Mediaboss Marketing

By JASON DUBROW July 20. 2017 9:38PM Libertarian candidate Jason Dubrow takes a question during an interview at the New Hampshire Union Leader on June 28, 2017.(DAVID LANE/UNION LEADER) I am Jason Dubrow, a computer engineer living in Dunbarton with my wife, Rebecca, and two children Cassiopeia (7), and Callisto (15 months). Rebecca and I maintain a small farm with chickens, gardens, and a number of beehives. We installed solar panels many years ago to offset our carbon footprint.

New Hampshire has the fifth highest electric rate in the country, the highest in New England. Neighboring states with high electric subsidies, yield higher wholesale rates, in addition to higher property taxes on power generation plants are major culprits for our high electricity costs. I will address high property taxes, which are passed on to the rate payer to lower electric rates. The high cost of electricity is a deterrent to bring new businesses from out of state. If this does not change, our economic growth will stagnate.

Every child should have access to a diverse network of educational opportunities to meet the demands of the 21st century. We continue to educate our children with a one size fits all system. Without a competitive, diverse system of education, our children are left behind. We need more opportunities for our children in New Hampshire regardless of their socioeconomic class to meet the 21st century needs and challenges they face. I will work to open the doors to ensure all children, especially to ensure low income, are not limited to a single option for their education.

Concord uses the same tried and failed methods of solving the drug crisis. We are not winning this battle. We need to follow Portugals lead and decriminalize all drugs. I will work to ensure money targeted for rehabilitation of drug addicts is used for that purpose rather than failed policies such as policing or life support for addicts.

Our state needs new ideas, not a swinging pendulum of the old tired two-party system. And we wonder why government is unable to solve real problems? The Libertarian Party has a wide range of new ideas that will end the duopoly in Concord and force a tripartisan, innovative solution to the problems that face our state. I will work to ensure we keep New Hampshire TRI-partisanship alive with new ideas.

As John Adams once said, Government is instituted for the common good: for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people. And not to profit.

Yours in liberty.

Jason Dubrow of Dunbarton is the Libertarian nominee for state Senate District 16.

State Government State Guest Commentary

Read the rest here:
Dist. 16 election: Libertarian Jason Dubrow, in his own words - The Union Leader

You may have heard the name Austin Petersen before, but if you havent youre probably going to soon. Hes a libertarian activist who has identified himself as an atheist and he recently announced hes running for Senate as a Republican.

Petersen is probably most well known for being the runner-up for the Libertarian Partys nomination for President of the United States in 2016, losing only to Gary Johnson. Earlier this month, however, he said hes running for Senate in Missouri as a Republican (despite his lack of faith).

I interviewed Petersen to ask him about how he plans to court evangelical republicans as a non-believer, his views on separation of church and state, and his move to distance himself from the word atheism.

McAfee: You are a non-believer, which makes you rare in U.S. politics and even rarer in the Republican party. Do you ever worry about surveys that show many Americans wont vote for atheists because of negative stigma attached to non-belief (they think were immoral even compared to rapists)? Some polls, like this one, give us hope but still paint a bleak picture.

Petersen: For the record, I am agnostic I claim neither faith nor disbelief in God. When it comes to Gods existence, I dont know. But to answer your question, yes, the surveys worry me. That said, I refuse to lie to people just to get them to like, or hopefully vote for, me. It seems unfair to ask someone to put me into a position of public trust by betraying that trust. Whats more, even though I make no claim to know about the existence of God, I share a great deal in common with people of faith. I wholeheartedly believe in freedom of religion, and will support peoples right to practice the faith of their choosing without interference. I also share a belief that life begins with conception and ends with natural death, that life trumps choice and that all lives at all stages have a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

McAfee: Interesting. You have repeatedly identified as an atheist (that means you dont actively believe not that you KNOW there is no god). Are you saying that label no longer applies?

Petersen: Its a good question. Ive often conflated the two terms in the past, so Im happy to clarify now. Im an agnostic. I dont actively believe in God, but Im open to the possibility that he may exist. Ultimately, I dont think you can really know either way. What I do know, however, is that its the duty of the government and the duty of its leaders to protect the right of an individual to believe and practice as he or she sees fit.

McAfee: Do you think a lot of fundamentally religious people will vote for you, despite your public atheism, or that youll have to capture more of the less devout voters? Im sure you are aware of the stereotypes about atheists, including that we are actually Satanists, so feel free to address those.

Petersen: I think theyll vote for me. First, because they have before and second, because theyre telling me they will again. The fact is, much of my support base comes from conservative Christians. They generally say they support me because they prefer an honest agnostic to a dishonest believer. Also, the election of Donald Trump indicates that people are less interested in electing a man of the cloth than they are a man of the people.

There are atheists and agnostics that dont care for me much because my beliefs conflict with their own. Thats okay. Ultimately, I will defend the rights of everyone, regardless of whether they have faith or not. Conservative Christians know this because I have demonstrated it publicly and laid my reputation on the line by defending their religious liberty in public debates and forums.

McAfee: Like you, Im an agnostic atheist. In other words, I dont claim to know if any gods exist and I dont actively believe in any. Do you think its a closed-minded position for anyone, believers and atheists alike, to proclaim they know with certainty?

Petersen: Just to be clear, I dont claim to know if God exists and I dont actively believe in Him but I dont actively disbelieve in Him either I just dont know. Thats the honest truth of it. We all could claim closed-mindedness toward those that dont think like we do. But ultimately, like Thomas Jefferson said, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. What does pick my pocket? Government.

McAfee: You say you are an atheist who is pro-life, and thats great, but you have also said women have a choice as to whether or not they get pregnant. Do you legitimately believe that pregnancy is always a choice?

Petersen: One hundred percent of the time? No. But that is such an infinitesimally small amount of the overall abortions that its frequently used to then justify all other abortions. Even pro-choice Governor Gary Johnson signed a bill that banned partial-birth abortions in New Mexico, so at some point we must admit we are dehumanizing the unborn. It is a human. Do all humans deserve the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Absolutely. If we found a cluster of cells on Mars, scientists would say thats evidence of life. So then why is the unborn cluster of human cells not?

McAfee: On that same subject: Youve said you would be an elected official who would fight for pro-life issues, and you defined abortion as murder in the same sentence. That mentality could set the U.S. back to the 1950s in terms of health care, and could be seen as an overreach of governmental authority. As a former libertarian and current republican, how can you justify that government interference?

Petersen: Current libertarian, current Republican. If government is to exist, it must be limited to securing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without life, there is no liberty. How can humanity become a galactic civilization, reaching to the stars to expand and grow, if we do not respect the evolutionary processes of the continuation of our species? If we are not pro-life as a culture and a people, then what is the opposite? If there is no afterlife, then this life is the most precious thing we have. How can we deny to others the lives that we now live? How can we not grant the gift of life to those millions of potential humans who could become scientists, doctors and lawyers?

McAfee: Religious freedom laws have been very controversial, and I loved your question to Gary Johnson on whether a Jewish baker should be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi. To follow on that, can you clarify your beliefs here? Do you, for instance, believe a white baker should be able to reject the business of a black man because of his racial differences?

Petersen: I believe any person should be able to refuse to hand over their private property to anyone for any reason. That being said, Im not interested in going back and overturning the Civil Rights Act. I think the best way forward is to find a way to respect the religious beliefs of our fellow citizens. Religious freedom acts have been passed on the state and federal levels, and I support them.

McAfee: Do you think atheists and other freethinker groups should be less confrontational when it comes to minor violations of separation of church and state? For instance, how would you react to a statute depicting the Ten Commandments placed on government property?

Petersen: Yes, I absolutely do. I roll my eyes at people who think we are somehow having some sort of victory because we removed In God We Trust from money when there are so many other substantive issues that actually affect peoples lives. However, if youre putting up any new religious monuments on public property, all religions or non-religions ought to have equal access to display theirs as well.

McAfee: I am not as concerned about who bakes cakes for whom as I am about religious freedom laws that actually kill children. If you dont know what I mean, Im talking about the handful of states with extreme religious freedom laws allowing parents to literally get away with murder when they use faith healing instead of medicine to treat their terminally ill children. One particularly notable case comes out of Idaho, where more children die due to faith-based neglect than anywhere else. What is your position on these laws, which give special treatment to religious people in a way we wouldnt tolerate if it were another country?

Petersen: The law of the land is the Constitution, and we are all governed by it. No other law is higher. Not Sharia, not the Old Testament, not the Tao Te Ching. No one has the right to harm anyone in the name of religion or in the name of non-religion, as the Communists did in the Soviet Union. I wouldnt be consistently pro-life if I didnt believe that the government had the right to intervene and protect children from being neglected.

McAfee: Personally, I see secularization as beneficial for religions (who dont want the government involved in their worship) as well as for people who dont want religious influences to run their state. Do you value separation of church and state, and recognize that our founders intended to keep these two entities apart for good reasons?

Petersen: Constitutionally, there is no technical separation of church and state. Rather, there is freedom from the establishment of a state religion. Originally, some founders thought this meant that the federal government could not establish a religion, but the states might. Since the Reconstruction Era amendments, however, this has shifted and now the states may not do so. And many state constitutions already have a clause similar to the federal governments.

I agree with James Madison, who wrote, We are teaching the world the great truth that governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of government.

And my greatest inspiration on the issue, which I would have liked to have seen written word-for-word into the Constitution if it had been expedient, comes from Thomas Jeffersons Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: Be it enactedthat no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion

McAfee: Separation of church and state is important to me, and many of my readers, but science issues are perhaps even more crucial. Do you accept the scientific consensus on things like the helpfulness of vaccines, evolution, and climate change influenced in part by humans?

Petersen: I certainly accept it on vaccines and evolution. I am agnostic on the issue of climate change, because climate science relies on predictions. Since predictions have generally the same accuracy rate as astrologers and psychics, I think we ought to get along with our business and avoid centralizing economic planning into the hands of a few self-interested bureaucrats in Washington D.C. If climate change is real, and it very well could be, then progress via industrial capitalism will be the solution. The cause is also the cure.

McAfee: You seem like a rational person. How much of a role do you give to science in your decision-making? Do you check peer-reviewed papers or rely on your instinct?

Petersen: I do check peer-reviewed papers. Im fully willing to change my mind when evidence conflicts with my worldview. Yes, I do have my ideas, but I try to avoid confirming my biases if at all possible. Im open-minded. I like being proven wrong, because even though your ego takes a blow, you learn something, and I love to keep learning and growing intellectually.

McAfee: I couldnt agree more on being proven wrong. Is there anything else youd like to add to this?

Petersen: Theres a reason that the First Amendment comes first. Being able to choose your own religion or choose to not have any religion at all! is a vital part of our inherent liberties as rational human beings. Im committed to preserving liberty above all else, and that includes protecting the freedom of an individuals conscience and intelligence on matters of belief. If elected, I will certainly do this and not only for people I agree with, but also (and especially) for those whose views differ from my own.

Overall, Petersen is an interesting candidate. I dont blame him for avoiding the word atheist, although its worth noting he has repeatedly called himself an atheist and has even called Christianity as the violent cousin of Islam and as the Cult of Christ. So, what do you all think? Would you vote for him?

See more here:
Meet the Atheist Libertarian Running for Senate as a Republican - Patheos (blog)

Ive always been interested in third political parties because of the wrench they can toss in an election even if they cannot win it.

The potential has always existed that a third-party candidate, like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader, could sway the outcome of an election. They could be spoilers, too.

Wyomings third-party movement seemed ripe after Taylor Haynes, did so well in the 2010 governors election.

But it hasnt gained much traction.

Haynes, a rancher and retired physician, was a write-in candidate for governor. He had the support of the tea party and the new Constitution Party.

He received nearly 14,000 votes to come in third in the general election for governor.

With 7 percent of the vote, Haynes outpolled libertarian gubernatorial candidate Mike Wheeler of Casper, who received 5,362 votes.

After the election, Wheeler said he expected some Libertarian Party members to defect and start another third party.

That is what happened. The new Constitution Party gained ballot access as a minor party for the 2012 election cycle through a petition campaign.

Don Wills, a former Libertarian Party president, led the support for the Constitutional Party.

The Wyoming Libertarian Party, Wheeler said, suffers because the national Libertarian Party has such a stigma for its positions on legalizing drugs. National party members, he said, are considered anarchists.

The Wyoming Libertarian Party (WLP) has been active in Wyoming for years.

In the 2014 general election, when the five elected state offices were up for grabs, the WLP was on the ballot with candidates for governor and secretary of state as well as for U.S. senator and U.S. representative.

The party had no legislative candidates in 2014 or 2016.

In 2016, the Libertarians had a candidate for president, Gary Johnson, and one for U.S. representative.

Johnson was expected to do exceptionally well, but it didnt happen.

A former member of the Wyoming Libertarian Party, Barry Turner of Cody said Johnson and the previous libertarian candidate for president, Bob Barr, were basically Republicans.

He said he would like to see the national party come up with a genuine libertarian candidate for president.

Wyoming has often been called a libertarian-type state for the philosophy of many residents in favor of limited government and a general live-and-let-live attitude.

That political inclination hasnt been reflected at the polls, however.

The loose-knit tea party and the Trump phenomena has siphoned off voters to the Republican Party.

The Wyoming Constitution Party has picked up votes that previously would have gone to Libertarian candidates.

The Libertarian Party members, nationally and in Wyoming, moreover, have wrangled over their basic philosophies, such as the degree of resistance to government and taxes.

In Wyoming they have struggled in recent years just to keep the party going.

Despite all the inner conflicts, the WLP has grown substantially over the last decade. In 2006, only 452 residents identified themselves as libertarians. In July 2017, the number of registered libertarians totaled 2,389, according to the secretary of states office.

This compares with 797 members of the Constitution Party, 176,336 Republicans, 47,125 Democrats and 35,973 unaffiliated.

The national Libertarian Party also experienced growth in registration but not in votes at the polls.

The percentage of the American public that identifies as libertarian has steadily increased over the last few years.

A survey by Gallup showed that 27 percent of respondents identified themselves as libertarians, a new high.

Yet they cannot shake their image as a fringe party with some wacky ideas.

Johnsons campaign didnt help. The candidate couldnt explain the significance of Aleppo, Syria, in foreign affairs or identify a world leader he admired.

The libertarians marred their image as a serious political party by their weird silliness at their national convention, according to published sources.

They also were hurt by lack of coverage by the news media, which was focused on the Republican and Democratic candidates for president.

The Wyoming Libertarian Party, meanwhile, has a new president: Howard Kit Carson of Cheyenne. He was the partys candidate for secretary of state in 2014.

Carson said last week that he and other members are working on a platform that the people need to see.

Well find out more about that later.

Read more:
Barron: Third-party movement stalled - Casper Star-Tribune Online

July 20, 2017

To the Editor:

Democracy in Chains author Nancy MacLean misrepresents my criticism of her connecting the work of my late colleague James Buchanan to that of John C. Calhoun (Nancy MacLean Responds to Her Critics, The Chronicle Review, July 19). My criticism is not that she drew a parallel between Buchanans political economy and that of John C. Calhoun. Instead, my criticism as I say plainly in the essay linked in your report is of her claim that the core ideas of Buchanan (and of others scholars who work in Buchanans tradition) come from John C. Calhoun. Had MacLean merely drawn a parallel between Buchanans efforts to study and compare different constitutional rules and Calhouns similar efforts, Id have raised no protest. But by asserting in her interview with the New Republic that Buchanans ideas trace back to John C. Calhoun andin her book describing Calhoun as the intellectual lodestar of Buchanan and others who work in the classical-liberal tradition she is demonstrably mistaken.

First, Buchanan never mentions Calhoun in any of his vast writings. Second, in an appendix to The Calculus of Consent his most famous book (co-authored with Gordon Tullock) Buchanan not only explicitly identifies several political thinkers as inspiration (nearly all of whom, by the way, pre-date Calhoun), he also explains in detail how their works influenced his own; these explicitly identified precursors to Buchanans political thought include Johannes Althusius, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Wilhelm von Humboldt, James Madison, and Baruch Spinoza. Again, they do not include Calhoun.

Somehow overlooking Buchanans own very clear mention of the thinkers whose ideas he found to be especially influential, MacLean contrary to all available evidence claimed in her book and in her interview that the major inspiration for Buchanans ideas is Calhoun. That claim is not only unsubstantiated, it is preposterous.

Donald J. Boudreaux Professor of Economics and Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center George Mason University Fairfax, Va.

Originally posted here:
Author's Claim That Calhoun Was Major Inspiration for Nobel-Winning Libertarian Is Absurd - The Chronicle of Higher Education (blog)

With our second anniversary coming up later this year, the Board and senior management of Being Libertarian would like to extend a thank you to all our loyal followers who have helped make our once-humble platform a true hub for the international libertarian movement.

In light of our momentous growth and expansion, Being Libertarian will be ceasing most activity, including the posting of new images, articles, and videos across our platforms. This will, however, only be for a short period of time, as the senior management engages with one another on our path forward. The structures which were created almost two years ago are not keeping up with our growth and professionalization in all the respects they should be, so the Board is going to readjust and reconsider various elements of Being Libertarians constitution and operations.

While no new content will be created for the next while, followers of Being Libertarian on Facebook will be treated to some of our older articles and videos from our impressive archive of content. We encourage you to continue engaging, and thank you again for your continued support.

Martin van Staden is the Editor in Chief of Being Libertarian.

This post was written by Martin van Staden.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Martin van Staden is the Editor in Chief of Being Libertarian, the Legal Researcher at the Free Market Foundation, a co-founder of the RationalStandard.com, and the Southern African Academic Programs Director at Students For Liberty. The views expressed in his articles are his own and do not represent any of the aforementioned organizations.

Like Loading...

The rest is here:
ANNOUNCEMENT: Being Libertarian 'Going Dark' in Light of Corporate Readjustment - Being Libertarian