Local Libertarians eyeing city, state government seats Mid-City Messenger The Libertarian Party of Orleans Parish is looking to gain notoriety with a few local government seats, but they're still searching for locals who want to get involved. We're not going to start winning offices right off the bat, Kirk Coco, party ... |
Read more:
Local Libertarians eyeing city, state government seats - Mid-City Messenger
Cathy Young
Cathy Young is a regular contributor to Reason magazine and Real Clear Politics.
The people who gathered for the 10th annual conference of the International Society of Students for Liberty in Washington last weekend were a motley crowd that included anti-war activists with neon-colored hair and law students in three-piece suits. In the exhibit hall, a display honoring Ronald Reagan was only a few feet away from a LGBT group with a rainbow version of the Dont Tread on Me Gadsen flag and from the table of a group called Muslims for Liberty.
Despite the festive atmosphere, this years speakers at the libertarian event were mostly in a dark mood worse than last year, when many warned about a rising authoritarian tide. While libertarians tend to be at the Republican end of the two-party spectrum, Donald Trump Republicanism is about as un-libertarian as you get. There was raucous applause when Katherine Mangu-Ward, editor of Reason magazine (where I am a contributing editor), declared at the opening-night session, Free movement of people and goods across the border is good. Another Reason editor, Nick Gillespie, contrasted the libertarian spirit of cosmopolitanism and tolerance with Trumps demonization of undesirables and with the lefts anti-pluralist drive to silence politically incorrect speech.
Tom Palmer, vice president for international programs at the nonprofit Atlas Network, also spoke of illiberal trends on both the left and the right in his talk on global anti-libertarianism. But while Palmer named left-wing identity politics and thought-policing as part of the problem, his focus was the threat from the right: in America, Trumpism, with its cult of the leader who embodies the peoples will and its paranoia about the foreign; in Europe, populist, nationalist, and sometimes outright fascist movements, many financed by Russias authoritarian regime.
Social psychologist and New York University professor Jonathan Haidt, whose talk on the rise of the safety culture in colleges was probably the biggest hit of the conference, warned that the end of liberal democracy was a real threat. Haidt, whose 2012 book, The Righteous Mind, examined the moral foundations of political beliefs, painted a dire picture of polarization in America and of the drift toward a leftist echo chamber on college campuses. Social justice, Haidt said, is replacing pursuit of knowledge as the central mission of universities, and there is less and less tolerance for dissent. The result is a generation sympathetic to censorship of offensive speech.
Haidt argued that diversity of thought is desperately needed on campus, and that libertarians may be the key. Conservatives are seen as poison in the academy, while libertarians are merely viewed with wariness and confusion, and are thus in a far better position to get unorthodox opinions heard. Do something about the mess that were descending into, he implored the audience, mostly of libertarian students.
In the age of Trumpian populism versus political correctness run amok, libertarianism offers promise beyond the campus, too if it doesnt descend into laissez-faire utopianism at home and isolationism abroad. Gillespie noted that if libertarianism is defined as a preference for less government involvement in both economic and moral matters, at least one poll finds that libertarian leaners are now the single largest group of voters, at 27 percent (while 26 percent are conservative, 23 percent liberal, and 15 percent populist).
While parts of the conference had a decidedly pessimistic tone, there was optimism as well and discussion of libertarian victories from deregulation to gay civil rights. Libertarianism may not have all the answers; but right now, it may be our best hope for rebuilding a culture of freedom and tolerance.
Cathy Young is a regular contributor to Reason magazine and Real Clear Politics.
Visit link:
Can libertarians mediate the divide? - Newsday
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
SELFISH LIBERTARIANS AND SOCIALIST CONSERVATIVES?: THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE LIBERTARIAN-CONSERVATIVE DEBATE
By Nathan W. Schlueter and Nikolai G. Wenzel
Stanford University Press, $24.95, 232 pages
While libertarians and conservatives have some similar outlooks on politics, economics and culture, many profound differences have kept them apart. Attempts to bridge this gap, including Frank S. Meyers theory of fusionism (combining elements of libertarianism and traditional conservatism), have largely been unsuccessful.
Nevertheless, these two right-leaning ideological groups have more than enough in common to discuss ideas in an intelligent, thoughtful manner. Nathan Schlueter and Nikolai Wenzels Selfish Libertarians and Socialist Conservatives? serves as an important backdrop in ensuring the libertarian-conservative debate never turns into a libertarian-conservative divide.
Mr. Wenzel, the libertarian, is a research fellow at the University of Paris Law Schools Center for Law & Economics. Mr. Schlueter, the conservative, is a professor of philosophy and religion at Hillsdale College. In their view, a civil, informed, and energetic argument between these two political opposites offers a more interesting, illuminating, and engaging format for readers than an impartial survey of the issues.
Are they right? For those who identify as conservatives, libertarians or one of the worlds few remaining fusionists (like me), their information and analysis is nothing new. But the authors ability to create succinct philosophical arguments for intellectuals and the masses is both admirable and educational.
Each author contributes four chapters. They provide explanations of what their political ideologies entail, whats wrong with each others ideological position, relevant case studies, and final conclusions.
Mr. Schlueter posits that conservatism is not a specific philosophy of government but a generic term that can have a wide range of specific meanings, depending on context. Hence, to create a unified conservatism from its three primary strains (libertarianism, traditional conservatism and neoconservatism), these principles are necessary for human flourishing and that, although they are in some tension with one another, the three principles are interdependent.
Moreover, the author argues, the principles of the American founding that conservatives defend are a form of classical liberalism. This, in turn, has led modern conservatives to defend traditional concepts like natural law and the common good, along with newer concepts like limited government and property rights.
Mr. Wenzel sees libertarianism as a political philosophy about the protection of individual rights. Adherents to this ideology consider liberty to be the highest political good, and believe that government should be viewed as a protector of rights, to provide an umbrella within which individuals can peacefully go about their business, interact, and thrive. Libertarianism also relies heavily on markets and civil society to supplement that which individuals cannot complete on their own and that which government cannot deliver without violating individual rights.
Naturally, the two authors respectfully feel that each others political philosophy is, as they put it, wrong.
Mr. Wenzel believes Mr. Schlueter makes one of the clearest expositions of conservatism I have seen, but that much in conservatism is problematic. For instance, he perceives natural law liberalism, which his co-author defends as a component of unified conservatism, rests on the claim that there exists an objective moral order but that it has also been used to justify ugly things like slavery, absolute monarchy, or Sharia. At the same time, he wonders if this contradictory hodgepodge of different conservatisms is arbitrary in its claims because it seeks justification for the public imposition of private preferences.
Mr. Schlueter admires Mr. Wenzels able defense of libertarianism, but believes [i]n the most fundamental sense, the difference between conservatism and libertarianism turns on the degree to which politics can be understood in terms of economics. By and large, conservatives dont believe that economics defines political life and human beings can only fully flourish through their own self-constituting choices. Also of note, when it comes to public choice theory a popular topic in libertarian circles he feels the major flaw is that its either descriptive, or is it prescriptive. The former is undermined by empirical evidence, and the latter is undermined by political life altogether.
Their case studies and conclusions dont lead to any surprising revelations: Mr. Schlueter supports conservatism, and Mr. Wenzel supports libertarianism. But their discussions about economics, immigration, education and marriage are intriguing. The differences between the two ideologies are subtle in some ways, and more stark in others.
Neither Mr. Schlueter nor Mr. Wenzel believe his political ideology is the model of perfection. There are flaws in libertarianism and conservatism, as there are in all philosophical models. At the same time, they obviously both feel that their respective ideology is better for our society, warts and all.
In this civil debate of ideas, thats the best closing argument we could ever hope for.
Michael Taube is a contributor to The Washington Times.
Continue reading here:
The libertarians versus the conservatives - Washington Times
All it takes is a Hoppe, skip and a jump for those, who are joking online about throwing communists from helicopters, to justify their actions.
A growing wave of libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are finding themselves drawn to the world of anti-communist rhetoric, which extends to the nth degree. So, is commie killing a justified response to the violation of the NAP, or is this simply lunacy concocted to ideologically discriminate? Where does the line between threat and belief system exist?
To discover this, we must first look at the emerging resurgence of Hans-Hermann Hoppe and his beliefs, through the Facebook page Hoppean Snake Memes. Its a page which has amassed nearly seventeen thousand likes for its ideological tint, which takes heavy opposition to Marxism and Leninism; ideologies which are acting in opposition to anarcho-capitalism.
Just as one must fight to maintain their freedom, one must also work to secure their own free society. The difference between an anarcho-capitalist society and an anarcho-individualist society is based on the premise of the left and right dichotomy, with anarcho-capitalists representing the right-wing and property rights, and the anarcho-individualists representing the left-wing and communism.
Anarcho-individualism, as indicated through the works of Max Stirner, completely disregards pragmatism, societal progress and morality to favour the Ubermensch perspective of Friedrich Nietzsche, which essentially involves giving complete reign of ones life and actions over to the people to allow them to decide their life based on their own moral compass.
Essentially, given the rise of groups such as Antifa which run contrary to the libertarian principles of personal and property rights Hoppean Snake Memes takes a hyperbolic approach to Hoppes original views by mixing them with Augusto Pinochets historically notorious habit of dropping communists from helicopters.
The death of communists is seen very much in the same way that one would see the killing of ISIS regardless of whether or not individual ISIS members have committed atrocities, their group is reason enough for suspicion and consequential action to be taken to stop it. Given that groups such as Antifa and ISIS threaten the peace and prosperity of societal participants (since communism and Islam represent the two biggest terror threats in the world at the moment), it is clear that action must be taken.
I interviewed the administrator of the Facebook page who simply went by the monicker Snek for the purposes of conversation; he elaborated on his disdain for communism, which he saw as antithetical to a society which follows along a pathway of objective self-servience and capital-based individualism.
When I say communist, I am referring to one who advocates gulags. Not simply worker control of the means of production. I have nothing against worker control of the MOP, provided its all voluntary, et cetera et cetera.
Upon being pressed as to how this runs contrary to freedom of association and freedom of speech, the terminology of threat was used to justify the way in which communist advocacy works; their ideals stomping over the civil liberties of person and property.
This, paired with the forced radicalism of groups such as Antifa, is now acting as the basis for an emerging ideology that pairs anarchism with practicality, in order to minimise big government to small government and gradually make the transition to a stateless society. This is why the forces in question have fallen in love with the bombastic reductions taken by Donald Trump; reductions which run counter to the prior Democratic tendency to slip down a slippery slope and fall into a pit of authoritarian tripe (think Franklin D. Roosevelt). This heavy focus on pragmatism for libertarianism has led followers to co-opt the alternative right and expand its audience in the retaliation against leftism.
Snek detailed the following:
It should be noted that the helicopter memes are, for the most part, an exaggeration; the purpose, though, is to provoke thought on what is to be considered legitimate self-defence. The argument that Pinochet did nothing wrong stems from the argument that Allende would have been worse. Allende had very close ties to MIR and Castro, judging by Castros actions we know that if Allende was even remotely like him, Allende would have been objectively worse than Pinochet, in terms of human rights violations.
Given the low polling numbers of the Libertarian Party and the fact that the ideology has as much momentum behind it as a Snorlax on a bridge, can one really blame a frustrated branch of Austrian economics for a kneejerk reaction to the left and their omnipresent threat of attack on our fundamental rights?
Out of the philosophical and epistemological questions that lie behind the nebulous terminology of the NAP, it should be determined (at least to some extent) by the public consensus what is considered justifiable retaliation.
Do you approve of the commie killin freedom fighters, or do you simply see them as being full of Pinoshit?
We here at Being Libertarian are not at liberty (ironically) to disclose our personal position on ideological discrimination, however, we must advocate peace towards your fellow man, to set a good example for the thieves more extreme members of the left.
And stay up to date with all my articles on my personal Facebook page.
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 the original here:
Libertarianism, Helicopters, and Leftists - Being Libertarian
The 2016 election wasthe gift that keeps on giving for the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party ofIowa (LPIA) will soon officially be given major party status, allowinglibertarians to be on the ballot in future state elections, and greater exposure for its candidates.
We plan to have a record number of candidates in 2018, said LPIA Chair Keith Laube in an interview for IVN. There were a record 25 Libertarian candidates on the ballot in Iowain 2016.We have been building a base of Libertarian registered voters in Iowa since 2008, the first year Iowa voters could register as a Libertarian.Our plan istoreach out to voters to continue increasing the number of registered Libertarians in Iowa.
Iowa state law allows political parties to gain status when 2 percent of the vote is earned by the partys presidential candidate. Gov. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian presidential candidate in 2016, received a little over 3 percent in the state about the same percentage he got at the national level.
We plan to have a record number of candidates in 2018.
American elections have always been dominated by the two-party system at every institutional level of elections and the political landscape. The plight of third parties to get on the ballot has been a long struggle. Ballot access is easy for Democrats and Republicans, but that isnt the case for Libertarians or other third party candidates.
And while the Libertarian Party has garnered ballot access and party status in several states after 2016,Laube says obstacles remain to keeping the LPs party status.
Per Iowa code, to maintain party status in Iowa a party must receive at least 2% of the vote for the top of the ticket. So in 2018, our governor candidate must receive at least 2% of the vote, he explained. We met with state officials and have been conversing back and forth with them as we go through the transition in party status. The state officials have been very professional and good to work with.
Laube added:
We need to continue to educate voters thatLibertarian candidates are very capable of serving at the State and Federal level. Libertarian views attractqualified candidates who run for office because they want positivechange to occur in Iowa.Libertarian candidates are often independent thinkers whodo not want to be draggedalong with the partisan political baggage that comes with the two older parties.
And theremay be no greatertime to be a libertarian. The Libertarian Party has gained popularity amongst voters as more people break off from the Democratic and Republican parties in dissatisfaction. Supporters of the Libertarian party share a common belief that the government should be less involved in peoples lives, in the household and with their wallets.
As such, libertarians tend to be viewed as fiscally conservative and socially open or liberal or tolerant. Such a stance on government and domestic and foreign policy is making the party more attractive to many voters because such an approach looks outside the current political establishment for solutions.
I believe Libertarian candidatesin 2018 will rely on the majority of the population who want tohave their individual liberties restored and who desire a more accountable,Laube said. As a major party,2018will be the first year our candidateswill beable to participate in the Primary Election. Candidates will know they are on the ballot in early June rather than late August. This will create stronger campaigns and allow voters to learn about our candidates andissues earlier in the election cycle. Having more candidates talk aboutissuesearlier in the election cycle isa positive forIowans.
Iowas secretary of state will make LPIAs party status official on March 1.
Follow this link:
Iowa Libertarian Party to Have Major Party Status in 2018 Elections - IVN News