Mediaboss Marketing

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

The Friedman Conference is an event held every year by the Australian Libertarian Society and the Australian Taxpayers Alliance. The event is conducted in order to bring together the biggest and brightest minds in the libertarian sphere, where they give their thoughts regarding the modern sense of entropy faced by so many in the current political climate.

The 2017 gathering managed to attract names such as Ezra Levant, Senator David Leyonhjelm, Senator Malcom Roberts, Professor Michael Munger, Nick Gillespie, Senator Cory Bernardi, former vice presidential candidate Judd Weiss, and Trumps former economic policy advisor Darren Brady Nelson. The amalgamation of academic superstars can be found on the web page to the momentous event. The event is the biggest pro-liberty gathering in the Asia-Pacific region, and I managed to get in to report on the proceedings for Being Libertarian.

Comprehensive lectures were given on a range of topics from modern to classical theories regarding the wacky world of politics, in which some of the older freedom-fighters came face-to-face with the newer generations of the movement.

One of the most energized and exciting panels of the conference was the one which found itself subject to the most controversy though; the accumulation of rising figures in the realm of alternative media. The Age, a heavily left-wing Australian publication, managed to infiltrate and misrepresent the sentiments of the speakers. Whilst The Age may have simply ignored the context of the comments made on the panel, we here at Being Libertarian pride ourselves upon journalistic integrity in research and after having read the article, I decided to reach out to those who found themselves subject to what ultimately amounted to defamation of character.

James Fox Higgins of the Rational Rise redirected me to an Instagram post which he had made earlier with regards to the way in which the fake news had portrayed them. The post read:

Well there you have it. Mainstream media selectively quoting and dishonestly characterizing an event. To be clear: I was quoting@juddweisson making libertarianism sexy, and 3 of us on the panel identify as gender-fluid panhuman, so super disappointing to see The Age assuming our gender. Bigots.

The nature of Ross Camerons speech was also very much directed at Fairfax media, who he cited as being prone to mischaracterize those in the media.

His job is to take a hundred photos of Mark Latham and me to make us look like fuckwits.

He then invited the reporter to come towards the front and snap a picture of himself giving a Nazi salute so that they can leave the event and let the libertarians enjoy themselves. This comment was met to endless cheers of adulation and mass praise of the Australians in the room, as the sentiment of a biased media (best expressed through the controversy of The Age article) rung true to many that felt as if their cause was misrepresented.

The brightest members of academia were also the kindest at Friedman 17. It goes without saying that whilst The Age may view us as being outsiders or not, reflective of the cool culture, I refer you to the great Judd Weiss: We are, we have been, and we should be about being the weird and interesting alternative.

For more of my content, including a realm of alternative viewpoints on modern political discourse, my Facebook page can be found here.

This post was written by David McManus.

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

David McManus has an extensive background in youth politics and of advocacy with regards to the libertarian and anarcho-capitalist movements. David draws his values from the works of Stirner, Hoppe and Rothbard. He is currently a student in Australia with a passion for writing, which carries into a healthy zest for liberty-based activism. Despite an aspiring career in politics, he considers himself a writer at heart with a steady niche for freelance work.

Like Loading...

More here:
Fear and Loathing at Friedman '17 - Being Libertarian

A libertarian society cannot grow overnight. This should be obvious to anyone living in todays world of wall-to-wall government authority. Yet, many libertarians speak as if simply removing the state (from all aspects of life, at all possible speed) would immediately transform our world from Airstrip One to Galts Gulch, and there would be much rejoicing.

That is fanciful thinking.

If we were to conduct a thought experiment; one in which the state is removed immediately from the lives of citizens (whether it is removed completely, or just down to a Lockean night-watchman state is not important), we still would not see a libertarian paradise emerge. More likely there would be chaos and crisis.

The reason for this is that the state has become a natural part of the universe in the eyes of almost everyone. Its existence is seen as a precondition for stability and civilization.

In its absence, the spontaneous order that collaboration and markets can create would be hampered by fear and uncertainty.

Perhaps there is a chance that, in such a world, liberty would prevail and people would learn to adapt and thrive; however, its more likely, as has happened historically, that opportunistic and dangerous individuals and groups would seize the opportunity of the power vacuum and exert their own will.

Surely no libertarian, or anarcho-capitalist, would prefer a world of arbitrary authority exerted through unchecked force to the current world of the state; where force is a part of everyday life but the rule of law guides that force along understood patterns and keeps it within certain bounds.

Many libertarians seem to almost welcome a monetary collapse or the spectacular failure of the Trump presidency, to bring about a revolutionary change.

The problem with this thinking is that the absence of the particular power structure we call the state, and the enforcers of that power structure we call the elites, would not be replaced with a libertarian order.

Force is already understood as the currency of power and authority. It is only by changing that fundamental equation that we can see the kind of world we dream of become a reality.

This is not to say that life without the state, or with a radically smaller state, is impossible. Rather, it is to illustrate that there is a second element of the putative libertarian revolution that would have to predate the actual deconstruction of the state. This second element is the educational and philosophical program of libertarianism.

It is only by reaching a critical mass of belief amongst a population that a libertarian society could emerge and survive. That means moving the needle of public opinion enough to inculcate a fundamental shift in human perspective.

Libertarianism is, at its core, not a rejection of the state or a paranoid terror of authority. Rather, it is a philosophy that elevates the human individual above the mean and grubby business of Hobbess state of nature. This cannot be accomplished by the mere removal of external power; we have to transform (from the inside) the very way we think.

It may seem like a strange reversal, but he libertarian revolution (if it is to ever truly take root) has to be won before the state is overturned as the chief locus of authority.

It is by affirming ourselves as individuals, above the need (or perceived need) for leviathan, big brother, or any other master, that we can truly live without the power of the state. This requires work, both within ourselves and in our interactions with others.

It is no easy feat to fundamentally shift another persons worldview, but it can be done, and it must be done.

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...

Read more:
The Libertarian Revolution The Right Engle - Being Libertarian (satire)