Mediaboss Marketing

Augustus Sol Invictus, the lawyer, "revolutionary conservative," and crusader "to guard western civilization against foreign aggression and internal corruption," has for the past few years been the single most controversial member of Florida's Libertarian Party, for reasons Brian Doherty reported on at length (including an interview with the man himself) in October 2015. (Among the colorful details you will find there: disputed allegations of neo-Nazism, accurate reports of ritual goat sacrifice, and an O. Henry-style appearance from dirty trickster Roger Stone.)

Well, as of July 13, after years of recriminations, resignations, and mutual accusations of bad faith, the L.P. won't have Invictus to kick around anymore. The onetime trouncee in an unusual L.P. primary fight over Florida's U.S. Senate election in 2016 posted a video on his Facebook page, declaring that he was "Moving from the collegiate levels to the big leagues, and playing to win," seeking along the way to "unite the right wing of American politics at long last in order to save our country and our civilization." You can watch the full video here, and also see recent footage of Invictus speaking at an L.P. gathering in Queens, and also an alt-right rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

In May, Invictus and I both gave lunchtime talks at the Florida L.P. 2017 state convention (snippet from him here; my full thing here), after which I had two main takeaways: 1) The Party was clearly rattled by his ongoing presence (and sponsorship), and 2) his apocalyptic, nationalist-populist vision of libertarianism stuck out like a throbbingly sore thumb compared to what I usually encounter at Libertarian gatherings. I do not often hear discussion, however guarded, about "the genocide of the white race," from either capital- or small-l libertarians these days.

Invictus portrays this as the result of "leftists who have infiltrated and corrupted the Libertarian Party," leading to an insufficient defense of his chin-leading on the front lines of the Free Speech/AntiFa wars. Most L.P. activists I surveyed counter along the lines of Andy Craig: "We can only hope his gang of enablers and skinhead fans now follow him back whence they came." (Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark simply tweeted, "May he go in peace.")

Is it symbolic that a man who seeks to unite white nationalists with western-chauvinist Proud Boys (of which he's a member), a fierce anti-Fed activist who says stuff like "the international finance system must be destroyed, the New World Order must be destroyed, the Left must be destroyed," would find Donald Trump's GOP more copacetic than the contemporary L.P.? Maybe, though I wouldn't read too much into a single case that has all the trappings of an outlier. The man, after all, did lose a party primary election by 48 percentage points. People (including top-ranking candidates) flow in and out of the Libertarian Party like water; it's the fate of third parties in a stubbornly two-party system, even at a time when all the L.P. measurables are at an all-time high.

"We find ourselves afflicted by the deadliest cancer in human history," Augustus Invictus declares in his mission statement at The Revolutionary Conservative, "manifest in the twin symptoms of leftism and international finance: in a word, globalism." It's a diagnosis that has even less resonance within the Libertarian Party in month six of Donald Trump's presidency.

Original post:
Controversial Western Civilization Crusader Augustus Sol Invictus Bolts Libertarian Party for the GOP - Reason (blog)

Another major milestone has been reached in the Syracuse mayoral election. Democratic hopefuls have submitted their petitions to stay in the race. There are five Democratic candidates: Joe Nicoletti, Juanita Williams, Alfonso Davis, Raymond Blackwell, and Marty Masterpole. But getting enough signatures doesnt mean theyll all be on the ballot. Onondaga County Board of Elections Commissioner Dustin Czarny says there are two main reasons candidates can be knocked from the race: If they failed to collect enough signatures from registered Democrats within the city, or if their witnesses to those petitions were not qualified.

"Every candidate has had a general objection filed against them, which means that the possibility of specific objections against a any candidate could come in against any candidate over the next week or so. In all likelihood, maybe one or two won't survive, but we just won't be able to tell until the end of thechallenge weeks."

While parties and candidates must encourage voting, Czarny says the Board of Elections will engage with local media to remind citizens of registration and voting deadlines. Czarny is hopeful that the circumstances of this primary could motivate more participation from the people of Syracuse.

"Primary elections tend to be the most low-turnout elections. My hope is with the number of candidates and the open mayoral seat, we'll see a higher turnout in this primary than we would have, say, four years ago."

The Board of Elections has found that in years with an open mayoral seat like this one, more people vote in primaries. However, Czarny believes that political tension nationally could also contribute to greater local voting interest.

"What could be different this year is you see this wave of activism sweeping the country now. Even special elections are getting higher turnout. The increasedawareness of local elections and elections in general could translate to higher turnout numbers in the fall."

One candidate who will not be on the Democratic line is Chris Fowler, who didn't submit the 1,000 required signatures from party members to secure a spot on the ballot. He recently gained the Libertarian Partys nomination, but now must gather more than 1,300 signatures to create a Libertarian Party line on the ballot. Also running for mayor are Republican Laura Lavine, Green Party's Howie Hawkins, and Independent Ben Walsh. Primary elections are September 12th; the general election is November 7th.

Follow this link:
Syracuse Mayoral Democrats Turn in Petition Signatures; One Candidate Switches to Libertarian Party - WAER

There are around 7,000 seats in the upper and lower houses of all the state governments in America, and of those, 4 are currently held by representatives of the Libertarian Party. This statistic provides a simple explanation to why third parties, in general, have such a hard time in elections, particularly the presidential election. In 2016, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson pulled in 3.27% of the national vote, making him, based on numbers, the most successful Libertarian and third party candidate to ever run for president. Today, now over five months into Republican President Donald Trumps term, many officials in both the Democratic and Republican parties are changing their tune and switching their affiliations to be with the Libertarian Party.

The state of New Hampshire has become in a sense the epicenter of Libertarian activity, its state motto of live free or die clearly aligning with the partys principles. The past year has seen three state representatives switching to the party, two coming from the Republicans and one from the Democrats. In a statement regarding why he chose to change, Rep. Brandon Phinney shared that he felt the Republican Party was pressuring him to push certain ideas that didn't align with his own principles. Rep. Joseph Stallcop, the Democratic convert, said that the primary parties goal is simply to expand government and their own agendas, ignoring the protection of the peoples rights. The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire is now gaining ground in passing legislation that aligns with their values too, hoping to soon create laws that legalize recreational marijuana and outlaw the death penalty.

While there are currently no Libertarian officials in Congress, the party has their eyes on certain representatives whose work aligns with the partys values. Many analysts and speculators see the strategy as people running to be elected in one of the primary parties with the motive to convert to the Libertarians once elected. Nebraska State Senator Laura Ebke, the first to officially change to the third party says that this is the wrong strategy, as it could result in the person not getting elected at all. Instead, she sees the opportunity to work with sitting officials who seem to lean their way. While the funding for third party candidates election and reelection campaigns isn't nearly as great as the primary parties, Ebke and others are confident that if their party can be willing to put aside small differences with voters but agree on key points, they have a strong chance at increasing their numbers in state and federal legislatures as well as in the presidential race.

View post:
Libertarian Party Gaining Ground as Primary Parties Lose Support - The Conservative Nut (blog)

As the American healthcare system continues to seeminglyspend more and get ranked lowerthan other developed countries, many progressives have suggested a shift to single-payer healthcare as a solution.

Such attitudes have been exacerbated by recent Republican attempts to reign in government healthcare spending,prompting 52% of Democrats to say they support a government takeover of healthcare (this is up from 33% in March 2014).

The shortcomings of the US status quo (and any potential Republican reforms) are greatly exaggerated, and adopting a single-payer system is likely to only worsen our quality of care.

Under the guidance of politicians with absolutely no background in healthcare, like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, the left wing has epitomized the success stories of Nordic nations, such asSweden and Denmark (which are ranked second and first, respectively, by US News).

Little do they realize, however, that following these nations examples would undercut the rest of their proposed domestic policies.

The reason Nordic countries can spend so little on healthcare and still score highly on health metrics is because theyspend substantially more on social safety net services, like unemployment coverage, education, and foster care.

When these are taken into consideration,Nordic countriesactually spend more than the US per citizen; keep in mind, all this spending falls on the governments tab (i.e. the taxpayers), while in the USthe majority of healthcare spending is still paid by the individual.

Such high spending is only possible with proportionally higher taxation, but to stay globally competitive, these nations must maintain low corporate tax rates, so the tax burden is shifted to individuals, whopay taxes as high as 60% (incidentally, the amount that the rich contribute is actually less than that of the US).

This social redistribution scheme, where everyone pays in eagerly, is only possible because Scandinavian countries havesmall, homogenous populations, without any commitment to supporting historically impoverished and/or oppressed minorities.

In fact, quite to the contrary, the Nordic countries have some of the most nativist and anti-immigrant policies in Europe, going so faras to build a wall to protect against illegal immigrants and Middle-Eastern refugees. Sound familiar?

American progressives cant have it both ways: you either have a strong social safety net along with border protection and homogeneity, or neither.

A single-payer system has never been attempted in any country as populous and diverse as the US.

Those European nations, like the UK or Germany, that did implement some softer version of universal healthcare have seen mixed results:the UK is often ranked no better than the US, whileGermany has a rampant two tier system, with those able to afford private care receiving far better service than those on the public option.

The healthcare spending is supplemented, once again, by extensive social spending.

These countries are currently struggling with an unsustainable influx of immigrants and refugees (thanks to theSchengen area visa-free travel), which adds an even more unmanageable burden onto their already strained safety nets.

Combine that with the obligations that Germany has towards sustaining the rest of the European Union, who are themselves mired in their own debt crises, and the big picture becomes clear: Europes spending is not sustainable for a growing, diverse population.

The increased taxation and debt that European nations are facing in order to take in these immigrants has fomented nativist sentiments, leading to far right political victories (like Brexit), more walls and fences, and even aggression towards refugees.

This, in turn, has only fanned the flames for the already ostracized populations of Muslims, resulting in the horrific acts of terrorism that have become nearly synonymous with daily news in Europe.

Strained social relations and opposing political agendas, goaded in some part by single-payer healthcare, is not just endangering national finances its costing lives.

The dangers of single-payer medicine in Europe should leave us weary of adopting similar measures in our own country.

We have likewise witnessed arise in racism and xenophobia, which is often justified and exacerbated by the belief that our minority populations are draining our resources.

In expanding our social safety spending, the US would further these nativist sentiments to retreat back into its shell, abandoning the embrace of immigration and economic competitiveness that our nation was founded upon.

In the short term, our poor may be lifted up, but in the long term, such an Elysium would not be competitive globally and eventually collapse under its own weight.

The strong social safety net necessary to improve our national health metrics would alsoperpetuate poverty by disincentivizing work, thus emboldening negative stereotypes about lazy minorities.

To be lasting and self-sustaining, economic mobility (and the improvement that follows in the lifestyles and health outcomes of the impoverished) must come from the free market.

Considering the plethora of options around the globe that businesses have (for where to conduct business), the US must lower taxes if it is to remain competitive and augment said growth.

The American public must, in fact, look to Europe- but not as the city upon a hill which some progressive politicians paint, but as a case study in what not to do.

Single-payer is deceptive in theory and in name: although those like Bernie Sanders would have you believe the rich would be the single-payers, in reality,allof us(and our posterity) would pay dearly.

There is nothing singular about the suffering that would be brought on by single-payer healthcare.

* Adam Barsouk is a student of medicine and health policy at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University. As the son of Soviet escapees, he values the opportunity and freedom that America provided his family, and as a cancer researcher and aspiring physician, hopes to share his commitment by liberating others from the chains and suffering of disease.

Like Loading...

The rest is here:
The Perils of Single-Payer Healthcare - Being Libertarian

Being Libertarian

The Minimum Wage What Are We Thinking Being Libertarian The truth is it is impossible to live, what many people have as an expectation of the lifestyle they want to live, on a minimum wage; but, it is possible to live. Yes, you will have to live with roommates and you most likely won't have much spending ...

View original post here:
The Minimum Wage What Are We Thinking - Being Libertarian