Mediaboss Marketing

With the increasingly more hawkish policies in Afghanistan and Syria, President Donald Trump has shown to be far more influenced by his advisors. It is no question why libertarians, who expected a far more hands-off president, are wary of the current direction of the White Houses foreign policy. To the libertarian there seems to be no case for any further United States involvement in conflicts and countries that have shown to impede a free market economy and international peace. However, there is one idea that is consistent with libertarian foreign policy: national and international policy-making in missile defense systems.

At first glance, a missile defense system, seems to be the antithesis of libertarianism, being a belief founded on individual rights, property rights, the free market, capitalism, justice, or the nonaggression principle, according to the Mises Institute of Austrian Economics, Freedom, and Peace. Yet upon closer analysis of libertarianisms classical liberal roots, there is a case for missile defense systems.

The classical liberal is not to be confused with the modern Democrat/Liberal. A classic example of a liberal would be someone like Adam Smith, and even Milton Friedman, who believed in the power of a free and peaceful market, that promoted well-being through, a tolerable administration of justice. Both thinkers, and all their like-minded scholars, have argued that wars promote a society where the government will take powers and do things that it would not ordinarily do. In the same breath, the discipline argues for international peace. A defensive missile system promotes peace by deterrence while also creating a peaceful environment for trade. Christopher A. Preble of Cato furthers this point by explaining that, peaceful, non-coercive foreign engagement should not be confused with its violent cousin: war.

A missile defense system becomes increasingly more vital as peace in the world continues to become more precarious. With tensions rising in Asia, from South Korean President, Moon Jae-In, wanting to reexamine mobile anti-ballistic missile installments in South Korea, to the the successful launch of another North Korean Missile, and to Chinas anger at U.S. action in the region, the U.S. has to take a stand.

And war cannot be the answer.

A missile defense system would deter conflict, and has proven to work. The current superior technology to protect the American homeland from longer range missiles is the Ground-based Missile Defense (GMD) system. The GMD was successfully tested last week in California as reported by ABC News. This test was a critical milestone because for the first time, a missile system was able to detect and destroy a ballistic missile, without previous calculations inputted into the system. In just a few years the technology has made great strides, and will continue to do into the future.

At the end of the day, defensive missile systems are cheaper than war, and dont come at the cost of life. When looking at history the U.S. government spent trillions on nation building and toppling governments in the Middle East and North Africa. Yet, these endeavors failed miserably and never supported our national interest. Furthermore, nation building policies of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama hurt our national security, creating more violence in the regions we were involved in. Missile defense are projected for an annual cost that averages just below $1 billion. Compare this to Afghanistan and Iraq where the price tag numbered in the trillions. Missile defense is a smarter investment dollar per dollar when compared to a feckless policy of nation building.

This is the libertarian case for missile defense systems.

The libertarian case is for international policies that promote peace while reducing the encroachment of a government on its people. Libertarians are not hermit isolationists or anti-governmental hippies. Rather they are fiscally minded individuals who make a strong case for smart foreign engagement through peaceful means. A missile defense system would promote peace across the world, while reducing the need for the United States to step in as a police force, entering into conflict internationally.

Read more:
The Libertarian Case for Defensive Missile Systems - The Libertarian Republic

As of this week, New Hampshire has three sitting Libertarians in its House of Representatives. First elected in 2016 as a Republican, Brandon Phinney, representing wards 4 and 5 in the city of Rochester, announced he's joining Caleb Dyer (former Republican) and Joseph Stallcop (former Democrat) as Libertarians, giving the L.P. a three-man caucus. (In the 1990s for a period there were four sitting Libertarians in the New Hampshire House.)

Libertarian Party

"The Libertarian Party platform gives us, as legislators, the best possible framework to expand social freedoms, support a free-market economy, and ensure the checks and balances on government power are enforced," Phinney said in the Libertarian Party's press release announcing the switch.

Phinney works for the Carroll County Department of Corrections. (Being one of the 400 members of the New Hampshire House is a part-time job.) "We do what we can to rehabilitate offenders, implement new programming in the county to help addicts get treatment, and we manage inmate behavior," he described his day job in a phone interview this week after he announced his move to the Libertarian Party.

His work in corrections "has given me inspiration as far as government's role in policing" and led him to realize "we need to be ending the drug war. I know the system is broken. I know there are people in jail who don't need to be there."

Before running for office last year, Phinney had been deployed for a year to the United Arab Emirates with the New Hampshire Army National Guard working as a construction engineer.

He has also been slightly famous in atheist circles for being a rare out-and-proud atheist politician. Phinney himself doesn't like to make too much of that, and points out that it isn't his atheism per se but his atheism combined with his previous GOP membership that made it seem like news, since Republicans "have a tradition of being faith-based." (He even once sang for a metal band named Godcrusher.)

Phinney says his initial attraction toward government work came from "issues in the past with the family court system" and a desire to reform such policies in a more father-friendly direction, though he doesn't want to discuss his personal specifics and says they are not currently an active problem in his life.

The issues he likes to front and center as a legislator that he discussed in our phone interview include some that fit well with the Libertarian Party platformsuch as marijuana legalizationand some that don'tlike increasing state programs for veterans. But he describes his overarching way of judging proposed legislation as having "three criteria, which are, will [a bill] expand government growth? Will it have a burden on taxpayers? And is it in the interest of freedom?"

Like fellow L.P. convert Stallcop, the former Democrat, Phinney at first considered running as an independent but found the ballot access issues too troublesome and thought the Republicans were the major party that were "closest to what I felt." He has since realized that the Republican platform didn't "actually represent what I thought should be the role of government in our lives."

He quickly found caucusing with the GOP wearying and "stopped going" to the meetings; "every time something controversial came up they wanted the Party to vote united." Phinney didn't always want to go along with their desires but "they didn't want to hear" any dissent from the Party line.

He says his friend Dyer helped him see the way clear to the L.P. switch. He'd been thinking about it since February and knew for weeks before the official announcement he intended to do it. The only Republican he informed beforehand was Gov. Chris Sununu, during a conversation over why he, Phinney, was not going to be able to vote for the budget the Republicans proposed since it raised spending too much. The $11.7 billion budget will put state spending on an "unsustainable" course, Phinney believes. (He found Sununu "nonjudgmental, understanding of why I felt that way" about the Party switch.)

Like Dyer, Phinney is also confident many other New Hampshire House members are philosophically more compatible with the L.P. than the two major parties, but are afraid to make the switch out of fear of losing re-election, a fear he hopes he and Dyer can prove groundless in 2018. His own town of Rochester, he says, tends to "lean purple" and he hopes name recognition from retail politicking and his incumbency will make the L.P. switch irrelevant to his constituents. Even running as a Republican he says his constituents "knew I have these philosophies, they get it, no problem."

Although he has a tendency to stutter and thus found door-to-door contact with voters sometimes nerve-wracking, Phinney says it's essential to winning in New Hampshire's small districts. He won his first race with 2,323 votes, only 117 votes more than a Democrat who Phinney says didn't even campaign. He does not yet know who, if anyone, he'll be running against next year from the two major parties. He advises would-be voters to look beyond Party labels and "see how I voted. That's what actually matters. If I voted in your best interest, keep me in. If I haven't, vote me out."

Fear of a Libertarian New Hampshire

Phinney has lived in New Hampshire since the late 1990s, predating the Free State Project, which advocates the libertarian-minded moving to New Hampshire to sway its politics in a liberty direction. While Phinney thinks it's a "great idea to get people who want to minimize the scope and power of government to come to this state" he has no specific opinion about anything any given Free Stater has said or done. He is aware that some New Hampshire residents "view them in a not-so-favorable light. I personally don't have an opinion as long as they are not hurting anyone."

The FSP's existence helps draw out concerns that make political progressives unhappy with the thought of libertarians in their midst. The folks at FreeKeene, not institutionally affiliated with the FSP, recently summed up a 90-minute anti-libertarian presentation by Zandra Rice Hawkins of the group Granite State Progress.

Hawkins is trying to get her fellow citizens of New Hampshire to believe the FSP's mission involves attempted secession from the U.S. (it does not), to worry that the FSP's internal communal self-help and attempts to help their communities' food needs are just sinister cover for their radical mission of dismantling government, and to condemn them for their alleged connection to the national website CopBlock which encourages keeping an eye on and curbing the power of police to harass citizens.

Compare those fears with how Phinney expects to guide his future as a state representative, believing that all he and his fellow Libertarians are "trying to do is minimize government interference in lives and businesses and just try to keep as much money in people's pockets" as possible.

To many Americans, that sounds like common sense. To those living in quivering fear of a Libertarian New Hampshire in which people might just, to sum up some of Hawkins' worries, keep a watchful eye on police, act undignified in court, pay other people's parking meters, or advocate for legalization of drugs and prostitution, it sounds like something that requires organized opposition, including trying to keep a public record of Free State Project associates involved in New Hampshire politics. She is especially worried that some of them even fly under the Democratic Party's banner.

As the recent moves of Phinney, Dyer, and Stallcop to the Libertarian Party show, the libertarian-minded certainly can keep using major party labels if they wish. But in New Hampshire, they may not have to. The electoral success or failure of Dyer and Phinney in 2018 will tell.

Read more from the original source:
New Hampshire Now Has Third Sitting Libertarian Party Legislator - Reason (blog)

Ryan Blessing rblessing@norwichbulletin.com, (860) 425-4205 rblessingNB

Libertarian Bill Russell, who ran for mayor of Norwich four years ago, is again in the running for the position after being nominated Wednesday by the Libertarian party.

Russell's name was added to the ballot Thursday, and the party also made six nominations for City Council.They are James Fear, Darlene Woodbridge, Staceylynn Cottle, Janice Loomis, Nick Casiano and Richard Bright.

It also expects to nominate six Board of Education candidates, Russell said.

"I've been going door-to-door and everybody absolutely loves what I have to say," Russell, a 22-year member of the Libertarian Party, said. "Democrats and Republicans have run this city into the ground. So much can be done to reduce the budget and bring industry and people back to Norwich."

A political newcomer four years ago, Russell said in 2013 he favoreda strong-mayor form of government that would give him ultimate authority over spending and budgetary decisions to reduce the tax burden on residents.He also proposed privatizing or selling off nearly every piece of city-owned real estate not essential for day-to-day operations, including Dodd Stadium and the citys ice arena, golf course and Intermodal Transportation Center.

Russell also has opposed the city buying the site of the former Shetucket Iron and Metal Company on the harbor. The issue has come to the forefront again since a July 29 auction of the property was set.

Russell joins a crowded field for the mayor's race.Democrats H. Tucker Braddock and Derell Wilson, Republican Peter Nystrom and unaffiliated petitioning candidate Jon Oldfield all have announced they are running for mayor.

Incumbent Deb Hinchey, a Democrat, has decided not to seek re-election.

View original post here:
Libertarian Bill Russell nominated to run for Norwich mayor - Norwich Bulletin

My Libertarian Transformation

When it comes to politics in the United States, the clearly defined parties are undoubtedly the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. With that said, these are not the only two parties around and given the recent political turmoil, many people are growing more and more curious about other political options. Next to the democratic and republican parties, the most well-known party is probably the Libertarian Party. With that said, while the party is known by name it is often not very well understood. Lets take a look at the Libertarian Party and what it stands for.

One of the most important ideals in America, and perhaps the one most staunchly defended, is that of freedom. This freedom can take many forms freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press being among them but one thing is invariable: the United States of America stands for freedom, and this is something its citizens expect. This idea is one of the core in the Libertarian Party, which emphasizes the importance of maintaining individual freedom. The party believes that individuals should have the right to pursue success and freedom in any way they so choose as long as doing so does not hurt anyone else.

Much like their beliefs regarding personal liberties, libertarians also hold various social ideals that tend to place them on the leftist part of the political spectrum. They believe that the government should not be able to restrict or define personal relationships. Before you believe that this is a clear endorsement of any particular sexuality, however, keep in mind that this belief stems mostly from the idea that the government should not be allowed to interfere in citizens lives. This includes personal relationships, and libertarians tend to believe that consenting adults should be free to pursue relationships that make them happy. They hold the same to be true of things like drug use, which they believe to be a victimless crime.

Finally, another important libertarian ideal is that of a smaller government. To put the issue as simply as possible, libertarians tend to believe that the government should have a smaller reach than it currently does. The government today has too much control and ability to control and interfere in the lives of citizens as well as the countrys business practices and norms. The party often advocates a smaller government that, most notably, does not collect income tax or fund a welfare state.

In todays society, there is often much conversation regarding the future and what our collective societal ideals might look like in a few decades. There is much debate as to whether a liberal or conservative view might be more beneficial moving forward, where the views in question seem to be associated with the Democratic Party and the Republican party, respectively. There seems to be relatively little talk, however, regarding the viability of ideas and concepts related to other political parties. It might surprise you, then, to hear that libertarian ideals seem to already be making a big impact upon modern business.

The Libertarian Party tends to emphasize the importance of civil liberties and capitalism as they relate to the government and interventionism. The basic idea is that the government should take a step back when it comes to regulating and controlling citizens in both the private and public/business spheres. But how exactly do these values fit into todays modern businesses?

One aspect of current business endeavors that clearly reflects libertarian ideals is that of the sharing economy. Partially spurred on by the increasing reliance on technology, particularly mobile apps that are designed to facilitate easy communication, a new wave of businesses has taken over the modern workplace over the past few years. Exploring the possibility of collaboration and sharing, these businesses have created an economy that is essentially based upon the decisions and possessions of individuals. Someone with a vehicle and some extra time, for example, could decide to become a taxi of sorts and earn money from someone without the ability or desire to drive themselves. The same holds true with hospitality options like Airbnb.

Epitomized by businesses like Lyft and Uber, this new wave of businesses seems to be firmly based upon perceived leftist ideas of decentralization and sustainability. It is important to note, however, that libertarian ideals are often at the very heart of this kind of business model. To the free-market libertarian, for example, an economy based between individuals rather than the state or government and an individual is appealing. It seems to promote the idea that the government could and should take a step back and allow individuals to thrive on their own. The sharing economy is a great way to promote civil liberties and emphasize the self-reliance that the Libertarian Party promotes.

What do you think about the sharing economy and the wave of businesses that have sprung up as it has developed? Do you think that the libertarian values present in these businesses are sustainable? For the time being, it appears as though modern businesses will continue to grow in this direction.

The Libertarian Party and Taxes

With all of the attention focused on the two main parties in the United States the Democratic Party and the Republican Party it can be easy to forget that there are other options available. Another party in the United Stats is known as the Libertarian Party, and it has some pretty strong ideas regarding the place of taxes in our economy as well as how much money should be collected.

First and foremost, the Libertarian Party believes that forcing people to give part of their income to the government in the form of taxes is wrong. Instead, they emphasize the importance of ensuring that citizens of the United States have autonomy over their money, their lives, their bodies, and their time. That means that a libertarian government is one that would do away with much of the tax system as we currently know it. But while the Libertarian Party would certainly lower taxes, does that mean that we wouldnt end up paying any at all? Lets take a closer look.

In order to determine what the United States economy would look like under the control of the Libertarian Party as well as how taxes would be affected, it might be most helpful to look at Gary Johnsons recent proposals. A libertarian hopeful for the presidency in 2016, Johnson has many ideas regarding how taxes should and should not be conducted in the U.S. First and foremost, he would have abolished the IRS along with both income and corporate tax. In its place, Johnson advocated the use of FairTax, a proposal that would see services and goods for personal consumption receive a flat tax of 23%.

In order to help offset the regressive nature of FairTax, Johnson would include a prebate used to allow households to consume aforementioned services and items tax-free up until the poverty line. This would help ensure that the family in lower income brackets are not unfairly impacted by the flat tax. In return for this flat tax, income taxes would, as mentioned above, no longer be a thing. Your money would be your own, in other words, aside from paying a higher flat tax on items and services. This kind of tax allocation is touted as being beneficial because it removes economic distortions impacting workplace and professional productivity by forcing individuals to make decisions with their tax status rather than efficiency in mind. This, in turn, would help businesses to flourish as they streamline their processes without worrying about negatively impacting their tax status in the process.

As you can see, the Libertarian Party believes that lower taxes is the best way to ensure economic success for the country and its citizens.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

See the article here:
My Libertarian Transformation - HuffPost

Having begun my life in the libertarian movement as a bit of purist myself, I have become more pragmatic over time.

For example, I have come to a greater appreciation that the libertarian movement needs to be careful and prudent. However, in recent months, it has struck me that this call for pragmatism for an emphasis on gradual changes that will not alienate the masses is being undermined by a particular group: the anarcho-capitalists.

I do not mean all anarcho-capitalists of course, but there are a considerable number committed to opposing any move towards pragmatism, seeing it as a betrayal of liberty.

This refusal to be pragmatic is deeply harmful to the cause of freedom since it pushes people away from the libertarian movement and reduces the electability of libertarian candidates without such support and such candidates, there will be fewer pro-liberty advocates in the legislatures.

The main example of how the anarcho-capitalists often alienate people is through a refusal to allow any form of taxation.

For many of this political persuasion, reducing taxation is not enough; it must be abolished outright, and for more radical advocates it must be done immediately.

Now, I sympathize with this. Given taxation is theft; it would seem moral to do away with it outright and immediately. However, to the vast majority of people, the outright abolition of taxation is an obvious absurd decision and they are not wrong.

This is not something to view in the abstract; it would trigger an economic crisis worse than the Great Depression. This is not a controversial view among economists. Iceland provides an insightful case study from recent times, though the effect on the US would be magnified due to size.

If the US were to default, there would be a nearly $20 trillion black hole in the global economy (to put that into perspective, that is more than the GDP of the whole of the European Union), this would trigger inflation (likely hyper-inflation) as the dollar would quickly depreciate, unemployment would surge, investors would flee, and a major global knock-on would occur, because the US economy is an internationalist economy.

Likewise, it would default on its public spending.

The army would cease to be, courts would shut down, police officers would be laid off, schools would close, the millions dependent on welfare would become homeless, and so on. This is inevitable because there would be no finances to pay for them. Again, the general public know this which is why they see the anarcho-capitalist proposal of the outright abolition of taxation as absurd.

No-one wants to experience a default of either kind since it would put the US on par with the Venezuela for quality of life. Couple that with other absurd ideas often entertained by anarcho-capitalists, like the abolition of drivers licenses, and you have a cocktail of ideas that will keep libertarian candidates out of political office and out of legislatures where they can make real changes. I appreciate anarcho-capitalists dislike of government, but it is the only way that one is likely to make gains for freedom at this time.

Anarcho-capitalists often retort that, after this initial devastation (which, in fact, would likely never recover to pre-crash levels under their system), a freer society could be built without tax and government. However, the public likewise see this as a delusion.

If you have no government, and you need tax for that, natural rights are in peril. You cannot have your property rights upheld because there are no police to do so. You cannot have your court case heard as there are no judges. Indeed, even if you had judges, you would have no laws for them to enforce, for in the absence of government there would be no legal codification of natural rights.

The solution often proposed is that you could privatize these functions in a free market but again, this idea is utterly unconvincing to most.

Unless a court holds power over you, it can do nothing. How would the courts get power over you in an anarcho-capitalist system?

Are they chosen by the mutual consent of the population?

If they are, you just have established government; a system whereby a majority consensus empowers certain individuals to use force against others.

If not, then they rely on the use of coercion, of force, without individual consent. As such, the existence of a fair judiciary is incompatible with anarcho-capitalism.

This is no small problem: without a fair judiciary (to which everyone is held to account) there is effectively no law, and our natural rights and liberty are at risk. There is no legal redress for the violation of those rights.

It is not my intention to write in great detail here, but the central point is clear: anarcho-capitalist purism is as idealistic as Marxist utopianism. This utopian purism completely undermines the libertarian movement.

I, as well as other libertarians, constantly find ourselves having to say Im a libertarian, but not that kind of libertarian.

The motto taxation is theft, while true, is far outside the Overton window as it is. The last thing the libertarian movement needs is for radical anarcho-capitalists to push the cause of liberty further away from it.

I have for a long time now tried a more conciliatory tone with anarcho-capitalists because I do understand where they are coming from (philosophically speaking), but there is a real need for the libertarian movement to demarcate itself from those anarcho-capitalists who refuse to unify around a pragmatic, pro-liberty agenda.

The libertarian movement is increasingly being identified with this group, and we must break away from that equivocation. If the movement cannot do that, it will be perpetually regarded as a band of lunatics, committed to ideas that most people know would never work in reality and which would if implemented cause tremendous harm and risk huge losses to liberty.

I acknowledge I will be vilified for taking this view, Statist, Commie, Sell-out, and so on, will no doubt be terms of abuse hurled at me. However, ask yourself, have I said anything unreasonable?

All I have said is that the libertarian movement needs to unify around a pragmatic, pro-liberty agenda and demarcate itself from radical anarcho-capitalists who are increasingly bringing the movement into ill-repute.

Does that make me a statist, a communist, or a sell-out? No in fact, Im following in the footsteps of most great libertarian thinkers here.

Im all for free markets, for civil liberties, and so on, but government has a (small) role, and that necessitates low taxation.

Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman supported the existence of small government. Must we call them commies too? Anarcho-capitalists need to either get on board with a pragmatic and moderate agenda that introduces pro-liberty changes at a pace that does not undermine the movement, or get off the libertarian train; because as it is, they are pulling the movement in a separate path.

Libertarianism should be about fiscally responsible government with great respect for rights and freedom thats an idea people can get behind, that can help make real gains for freedom, and we cannot let that be hijacked.

* Matthew James Norris is a history and philosophy graduate. He is currently undertaking historical research on Henry III and early modern social history.

Like Loading...

Read more here:
Anarcho-Capitalists: A Threat Within the Libertarian Movement - Being Libertarian