Mediaboss Marketing

From its beginnings as a distinct ideological movement in the postwar years, libertarianism has been a set of outsider ideas vastly disrespected by most American politicians and intellectuals. It was kept alive by small institutions, publications, and scattered academics (mostly in economics at first) who for decades were largely concerned with just keeping any expression of these ideas a going concern, barely expecting it could soon seriously influence mainstream political culture. (That story is told up to the turn of the 21st century in my book Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.)

Libertarians understand they are still to a large degree strangers in a strange land when it comes to the American political scene, struggling for impact in a world they never made, and any number of other cliches indicating that obvious truth: libertarianism is still a minority idea and libertarians are still embroiled in a difficult and long-term fight to influence political ideology and practice in America. Libertarians are generally not delusional on that point.

When it comes to awareness and acceptance of the overarching principles of libertarianism, even if not to their actuation across the board in governing, the situation for libertarianism is America has gotten much better in the 21st century along many dimensions. As Reason's Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie have argued, an often pre-political embrace of the options, variety, and choice inherent in the libertarian vision of free minds and free markets has spread massively in American culture, even if government qua government isn't shrinking.

One of the ironic demonstrations of libertarianism's inroads in American culture is that mainstream outlets find it necessary frequently to declare it dead, irrelevant, or fatally wounded. Lately we've had Tim Alberta in Politico assuring us that the libertarian dream is dead; and Adam Ozimek in Forbes saying libertarianism could be more successful if only it would narrow its vision a little.

Politico makes a good point as far as it goes: Until Donald Trump's bold political entrepreneurship proved surprisingly successful, there was reason to believe the GOP might be more inclined to go for a libertarian-leaning candidate such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rather than someone like Trump, policy-wise a Buchananite populist in the Rick Santorum style (to point to the nearest even slightly successful precursor in the GOP), but with less sanctimony, less even half-convincing Christianity, and more aggressive crudity and lack of intellectual polish.

Examining the respective political fates of Paul and Trump in the 2016 presidential race, now we know better. But by the very fact that it is an outsider political movement not fully at home in either major party, nothing about libertarianism's correctness or its hopes for the future depend on some short term victory; certainly nothing about the American people's choice of aggressive protectionist nationalism (to the extent we can be sure what people thought they were getting when they choose Trump) proves that libertarianism is either mistaken or dead.

It just proves libertarianism remains what it has been since it arose as a distinct movement in America after World War II: a small fighting rump, but one whose spread and reach is as high as it's ever been, even if it has failed in 2016, as it has always failed, to win the White House.

Otherwise, Politico's long article is merely a portrait of a moment in time, not the final fate of an ideology. Its observational power is mostly rooted in noting that, while he occasionally talks a libertarian-sounding game when it comes to, say, regulation, Trump is overall very opposed to the larger libertarian vision of truly free markets, respect for property rights, and restrained government power. True, and understood; especially as Trump's pre-election rhetoric that hinted at the possibility he might be less bellicose than his predecessors overseas is drowned out in the sound of exploding missiles.

Alberta's Politico article is a portrait of libertarianism as a philosophy still where it's always been: not a comfortable fit with either major party. But it has a greater grip on a greater number of prominent politicians, and Americans (see, for just one easily quantifiable example, the Libertarian Party nearly quadrupling its highest previous vote total) than ever in modern history.

If libertarians are rightor even on the right pathwith their understanding that our government is overtaxing, overspending, overregulating, and overextending its reach both into the lives of its citizens and across the globe in ways that make many people's lives worse and our future more perilous, then American history will show it an idea that's neither dead nor needing extensive pruning, as Ozimek in Forbes seems to believe.

Libertarianism: Is Less More?

Ozimek should rest assured that a narrowly-funded, scrappy, outsider ideological movement that has never quite been able to find a national politician they can all get behind (not even Ron Paul) knows full well that a majority of Americans don't yet agree with them.

That's the purpose of an organized minority ideological movement such as libertarianism: to do the research, education, advocacy, electioneering, and storytelling that might help Americans see that, to survey some libertarian ideas, the drug war is both wrong and unproductive; that stealing property from citizens without charging them with a crime is unjust; that market and price mechanisms need to play a role in a sensible and affordable health care market; that our foreign interventions often merely sow the seeds for the next perceived necessary foreign intervention.

With that understoodthis basic idea that a radical and small movement for ideological change is trying to move the political needle somewhere it isn't alreadyOzimek's basic argument that most Americans don't seem to shape their own decision-making or voting around small government proves libertarianism is terribly flawed and needs rethinking doesn't bear much weight. (Nick Gillespie explained here 12 years ago why obviously decisions other than tax rates or regulation are going to shape people's decisions about where to live as life is, blessedly, about more than just taxes and regulations.)

Ozimek has a narrow set of libertarian ideas he thinks are important and workable, and they are indeed part of the libertarian movement message. Precisely what they are isn't quite clearhe writes that "people want quality of life, economic growth, and good government. All three of these can be helped on some margins by utilizing market forces, deregulating, and increasing freedom. Libertarianism should focus on these margins, and accept that the all-too-popular vision of radical freedom and minimal government at all costs is not wanted by enough people to actually matter."

It sounds like what Ozimek really should be concluding, if he indeed believes that stuff about bettering the world through "utilizing market forces" etc. is that people and politicians that are not libertarian should be more libertarian. And that's what libertarians are trying to accomplish.

What advantagefor the libertarian as opposed for the Ozimekanfrom pursuing a narrower vision of freedom and limited government is not clear from this essay. Nor is it clear exactly what ideas of the libertarian movement he is recommending jettisoning, or keeping. (While Ozimek isn't rigorous on this point, he seems to be implying that somehow the existence of very libertarian people or arguments is harming the cause of slight libertarian improvement. I addressed whether libertarian extremism, that is, a full or radical version of the small-government vision, was harming the movement writ large last year. I didn't find the case proven.)

Libertarianism certainly hasn't cleared the field in American political culture yet. But to be held to such a standard, when 20 years ago it was considered so unknown and insignificant that publications of the stature and focus of a Forbes or Politico would never have bothered running articles about how and why it's allegedly failing and fading, is its own kind of victory in political culture, and a necessary prelude to more important ones.

See the original post:
Libertarianism Does Not Yet Rule America. Libertarians Know That. That's Not a Reason for Them to Abandon ... - Reason (blog)

The United States Libertarian Party is a strange beast. It has a wide following within the movement and is comfortably the countrys third largest party. Yet, its had little meaningful electoral success in the decades of its existence. Smaller parties in other countries, with far less widespread support have managed to convert their core base into electoral breakthrough; so, what is causing this failure in the Libertarian Party?

Part of the problem is the dual mandate the party has given itself to both compete in elections and be an educator on libertarian principles and policy.

A political party, by its nature, is distinct from any think tank, club, or foundation, because it is designed to engage directly in the political process and fight real campaigns. An additional mandate to educate the public is fine to have, but that mandate should not alter the unique position and role the party has, as a political agent.

The Libertarian Party must take up its unique position in the libertarian movement and do all that is necessary to professionalize its messaging and organizational strategies to be competitive in the political sphere.

If the party truly believes that its platform, if enacted, would make the country and the world better, then it has an obligation to fight for this enactment; If its going to happen, we need to rethink how we approach both the electoral and educational mandates.

We need to focus less on making statements or proving points, and more on convincing people in their hearts. This will require a fundamental reevaluation of the way libertarians (in the party or otherwise) spread the message to those not yet convinced.

Perhaps even more importantly, the Libertarian Party, and the libertarian movement more broadly, must think in terms of how to convince people.

Too often we get caught up in internal factionalism and disagreements on philosophy. Worse still, libertarians often become dogmatically attached to notions they determine to be axiomatically true; such as the claim that taxation is theft, or that the non-aggression principle is an a priori moral absolute. While libertarians may be convinced of these principles and may even consider them intuitively self-evident that is not the case for society at large. They need to be convinced of these principles.

The problem is that libertarians usually fail to engage skeptics in a way that could potentially convert them to our way of thinking.

Because we are convinced of the axiomatic truth of our beliefs, we treat opponents like they are wrong, ignorant, or even morally perverse. This attitude throws up a barrier between the libertarian and the skeptic, that, once raised, is very hard to break down.

We are a long way from a libertarian world because not enough people have adopted the libertarian mindset. We need to change those minds before we can meaningfully change society. Libertarianism can only succeed if it reconciles all its sides and factions purist, radical, pragmatic, or whatever other sub-label a group chooses. This squaring of the circle can only begin when we start to think about messaging as a unifying, rather than a divisive, exercise. The Libertarian Party and other libertarian organizations should look toward exploring the effects of their messaging strategies, and to refashion them to engage outsiders.

This is not a matter of abandoning our principles or beliefs. It is a matter of understanding how people think and how they respond emotionally and psychologically to new, and often radical, ideas. We need to understand how people think and feel, and talk to them like human beings. Maybe then well at last begin to see the world we want to live in take shape.

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...

Originally posted here:
The Right Engle: How to Talk to Non-Libertarians - Being Libertarian

ScotHibb/Reddit

Anytime I see something viral about restaurant tipping, I brace myself. Because for every great story about a waiter being tipped an insane amount by a good samaritan, theres a terrible story about jerks who bully their server by threatening to take away money or leave a bible verse instead of a tip.

Luckily, this customer in a restaurant in Missouri was able to make their political point while still leaving money for the server. So while its odd, its also kind of sweet?

The picture, which surfaced on Reddit, shows that the customer wrote $0 as the tip, writing in that Taxation is theft.

However, they did leave a cash tip of over 20% with a note saying, This is not a tip. This is a personal gift and not subject to federal or state income taxes. Now, the internet is exploding over the message and calling it the Libertarian way to tip.

Libertarians famously dont believe in the government taking taxes. On their partys website they say that in the United States, all political parties other than our own grant government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent. They believe strongly that people should be able to give money to whatever or whomever they want saying, If Americans want to give money to the government for one reason or another, they should be free to do so. If Americans prefer to spend their money on other things, then they should be free to do that also.

Whether or not the server in question also believes that people should be able to (or in any world would) just volunteer to pay for roads and schools, they probably didnt mind the cash tip. Most servers prefer cash specifically so that they dont have to report it and get taxed. So while I cant say I agree with the Libertarian way of thinking generally, Ive been a server. And all of us who have been servers, I guess we have a little Libertarian in us after all.

Excerpt from:
This Little Trick Is Being Called The 'Libertarian Way To Tip' - Uproxx - UPROXX

Libertarians have a bad reputation when it comes to foreign policy. In fact, it is one of the chief impediments to many in supporting libertarian thinking, and one of the greatest criticisms of the Libertarian Party (LP). It is typically viewed by non-libertarians that libertarians falter and stumble when it comes to making and supporting foreign policy. However, most typically, when people criticize libertarians for their foreign policy thinking, it has more to do with misunderstanding on the part of the non-libertarian than it has to do with weakness in libertarian philosophy. Understanding various aspects and nuances of libertarian principles and their application is key to understanding why it might appear that libertarians have a difficult time verbalizing consistent foreign policy positions.

The first thing people must understand is a very important distinction libertarianism (with a small l) is a political philosophy that applies to governments of any nation. Often, because Americans are so vocal and get the most coverage of libertarianism, it is assumed that it is a wholly American line of thinking, and people make the mistake of confusing the political philosophy with the American LP, which founds its positions on the political philosophy but only exists in the United States. Small l libertarianism is international in scope. If American libertarians look more broadly, we can find far more friends in other nations than we might think. Often, international libertarians are not familiar with the name but still follow the same or similar philosophies.

Because libertarianism has no nation, it has no foreigners. As such, it is impossible for libertarianism to have a foreign policy. There are no foreigners for which it can form a policy. So, the distinction between political parties and philosophy is exceptionally important in breaking through the confusion others hold on libertarian foreign policy.

In terms of American foreign policy, the LP has a tremendous challenge. By the very nature of libertarian philosophy, its thinkers are independent rugged individualists who do not think party first, but rather think of principle first and how it fits into their personal political views. If you have a political party full of people whose positions are formed in such an individualist manner, it is nearly impossible to form political positions for which every member can rally support, or even a vast majority of members. The very best the LP leadership can do is to use the party principles to develop their positions, and to approximate the general consensus of party members as best they can.

Broadly, members of the LP are anti-war. But almost everyone is anti-war. I dont think anyone truly supports the killing of other people, except when it is an absolute necessity in order to preserve ones own life, liberty, and property. So, how can Libertarians (with a big L) define when war is necessary for these protections? It gets even murkier when alliances become involved. The official platform of the LP states that it prefers trade negotiations to military entanglements. However, it would be naive to think that trade does not necessitate military protections and alliances in order to protect those trade agreements. It is also a bit naive to think that protection of a nation does not also require military alliances that create foreign entanglements.

The LP can attempt to formulate a foreign policy position by spelling it out in terms how its principles apply. However, there will still be vast disagreements even on those grounds. Principles can be easily interpreted differently by different people who are independent thinkers. By the time a policy is written it is usually already obsolete, because the nature and complexity of affairs has already changed.

So, the criticism of both large L and small l libertarians on foreign policy can only be resolved by better communication. Foreign policy positions are not going to suddenly solidify and unite all members of the LP, nor will it change the fact that libertarianism is an international philosophy. It is incumbent upon libertarians to explain the cause of the confusion and the principles which guide our thinking to explain that what appears to be disjointed, is not disjointed at all, but rather the expression of principle rather than fealty.

This post was written by Danny Chabino.

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

Like Loading...

Read more here:
Why Foreign Policy Trips Up Libertarians - Being Libertarian - Being Libertarian

The first act of the French presidential race has come to a close, and the results are seismic. Center-left candidate Emmanuel Macron and far-right leader Marine Le Pen will advance to a runoff election, leaving in the dust the candidates of the two traditional parties of right and left that had governed France since the return of democracy after the Second World War. Whoever ultimately wins the presidency, the old guard of French politics has lost.

Widespread disaffection with the center-right Republican-Gaullist and the Socialist wings of French politics has finally caused a crack-up of the political landscape. Now French voters face a very real choice. They can either choose the liberally-minded, pro-trade, pro-Europe Macron, or they can choose the arch-conservative, protectionist, Eurosceptic Le Pen. Few elections in any country in recent memory have presented so stark a choice. The vote will be a turning point for France, for Europe, and for the world.

If Macron wins, we should expect a movement toward greater liberalization of the labor market, pushes to reduce trade barriers, and a more energetic France in the councils of Europe and global affairs. With Le Pen we can expect increases in economically devastating protectionism, a rollback of what few labor market reforms have been managed in recent years, and a France that threatens the survival of the European project.

The choice of Macron should be obvious to libertarians. That is because, for all her anti-establishment bona fides, Le Pen represents an illiberalism that should make anyone who genuinely believes in individualism and individual rights blanch. Her policies include favoring French industry, shortening the working week even further, foreclosing trade, and halting immigration. Even free marketers who dislike the European Union should see that a more independent France bought at the expense of individuals liberty is not worth the price.

Macron is far from a perfect candidate. He served as economy minister in the Socialist government of current president Francois Hollande. He is in favor of an interventionist state and many of the hallmarks of an economic progressive. Yet in the miasma of French politics, his promotion of competition, markets, and labor reforms should be seen as a welcome change from the current feckless administration, and by far the better of the two choices that will face voters in the second round. Opinion polls so far acknowledge this, with it looking like Macron should walk to victory in the runoff. But voters should not let polls fool them, and should get out cast their ballots.

As a whole, the election is exposing the new fault lines in politics today. The traditional party-driven left vs. right binary is breaking down in favor of a personality-driven open vs. closed binary. Some libertarians fetishize national borders and seem to believe that the closing of borders and the breakdown of supranational organizations and institutions like the EU will advance the cause of liberty. Yet that is simply false. Free trade and individual liberty are predicated on the notion that people should be able to make choices for themselves and have control of their own destinies. A reversion to a closed-off, more nativist world of nationalistic tribes is not libertarian and it is not good for human freedom or dignity.

The political elite in France is not the only one facing collapse. The rise of Donald Trump shows the power of the personality-driven political operation and of the resonance of anti-globalist, nativist rhetoric. Le Pen is much like Trump, but with even worse economic instincts and a social attitude bordering on fascistic. If libertarians choose to attach themselves to these sorts of navel-gazing leaders, they will only entrench forces that are antithetical to liberty.

As the political landscape shifts to the open vs. closed dichotomy, libertarians can seize upon that change. We can be the voice for openness, tolerance, and freedom. If we dont seize that opportunity, we will continue to wallow in irrelevance.

But for now, in France, Macron is the man of the hour.

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...

Go here to read the rest:
Reflections on the Revolution in France - Being Libertarian