Mediaboss Marketing

Since the heyday of the civil rights movement, Democrats have touted themselves as torchbearers of the Jeffersonian principles of individual rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The Founders considered it axiomatic that the government should have strict limits and the rights of the individuals were not to be constrained. But Democrats have sadly shifted their priorities. The left wing increasingly favors intrusion in all aspects of American life and advocates policies diminishing personal rights in favor of state power and jeopardizing the social contract.

Joined by activist groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Human Rights Campaign, liberals argued for years that the Christian right was coming to take away your personal autonomy. Slogans such as my body my choice underscored a powerful conviction that the government should not interfere with your ability to live your life as you see fit. From marriage to police surveillance and from abortion to free expression, Democrats gained votes by advertising themselves as the defenders of individual rights in this nation. For years, they could claim that title.

In the era after the demise of Jim Crow, the cultural and political left vastly expanded the reach and breadth of institutions and ideologies devoted to the protection of individuals rights and free will. Progressive intellectuals championed the moral imperatives of free speech and expression as keys not only to an effective academic environment but a thriving economy and polity. Universities represented our bastions of learning and debate. During the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s, campuses brimmed with ideas to improve the nation and the world, many of which were wrong, but at least open for discussion. The American Civil Liberties Union had insisted on the fundamental right to speech even for the most odious of causes.

But times have certainly changed. Widespread calls for safe spaces, incessant demands of progressives to be comfortable, and constant disruptions of conservative talks on campuses have replaced the rallies championing the First Amendment. Airing an opinion about biological science, including one universally accepted throughout the entirety of human history barring the last five years, was startingly sufficient for author J.K. Rowling to be exiled from the realm of acceptable speakers. The advocacy of free market principles is even on the precipice of being deemed hate speech. Free speech has firmly given way to groupthink with a constant race to the bottom. Only the most woke survive in this heated political environment, to the detriment of healthy debate in our country.

All of this leads the Democratic candidates competing for 2020 and their counterparts in Congress to increasingly become nanny staters. Against the First Amendment are proposals to restrict the use of money to affect policy under Democratic proposals to constrain lobbying, shut down free speech under Democratic proposals ostensibly aimed at hate speech but which really aim to shut down conservative speech, and reduce the ability to exercise religious conscience under Democratic proposals to strip churches of tax exempt status. Little remains of leaving people free to run their own lives. Instead, the new doctrine is more related to the idea that everything is political. All within the state and nothing outside the state, is not just a frightening concept on its own, but effectively an unintentional carbon copy of the core philosophy of Benito Mussolini.

While Republicans are certainly not perfect on civil liberties by any means, the strong libertarian streak that runs through the party still demonstrates itself in many ways. Although President TrumpDonald John TrumpGermans think Trump is more dangerous to world peace than Kim Jong Un and Putin: survey Trump jokes removal of 'Home Alone 2' cameo from Canadian broadcast is retaliation from 'Justin T' Trump pushed drug cartel policy despite Cabinet objections: report MORE is a flawed messenger for the argument that Americans should be left to simply pursue their own best interests, he is actively working to move power from the Washington swamp back to the states and to your wallet. If Trump is not good enough on civil liberties for your appetite, the reality is Democrats are far worse.

Their proposals are straight from the Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter days of seeking to fix everything through federal mandates. Elizabeth Warren wants to set up a series of government funded daycare centers that not only will cost taxpayers $70 billion, but will also replace traditional family bonds with the state. There is no more basic right than familial autonomy, which would sink away if such plans were enacted into law. Bernie Sanders pushes more extreme ideas, opposing the ability for homeowners to control their own dwellings. As the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg is most remembered by the long list of activities he chose to ban, from large sodas to styrofoam packaging to loud music.

These are not policies of a civil liberties party. They are inducements to relinquish our autonomy to Washington. Anyone who believes that is a fair trade is marching the nation down the road to serfdom. As Gerald Ford famously declared, A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

Kristin Tate is a libertarian writer and an analyst for Young Americans for Liberty. She is an author whose latest book is How Do I Tax Thee? A Field Guide to the Great American Rip-Off. Follow her on Twitter @KristinBTate.

Read the original here:
Republicans are the party of civil liberties as Democrats walk away | TheHill - The Hill

Mayor Joe Hogsett, left, and Sen. Jim Merritt participated in an IBJ/Indy Chamber debate moderated by then-IBJ reporter Hayleigh Colombo. Hogsett won the mayor's race easily. (IBJ photo/Eric Learned)

Despite no state or federal elections in 2019, Indianapolis and its suburbs made plenty of political news. Voters across the state cast ballots in municipal elections, re-electing Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett plus three Hamilton County mayors. The year also brought plenty of 2020 news.

With nearly 72% of the vote, Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett easily won a second term leading the Circle City. Republican State Sen. Jim Merritt challenged Hogsett, running on what he saw as Hogsetts shortcomings: not moving the needle enough on potholes and violent crime. But Merritt lost by more than 44percentage points. In his victory speech, Hogsett said theres still plenty of work to do.

Democrats on the Indianapolis City-County Council already hold a majority, but in 2020, that majority will grow even larger. Democrats picked up six seats from Republicans, bringing their majority to 20-5. Among Republican casualties were council veterans Minority Leader Mike McQuillen andJanice McHenry.

Styron

Political newcomer Emily Styron, a Democrat, beat Republican incumbent Tim Haak to become Zionsvilles third mayor. She has said the towns lack of a successful track record for economic and community development led her to step forward as a candidate. Styron has been critical of progress made in Creekside Corporate Park, where development hasbeen slow since the town invested more than $4.5million in infrastructure improvements to attract corporate businesses.

In Hamilton County, Democrats won their first seats ever on two city councils: two spots in Fishers and one in Carmel. In Fishers, Jocelyn Vare and Samantha DeLong displaced Republican incumbents. In Carmel, Miles Nelson beat a Republican in a newly formed district.

Fishers Mayor Scott Fadness and Carmel Mayor Jim Brainard won their Republican primaries and were unopposed in the general election. Republican Westfield Mayor Andy Cook won in the general election over Libertarian Donald Rainwater. Noblesville voters chose Republican Chris Jensen in the primary; he was unopposed in the general election to succeed retiring Mayor John Ditslear.

Next year, the Westfield City Council will experience a dramatic shakeup when five new members take office. In the Republican primary, voters ousted three incumbents and elected candidates endorsed by the Fiscal Conservatives of Hamilton County, meaning spending in the growing city could be curtailed in coming years.

In June, Indiana U.S. Rep. Susan Brooks, a Republican who has represented Indianas 5th Congressional District since 2013, announced she would not seek a fifth term. Brooks said she was looking forward to spending more time with her family. Democrats see the open seat as a possible pickup in 2020.

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg entered the race for president, joining a crowded field of Democrats seeking the partys nomination. Early on, Buttigieg had been considered a long shot, but by November, he had risen to the top of the pack in an Iowa poll, where the nations first nominating contest will take place, on Feb. 3. Since April, hes raised more than $44million, according to reports.

See original here:
2019 YEAR IN REVIEW: Big year for Hogsett, Buttigieg and Dems in Boone, Hamilton counties - Indianapolis Business Journal

To the liberal administrators and Democratic politicians who try to blame skyrocketing college costs on decreases in government support, rather than administrative waste and government loans, I hate to say I told you so. But I absolutely told you so.

My first op-ed ever professionally published was in the Boston Globe, titled, Students pay the price for a culture of waste at UMass. A student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst at the time, I took campus officials to task after yet another tuition hike, decrying the fact that only about half the school's $1.2 billion 2016 budget was spent on education or financial aid, much of the rest lost due to profligate waste and in the whirlwind of rent-seeking and cronyism known as higher education administration.

I also pointed out how administrative salaries at UMass had skyrocketed in recent years, growing far faster than the student population.

The response? Campus leadership called me a liar and threatened to sue the newspaper. This, of course, might have something to do with the fact that UMass Amhersts chancellor, Kumble Subbaswamy, earns almost $600,000 a year and that 97 out of 100 of the state of Massachusettss highest-paid employees worked for the university system. The vitriolic backlash and denial of all responsibility is par for the course.

Despite documented evidence and ample research showing the effect administrative bloat and subsidized government loans have had on the skyrocketing tuition rates, many liberals deny it all and insist that pouring more taxpayer dollars into the university system, or socializing it altogether, is the only solution. Yet new research reveals this argument for the bunk narrative it always was.

In the book Restoring the Promise: Higher Education in America, economist Richard Vedder reports, If the ratio of campus bureaucrats to faculty had held steady since 1976, there would be 537,317 fewer administrators, saving universities $30.5 billion per year and allowing student tuition to decrease by 20%. Per Max Edens recent review, Vedder's work also finds "colleges have bloated up on bureaucrats and spend an ever-decreasing share now about one third of their expenditures on instruction. This makes it perfectly clear once and for all that if campuses didnt waste so much on administration, higher education would be much more accessible and affordable than it is now.

Dont expect the liberal narrative to adjust in any meaningful way, though.

A sensible path to making college more affordable has always been offered up by some conservative and libertarian intellectuals, and it has even been put into practice in a few real-world examples, such as Mitch Daniels's reforms at Purdue University. Through a combination of cutting back administrative bloat, ending wasteful spending, and scaling back federal loans that cause tuition price inflation, we know how we can make college reasonably affordable again.

See the article here:
New data proves what's actually causing the spike in college tuition rates - Washington Examiner

Back in the dark ages when mandatory seat belt use was relatively new in Indiana, I had a colleague who liked to say that she never nagged people about buckling up when they were riding with her. In fact, she never mentioned it to her passengers.

Why? she was inevitably asked.

Natural selection was her answer.

I like to use that story as a good analogy for what I consider proper government. She gives people the information needed to make good choices, sometimes offers incentives for making good choices and can even provide the mechanisms to make good choices easier. But if people insist on making poor choices anyway, well, thats on them.

Of course, our government driver (to continue the analogy) seldom stops when she should. She employs various coercive tactics to get those passengers in line. (Yes, I am being deliberate in the choice of pronoun; were talking about the nanny state, after all.)

Such as, buckle up or this car isnt moving. Or, if you dont buckle up, I will harangue you mercilessly for the whole trip. Or, the penalty for not buckling up, payable at the end of the journey, will be a hefty fee that I will send collectors out to get from your childrens children into the 10th generation.

In my experience, people who advocate for government solutions, and even bigger and more expensive government when those solutions fail to materialize, seldom have to justify themselves. They are merely following the spirit of the age, no explanations required.

But those of us who advocate government restraint or, heaven forbid, limited government, are always put on the defensive. We are either insensitive to human misery to the point of heartlessness or hopelessly ignorant of the need for immediate action to avert imminent disaster.

In all the response I get to these columns (thank you very much), by far the most common form of criticism is from readers who misinterpret, either carelessly or deliberately, the libertarian thrust of my government critiques.

I always mean, in those pieces, the least government necessary, which, believe it or not, was a founding principle of this country. They always insist I really meant, no government at all, then proceed to deliver the Gotcha! they think I deserve.

What about the fire department when your house is burning down, they will ask, or the police department when youre robbed? What about that pothole you want filled in?

Arent those all socialism, you self-serving hypocrite?

Actually, no, theyre not. They are legitimate government functions.

My favorite Gotcha! showing up in my email with tiresome regularity is, So, I guess youve refused your Social Security payments, huh?

No, I have not. Had I the opportunity to opt out and use the money for my own retirement investments, I would have done so. But participation was mandatory. To whom am I trying to prove what if I dont take money out of the system I was forced to put money into?

The tenet of libertarianism people seem to have the most trouble grasping, though it really should be the easiest, is that government legitimately tries to keep us from hurting each other but risks overstepping its bounds when it tries to keep us from hurting ourselves. Autonomy should be sacred.

So, I find myself having to explain that, no, I do not object to Gov. Eric Holcombs proposal to ban Hoosier motorists from using their cell phones while driving unless theyre hands-free.

There are rules for the road that are open to challenge on libertarian grounds. There is no reason to require me to use seat belts when driving or wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle except to keep me from behaving stupidly.

But there are also rules that protect me from others stupid behavior, such as the one against driving while drunk.

Mandating hands-free-only cell phone use falls into the latter category. I am the one you might run into while youre fiddling with that stupid phone.

See? Simple.

Of course, there are a couple of potholes in the road an earnest libertarian should be aware of whenever he gives in and acknowledges that, yes, OK, fine, government should do this.

One is the maxim that by the time government acts, government action is usually beside the point. Most cellphones today have Bluetooth, and most new cars have systems that sync to it, so its likely that the moment you get behind the wheel your phone automatically become hands-free.

The other is that when government is given the legitimate inch, it will go the illegitimate mile. Setting reasonable speed limits is a legitimate function, but it requires local knowledge of local conditions. But few were shocked to see a national 55 mph limit that, for a time, was the most ignored law in America.

If Holcomb gets his way with cellphones, all sorts of distracted driving will be on the endangered list, everything from playing the radio to scarfing down those fries you got from the drive-through. Then dont be surprised if there are hefty fines for talking to your in-car companions and there are calls for hands-free nose-picking.

Government will always always, always, always go too far.

I know you might not believe that. But the evidence is plentiful if you choose to ignore it, thats on you.

I respect your autonomy.

And, you know. Natural selection.

Leo Morris is a columnist for Indiana Policy Review, a magazine published by the conservative think tank Indiana Policy Review Foundation, which is headquartered in Fort Wayne. Contact him at leoedits@yahoo.com.

See the article here:
Flashpoint: Holcomb and cell phones: The inch that becomes a mile - Terre Haute Tribune Star

While a pregnant woman should be legally required to help the fetus survive outside of her body whenever that is possible, she should retain the legal right to evict the fetus at any time during her pregnancy.

That was the resolution of a public debate hosted by the Soho Forum in New York City on December 8, 2019. It featured Walter Block arguing for the resolution and Kerry Baldwin arguing against it. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated.

It was an Oxford-style debate. That means the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most groundmostly by picking up votes from the "undecided" categoryis victorious. Block prevailed by convincing 13.85 percent of audience members to change their minds. Baldwin was not far behind, picking up 12.31 percent of the audience.

Block is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a prolific author on Austrian economics and libertarian theory. He's the author of Defending the Undefendable I and II, among many other books.

Kerry Baldwin is an independent researcher and writer with a B.A. in Philosophy from Arizona State University. Her work can be found at MereLiberty.com and at the Libertarian Christian Institute.

The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.

Produced by John Osterhoudt.Photo credit: Brett Raney.

Filaments by Scott Buckley https://soundcloud.com/scottbuckley Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported CC BY 3.0

Link:
Libertarianism and Abortion: A Debate - Reason