Being Libertarian | Why is the Left so Dishonest about Islam? Being Libertarian Last week marked the one year anniversary of the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando. The last month and a half has brought multiple terrorist attacks to the UK alone. The last few years have seen a dramatic rise in the frequency of these attacks both ... |
More here:
Why is the Left so Dishonest about Islam? - Being Libertarian
By: Caiti Anderson
There is no state quite like New York and not many election laws quite like New Yorks, either. As one example, only New York and six other states permit fusion voting. On a fusion ballot, a candidate can be listed as candidate for more than one party. Fusion voting, as noted the 1997 Supreme Court decision of Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, had its heyday during the Gilded Age. Political parties, rather than governmental entities, distributed their own ballots to voters but did not affirmatively tell voters what other parties endorsed the same candidate(s) they supported. Thus, Candidate Smith could be supported by both the Granger and Republican parties, but those who voted the Granger ballot would not necessarily know from the ballot the Granger party handed them that the Republican Party also supported Smith.
All of this changed with the contentious election of 1888, when Democratic President Grover Cleveland lost to Republican Benjamin Harrison, even though Cleveland won the popular vote by 0.8%. Harrison carried Indiana, his home state, but only through ballot chicanery: the Republican Party passed out its ballots en masse and paid men to illegally cast additional ballots. After the scandal emerged, it was too late Harrison was president, and America was angry.
The Progressive movement latched onto this populist anger and pushed through a series of election reforms at the turn of the nineteenth century. As state and local governments began to print their own ballots, the fusion ballot steadily lost support.
New York, however, has maintained the fusion ballot status quo. Although it occasionally comes under attack as an unfair practice, others laud its ability to grant a greater voice to third parties. Nevertheless, as the 2016 election shows its boon to third parties seems more like a benefit to the Democratic and Republican parties.
Figure 1
Figure 1 is a partial copy of aNovember 2016 New York absentee ballot. As you can see, three presidential candidates (Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Gary Johnson) appear on the ballot more than once.
Fusion voting in a presidential election is more complicated than other races because of the Electoral College. When voting for a presidential candidate, a voter is actually voting for an elector to the Electoral College, not the candidate herself.
Figure 2
Lets look at Hillary Clinton (Figure 2). She appears as the candidate for the Democratic, Working Families, and Womens Equality parties. Because these parties submitted identical lists of Electoral College delegates to the New York State Board of Elections, each of these candidate slots offer an opportunity to vote for the same elector for Clinton. Thus, a vote for Clinton under the Womens Equality ticket is, in essence, the same as voting for her under the Democratic ticket the vote will be aggregated towards the same elector count. The same is true for Donald Trump appearing as the Republican and Conservative parties nominee.
Gary Johnson, on the other hand, has a major problem.
New Yorks definition of a political party is one that received at least 50,000 votes in the most recent gubernatorial election. Only political parties have automatic access to the ballot, meaning that, in essence, only the Democratic and Republican parties are automatically qualified to be on the ballot. Independent parties must submit petitions with 15,000 signatures in order to qualify for the presidential ballot.
Gary Johnsons Libertarian Party obtained the necessary signatures to put Johnson on the presidential ballot and submitted the list of Electoral College delegates to the State Board. After this, however, the Independence Party also endorsed Johnson, but submitted a different list of Electoral College delegates than the Libertarian Party. Because of this, Johnsons vote totals for the Libertarian and Independence parties will not be aggregated.
Figure 3
Say, for example, Johnson won 30% of the vote under the Libertarian Party and 5% under the Independence Party, while Clinton won 34%, Trump won 29%, and Jill Stein won 2%. Johnson would have the majority of the votes at 35%, but Clinton would have the most electors and would win New York.
As unlikely as the scenario seems (Clinton has a >99% chance of winning New York at the time of publication), it is important for New Yorkers to take a hard look at the merits of fusion voting. Although fusion voting supposedly helps third parties, it seems to only help those third parties who support major party candidates meaning it ultimately helps major parties. Maybe it is time to recognize the real value of fusion voting in New York: the ability of placing ideas on the ballot.
Read more:
New York, Fusion Voting, and Gary Johnson Whats an ...
From: C Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 10:19 AM To: wblock@loyno.edu Subject: Involuntary Commitments blog on Lewrockwell Professor Block, I wanted to thank you for your recent post on lewrockwell about Involuntary Commitments (https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/involuntary-commitments/). Yours is the first post that Ive seen in all these years that addresses what Ive seen as a real weakness in the libertarian community. Ive had enough interactions with people to know that many people need help to pull themselves up. Whether its because of mental illness, traumas suffered, circumstance, an unlucky turn, you name it, life isnt easy. Life is hard and some people get crushed underneath it. I suppose Ive reached a point where the further away the government were talking about the more strict libertarian I am, but the closer to home were talking about the more pragmatic I become. Welfare at the federal level versus the local city or town level are two completely different things. Ive seen too many people beaten down by the government school system, or the drug war, or poverty, or abuse, (and yes, as you mention much of this would be alleviated by a more libertarian system) that if some of my local tax dollars goes to fund a local abused womans shelter, or a local foodbank for the homeless, or a reading program at the local library to help children, yeah, I can get behind that. I think that where Libertarians shine brightly is in understanding the big picture, the core principles that drive big problems. But sometimes I also think that after years (or decades) of seeing all the horrible things that government has done, it becomes easy for libertarians to stick their nose up at the world (and the people suffering in it) and subtly confuse their deep understanding of what ails the country with genuine compassion. Your comments were the first Ive seen that broaches this topic. Sincerely, the 80% Libertarian. C
Dear C: Without government, the poor would be much better off. The state takes half the GDP and wastes most of it. They use a lot of their share of our production to regulate us, and make us even less efficient. Even so, charitable giving is generous. Without the statists, it would be much higher. I dont think we need fear for the plight of the helpless in the free society. Nor am I a big fan of federalism; let the cities and states solve problems, not the federal government. The state is the state is the state; it is evil at any and all levels. Yes, other things equal, we libertarians expect better from local than central governments, but this is not always the case. President Reagan once threatened NYC with dire consequences for their local rent control ordinances. I favored him over them in that episode. Hopefully, this experience will now raise you to 81% libertarian, or more.
Readings. On federalism: Block, Walter E. and Stephan Kinsella. 5/24/05. Federalism. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block48.html
On charity, poverty:
Anderson, G., 1987; Anderson M., 1978; Beito, 2000; Block, 2001, 2011; Brown, 1987; Delery and Block, 2006; Elder, 2016; Hazlitt, 1969; Higgs, 1995; Knight, Simpson and Block, 2015; LaBletta and Block, 1999; Moscatello, McAndrews and Block, 2015; Murray, 1984, 2006; Niskanen, 2006; Olasky, 1992; Piven and Cloward, 1993; Richman, 2001; Rothbard, 1996, 1998; Sowell, 2014; Tucker, 1984; Williams, 2014. For a critique of Murray, 2006, see Gordon, 2006.
Anderson, Gary M. 1987. Welfare Programs in the Rent Seeking Society, Southern Economic Journal, 54: 377-386
Anderson, Martin. 1978. Welfare: The Political Economy of Welfare Reform in the United States, Stanford: Hoover Institution
Beito, David. 2000. From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Block, Walter E. 2001. Transfers in Kind: Why They Can be Efficient and Nonpaternalistic Comment, International Journal of Value-Based Management, pp. 191-199; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/transfers_in_kind.pdf
Block, Walter E. 2011. Toward a libertarian theory of charitable donations. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets. Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 9-28; http://www.addletonacademicpublishers.com/abstracts/economics-management-and-financial-markets/volume-64-2011/toward-a-libertarian-theory-of-charitable-donations-to-criminals-governments.html; http://www.addletonacademicpublishers.com/component/option,com_sectionex/Itemid,103/id,23/view,category/#catid143
Brown, Arnold. 1987. The Shadow Side of Affluence: The Welfare System and the Welfare of the Needy, Fraser Forum, October.
Delery, Jeanette and Walter E. Block. 2006. Corporate Welfare, Markets and Morality; Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall, pp. 337-346; http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/new/index.php?mm_id=6; http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/new/article.php?article=37; http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/pdf/9277645.pdf
Elder, Larry. 2016. Black fathers matter. June 13; http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/marriage/black-fathers-matter.html
Gordon, David. 2006. A Man, A Plan, A Flop. Mises Daily. April 24; http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=296; http://mises.org/daily/2118
Hazlitt, Henry. 1969. Man vs. the Welfare State. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House.
Higgs, Robert. 1995. The Myth of Failed Policies. The Free Market. June. Vol. 13, No. 6. http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=239&sortorder=articledate
Knight, Victoria*, David Simpson*, and Walter E. Block. 2015. Welfare: The Negative Societal Effects. Acta Economica et Turistica. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 77-93; http://141.164.71.80/exchange/walterblock/Inbox/Re:%20%20_x003F_Welfare:%20The%20Negative%20Societal%20Effects._x003F_%20Acta%20Economica%20et%20Turistica-2.EML/1_multipart_xF8FF_2_AET%20Vol%201%20No%201.pdf/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2-036E93DDAFB3/AET%20Vol%201%20No%201.pdf?attach=1; http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=toc&id_broj=12165; http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=221911
LaBletta, Nicole and Walter E. Block. 1999. The Restoration of the American Dream: A Case for Abolishing Welfare, Humanomics, Vol. 15, No 4, pp. 55-65
Moscatello, Rick, Megan McAndrews* and Walter E. Block. 2015. Satisfied with Poverty: An Argument for Ending Welfare. Journal of Leadership and Management; Vol. 3, No. 5, http://leadership.net.pl/index.php/JLM/article/view/75; reprinted in Leadership and Management: Emerging, Contemporary, and Unorthodox Perspectives, Szpaderski, Adam and Christopher P. Neck, editors
Murray, Charles. 1984. Losing Ground: American Social Policy from 1950 to 1980, New York: Basic Books
Murray, Charles. 2006. In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State. Washington, D.C.: The AEI Press
Niskanen, William. 2006. Build a Wall around the Welfare State, Not around the Country, Cato Policy Report. September/October; http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/build-a-wall-around-the-welfare-state-not-around-the-country/
Olasky, Marvin. 1992. The Tragedy of American Compassion, Chicago: Regnery Gateway.
Piven, Frances Fox and Richard Cloward. 1993. Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare, New York City, NY: Vintage.
Richman, Sheldon. 2001. Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State. Future of Freedom Foundation
Rothbard, Murray N. 1996. Origins of the Welfare State in America, The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, Fall, pp. 193-230
Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. Welfare and the Welfare State. In The Ethics of Liberty, Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, pp. 160-193; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp
Sowell, Thomas.2014. Welfare does not work. http://www.targetliberty.com/2014/11/thomas-sowell-welfare-does-not-work.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TargetLiberty+%28Target+Liberty%29
Tucker, William. 1984. Black Family Agonistes, The American Spectator, July, pp. 14-17.
Williams, Walter E. 2014. Black People Duped. March 4; http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/walter-e-williams/black-people-duped/
Walter Williams documentary: http://www.suffernofoolsfilm.com/preview.php
1:11 pm on June 11, 2017 Email Walter E. Block
The Best of Walter E. Block
Please follow and like us:
Visit link:
Walter Block - Austrian Economist and Libertarian Theorist
they faced repeated and intense backlash from some professors and students
So many progressives dont even seem to understand what Libertarians believe. If they did, more college students would probably be Libertarians.
The College Fix reports:
Students launch libertarian club at small Oregon college and get harassed, investigated, condemned
All they wanted to do was promote free speech and intellectual diversity. Instead their activities were condemned and shut down by professors and students.
So say members of the Young Americans for Liberty campus club at Linfield College, who tell The College Fix their efforts were stifled and stymied through fear and intimidation, administrative power, and student hysteria at their small school in McMinnville, Ore.
The liberty-loving students say they faced repeated and intense backlash from some professors and students after launching their club this past spring mostly notably their event with controversial Professor Jordan Peterson was canceled by campus leaders. Peterson is the University of Toronto psychologist recently famous for his opposition to the requirement of made-up gender pronouns.
The student group was also investigated for circulating a free speech ball on which someone drew Pepe the Frog, the unofficial alt-right mascot. After an investigation, during which YAL leaders were called in and interrogated, the student who drew the image was forced to write a conciliatory essay.
Another of their events, a screening of The Red Pill, a documentary on mens rights activists and critical of the contemporary feminist movement, drew even more ire from campus leaders, with one even likening the libertarian students events to terrorism recruitment.
Go here to read the rest:
New Libertarian Student Club at Linfield College Harassed and Condemned - legal Insurrection (blog)
There has been debate this week about how many libertarians there are. The answer is: it depends on how you measure it and how you define libertarian. The overwhelming body of literature, however, using a variety of different methods and different definitions, suggests that libertarians comprise about 10-20% of the population, but may range from 7-22%.
Furthermore, if one imposes the same level of ideological consistency on liberals, conservatives, and communitarians/populists that many do on libertarians, these groups too comprise similar shares of the population.
In this post I provide a brief overview of different methods academics have used to identify libertarians and what they found. Most methods start from the premise that libertarians are economically conservative and socially liberal. Despite this, different studies find fairly different results. What accounts for the difference?
1) First, people use different definitions of libertarians
2) Second, they use different questions in their analysis to identify libertarians
3) Third, they use very different statistical methods.
Lets start with a few questions: How do you define a libertarian? Is there one concrete libertarian position on every policy issue?
What is the libertarian position on abortion? Is there one? What is the libertarian position on Social Security? Must a libertarian support abolishing the program, or might a libertarian support private accounts, or means testing, or sending it to the states instead? A researcher will find fewer libertarians in the electorate if they demand that libertarians support abolishing Social Security rather than means testing or privatizing it.
Further, why are libertarians expected to conform to an ideological litmus test but conservatives and liberals are not? For instance, what is the conservative position on Social Security? Is there one? When researchers use rigid ideological definitions of liberals and conservatives, they too make up similar shares of the population as libertarians. Thus, as political scientist Jason Weeden has noted, researchers have to make fairly arbitrary decisions about where the cut-off points should be for the libertarian, liberal, or conservative position. This pre-judgement strongly determines how many libertarians researchers will find.
Next, did researchers simply ask people if they identify as libertarian, or did they ask them public policy questions (a better method)? If the latter, how many issue questions did they ask? Then, what questions did they ask?
For instance, what questions are used to determine if someone is liberal on social issues? Did the researcher ask survey takers about legalizing marijuana or did the researcher ask about affirmative action for women in the workplace instead? Libertarians will answer these questions very differently and that will impact the number of libertarians researchers find.
While there is no perfect method, the fact that academics using a variety of different questions, definitions, and statistical techniques still find that the number is somewhere between 7-22% gives us some idea that the number of libertarians is considerably larger than 0.
Next, I give a brief overview of the scholarly research on the estimated share of libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and communitarians in the American electorate. I organize their findings by methods used starting with most empirically rigorous:
Ask people to answer a series of questions on a variety of policy topics and input their responses into a statistical algorithm
In theses studies, researchers ask survey respondents a variety of issue questions on economic and social/cultural issues. Then, they input peoples answers into a statistical clustering technique and allow an algorithm to find the number of libertarians. This is arguably the strongest method to identify libertarians.
Ask people to answer a series of questions on a variety of policy topics and plot their average responses on a 2-dimensional plot
In these studies, researchers 1) average responses to multiple questions on economics and then 2) average responses to multiple questions on social/cultural/identity/lifestyle issues. They then take the two averaged scores to plot respondents on a 2-dimensional graph (Economic Issues by Social Issues).
Ask people to answer a question about economic policy and a question about social policy
While not as rigorous as asking people multiple questions, this is another quick way to observe the diversity of ideological opinion in surveys.
Ask people if they identify as libertarian and know what the word means
The Pew Research Center found that 11% of Americans agree that the word libertarian describes me well and know libertarians emphasize individual freedom by limiting the role of government.
Ask people if they identify as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, an oft-used definition of libertarianism
A 2011 Reason-Rupe poll found that 8% of Americans said they were conservative on economic issues and also liberal on social issues. But the same method found 9% identified as liberal on both social and economic issues, 2% identified as liberal on economic issues and conservative on social issues, and 31% identified as conservative on both social and economic issues. They remaining respondents were somewhere in the middle. These results are consistent with polls from Rasmussen, and Gallup which finds a public preference for the word conservative over liberal. This means many people who endorse liberal policy are inclined to self-identify as moderate or conservative.
Conclusions
In sum, the overwhelming body of empirical evidence suggests that libertarians share of the electorate is likely somewhere between 10-20% and the conservative and liberal shares arent that much greater. Libertarians exist, quite a lot, but you have to know what youre looking for.
Excerpt from:
How Many Libertarians Are There? The Answer Depends on the Method You Use - Cato Institute (blog)