Archive for the ‘Libertarian’ Category

New Hampshire Is the Freest State in America. Here’s Why – Foundation for Economic Education

When the CATO Institute put out their 2021 rankings for Economic and Social Freedom in the 50 States, there was one winner in both categories overallNew Hampshire.

The self-proclaimed Free State took both categories after being overtaken by Florida in 2020. But how did it get there? What led New Hampshire, a state surrounded by Blue States and metropolitan progressives, to become the most free according to a libertarian institute. The answer is very simple: the Free State Project.

Put simply, the Free State Project is a migration movement founded in 2001 by Jason Sorens with the goal of moving 20,000 libertarians into the state of New Hampshire to change the political climate. To date, the project has brought in more than 2,000 self-identified libertarians, and it has already led to great successes in the state. Although comprising only a small number of the legislators (forty or fifty of the 424 total legislators), Free Staters exist in all parties and control enough seats to act as the swing vote. Both parties need to cater to the libertarians and liberty lovers in order to get bills passed. As a result, the project has already had incredible success at implementing libertarian policies.

To give some examples, Free Staters have helped with the passage of constitutional carry, the expansion of school choice, and the decriminalization of recreational Marijuana use. New Hampshire also has widespread cryptocurrency use, no seatbelt laws for individuals over the age of 18, no mandatory car insurance (and subsequently low insurance costs), and a low overall tax burden, having abolished the state income tax, state sales tax, inheritance tax, and capital gains tax. The culture has also changed to heavily favor homeschooling and an accessible political scene. The state has even entertained a constitutional amendment for secession from the United States.

All these factors and more have led New Hampshire to be an example of what a libertarian state could look like. The Republican Party of New Hampshire has adopted many libertarian policies, and their motto has even become the famous message Taxation is Theft.

Governor Chris Sununu has been a controversial governor in the state for his initial lockdowns, but has redeemed himself at times in his work with Free Staters. Whats more, the Granite State has passed a law that will limit the governors authority in future public health emergencies.

While the rest of the country still fights against an Administration bent on implementing vaccine mandates and other public health measures, New Hampshire has safely left the controversy of COVID-19 behind and pushed for further freedom. Out of every state in the country, New Hampshire was the only state to not accept federal funding related to COVID-19 vaccination efforts. The Granite State has even passed bills that prohibit Governmental vaccine mandates and passports, a win for the bodily autonomy of its citizens.

The Free Staters are not without their opponents, of course. A group known as Granite State Progress has gone so far as to host seminars on the issue of the Free State Project. A Democratic Representative, Cynthia Chase, has stated Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. Endorsements from major libertarians have outnumbered the few Democrats in opposition, however. Former presidential candidate and Representative from Texas Ron Paul has endorsed the project. Additionally, 2012 & 2016 Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson has thrown his weight behind the movement. Lew Rockwell, the Chair of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, has also called the state the northern capital of libertarianism.

Enthusiasm has erupted around the Free State Project, which was recently discussed on Tim Pools popular show TimcastIRL. Every year, more libertarians are moving to the state, as the need for freedom and liberty in the era of COVID has become apparent. Liberty is winning in New Hampshire.

View original post here:
New Hampshire Is the Freest State in America. Here's Why - Foundation for Economic Education

Arkansas governor’s race: What we know about the 3 front-runners – THV11.com KTHV

Chris Jones, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Ricky Harrington Jr. are currently the front-runners for their respective parties. There are eight candidates in total.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. Were just a few months away from the primary elections that will set the stage for the upcoming race for Arkansas governor.

Current Governor Asa Hutchinson can't run for re-election due to term limits, but theres a field of candidates working to take the job.

Right now, five Democrats, two Republicans, and one Libertarian are all vying to become the next governor of the Natural State.

We want to give you a chance to meet these candidates by the issues they'll govern on.

That's a lot of names to keep track of, so we looked at recent funding which shows Chris Jones, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Ricky Harrington Jr. as the front-runners in their respective parties.

The other republican candidate is Doc Washburn. The other Democratic candidates are James Russell, Supha Xayprasith-Mays, Anthony Bland, and Jay Martin.

Over the next few weeks, we'll break down how each party's highest funded candidate says they'll run their office.

Tonight, we're getting to know the candidates and their priorities when it comes to Arkansas's economy and industry.

In a crowded race for the Democratic nomination, Chris Jones is currently the highest funded candidate.

The Pine Bluff native is looking to bring his experience as a scientist into the political arena staying close to the center.

"If you really want to, like, stick a label on me, you can stick pragmatic on there. Pragmatic Democrat," Jones said.

Jones is working to refocus how issues like state spending and employment impact the individual Arkansan.

"Really I care about, as I mentioned, P, B, and J preschool, broadband, and jobs which is really education, infrastructure, and economic development," he added.

Jones said overall, he's aiming to take a closer look at how each dollar is spent to try and avoid further taxes.

When asked if there was anything Jones would mind cutting right now or anything hes taking a closer look at, he responded, It's hard to imagine the need for cutting budgets in the educational space."

Jones also said he still wants to see better support for pandemic resources, but with a more direct path to healthcare, something he's heard from frontline workers themselves.

"At the end of the day, what they said works is really providing the financial resources that they need, particularly in the areas that lack staff, that lack the support, but have the need," he explained.

On the Libertarian ticket, Ricky Dale Harrington Jr. is the sole candidate vying for the job.

You may remember his name from the 2020 US Senate race where he received more than 33% of the vote against Tom Cotton.

He's also running on a more practical platform, but he's less focused on change and more focused on maintaining the status quo.

"I'm a very pragmatic person. If it's not broke, don't fix it," Harrington said.

But he said he is looking to fix, or change, how the economy runs in Arkansas.

So, how would Harrington continue to push for growth in an industry with a worker shortage?

We need to start taking a look at circular economies. And these are economies where our waste becomes the product and attracting companies," he explained.

His focus is on securing basic needs before the state's potential for growth. He's aiming to be an option for Arkansans who feel torn at the polls.

"I'm not beholden to any party. I'm beholden to them, the people of Arkansas, regardless of their party," Harrington said. "My path forward is to meet the people where they are."

And finally, the front-running Republican candidate in this race Sarah Huckabee-Sanders.

We gave her campaign four months to do a sit-down interview, but they declined to talk to us, saying they did not have time to share her platform with viewers or have anything to contribute right now.

So we looked to the past events she's held to bring some insight on her plans if she gets the governor's job.

Huckabee-Sanders is the daughter and former staffer of past Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and, more recently, served as White House Press Secretary to former President Donald Trump.

As she exclusively told us at her campaign kickoff event this summer, she wants to focus on developing the outdoor economy.

"I think our outdoor economy is a huge advantage for Arkansas. We call ourselves the Natural State for a reason, we need to go out and own that," she said.

She also hopes to create more skill-based education opportunities.

"I think we have to change the way we look at education... We need to focus on making sure that we're actually putting them on the path to prosperity, she said.

So that when they either graduate from high school, whether it's graduating from a two-year program, a trade school, or a four-year university, they're ready to go out into the workforce."

This only scratches the surface as this series doesn't include the other candidates on the ballot.

In the coming weeks, we'll continue to explain the candidates beliefs on social issues like abortion rights, as well as healthcare concerns like vaccination mandates.

Read the original post:
Arkansas governor's race: What we know about the 3 front-runners - THV11.com KTHV

Keep Capitalists Off the Moon – Jacobin magazine

At its best, futurist thinking represents a flourishing of the human imagination. Emboldened by the invention of new technologies, artists at the turn of the twentieth century envisioned a world largely free of everyday toil, in which the work of machines would allow ordinary people to live fuller and happier lives without the grinding poverty and tedium associated with industrialization. This vision may have reflected a kind of misplaced techno-utopianism, but it was also a genuine expression of progressive thinking in a world of growing class consciousnesses and democratic militancy.

Today, what passes for futurist optimism is often more a sign of civilizational paralysis and economic stagnation the increasingly absurd billionaire space race offering us a counterfeit vision of utopian promise in the form of climate-destroying vanity flights and dystopian fanfiction about Martian colonies. Unlike earlier iterations of futurism, this plutocrat-manufactured version substitutes the transcendence of earthly inequalities for their extension into the solar system, imagining a century of space exploration planned and carried out by a tiny handful of the worlds wealthiest people. This makes sense insofar as it reflects both the prevailing logic of a top-heavy and decadent global economy and a political order incapable of accommodating real alternatives to the status quo. When a system looks exhausted but reforming it also seems impossible, the only option left is to scale up and hope it yields a better result.

Something like this is at least the implicit premise of a new report from the neoliberal Adam Smith Institute entitled Space Invaders: Property Rights on the Moon, which mounts a Lockean case for the ownership of land off-world. To researcher Rebecca Lowes credit, the argument is intellectually quite rigorous and represents a philosophically consistent application of classical liberal thinking. Noting that earlier, more universalist frameworks for the exploration of space feel less viable today than they did in the 1950s or 60s, Lowe proceeds to consider an approach that is neither nationally or globally based and would instead see individuals to attain morally-justified property rights in space.

Shes certainly correct that anything resembling the egalitarian vision of space once represented in the popular imagination by something like Star Trek looks decidedly more distant in a world of transnational competition and disempowered nation states. Shes also right to recognize that the codification of rules and regulations surrounding interstellar colonization are bound to be complex and also that debates about them will inevitably reflect unresolved disputes about the design of existing human societies.

In true libertarian fashion, the case for property rights is asserted as axiomatic and advanced as fundamentally egalitarian in spirit. Moral property rights, Lowe writes, are rights that simply reflect truths about morality, and which do not depend on positive law. While democratic nations, she argues, may be in a position to share fairly amongst their citizens the opportunities of the national appropriation of space, the existence of authoritarian societies means some will be unable to reap the off-world bounty:

Under such [national] approaches, for instance, if democratic Country A was newly allowed to appropriate a certain amount of space land, then separable parts of this amount could, for instance, be made up for grabs amongst competing citizens, on fair terms. But the same could not be expected from authoritarian regimes. There is an egalitarian argument, therefore, that the arbitrary oppression of opportunity that some individuals already face simply by being born in, or otherwise inhabiting, particular countries should not be further entrenched by a nation-focused approach to the governance of space opportunities.

Ethically speaking, its not a bad argument. Having basic egalitarian commitments, after all, implies not wanting people to be disadvantaged by the circumstances of their birth or subject to what Lowe calls arbitrary oppression of opportunity or otherwise. The irony is that market societies have such oppression built-in by design, and that modern apologists for inequality regularly invoke property rights as the preeminent justification for not eliminating it. According to this line of thinking, properly functioning markets offer everyone the same opportunities to own and to compete.

The problem, of course, is that they do nothing of the kind. Market societies are, by definition, also class societies in which a comparatively small few own and a much larger group must earn subsistence through wage labor. The latter group produces, while the former extracts rents and skims the surplus value. In lieu of radical measures like the complete abolition of inherited wealth from one generation to the next, equality of opportunity is a total mirage and markets inevitably yield social relations defined by entrenched domination.

This obviously has profound implications on its own. But its also relevant if were considering hypothetical frameworks for the future use of space. What is presently called private space exploration, after all, is in practice the domain of a few exorbitantly wealthy billionaires, and theres no particular reason to think that would change with the extension of property rights onto the Moon.

Putting aside the question of whether lunar colonization will ever be viable or commercially profitable to begin with, the inherent asymmetries in global capitalism mean that any realistic version of it will simply project structural inequality into the heavens: a small few among those who are already rich will own and profit, while others will work and attempt to subsist. (One clue in this regard was offered by none other than Elon Musk when he was asked about the high costs of transport to Mars. His answer? That those unable to afford the price of a trip could take out loans and pay them off by toiling in Martian sweatshops upon arrival.) Equality of opportunity under a system of lunar property rights is thus every bit as mythical as its earthly equivalent.

Rigorous and systematic as it is, Lowes proposal therefore suffers from a broader problem inflecting much of what passes for futurist thinking today: namely, that it remains bound up in the logics of the very status quo it promises to transcend. While virtually every era struggles to see beyond its own horizons, what the late Mark Fisher called capitalist realism arguably makes ours unique in this respect. From billionaire-led space exploration to cryptocurrency to the so-called Metaverse, the various technologies and schemes currently claiming the futurist mantle are so inexorably constrained by their allegiance to capital that they are ultimately strained of emancipatory potential.

Plutocracy is bad enough on earth. If humanity ever does expand into the heavens, lets hope its in a future that has left billionaires and class hierarchies far behind.

Read the rest here:
Keep Capitalists Off the Moon - Jacobin magazine

Deadline to change party affiliation for elections is March 31 – Shawnee News Star

Oklahomans who want to change party affiliation, must submit their change no later than March 31, Pottawatomie County Election Board Secretary, Patricia Carter said. Voters may change their party affiliation online using the OK Voter Portal at oklahoma.gov/elections/ovp or by completing a new Voter Registration Application.

Carter reminds voters that no party changes are allowed between April 1 and August 31 during an even-numbered year.

If we receive your request after March 31, we are required by law to hold that request and process it in September, Carter said.

Oklahoma has three recognized parties: Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian.

In Oklahoma, voters must be a registered member of a party in order to vote in that partys primary election. Independents are permitted to participate in a primary election, only if a party officially requests its elections be opened to Independent voters. Currently, only the Democratic Party allows Independents to vote in its primary elections.

All registered voters, regardless of political affiliation, can vote for any candidate during a General Election.

Voter Registration Applications can be downloaded from the State Election Board website at oklahoma.gov/elections. Applications are also available at the Pottawatomie County Election Board located at 330 North Broadway, Shawnee. Office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday and from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Fridays.

For questions, contact the County Election Board at (405) 273-8376 or pottawatomiecounty@elections.ok.gov.

View original post here:
Deadline to change party affiliation for elections is March 31 - Shawnee News Star

We dont know what were doing: Inside Boris Johnsons fractured Tory party – iNews

The dark cloud sitting over Boris Johnsons leadership lifted a little this week, but his party is splintering as factions compete over where it goes next.

Attention may have switched to Ukraine, and speculation over the number of backbencher letters of no confidence has subsided, with MPs back in their constituencies for the parliamentary break.

But the brief respite from the Downing Street soap opera has allowed a longer-term problem for the Conservatives to come into focus the party is wracked by division and doesnt know where it is heading.

MPs are split along a growing number of overlapping lines: big state v small state, Red Wall v Blue Wall, One Nation v libertarian right, pro or anti net zero, and Johnson loyalists v those who think its time for the PM to go in the wake of the partygate scandal.

Their leaders current vulnerability is accentuating the division. What backbenchers think suddenly matters, and Mr Johnson is finding himself besieged with requests to change tack to win their support.

Discussing the many fault lines criss-crossing the partys backbenches, one senior Tory source puts it: Boriss foundation is very wide but its not very deep, so if one bit starts to wobble the whole thing wobbles.

Thats why it can look stable one minute and chaos the next.

But this could end up saving the PM, as unlike Theresa May he is not facing a co-ordinated campaign to oust him driven by a large group of ideological bedfellows like the so-called Brexit Spartans.

Because its all these little groups, those wanting to oust Boris have to knit together so many competing interests, which is difficult, the source said.

And there is conflict between the factions, with accusations flying about some MPs exploiting the situation to force their own agenda.

Whether or not a leadership challenge comes key parts of this weakened PMs agenda are coming under pressure from different sections of the party.

In recent weeks there has been a concerted push by MPs led by right-wingers Craig Mackinlay and Steve Baker and with the backing of Mr Johnsons former Brexit minister Lord Frost for the Government to row back on its ambitious goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

It culminated in a letter to the Sunday Telegraph, signed by 29 MPs, demanding the PM lift the ban on fracking in order to harvest shale gas and bring down energy bills.

Even serving ministers are sceptical about the net-zero agenda, with one telling i it is the only thing the Government is doing.

Theres a bit of health and a bit of education when we decide to teach kids something but everything else is net zero.

We are on a hiding to nothing with it. The last 10 per cent (to get to net zero) is astronomically expensive.

Will Tanner, director of the influential Onward think tank, says his research suggests net zero could absolutely become a divisive culture war issue if not handled correctly and the Government should be under no illusions about the possibility of this turning into quite a difficult issue as people are reluctant to stomach the costs.

The idea of spending 10,000 on a heat pump or 30,000 on an electric car is both beyond the means and the political imagination of most voters, they see that as a stretch too far.

But there is also an enormous opportunity for the Government and the Red Wall voters it now serves that Tory critics largely ignore, he adds.

Mr Tanner says people in forgotten places such as Redcar, Teesside, are feeling for the first time in 30 years the benefits of highly skilled jobs associated with net zero through wind turbine manufacturing, carbon capture and other industries.

Those benefits particularly accrue to the types of areas levelling up is trying to support, he says.

Alexander Stafford, Tory MP for Rother Valley in South Yorkshire, sees the opportunity and is scathing about colleagues who want to return to fracking.

Its almost a lazy argument to say bring back fracking, he says. The more renewables we have, the more control we have over our own energy, the less control Russia and Saudi and other countries have, the less likely we are to be hit by global fluctuations in the gas price.

Mr Stafford says MPs are exploiting the leadership crisis to push against net zero, something he insists his voters care about.

There clearly is a concern that some elements of the party are using the current situation to try and force their own agenda, he says.

(The PM) actually cares about net zero, you cant fault his commitment to that and there is concern that if there is a leadership contest, others will not be as hot on it.

He implores colleagues: We cant be those Luddites smashing up spinning jennies, we want to be the country making the spinning jennies and selling them abroad.

The argument over net zero speaks to a wider battle for the soul of the party between Thatcherite libertarians who want tax cuts and a small state, and those who now see a role for big spending.

There has been a sustained campaign against plans to raise national insurance in April, which will raise the tax burden to its highest level in decades in order to increase funding for the NHS and social care.

Veteran Tory backbencher John Redwood complained of a tax attack, while Lord Frost once an apolitical diplomat but now a champion of Tory free-marketeers remarked this week that big government was not just wrong but in many ways comic.

The PMs allies have responded to this, with his new No 10 chief of staff Steve Barclay pledging to cut the size of government.

But among the newer cohort of Conservative backbenchers, however, most have been more keen to secure Government spending in their seats. And, with some influential voices suggesting that prosperous Southern seats could be sacrificed to preserve a Red Wall-based majority, might Mr Johnson have changed his party forever?

One MP says: Im not a libertarian, its more important to strengthen public services than cut taxes.

The shift in attitudes towards public spending is perhaps most clearly seen in the new Tory approach to welfare, with many MPs recently campaigning, unsuccessfully, to keep the pandemic-linked 20 universal credit uplift.

One MP says Covid-19 has helped drive a sea change from the austerity era, and spark a recognition that government has a role to play in helping people to help themselves.

They added: Obviously there is a strong libertarian free market element [in the Conservative Party] but I think theres a recognition that there is an umbilical cord between the British people and our health service, and there is a push from lots of colleagues for spending on education, individual seats, schools and new hospitals and roads, which would probably not have happened in the past.

It isnt just pork barrel, its a kind of belief we need a mixed economy. Its not about big government or small government, its about good government.

Mr Tanner says tension is inevitable when Mr Johnson is pursuing economy-changing agendas such as net zero and levelling up, but he stresses: We are not in the 1980s.

And Mr Baker, the maverick ex-minister known for his campaigning nous, has partially admitted defeat in his bid to drive the party back to its small-state instincts.

Addressing activists recently, he said: I am a free-market Conservative who must compromise every day. There is not a libertarian caucus in the party.

Others believe levelling up and a small state are achievable together but stress Mr Johnson should put the brakes on spending for now given the 400bn black hole in the public finances and high tax rates.

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, treasurer of the powerful Tory backbench 1922 Committee, says: After spending 400bn on Covid, you cant run before you can walk, you can only spend what youve got.

Elsewhere, Mr Johnsons forays into right-wing populism such as his false claims about Sir Keir Starmer are going down badly among One Nation MPs, with at least two submitting letters of no confidence in him criticising the remarks.

One MP says there is a definitely a tension between those MPs facing Labour and those MPs facing the Lib Dems, and with generally different demographics.

They say: This comes back to the leadership you need someone who can unite both. At the last election Boris managed to straddle those two camps but the question is who is going to straddle the camps now?

They suggest the Tories may have to do some really clear thinking about which seats to target in future, as it may be impossible to keep all of the current voter coalition happy.

One minister suggests sacrificing well-off southern seats that face a Liberal Democrat challenge.

It would be better to just put the other guys [Labour] in and let them f*** it up and come back with more of an idea of what we want to do, they said.

We dont need a majority of 80, we need a majority of 40 you cant keep hold of Chipping Barnet and Blyth valley.

But the minister also has a bleak assessment of his partys position: We dont have any [ideological] mooring, we dont know what were doing.

Read more:
We dont know what were doing: Inside Boris Johnsons fractured Tory party - iNews