Mediaboss Marketing

For the past few decades it seemed like hardcore socialism was a thing of the past in the United Kingdom.

The Conservative and Labour parties had both accepted a liberal consensus that markets were good, and that aggressive redistributive policies and nationalization of industries was bad for everyone.

Yet a shocking election result on June 8 has made the green and pleasant land see red again.

Its true that the Conservatives won the most seats in the election, but their slim majority was erased. They will now serve as a minority government and rely on the Democratic Unionist Party a Northern Irish political party with a reputation for corruption, thuggery, and a social conservatism that would make Republicans in the Deep South blanch.

U.K. elections have to happen at least every five years, but unstable governments can collapse at any time. So despite the results of this election, another could be not far down the road. In fact, given Prime Minister Theresa Mays embattled condition, another early election could be in the cards in just a couple years.

With the Conservative image now severely tarnished, and Labour riding high, it is no longer impossible to imagine that the current Labour leadership could form the next government and that is a problem.

Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition, spent many years isolated to the left-wing lunatic fringe of the Labour Party. Yet his late blooming has left many aghast, even within his own party.

Elected leader after the 2015 election, on the back of protest votes, Corbyn has been viewed by the majority of his own parliamentary party as a usurper. Yet his deft work building up grassroots supporters within the party kept him in charge. The election this month was supposed to be his death-knell; with him and his host of socialist crazies sent packing by Middle England. That, of course, did not go as planned.

Instead, Labour increased its seat total, which is astounding considering a month before the election many polls showed them losing more than 50 seats. Corbyn has, of course, taken this as validation for his brand of politics, and his critics within the party have been silenced.

The danger is now very real that Corbyn and his allies could actually govern the country one day. In a matter of months, the Overton Window has shifted further than it has in years. Marxism is back on the menu.

John McDonnell, Corbyns top deputy and the likely finance chief in a Corbyn government, has openly admitted he is a Marxist. Corbyn and his friends have long lambasted capitalism, in all its forms.

Should they come to power, it could mean a radical reversal of Britains progress since the 1970s.

Almost everything about British politics today has a 70s feel to it. The Conservatives are committed to a big government right-wing policy while Labour has aggressively embraced its socialist roots. Corbyn wants to re-nationalize industries and re-empower labor unions, just as a start. He is also vigorously anti free-trade.

Now Corbyn is validated to continue to deliver on that agenda should he come to power; and now the MPs who still believe in Tony Blairs New Labour approach, one that accepted that free markets are a prerequisite for a prosperous economy, have little political capital.

Corbyn was supposed to be discredited. Instead, he is the most popular leader in the country.

He can look forward to years of political turmoil in the government with a high level of dysfunction in the Conservative Party as it sorts itself out and tries to govern and negotiate Brexit. His day may yet come when he actually becomes Prime Minister. That however, would mark a disaster for the U.K. and for the community of market-friendly nations.

Theresa Mays brand of conservatism is far from libertarian or liberal, that is true. But given the now very real and terrifying alternative, any lover of personal freedom should shudder at the thought of it.

This post was written by John Engle.

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

John Engle is a merchant banker and author living in the Chicago area. His company, Almington Capital, invests in both early-stage venture capital and in public equities. His writing has been featured in a number of academic journals, as well as the blogs of the Heartland Institute, Grassroot Institute, and Tenth Amendment Center. A graduate of Trinity College Dublin, Ireland and the University of Oxford, Johns first book, Trinity Student Pranks: A History of Mischief and Mayhem, was published in September 2013.

Like Loading...

Visit link:
Marxism Returns to the UK The Right Engle - Being Libertarian

Capitalism has been, perhaps, the most misconstrued and misused term Ive ever come across. For an average person, capitalism is evocative of extraordinary images of colonialism, suffering and slavery, or the sight of a billionaire whose convoy passes through the streets, whose sidewalks have been an unfortunate residence to many. Those willing to ponder about capitalism often come across those who carry the same misconceptions and misinformation. The misinformation about capitalism proliferates among people and only worsens when people use emotionally appealing arguments that often treats reason as a secondary. And as a consequence, today, here we are in a world where people take moral refuge in glorifying socialism. These socialist sympathizers who practice Marxism in every policy they propose forget that the very Russia that they thoroughly detest has socialism and Marxism in its roots. George Santayanas aphorism that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

If youre like me, then to you the absolute of capitalism would be a utopia where you have the freedom as an individual to mind your own business, both figuratively and literally, without the fear of being unfairly squashed by a government gavel. But this perception was most likely not something that you always had, thanks to liberal indoctrination. To those who have been liberally indoctrinated, the rights desire for capitalism would mean an authoritarian state where the poor are exploited for the benefit of the rich, where theyre destined to remain poor forever. The disconnect is this: when the left hears capitalism, what they think about is corporatism. So, they think of an authoritarian state run by the corporations that want to exploit ordinary men for their profits. The lefts prescribed solution to this is to have an authoritarian state run by the ordinary man in the form of a collective that wants to exploit corporations for their profits! Which is retributive justice. Mike Buchanan, a British politician, argued that if we were going in for retributive justice then perhaps each black American should be given a white slave. So we ought not be emotional, but rather rational about it because the political system effects all our lives. The rational way to go about it is to have a political system where the businesses have their freedoms and so does the ordinary man, and they deal with each other with mutual consent. Wherever there is coercion against one another, the government jumps in to resolve the dispute through law and order. Which is what capitalism is all about, its freedom. Free markets give everybody the freedom and the opportunity to be rich or poor. Because of these differences in the perception of capitalism, when the left and right debate each other, its not a discussion, its a confrontation.

This phobia of capitalism understandably comes with history. A history filled with enormous suffering caused by colonialism and slavery, where businessmen were addressed as capitalists has indeed left an indelible mark in peoples minds. While the leftist intelligentsia makes vitriolic attacks on capitalism for its dark history, they conveniently push under the rug the evils of socialism, claiming that it was actually this divine concept that went terribly wrong every single time. This adulterated history caused the phobia of capitalism, which is not unique to the west, by the way.

India, after independence from the British empire, was shattered in all forms, having gone from being the richest country in the world at that time to one of the poorest[1], adopted the Soviet Unions economic model and an isolationist foreign policy in the hopes of confronting this plight. The Indian leaders were unwilling to allow privatization and open up to the rest of the world. They were infused with concerns and skepticism of allowing foreign companies to do business in India. Because the last time, when India paved the way for a foreign company to do business on its land, it ended up being colonized for the next two hundred years. This went on until the highly propagandized paradise of the Soviet Union finally collapsed in the 90s. India was also heading towards an economic fiasco. This socialist approach had to be changed and capitalism had to be embraced. The game-changing economic liberalization took place where private companies could be established, markets opened up to foreign trade, and India started getting increasingly capitalist. Fast forward 26 years, and it has maintained consistently higher rates of GDP and is the 7th largest economy. Its at a point where one wouldnt have anticipated a couple of decades ago. This only goes to show, as Shashi Tharoor puts it, that sometimes history can teach you the wrong lessons.

If youve been following Reuters on Facebook, or the folks in Hollywood who give cosmic importance to politics over their movies, then you must have witnessed a series of articles regarding the Trump administrations repeal of regulations. There has been some new repeal, or at least a proposal, almost every day, and this went on for quite some time. For every article that said there has been a repeal of a certain regulation, it was showered with angry reactions. For instance, if it were a certain social program, the reaction was that Trump did it because he hated the women and poor. if it were the repeal of a certain environmental regulation, the reaction was that trump did it because he hated the environment. Now I know we all care for the environment, but the principle remains the same. The comments were filled with grief and contempt for allowing corporations more room in their profit-making endeavors. This frustration is a consequence of a conclusion based on the conflict of the lefts adopted morality from altruism, where you are virtuous when you do things for people around you and hold no expectations in return, and then apply it to economics, where the businesses work exclusively on self-interest and profit.

This mind-set that removing a regulation would give more room for self-interest, and hence more evil, is the source of all arguments to justify the use of law-making as a weapon for combating the so-called evil. This stems from the notion which is at the core of every leftist, the idea that human beings are inherently evil in nature and therefore they must be controlled and corrected by the rest of the society. So, according to this philosophy, your sacrifice for others makes you a good person, but working for your benefit and self-interest makes you a bad person, which is incompatible with businesses. This is an artificial construct that goes against the natural survival instincts of species and therefore the conclusion is to make human beings good by the use brute force. A lefts version of original sin. They denounce religion, even ridicule it, but then practice the same principles, however, by replacing God with government. Although today, some would argue that to the left, government is not just god, but a mom and a dad. And thats why the left would cheer for Bill Gates when he invents Windows and makes all our lives better, but would detest him when they see him make huge money out of it. He is good as long as he keeps talking about donating and helping the needy, but would turn out to be an evil person as soon as he thinks well for himself. The societys imposition on you to have you exhibit remorse for the crime of being successful. Their apprehension for freedom is what drives them. And thats why the left advocates for more regulations and bigger government. This is the difference between the leftists and the right-libertarians. The libertarian right doesnt believe that human beings are inherently evil in nature and are against the imposition of their morality on others.

Another reason, apart from history and philosophy, would be envy. As Ayn Rand put it, Today youre supposed to apologize to every naked savage anywhere on the globe, because you are more prosperous. Because you earned the money, you have to feel guilty and apologize for it while he hasnt and doesnt intend to learn from you, he just wants your money.

This is the most vindictive, collectivist, and uncivilized behavior of all. They pass a law that seems so kind and compassionate and the society applauds the government for passing such a law, which potentially wins it a number of votes. You are fine as long you comply, but the moment you dont, the next thing you see are guns and handcuffs. There is no other way out because every law is indeed a governmental enforcement. They are carried out at gun point, there is no room for your opinion. And what is the outcome? If you dont comply, you are the evilest person. If you do comply, however, you are fine, but you have to sacrifice and suffer enough in order to satisfy the rest to be applauded as a good person.

Whats more striking is that this is not attacking man for his mistakes or his crimes, but for his success and for his virtues. Its not caring for the needy and poor, its the hatred of the good for being the good. The problem is that the left considers ones prosperity as evil. The richer and more successful you are, the eviler you are to the left, and you must be dragged down since many others are living far worse off than you are. But if you do remain poor, then they love you and care for you, and will fight on your behalf to tax the rich and distribute that money to you. If this is not parasitic, I dont know what is. The poor and the needy is not a reason, but an excuse to moralize and justify their atrocities against the successful.

We need to protect our freedoms from the leftist depredations. I hold adulterated history, self-destructive philosophy, and the tribal instincts of human beings as the primary reasons why the left hates capitalism. This leaves out many other reasons, such as the emotional-appealing left vs the logical right, the top 1% fallacy, and the deceptive term crony-capitalism. But these are only 3 of the top reasons why the left hates capitalism, i.e., freedom.

* Abhilash Korraprolu does libertarian political commentary on the YouTube channel: Al Righty.

[1] British economic historian Angus Maddison in his book The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective has demonstrated, Indias share of the world economy was 23 per cent, as large as all of Europe put together. (It had been 27 per cent in 1700, when the Mughal Emperor Aurangzebs treasury raked in 100 million in tax revenues alone.) By the time the British departed India, it had dropped to just over 3 per cent. Excerpt from: Shashi Tharoor. An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India.

Like Loading...

View original post here:
Why Leftists Hate Capitalism - Being Libertarian

The fire that consumed Grenfell Tower last Wednesday was an unimaginable sort of horror. Parents threw children out of windows to onlookers below; entire households perished; there are reports that no one from the top three floors survived. The death toll is still increasing. It was almost certainly the worst fire in the United Kingdom in decades.

And it was entirely preventable. For an additional 5,000 (about $6,400) the apartment block could have been refurbished with fire-resistant cladding, rather than the highly flammable materials banned in the United States and Germany that were used instead, and that probably transformed a run-of-the-mill high-rise fire into a national tragedy. For 138,000 ($176,000), the entire building could have been retrofitted with sprinklers. Residents had complained for years that the building was unsafe and could not be safely evacuated in the case of a serious fire.

It should not be shocking, then, that Megan McArdle has received a blizzard of rebukes for suggesting that it may be misguided to criticize the London authorities for not installing sprinkler systems. McArdle does not make any conclusive claims about the sprinklers: She acknowledges that the former housing minister who decided not to require developers to install sprinklers may have made the wrong call. But, McArdle argues, all expenditures must be justified and balanced against the possible trade-offs: Every dollar [the government] spends on installing sprinkler systems cannot be spent on the health service, or national device, or pollution control. And McArdle, as a good libertarian, points out that requiring developers to install sprinklers would increase rents and impose other costs, while leaving the issue unregulated would allow potential tenants themselves to choose whether sprinkler systems and other safety features are worth the cost.

McArdle was savaged on social media for these transparently reasonable sentiments; one particularly asinine Slate article was mockingly titled, Would I Cross the Street to Spit on You If You Were on Fire? Theres Always a Trade-Off. People dont, it turns out, particularly appreciate the notion that safety is a trade-off; they particularly dont appreciate hearing about the importance of such trade-offs in the aftermath of an unbearable tragedy. At times like these, people want to hear about requisitioning the empty houses of rich people, as Jeremy Corbyn suggested. They want to hear about greedy developers going to prison; they want politicians unseated. People want something to be done, even if that something doesnt make much sense or will not be particularly helpful.

This, of course, is a problem with people, not a problem with Megan McArdle, whose column appeared obnoxious precisely because it was reasonable and levelheaded at a time when one is not supposed to be either. McArdle is right that there is always a trade-off and that the government should install sprinklers in public housing only if that is the best use of the money. McArdle is right, too, that requiring developers to install sprinklers in every single building would price low-income households out of units they could otherwise have afforded, and would deprive people of the ability to determine for themselves what level of risk they are willing to pay for.

But McArdles analysis is incomplete. Any perfect cost-benefit analysis, after all, should take into account not only the fiscal costs and benefits directly implicated in a decision but also the costs and benefits associated with the long-term repercussions of the decision.

In this case, the decision not to install more expensive cladding at Grenfell was a catastrophic failure for the cause of responsible governance. The tragedy has galvanized England and will almost certainly bring in its wake a less compromising, and less proportionate, attitude toward building regulations. A flurry of laws will surely be passed to assuage the horror and the sense of national culpability. Some of these laws may be reasonable and well designed, but it is likely that most will not be. And that is the best-case scenario. Londons mayor, Sadiq Khan, has suggested that the tower blocks of the 1960s and 70s, which provide low-income housing to thousands in a city with a severe housing crisis, may be systematically torn down. And if, as seems possible, the Grenfell fire leads to the fall of Theresa May and the rise of Jeremy Corbyn, then a libertarian approach to building regulations will ultimately have produced the first genuinely left-wing government the United Kingdom has seen since 1979.

There is very little that is worse for skeptics of big government than a tragedy. Since people demand action after a tragedy, tragedies tend to lead to greater regulation, and regulation is subject to a ratchet effect: Once regulations are passed, they are hard to reverse and the new regulatory climate becomes normal. The political effects of a tragedy can shape society for decades it was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in lower Manhattan that brought about new regulatory standards in factories, and the Titanic changed maritime safety forever.

It stands to reason, then, that conservatives and libertarians have an interest in promoting modest, cheap, and popular safety rules and regulations. If the United Kingdom had banned the flammable cladding used in Grenfell, as America and Germany had, no one would be talking today about tearing down low-income housing across London, and the cost would be only a few thousand pounds more per development. If the authorities had prevented factories in lower Manhattan from locking their employees in, the garment workers would probably never have unionized. If the Titanic had been forced by law to carry enough lifeboats, maritime regulations would probably be far simpler today.

Libertarians in particular will find these preventive regulations difficult to stomach. But most of the world is not libertarian certainly, not after a trauma of this magnitude and so, difficult to stomach though they may be, safety rules and regulations, carefully chosen and managed, are a worthwhile investment in a slightly more libertarian future.

READ MORE: Assigning Blame for Londons Tower Inferno The Tragedy of Grenfell

Max Bloom is an editorial intern at National Review.

Continued here:
What Conservatives and Libertarians Should Learn from Grenfell - National Review

Five main party candidates have declared they will run for the District 26 congressional seat against Michael Burgess, R-Texas, 16 months before next Novembers election. While that may seem early, thats nothing compared to Libertarian party candidate Mark Boler. Hes been running for this position for eight years.

Boler has been the Libertarian nominee for District 26 every election since 2010, and his support has been steadily increasing, for the most part. He received 2.3 percent of the vote that year, 3 percent in 2012 and 4 percent in 2016. In 2014, when the Democratic party didnt field a candidate, Boler received 17 percent of the vote.

When there is a third party running, people go to websites. People say Oh look, there is another party, he said. I think had people like me not run, all thats left is the Republican and the Democratic party, which is really the same party. Theyre the Big Government party.

The Libertarian party is the most prominent third party in the U.S., as well as one of the most long-lasting, holding its first convention in 1972 and growing ever since. In presidential elections, their candidates have been receiving increasing support since 2004, culminating in Gary Johnson receiving 3.28 percent of the vote last year, the first year in which the party was on the ballot in all 50 states. With the major parties fielding two of the most disliked presidential candidates in history, he was polling in double-digits at some points.

Johnson received 3.8 percent of the vote in Denton County.

The partys politics are based around preserving or reestablishing as much personal choice as possible by lowering taxes and fighting against laws that govern non-violent personal behavior. The most common policy positions include ending the war on drugs and pulling out of the Middle East.

Denton County Libertarian Party historian James Gholston said that while the partys poll numbers are growing slowly, public opinion has shifted much more strongly toward its positions.

Some of our ideas that seemed wildly insane once upon a time are basically mainstream, he said. Its almost a case of pick a topic. Ending the war on drugs, bringing our troops home, not regulating things into nightmare situations where youre horribly penalized just for creating jobs.

Gholston said the partys longevity is historically notable, and that most third parties start as a grassroots movement and then die out in a couple of years time.

Were still here, which is actually not a small thing when youre not a Democrat or a Republican, he said. If we were going to vanish without a trace, it would have happened decades ago.

County chair James Felder said that Texas push to end straight-ticket voting has things looking up for the party. Felder pointed to the 2016 race for Texas railroad commissioner, in which Libertarian candidate Mark Miller received 5.2 percent of the vote despite being endorsed by several major newspapers, as an example of a race that would have gone differently without straight-ticket elections.

The majority of the people vote straight-ticket. They dont even care about down-ballot candidates, he said.

Felder said Boler has been running for congress since before he became the local party chair. He said the party keeps putting Boler up as a candidate because hes incredibly active. He said Boler was party treasurer when he arrived and serves on the executive committee, goes to state conventions and helps with other candidates elections around the county.

Boler said the major barriers to his being elected are money and the prominent idea that voting for a third party is a wasted vote. The logic, such as it is, goes that since a third party candidate could never win, no one should vote for them.

Theres going to be some kind of a tipping point, a critical mass, where people see, Oh, theres a certain percentage of people voting for somebody other than a Republican or a Democrat, he said. I think then theyre going to go ahead and say, Wow, maybe they could win.

Boler said the most hes ever raised for a campaign was $2,600 in 2012, and a lot of that was his own money.

After four unsuccessful campaigns, Boler said he is still re-energized by the increasing support he receives.

I get successes and satisfaction from seeing a steady increase in the number of people that vote for me. Maybe that many people are really saying, Hey, Im fed up, I want more freedom. he said. Im here to show that theres another way, and there is. I gain satisfaction from that, even if I dont win.

Visit link:
Libertarian candidate makes fourth run for Congress in Dist. 26 - The Lewisville Texan Journal

If you're interested in curious cultural phenomena, you may have taken notice of the tiny Pacific nation of Niuean idyllic Polynesian Eden, which is depopulating itself so dramatically that it will soon turn spontaneously into a wildlife refuge.

By population, the smallest country in the world is the Vatican. Niuepronounced "new way"is the smallest republic. According to its most recent entry in the CIA World Factbook, which was made in 2014, Niue's population is 1,190. It has an area of about 100 square miles, which makes it a little less than half the size of Guam; a little less than one-fourteenth the size of Long Island. Niue has a lower population density than Russia, and one 55th the population of Yankee stadium with a capacity crowd.

Despite being a beautiful, tropical paradise, Niue's population is dropping by about 3 percent a year. In 2000, its population was 1900; in 1990, 2,332; in 1980, 3,402, and in 1950, nearly 5,000. The reason for the plummet, as you can probably guess, is the absence of jobs. Niue is unfathomably remote; 1,700 miles northeast of New Zealand; 2,800 southwest of Hawaii, 3,600 miles east of Australia. Few people see a future on the Island. Niue is an independent Republic in free association with New Zealand, and as part of the deal, Niue's citizens are also offered New Zealand citizenship. New Zealand's annual gross domestic product is $186 billion. Niue's is a little less than $25 million; by far the lowest of any country in the world (though not unimpressive for a country with only 1000 people in it). Its three main industries are tourism, fishing and agriculture; subsistence farming is common. The government is in debt, and receives considerable sponsorship from New Zealand, which is also, at Niue's request, responsible for Niue's national defense. The upshot of all this is that New Zealand is slowing siphoning off Niue's remaining Niueans. Unless something changes, the remaining, aging Niueans will die-off or move. Inevitably, before long, Niue will be empty, and that will be that.

By area, the smallest country in the world, is the Vatican. Monaco is second. The third smallest country in the world is Liberland, which is 2.7 square miles on the Danube between Croatia and Serbia. Liberland's tiny patch of territory was, prior 2015, terra nulliusCroatia said it belonged to Serbia and Serbia said it belonged to Croatia. Noticing this, libertarian activist Vit Jedlika claimed it, and established the pure libertarian Free Republic of Liberland. However, It's a country recognized by no one. The legal situation is this: Serbia claims the Danube as its north-western border with Croatia. Croatia says some of the land on the Serbian side of the Danube belongs to it, and some of the land on the Croatian side belongs to Serbia. This left a microscopic parcel of land on Croatia's side claimed by neither of the two.

As regards Liberland's claim, Serbia says it doesn't care. Croatia, however, has blocked Liberlandians from entering the area, fearing that if the land isn't accorded to Serbia, it will weaken the Croatian claims to the disputed land on the Danube's other side. So for the moment, Liberland is a stateless state.

But I admire it. Most Americans will, once they've had a look at it. Liberland's constitution, written in English and available on its website, borrows liberally from oursmost importantly, in its Bill of Rights. The problem with most almost-free countries is a lack of protection against an overbearing government; too many republican governments have been formed under the assumption that so long as a government is of the people and by the people, it is free to do whatever it wants for, or to, the people. Liberland preempts this problem with strict and explicit limits on the powers of government, and the most iron-clad and extensively detailed Bill of Rights ever written. The Bill of Rights broken down into sections on freedom of speech and information, property rights, privacy rights, the rights of the accused, rights of "physical liberty," equality before the law (including freedom of religion), and "the right to self-defense and defense of one's rights and property," including against the government. The primacy of Liberland's Bill of Rights is enshrined in its Constitution's preamble (which, keep in mind, was written by people for whom English is a second language): "Being aware of a long and shameful list of governments' trespasses to the Rights of the sovereign Individuals, we hereby declare that the Public Administration governing the Free Republic of Liberland shall first and foremost respect the Bill of Rights and exercise only such functions as have been delegated to it under this Constitution. Therefore, we declare that whenever the Public Administration becomes an obstacle to, rather than a guarantor of, our Rights, it shall be our duty to alter or abolish such government, and to institute a new government for the restoration of the Rights which we consider inherent in all human beings."

If you have some time, read the whole Liberland constitutionit's inspiring, even though it lacks the poetry of the American constitution. Though I should point out, the first draft of Liberland's constitution, from 2015, began very poetically: "We, the Citizens of the Free Republic of Liberland, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and future generations, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the Free Republic of Liberland."

Liberland is the republic that would have been created by John Locke and Milton Friedmanand Thomas Jefferson, et al, if they had been free of the obligation to compromise. It lacks land, but it has citizensor at least perspective citizens: according to the Guardian, in the week following its 2015 declaration of independence, Liberland received 200,000 applications for citizenship.

Niue, on the other hand, has land: 100 square miles, 40 times as much as Liberland has claimed in the Balkans. But of course it lacks peoplenearly the entire population could fit on a single Jumbo Jet. Citizens of Niue who wish to stay need an infusion of people, enough to create an economy with jobs and prospects for their children. Ideally, they want an infusion of people who won't interfere with their life style. In other words, they need libertariansand as it happens, libertarians needs them.

It takes 3 years of residence to become a citizen of Niue. If a few thousand Liberlandians were to move there, they would save the island and the nation, and the remainders of Niue culture (only about 650 Niuean citizens are ethnically Niuean; only about 500 of those speak the Niueain language). After a few years, the libertarians could vote to amend the Niue constitution and institute their policies of pure freedom, none of which would encroach in anyway on the surviving Niuean traditions. The Liberlandians would have land on which to enjoy their utopian ideals, andvia the accompanying guarantees of free trade, a free market and businesses free from government interferencethe Niuean economy would likely see "Asian Tiger" type economic growth (being so far off the beaten path, though, this would primary start as tax-haven growth).

Most importantly, the world will have a chance to see the success of a country based on unadulterated liberty, andas a bonuscome to understand that America's strength and prosperity are not accidental.

See original here:
Libertarians and the Idyllic Island Nation That's Running Out of People - The Weekly Standard