Mediaboss Marketing

Libertarians want absolute freedom in all circumstances, even if this means reducing governmental amenities and retracting technological advances.

Libertarians by nature detest impositions by governments and financial institutions.

Right wing libertarians such as Ron Paul dislike complex economic systems and have called for a return to the gold standard a financial arrangement removed in the 1930s.

The gold standard was system where the value of a currency was defined in terms of the amount gold represented by the exchange of paper currency a system discarded by many countries in the Depression era.

These days, bankcards and computer-generated apps are replacing cash and the libertarians are typically upset.

Bankcards and ATMs have a long history in Saskatchewan dating to the 1970s.

Saskatchewan and Alberta had the first financial institutions on the Canadian Prairies to use card-based, networked ATMs beginning in June 1977.

Later, credit unions in Saskatchewan introduced debit cards, which were usable wherever credit cards were accepted in 1982.

By the 1990s, most of us were carrying bankcards in our wallets and purses. Bank websites were supplanting personal interactions with tellers at regional branches since the early 2000s.

Digital payments gained partiality over banknotes in the 2010s, as recorded in article by the Independent in May 2015.

PayPal, digital wallets like Apple Pay, contactless and NFC payments by electronic cards and smart phones are preferred for transactions in 2020.

Electronic payments can be insecure, mismanaged and data can be easily stolen.

Yet, the convenience of electronic cash is obvious, even if the libertarians dont agree.

Security measures for electronic payments are improving, as we buy groceries, gas, cigarettes and other goods with bankcards and apps, instead of pulling out masses of coins and bills from our pockets to spread over shop counters.

Electronic cash transfers are the bedrock of modern personal finance, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, when cash is considered grimy and disease-bearing.

Although COVID-19 is a genuine threat, the growing apprehension over physical cash is ridiculous.

According to SCOOP Business in June 2020, There is no evidence linking cash to the transmission of COVID-10. Cash is sanitized before being delivered by cash companies to venues and ATM operators.

To have cash as an option for buying goods and services, instead of being solely reliant on electronic payments, will always be desirable.

Sometimes, cash is the only option with services such as coin laundromats.

Cash is defended by a libertarian group known as Cash is Legal Tender, but these Luddites are more than champions of banknotes and coins.

From reading several posts, these libertarians on the far right share French philosopher Michel Foucaults ideal of personal ethics in favour of the collective a development founded upon Nietzschean self-creation.

Foucault believed all human-led organizations had grown far beyond the needs of the individuals who were engaged with them.

Thus, Foucault decided the participants in society were trapped in games of power.

But the pro-cash libertarians arent gathering online to discuss French poststructuralism and German nihilism. More exactly, the online, anti-bankcard sect are using social media to disperse the views of American pop culture paleoconservatives like Tucker Carlson, who once shared their libertarian ideas on economics long before he became a Trumpist.

The Cash is Legal Tender sect are right in defending cash but their denunciation of organized societies is alarming and meaningless.

Society funds libraries, schools, roads, electrical grids and other public aims. Without communities, weve returned to the Hobbesian age of fear, loathing and self-interest.

Governmental organizations on all levels often misrepresent society but the outright rejection of society is short-sighted and founded on ignorance.

Critical theorist Jrgen Habermas accused Foucault and other like-minded postmodern libertarians as uncaring individualists disguised as philosophers who disdained the constraints of governments, but in turn scorned progressive ideals such as emancipation and equality in a 1981 paper he wrote titled Modernity versus Postmodernity.

Habermas disliked Foucaults libertarianism but like Foucault, the German philosopher and sociologist hated dictatorships. Habermas promoted the idea of a public sphere, where societies were occupied in public debates and where every citizen had access to forming public opinions a superior ideal compared to Foucaults nihilistic individualism.

Cash is Legal Tender are spot-on for defending banknotes and coins we still need cash for payment alternatives, but the groups libertarian-based fears about governments, societies, technology and globalism are mistaken and conspiratorial.

See the original post:
We're a cashless society now and the libertarians are nervous - Assiniboia Times

This story originally appeared on PA Post.

Musician Kanye WesttweetedSaturday night that he intends to run for president in 2020. He has not formed a campaign committee, filed the necessary paperwork with the Federal Election Commission,or, for that matter, done anything since Saturday to indicate he will follow through on the announcement.

But, just hypothetically, what would it take for him to get on the ballot in Pennsylvania?

Thanks to arelatively recent court settlement, not as much as it used to.

After six years of litigation, Pennsylvanias minor parties the Libertarian, Constitution, and Green parties reached a settlement with the Department of State in 2018 to lower the threshold for ballot access to 5,000 signatures for presidential candidates and 2,500 signatures for all other statewide offices (except governor and U.S. senator, which would require 5,000, but are not on the ballot this year).

Previously, third party and independent candidates needed to get enough signatures to amount to two percent of the statewide electorate, a number that often reached into the tens of thousands. That was a barrier to candidates from outside the two major parties.

If Im not spending months on end trying to fight to get on the ballot, well then we can spend all of our time campaigning and talking about the ideas with voters and debating with each other, so that the election is actually what its supposed to be, Dale Karns, the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate in 2018,toldThe Philadelphia Inquirer.

Before the 2018 settlement, a federal judgeruled in 2015that the Commonwealths ballot access requirements violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by placing an unequal burden on non-major party candidates. The court then imposed interim guidelines that, in some cases, required signatures to come from multiple Pennsylvania counties. Under the settlement the parties reached in 2018, however, no such county-based requirements exist.

For presidential candidates, the candidatemust also name 20 electors(as well as their occupations and place of residency) at the time their petition is filed.

The deadline to submit paperwork for the 2020 general election is August 3. The filing fee is $200.

Read more:
What would it take for Kanye West to get on the ballot in Pennsylvania? - WHYY

Were all socialists now, apparently. No, really it turns out even the most rugged of the free marketeers have been coaxed by the coronavirus to fall into the government safety net.

The national press has been filled with stories this week about how the well-connected, the billionaires, the white-shoe lobbying firms and the most anti-government think tanks all got relief money under Congress $2 trillion coronavirus rescue act.

The latter includes no-new-taxes activist Grover Norquist, who infamously wants to drown the government in the bathtub. Also the libertarian Ayn Rand Institute, and anti-debt crusader Citizens Against Government Waste. All these groups that pillory big government suddenly found common cause in lining up to get a piece of one of the biggest government spending programs of all time.

And Im actually OK with that. Its what it was for to provide a measure of relief to businesses in need, of any and all types. The Seattle Times got a Paycheck Protection Program loan, too and we definitely didnt head into 2020 thinking wed be the recipient of government aid.

But I wonder whether this awkward moment will spark any internal reflection about the lift-yourselves-by-your-bootstraps, no taxes ever mantra that dominates the conservative political world.

Take, say, Washington states own free-market think tanks. The Washington Policy Center, a Seattle-based conservative group, got between $350,000 to $1 million from the federal relief program (the loans, which can convert to forgivable grants, were reported in ranges in data released Monday).

Meanwhile, heres the philosophy the think tank uses to describe itself in its annual reports:

We dont receive government money. We dont ask for it and we wouldnt take it even if it were offered. WPC relies on the generous support of our donors people like you who understand that free-markets are superior to a government rigged economy, and liberty is the air that a free people must breathe.

Except for this one time, I guess. To keep on breathing those liberty vapors required being put on a government ventilator.

Or take the Freedom Foundation, a business-backed outfit out of Olympia. Its been rallying against government spending and taxes since the early 1990s. Recently its been on a jihad against unions. During the pandemic it has called for governors to halt all public-sector union dues payments, on the grounds the union organizations dont need the money and the workers do.

But unions specifically werent eligible for the paycheck protection program, so they were left to fend for themselves. Not so the Freedom Foundation, though it got between $350,000 to $1 million from the federal relief fund, records show.

We have a vision of a day when opportunity, responsible self-governance, and free markets flourish in America because its citizens understand and defend the principles from which freedom is derived, the Freedom Foundation says on its website. We accept no government support.

Maybe just this one eensy-weensy time.

The laissez-faire capitalist Ayn Rand Institute, in California, went still further, rationalizing that going on the dole this one time would somehow strike a moral blow against big government.

It would be a terrible injustice for pro-capitalists to step aside and leave the funds to those indifferent or actively hostile to capitalism, it explained in a statement, titled To Take, or Not to Take.

Look, Im a capitalist too, but what a crock all that is. As I said up top: Its fine for any qualified business or association to get the relief money. Yes, even Kanye West, whose Yeezy clothing and footwear line got between $2 million and $5 million. Even the paid anti-government scolds. The programs point was to disperse the money as rapidly and widely as possible, to keep the economy somewhat functioning during this pandemic. It did that to more than 16,000 businesses in Washington state alone.

But To Take, or Not to Take that is not the question. The coronavirus has shown, if nothing else, that we all sometimes need a little boost. We have just been treated to a national case study in how we all depend on strong governmental social and health safety nets and not only when theres a pandemic.

This is not about taking at all, or shouldnt be. Its about giving back paying for basic good government and then, sometimes, when you need it, receiving help.

So can we at least dispense now with the breath of liberty canards? The drowning the government in the bathtub nonsense? The whole no-tax bluster?

Because now we know: Even groups that put freedom right in their name have apparently concluded theyre A-OK with some big-government, debt-financed, taxpayer-backed collectivism after all.

Here is the original post:
Local anti-tax groups find even they need big government aid sometimes - Seattle Times

Buy Photo

Voters across Wayne County participated in the 2020 primary election on Tuesday, June 2, 2020.(Photo: Jason Truitt/Palladium-Item)

EDITOR'S NOTE: This story has been updated to reflect there are two contested races for county-wide offices in the Nov. 3 general election. Information given to the Pal Item by the Wayne County Voter Registration Office on Monday was incorrect.

RICHMOND, Ind. Wayne County voters will have just two county-wide races to decide in the November election after Monday's deadline to fill ballot vacancies came and went with only one new candidatestepping forward to run for office.

Last month's primary electionfeatured a handful of contested races for county offices on the Republican side but none for Democrats. In fact, just one Democratic candidate had signed up at all.

That would be C. Yvonne Washington, who will take on the incumbent county clerkRepublican Debra Berryin the Nov. 3 general election.

Political parties had until noon Monday to fill any ballot vacancies left over after the primary election. It also was the deadline for anyone wishing to run as a write-in candidate to declare.

Libertarian Robert Brent Meadows was the only addition to the races for county offices. He'll face Republican Kevin Fouche for coroner. Fouche is running to return to the position after eight years away. Meadows competed for the Republican nomination back in 1996, finishing second in a five-way race.

RELATED:Libertarian Party adds candidate to race for Wayne County coroner

With no others being added to the general election ballot, several Republicans now can begin to make plans to take county office next year. That list includes:

The lack of contested races at the county level doesn't mean there won't be plenty of reasons for local residents to vote this fall.

In addition to contests for president, U.S. representative, governor and state attorney general, many seats on local school boards also will be up for grabs. Filling for those races will begin Wednesday, July 22 in the Voter Registration Office at the Wayne County Courthouse and run through noon Friday, Aug. 21.

If you haven't registered to vote yet, you still can do so through Monday, Oct. 5. If you aren't sure whether you already are registered, you can check your status atindianavoters.in.gov.

Jason Truitt is the team leader and senior reporter at the Palladium-Item. Contact him at(765) 973-4459 orjtruitt@pal-item.com.

Read or Share this story: https://www.pal-item.com/story/news/local/2020/07/06/election-2020-just-1-county-wide-office-contested-november/5382761002/

Read more here:
Wayne County will have just 2 county-wide offices up for election in November - Palladium-Item

Posted Jul 8, 2020, 11:03 am

Jeremy DudaArizona Mirror

TheSecretary of State's Office found reasonable cause that the GoldwaterInstitute, a Phoenix libertarian think tank and litigation center,violated a law requiring lobbyists to register with the state.

Sambo Dul, the state elections director for Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, referred the matter to the Attorney General's Office on Tuesday.

Dul'sfindings came in response to a complaint filed by an attorney with thelobbying and consulting firm HighGround, which clashed with GoldwaterInstitute over the issue of fees that Phoenix imposed on ride-hailingcompanies like Uber and Lyft that operate at Sky Harbor InternationalAirport.

JeffKros, an attorney at HighGround, filed a complaint with the secretaryof state in February arguing that two Goldwater Institute employees,Jonathan Riches and Christina Sandefur, should have to register asauthorized lobbyists because they testified in legislative committees infavor of a bill that would have barred cities from imposing additional fees on ride-hailing servicesthat operate at airports. HighGround represents the City of Phoenix andthe League of Arizona Cities and Towns, both of which opposed the bill.

Statelaw defines lobbying as "attempting to influence the passage or defeatof any legislation by directly communication with any legislator." Adesignated lobbyist is the person who is the "single point of contact"for an entity that engages in lobbying, while an authorized lobbyist isany other person who lobbies for that entity.

TheGoldwater Institute has long been an active player at the Capitol, andits employees testify frequently in committees. But the organizationonly has one person registered as a lobbyist with the secretary ofstate's office, and it contends that people like Riches and Sandefurdon't need to register because they fall under various exemptions.

However,Dul concluded that none of the exemptions applied, and said Riches andSandefur should have registered as authorized lobbyists for theGoldwater Institute.

TheGoldwater Institute argued that Riches and Sandefur were testifying asexperts on the issues at hand, and therefore fell under a lobbyistregistration exemption for people who testify to provide technicalinformation or answer technical questions. But Dul rejected that claim.

"Basedon the content of their testimony, Mr. Riches and Ms. Sandefur were notacting in the capacity of individuals who provide technicalinformation, but rather that of policy advocates urging legislators toadopt a desired position," Dul wrote.

Statelaw exempts "natural persons" who speak only for themselves fromregistering as lobbyists. And even though Riches and Sandefur registeredas supporters of the bill representing themselves, they identifiedthemselves in their testimony with their titles at the GoldwaterInstitute and repeatedly referenced "we" or "our" position on thelegislation.

Whilethere is an exemption for lawyers who are representing clients, Dulfound that Riches and Sandefur, both of whom are attorneys, were notactually representing clients when they testified. And though there's anexemption for members of an association, she concluded that theexemption wasn't applicable in this case.

AndDul rejected the Goldwater Institute's argument that requiring it toregister employees who testify in legislative committees as lobbyistswould infringe on its First Amendment freedom of expression or its rightto participate in government.

"Inthis case, requiring the Goldwater Institute to list employees aslobbyists before those employees appear before committees is minimallyintrusive, and would do nothing to limit their access to the committeesor the ability to communicate their desired message," Dul wrote.

Dulnoted that, in order to register additional employees as lobbyists, anorganization such as the Goldwater Institute that is already registeredwith the secretary of state need only fill out an online form and submitit within five days of the lobbying activity.

Kros was pleased with the secretary of state's findings.

"Allwe think is everybody should follow the same rules," he said, echoing acomplaint that some lobbyists at the Capitol have voiced about theGoldwater Institute for years.

The Goldwater Institute disagreed with Dul's findings and is still reviewing them, spokeswoman Jennifer Tiedemann told Arizona Mirror.Tiedemann said the nonprofit organization engages in policy analysis,education and litigation, and its employees spend the bulk of their timedeveloping and analyzing policy and litigating cases.

"Wehave one employee who lobbies for Goldwater, and she is registered. Onrare occasions, other staffers come to the Capitol at her request toprovide expert testimony, but they are not lobbyists. And, of course,none of these employees are making lobbying expenditures, which is theprimary purpose of the lobbying registration statutes," Tiedemann said.

TheAttorney General's Office confirmed that it received Dul's referral,which will be handled by its governmental accountability unit. AttorneyGeneral Mark Brnovich worked for the Goldwater Institute from 2003-2005.Spokesman Ryan Anderson said Brnovich won't be involved in theinvestigation, and noted that the attorney general has clashed severaltimes with the Goldwater Institute in recent years.

Ifthe attorney general finds that the Goldwater Institute must registerits employees and it fails to do so, it could face a fine of up to$1,000. Knowingly violating the lobbyist registration requirement is aclass one misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a fineof up to $2,500.

TheGoldwater Institute has long resisted calls to register its employeesas lobbyists. It registered one person for the first time in 2011, but declined a request by then-Secretary of State Ken Bennett to register more of its employees.Over the past decade, there have been times when the institute hadmultiple employees registered as lobbyists at the same time. Currently,only Jenna Bentley, the organization's director of government affairs,is registered as a lobbyist.

This report was first published by the Arizona Mirror.

- 30 -

Read the original here:
Secretary of state: Goldwater Institute attorneys should have registered as lobbyists - TucsonSentinel.com