Mediaboss Marketing

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

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

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

The biggest difference between libertarian and liberal is their belief in how involved government control should be in our societies. They both are forms of distinct political ideologies during the late 20th century.

The former belief is in a political philosophy that addresses freedom of choice and free will. In contrast to later whose primary goal is to use diplomacy to meet global peace.

They have some similarities due to which people consider them as synonyms of one another. Both the terms safeguard the rights of citizens and should not be forced into arbitrary groups. Their major differences have cropped up after the year 1800.

But, despite the above-mentioned similarities, this article will teach you the difference between libertarian and liberal. Lets look at Libertarian Vs Libertarian individually first.

Libertarianism wants little or no intervention from the Central or state government for their affairs. It aims to maximise political freedom and autonomy with voluntarism and freedom of association. It embraces the vision of political liberty and calls it a revolutionized state.

It is a close mix of modern economies, and its theories. The principles of libertarianism have their roots in the Enlightenment. The term Enlightenment was a tradition older than human civilization. It deals with natural rights that have nothing to do with any third party, individual, or group.

They believe that politics is making society worse for the sake of money and power.

According to libertarianism, acquiring wealth from economic means is a crucial aspect of a moral society. Moreover, they solve the problems with peaceful interactions with no violence.

Pure libertarians believe that the government should not interfere in the issues based on social and economic principles.

Liberalism deals with a political philosophy that supports individual liberty and self-determination. The thinkers believe that they have the right to choose any society they wish to live in without the governments interference.

They have a more sort of fiscal policy rather than the business.

It is a person who tries to uphold the importance of liberty with wide support. It is done by following some of the following groups of principles.

The followers of classical liberalism may promote civil rights, democratic societies, gender, and equality.

According to John Locke, all individuals are free to head the right to life. They are only in a view to promoting democracy as it is the only alternative to absolute monarchy.

There is a huge contrast between the modern-day Libertarian vs. Liberal communities in the history of modernization. The differences between the ideologies are as follows

Libertarians believe that the government should not interfere with the monetary transactions between the two parties. They favor big and established companies over startups.

Liberals favor government control in the economic area to determine the income and expenditure of the people. It can lift some people out of poverty. By doing this, they tend to create more equality and remove the class barriers from society.

Libertarians pay attention to words of individual freedom and ability. We cannot mistreat the process of training and treating people for any social or economic reason. They believe in peace because violence causes destruction and widespread death.

Liberals believe that there is a huge importance of sending foreign aids, not for opposing democratic rules, but for helping out.

According to the Libertarians, people should not be sent to jail for drug consumption as the government has to see what substances people use. Also, penalties for crimes and assault should be changed.

Liberals see such people as a threat to society and its inhabitants who must be eradicated as they are threatening the freedom of other people as a whole.

Conservatism sees criminals as threats to society who must be eradicated because they threaten everyone elses freedom.

Liberalism takes a softer approach and tries to see the good in everyone. Whereas, Conservatism sees criminals as threats to society who must be eradicated.

Libertarians believe that all citizens must have the right to move their products and services across the world. This should be done without imposing unnecessary tariffs and duties as it will lead to more international trade. The less the government interferes with trade, the more opportunities for individuals to build their wealth.

On the contrary, the Liberals feel that one should have no right or control over what comes and goes from the country.

Libertarians believe that it is the right of an individual to choose their treatment provider. Keeping in mind the harsh regulations by the companies and medical labs, they believe that aproper system should protect the malpractices.

So, Liberals leave the medical procedure in the hands of the government. This is because of inflated prices and monopolization consequences of individual medicines. They want complete government control over their medical procedures.

Libertarian society wants certain rights in the society regardless of their social standing in the group. Some of the rights include:

In contrast to the Liberals, they feel that everyone can do what their heart desires. But, it is the responsibility of the government to enforce and overlook the whole situation so that it cannot be mistreated.

This is how libertarianism argues that they should be left alone without heavy political influence from the government.

Both ideologies believe in preserving the rights and liberty of all individuals. They both remove the influence of powerful authorities to fight for modern battles.

Have you seen the root cause and difference between the Libertarian vs. Liberal? Both the terms are different, with some fundamental beliefs supporting their differences.

Link:
Libertarian Vs Liberal - What Is The Difference? Johnny ...

The new right-wing deputy Javier Milei, raffled this Thursday his second salary as a legislator. On this occasion, the raffle was won by Jonatan Lewczuk, an audiovisual producer who works for the City Government.

Like some Pro leaders, Lewczuk sympathizes with Mileis ideas. Im following you to death, he told her when the deputy called him to inform him that he had won the award.

This time I play on our side, Milei told the press. The winner will take the sum of 369,828.99 pesos.

It should be noted that, a month ago, Federico Nacardo had won the first draw that Milei orchestrated. Far from having sympathy for the far-right leader, Nacardo had signed up for the contest at the insistence of his partner and assured that he will use a large part of the money to pay off debts.. We will continue to feed the financial system, he closed on that occasion, before a stunned Milei.

After the existing doubts about the management and protection of personal data requested by the economist to be able to register for his salary draw, weeks ago an anonymous user assured to put the sale the database of more than a million participants in an internet forum, allegedly from hackers, in exchange for little more than 10 thousand dollars.

The protagonist of the new chapter in the novel by the legislator of Avanza Libertad is H4ck3rArgentino, a user who at 3 oclock in the morning on Wednesday offered for sale Argentinian Deputy Milei database (database of the Argentine deputy Milei): according to what he assured, the ID and number of the candidate, names and surnames, email and document number of all the people who signed up. That is to say, 1,040,622 people, according to the post made in the same forum that, days ago, published the sale of data from the National Registry of Persons (ReNaPer). The alleged data package is offered in exchange for $10,500.

Sources from the computer security sector assured Page 12 that the supposed leak generates a series of doubts. On the one hand, the required cost per user was too high and the user who made the offer had been created just a few hours before publication.

The draw generated the National Directorate for the Protection of Personal Data open a process to investigate if the organization had taken measures to guarantee the privacy of the data of the participants, as well as to determine if there was a violation of Law 25,326 on the Protection of Personal Data.

See the original post:
This time the draw for Javier Milei was won by a libertarian: "He played on our side" - Then24