Mediaboss Marketing

I am a libertarian. I'm generally supportive of a very limited government that performs a few necessary functions. Redistributing wealth and bailing out folks from their own misadventures are not among those necessary functions of a limited government. If the government is going to provide a social safety net, it should try to design it so that it does not incentivize unproductive behavior and does not waste public resources.

Those considerations do not apply to the current debate over federal appropriations to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The government should just send the checks. Quickly and with minimal red tape. Means testing and complex fade outs are not what is useful in the moment. The immediate crisis calls for relief, plain and simple.

It is certainly the case that some on the left want to use the present moment to launch expansive new social programs. Those debates can wait until another day, and politicians on the left are doing no one any favors by trying to exploit the crisis by tying aid to a host of onerous restrictions or attempting to erect new permanent programs. Crises are often exploited to expand the state, and we should be vigilant in resisting such efforts.

Likewise, there are those on the right who have fallen into familiar routines of resisting any government assistance as a hand-out, packaging government assistance as a tax cut, or tying government assistance to their own favored set of conditions and exceptions. If we were discussing a new permanent social program, then such design details would matter a great deal and should be central to the debate, but we are not.

In the present moment, the government itself has ordered businesses to stop operating. The global pandemic has brought economic activity to a standstill in ways that could not have been anticipated or adequately planned for by responsible private actors. With good reason, the government has disrupted people's livelihoods and restricted individual activity for the sake of the common good. Even if we were to think the government has been misguided in some of the steps it has taken, the fact remains that the government has taken steps that have unavoidably done substantial economic damage.

In such circumstances, the government should compensate individuals for the damage it has wrought and relieve individuals from the unforeseen burdens that they have been asked to assume. What individuals earned last year has no bearing on what their current needs are given the government-ordered lockdown. The more complex and burdensome the government makes any financial assistance that it offers, the less effective it will be in mitigating the economic costs of the pandemic and relieving people of their current suffering from the effort to contain the pandemic. The more complex the policy the government attempts to design, the longer it will take to reach agreement on what to do, the more difficult and time-consuming the implementation will be, and the greater the uncertainty and economic disruption that the government will be creating. The more complex and nuanced the policy the government attempts to design, the more room there will be special-interest favoritism and rent-seeking cronyism.

The government's current efforts to lockdown social and economic activity in order to stem the spread of the disease will necessarily rely heavily on voluntary compliance. The state might be able to effectively quarantine some individuals or isolated areas, but it cannot for any extended period of time shut down the country. People will voluntarily assume some individual burdens for the collective good if the necessity of doing so is clearly explained and those burdens are not too onerous. The government cannot expect people to assume those burdens forever and cannot expect them to take truly heroic actions. The government needs an exit strategy from the current policy of containment, and that will eventually require extensive testing, tracking and individual quarantine. In the meantime, the government needs to minimize the damage and maximize the efficacy of the current containment strategy, and that requires relieving individuals from immediate financial uncertainty.

The government has instantly thrown millions of people out of work in what was previously a full-employment economy. There will be unavoidable economic consequences to that, and the government can only take steps to mitigate those consequences. It should, however, act as quickly to provide financial support for those adversely affected by the societal lockdown as it has to impose that lockdown. If the government had been more fiscally responsible in the past, we would be in a better position to take the necessary steps now. But we cannot fix past mistakes by closing our eyes to current needs.

Even a libertarian should support a simple, temporary program of massive relief to be immediately phased out as soon as the crisis has passed so as to collectivize the hardship of fighting this common foe and insure as smooth a transition as possible to the post-epidemic situation.

Original post:
Just Send the Checks - Reason

New Hampshires Longest Running Regular Libertarian Social Meetup

Its an outrageous order and contrary to a basic right of humans, which is the right to assemble. Its also a violation of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In order for many humans to be happy, they need to be around other people. We are a social animal. Now the people calling themselves the state or the government have decided to threaten everyone with violence if they dont do as they are told and OBEY for their own good, of course.

Normally, libertarians are skeptical of the things they are told by government goons, however weve seen yet another schism in the movement in the last few weeks over this Coronavirus scare. Apparently if an authoritarian puts on a lab coat then many libertarians will fall under their spell.

I dont know if Coronavirus is the threat the government and media are making it out to be. I do know this, however:

1. Politicians and bureaucrats lie. Theres no reason to believe they are telling the truth now. There is a long history of governments manufacturing a crisis and spreading fear in order to attain more power. We saw this in a big way prior to Coronavirus in the hysterical paranoia fostered by the state after 9/11. As a result we saw the rise of Homeland Security and the further elimination of freedom. The response to Coronavirus is even worse. In some cases like San Francisco people are under total lockdowns. They also use the term lockdown in prison.

2. Media benefits when it propagates fear. If it bleeds, it leads! News is a business. They have advertisers, so the more people they can get to tune in, the more valuable the ad space. If people are in a state of fear, they are more likely to hang on through that next commercial break. Plus, mainstream news sources depend on government for its press releases and usually incorporate them, verbatim, into their on-air copy. Though in theory their job is to expose political corruption, if they are too good at this, the state agents will not talk to them any longer and then they wont get the scoop, so any critique of government from mainstream media is usually highly limited.

3. Whenever government takes more freedoms, it doesnt cede that ground back to liberty after the crisis has ended.

Keene Bitcoin Meetup

I do know this, people are obedient and more than willing to do what they are ordered by people wearing fancy hats, uniforms, and lab coats. They are easily frightened into giving up their freedoms, all for the promise that theyll be able to continue to suck air.

However, what is the point of living if you cant make your own choices?

Thankfully, not everyone is living in fear. There are occasional breaks in the fear porn news to reveal that many younger people are still getting together. In New Hampshire some heroic folks have filed a lawsuit against the State of New Hampshire over the governors unconstitutional and anti-freedom executive order.

If people across New Hampshire dont stand up and take back their liberties, then we no longer deserve the live free or die slogan. To that end, in spite of Sununus order, the longest-running weekly social gathering of libertarians in New Hampshire, Social Sundays will continue. Previously held at Local Burger on Main St, it has moved to the Bitcoin Embassy NH located at 661 Marlboro St. in Keene. The new start time is now 5pm. Attend at your own risk and bring your own food and drink. If the event gets to over 51 people a special prize will be awarded. No cops allowed.

More here:
The Right to Assemble Not Erased By Government Emergency Libertarians to Continue Meeting in Keene Sundays at 5pm - Free Keene

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is notorious for being a principled voice for limited constitutional government. Even better, he amuses us with how swiftly he induces tantrums among the political establishments flunkies.

Aside from President Donald Trump, its Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who is usually the face of evil for liberals. But on Tuesday night, an NBC News story, based on two anonymous McConnell-linked sources, redirected the ire squarely on Paul.

What did the libertarian ophthalmologist-turned-politician do to deserve this? He did his job.

Paul proposed an amendment to the coronavirus bill being rushed through the Senate after passing the House 363-40. For those keeping track, libertarian-leaning Republican Thomas Massie didnt vote, and libertarian-leaning Independent Congressman Justin Amash voted present.

Pauls amendment, according to NBC News reporter Julie Tsirkin, was officially summarized as: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require a social security number for the purposes of the child tax credit, to provide the President the authority to transfer funds as necessary and to terminate United States military operations and reconstruction activities in Afghanistan.

Twitter is littered with righteous indignation constantly, but Tuesday night, it was mostly directed at Paul. And it was mostly thanks to the NBC News story poorly co-written by Tsirkin.

Before getting into the catty tone of the article, lets consider the actual concerns people have with Pauls amendment.

First, isnt there a national emergency going on? Now isnt the time for nitpicking whats legal under the Constitution or how Congress appropriates funds. Theres no time for delay, were led to believe.

The answer to this critique is short, because there simply is no delay in voting beyond a few minutes just because an amendment is proposed. All of this drama is just political theatre, with McConnell aides directing the show.

Second, and perhaps more reasonably, it may be asked what the war in Afghanistan has to do with this coronavirus. That almost begs the question though. Why is Congress leaping to this hot new political commodity known as a coronavirus when theyve skirted their true duties for so long?

Beyond the deadly Afghanistan misadventure being a drain on financial resources, its worth investigating how human resources are wasting away, mired down in that desert. In Syria, most of the U.S. troops are from the South Carolina National Guard. Might be nice to have them here!

Here Paul is doing the job all the other senators are supposed to be doing. Unfortunately for him, it doesnt fit into the narrative most comfortable for the political and media elites.

As a result, we end up with junior high school level journalism weaponized against patriotic dissent.

Paul is notorious for forcing votes on amendments he knows will not pass, the NBC News story goes.

It concluded in a similar fashion: He even briefly caused the government to shut down in 2018, using a procedural tactic to block the Senate from meeting the deadline to keep the government open because he objected to the price tag.

Both of these statements are lies, though the authors probably believe them. Its a sure sign of the deep divisions in the country.

Whether its the 9/11 Victims bill, the Ukrainegate impeachment failure, or foreign aid, Paul consistently upsets the right people by doing the right thing. This doesnt mean Paul is perfect, but it does mean Americans should appreciate his special role in Washington, DC.

Original post:
Rand Paul Proves He Is Too Good For Us, As He Upsets the Right People - The Liberator Online

On March 14, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo suspended the signature-gathering process for candidates for political office in his state to reduce the spread of the novel coronavirus, while at the same time reducing the number of signatures that will be required for each office this year by approximately 70%.

Public health experts have been clear that one of the most common ways to communicate COVID-19 is through direct person to person contact, and we are doing everything in our immediate power to reduce unnecessary interactions, Cuomo said in a news release. This executive order modifies the election process in a way that both protects public health and ensures the democratic process remains healthy and strong regardless of the ongoing pandemic.

On that same day, the chairs of the three minor political parties in Minnesota came together and submitted a joint letter titled Urgent policy change request, to accommodate the COVID-19 emergency declaration made for Minnesota health/safety, as it applies to current minor political party petitioning practices and requirements.

Despite multiple requests to top officials, none have responded. And now that the Minnesota Legislature has put itself into hiatus until April 14, it seems apparent that Gov. Tim Walz needs to quickly address this situation with an executive order akin to Cuomos.

To maintain fair elections, while recognizing that the health and safety of all Minnesotans is paramount during this outbreak, we hereby call on Gov. Walz, Secretary of State Steve Simon, Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm, and Senate and House elections committees to act immediately to suspend the physical petitioning requirement and/or the current filing deadline, currently set as June 2, 2020.

In exactly eight weeks, the states three minor political parties (the Libertarian, Independence-Alliance, and Green parties) will enter a limited two-week window for gathering petition signatures to secure ballot access. Each party must collect several thousand signatures during the last two weeks of May (and only then) to nominate and place candidates on the fall general election ballot. It is a process these three parties have completed consistently every election cycle for decades.

But an environment suddenly exists that makes this process a health risk, for both the individuals who do the petitioning and the citizens being approached and asked to sign a nominating petition. Petitioning requires constant face-to-face interaction.

For scope, the Libertarian Party of Minnesota alone intends to dispatch dozens of volunteers to go door-to-door to gather 2,000 signatures each for candidates for president and U.S. Senate, 500 signatures for each of six Minnesota legislative races planned, plus a 50% cushion. To find these 10,000 willing signatories usually requires knocking on over five times that many doors. In other states where petitioning is currently underway, people are avoiding petitioners (understandably so) which is more than tripling the number of door-knocking interactions needed.

An efficient solution already exists, if acted on, in proposed bills SF 752 and companion HF 708. Introduced in 2019 and amended in 2020, these bills remain stuck in committee. If passed, the legislation would provide that political parties that achieved over 1% in the last statewide vote would be allowed to put candidates onto ballots using internal party process, such as convention endorsement, or by filing fee, or with a different deadline that extends to mid-August (around the time of the state primary).

Enacting these proposals will change behaviors for the (only) three minor parties that exist in Minnesota. This will prevent hundreds of thousands of face-to-face interactions from happening soon.

We must not undermine fair elections or endanger public health. We look forward to working with state officials to thoughtfully prioritize the health, safety and rights of all Minnesotans.

Chris Holbrook is chair of the Libertarian Party of Minnesota. Phil Fuehrer is chair of the Independence-Alliance Party of Minnesota. Trahern Crews is chair of the Green Party of Minnesota.

Follow this link:
OPINION EXCHANGE | Amid the outbreak, Minnesota's minor political parties will struggle to get on the ballot - Minneapolis Star Tribune

The extreme measures being taken in this state and the country to slow down the spread of COVID-19 has led to some fierce debates about the role of government vs. the liberty of individuals to make their own decisions.

Here in the Wenatchee Valley, Gov. Jay Inslees actions to shutter schools, close bars and restaurants (except for curbside pickup) and ban large gatherings hit a flashpoint when the owner of the Wok About Grill, Shon Smith, posted a defiant message on Facebook announcing he would not comply with the rules.

The posting started a firestorm of comments that at one point had 500 likes and 1,000 expressions of dislike. Smith ultimately chose to comply with state law, to his credit. We've all made decisions in the heat of the moment that we have regretted at least I know I have.

I am going to try to take a step back and see if I can put this in a larger context of whats happening in our society, because it is symptomatic of a fundamental divide in this country.

Those who liked Smiths initial decision talked about their admiration for his support of employees who would miss paychecks, which is a legitimate concern. We all need to be concerned and take meaningful actions to support local businesses and others when social distancing is the norm.

The other major thread in comments by those supporting his message was that government has no right to take such a unilateral action and that individual businesses (and I presume nonprofits) should make their own decisions.

Those who expressed exasperation with Smiths decision raised the issue of the impact of ones actions on the community as a whole. Were seeing the nightmare unfold in Italy where some seriously ill old people are not being treated because they lack the resources. They ignored it, as did the Trump Administration in the critical first weeks of the outbreak, resulting in a failure to be able to adequately test for the virus.

If we dont slow the spread of coronavirus by social distancing and extreme measures like shutting down sports and entertainment venues, we could well see the same scenario happening here. Thats the crucial argument for accepting these limitations on our liberty.

There is some value in the Libertarian mindset, but it raises a fundamental question of what kind society we wish to have. If individualism is the only thing that matters, does that mean individuals have no responsibility for the most vulnerable in our society or for the community as a whole? Why does it have to be either/or? Cant it be both/and?

Some time ago, a founder of the Tea Party and a devoted Libertarian, Matt Kibbe, had a dialogue with liberal activist Heather McGhee, moderated by Krista Tippett. They explored areas of common ground as well as areas of disagreement.

One of the things that McGhee appreciated about Libertarians was that they have been supportive of criminal justice reform to address the problem of mass incarceration in this country.

I was fascinated by Kibbes perspective on individual rights vis-a-vis caring for others. Libertarians are guilty of deemphasizing the importance of community, deemphasizing the value of helping other people, he said.

Kibbe emphasized the importance of cooperative action in community. And this is not because somebody long ago passed a law, he continued. Its because people working through their differences actually came up with a common set of understandings about how we could get along with each other.

We need to be supporting businesses and everyone who is going to be struggling to make ends meet in the coming weeks. We have a lot of children who need to be fed, families to be supported, elders to care for, etc.

We have people on the front lines medical personnel, firefighters, law enforcement and EMTs who will be putting their lives on the line helping those who are stricken.

This is a time to put the most vulnerable in our community first and ourselves second.

Read the original:
Opinion | Rufus Woods, Art of Community: Now is the time to sacrifice for elders and the vulnerable - wenatcheeworld.com