Archive for the ‘Libertarian’ Category

On Libertarian Arrogance – The Liberty Conservative

Recently, I was privy to an exchange on social media that highlighted the intellectual and moral arrogance observed in many libertarians. Certain members of the Liberty Movement seem to be so sure of their superiority that they miss the authoritarian allure of a Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. Turning a blind eye (or turning up our noses) at those we disagree with will not help advance the ideas about individual rights, the rule of law, benefits of markets, or any of the other foundations upon which so many of us base our worldviews if not our careers.

Rather than dismiss those arguments that we happen to disagree with by claiming some de facto intellectual, empirical, or moral superiority, we should instead be willing to engage with conservative and liberal arguments on their own terms. There is simply no better way to refute bad arguments, improve electoral opportunities, and gain adherents to ideas that have been indispensable in shaping the freedom and prosperity of the western world.

Conservatives want the United States to maintain a large military and take an active role in the security of the western world, arguably to the point of adventurism. Why? Not because they hate peace, or like war, or are unaware of the ability of markets and free exchange to forge peaceful relations between nation states through repeat interactions. But because from their ideological perspective, the United States is the protector of the western order, and the world is a dangerous place. That does not make conservatives stupid, intellectually lazy, or immoral.

Liberals believe that society has an affirmative duty to provide a strong social safety net and other benefits to poor and disadvantaged individuals through action by the government. Why? Not because they never took basic economics in high school, or are socialists, or are unaware that such heavy tax and spending systems can become unsustainable in the long run. But because from their ideological perspective, the United States, as one of the wealthiest nations on Earth, cannot claim to be great unless it ensures that those most vulnerable in our society are given an equal chance. That does not make liberals stupid, intellectually lazy, or immoral.

And both liberals and conservatives seem to believe, despite their varying views on immigration policy and supranational organizations, that Westphalian nation states should continue to exist, that borders serve valuable purposes for individuals and society, and should also continue to exist. Make all the arguments you want to the contrary. May the echo chamber provide you the comfort that electoral losses and relegation to the political fringe never will.

Libertarians do not possess the exclusive right to define reality for other people. That is simply not how human beings psychologically function. If you want to convince someone of something, talk to them. Engage with their worldview and arguments. Understand their concerns. One of my mentors in college was apt to say: You gain nothing by refusing to consider the concerns of others. Whether an argument is right or wrong, dismissing it by calling the person making it stupid, intellectually lazy, or immoral, instead of engaging with them thoughtfully, does not reflect well on the Liberty Movement or the person being dismissive.

An ideological perspective that alienates the other 90% of the population because it demands purity over political pragmatism will not gain adherents to the Liberty Movement, improve electoral prospects, or successfully advance the ideas of liberty to the greater population.

Follow this link:
On Libertarian Arrogance - The Liberty Conservative

Rep. Massie’s theory: Libertarians saw Trump as ‘craziest son of a bitch in the race’ – Washington Examiner

In an interview with the Washington Examiner two months into President Trump's administration, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) reflected on the president's ascent to America's highest office, offering fresh insights from his vantage point as a libertarian-leaning representative smack in the heart of Trump country.

To explain 2016, Massie looks to previous cycles. Rand Paul's upset victory in the 2010, Ron Paul's enthusiastic following in the 2012 presidential race, and his own win in the 2012 congressional primary all looked, at first glance, like a libertarian wave.

"I went to Iowa twice and came back with [Ron Paul]. I was with him at every event for the last three days in Iowa," Massie said. "From what I observed, not just in Iowa but also in Kentucky, up close with individuals, was that the people that voted for me in Kentucky, and the people who had voted for Rand Paul in Iowa several years before, were now voting for Trump. In fact, the people that voted for Rand in a primary in Kentucky were preferring Trump."

"All this time," Massie explained, "I thought they were voting for libertarian Republicans. But after some soul searching I realized when they voted for Rand and Ron and me in these primaries, they weren't voting for libertarian ideas they were voting for the craziest son of a bitch in the race. And Donald Trump won best in class, as we had up until he came along."

Massie's observation that libertarian-minded voters, those who devoted passionate support to Sen. Paul and his father in previous cycles, are likely more attracted to "crazy" personalities than candidates with ideological purity bears important implications for the future of that movement. Do those voters, more than anything, crave change agents over philosophical disciples?

Massie sees Trump as more of a populist than a libertarian conservative, but noted important similarities between both camps. "There are some places where populism overlaps with libertarianism and contradicts the establishment here in D.C.," Massie said. "For instance, less proclivity to go to war, less appetite for having 20 or 30,000 troops in any one country to subsidize their defense."

"I see overlap there," he concluded.

Massie chalks Trump's success in the general election up to his pledge to shake up Washington, saying, "He had the change mantle and Hillary didn't."

Massie recalled an encounter he had with one of Trump's most powerful primary opponents during the election, reflecting, "I remember I ran into Jeb Bush in a hotel lobby in Iowa. He was just there, no staff and we started talking.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Democrats are blaming the recent decline in Obamacare enrollments to "sabotage" by the Trump administration.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Trump's executive actions since taking office, including scaling back advertising for the law, have caused the drop in enrollments in 2017. Pelosi, D-Calif., called the moves part of "a cynical ad willful campaign" to depress enrollment.

Obamacare enrollments have dropped by about half a million people in 2017 compared to 2016, the Trump administration reported Wednesday.

"As of December 24, 11.5 million Americans had signed up for coverage in the marketplaces about 300,000 more than at the same time in the previous year," Pelosi said.

03/15/17 3:44 PM

Bush, Massie said, "was adamant that Trump wasn't a real Republican."

"Ironic," the congressman noted, "because that was in my circle of hardcore supporters that's the charge leveled at the Bushes."

It's worth noting that Americans generally tend to be less devoted to ideological teams than we realize, as I outlined Tuesday in this analysis of Bernie Sanders' appeal to Trump voters. Populism transcends party lines for a reason.

Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Comey to brief senators but Graham not invited.

03/15/17 3:39 PM

Excerpt from:
Rep. Massie's theory: Libertarians saw Trump as 'craziest son of a bitch in the race' - Washington Examiner

The French Conundrum – Being Libertarian


Being Libertarian
The French Conundrum
Being Libertarian
Hollande is a member of the Socialist Party, and from a libertarian point of view, he's a candidate we wouldn't even think of voting for. Islamic terrorism coupled with economic stagnation has made Hollande extremely unpopular amongst French voters.

and more »

More:
The French Conundrum - Being Libertarian

In Support Of Mark Cuban’s Libertarian Leanings. – The Libertarian Republic

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By Paul Meekin

One man can be a crucial ingredient on a team, but one man cannot make a team. Kareem Abdul Jabbar

Mark Cuban tends to be my kind of Billionaire. Hes a tech pioneer, sports fan, intelligent, has a jaw-line you can set you watch too, and tends to advocate for some of the libertarian agenda.

Also Shark Tank is pretty awesome.

But is Mark Cubana libertarian? Well, no. In recent comments made at a South By Southwest Festival Panel, Cuban stated hes a libertarian at heart, but believes some healthcare should be federally provided, and there are some protections the government should provide its citizens.

At heart Im a libertarian, he said. In 2015 he elaborated on the thought Id like to be libertarian, The Business Insider reported. When I think libertarian, its as small of a government as we can get, right now you just cut right through it and you make it [smaller] right now.

Thats not real. Theres got to be a process. Theres got to be a transition. As a country, we make decisions. We make decisions that were going to provide healthcare, right? We dont just let people die on the street. You can go into any hospital and they have to treat you.The Business Insiderreported.

He continued: You cant cure every ill with a government program. I literally would rather write a check: Takewhatever money is in a given department in the government, take 25% off the top, put it back in the taxpayers pockets, and then just give cash to people, right? Because itll be more effective in how its used and help the economy at the same time,

I can get behind that. I am of the mind that providing people healthcare, only to rip it away a few years later is cruel and unusual. But I also understand the Obamacare system is topsy turvey and unsustainable.

Based on his comments about healthcare, you might say Mark Cuban is a fauxlibertarian, and thats fine. I say hes an ally. He wants what libertarianswant, but has serious questions and serious concerns about how to get there. Concerns which should not be mocked, they shouldbe addressed.

Keep in mind it is the methodology of the regressive left to exclude and shame you if youre not lock-step with their platform.

I would hope Libertarians are a bit moreevolved, or open minded. Or at least happy to take the mans money if we get the right presidential candidate.The last thing libertariansneeds is an insular ideology. We should accept help and support from anywhere we can. Cuban disagrees with most libertarians on healthcare? Thats fine. Libertarians disagree with Bernie Sanders on everything, but I would hope wed be willing to work with him regarding lowering the cost of prescription medication.

Libertarians have their feet in two worlds and thus have a hard time making friends and an easier time making enemies. Ripping healthcare away from millions of Americans isnt a fun topic at lefty parties. The libertarian ideal of letting any two people get marriage benefits (or having them at all) probably isnt a fun discussion to have at CPAC.Hell get 7 libertarians in a room and ask them about abortion and see what happens.

My point is- just because someone isnt totally onboard with the beliefs of your party, doesnt make them a fake or a phony or somehow an enemy. Will Mark Cuban ever wear a taxation is theft t-shirt? Probably not.

Will Mark Cuban vote for a man or woman who wears one? Based on his history? Stranger things have happened.

cpacHealthcarelibertarianmark cubanObamacareSXSW

Read more:
In Support Of Mark Cuban's Libertarian Leanings. - The Libertarian Republic

The Republican Healthcare Bill Is Very Free-Market, Libertarian – Center for Research on Globalization

The Republican House proposed healthcare legislationis a substantially more free-market approach to health care than exists in any industrialized nation. It would greatly reduce regulation of health care in America, and also considerably increase the choices that consumers would have in their health care.

Another way of putting this is: it would considerably decrease the requirements that are placed upon health care insurers and providers. It would be as close to extreme free-market health care as can be achieved except for a system in which anyone can legally sell anything and call it health insurance or call it medical care. In other words, it would be more like anarchy in these fields.

(3)PLAN PARTICIPATION.A State shall not restrict or otherwise limit the ability of a healthinsurance plan to participate in, and offer health insurance coverage through, the State Exchange, so long asthe health insurance issuers involved are duly licensed under State insurance laws applicable to all healthinsurance issuers in the State and otherwise comply with the requirements of this title.

(4)PREMIUMS.[That means that theres nothing there; that anything goes, as regardsPREMIUMS.]

(A)AMOUNT.A State shall not determine premium or cost sharing amounts for healthinsurance coverage offered through the State Exchange.

(B)COLLECTION METHOD.A State shall ensure the existence of an effective and efficientmethod for the collection of premiums for health insurance coverage offered through the StateExchange.

In other words: Whatever any state has duly licensed under State insurance laws applicable to all health insurance issuers and otherwise comply with the requirements of this title will be allowed to be sold in that state. This appears in TITLE IISTATE-BASED HEALTH CARE EXCHANGES of the bill. In that title, appears one major requirement:

(4)LIMITATION ON PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS.The State Exchange shall ensure thathealth insurance coverage offered through the Exchange meets the requirements of section 9801 of the InternalRevenue Code of 1986 in the same manner as if such coverage was a group health plan.

Section 9801 of the IRS Code is shownhere. Its section-title is 26 U.S. Code 9801 Increased portability throughlimitation on preexisting condition exclusions. That, in turn, is part of SUBTITLE K Group Health Plan Requirements ( 9801 to 9834). It places minimal requirements, in order for an insurance company to qualify to be taxed as supplying a Group Health Plan. Its a tax-requirement not a healthcare requirement.

In other words: the Republican bill adds nothing there, on top of what the IRS has already required since 1986. That means its bare-minimum regulation, very stripped-down, to totally a taxation-matter for insurance companies.

The degree of freedom that the Republican bill would provide to suppliers is enormous especially in states that already are anti-regulation. The only regulation in this matter, that goes beyond the U.S. tax code, would be whatever regulations the state itself imposes.

Consequently, there also would be vastly wider choices for consumers to make. However, in true free-market, or unregulated, fashion, suppliers would also be far freer than they now are, to hide, not disclose to consumers, details of insurance policies that would need to be considered by an individual consumer in order for that person to be able intelligently to compare competing policies except on the basis of cost (and a few other fundamentals).

In that situation, the fine print differences between competing insurance policies can be gamed by suppliers so as to achieve a competitive edge while at the same time reducing its own cost of providing a given policy. There would then be a great boost in business for services to consumers, that would for a fee professionally assist consumers to compare apples versus oranges versus grapes versus chicken versus beef etc., to use a foods-analogy. But these comparisons, if theyre to be done correctly, will need to be deeply informed about the relevant laws, and case-laws or courtroom outcomes (and thats lots more complex than is the basic literature on nutrition). Reading the fine print without knowing what itreallymeans, is virtually like not reading it at all.

Consequently, for example, Jon Reid at Morning Consult headlined on March 14th,GOP Bill Would Make Comparing HealthPlan Prices More Difficultand reported that,

The GOP bill, dubbed the American Health Care Act, would repeal the AffordableCare Actsactuarial value requirements, which let consumers know what percentageof health costs an insurer should cover. Under the ACA, individual health care plans generally fit into four tiers, starting at 60percent insurer coverage for bronze plans and going as high as 90 percent forplatinum plans. Repealing the AV requirements while retaining Obamacares essentialbenefits would make it harder for consumers to make educated decisions about whichhealth plan to pick.

The GOP bill consequently would intensify the game thats played between shoppers and sellers, between consumers and producers, between individuals and corporations, and so enable corporations that are selling insurance, to hide the details that they are planning to be the key drivers behind the profits theyll be earning from any given policy they market.

This is the libertarian objective: to increase choice and to decrease the consumers information, so as to maximize profits. There can be consumer-advisors for a fee, of course but the more choices and less standardization there is, the more that consumers (except the very rich who wont be so much bothered by hiring professional advisors in order to make a purchasing decision) will virtually be required to rely more on gut guesses and less on adequately informed calculations, when choosing what policy to buy.

And these are some of the reasons why the United States, which already has a more free-market healthcare system than any other OECD nation, has (by about a factor of two as compared to the average) by far the highest cost (in absolute terms and also as a percentage of GDP) health care, and also near the bottom health care in terms of life-expectancy. We already have the costliest and nearly the worst, but the Republican proposal would drive it even farther into that direction.

The fundamental marketing-idea for Republican policies is the free market, which is the idea that its good, and so the total lack of it, or communism, is bad; so that, the more free-market a system is, the better it necessarily will be.

However, this is like saying that if the lack of vitamins can kill a person, then the more vitamins a person takes, the healthier hell become. Its not really true. (If vitamins are good, a person still can kill himself by taking too much.) But the U.S. public believes (or feels) that its true, and thats why there are more Republicans than Democrats in Congress. But even Democrats in America are more libertarian than most Europeans are about health care. Its a matter of faith, and one might even say that the free market is the biggest faith there is in America.

Its so big that even some Democrats believe wholeheartedly in it: its the American way. And so challenging it has a stench to American nostrils. Whereas in Europe and many countries elsewhere, socialism is taken for granted as a democratic reality there, the U.S. isnt like that, and socialism here is automatically equated more with its dictatorial form, communism, like a holdover from the Cold War that just will not stop, because its a very profitable myth, for those who sell it. So those sellers keep selling it. But its false. Its taken only on faith. There is no other basis for it, than that. Libertarianism is faith-based. Pure and simple. But so was communism. Even a faith can end. But if its just replaced by another faith (not by truth), then thats like going from one frying-pan into another no real change at all.

But the Republican health plan would be a change, toward increased faith.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, ofTheyre Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,and ofCHRISTS VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Visit link:
The Republican Healthcare Bill Is Very Free-Market, Libertarian - Center for Research on Globalization