Mediaboss Marketing

Horse-racing monitors at Monmouth Park in Oceanport, where bettors can wager on races. The gambling industry hopes the Trump administration will be open to expanding wagering to sports betting.(Photo: Kevin Wexler/The Record)

The Competitive Enterprises Institute, known asalibertarian think, has published an eight-page paper on what it considers a foolish federal policy on sports betting in the U.S.

The group describes itself as "a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing theprinciples of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty."

Here is my summary of some of the key passages:

For those not fully up to speed on how we got here, it's explained thusly:

The Origin of the Sports Gambling Ban.By the late 1980s, at least 13 states had considered proposals to legalize sports gambling, most in the hope that legalizing and taxing the activity would fill increasingly large budget deficits. That so worried gambling opponentssuch as lawmakers and sports league officials who feared gambling would compromise the integrity of sporting eventsthat Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA). Once enacted, PASPA prohibited states that did not already allow sports betting from licensing, promoting, or authorizing the activity. In effect, PASPA blocked all states, save for Nevada, from legalizing and regulating bets on the outcome of individual sports contests.

"The proposal, sponsored by Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), was championed by the commissioners of the four major sports leagues, who testified that such a law was necessary to prevent a cloud of suspicion over athletes and games and to avoid sending a regrettable message to our young people. Congress justified intervening in what had traditionally been viewed as a matter for state regulation by declaring sports gambling a national problem. The harms it inflicts are felt beyond the borders of those states that sanction it. The moral erosion it produces cannot be limited geographically. Without federal legislation, sports gambling is likely to spread on a piecemeal basis and ultimately develop an irreversible momentum.

This is a segment on "game integrity with a reference to a very famous case:

"In many ways, sports betting lines operate like financial markets. For example, when international open market trading is done in commodities, attempts at manipulation become much easier to detect because anomalies will be noticed and analyzed quickly. The same holds for sports betting. Betting lines do not shift much. An extreme fluctuation, which might occur if large amounts of money was suddenly being bet on a longshot underdog, would set off alarm bells......

"This is exactly what happened during the Black Sox scandal, when several members of the Chicago White Sox threw the 1919 World Series. It was the strange, sudden shift in betting odds that first alerted sportswriters and others that something fishy was going on. Bookmakers originally had the Sox as 7-5 favorites, with rumors that the odds might go as high as 2-1 by the time of the game, but a sudden swing in betting in New Yorkan unusually large amount of money being bet on the underdog Cincinnati Redsput the odds at even money by Game 1. The odds shift occurred, it turned out, because gangsters had bribed several members of the heavily favored White Sox to throw the Series. Rumors about a fix were rampant well before the Series first pitch.

The Black Sox went on to become the most infamous sports betting scandal in history. As a result, nearly 100 years later, gambling remains virtually the only unpardonable sin for an active player, coach, or manager in any sport. Players who have used performance-enhancing drugs or have been found guilty of criminal acts ranging from assault to illegal dog fighting have returned to the field. Gambling on games, on the other hand, almost always results in lifetime bans for athletes and officials. This is a formidable disincentive for players to be involved with gamblers or game fixing. Yet, few remember today that it was the bookmakers those taking bets on the gam e who first caught the scent of something fishy going on with the World Series."

The volume of new tax revenue also is addressed:

"If this economic activity were brought into the daylight, it would mean millions of dollars for cash-strapped states. In New Jersey, for example, illegal sportsbook makers prosecuted in the late 1990s had an annual volume of around$200 million. Global gaming research firm GamblingCompliance projects that a fully developed legal American marketwhere bets are placed at casinos, online, and at retail bookmaking shopswould produce $12.4 billion in annual revenue, five times bigger than the U.K.s sports betting market and 11 times bigger than Italys. All of which would be subject to tax. Tapping into this new source of revenue would not even require new laws for most states, as the federal government already requires people to report earnings from gambling and even allows them to write off gambling losses up to the amount that allows them to offset their winnings."

The paper concludes by saying that "the law must treat consumers like adults."

Read or Share this story: http://northjersy.news/2lIryJK

Read more:
Libertarian think tank makes case for legal sports betting - NorthJersey.com

The UN has determined that both the rebels and the opposition from Syrian and Russian forces had committed war crimes that have caused many casualties among the civilian population of Aleppo.

The investigation report released by the UN Commission of Inquiry noted that Syrian and Russian forcespervasively used weapons to bomb highly populated areas in the rebel-held capital of Aleppo during last years conflict.

According to Al Jazeerathesemunitions included aerial bombs, air-to-surface rockets, cluster munitions, incendiary bombs, barrel bombs, and weapons delivering toxic industrial chemicals.

The Syrian governmentalso used chlorine bombs, a banned chemically toxic weapon that caused hundreds of civilian casualties according to the UN report.The government has repeatedly denied using chemical weapons in the war, which has killedalmost 400,000 people.

The report also accused the Syrian government of ameticulously planned and ruthlessly carried out air strike on a UN and Syrian Red Crescent convoy in western Aleppo in September, which killed14 aid workers.

According toAl Jazeeras Mohammed Jamjoom, the press was told was that the UN is preparing a dossier so if there is a tribunal that eventually happens, the evidence is ready to try to prosecute those who are accused of doing war crimes.

Rebels have been accused of firing shells indiscriminately at government-held areas and other parts of western Aleppo. Rebels also reportedly prevented groups of civilians from escaping eastern Aleppo during the latter stages of its fall, and used some civilians as human shields.

The Syrian government has repeatedly deniedmost of the claims put forth against it, and the rebels have also failed to take any accountability for their actions. Both sides have ravaged the city of Aleppo, killed many innocent civilians, and have used inhumane and illegal methods in fighting each other.

Photo Credit: Reuters/Kenan Al-Derani

This post was written by Nicholas Amato.

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

Nicholas Amato is the News Editor at Being Libertarian. Hes an undergraduate student at San Jose State University, majoring in political science and minoring in journalism.

Like Loading...

Go here to see the original:
UN: All Sides Committed War Crimes in Aleppo - Being Libertarian

It goes without saying that libertarianism, as a political philosophy, is fiscally conservative i.e. that on a policy level, the State must conserve, rather than spend on a whim. Virtually all libertarians agree that this is technically correct.

The jury, however, is apparently still out on social issues. Many in the libertarian movement desire a merging between American conservatism (as opposed to virtually any other conservative movement in the world), which includes social conservatism, and libertarianism. Conservatism, as a political position, is quite region-specific, and entirely relative. To be a conservative means something different at different times. It is not a statement of principles in and of itself, but a belief that certain principles which are already being adhered to, must continue to be adhered to. This is why a European conservative is, for the most part, someone who still desires a strong welfare role for the State, and an America conservative is much more reluctant to support increased welfare.

Roger Toutant recently wrote that apparently, Libertarianism is, at its core, a fiscally and socially conservative movement. He says this without much further ado, instead opting to hide behind a facade of pragmatism. His reasoning goes that if libertarians continue to represent themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal (not to be confused with welfarist social liberalism), we will never win any popular support, because the right will refuse to get on board with our degenerate and lost social views, and progressives will never agree to our notion of small government.

Social liberalism, which is not under discussion here, but it is worthy to note, is a political philosophy in its own right, with its own economic theories. Being socially liberal, on the other hand, implies a public policy stance, as opposed to personal liberalism, which means that the individual himself behaves in a liberal fashion. Being socially liberal is nothing more than the notion that the State has no right to legislate decency or morality. (And given that were talking about American conservatism here, I should emphasise that it does not matter whether its a supranational government, a national government, a provincial or state government, or a local government). The States mandate is and always will be fixed to protecting people and property from physical aggression, enforcing mutually-agreed upon agreements, and guarding against fraud. All of this, naturally, must be wrapped up in the doctrine of the rule of law, i.e. the State cannot act arbitrarily, everyone must be equal before the law, people can appeal decisions, etc., etc.

Toutants is not an isolated argument. Indeed, it has become increasingly popular over the last year for conservative-leaning libertarians to defend and emphasise the ostensible compatibilities between libertarianism and American conservatism, while also emphasising the incompatibilities between traditionally left-leaning positions where progressives and libertarians share common ground. Christopher Cantwell is the embodiment of this worrying trend, having testified before a New Hampshire legislative committee that the government should prohibit female nudity on public beaches. He used highly-questionable arguments (including but what about the children?) in support of this position, but at the end of the day it was clear that his social conservatism was rearing its head in what was supposed to be a matter left to the political philosophy of libertarianism.

The founders of libertarianism would not have bothered to distinguish libertarianism from American conservatism. Indeed, if American conservatism and libertarianism are as indistinguishable as many make them out to be, why did the distinction come about at all?

This is all especially worrying to me as a South African, and, I imagine, to many libertarians across the world (to be anecdotal: my arguably anti-conservative Facebook posts get more likes from my European compatriots, over the norm where my American compatriots are mostly in the majority). In South Africa, conservatism means a preference for Apartheid, a highly-socialistic system founded in the very fascist notion that the State is the embodiment of the people and enforces their will. So when I enter into policy debates, only to have my opponents declare with conviction that libertarianism is conservative no doubt something they picked up from what is happening in America I am placed at a significant disadvantage.

The definition of conservatism which American conservatives have adopted enables them to relate, even if only at a distance, to the non-national philosophy of libertarianism. This is, however, not the case anywhere else in the world (at least, not to this extent). Therefore, when the argument is made that libertarianism and conservatism or social conservatism more particularly should, in essence, become one thing, a custom-made American definition is used. This is partly the problem with the assumptions underlying Toutants argument.

Libertarianism is set apart from American conservatism in one principal respect, which also sets it apart from progressivism, and which is the only justification for it being distinguished from both: individualism. A conservative, such as Toutant, can accept the basic premises of the NAP in theory, as have many conservative-leaning libertarians, but individualism in general is curiously excluded in favor of other values, such as (often bizarrely) democracy, certain social values such as the traditional marriage.

Toutants questionable interpretation of libertarianism is most evident in the following paragraph:

As far as I can tell, the vast majority of Libertarians are conservative in nature. They do not rely on the NAP to provide guidance to their moral behaviour, nor to help them define what is good or evil or what actions should be punished, or not, by the state. For that they rely on their culture and their religion. To many, the NAP is the equivalent of the Christian commandment, thou shalt not steal, full stop.

Being a libertarian who is personally conservative, and being a libertarian who advocates social conservatism, are two different things, considering that social conservatism is a public policy position. As an individual, I am arguably personally conservative. I believe in a higher power, I have never tasted alcohol or nicotine, I try to be decent, and look decent. But when my libertarian hat is on, i.e. when I engage in political philosophy or public policy (I work in public policy) then I am an individualist, I am socially liberal. And, in that respect, it is a prerequisite for a libertarian to be socially liberal qua libertarian.

Jared Howe, a Being Libertarian associate, recently wrote in a public Facebook comment that many Americans view libertarianism as a leftist movement due to the open border / free movement people. He went on to write that identity politics is not automatically invalid, and that even Hans-Hermann Hoppe relied on the historical and practical role of the monogamous family in his work. I am, as some would know, one of the open borders people. To many, that makes me a leftist ab initio, and clearly according to Howe as well. However, I obviously dispute this line of thinking, especially considering the rationale most open borders libertarians provide for their position, i.e. it is always founded in sound libertarian theory, even if it is not particularly Hoppean libertarian theory. Hoppes work is invaluable, but I dont recall him being declared the final arbiter on what is and what is not correct libertarian thinking.

Evidently, it has become problematic to use this description of libertarianism, i.e. that we are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It causes confusion and opens doors which should not even exist (such as the ostensible similarities between libertarianism and American conservatism). Instead and this has become more popular in certain respects if we want to appeal to a broad audience rather than philosophy club, we should say we value personal and economic freedom for individuals. In this way, we avoid the confusion between socially liberal and social liberalism, which is a philosophy with some unfortunate socialist connotations, and avoid the confusion between American conservatism and fiscally conservative.

However, before we can go about reforming our marketing strategies, we should be clear about the fact that we comprise a distinct movement, and that while American conservatives have been worthy and valuable allies in many battles, we have our own agenda, which is often at odds with that of conservatives. We are not a subsidiary, extension, or transformation of American conservatism, but something entirely different.

Our victories over the left will be meaningless if we lose our identity in the process, instead becoming part of the authoritarian horseshoe paradigm we naturally must oppose.

* Martin van Staden is Editor in Chief of Being Libertarian.

This post was written by Martin van Staden.

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

Martin van Staden is the Editor in Chief of Being Libertarian, the Legal Researcher at the Free Market Foundation, a co-founder of the RationalStandard.com, and the Southern African Academic Programs Director at Students For Liberty. The views expressed in his articles are his own and do not represent any of the aforementioned organizations.

Like Loading...

Read the original here:
Social Conservatism and Libertarianism Are Not Mergeable So Stop Trying - Being Libertarian

Screenshot via ZodiacThe Washington Post's Alyssa Rosenberg notes that David Fincher's Zodiac was released 10 years ago. The film received rave reviews, but still seems underappreciated by the general public. In her retrospective, Rosenberg notes that Zodiacwhich chronicles the efforts of police officers and journalists to catch a real-life serial killer in the 1960s and 70sstill resonates:

The characters have resources to pursue their investigations, and they're given time and plenty of leeway by their superiors (though one local politician runs for governor on the argument that the cops didn't have what they needed to crack the case). And neither is "Zodiac" a story about the sorts of failures involved in the Vietnam War, where brilliant people, restricted both by their own faith in technocratic solutions and their fears of being seen as soft on Communism, made fatally terrible decisions.

Instead, Fincher captures the uncertainty and loss of confidence that follow from a prolonged failure by institutions and people who are doing everything they're supposed to, only to find that it doesn't produce the correct results.

Ten years after "Zodiac" was released, and almost fifty years after the July 4 killing that sets the movie in motion, we're still living with and working through the consequences of the decline and loss of faith David Fincher captured in this masterful film. Fincher's "Fight Club" offered up a vision of weaponized male turned against society as a whole, while his "Gone Girl" portrayed female anger that had been distilled into a particularly venomous domestic poison. "Zodiac" is his movie for the rest of us, who have to live in a world going slowly insane without losing ourselves.

For me, Zodiac was a story about obsessionwhat it feels like to care about something that most other people have lost interest in. The serial killerwho calls himself the Zodiac and sends cryptic messages to the authoritiesslaughters a handful of people, and then largely retreats into the shadows. He botches some of his attacks, and others don't fit his profile, calling into question whether he's a single person or a group of completely unrelated nutcases taking advantage of a momentary spotlight.

As days become weeks and even years, everybody moves on, except the police officers assigned to the case and the newspaper cartoonist who can't let it go. They're driven, not by public safetyas one character points out, more people die crossing the street than at the hands of the Zodiac killerbut by their own insatiable, personal need to solve the case. Asked why he still cares about a serial killer who has long since fallen inactive, Jake Gyllenhaal's character snaps, "I need to know who he is!" Anyone who's ever attempted a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle, but misplaced the last few pieces, will relate.

Zodiac also makes some lightly libertarian criticisms of authorityin particular, its limits. The various representatives of the institutions that fail to capture the killerthe police, newspapers, local politiciansaren't evil, or incompetent. They're decent people trying to do right by the citizens of California. But they encounter structural problems: the crimes cross city and county lines, and no single entity has all the relevant information. In an early scene, the lead detectives ask a county official to make copies of the evidence in his possession and fax it to San Francisco PD. He replies, "We don't have telefax yet."

The film also explores the notion that violence is random, and its underlying causes don't fit neatly into preconceived narratives. The Zodiac killer isn't Hannibal Lecter, or Ramsay Bolton. He's a weird loner whose actions don't reflect a discernible ideology of evil. This kind of real-world violence is the hardest to address through public policy, because there's no identifiable reason for it.

In the end, it took someone outside the law enforcement bureaucracyGyllenhaal's character, cartoonist Robert Graysmithto finally solve the case, to the extent that it's solved at all.

More here:
Zodiac Turns 10: Why This Amazing Film Is Libertarian - Hit & Run ... - Reason (blog)

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

Dries Van Thielen

TLR: Why will the 2017 elections be more successful than the one in 2012?

VALENTINE: Like the American Libertarian Party, the Dutch Libertarian Party was inspired by dogmatic anarchists. However, similar to the American Libertarian Party, we recently had a strong disagreement on approach. On the one side, we had dogmatic theorists, stating that the libertarian ideology could not dilute. On the other side, we had an uprising of pragmatics favoring a more conciliatory attitude. We went along with the pragmatics and thus far we reached a wider audience and I myself, receive more phone calls from journalists. Without betraying our ideology, we composed a more attractive program which resulted in more and younger members.

TLR: Your campaign shows similarities with Gary Johnsons presidential campaign which was unable to attract major media attention. What is the approach of the LP towards media?

VALENTINE: For 2017, our strategy consists out of two approaches. First, we try to attract political attention for the upcoming elections. In doing so, we make efforts to draw attention by focusing on social media Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or LinkedIn and mixing ourselves in online discussions by creating our own content. You see, similar to Johnson, we are never asked for political debates. When we are debating on a local level, the audience is drawn into our ideas since we pose a different concept than spending more money on topic A or B as our colleagues propose. Political TV debates are somnolent since no party offers solutions for ongoing problems (like poverty, ).

Secondly, we try to look further than the upcoming elections. In 2017, we will work to introduce three cornerstones (political, intellectual and social) of libertarianism in the LP. A political cornerstone since it is the only way to become more influential in the Netherlands. An intellectual cornerstone since we are too often drawn to American media outlets (FEE, Libertarian Republic, CATO, and Mises.org,), focusing on the United States. Instead, we would introduce our own articles and platform focusing on the Netherlands.

Third, a social cornerstone, showing the power of freedom and individual cooperation. We missed out on a strong equip of volunteers throughout the years, being active in the fibers of society will change that. Currently, we are working to maintain and professionalize our team.

TLR: According to your recent Twitter campaign (#Nexit), the Netherlands have to opt out of the EU and NATO. Why would this be a good idea?

VALENTINE: People who join politics are well-intended, I presume. They join a party with the firm belief to change the mishaps in their respective country. So did the EU: it started with good intentions free movement of goods, people and capital, a lessening of trade restrictions These ideas are utterly libertarian-inspired, but the reality and elaboration differ from these well-intended ideas. Nowadays, we have an army of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and Luxembourg, designing our society! This is as un-libertarian as can be.

Without sounding too much like Geert Wilders (the entire Preliminary Election Program of PVV is 1 page long), I believe that the EU-agreements can be summed up on 1 page: freedom and free trade doesnt need codices. Brussels needs to disappear and The Hague needs to retake control.

As an alternative to the European Union, I would suggest the model Switzerland holds up. Granted, it isnt a libertarian utopia, but it only has 8 million inhabitants divided amongst 26 cantons, each with its respective constitution. The smallest particle decides which results in a more involved population. The citizens witness first handed the effects of their own policies.

TLR: And NATO?

VALENTINE: The same goes up with NATO. The NATO pact took off with good intentions, for we have to defend ourselves against invaders: libertarians arent pacifists. However, similar to the EU the intentions are overtaken by reality.

See, the moment we centralize our countrys interests, it gets troublesome since the organization you transfer your own interests to, has incentives of their own. In the case of NATO, the interests of its largest member the United States prevail on the ones of smaller member states (Netherlands and Belgium).

It is untenable to keep this relic from the Cold War alive as you take into account what it is used for nowadays: bombing sovereign states. Consistently bombing neighboring countries will not lead to a more secure Europe.

TLR: Can free trade solve the question of security, as a reaction for the dismantling of NATO? The majority of wars are fought for a lack of free trade.

VALENTINE: If goods dont pass the border, troops will. No sane country will put well-functioning commercial relations at risk since every interaction is advantageous for both participants. It would benefit the world if the world-wide free trade would be allowed (decline of poverty as the main advantage).

TLR: Besides free movement of goods and capital, your program mentions the open border solution based on the 19th-century European model. Will every individual integrate into this model?

VALENTINE: We favor the open border policy. Every individual is free to cross borders but we will check in your country of origin, whether you have ties with terrorist organizations.

Also, we encourage immigrants to work as soon as they enter the country instead of being pampered by the government, as is the case nowadays. Only, we will not allow immigrants to make use of the social benefits. In doing so, we counter the argument (theyll ruin our welfare) made by advocates of closed borders.

I find our system logical. Therefore, we counter the argument made by Geert Wilders. He states: We have to close borders, no one is allowed to cross borders and the Muslims already residing in the Netherlands will soon be kicked out! These accusations are nonsense and will harm the economy.

TLR: You grew accustomed to libertarianism by the writings of Ron Paul. Do you have any book recommendations for our readers?

VALENTINE: As an introduction into libertarianism, I highly recommend Revolution: A Manifesto by Dr. Ron Paul. Besides the classics (Economics in One Lesson or The Law), I was impressed by Matt RadleysThe Evolution of Everything. He refers to himself as a libertarian in minuscule. Many libertarians are attracted to libertarianism for its moral or economic aspect. It never goes both ways. The entire world is driven by invisible natural laws so it is unnecessary and illogical to set up structures according to Radley.

Since it is election season, I am currently reading The audacity to win by David Plouffe, Obamas Senior Advisor. It was he who was responsible for his (re-)election which interests me nowadays and I think it is a good read for many (non-pragmatic) libertarians. Unfortunately, the story does not tell itself.

TLR: I heard a passionate libertarian. When do you call the elections successful?

VALENTINE: The goal of the American Libertarian Party was to reach for 5% of the votes mainly to become a household name. The same goes up for us: the long-term is more important than these elections. If we reach 1 seat in parliament, it will be considered a grandiose success. Even if we reach 0.5 seats, which will correspond with about 20 thousand votes, these elections will be considered successful. This way, we will become a party worth taking into account.

EUGlobal Politicsimmigrationlibertarian partyNAvoNetherlandsRobert Valentine

Read more:
Dutch Libertarian Party Pres. Robert Valentine: If Goods Don't Pass the Border, Troops Will - The Libertarian Republic