership is the civil liberty which modern liberalism likes to conveniently forget. The Republican Party is friendlier to gun rights, but not nearly enough. Many GOP supporters were unhappy when President Trump instructed the ATF to treat bump stocks as machine guns, or when he said he would think about banning suppressors.

Ron Paul summed up the libertarian view on guns like so: Nobody should tell you you cant own a gun because it might be misused. And George Orwell, a socialist of all things, explained why: That rifle on the wall of the labourers cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.

One of the libertarian ideas people often struggle with is this: Any political party or form of government has the potential to turn tyrannical. More than 250 million people were killed by their governments during the 20th century alone. Guns preserve political freedom by equipping people to fight back against the only organization which is legally allowed to kill them. In a country where gun confiscation has quite literally concluded with democide, it is crucial to remember that guns arent simply fun toys for rednecks.

Just like it places a premium on property rights, libertarianism maintains that you have total autonomy over your own body. You have the right to accept or refuse any medical treatment you wish to, just as you have the right to take any recreational drug that you please. (But if you get drunk and do something foolish, the consequences are all yours to enjoy.)

Libertarianism rejects the welfare state, including the governments nationalization of healthcare. As Walter E. Williams put it, There is no moral argument that justifies using the coercive powers of government to force one person to bear the expense of taking care of another. Thomas Sowell completed the libertarian argument against nationalized healthcare: It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.

Free-market healthcare is subject to competitive forces that continually improve medicine; government-controlled healthcare must only satisfy whichever criteria impassionate bureaucrats create for it. As is always the case, incentivizing innovation is the surest way toward progress not yoking it to government officials who are more concerned with polls than they are public health.

John Locke summed up the duty we have to children in Some Thoughts Concerning Education: Children are strangers to all we are acquainted with; and all the things they meet with, are at first unknown to them, as they once were to us: and happy are they who meet with civil people, that will comply with their ignorance, and help them to get out of it. (Not all of the libertarian movements preeminent thinkers get it quite so right. Murray Rothbards assertion that parents have no legal obligation to feed their kids can be considered frosty at best.)

The experience offered by public education suffers greatly for its dependence on tax revenue. When teachers must place the demands of government officials before the diverse needs of their students, and when the public education system indoctrinates children with whatever ideologies the dominant political party prescribes, we fail our children. Many libertarians wish to shield vulnerable children from politicians and their special interests by divorcing education from the government entirely.

You have likely noticed that we peppered this article with mentions of several people. These are the thinkers whose work you should explore if you want a firmer grasp of libertarianism. (You had better add Ayn Rand to the list while youre at it.) Keep learning, and one day soon you too may be able to bore your friends to tears with long-winded explanations as to why taxation is theft and the government should bugger off.

Link:
What Is a Libertarian? A Brief Summary of Their Beliefs

Im not going to pretend I know what critical race theory is. Refusing to do so, however, apparently puts me ahead of a lot of Nevadans.

Dont get me wrong, I have some ideas of what it might be. Im not alone in that the Washoe County school board recently sat through an 11 hour lecture on critical race theory delivered via a near-endless parade of public comment. According to some of the comments, when a vehicle with California plates parks in the school district parking lot, thats critical race theory. When God isnt mentioned in public schools, thats also critical race theory even though white people are consistently less religious than most minority groups. Birth rates plummeting below replacement levels? Thats critical race theory. Loveless sex, suicidal despair, drug abuse, pornography, sexual chaos, and the districts sexual education program behind it all? All critical race theory.

What about females getting elected to school boards? What about treason, Marxism, 19 million (wholly imaginary) dead Black babies, and (wholly imaginary) instructions on how to safely lick an anus in our school curriculum? Yes, Nevada its all critical race theory, at least according to one especially colorful public commenter improvising during open mic night at the Washoe County school district administration building.

If it seems to you like complaining about critical race theory is just a way for certain people to gripe about social changes they disapprove of, youre not alone. In certain corners of conservative punditry, in fact, this behavior is explicitly encouraged. The goal, as the Manhattan Institutes Christopher Rufo describes it, is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think critical race theory.

In other words, the current moral panic surrounding critical race theory is an explicit attempt by conservatives to motivate their political base using the worst argument in the world. Just as certain lazy libertarians like to yell Taxation is theft! with the goal of getting people to transfer their instinctive dislike of theft to taxation, conservatives are hoping people will transfer their instinctive dislike of whatever critical race theory summons in their minds upon incantation to whatever sociopolitical changes they wish to fight.

This sort of rhetorical maneuvering was easier during the Cold War when communism was an obvious villain and partisan hacks could claim everything they opposed was cultural Marxism. The Soviet Union, however, collapsed three decades ago. The best Marxism can do nowadays is mildly annoy everyone with depressing prop comedy and obnoxious teens on Twitter. The idea that a borderline-suicidal stand-up comic and COMRADE_HOXHADIST1945s twelve followers on some social media platform are going to somehow undermine anything more consequential than a household chore schedule sounds downright delusional at this point.

As complaining about cultural Marxism does little to motivate anyone who isnt actively collecting Social Security these days, conservative activists have been searching desperately for an alternative. This isnt the first time they have looked for one within the musty halls of the academic wing of the social justice movement. Brietbart.com, for example, has an entire section devoted to intersectionality. Why anyone should be worried about intersectionality, however, always requires an explanation. Critical race theory merely requires an imagination.

So what is critical race theory?

Again, Im not going to pretend I know, but I can tell you the Washington Post has a handy explainer of the concept, as well as conservative reactions to it. Thats admittedly not a primary source, however nor, for that matter, is Citizens for Renewing Americas explanation, which explicitly draws the connection in the conservative universe between cultural Marxism and critical race theory.

Subtle.

On the other hand, I can tell you were not going to find out what critical race theory is by attaching body cameras to teachers so we can all collectively surveil one others children in their classrooms. Frankly, advocating for widespread, ubiquitous surveillance of our children sounds like something straight out of George Orwells 1984 in other words, it sounds like cultural Marxism, except that its being advocated for by people who claim to be conservative. Granted, this wouldnt be the first time communist and far-right interests allied with each other, but it still seems a little counterproductive.

What I can tell you is that the term critical race theory is searched for far more often than intersectionality these days, especially (though not exclusively) in Republican-leaning states. Thats why, if I had to guess, critical race theory appears to be the latest pavlovian bell conservatives are ringing to raise funds and crowds by grabbing the attention of people whose minds race whenever they hear someone talk about race. If our school board meetings are any indication, that bell is ringing loud and clear.

Somebody should make a theory about how and why that works.

David Colborne was active in the Libertarian Party for two decades. During that time, he blogged intermittently on his personal blog, ran for office twice as a Libertarian candidate, and served on the Executive Committee for his state and county Libertarian Party chapters. He is now the father of two sons, an IT manager, and a registered non-partisan voter. You can follow him on Twitter @DavidColborne or email him at [emailprotected].

View post:
Thinking critically about critical race theory - The Nevada Independent