Mediaboss Marketing

There are certain situationswhere results matter more than intentions.

An engineer who builds a bridge, for example, may have intended for it to be successful, but a faulty design would render him liable if someone lost their life while crossing said bridge.

A CEO who intended to make his company richer only to end up declaring bankruptcy is again remembered for his results, not intentions.

The idea that actions are judged by their outcomes and not by their intentions is something that is seen in the real world all the time, and yet people feel anxious and ambivalent in using this as a medium to judge law-makers and politicians.

We then make the mistake of believing that the egregious outcomes of some laws should be excused provided that they were originally written in good faith.

The death penalty is one such law. Although written with seemingly good intentions, it has still brought about more harm than good.

Yes, everyone wants to hang murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and the rest of societys scum as it seems to be the right thing to do and it appears to be with good intentions.

The reason why civilized countries have abolished the death penalty, however, is because they realized that it is actually not as just as the self-righteous claimit to be.

More specifically, the death penalty is not justified because of its high cost for the taxpayer, and its incompatibility with an individuals natural and universally-understood rights. These two affronts to liberty an assault on the taxpayer and an assault on civil liberties is why libertarians are the only ones within the right-wing community to despise capital punishment.

To begin, the death penalty is not justified (i.e. it is not reasonable or fair) because it is both highly inefficient and highly ineffective for the taxpayer. Primarily, the death penalty is ineffective because it neglects to do its job as a punishment in a civilized legal code: deter crime. There is not a single nation-state in the world that has, through implementing capital punishment, achieved a lower crime rate.

In fact, American states that still have the death penalty have, on average, a 25% higher homicide rate than states that do not have such a punishment (Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates).

We see in the above citation that everyoneloses when the death penalty is in effect, and that this punishment only brings about more pain and sorrow for our society, not less. If a penalty only serves to perpetuate a problem that it was meant to solve, then it has no business being included in the criminal code.

On top of not being effective, the death penalty is simply not efficient even if you believe the end goal isnt to deter crime but to instead exact revenge.I say this because the death penalty curses society with an unfair financial burden.

The State of Maryland is just one of many places where the death penalty serves as a colossal waste of tax dollars as the death penalty cases cost 3 times more than the non-death penalty ones.

On top of this, we see a similar complaint with law professor, JeffreyFagan, who estimates that the cost of an individual state execution can range anywhere between $2.5 million and $5 million.

Both Fagan and the State of Maryland teach us that the death penalty is a more expensive alternative than simply incarcerating a violent felon because defense lawyers will seek a lot more appeals for court cases if their client is otherwise faced with certain death.

These appeals combined with the time and money needed to hear and file them all cost the taxpayer extra money.

I think it goes without saying that we, as libertarians, have a very low tolerance for taxation as we can often be heard equating it to theft (which it is), and that is why we can never advocate for a policy that only triples the amount of theft we allow our robbers politicians to get away with.

Furthermore, when the taxpayer is really paying for a system that does not benefit them at all, it is easy to realize that the death penalty really isnt worth paying for.

With regard to the economic argument here, something can also be said about the issue of opportunity costs because the death penalty diverts resources from more effective programs that have actually been proven to reduce crime, i.e. money spent on taking a life (plus the tedious legal work behind it) is money that could have been used on the families of murder to accommodate psychological healing.

The money could have also been used for mental health research that could preclude others from going down a criminal path or even be used to uplift poverty-stricken communities and provide them with the resources and education needed to make crime unnecessary for ones survival.

Moreover, introducing the death penalty would be in violation of ones rights as declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

In particular, article 3 of the UDHR states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of the person.

The reason why this creed is so important is because it shows that life is an unalienable right bestowed on to every human being and that taking away this right would not only violate constitutional law, but also natural law.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are supposed to, in theory, be immune to positive law passed by humans. What this means is that no legislature is supposed to be able to draft a law that strips away any of these rights nor can an independent judiciary order one to surrender them. The state, in theory, is not even supposed to be the one to dispense the right to live but rather, they are obligated to protect and defend it.

A failure to protect and defend this right, even for societys most unwanted, will mean that the state is stooping down to the very murderers that they wish to hang.

Ultimately, the death penalty is not just breaking some abnormal right or privilege it is breaking a universally-understood right. And to violate such a right in its rawest, most natural form is grounds for an outcry from the libertarian community.

In the end, if there is one thing that libertarians will go to war over, it is, as their name implies, liberty. I then assert that the community should continue on with its crusade against things like the death penalty for it violates both the financial liberty of the taxpayer and the natural liberty of the individual.

We must remember that just because it may sound good to finally get revenge on those who have raped, murdered, or committed acts of terrorism against their fellow citizens, the greater injustice will always be allowing that thirst for revenge to trivialize both the taxpayer as well as the sacred possessions of life and liberty for all.

See also:

https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-innocence/

http://facade1.law.columbia.edu/law_school/communications/reports/summer06/capitalpunish

* Christopher X. Henry has just graduated high school and will be attending the University of Toronto to study political science. He wishes to become a lawyer, writer, and politician and has taken up writing as a hobby for both Being Libertarian and his own blog and Facebook page, Freedom Papers.

Like Loading...

Read this article:
A Libertarian Case Against the Death Penalty - Being Libertarian

LINCOLN, NEBRASKAThe shebeen has relocated for a few days to keep an eye on the hearings being conducted by this state's Public Service Commission into our old friend, the Keystone XL pipeline, the continent-spanning death funnel and conservative fetish object. At its roots, the fight over the pipeline is a fight over the limits of corporate deregulation as it affects ordinary citizens, and over the obligation of elected officials to enforce those limits. (The PSC here is an elected body.)

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

In that spirit, we should look at this sadly hilarious story from another state. The Texas Observer brings us the tale of a small place called Von Ormy, where the citizens voted themselves into a state of libertarian paralysis.

For the last few years, Von Ormy has been in near-constant turmoil over basic issues of governance: what form of municipal government to adopt, whether to tax its residents, and how to pay for services such as sewer, police, firefighters and animal control. Along the way, three City Council members were arrested for allegedly violating the Open Meetings Act, and the volunteer fire department collapsed for lack of funds. Nearly everyone in town has an opinion on who's to blame. But it's probably safe to say that the vision of the city's founder, a libertarian lawyer whose family traces its roots in Von Ormy back six generations, has curdled into something that is part comedy, part tragedy.

In 2006, fearing annexation by rapidly encroaching San Antonio, some in Von Ormy proposed incorporating as a town. But in government-averse rural Texas, incorporation can be a hard sell. Unincorporated areas are governed mainly by counties, which have few rules about what you can do on private property and tend to only lightly tax. There's no going back from what municipal government brings: taxes, ordinances, elections and tedious city council meetings. Still, the fear of being absorbed by San Antonio with its big-city taxes and regulations was too much for most Von Ormians.

Look out, Mother. It's government! Head for the root cellar!

Initially, the city would impose property and sales taxes, but the property tax would ratchet down to zero over time. The business-friendly environment would draw new economic activity to Von Ormy, and eventually the town would cruise along on sales taxes alone. There would be no charge for building permits, which Martinez de Vara said would be hand-delivered by city staff. The nanny state would be kept at bay, too. Want to shoot off fireworks? Blast away. Want to smoke in a bar? Light up. Teens wandering around at night? No curfew, no problem.

Good morning, suckers.

Today, there is no city animal control program and stray dogs roam the streets. The Bexar County Sheriff's Office patrols the town instead of city police, and City Hall resides in a mobile home with one full-time staffer though that's a step up from the dive bar where City Council met until the owner bounced them out. If you go to the city's website, you'll be informed that it's still under construction. If Von Ormy is a libertarian experiment with democracy, it's one that hasn't turned out as expected.

I would argue that, except perhaps for the dive bar part, the experiment has turned out exactly as expected, at least as expected by anyone not raised in a baby farm at the Cato Institute.

What ensued was a confusing series of boycotted meetings, obscure loopholes and eventually a possibly illegal hearing that landed the three women briefly in jail. In September 2014, Martinez de Vara had formally proposed zeroing out the property tax, but Goede, Hernandez and Aguilar voted it down 3-2 and, at least for five days, kept the property tax in place. However, to formally ratify the rate, per state law, at least four council members needed to hold another meeting to vote, but Sally Martinez and Debra Ivy refused to show up to any hearing with ratification on the agenda. The result: Martinez de Vara got his way and the property tax rate was eliminated.

The idea that you can run a self-governing republic with minimal government is one of the more pernicious (and persistent) lies of American history. (Ask Jefferson Davis how his experiment in that hypothesis turned out.) They're going to be playing out that same old drama here in Lincoln this week. I'm not sure, but I don't think we all want to live in a Von Ormy of the mind.

Even the Senate Is Fed Up with President* Trump

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page.

Go here to read the rest:
This Texas Town Went Full Libertarian and Hilarity Ensued - Esquire.com

Libertarian party founderDavid Nolan.

(CourtesyFran Holt of DuPage Libertarians)

In 1977, the condensed version of the party's platform was described in this fashion by Nolan:

1. We favor the abolition of damn near everything.

2. We call for drastic reductions in everything else.

3. And we refuse to pay for what's left!

The Libertarian party has grown to have somewhere around half a million registered voters nationwide. There's a new project to document its history, led by Caryn Ann Harlos, Libertarian Party of Colorado communications director and Region 1 representative on the Libertarian National Committee. Harlos has been cataloging and digitizing party documents, photos and artifacts at LPedia.org.

Here's a look at some of the things Harlos has unearthed:

A poster for the party's first presidential ticket with John Hospers as president and Theodora "Tonie" Nathan as vice president. Nathan the first woman in U.S. history to get an electoral vote in the electoral college.

(Courtesy Libertarian Party of Colorado)

Harlos found issues of the Libertarian Party News, or the LP News, and early newsletters that she says "give a snapshot of what was going on at the time."

(Courtesy Libertarian Party of Colorado)

There's also this abridged history of the party.

(Courtesy Libertarian Party of Colorado)

Related:

Colorado Public Radio reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. By commenting below, you agree to these terms. For additional information, please consult our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use as well as our Community Standards.

Go here to see the original:
Libertarianism Was Born In Westminster And Other Historical Party Facts - Colorado Public Radio

Unlike the protagonist in the Jimmy Stewart movie, Austin Petersen isnt entirely innocent when it comes to politics. In fact, you could say hes been angling for office for quite a while now, an opinion even more apparent since he announced he was going to challenge Democrat Claire McCaskill for her Senate seat in 2018.

But for those who arent entirely familiar with this former actor turned Libertarian activist, let me introduce you to the man who could permanently change Washington in ways Donald Trump never could.

Born in 1981, Petersen has played a pivotal role in libertarian politics since the early 2000s and has even developed something of a feud with his former boss, libertarian-Republican stalwart Ron Paul, which placed him in the middle of a fight over classical liberalism in the United States.

Even though Petersen originally studied musical theatre at Missouri State, his interest and activism in the libertarian movement led him to run in his partys primaries for the presidency in 2016. He ended up losing on the second ballot to Gary Johnson, but that didnt quench his thirst for public office. So, on July 4th, 2017, Petersen announced his bid for the US Senate, but as a Republican.

The decision shocked many of his supporters. However, Petersens large connections to media outlets such as Reason, Libertarian Republic (which he started), and Fox News was most likely a factor in the largely positive coverage he received.

Another big part of this good reception, in an otherwise difficult situation where youre trying to sell leaving your own party, is probably the interesting way Petersen is presenting himself.

Despite the rising tide of populism, libertarian-Republicans and self-proclaimed Constitutionalists such as Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Ron Johnson are gaining leverage in the Senate. Petersen is currently following the same strategy himself.

These new Republicans have actually been around for a while, predating the MAGA movement and even in some cases the Evangelical surge during the Obama era. They represent a fresh dedication to economic conservatism, and in some cases even partially abandoning strong social positions.

In an interview with Reason Magazines Nick Gillespie, Petersen said many of these things himself.

Itd be good to have a more Libertarian Republican in her place to vote on the issues that we are about, Peterson said while discussing why he was better suited for the Senate than his potential Democratic opponent, Claire McCaskill.

Petersons presence in the Senate could lend a hand to this relatively small block of Republicans, and with battles over tax reform and healthcare still being hammered out, its very possible Petersen could help shift the balance of an extremely important war for the soul of the GOP.

The most important question is, Can this former Libertarian take his seat among the lions of the Senate?

Despite the fact that he could possibly get some high level endorsements and help from the aforementioned legislators, Petersen has a tough electoral mountain to climb.

He faces a potential primary field filled with strong Republican candidates like state attorney general Josh Hawley, whos much more likely to receive help from the state party. Even though Peterson has a bigger profile nationally than probably any of his future foes in the GOP primary, that doesnt necessary mean Republicans will be so accepting.

Even if he somehow managed to win the nomination, Missouri, despite being a tossup state, has a true conservative base that could view Petersens libertarian stances on social issues in a negative light.

Whoever the victor ends up being, the real enemy at the end of the day will be the wily Claire McCaskill, a rising star within the Democrat party. McCaskill, unlike other noticeable Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or Tulsi Gabbard, is known more for her moderate positions and ability to be dependable than her progressive record.

McCaskill first gained fame in 2006 when she beat Republican incumbent James Talent in her run for the Senate with a margin of 49.6% to 47.3%. She was the first ever female senator from her state, one of only 3 Democrats to hold that seat since 1953, and was one of the first senators to endorse Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, a series of record breaking feats that were topped off by perhaps her greatest asset: shrewd political skills.

When youre a Democrat that represents a state that has a past of going red on the national level, you develop a pair of very sharp political claws.

McCaskill truly showed off her effectiveness at shredding an opponent when she first defended her seat in 2012. Perhaps it was more Todd Akins own quotes (If its a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.) that sabotaged his challenge, but McCaskills ability to use his words against him saved her from being poached by the GOP. She trounced Akin with 54.7% of the vote, surviving a red wave that gave Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney that same year the state with 53.9% of the vote.

Despite running against someone who could be considered the smartest Democrat in the Senate, Petersen might be able to ride his way to victory by energizing the Trump voter base. The former businessman from New York won the state during the 2016 presidential race by almost 20%, a landslide victory.

However, in order for this strategy to work, it would mean Petersen would have to stray a little from his libertarian roots. But since hes already left his own party to have a shot at victory, it seems the former Fox News producer might do just about anything to win it. Or, perhaps in this case, trump it.

Featured image: Wikipedia

* Caleb Mills is an analyst, journalist, and political strategist from the American Midwest.

Like Loading...

Original post:
Mr. Petersen Goes To Washington - Being Libertarian

Roughly 100 anti-Trump protesters demonstrate peacefully in Market Square on February 19, 2017, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Jeff Swensen / Getty Images)

The Democratic Socialists of America, a traditionally progressive socialist organization founded in 1982, has seen it's membership increase multiply from roughly 5,000 to 25,000 members in the past year following the Bernie Sanders campaign and the subsequent election of Trump. Now, many on the left are looking at the organization as a barometer of sorts for the fate of the larger left. In addition, many are viewing the DSA convention this week in Chicago as a key turning point within the organization. Coming out of the DSA is a new caucus called the Libertarian Socialist Caucus. The LSC promotes a vision of "libertarian socialism" -- a traditional name for anarchism -- that goes beyond the confines of traditional social democratic politics. I asked John Michael Coln, a member of the group's provisional organizing committee, to talk about its vision and goals.

Adam Weaver: The DSA has a range of tendencies and is sort of a "big tent" of socialist politics. What made you want to form a Libertarian Socialist Caucus (DSA-LSC)? Tell us about yourself and what you see as the political influences of the group.

John Michael Coln: I've been a member of DSA for over a year; some of us involved have been members before the "Bernie and Trump bump." So it's not a matter of anarchists infiltrating and joining DSA ... but anarchists who have been members of DSA all along. We want to organize them as we believe that libertarian socialism is democratic socialism.

Once upon a time, before Trump and Bernie Sanders, there had been a thing called the Left Caucus which aimed to organize all the DSA members who wanted to push the organization to the left. It was good, I was part of it, but it's now basically defunct because with so many new members joining DSA, many are already to the left of the DSA. But what the existence of the Left Caucus proved was that caucuses based on ideological interests had a place in DSA. We want to be the first caucus within the DSA that had a more specific vision, that openly talks about a specific political direction that they would move towards. Rather than say we want to move the DSA to the left, we [are saying we] want to move to the left with specific positions and a specific manner. And not everyone who identifies with the left is going to agree.

Speaking for myself here, I believe that the LSC has an especially important role not just in promoting its own ideas, but also in setting an example for others for how to do caucuses right in being internally democratic, in co-existing, cooperating with and having cross-membership with other caucuses. Caucuses can be hubs of organizing activity, hubs of political education, hosting reading groups, etc. There's a dimension of caucuses that are akin to being political parties within the larger DSA.

It's important to note that you can't be in the LSC unless you are a dues-paying member of DSA. Most of our members were people who were already members of the DSA. There are some people who, because we announced our existence, joined DSA, and that's a consequence of the libertarian socialists already in DSA who were getting organized.

At the end of the day, the Libertarian Socialist Caucus, or any other caucus for that matter, is not an alien entity within DSA; rather it's a caucus of DSA members united around a shared interest.

What do you see as the commonalities and differences between the politics that you are looking to put forward and DSA's current politics and organizing? What are you looking to change?

I would contest the framing of the question a little bit. It's important to note that beyond the idea of big-tent socialism, the DSA doesn't actually have a party line. Outside observers, though, act as if DSA does, but the reality is it doesn't have a set of positions that you have to accept. Rather, the DSA is an internally democratic organization of socialists that adjudicate their disputes through liberal parliamentary norms of conflict resolution. In other words, if we disagree, like on the convention floor, it will be argued out on the floor between delegates. It's not a centralist organization where there's a party line and if you disagree you have to leave.

The problem is that, at this point, it's difficult to say exactly what LSC stands for because we don't have official positions. We just finalized our membership, and because we are democratic we haven't reached positions yet. There are probably shared values that we have that people in DSA don't have, and we want to promote those values and make them more popular.

These [values include] skepticism of the state, a critique of the state and seeing the state as going hand-in-hand with capitalism. A second component is a belief in radical democracy with a higher standard of democracy, one which is more rigorous. A lot of people believe that democracy is just elections. But we believe democracy means more than electionsthat it is participatory.

We want to advocate and convince people by the strength of our ideas that there are things DSA should be doing and should be promoting. We want to see more things like directly democratic neighborhood assemblies, worker cooperatives, participatory budgeting, radical syndicalism and municipalism that DSA is currently not promoting, as well as the things DSA is already doing, like organizing workplaces and fighting bosses and landlords. We see these as the fullest embodiment of the values that unite the different kinds of socialism within the DSA under its banner.

The DSA's convention is happening in Chicago this weekend. With over 40 proposals and with the huge influx of new members who have entered the organization, many observers see this convention as a turning point. Can you tell us what you see as the key issues at stake that will be debated at the coming convention? How is DSA-LSC leaning on these issues?

I do want to answer this one by saying, like I said before, LSC doesn't have an official position yet. The very first event that we are organizing [Friday] morning is our first general assembly where members of LSC will follow a procedure presented to our membership to make decisions about convention debates. We are going to go one-by-one through all of the floor debate questions that will happen at the convention. If our assembly can arrive at a consensus, we are going to ask the delegates present to vote in accordance with that.

We don't know how many will show up exactly, but we are expecting, based on our listserve, something like 20 confirmed delegates, and we are allowing any DSA member to attend.

A major decision at the convention will be elections for the 16-member National Political Committee of DSA, which acts as a sort of national level policy and steering committee for the organization. Right now there's the competing Momentum/Spring Platform and Praxis slates, individuals drafted and signed onto a "Unity Platform" document, and now members of DSA-LSC are putting forward their candidates as well, called DSA Friends and Comrades. What do you see as the competing visions represented?

I can't say anything on our official position on them. Speaking only for myself, I think that Momentum and Praxis both have some pros and they both have some cons. They are all good organizers and comrades that have done good work. But I personally disagree very strongly with what I would see as the centralizing tendencies in Momentum's positions. But I'm only speaking for myself, and I know for a fact that other LSC members have different opinions.

What I would say about both Momentum and Praxis is that the way they came about is that [their candidates] only represent themselves. My hope is that in the future LSC sets an example where candidates are selected by caucuses and are accountable to them rather than self-selecting. And I think that's important because the platforms of the slates have shaped the convention as a whole, and it's more democratic if those conversations arise from larger groups of members within the DSA.

The DSA Friends and Comrades coalition is something that came out of LSC members and was organized by LSC members informally and hasn't been approved by the group. We wish them well, and some of us will vote for them and promote them on our social media, but they don't represent the LSC. Next convention we aim to organize a primary and democratic process to put forward a slate.

Go here to read the rest:
A Turning Point on the Left? Libertarian Caucus Debuts at Democratic Socialist Conference - Truth-Out