Mediaboss Marketing

The true test of libertarianism is Professor Bryan Caplansfamous 64-question quiz. Though if you dont have time for that many questions, theres also a very simple circle test.

Now we havea new pollfor those of us that are tempted by such things. I dont know who put it together, but I was intrigued by the four-axis approach.

8values is, in essence, a political quiz that attempts to assign percentages for eight different political values.You will be presented by a statement, and then you will answer with your opinion on the statement, from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree, with each answer slightly affecting your scores. At the end of the quiz, your answers will be compared to the maximum possible for each value, thus giving you a percentage. In addition to matching you to the eight values, the quiz also attempts to match you to a political ideology.

But before getting to results, I feel obliged to nitpick about the methodology.

Some of the questions dont make sense. Or, to be more specific, ones answers might be radically different depending on how the question is interpreted.

For instance, statists would probably answer strongly agree to this question about education, based on the assumption that government should spend more money, regardless ofdismal results.

I wound up picking neutral because I wantuniversal school choice, which would producebetter-than-adequate education, but I also dont like the notion that people have rights that are predicated on access to other peoples money.

I also didnt like this question on foreign policy. I like peaceful relations with other nations, but in some cases peace is more likely if the United States is strong. In other words, Reagans position of peace through strength.

Last but not least, I also answered neutral to this question about surveillance. I dont want pervasive spying by government on ordinary people (money laundering laws, for instance), but I also dont object to effective monitoring with proper judicial oversight of bad people.

Anyhow, with those caveats out of the way, here are my results.

The good news is that Im in the Libertarian Capitalism category. Though Im a bit chagrined that I only got 72.4% on the wealth-equality axis. Though maybe equality in this case captures my support for the rule of law and my opposition to cronyism. In which case Im happy.

I dont have any strong reaction to my scores on the might-peace and tradition-progress axes. But Im disappointed to only have 70 percent on the liberty-authority axis.

For what its worth, my overall score was the same in this quiz as it was forthe definitive political orientation test.

See the article here:
A Poll to Check if You Believe in 'Libertarian Capitalism' - People's Pundit Daily

Thursday, April 20, 2017 10:58 p.m. CDT

Libertarian Party logo.

TOMAHAWK, WI (WSAU-WXPR) -- The Libertarian Party of Wisconsin is bringing their convention and liberty retreat this weekend to Treehaven near Tomahawk.

Founded in 1971, Libertarians run on the platform that the government should not interfere in any personal, family, or business decision.

Phillip Anderson ran in last year's U.S. Senate race and is the interim Wisconsin party Director. He believes Libertarians have positioned themselves for the future.

Anderson said, "We had a lot of people that joined the Libertarian Party. We had a lot of people who identified as Libertarians already but hadn't been engaged in politics. In particular, because of the two candidates that were offered up by Republicans and Democrats, was an opportunity to open up people's eyes to see what's wrong with government, what's wrong with the two big parties. We were able to do that relatively successfully, grow our ranks and increase our visibility."

Anderson says the party is being seen more frequently on the ballot.

"Not because the ballot access laws have changed, that's the unfortunate part, but we're getting better organized and people are more willing to have more choices on the ballot. As I was campaining for U.S. Senate, there were a lot people who identified as Republicans and Democrats but were happy to sign my petition because they felt that regardless of how they voted, they wanted more choices for everybody on the ballot."

Anderson says they will be electing new state officers and representatives this weekend for the state's Congressional districts. The convention is Friday evening through Sunday.

Read more:
Libertarian State Convention this weekend | News | WSAU - WSAU

Jacob Brittons latest attempt at political debate begins, It was onlya matter of time Indeed, I suppose it was. I cant help but feel that thefirst paragraph of Brittons latest foray into the wide world of politicaleconomy is symptomatic of the bizarre way the right behaves on collegecampuses: They seem fixated on producing disagreement and then howlwith joy and roll around in the mud when they find it (Positive Rights, NotCapitalism, Require State Violence, The Oberlin Review, April 14). Brittonhilariously echoes the meme so much for the tolerant left by accusingme of failing to live up to the lefts benign reputation for the record, Ihave no interest in treating libertarianism benignly in the public sphere.

Britton attempts to make a coherent case for a minimal state by distinguishingbetween what he calls positive and negative rights, an argumentthat is more familiar to the Western philosophical canon as IsaiahBerlins distinction between positive and negative liberty. Positive libertyis affirmative the freedom to act as opposed to negative liberty, whichis freedom from coercive forces. Britton argues that I advocate for the former,while a just state protects only the latter. In his view, negative libertycan be secured without coercive activity on the part of the state becauseit is a natural right. This is absolutely historically and empirically false.Negative liberty even understood in its most limited dimension, for instance,as the freedom to practice any religion always requires a stateapparatus equipped with police and a military ready to defend that right(heard of Europes 30 Year War?). No liberty is simply pre-given, found innature; every right requires violence and coercion behind it to succeed institutionally,and so any distinction Britton hopes to secure between negativeand positive rights on the grounds of naturalness is arbitrary.

Funnily, its not quite totally arbitrary Britton does seem to haveone criterium, to distinguish between positive and negative rights. Everyfreedom Britton associates with positive rights are freedoms the workingclass needs to resist domination. Strange coincidence it is almost as iflibertarianisms talk of human rights is designed to be a defense of capitaland not humans.

Britton says capitalism is not inherently violent because the divisionof labor ensures everyone will have a job. Not only does Adam Smithsconcept of the division of labor have very little to do with the question offull employment, but Smith himself saw a need for state intervention tohelp capital function. Further, Karl Marx demonstrated that the unemployedare a benefit to capital; its only by having an unemployed workerto replace your currently employed worker that you can push your employeeswages down as far as possible. Unemployment is as old as capitalism.Rather than acting as though unemployment is a weird fluke, weshould live up to that reality and challenge the paradigm that reproducesit.

Finally, the big question: Why, oh why, dothose merciless lefties want to violently coercemulti-billionaires to give up their hard-earnedcash? Or, as Britton puts it: If Bill Gates hasa net worth of $80 billion and my net worth is$90,000, what moral atrocity has been committed?Let me explain. Gates made his fortune bygrowing his company Microsoft. That companymakes money by selling computer software,among other things. In order for people to buycomputer software, they have to own computers.In order for them to own computers, someonehas to make the computer. The person whomakes the computer is typically a worker livingin gross poverty in the global south. This workercontracts with a capitalist to trade their laborfor money. If this were a fair exchange, by theend of it, the worker would have money and theboss would have a commodity. In reality, by theend of the exchange, the worker has money andthe boss has a commodity and profit. The profitis the difference in value between the amountof money the boss can get away with paying theworker and the amount of money he can sell thecommodity for. So yes, Gates wealth depends onmoral atrocities, and the working class povertyis proof.

Libertarianism is a weird ideology. It stringstogether a bizarre understanding of politicaleconomy and moral philosophy and forms a pasticheof entrepreneurial individualism and abstractmusings about rights and the legitimatestate. In the end though, with its incoherence,internal inconsistencies and empirical failuresput aside, libertarianism should be measuredin terms of its effects. And its primary effect isto perpetuate a capitalist regime that is builtoff of exploitation. Capitalism is a machine forchanging hopes and dreams into toil and suffering.Libertarianism is ultimately just an abstractweapon, an ideological gear in a larger machineused by the few to dominate the many.

Follow this link:
Libertarian Ideology Protects Capital at Workers' Expense - The Oberlin Review

David Leyonhjelm is Australias answer to Rand Paul and our last hope for a world which isnt bogged down by the gritty fallout from the Frankfurt School touching down on our soil.

As a senator in New South Wales, Leyonhjelm espouses libertarian principles under the header of the Liberal Democratic Party. He is currently doing a tour of North America, to meet with like-minded forces of the Austrian School and of social freedom. In Australia, he holds a fairly fringe minority of the vote, given that his political positioning is, in itself, considered fringe or extreme.

After the Port Arthur massacre of 1996, and the subsequent legislation enforced by John Howards conservative government, any sort of pro-gun sentiment expressed by citizens or senators is considered heartless and controversial.It should be noted that this legislation did not stop Australia from being ravaged by sporadic bouts of gun violence (Monash University Shooting, 2011 Hectorville siege, Hunt family murders, Port Lincoln Wharf murder-suicide, Sydney Siege, etc.).

The heavily socialised Australian economy is upheld on behalf of the two parties (Labor and Liberal), as the left pushes for more government intervention and the right is too cowardly to stick to its principles and start cutting taxes.

The attitude towards drugs remains very much the same, with marijuana still remaining a heavy point of contention in the political sphere, and very little political backing for legalisation, or nation-wide decriminalisation. Universities are also gradually descending into the bowels of left-wing dogma (were looking at you, University of Melbourne).

It is fair to say that, within the current phase of Australian life, freedom is a distant and long forgotten concept.

However, like a time-travelling pioneer for self-ownership, Leyonhjelm emerges as a harbinger for freedom in a continent which finds itself devoid of it; with a pro-gun, pro-weed, pro-free speech stance, and promise for the future of the rights of Australians. Hes made his mark at the legislative level by rallying support behind the recent contention over Bill 18C, which is centred on the prohibition of discrimination and hateful speech, which further constricts the already strangled vocabulary of the Australian populous.

So, Leyonhjelm holds the beliefs of one of us, but why should you know or care about him? What shoots a libertarian in a suit to the stratosphere of superstardom? Simply put, its style.

The way in which style plays a role in politics has always been a part of building railing support. Those with more militaristic political sentiments try to adopt snazzy uniforms and symbols, to create an identity. Whereas modern identitarian movements don caps or t-shirts to show support, as Daddy Donald has proven. It is arguable that the single most important tool in getting a political following is style. Leyonhjelm separates himself from the onslaught of bureaucrats by his cavalier attitude towards Australian politics, as it rapidly devolves into a farce of a system.

Where most politicians will do their utmost to project a false sense of sincerity to their constituents, Leyonhjelm doesnt care enough to tote petty empty platitudes. He has been seen telling leftist protesters to fuck off as they encroach upon him, while he tries to slip into an elevator unnoticed.

Leyonhjelm spoke as the lone sheep, in a cesspool of busy-bodies and wolves wishing to control the lives of those in Australia. By speaking about his enjoyment of a cigar, he made his dissatisfaction known of the tobacco tax and encouraged those within the chamber to leave them [smokers] the hell alone and to stop worrying about whether someone is having a good time.

He made an effort to persuade the Australian public as to how one should go about solving the ice (methamphetamine) epidemic by using the Portuguese model for substance control as a means of helping those suffering from addictions. This is a kind of empathy that not many within the government were willing to entertain the notion of.

As the government dives deeper into an ocean of absurdity, Leyonhjelm went on The Project (a socially left wing show) to argue why free speech was hindered by the 18C legislation; he took the piss out of the left-wing by arguing that calling him an angry white male was unlawful and hypocritical, and that theyd set a racial double standard. He highlighted the insanity of the vague wording, consequently dragging the show through a series of linguistic hoops to force them to try and justify their rhetoric.

As Australias authoritarian underbelly, which remained dormant in the media, began to rise up, Leyonhjelm kept the tensions fierce by releasing his quaint poem to the Liberal Democrats Facebook page.

His poem blasted the shallow slacktivism of the left wing in Australia for their disavowment of Trump in Australia. In his witty ditty, David managed to shed light on his disagreements with the president, but also showing how he prefers Trump to his regressive Marxist counterparts.

Leyonhjelm finishes the poem with the aforementioned style I spoke of.

So when people try to tell me, how to think or how to live, I am afraid I have to tell them, I have no fucks to give.

The smiling face of Leyonhjelm is, in itself, the purest form of antagonism. It says, I will not bend or break as a result of your wording, and I will not change my principles, no matter how the herd behaves on any given day.

In a world full of sheep, it takes courage to be a Leyon.

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...

Read more:
The Harbinger of Hope - Being Libertarian

I am going to take a moment to step away from my common practice of libertarian ideological promotion, taxation is theft chanting, and Rothbard worshiping to get into some good old fashion nerdy political junkie discussions.

Will it be a discussion on real issues such as policy or local races? No, silly! Its another talk on who the next president is going to be, and my money is on Democrat Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.

Before saying why I see Gabbard as the strongest candidate, lets just review the senior citizens home known as the 2020 Democrat field.

Joe Biden will be unlikely to run, hes very old and has never been good at campaigning to begin with.

Liz Warren is holding the issue that shes going to become the Rand Paul of 2020. She will come in with a strong following, but decisions to be more moderate and reach the larger base will haunt her. There are also some clear issues already with her record in the senate where some hard leftist have labelled her as a phony.

Cory Booker will get treated as a mixture of Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio. An establishment pick that people find to be overly polished, not genuine, and while he will never sink below the top 3-5, his chance of getting the front spot is going to be tough, with the hard left going against him and tough competition for the moderates.

Andrew Cuomo will be the Jeb Bush of 2020, he will win the war of getting the gold, but will find that it doesnt buy him much love outside of K street.

There are Democrats who will possibly run, but that nobody will give a shit about, like: Martin OMalley, Kamala Harris, Jon Bel Edwards, Kirsten Gilibrand, Caroline Kennedy, Tim Kaine, etc.

Then there are people who would change the game, but have a low chance of actually running: Oprah Winfrey (we are doomed), Mark Cuban (Id consider it), Howard Schultz (another billionaire), Bill Weld (unlikely, but Id back him in the Democratic Party), Jesse Ventura (the greatest thing to happen to SNL since Trump if he makes the Democratic debates).

But while that list is long, let me say why the young and beautiful veteran from Hawaii will likely run, likely win the nomination, and likely beat Donald Trump.

For that, lets make this a top five.

5. Everyone in the Democratic Party knows her

Bernie Sanders lost due to relationships. The fact is, outside of Ben & Jerrys Vermont offices, he had no contacts with big money, not many members of the house knew him well, and even the senate never formally worked with him, due to him having the independent registration. Gabbard was vice chair of the DNC and unlike Bernie has all the billionaires, senators, governors etc. in her phone book already. They know who she is and she knows them.

4. White girl Buddhist

Gabbard, if elected, would be the first Hindu president in American history. The left has this culture where many women get classified as White girl Buddhist and on that perspective alone, she could gain some interest from that community of people, due to her ethnic origins, and being a Hindu who is also Native American real Native American, unlike Liz Warren. This gets her some classic liberal street cred.

3. Shes pro-gun

Believe it or not, a lot of Democrats actually do like guns. Outside of California, and some core states, theres a spree of Democrats who want free healthcare, legal marijuana, and the power to be packing.

2. Shes the youngest Democrat

If Gabbard runs, she will be, by far, the youngest candidate in the Democratic field. At the age of 39, she would be the youngest president if elected. AS weve seen with JFK, Carter, Clinton, and Obama, theres just this fact that the youngest person tends to hold an advantage in the Democratic Party. Gabbard being over three decades the junior of Biden and Warren, while also almost 15 years younger than Booker, holds this advantage. The fact she is extremely attractive also doesnt hurt.

1. She endorsed Bernie

In an age of NowThis, US Uncut, Occupy Democrats and so on, this is all itll take: a video showing Tulsi Gabbard, with her basic resume and one line Elizabeth Warren refused to endorse Bernie Sanders. Tulsi Gabbard resigned as vice chairwoman of the DNC to endorse and fight for Bernie.

Do that, and watch it get 30 million views, and in a day, shell be the most beloved person on the far left, and Liz Warren becomes yesterdays socialist. Gabbard betting on Bernie in the 2016 primary was the strongest pick shes made.

5. She can claim to be a change

If Joe Biden is the Democratic nominee, its a battle between Barack Obama and Donald Trump. When Trump defeated Hillary, he partially defeated Obama. Biden wont reflect a spirit of change and new management. Gabbard being not formally attached to any administration can get that outsider edge which a Donald Trump, whos failed many of his promises, cant fill.

4. She is willing to cross aisles

Tulsi Gabbard made national headlines with a rumour she was in consideration for Secretary of State. She also was the second Democrat in America to have a real meeting with Donald Trump after he won. That story and method of not going after Trump as a racist or Russian spy is going to be an edge in swaying other supporters.

3. Shes pro-gun

A lot of people are single issue voters who tend to make their issue the dumbest issue. If Hillary Clinton was pro second amendment, shed have defeated Donald Trump. She didnt, but Gabbard holds this clear edge.

2. Shes economically vague, but Bernie appealing

The reality to winning in politics is claim to have answers, but never have supporters actually know what those answers are. Bernie Sanders had bat-shit ridiculous ideas. He did a debate on healthcare and Ted Cruz cut him to shreds, thats just a sign of his nonsense.

With Bernie, everything on economics was just the land of make believe. Because Gabbard endorsed Bernie, and has some hard-left stances, she already owns the Bernie people. She can keep them excited and make promises, for example single payer light or free college, and still have it appeal to that base. Another truth is that she can be like Donald Trump and say she wants something like single payer, but word it to be more of an effort over a clear promise.

Gabbard can, unlike Bernie, not be bat-shit crazy on economics.

1. Shes a veteran and gets foreign policy.

If Gabbard was elected, shed be the first veteran since H.W. to take office, and can actually poise herself on real middle eastern policy talks where she has front line experience from the Iraq war. Being able to talk about that experience and drive it to her very libertarian foreign policy views, she has a good shot.

In 2012, I supported Gary Johnson in the Republican primary, and later backed Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman after Gary left that race. I voted for Gary Johnson as a New Yorker. While I wasnt a fan of Romney, I asked friends in swing states, who were backing Johnson, to vote trade for Romney.

In the Trump and Clinton wars, I was proud to say Clinton was the lesser of the evils, and I still stand by that. I did vote for Gary Johnson, but if I lived in a swing state, I would have voted for Clinton. Im open to play nice with the left.

However, Id probably not vote for Tulsi Gabbard.

Gabbards economic views currently strike me as being too far to the left. I could see her being worse than Trump.

In the Democratic primary of 2016, I said Id support Clinton over Trump, but Id support Trump over Bernie. However, Gabbard has had a career of being very open, trustworthy and having a genuine concern for policy over her own career. So, unlike Hillary Clinton, Id say I think Gabbard deserves some respect as a candidate.

I didnt get to have my first or second picks for president in 2012 or 2016, and I doubt Ill get that with 2020. So, my money is on President Gabbard.

This post was written by Charles Peralo.

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

Like Loading...

Visit link:
Why Democrat Tulsi Gabbard Will Likely Be the Next President ... - Being Libertarian