Mediaboss Marketing

PAT BENIC/UPI/NewscomPresident Donald Trump's decision to fire James Comey as head of the FBI on Tuesday set off a fire storm of political commentary, and with good reason. It's only the second time in the 108-year history of the FBI that the director has been fired by the president (the other was in 1993 when William Sessions was canned by President Bill Clinton over ethical issues), and, more importantly, the firing seemed to coincide with an escalation in the FBI's investigation of ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

Trump apparently wants the Russia story to go away, but he did himself no favors by firing Comey in a way that invites criticism.

Setting aside the politics and optics of Trump's decision to dispose of Comeyboth of which look awful for Trump and have ramifications for Republicans in Congressthere are important legal and constitutional questions about Tuesday's firing.

Did Trump have the authority to fire Comey out of the blue like that? What happens next? Is this a constitutional crisis? I asked some of the top libertarian legal scholars in the country to weigh-in on those questions and offer their assessment of this whole, wild situation.

Here's what they told Reason on Wednesday (responses have been edited for clarity and length):

Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow on constitutional studies at the Cato Institute; editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review:

"The legal/constitutional issues here are really easy: there are none. The president has undisputed removal power over the FBI director and he can now appoint a successor. (Until that successor is confirmed by the Senate, deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe is the acting director.)

"In other words, nothing that President Trump has done or is contemplating here is beyond his powers and there is no constitutional crisis. Having said that, the political and policy issues at playnot to mention the opticsare extremely serious.

"Congress may now set up its own investigation, or Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein (at Trump's direction) could appoint an independent prosecutorbut one who by law would also be removable by the presidentor all of these actors could do nothing, leaving the ultimate verdict to the voters in next year's midterm election."

Ilya Somin, professor of law at George Mason University, with a specialty in constitutional law:

"The President has the legal authority to fire an FBI director for almost any reason he wants. I don't think any serious legal commentator doubts that.

"What happens now is that Trump will nominate a replacement for Comey and the Senate will have to decide whether to confirm that person. That may turn out to be an extremely consequential decision."

Somin added that he did not want the first part of his answer to cause libertariansor anyone elseto conclude there is no reason for concern:

"There is a danger that Trump will appoint someone who will look the other way on the Russia investigation (which is looking into allegations of possibly very serious lawbreaking by Trump and his associates), or someone who will condone abuses of civil liberties of the sort we saw in the earlier history of the FBI. Trump's disdain for freedom of speech and his threats to use the power of government to go after his critics are far from reassuring on that score."

Josh Blackman, associate professor of law at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, with a specialty in constitutional law and the U.S. Supreme Court:

"The actions are perfectly constitutional. What happens next is up to the political process. Congress can investigate as it sees fit, and use whatever remedies, up to impeachment, it deems necessary."

On his personal blog, Blackman detailed the crucial difference between Trump's firing of Comey and the so-called "Saturday Night Massacre" in 1973, when President Richard Nixon pushed for the firing of a special prosecutor investigating the Watergate break-in:

"Further, for those drawing analogies to the Saturday Evening Massacre, recall that Nixon never actually fired anyone himself. Instead, he had to ask a subordinate to fire the special prosecutor for cause. Comey was fired by the President, directly, at will (though plenty of causes were given)."

David Bernstein, professor of law at George Mason University:

"I don't think there's any doubt that Trump has the constitutional and legal authority to fire Comey. As for what comes next, Trump will have to appoint a new FBI Director, who will need to be confirmed by the Senate. If the Senate does its job, it will ensure that the new director is not a Trump crony, and indeed the hearings for that new nominee could shed light on the background to Comey's firing.

"There is definitely no constitutional crisis here. Indeed, by a proper understanding of how the executive branch is supposed to work, it would be absurd to think the president is obligated to keep an official he doesn't want, as they are all essentially his employees/agents.

"I can't really speak to how this will play out politically, but in Nixon's case you had a special prosecutor who was getting close to revealing Watergate related secrets, and Nixon was trying to interfere with the investigation. Here, I don't think it's at all clear that the FBI, and any new FBI director, will be any less aggressive than Comey in pursuing the Russia investigation.

"Moreover, because such an individual will have been confirmed by a GOP Senate and not have Comey's baggage from the campaign, the results of that investigation will have additional credibility."

Todd Gaziano, senior fellow in constitutional law, Pacific Legal Foundation:

"Whether you think Comey's dismissal was justified or not, it is not a 'constitutional crisis' for the head of the FBI to be fired. Our republic and the constitutional separation of powers do not require an FBI director at all. The primary checks on executive error or abuse that the Framers created were political, electoral, and judicial checks that do not require a 'special prosecutor' or other 'independent' figures in the executive branch."

Tim Lynch, the Cato Institute's director of criminal justice projects, highlights Comey's history of conducting "trial by news conference," a tactic that he used against Hillary Clinton last year. Though the removal was ham-fisted, Lynch says, it was probably the right thing to do.

"We can do much better than James Comey. If Trump can repeat the careful process by which he selected Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court and secure a fairly swift confirmation vote, this matter will soon be forgotten. If the selection process is mishandled, the political storm clouds will hang over the White House for quite some time."

Go here to read the rest:
Here's What Libertarian Legal Scholars Think About Comey's Firing - Reason (blog)

Algernon D'Ammassa, Headlight Staff 11:51 a.m. MT May 11, 2017

Lescombes(Photo: Headlight Photo)Buy Photo

DEMING I am not here to talk anyone into being a libertarian. That would not be very libertarian of me.

This was how Elizabeth Hanes, Chair of the Libertarian Party of New Mexico, greeted visitors at an open house introducing the partys new Luna County chapter. The event was open to the public and held Saturday evening at the St. Clair Winery, 1325 DeBaca Road.

Founded in 1971 in Colorado, the Libertarian Party promotes individual liberty, liberal capitalism, small government, and non-interventionist foreign policy. In the 2016 federal election, the party secured ballot status in all 50 states for candidate Gary Johnson, who was Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003. The campaign won more than 3 percent of the popular vote, falling short of the 5 percent threshold that would qualify the party for federal funds as an official minor party under Federal Election Commission rules. Nonetheless, Hanes cited the popularity of the Johnson campaign as an opportunity to grow the party.

Having supported Johnson in the 2016 election, Rebecca Lescombes of Deming initiated the formal organization of a county Libertarian chapter to compete with the Democratic and Republican parties. I came as a disgruntled Republican, she said at the open house. Ive been Republican since I was able to vote, but Ive watched years of Republican shenanigans and getting nothing done, and the Republicans and the Democrats becoming the same beast.

Her initial goals are formulating a party organization and recruiting members, but a second priority will be to recruit candidates for local office. Lescombes even indicated she was considering a run herself, though she did not disclose which office she might seek.

A handful of citizens from Deming came to the open house to read literature, meet the state and county chairs, and engage in wide-ranging conversation about politics. Participants ranged from the just curious to a man who described himself as a small-L libertarian, not big-L. An hour into the event, he indicated he would join the party.

The social policies of the Libertarian Party appeal to me, said Lescombes. Everyone has a right to do what they want. You want to marry a guy, you can marry a guy. Do what you want to do as long as you dont hurt anybody else.

There is a lot of disappointment in Trump, said Hanes, a nurse and writer based in Albuquerque, referring to President Donald Trump. Republicans have told me, I thought Trump was going to do what he said but now its just more of the same. However, the chairwoman argued that the Libertarian party is not only a haven for disaffected Republicans, but also for Democrats and progressives concerned about state power and large national debt. Were fiscally responsible and socially we dont have a damn what you do, she said. Democrats are already with us on half of that. I think eventually theyll come around on the financial side.

Algernon D'Ammassa can be reached at 575-546-2611 (ext. 2608) or adammassa@demingheadlight.com.

Read or Share this story: http://www.demingheadlight.com/story/news/2017/05/11/libertarians-organize-luna-county/101555620/

Original post:
Libertarians organize in Luna County - Deming Headlight

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By Kitty Testa

For many liberty advocates, finding like-minded thinkers among the Libertarian Party has been a blessing. The rift between Democrats and Republicans has been exhausting over the past year, and it was easy to get to the point where you suspected a grand psyop was underway and you were one of a handful of people who was strangely immune. Finding people who share a love of liberty and understand that it is possible to reject the duopoly and move forward on a set of liberty principles was refreshing for many who first looked to the LP during the last election, and the Libertarian Party boasts that 2016 was a record year for membership.

While the LP advocates for a set of ideas based on libertarian principles, the purpose of an organized party is to gain political influence, either by winning elections or by running candidates that are able to pull more dominant candidates into views that advance liberty in general. In order to achieve practical influence, a political party needs to be inviting to outsiders. It needs to groom charismatic candidates to spread its message. A successful Libertarian must present a positive vision of what libertarian freedom might look like in practice.

But todays Libertarian Party is content to preach to its own dissonant choir. Its recent outreach on social media is tone-deaf, and the momentum the LP gained of 2016 is in danger of falling off. Those involved in the liberty movement have shifted their focus to actual policy initiatives coming from government as opposed to fighting the dominance of the duopoly in an election. This is an excellent opportunity to advance liberty ideas and to illustrate how the average American will benefit from restoration of his liberties. Ive observed many grass roots libertarians doing this in their home states, fighting for one policy and against another to defend liberty.

But what does the national Libertarian Party do? It posts memes of the LP platform and libertarian clichs on social media. It promotes discord within the party. And it shoots itself in the foot, seemingly every damn day.

Last February, The Commission on Presidential Debates was ordered to rewrite its rules so as not to arbitrarily discriminate against third parties. The LP was a party to the suit brought against the CPD, and that was constructive. So with a few years to go before another presidential election, the LP might want to seriously consider the wider liberty movement and how to gather, as opposed to repel, potential LP voters.

But is the LP serious? Sometimes it seems as if the LP is sabotaging the liberty movement as opposed to advancing it. Here are five ways how.

Many libertarians felt a little thrill at LP Chair Nicholas Sarwarks statement on election night when he faced the duopoly and stated, Your tears are delicious and your parties will die.

But be honest: it was a cheap thrill. Ill get you next time, Gadget! comes to mind. In the most favorable circumstances for an LP presidential candidate to gain ground, Gary Johnson failed to receive 5% of the popular vote, coming in with just under 3.3%. Sarwarks words were pretty big talk for a party that gets trounced in every election. Putting a positive face on a loss isnt easy, but it never hurts to be gracious in defeat. Sarwark was just being a jerk.

OK, so lets give him a pass on election night. How about Sarwarks declaration that abortion isnt a real political issue? That pretty much exploded on social media among libertarians, with many pro-choice members demanding that pro-lifers get out of their party while Larry Sharpe tried his best at damage control.

Then there was an ill-fated attempt at being religiously inclusive by posting a tenet from The Satanic Temple on the LP Facebook page during Easter and Passover week. For some Christian and Jewish libertarians it did seem to be provocative, and again stoked divisions within the party. How about this? To everyone celebrating holidays this week, know that The Libertarian Party supports freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. You could post it during Ramadan, Diwali, and every other special religious holidayand even on Atheist Day! Thats how inclusion works. But the LPs focus seemed to be on avoiding a micro-aggression against the relatively few people who belong to The Satanic Temple and chose instead to alienate Christians and Jews. Because Satan is a figure in Judaic faiths, and also because almost no one knows what The Satanic Temple is, it was almost as if the LP was trolling believers during Easter and Passover. What jerks!

Most recently, LP Vice Chair, Arvin Vohra, stated that those who enlist in the military are only doing so for college money, and implied that they were willing to kill people for money. Perhaps Mr. Vohra is unaware that over 90% of enlisted personnel are stationed in the U.S. and Europe and never kill anyone. So Vohras charge against military personnel isnt only provocative, but just plain incorrect.

While I sometimes think that America has a somewhat unhealthy worship for the military, making such a broad statement about those who enlist is obscene. Today a petition was started to oust Vohra for his remarks. Thats unlikely, but when he tries to recruit Libertarian candidates, its going to be a sore spot among veterans.

These are all examples of how LP leadership, and sometimes its members, are just like that guy that walks into a party and starts insulting people thinking it makes him look like an enviable alpha. It doesnt. It just makes you look like a jerk.

Gary Johnsons campaign made a strategic move during the 2016 election cycle to woo Bernie Sanders supporters at the expense of ostracizing potential voters of a more conservative stripe. Johnson stressed his liberal (i.e. progressive) positions on abortion, legalization of cannabis, and open borders, and he played down the partys free market principles and support of religious freedom. He sent a shock wave through Libertarian circles by suggesting that Jewish bakers should be forced to bake cakes for Nazis. Just before the election, he came out in support of Universal Basic Income.

Johnson is a liberaltarian, that is people who lean liberal (progressive) on social issues, but are libertarian on fiscal issues. The trouble here is that to force people to bake cakes and to use taxation (theft) to provide a universal basic income to all are not libertarian ideas.

Johnson still has a lot of support within the LP, and many members of the LP deplore conservatives of any stripeeven when theyre happy to advance liberty and mind their own business. They dont want LP members who refuse to march in the Gay Pride Parade but will otherwise circulate petitions. They dont want pro-lifers in the party whose positions are based on science and natural rights.

Yes, the LP has grown, but is also developing its own orthodoxy and litmus tests. Sounds so much like libertynot.

How many times have you heard, Anarcho-capitalism is the only way! Yeah, but thats not going to happen any time soon. Lets see how Seastead works first. The radical changes in governance that libertarians propose are often rejected out of hand because libertarians are focused on an idea goal and how great that will be, and dont generally think about how you actually get there, and who gets hurt. Showing how a libertarian micro-economy works may well be more persuasive than persuading people to ditch everything they know in favor of an ideal that is foreign and risky. Using common examples of eBay and Etsy as global, free marketplaces is more persuasive than shouting about dismantling OSHA.

People are afraid of mass legalization of recreational drugs not because theyre incurable assholes, but because they are worried that people will be hurtespecially children. People dont support the distribution of child pornography because in their practical experience, children are easily manipulated and used, and will trade their house for an ice cream cone. Especially small children do not have the mental capacity to understand the future ramifications of their actions, but some libertarians think of children who are participating in child porn as actors. Seriously. Have they ever met a five-year-old?

Theres a commonly shared meme in libertarian circles which states that if you need violence to enforce your ideas, your ideas are worthless. Just try to convince even a sizable minority of Americans that its OK to give heroin to a five-year-old and then convince her to take part in kiddie porn. If this is what libertarian liberty looks like, almost no one is going to buy in. Give it up. This is one you just cant win.

Mises Institute v. Cato. Cato v. Ron Paul. Adam Kokesh v. Austin Petersen. The LP is a collection of rifts, often played out on social media. Sometimes I think cuck-fighting is the official sport of the LP. Every few weeks some celebritarian throws shade at another, usually replete with personal insults and braggadocious claims.

Even though every libertarian has his favorite philosopher and they dont always agree on every little thing, libertarianism is generally a cohesive philosophy. Yes, it is open to interpretation, but why are there so manybitter squabbles among libertarians? And why all the drama?

Too many egos. How are we going to convince the lovers of government control that people can work everything out for themselves when libertarians cant even agree where we agree?

The LP makes this attempt in its platform, which is really quite good. Sure, I would like there to be some acknowledgement that there is such a thing as a libertarian pro-life view and some age of consent protections, so its imperfect. Yet, its actually substantive and better than either the Democrat or the Republican platform. Its not full of platitudes and promises, but principlesprinciples of liberty.

Ah, but libertarians are too busy telling other libertarians that theyre not libertarians. Yeah, thats constructive.

What if the same energy spent by libertarian pugilists over philosophical purity were spent on actually marketing freedom to the masses? Might the liberty movement have a better chance?

Sometimes I wonder if libertarians are just comfortable being on the outside looking in. Sure, there are a handful of libertarians who have achieved office (numbering 152, to be exact). They are mostly in local offices, which is nothing to be ashamed of, as citizens are often more affected by local governments than state and federal governments. And I understand that its really hard to get elected when youre not running as a D or an R.

But its clear that as a national force, the liberty movement has much more potential.

When voters bother to vote, it is in self-interest, which often extends beyond their own personal lives into their communities. How do the ideals of liberty translate into their self-interest? That is the only question on the table. If the liberty movement is going to make meaningful headway against authoritarians, it has to nip at the heels of the status quo, supporting pro-liberty reforms that people can actually get behind.

Libertarians need to take an outward approach. The fact is that most people arent willing to embrace libertarianism in its fullest. But that doesnt mean there isnt room for progress. We need to reject the duopolys game of fear-mongering voters into electing them and promote liberty in positive terms. We need to take that LP platform and translate it into tangible improvements in peoples lives. Make it easier to start a business. Let the markets continue to reduce the cost of living, and bring them exotic things they never knew they wanted. We need to reassure those in need that the rug will not be pulled out from under them all at once, while pressing hard against corporate welfare. We need to promise an incremental march toward liberty, not a wholesale re-imagining of the world they live in.

That, and stop acting like a jerk.

Adam Kokesharvin vohraaustin petersenBernie SandersDemocratsGary JohnsonLarry Sharpelibertarian partynicholas sarwarkRepublicansron paul

Original post:
Top Five Ways the Libertarian Party is Sabotaging the Liberty Movement - The Libertarian Republic

I recently spoke to a seasoned libertarian and expressed to him my concern regarding North Koreas actions and provocations. I explained how war with North Korea seemed inevitable. He began to tellme that there was no justification for such a war, but on this I actually happen to disagree: attempted aggression is just as bad as the very act of aggression. Failing doesnt absolve the perpetrator.

North Korea Has AttackedWhen North Korea develops weapons systems and claims that they will attack South Korea or America, they are in effect making clear their intentions. When they launch a missile toward the U.S.A and then claim that it is just a test, it becomes quite clear that it is a test in attacking the U.S. mainland.

Now, imagine if I told you that I had a gun, and I happen to shoot at someone but miss. Can I claim that I did not attack them because of my inability to hit my target?

North Korea is adamantly claiming that they are developing weapons systems to target America, and are acting in accordance with this very claim. How is this not a clear violation of the NAP? Does the U.S.A have to wait for someone to successfully attack before it mounts a proper offence? Do I need to wait for an assailant to shoot me, before I shoot him?

Of course, this is not something that I advocate without reluctance. The situation in Asia is fraught with tremendous risk. We have players who are bent on increasing antagonism because of legacy policies that no longer reflect our current world. For instance, China will back North Korea because a united Korea would be against its interest.

Why does China fear a united Korea? It is well understood that without Chinese patronage North Korea would have been attacked by the US and/or South Korea long ago. The only thing keeping these countries at bay is China. Furthermore, Japan is a wild card that often gets left out of the discussion. Remember Japan, the former imperialist empire that almost conquered the entire south pacific? Japan may very well take North Koreas actions as a justification to develop their nuclear weapons and military defenses.

Japan has only been allowed to have a defensive military since World War 2. I am sure libertarians will argue that this is a violation of their natural rights to self defense. I would somewhat agree but I am also glad that they do not have a military.

The ResultGiven the players in this current arrangement of political brinkmanship and ancient rivalry, how do we avoid an all out war?

North Korea has already created the conditions to justify American allies mounting an attack against them. Can we really say that the international community has no business being involved in whether or not North Korea or any other country has nuclear weapons? Such a position denies the reality that it is fundamentally impossible, given the current scheme of geopolitics, to apply a true isolationist position.

America is in fact an empire, and as the ancient Greeks have taught us, it is dangerous to let go of an empire once it is obtained. Thus, it appears that the only way this situation ends is with North Korea being attacked.

This post was written by Gary St. Fleur.

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

Gary St. Fleur is the founder of Save Scranton, an organization that campaigns against the corruption and malfeasance in the North Eastern Pennsylvania area, by utilizing grassroots efforts to enact reform.

Like Loading...

More here:
North Korea and its Violation of the NAP - Being Libertarian

Libertarians are still trying to claim the American Founding as theirs. One occasionally hears the argument that the principles of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are libertarian. One of the most recent instances of this claim residesin Nikolai Wenzels first-rate defense of libertarianism in Selfish Libertarians and Socialist Conservatives? (Stanford: 2017). Yet a closer look at the Founders thought about government makes clear that it was anything but libertarian.

Wenzel notes there are different types of libertarianism. He clarifies that unless I specify otherwise, I will use the term libertarian to mean minarchy. Minarchist libertarianism holds that government exists only to protect individuals rights. A libertarian government is forbidden from doing almost everything, Wenzel states. In fact, a libertarian government is empowered to do only one thing: defend individual rights.

Wenzels argument for a libertarian Founding rests largely on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Indeed, his claims do seem superficially persuasive.

The Constitution limits the federal government to the exercise of a few specific powers. Surely, this is a classic instance of libertarian philosophy limiting the sphere of government, is it not? As Wenzel argues, By and large, the enumerated powers granted to the federal government under Article I, section 8, are in line with libertarian philosophy. He recognizes that elements of the Constitution violate libertarian principles, but his overall evaluation is that The U.S. Constitution was largely a libertarian document.

The Declaration, argues Wenzel, is more explicitly libertarian. It declares that all possess natural rights and that governments are created to protect those rights. There, then, says Wenzel, is the political philosophy of the Declaration: The purpose of government is to protect rights. Period. He calls this a minimalist philosophy with which any libertarian would agree.

So far, all of this sounds quite convincing, but there is a fatal flaw in Wenzels argument. Both libertarians and the American Founders describe the purpose of government as the protection of rights. But by rights they mean two very different things.

For Wenzel, respecting others rights simply means refraining from coercion. The state exists only to protect rights, and therefore, the state itself may not engage in any coercion, except to prevent coercion. He argues that participants in immoral trades, such as The drug pusher, the prostitute, and the pornographer, do not violate others rights as long as they do not coercively impose their wares on others. Nor does the polygamist.

Wenzels coauthor Nathan Schlueter points out the problem with this position: Libertarianism essentially denies thatmoral harms exist and maintains that the only real injustice is coercion. Accordingly, it promotes a legal regime in which some individuals are legally entitled to harm others in noncoercive ways. Wenzel assumes that only coercion violates rights. The Founders profoundly disagreed.

Think again about the alleged libertarianism of the Founding documents. Wenzel makes a common mistake in assuming that the limitation of the national government to a few specific enumerated powers reflects libertarian belief. But this limitation has nothing to do with libertarianism. It has everything to do with federalism.

The federal government was only created to fulfill certain limited, particular purposes. It was not created to do everything the Founders believed government should do. Most of those functionsand, on the whole, those less compatible with libertarianismwere entrusted to the states. The fact that the enumerated powers of the federal government are largely consistent with libertarianism does not mean the Founders were libertarians. It means nothing at all, in fact. It is a conclusion based on only half the data.

Actually, the enumeration of federal powers is more an accident of history than anything else. James Madisons original proposal was that the national government simply possess blanket authority to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent. The Constitutional Convention ultimately chose to list its powers, believing this was less liable to abuse, but this decision was by no means dictated by the Founders beliefs about government.

As for the Declaration, it does not say that government exists only to protect individuals life, liberty, and property. A libertarian right to be free of coercion is not intended here. Instead, the Declaration states that life and liberty are included among the natural rights of mankind, as is something else referred to as the pursuit of happiness. The right to happiness was not simply sweet-sounding rhetoric. It was the centerpiece of the Founders political theory.

The Founders political theory was not libertarian, because they believed that the preeminent human right was happiness. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, for example, states: All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness (emphases added).

As the language makes clear, the rights of man could be expressed as a list of rights that includes life, liberty, and property. But the great right that encompassed all others was the right to pursue (or even obtain!) happiness. Assertions of this right to happiness appear in many Founding-Era writings, including other state constitutions.

The purpose of government, in turn, was to help people achieve happiness by promoting their good. Delegate to the Constitutional Convention James Wilson wrote one of the most thorough expositions of the Founding philosophyhis famous Lectures on Law. In them, he explains that the purpose of government is to promote the well-being of those subject to it: Whatever promotes the greatest happiness of the whole, that is what government should do.

Once again, this sort of talk is commonplace. Twelve of the 13 original states adopted a constitution in the Founding Era. Every one of these states described the purpose of government as promoting the well-being of citizens. The New Hampshire constitution of 1784 is typical, holding that all governmentisinstituted for the general good.

Because the general good includes the moral good, this meant discouraging immoral behavior. Wenzel speaks of voluntary drug and sexual matters as beyond the purview of a libertarian government. But such laws were universal in early America.

Thus Mark Kann writes in Taming Passion for the Public Good that the states right to regulate sexual practiceswas undisputed in early America, and Wilson notes bigamy, prostitution, and indecency as offenses subject to punishment on Founding political theory. Similarly, in Federalist 12, Alexander Hamilton cites the beneficial impact on morals as a justification for federal taxation of alcoholic imports.

The Founders used government to discourage other noncoercive activities, as well. In 1778, Congress recommended to the states suppressing theatrical entertainments, horse-racing, gambling, and such other diversions as are productive of idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of principles and manners. In his book, The Peoples Welfare, William Novak details the extensive regulation of everything from lotteries and usury to Sunday travel, coarse language, and poor relief that was the norm during the Founding Era.

The American Founders believed that government exists to protect rights, just as libertarians do. But their understanding of rights was radically different from the libertarian understanding. Libertarians like Wenzel believe that protecting rights means prohibiting coercion. The Founders believed that protecting rights meant seeking the moral and material well-being of society. The American Founding was conservative, not libertarian. Libertarians will have to look elsewhere to support their beliefs.

Jonathan Ashbach is a PhD student in politics at Hillsdale College. Jonathan has worked in the hospitality industry and as assistant editor for the Humboldt Economic Index. His work has also been published on Patheos.

Go here to read the rest:
No, The American Founders Were Not Libertarians - The Federalist - The Federalist