Mediaboss Marketing

Like many libertarians, I was initially excited when Zoltan Istvan announced his candidacy for Governor of California.

Istvan is the founder of the Transhumanist Party and author of The Transhumanist Wager, which is considered a manifesto on transhumanist philosophy. The basic premise of transhumanism is that the next step in human evolution will be to improve our bodies and expand our lifespan with radical technology, eventually leading towards immortality. While he still needs to obtain the nomination, having someone announce their intents this early gave me hope that maybe the party would have a shot at making an impact in the California mid-terms.

As I learned about his transhumanist ideas, I became increasingly hopeful that his views on radical science and medical technology would be able to appeal to the far-left base of California and introduce a wider range of people to libertarianism. However, after doing some research Im not so sure Istvan is the best candidate to represent the Libertarian party.

On the surface, the former presidential candidate seems to align with the libertarian views of bodily autonomy (transhumanists call it morphological freedom) and the non-aggression principle, he even called himself a left-libertarian on the Rubin Report.

He believes people should be able to use technology to make modifications to their body as they please, if it doesnt harm anyone else. For example, Istvan has a chip implanted in his hand which allows him to open doors in his home and will send texts to a persons phone.

Also within his conversation with Dave Rubin, he discussed regulating industries for artificial intelligence multiple times. He went so far to say I dont believe we should develop artificial intelligence thats unregulated and part of the reason AI remains an unregulated industry is because no one knows how to regulate it.

During his 2016 run for the presidency, part of his platform was to, Create national and global safeguards and programs that protect people against abusive technology and other possible planetary perils we might face as we transition into the transhumanist era.

This type of language reminds one of the paternalism and protect one from themselves legislation typical of todays Democrats and Republicans.

Finally, one of the partys proposals is to adopt a Transhumanist Bill of Rights that would advocate for legal and government support of longer lifespans, better health and higher standards of living via science and technology.

While its not clear what government support would entail, state-funded creation of life-expanding technologies would pale in comparison to what the market could create.

Article I of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights claims that every citizen has a right to technology that reduces suffering, improves upon the body and can give one an infinite life-span, which reminds one of the current leftist agenda claiming healthcare is a basic human right.

The best way to ensure that everyone can have access to the technology that would accomplish Istvans Transhumanist vision, would be to allow private companies to produce these technologies and compete with other firms and bring prices down. As weve seen with universal healthcare, entitling a service to every citizen lowers quality, and increases prices.

While his intentions are noble, requiring access to this kind of technology would decrease the number of people who could obtain it and aggress on a business owners right to sell their product. This is one of many problematic parts of his presidential bid; others included free public education, mandatory college education and preschool, and a sort of affirmative action to create an equal representation of former careers in politicians.

To give the potential candidate some credit, he does oppose the War on Drugs and wants to shrink the size of government through technology.

Istvan seems to be a situational libertarian. While he may appeal to more Californians with his views on science and seeming acceptance of some forms of regulation, he would not be the person the party would need to explain libertarian philosophies and represent us to the masses.

* Luke Henderson is a composer, economics enthusiast, and educator in St. Louis, MO. He is a budding libertarian and joined the party in 2016.

Like Loading...

More:
Is Zoltan Istvan a Libertarian? - Being Libertarian - Being Libertarian

Russia has warned of serious consequences to the U.S. bombing of a Syrian airbase alleged to have used chemical weapons.

In a meeting of the U.N. Security Council, Russias deputy envoy Vladimir Safronkov warned, [W]e strongly condemn the illegitimate actions by the U.S. The consequences of this for regional and international stability could be extremely serious.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.Nikki Haley said, [W]e are prepared to do more, but we hope that will not be necessary, the United States will not stand by when chemical weapons are used. It is in our vital national security interest to prevent the spread and use of chemical weapons.

This could be a major setback to the Trump administrations attempts at improving relations with the Kremlin which have deteriorated under President Obama.

Spokesperson for the Russian Presidency Dmitry Peskov commented the strike is,aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law.

Washingtons step will inflict major damage on US-Russia ties, Peskov added.

U.S. officials insist the strike was intended to combat the use of chemical weapons, and was strictly deterrence, rather than an escalation of, U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war.

Iran strongly condemns any such unilateral strikessuch measures will strengthen terrorists in Syriaand it will complicate the situation in Syria and the region, claimed Iranian foreign ministry spokesmanBahram Qasemi.

The move undoubtedly sends clear signals to Tehran about defying international law, as the Iranian government has recently been accused of violating international agreements with ballistic missile tests. The move invited speculation about serious reprisal from Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The complexity of the Syrian civil war, coupled with the Russian warning of serious consequences, alerts all major powers involved that mindfulness is required in terms of moving forward. Human rights concerns, multiple national security interests, and further destabilization of an already combustive political situation are all serious considerations.

Photo Source: U.S. Navy News Source: Al Jazeera and Reuters

Like Loading...

View original post here:
Russia Warns of Consequences for US Strikes on Syria - Being Libertarian

Donald Trump's cruise missile strike against a Syrian airbase has prompted criticism froma series of his high-profilelibertarian supportersat home and abroad.

International figures including far-right French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen and long-term Trump ally Nigel Farage broke ranks to condemn an attack Ms Le Pen called "horrible".

The attack also estranged figures across the American isolationist and libertarian right, including veteran senator Rand Paul andalt-right figurehead Richard Spencer.

US air strikes: Nigel Farage turns on Donald Trump over Syria bombings

In a television interview with BFM TV, Front National's Marine Le Pen said: "Trump was elected by announcing that the United States would no longer be the policeman of the world, would no longer interfere.

"The facts are appalling in Syria. It takes an international commission to conduct an independent investigation."

Ms Le Pen, currently slated to finish a distant second in the French Presidential election on a far-right anti-immigration ticket, also cast doubt on MrTrump's motivation for the bombings.

The President said he hoped the strikes would "prevent and deter the use of deadly chemical weapons" like those allegedly used by the Syrian Arab Army to kill over 80 people near rebel-held Idlib. But Ms le Pen compared this explanation to the non-existent weapons of mass destructionused to justify the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Former Ukipchief Nigel Farage has been even closer to the new US President than Ms Le Pen. Mr Farage spoke at the billionaire tycoon's mass rallies, and was the first British politician to visit Trump Tower after Hillary Clinton's shock defeat.

But on Friday, he said: I think a lot of Trump voters will be waking up this morning and scratching their heads and saying 'where will it all end?'

As a firm Trump supporter, I say, yes, the pictures were horrible, but I'm surprised. Whatever Assad's sins, he is secular."

Pro-Trump politicians in Italy have also criticised the strikes, with Northern League leader Matteo Salvini describing the assault as "a bad idea, big mistake, and a gift to Isis" in a Facebook post.

And the shift against President Trump was even starker at home. Writing for Fox News, leading libertarian Senator Rand Paul fiercely condemned the "unconstitutional rush towards war".

Though they played golf together last weekend, the President has previously described Senator Paul as "truly weird" and "a spoiled brat without a properly functioning brain", and has never had the full support of the man he defeated in the Republican primary race.

But Mr Trump has also reportedlysparred withright-hand man Steve Bannon over the decision to bombard a Syrian airbase with cruise missiles.

"Steve doesn't think we belong [in Syria]," an aide to the chief strategist told NY Magazine.

The President is reportedlyconsideringsacking Mr Bannonas chief strategist, with his about-face on Syrian intervention just the latest issue to drive a wedge between the two politicians.

Media figures previously sympathetic to Mr Trump have also queued up to blast him for the assault which left fifteen Syrian soldiers and civilians dead, including four children.

Anne Coulter has been one of Mr Trump's staunchest supporters on the Fox News circuit, but the conservative pundit wrote on Twitter: "Those who wanted us meddling in the Middle East voted for other candidates.

Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies & creates more refugees. Then he saw a picture on TV.

White nationalist Richard Spencer, who coined the phrase "alt-right", said his support for President Trump was now deadin the water, while influential blogger Paul Joseph Watson also announced he was stepping off the "Trump train".

Read the original here:
Donald Trump's libertarian supporters across the world desert him over Syria air strikes - The Independent

Jacob Brittons Wealth Distribution Fails to Invigorate Economy is a five-paragraph rehashing of key libertarian talking points (The Oberlin Review, March 31, 2017). It may prove heuristically useful, then, to offer a step-by-step rebuttal of each argument to demonstrate the overwhelming inadequacy of libertarianism as a political philosophy.

Britton poses three questions: What justifies wealth redistribution, what would redistributed wealth look like and is wealth redistribution good for the economy?

Arguing on avenues paved by libertarian thinkers like Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek, Britton says that the state is justified in taxation only for the purpose of essential government functions like national security and the justice system. This implies that taxation for any purpose beyond the essentials is immoral and violent. Britton says any demand for state intervention in a democratic society to redistribute wealth is beyond the essentials and is subjective and mob rule.

This argument is nonsensical. Britton provides no criteria for distinguishing essential state activities from non-essential state activities. His two examples suggest that the state is justified only so long as it protects some set of individual rights. But can we imagine a consistent and worthy conception of individual rights that includes security from foreign invasion but does not include security from poverty?

If the question isnt one of maximizing individual rights, but of minimizing violence, then Britton again fails: Violence is implicit in a capitalist economy where the worker is faced with the decision to accept a contract or starve. Coercion and violence always exist in capitalism. The state can work to minimize it or it can do nothing. In my view, one of those options is clearly more just than the other.

Brittons next argument is that wealth distribution without a targeted goal of equality (e.g. the wealthiest have only 10 times as opposed to 100 times more than the poorest) is unprincipled. He says that without an explicit goal, we are left only with the implicit goal of radical equality. He seems to think radical equality is a bad thing, but offers no arguments for that view. I think radical equality is actually a fantastic political value, and if he wants to argue the opposite point, it would be at the very least entertaining to read his effort.

Britton next states that because we are a supply-driven economy, capitalist spending is better for the economy than working-class spending because capitalists invest with an eye to the long-term. Where to begin? Capitalists do not invest with an eye to the long term. The economy is neither clearly supply nor demand-driven: It is healthiest when demand is equal to supply, but sadly, as Karl Marx demonstrated and the latest 2008 crisis reminded us, capitalism cyclically causes demand and supply to fall out of sync with one another. Only democratic and deliberate intervention in the market maintains its functioning. Brittons gloss of economics is so crude as to be comedic if it werent being used to justify the continuing domination of the many by the few.

Finally, Britton says expropriating the ruling class is not a viable strategy because the CEO of Walmart makes only $19 million a year, which redistributed to Walmart employees comes to only $9. Happily, the CEO is just a petit-bourgeois middle man. Marxists advocate for the expropriation of the capitalist, properly bourgeois class. In the case of Walmart, this is the Walton family, whose wealth cautious estimates peg at $149 billion. This comes out to about $70,952 for every Walmart worker worldwide. Sounds good to me!

Here is the original post:
Libertarian Economics Crudely Misguided - The Oberlin Review

Being Libertarian

The Third Largest Political Party: Why the LP Fails Being Libertarian The Libertarian Party often boasts of being the third largest political party in the United States, and seems to think that fact alone is something earned or worth being proud of. But I see it as merely a circumstance, and one that actually bodes ...

Here is the original post:
The Third Largest Political Party: Why the LP Fails - Being Libertarian