Mediaboss Marketing

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

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)