Mediaboss Marketing

Libertarians must cast off their niche-party shackles and embrace more moderate stances to compete in the political arena.

The plight of third-party presidential bids in recent United States history have been, to put it in blunt terms, a series of major disappointments. The current Democratic-Republican two-party alignment has been extremely resilient to challenges from any alternative perspectives. Many of the ideological shifts in the American electorate have caused not a new political party to emerge, but rather strategic shifting of the two-party oligopoly to accommodate these new ideals.

Libertarians should observe the current shifting of the Democratic and Republican parties with concern, perhaps even fright. The days of the Reagan coalition, where conservative leaders like William F. Buckley gave a voice at the table (though not a full endorsement) to libertarian thinkers like FA Hayek and Milton Friedman, is long over. Modern right-wing politics now shares no more in common with the ideals of classical liberalism than does the progressive wing. From the neoconservative interventionism of George W. Bush, to the anti-market, anti-civil rights populist-nationalist Trump presidency, any tentative alliance between Republicans and libertarians that may have existed is now dead and buried.

Should libertarians consider a shift to the left? The outlook there is getting more and more concerning as well. An avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders, came within inches of earning the Democratic nomination in 2016. On the horizon, far-left Elizabeth Warren has her crosshairs aimed at the 2020 election. If either of these two candidates grabs the agenda of the Democratic Party away from the more reasonable Clinton-era members, it will represent a major underlying shift in the economic philosophy of the party. No longer will government intervention be deemed a necessary step to correct for perceived market failures or inequities. These far-left ideologues believe, rather, that the government actually does a better job in managing goods and services than does a private market.

Advocates of free markets and personal liberty face a potential political future in which the only two established political choices are between a pseudo-authoritarian and pseudo-socialist party. Neither could be further from the ideals of this countrys founders, save a true shift to pure fascism or communism. What should the only remaining US political party with access to the ballot on all 50 states do? The only strategic answer that makes sense is to flank from the center.

While Gary Johnsons failed 2016 presidential bid was a disappointment given his polling numbers earlier in the campaign season, a quick look at the voters who supported the Libertarian ticket explains a great deal about where the support was coming from. The ANES 2016 survey reveals that voters who went for Johnson identified politically as more moderate than Trump or Clinton supporters. They take more centrist stances on trade, the environment, and many other partisan issues. The 4 million+ people who were drawn to the Johnson-Weld candidacy were not libertarian ideologues, driven by the writings of Murray Rothbard and David Friedman. Rather, they were primarily moderates; dissatisfied with both Clinton and Trumps candidacies and voting in protest of the two major parties. In a time of increasing political polarization, a possible revolt of moderate voters ostracized by the far-left and far-right seems very possibly on the horizon. This opportunity for vote gathering cannot and should not be ignored by the only other US party with the resources and organization to achieve electoral success.

If the Libertarian Party wants to gain relevance and bargaining power in 2020 and perhaps beyond, participants and party members must drop some of more unpopular and radical party positions. Arguments for legalizing all drugs (not just marijuana), a complete elimination of minimum wage laws and regulations, and the complete abolition of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are without a doubt well-principled, and in keeping with an ideal libertarian vision of society, but they are not yet supported by enough of the population to be realistic campaign promises. For too long, ideological purity has superseded more pragmatic, measured goals for the Libertarian Party. They have been acting as a niche party, and this needs to change.

I propose that a center-libertarian party one that espouses the ideas of moderately limited government, social progress, and globalization is the best chance true libertarians have in order to push back against the radicalization of the Democratic and Republican parties. By positioning as the reasoned middle-ground, the party can work to advance some ideological interests that are largely popular (free trade, LGBT rights, lower taxes, reasoned budget cuts, school choice, and a restrained foreign policy to name a few) while offering a solid option to so many moderate voters within the US that while perhaps not true card-holding libertarians are concerned about either the growing authoritarian tendencies of the Republican party or the rapid expansion of economic interventionism and massive budget deficits offered by the left-Democrats.

Many of my libertarian friends will no doubt argue that what I am asking for is a step too far. For too long, I have heard, libertarians have had to choose between the lesser of two evils. A centrist party with only a classical liberal bent would be a return in their eyes to choosing a distant compromise over their preferred ideal ends. But this kind of thinking ignores reality and the pragmatic constraints of an electoral system, and the nature of strategic political bargaining. There are simply not yet enough true believers in minarchist policy for a presidential ticket espousing elimination of nearly 85% of government services to be electable. As political entrepreneurs, the libertarians must act pragmatically: not only is a centrist platform preferable to the options currently tabled by the Republicans and Democrats, but it is where many of the undecided or ostracized voters are likely to lie in 2020.

If libertarians continue to exist on fighting from the fringe of politics, there will be no opportunity to pose any political threat to the rise in statism that we see in the current political climate. The Libertarian Party and its donors must seize this opportunity, and work towards electoral success. The war against tyranny must be fought from the middle, not from the fringe. If we cannot make the adjustments and decisions necessary to compete electorally in a system already so stacked against third party challengers, then we too are equally culpable in the horrifying direction that the American political parties are heading.

* Colin French is a PhD student of political science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He has taught economics, history, and politics at both the secondary and post-secondary levels.

Like Loading...

Link:
A Case for Centrism - Being Libertarian - Being Libertarian

For libertarians in modern day politics, there has been more commotion regarding the proper stance on borders than ever before. This confusion has focused on the debate between whether we should be proponents of open or closed borders, and depending on who you ask, you get completely conflicting answers.

Why this topic causes so much confusion among libertarians is a complete mystery, as the debate regarding the proper stance on borders has been self-evident for almost 50 years now. So self-evident in fact, that Murray Rothbard barely even addressed it in For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, spending less than a handful of its few hundred pages discussing it. Why it has been so prominent lately though can be attributed to a few things.

Lets start with the overall increase in skepticism shown towards immigration, as it will certainly be brought up as a criticism later.

Nationalism has always been something promoted by the state, with an irrational fear of foreigners likewise trailing close behind. Immigration, however, has always been and still is an overall net benefit to an economy. For starters, immigrants do not steal peoples jobs, because unless you own the company, you do not own your job. Instead, they fill in the gaps left by most natives. In America, immigrants tend to be either exceedingly high or low skilled, complementing the majority of American workers who fall somewhere in the middle. Not only are immigrants less likely to commit crimes than natives, but research also shows that in America, immigrants are assimilating better than ever before. And although we can agree that we have a massively overblown welfare state, immigrants as a whole pay more in then they receive.

Part of the reason this illogical cynicism has been exacerbated in libertarian circles is due to the influx of both Democrats and Republicans abandoning their respective party, choosing to identify as libertarian with no real knowledge of its specifics.

These individuals, ranging from members of the alt-right all the way to full-blown communists, have caused the focus of the issue to be distorted. The open and closed borders distinction serves only to confuse most people through their subjective definitions, misleading many into arguing over inconsequential details. They have in essence academized libertarianism unnecessarily, much like what modern progressives have done with inequality and racism. Thus, taking a settled debate and adding excessive details, oftentimes complicating it to the point of arriving at the opposite answers.

Ironically, Rothbard predicted this would happen, and in For a New Liberty no less. In it, he refers to these groups through the borrowed Marxist terms of left-wing sectarians and right-wing opportunists, and wrote the following:

The critics of libertarian extremist principles are the analog of the Marxian right-wing opportunists. The major problem with the opportunists is that by confining themselves strictly to gradual and practical programs, programs that stand a good chance of immediate adoption, they are in grave danger of completely losing sight of the ultimate objective, the libertarian goal. He who confines himself to calling for a two percent reduction in taxes helps to bury the ultimate goal of abolition of taxation altogether. By concentrating on the immediate means, he helps liquidate the ultimate goal, and therefore the point of being libertarian in the first place. if libertarians refuse to hold aloft the banner of the pure principle, of the ultimate goal, who will? The answer is no one.

With that in mind, we can better understand the libertarian stance on borders, which is the complete abolition of state-owned property, followed by a strict adherence to private property rights. There is no adaptation of government involvement in any issue surrounding libertarianism, and borders are no different. Every issue brought up by the sectarians and opportunists to muddy the waters does not hold water themselves. Claiming the need for government to close borders to combat a problem brought on by the state requires the abandonment of the libertarian foundation. Wed no sooner advocate for the government to nationalize our health industry to solve the current insurance death spiral, brought about through a previous intrusion of government.

Likewise, the idea of handing the state more power to solve a state-sponsored problem is antithetical to libertarianism. It disregards both the truth that government cannot perform even the most menial tasks as efficiently as the market can, as well as the key argument that any authority the state is granted is never willingly given back. Instead, we should combat the states expansion and advocate its dissolution, specifically the policies aggravating the problems at hand, as aggressively as possible at each turn. For example, we may agree that the state is currently subsidizing immigration to the detriment of its citizens well-being, however, giving more authority to the state to solve this matter for reasons of pragmatism only further incentivizes the state to cause crises in other sectors so that it may usurp more authority in its resolution.

But, even the great Murray Rothbard fought vigorously with himself over this, going back and forth later in life. If this tells us nothing else, it means that until such a time where it is the individual property owners choice, the border debate is done a gross injustice when reduced to the polarizing false dichotomy of open or closed.

What solutions can we advocate in the meantime then?

Rather than fall prey to the circular logic of initial state expansion as a means of reaching the goal of abolition, we should spend our time calling out the problems the state is guilty of promoting and educating those we can of the discernable solutions the market provides. With regard to borders, this means calling for the immediate end to all the things currently being provided at the federal level possessing negative incentives. These include subsidized and preferential immigration policies, tax-funded border walls, and above all else, the welfare-warfare state. Similarly, the focus should also be put on decentralization, until the point where the authority resides in each private property owner, as mentioned earlier. We can fight to accomplish these things simultaneously.

Now, to some that are too entrenched in the debate to digest this truth, this may sound contradictory. But we must be vigilant not to allow the aforementioned opportunists to usher in more state power, so that they may wield it for their own ends. We can think of this in simpler terms through another analogy borrowed from Rothbard. We all believe in freedom of speech, yet we know from his teachings that this does not include the ability to yell fire in a theater, or disrupt a service in a private hall. While we want these rights upheld, surely, we would not advocate for the state to establish a Ministry of Speech to achieve that end, as we know it would end up being a complete contradiction of its intended purpose. Likewise, we want private property rights, however, advocating that the state undertakes its implementation through monopolistic tactics should be seen as clearly self-defeating at this point.

The recent election process, however, has shown us that people are yearning for a change from the traditional solutions put forth by government. If we could reunite behind this foundational principle instead of tearing one another down through petty infighting, theres no doubt we could crush any misconception or delusion the left or right throws at us, while simultaneously influencing an untold number of people toward our cause as they witness the veracity of our arguments when put up against the current status quo.

Featured image: http://www.tapwires.com

This post was written by Thomas J. Eckert.

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

Thomas J. Eckert is college grad with an interest in politics. He studies economics and history and writes in his spare time on political and economic current events.

Like Loading...

Read more here:
Today's Libertarians Got the Border Debate Wrong The Lowdown on Liberty - Being Libertarian (satire)

Welcome to this weeks installment of In Case You Missed It,a weekly news roundup that focuses on some of the biggest news stories from around the globe every week. So, in case you missed it, heres your week in review:

An angered Augustus Invictus, former Libertarian candidate for United States Senate in Florida, called his now-former partyan organization fanatically devoted to losing, in a livestream today.

The one time they came to win something at the federal level, it was to stop me to from challenging Marco Rubio for the United States Senate in Florida, Invictus explained.

Invictus went on to cite a number of reasons why he left, including baseless attacks by fellow libertarians. Over the course of his campaign he was called a devil worshiper, a genocidal maniac, a fascist neo-Nazi hate monger, a white supremacist, and a hundred other things. Invictus was a victim of attacks from LP members, all the way up to the former Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Florida, and the national party chairman.

He continued with his statement trying to provide constructive advice about how to fight against statism and fight for liberty. He suggested that libertarians should fight to win, and that if a party is going to exist, that it should play to win. He sees his party switch as a move from the collegiate level, to the big leagues, joining a party that likely will not welcome [him] with open arms but is at least playing to win and fight against the tyranny of the left.

You can watch his full statement here.

President Trumpsignedan executive order Wednesday to begin pulling the federal government out of K-12 education.

This order, dubbed theEducation Federalism Executive Order, follows through on his campaign promise to bring education back down to the state and local levels.

According to The Washington Times, a 300-day review of Obama-era regulations and guidance for school districts will soon begin. The order will direct Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to modify or repeal measures she deems an overreach by the federal government.

This order is a huge move for the Trump administration in terms of advancing the principles of liberty and small government. Getting the federal government out of national education standards leaving it up to the state and local jurisdictions is an amazing advancement for liberty.

Human Rights Watch reports that at least 37 people accused of petty crimes in Rwanda have been executed rather than given a trial, between the times of July 2016 and March of 2017.

According to BBC News, most of the alleged victims were accused of theft in one case stealing bananas. Others were accused of smuggling marijuana, illegally entering the country, or using illegal fishing nets.

Human Rights Watch believes that the executions are part of a plan by the Rwandan government to spread fear, enforce order and deter any resistance to government orders or policies.

The Rwandan government denies that any of the killings took place.

If true, this is an awful display of disregard for human rights by the Rwandan government.

Thats all for this week. Check back next Friday for another weekly news round up, in case you missed it.

Photo Credit: The Miami Herald

This post was written by Nicholas Amato.

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

Nicholas Amato is the News Editor at Being Libertarian. Hes an undergraduate student at San Jose State University, majoring in political science and minoring in journalism.

Like Loading...

Originally posted here:
In Case You Missed It: Augustus Invictus, Education, Rwanda - Being Libertarian

Nonetheless, pro-Russian (or at least anti-anti-Russian) arguments have become fairly common not just among conservatives but among a contingent of libertarians, such as former Rep. Ron Paul and Antiwar.com Editorial Director Justin Raimondo. The new Republican affection for Russia is largely a matter of political polarization: Since Putin is the Democrats boogeyman du jour, he cant be all bad. But quite a few conservatives also genuinely see Putins Russia as a Christian ally against Islam, a perspective recently endorsed by Ann Coulter in a March column trollishly titled Lets Make Russia Our Sister Country.

That view manages to ignore not only Russias coziness with Iran but the fact that one of Putins staunchest domestic allies, Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, runs a de facto sharia state within the Russian Federation. This spring, Kadyrov was in the news for throwing gay men in prison camps and threatening a fatwa on Russian journalists who exposed the persecution.

Meanwhile, Ron Paulstyle libertarians are inclined to see Russia as a check on U.S. foreign adventurism and Russia hawks as hardcore proponents of the American imperial leviathan. Unfortunately, there is a small contingent who fall victim to the fallacy that the enemy of the enemy is my friend, and if the Kremlin is the enemy of my enemy, then it must be my friend, Palmer says.

See the rest here:
Russia's global anti-libertarian crusade - Hot Air

Net neutrality allows smaller businesses to rise in the ranks of the current ISP market without having to compete with strong monopolies that dominate society. Net neutrality as a concept is inherently libertarian, as it ensures freedom from censorship, as well as ensures that one can do whatever they want on the internet without fear of being stopped or throttled.

Net neutrality is loosely defined as the principle that internet service providers shouldnt be allowed to restrict or throttle internet access. As well as preventing the restriction of internet access, net neutrality put ISPs (internet service providers) into Title II communications group, precisely the common carriers category. Putting ISPs into this category allows for bandwidth to be regulated, or allows it to not be throttled based on internet usage. Net neutrality also ensures that ISPs are held accountable for the things they do, and doesnt allow ISPs to secretly do things.

Organizations such as Netflix were strong supporters of net neutrality when the topic first arose, but as of recent have been relatively quiet, one can assume that they realized it could harm them. Net neutrality would prevent businesses from being able to create a monopoly on certain websites as they could prevent ISPs from being paid out to throttle websites that rival places like Netflix, Google, and others. With this in mind, small businesses would be snuffed out because they couldnt hold a place in the market due to larger businesses holding such strong monopolies.

Rolling back net neutrality would only open the door for more crony capitalism, and would allow businesses like ComCast to legally prevent internet access for any reason they choose. ISPs would legally be allowed to put premiums on anything they deem necessary, and would have no legal repercussion for making it difficult for one to continue watching their favourite porn, watching things on their favourite small time streaming site, or reading things on their favourite independent news sources like Being Libertarian. Not only would it make it more difficult, but would make it so that the things they can access would cost a fortune.

The main argument against net neutrality is that it is the government attempting to regulate more of ones life.

At the moment we are looking at government or private organization controlling us, and in this case government looks more promising. Having zero regulation on ISPs allows them to lie, throttle, and be generally sly without repercussion. Allowing the government to have minor control over ISPs would merely prevent the ISPs from hiding and abusing power as easily, and would help break up monopolies on the current market. Net neutrality isnt suggesting that the government should have a significant amount of control over the market, but that ISPs shouldnt be able to determine the market.

Net neutrality prevents ISPs from being paid out by big businesses, prevents them from shortening bandwidth because they deem it necessary, and prevents them from putting premiums on internet services. Net neutrality isnt the perfect choice, but is the much lesser of two evils in this situation, and would help ensure freedom.

* Rhys Boekelheide is 16 years old and runs the podcast Your Opinion Sucks. Hes been interested politics for years, and has been writing about them for almost as long.

Like Loading...

More here:
Why Net Neutrality is a Necessity - Being Libertarian