Archive for the ‘Libertarian’ Category

US Drops Mother of All Bombs in Afghanistan – Being Libertarian


Being Libertarian
US Drops Mother of All Bombs in Afghanistan
Being Libertarian
The United States military dropped the mother of all bombs, the largest non-nuclear bomb the U.S. has ever utilized in combat, on an ISIS target in Afghanistan on Thursday. According to the Pentagon, The GBU-43 bomb was dropped around 7:30 pm local ...
US Drops Mother of All Bombs on ISIS [VIDEO]The Libertarian Republic

all 1,504 news articles »

See more here:
US Drops Mother of All Bombs in Afghanistan - Being Libertarian

Is Liberty Worth Fighting For? Rethinking Libertarian Foreign Policy – Being Libertarian (satire)

Editors note: The following article was submitted before the Trump administrations decision to attack Syrian military targets.

Libertarians are, as we all know, anti-war. And for very good reasons, even the good wars can have terrible consequences such as the Japanese-American internment camps during WWII. War has long been an excuse by governments to clamp down on the rights of its citizens, or even to remove political opponents outright. And then you have the horrors of actual combat: countless soldiers killed in conflicts they dont understand, countries destroyed, displaced nations of people and ruined economies. Anything short of an extreme aversion to starting wars is outright irresponsibility.

But not everyone cares about those consequences. North Korea invaded South Korea, and dictators use machine guns on protestors. Time and again, the enemies of liberty have proven more than willing to resort to violence to gain and keep power.

And yet, how do most libertarians respond to Bashar al-Assads atrocities, such as massacring 13,000 of his own people in a single prison? The better of us say not my problem. The worst of us hope he succeeds, and criticize Western governments supporting Syrians trying to oust him. After all, they say, hes better than ISIS right? That the various factions in Syria are currently fighting over ISISs corpse shows that assessment is also so, so wrong.

To me, the libertarian debate about Syria should be do we support the FSA or SDF more? I should never have had to make a case against a murderous authoritarian dictator to libertarians. It was this issue which first got me questioning the libertarian perspective on foreign policy. After a while, I realized that we are in fact more anti-war than pro-liberty. Ive already made the case for why we should be anti-war, but then we are also anti-taxes. Very few of us support actually abolishing taxation (despite it being theft, of course). We simply have a very healthy skepticism about it; I propose the same response to war.

Hearing libertarians talk about why we shouldnt be fighting for liberty abroad (or supporting freedom fighters), I get the vibe of A single American life or dollar is too high a cost to pay in a conflict that doesnt directly affect us. It is often heavy with implication that the liberty of people in our nation is worth more, much more, than the liberty of those abroad. If that sounds familiar its because weve heard this before.

Libertarians and nationalists have the exact same foreign policy for nearly identical reasons. If thats not raising alarm bells for you, it should. We are completely opposed to them. Nationalists are, I firmly believe, one of the greatest threats to liberty that we currently face. Ignoring the cause of liberty abroad is distinctly un-libertarian because it is anti-liberty and a better libertarian case can be made for globalism (and global thinking) than isolationism or America-Firstism.

Something else I hear rather frequently is that our interventions dont work. I believe this is mistaken, or at least relatively so. For those who lament that the Middle Eastern countries weve intervened in are not yet democratic paradises, I implore you to look at South Korea. After the US and UN fought and bled to keep it free, going up against the massive Chinese army and sometimes the Soviet air force, it took a long time to see a return on that investment. The country was even a dictatorship for some time, and the economy took decades to significantly improve. Now, the Korean peninsula is a testament to the superiority of capitalism and the recently impeached president is proof of how strong its democracy is.

I often hear people talk about the disaster that the Libyan intervention was, but I believe this is a poor assessment. Handily, we have a perfect example of what would be happening right now if Gaddafi hadnt been deposed early on: Syria. Endless parallels exist: largely non-ideological authoritarian dictators, countries drawn up with arbitrary lines, the exact same pro-democracy/liberal/libertarian movement demanding reformsI could go on for ages. Libya isnt in great shape; the situation there is volatile and precarious. But Islamists have been almost eradicated militarily, whereas in Syria they are well established within both regime and rebel forces. There are also the death toll and humanitarian situation, which is many times worse in Syria. If it werent for the intervention, Libya would be what Syria is now and with an intervention, the current situation in Syria could have been avoided.

It is for these reasons that I believe we libertarians need to craft our own foreign policy. We need a departure from the anti-liberty policies of isolationist nationalists, but nowhere near the war hawkishness of the neocons. So, what should this foreign policy look like? I have a few ideas.

There is no weapon or wall that is more powerful for American security than America being envied, imitated and admired around the world. Garry Kasparov

Ive focused fairly heavily so far on war and conflict, but foreign policy encompasses so much more than that. Another area where we should depart from the nationalists is our approach to intergovernmental organizations such as the UN and NATO. As libertarians, we need to be wary about them gaining too much power, but without ignoring the immense good they can do. The UN does a lot of fantastic humanitarian work, and both organizations are very useful for reducing or averting conflict amongst their members, and, in NATOs case, deterring Putins imperialism.

Another area of use is foreign aid, be it financial, arms, supplies etc. With the exception of humanitarian aid, only giving them to non-authoritarian countries incentivizes peaceful reforms. During the latter part of the Obama administration, he tried to provide support to some of the remaining Communist countries in Southwest Asia, to turn them into allies against China. I propose doing the opposite, supporting capitalist and democratic countries in the Pacific region. Spurning countries that compromise our values gives people in oppressive countries something to strive for. Despite obviously not being an-cap friendly, these strategies can help reduce war and improve global liberty at relatively little cost.

As I have stated, war can only be a last resort. At present, one of my greatest concerns is the potential for a war with Iran. While Iran is a brutally authoritarian theocracy, I believe peaceful reform is possible, and the mere existence of an authoritarian government is not justification for starting a war. Iraq is a superb example. The US invasion was completely unjustified, and care needs to be taken to ensure that the mistake is not repeated. Despite Saddam Hussein being a ruthless dictator with a penchant for invading other countries as well as crimes against humanity, that simply wasnt enough in and of itself to warrant foreigners starting a war.

Almost ten years after the Iraq invasion, the Arab Spring occurred and added a layer of complexity to the dynamic of the Middle East which libertarians have abjectly failed to address. We saw Western bombs and arms used in wars against Arab dictators, and sure enough, there were similarities to Iraq. But the Arab Spring wasnt an unprovoked invasion motivated by, at best, incompetence; it was a grassroots, peaceful, pro-democracy, even libertarian, movement demanding reforms from dictatorial regimes across the Arab world. We libertarians should have been as proud and happy about this movement as unsurprised when the governments responded to the protestors with machine guns instead of reforms. Instead, when the people returned with weapons of their own to fight for their rights and liberties, we completely turned against them. The only concept more foreign to us than liberty or death is helping them achieve liberty and avoid death. Some even talk about how these tyrants are the best hope for stability in the region and that overthrowing them is that last thing we should want.

So, what should we have supported doing in response to these wars? I would like to refer back to the American Revolution, one of the most celebrated historical events by American libertarians. Like the Arab Spring, it started with a largely peaceful and political libertarian movement, and spiraled into war when the government cracked down. It had a grassroots movement, political support, and former military personnel like Washington. However, what is often overlooked is the American Revolution would have been a failure if not for large quantities of French arms, money, and the direct assistance of their navy. This is exactly what I propose. No starting wars, avoiding boots on the ground at all cost. But should it come to war, and a popular movement tries to depose an authoritarian government, providing support would be remarkably easy and cheap for us and makes all of the difference for them. This includes providing arms, air support, logistics and supplies. Doing our utmost to screen the recipients of arms is also incredibly important. Just as I am adamant that supporting authoritarian regimes to fight terrorism is not worth it, the inverse in true as well.

Tyranny or terrorism? Neither, always neither. If you condone, excuse, or normalize either, then you are NOT a voice for liberation. Iyad el-Baghdadi, self-proclaimed Islamic Libertarian and Arab Spring activist.

* Caleb Horner is a college student and a relatively new member of the liberty movement. He loves to explore history, politics, philosophy and economics in his spare time.

Like Loading...

Here is the original post:
Is Liberty Worth Fighting For? Rethinking Libertarian Foreign Policy - Being Libertarian (satire)

Libertarian Party: drop adult ID card requirement for Palm Beach County strippers – Palm Beach Post (blog)

Afterit was reported last weekthat a Palm Beach County clerk who issued ID cards for strippers allegedly embezzled more than $25,000, the Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County has called for an end to the cards.

Because exotic dancers deal almost exclusively in cash, Public Safety Department worker Anita Pedemey was able to alter ledgers to skim from the $75 fees dancers pay for the ID cards, the countys Inspector General reported March 28.

The n program, which began in 1998, is meant to keep underage girls from working in strip clubs. More than 9,000 adult entertainers, almost all women, have been registered so far for the lifetime IDs. In 2008, the fee was increased from $25 to $75.

The Libertarian Party argues that, if anyone in the county is issuing these cards, it shouldnt be the Public Safety Department, whose primary service is first response and emergency management.

And it says the county program is discriminatory.

Why have adult dancers been singled out? Someone handling my food is far more important to me than whether an adult worker has been forced to pay $75 to the county government to earn a

Dickey

living, said local Libertarian chair, Karl Dickey, who recently had a failed run for a seat on the Palm Beach Soil & Water Conservation District.

The party also issued part of a column about the Palm Beach County cards by Elizabeth Nolan Brown on Reason.com, the web page of the Libertarian-leaning Reason Foundation. It read in part that the prevention angle is ludicrous; anyone willing to force someone else into sex or labor and circumvent much more serious rules with regard to age limits isnt going to suddenly take pause over an occupational licensing rule theyll have to skirt.

County Vice Mayor Melissa McKinlay disagreed. McKinlay, who was in Tallahassee Fridayfor legislative meetings,said the cards do prevent trafficking and shein fact isasking county lawyers if some of the money from the ID cards could be used for human trafficking awareness programs.

Previous

PBC offers employees paid parentalleave

See original here:
Libertarian Party: drop adult ID card requirement for Palm Beach County strippers - Palm Beach Post (blog)

Wichita State Student Government Refuses to Recognize Libertarian … – Washington Free Beacon

BY: Mary Lou Lang April 7, 2017 2:10 pm

The Wichita State University student government has refused to recognize a libertarian group on campus because of its First Amendment principles, and a nonprofit group that defends freedom of speech and academic freedom on campuses is asking the university president to reverse their decision.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education in a letter on Friday to Wichita State President John Bardo demanded he immediately reverse the student government's decision. The letter also asked Bardo to instruct the student government that it cannot discriminate against prospective student groups based on their own viewpoints.

"The Wichita State student government is engaged in a full-frontal assault on the First Amendment: It unconstitutionally denied a student group official recognition because, ironically, the student group supports the right of freedom of speech," said Ari Cohn, director of FIRE's Individual Rights Defense Program, in a prepared statement.

"The Wichita State administration cannot give its student government authority to grant or deny recognition to student groups and then stand idly by when that authority is exercised in a viewpoint discriminatory manner," said Cohn, adding that the university must reverse the student government's "unconstitutional actions."

The student government questioned student Maria Church about her application to form a campus chapter of the Young Americans for Liberty on April 5. They also asked her about the group's political positions, the issues it will address, and even the group's views on the First Amendment.

Church was asked about her position on "safe spaces", YAL's position on "hate speech", and YAL's opposition to "free speech zones."

Several senators were against officially recognizing YAL because other chapters of the group have invited speakers such as former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulous to speak on campus.

"We've seen very dangerous statements being said in the name of free speech," said one senator. Another said, "if you want to talk about having free speech, [YAL's] definition of free speech is highly skewed, based on the empirics of this.

After debating YAL's application, the student government voted against recognizing the libertarian group.

According to FIRE, their decision is directly in conflict with longstanding First Amendment jurisprudence. In Healy v. James (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a public college may not deny recognition of a student group "simply because it finds the views expressed by any group to be abhorrent."

Church was discouraged by the student government's decision and claimed they are attacking and silencing students they claim they stand for.

"It is discouraging to see elected student officials opposing the free speech of those who disagree with their political agendas," said Church in a prepared statement. "While they claim to stand for diversity and acceptance, they are attacking one of the most diverse groups on campus. The student senate is effectively silencing the very people they're claiming to stand up for."

Link:
Wichita State Student Government Refuses to Recognize Libertarian ... - Washington Free Beacon

Is Zoltan Istvan a Libertarian? – Being Libertarian – Being Libertarian

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