Mediaboss Marketing

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

Well I knew it was bound to happen sooner or later, dozens of goodhearted frustrated Americans descending on my Island seeking refugee from the insanity of political activism in America and in my home state of North Carolina.

Just a few days ago while visiting Libertarian Island, my friend Eddy Blackman suggested that we need a second bench. Eddy loves the island but doesnt really love the notion of having to share a bench, which is understandable. But space is limited, and with the American people rapidly drowning in the sea of big government, overcrowding is going to become an issue and I was here first.

Just last week my progressive friend Lenny informed me he was coming for a visit and challenged me to debate the now famous HB2. Lenny assumes because I have left this issue alone for months that I am ill prepared and this will be an easy victory. Well, Lenny, we all know how that will turn out for you if thats how you want to spend your afternoon, but I will gladly humor you while you smoke your cigar and enjoy the scenery of my newly overcrowded Island of freedom.

Since we are on the subject and I have been challenged, lets kick back, open a bag of popcorn and bruise Lennys ego a bit. When it comes to HB2, when a city council within the state oversteps its legal authority to pass legislation reserved only for the state legislator, then the governor and the state legislator not only have the right but the constitutional obligation to slap them down. Can the governor and state legislator overreact and overcorrect the situation? Well certainly they can.

What many refuse to realize is that the governor of any state is responsible for enforcing all laws and all regulations written in the state.

A governor, much like a judge, must interpret and enforce state law as written. A governor simply doesnt have the option of ignoring a law or mandate he doesnt like or agree with. Former Gov. Pat Mc-Crory and the state legislature did not ask to be put into the situation they were put in, but they had the courage and conviction to take a stand and honor the oath of office. You see, when the heavy hand of political activism meets the heavy hand of government we all suffer. And we have all been affected by the economic impact of this pathetic attempt at political activism whose only true agenda was to destroy the political career of a governor who actually had an ounce of courage and conviction.

For as sad and pathetic as this whole experience has been for the good people of North Carolina, sadder still is the fact that we have people in this country who actually believe that inviting the state or federal government into our public restrooms and locker rooms will actually improve the quality of life for any of us.

Heres a dose of harsh reality for you: Once you invite the government into your restroom and locker rooms you will never get them out. As my dad always said, we get the government we deserve, so be very careful what you wish for.

So debate me if you must, Lenny, I always have and always will respect individual liberty and freedom of expression. I understand and respect your right to privacy, same as you respect mine. However, there is one big difference between you and me. When it comes to political activism or the infamous HB2, I have never needed the Charlotte City Council or the state legislature to define morality for me. But sadly, you do. Thats why I live on an Island with a nice bench, a great view and a growing population while you still swim in a sea of sheep.

Nice try, Lenny, but you lose again my friend. Mr. Parker lives in Erwin. Contact him at jimmyprmg@gmail.com.

JIMMY PARKER

comments

Visit link:
Overcrowding On Libertarian Island - The Daily Record (registration)

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