Mediaboss Marketing

Recently somebody posted this on FB:

It sparked a fascinating conversation:

Melody: Jesus was speaking to the individual, NOT the government. If your so concerned about refugees, then YOU need to get off your butt and go help them. Leave the safty of your country and go help them. Im tired of people using Jesus to justify more government control.

Dan: You are incorrect and B16 in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate more than denounces you. Then prior to that, there is PP and Mater et Magistra.

You need to learn your faith.

Melody: I know my Faith, I also know that The Catholic Faith (plus others) teaches that it is the individual NOT the government who is responsible for caring for humanity.

Mary: Melody we dont need to do a thing about abortion. Its an individual choice. Is this what you are saying?

Liz: I came to the same conclusion, Mary.

This is like a little microcosm of the American Church. Melody has absorbed the strange libertarian lie that that state is somehow free to ignore the natural law and do Whatever because the natural law applies only to individuals. She, of course, is thinking only of the gospel commands about care for the least of these. And she relies on the lie that things like food, shelter, and elementary demands of basic justice to human beings are charity. She then proceeds to the lie that since these things are charity they are no business of the state.

But in fact, things like food, shelter, and health care are not charity. They are due human beings in justice and ensuring justice is precisely the task of the state. Therefore it is not either/or, but both/and. We are to personally care for the least of these. We are also to see to it that the state does too.

This is ironically illustrated by Mary, who takes Melody at her word and takes it to the conclusion the anti-abortion-but-not-prolife right ever seems to realize by pointing out that if the state is not supposed to help protect the human right of the least of these, then it follows that the whole point of the prolife struggle to get the state to stop its laissez faire approach to abortion is without foundation.

The great irony here is that Liz, a pro-choice atheist who has been rather shocked to discover she has a lot in common with a bunch of devout, Mass-going Catholics with strong empathy for the Catholic social justice tradition finds herself suddenly in bed with Melody, a libertarian, anti-abortion-but-not-prolife Catholic who mouths all the right wing excuses for ignoring the Church on everything but abortion.

I wrote them both and told them I hope they both feel exquisitely uncomfortable being in bed with one another. Liz, at any rate, has enough of a sense of humor to appreciate the irony of her predicament. Melody I dont know and am not sure if she even realizes that she just made the libertarian case for every pro-choice person on planet Earth. But Liz, I think, must realize that her pro-choice philosophy undergirds the libertarian case for the selfishness Melody is advocatinga selfishness Liz loathes.

The way out of their strange bedfellows dilemma is, of course, embrace of the complete and consistent Catholic ethic of life and rejection of the libertarianism they each selectively embrace.

No idea what will happen next.

See more here:
Libertarians and Pro-Choice Advocates: Peas in a Pod - Patheos (blog)

The White House has riled the country's civil libertarian wing after President Trump enthusiastically voiced support for a controversial law enforcement tool that allows an individuals property or assets to be seized without a guilty verdict.

The president weighed in on what's known as "civil asset forfeiture" during an Oval Office meeting last week with sheriffs. Thepresident, who ran on a law-and-order message, said he shared their desire to strengthen the practice and even said he would destroy the career of a Texas politician trying to end it.

The comments revived tensions with libertarians who have been fighting the practice under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Already piqued by the selection of former Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, a vocal supporter of asset forfeiture, to lead the Justice Department, the Libertarian Party itself condemned the comments.

It was really disappointing to hear those words. He campaigned on the idea of helping people who are on the low end of the economic spectrum and this [law] disproportionately affects minorities and those who do not have the means to hire an attorney, Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark told Fox News.

Sarwark called the practice "immoral," adding that it is simply government theft of individual property that flips the nations legal system on its head.

While laws differ across the country, most states allow law enforcement to seize an individuals assets or property on the suspicion they have been involved in criminal activity. Even if a person is found to be not guilty, some jurisdictions allow the government to keep their property.

Sheriff John Aubrey of Louisville, Ky., said he was heartened by his meeting with Trump because he, unlike the last administration, will give them a "fair hearing" on asset forfeiture.

He also believes there is a misconception that police just take property but stressed that they cannot do so before gettinga court order.

Trump signaled he would fight reform efforts in Congress, saying politicians could get beat up really badly by the voters if they pursue laws to limit police authority.

The comments could signal an abrupt halt to efforts to curb the practice under the Obama administration, which also had faced heavy criticism from civil libertarians and criminal justice reform advocates.

Brittany Hunter of the free-market Foundation for Economic Education wrote that the presidents egregious comments effectively destroy any hope that his administration will be better on this issue than President Obama. In fact, the situation may very well become worse.

According to the Institute for Justice, a civil liberties law firm, the Department of Justices Assets Forfeiture Fund generated $93.7 million in revenue in 1986. By 2014, the annual figure had reached $4.5 billion -- a 4,667 percent increase. The practice surged for years under the Obama administration.

While critics believe the policy creates a profit incentive for law enforcement, police organizations say it is an important tool and charges of abuse have been blown out of proportion.

There are those who see an incident of one and want to apply the rule of many, but we have found the annual number of incidents [of abuse] is miniscule, Jonathan Thompson of the National Sheriffs Association told Fox News.

Thompson said the issue was addressed in a conversation with Sessions, who views it as a priority, and he believes the Trump administration will be more supportive than the Obama administration in lifting the burden on local law enforcement.

He added that law enforcement are not opposed to reforms and that he plans to keep his focus on increasing independent judicial review and transparency.

Candidates running on the Libertarian ticket in the midterm elections are likely to make Trumps record on criminal justice reform and the Sessions selection an issue, in a bid to peel off voters from across the political spectrum.

Our candidates will make [asset forfeiture] an issue for Republicans and Democrats on the state and federal level in 2018. We will make them answer to voters on these issues, Sarwark warned.

Many of the states key to Trumps victory have passed reforms.

Last year, Ohio passed a law that prohibits taking assets valued at less than $15,000 without a criminal conviction. Other states also passed differing degrees of reform, including New Hampshire, Florida, Montana, Nebraska, Minnesota, Maryland and New Mexico.

Largely an uncontroversial issue for decades, the governments war on drugs in the 1980s led to its rapid expansion, but media coverage of abuses has led to a public blowback.

A 2015 report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), found that of those Philadelphia residents who had their assets taken, nearly one-third were never convicted of a crime and that almost 60 percent of cash seizures were for amounts less than $250.

Civil asset forfeiture reform is an area where you cannot ignore the public demand, said Kanya Bennett, legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Continued here:
Libertarians split with Trump over controversial police tactic - Fox News

My thirties started off in countries ravaged by environmental destruction and dictatorships. Back then, I was a journalist for National Geographic, spending most of my time abroad, even though I still called Los Angelesmy birth cityhome. In the 100+ countries I visited, I reported on some harrowing stories: the Killing Fields in Cambodia, the near total deforestation of Paraguay, and the tense nuclear stand-off between India and Pakistan. I always hoped my words and on-camera television commentary brought some sanity and peace to the chaos.

While on assignment in Vietnam near the demilitarized zone, a near-miss with a landmine that could have been catastrophic sent me back home to the safety of the United States. Desiring stability, I started a real-estate development business with capital saved from my journalism. America was booming and my business thrived. I soon sold most of my real-estate portfolio, allowing me to live off my long-term investments.

I was lucky, for sure. Only a year later, I watched America, its banking system, and its real-estate market collapse. I watched friends lose everything, and my government try to fix something it had partially caused. The lessonsthe distrust of big government, crony capitalism and unmanageable debtseared themselves into my value system.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

Zoltan Istvan and Libertarian candidate John McAfee stand next to the Immortality Bus in Charlotte, North Carolina, December 5, 2015. The pair met while on the U.S. presidential campaign trail. Anthony Cuthbertson

Like many entrepreneurs, I became a libertarian because of one simple concept: reason. It just made sense to embrace a philosophy that promotes maximum freedom and personal accountability. Hands off was my mottoand in business, if you wanted to succeed, those words are sacred. But hands off applies to more than just good entrepreneurial economics. It applies to social life, politics, culture, religion, and especially how innovation occurs.

Ive been a passionate science and technology guyan advocate of radical innovationever since I can remember. In college, I focused on the ethics and challenges of science for my Philosophy degree. But my stories for National Geographic and my witnessing of the Great Recession viscerally reminded me that government and the growing fundamentalism in Congress was desperately trying to control innovation and progresseven at the expense of peoples health, safety, and prosperity. With plenty of free time after the sale of my business to mount a challenge, I decided to use my writing skills to fight this backward thinking.

I began penning The Transhumanist Wager, a philosophical novel published in 2013 that blasts Luddism. The controversial libertarian-minded manifesto has now been compared to Ayn Rands work hundreds of times in reviewsthough I often point out my book is quite different to Atlas Shrugged. Nonetheless, the popularity of my novel thrust me into the radical science and tech movement as a public figure, whose main hub was right where I live in the San Francisco Bay area.

Looking for a way to take science and technology into the political realm, I decided to make a run for the U.S. presidency in 2016 as the self-described science candidate. I knew I couldnt win the election, but it was a great way to awaken many Americans to the desperate plight of our countrys increasingly stifled science and innovation sector. My experience in media has helped propel my candidacy. I spoke at the World Bank, appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, was interviewed by the hacker collective Anonymous, and consulted for the U.S. Navy about technology, among other things. Even 2016 Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson invited me to interview as his possible vice president. Alone in his New Mexico house, we talked shop for 24 hours solid. He chose Governor Bill Weld as his VP, but I left Johnson knowing I would soon be making a stand for the Libertarian Party.

Due to the fact I was arguably the first visible science presidential candidate in American history, I ran a very centric, science and tech-oriented platform, one that was designed to be as inclusive of as many political lines as possible. With leadership comes some compromise, and I veered both right and left (mostly left) to try to satisfy as many people as I could, even when it meant going against some of my own personal opinions. I believe a politician represents the people, and he or she must never forget thator forget the honor that such a task carries.

The front view of California State Capitol. Zoltan Istvan has announced he is to run for California governor in 2018. David Fulmer/ Creative Commons

One thing I didnt stray from was my belief that everything could be solved best by the scientific methodthe bastion of reason that says a thing or idea works only if you can prove it again and again via objective, independent evaluation. Ill always be a pragmatic rationalist, and reason to me is the primary motivator when considering how to tackle problems, social or otherwise. I continue to passionately believe in the promise of using reason, science and technology to better California and the world. After all, the standard of living has been going up around the globe because of a singular factor: more people have access to new science and technology than ever before. Nothing moves the world forward like innovation does.

Yet, in the political climate of 2017, few things seem more at risk as innovation. A conservative, religious government stands to overwhelm California with worries about radical tech and science, such as implementing Federal regulation that stifles artificial intelligence, driverless cars, stem cells, drones, and genetic editing.

Sadly, the same could be said of immigration, womens rights, and environmental issues. Then theres Americas move towards expanding its already overly expensive military, which you and I pay for out of our pockets so that generals can fight far-off wars. America can do better than this. California can do better than this.

And we must. After all, the world is changingand changing quite dramatically. Even libertarians like me face the real possibility that capitalism and job competitionwhich we always advocated forwont survive into the next few decades because of widespread automation and the proliferation of robot workers. Then theres the burgeoning dilemma of cyber security and unwanted tracking of the technology that citizens use. And what of augmenting intelligence via genetic editingsomething the Chinese are leading the charge on, but most Americans seem too afraid to try? In short, what can be done to ensure the best future?

Much can be done. And I believe it can all be done best via a libertarian framework, which is precisely why I am declaring my run for 2018 California governor. We need leadership that is willing to use radical science, technology, and innovationwhat California is famous forto benefit us all. We need someone with the nerve to risk the tremendous possibilities to save the environment through bioengineering, to end cancer by seeking a vaccine or a gene-editing solution for it, to embrace startups that will take California from the worlds 7th largest economy to maybe even the largest economybigger than the rest of America altogether. And believe me when I say this is possible: artificial intelligence and genetic editing will become some of the first multi-trillion dollar businesses in the near future.

We can do this, California, and it doesnt have to be through stale blue or red political parties, which have left many of us aghast at the current world. It can be done through the libertarian philosophy of embracing all that is the most inventive and unbridled in usand letting that pave the way forward. A challenging future awaits us, but we can meet it head on and lead the way not just for California and America, but for all of humanity.

Zoltan Istvan is a futurist and ran in the 2016 U.S. presidential election as a candidate of the Transhumanist Party.

Link:
Why I'm Running for California Governor as a Libertarian - Newsweek - Newsweek

Former Libertarian presidential candidate and Missouri State alumus Austin Petersen was welcomed back to campus by the Missouri States Young Americans for Liberty on Thursday, Feb. 8.

According to the chapter president, sophomore history major Jaret Scharnhorst, Young Americans for Liberty is a nationwide organization that is focused on recruiting, training and educating students on the ideals of liberty and the Constitution.

Petersen opened his talk by throwing in a little humor as he talked about the ideals of the Libertarian Party.

Here is being a Libertarian in a nutshell, I just want gay married couples to be able to guard their marijuana fields with automatic rifles, Petersen said.

Petersen graduated from Missouri State in 2004, majoring in musical theatre. In 2016, Petersen ran for president of the United States with the Libertarian Party. He became the runner-up for the nomination to the governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson.

After graduating from MSU, he moved to New York to become an actor where he noticed that the taxes were quite high. He said he noticed even with the little money that actors make, the government still took quite a bit out.

This is what sparked Petersens interest in politics. Before he knew it, he was working his way up the ladder in Washington D.C.

About a year later, he said he saw that his preferred candidate for the Republican Party, Rand Paul, was probably not going to make it through the primary. So, he decided to take matters into his own hands.

I thought to myself, If he did not make it to the primary, then there would not be someone who embodied my beliefs, Petersen said, So, I thought, Well Im turning 35 this year, (and) I am constitutionally eligible, so I decided to throw my hat into the ring.

In his speech, Petersen talked about Libertarian ideals and how they differ from those of Republicans and Democrats.

You know with this past election having two not very popular candidates, people are looking to third parties now more than ever, Petersen said.

Petersen also covered a wide array of controversial issues that surround this nation today, one of those being the War on Drugs.

One of the first things that I would do would be to abolish the War on Drugs completely, Petersen said. The reason drugs are dangerous is because they are illegal. Doing drugs is a victimless crime. So, yes, I do believe that heroin should be legal, that way we are able to study it. If we do that, Im sure that once people realize how bad it is for you, the usage of the drug will go way down.

Scharnhorst said he believes that bringing in Petersen will do great things for the organization

You know bringing in a person of Austins caliber is a really big deal, Scharnhorst said. If you tell people that you have a presidential candidate, and MSU alum come and speak, that will really get people to come out to hear his message and our message as well.

Justin Orf, senior political science major, was in the audience during Petersens speech, and had good things to say about Petersen.

I really liked his speech, because it provides us with different viewpoints, Orf said. College Republicans and Libertarians have similar views on less government, so it is pretty cool to see that connection. But it also shows us how Libertarians diverge a bit from normal conservatism.

As Petersen concluded his speech, he said the sole role of government should be to protect citizens liberties.

View post:
Former Libertarian presidential candidate visits alma mater - Standard Online

Libertarians, in general terms, have long supported legalization and/or decriminalization of drugs, and there seems to be growing support in the American population for these ideas.

One example is the developments in the State of Oklahoma a very conservative State that, in the past, held strongly to sentiment of more severe punishment for all crimes, including criminal possession and distribution of drugs.

A Governor-appointed task force recently finished up its report on reducing prison populations in the state.

Oklahoma currently ranks second in the nation for incarceration rates, with a prison population at 109%, which is the highest in the country. With an additional 7,200 inmates expected in the next ten years (and a dramatically increasing budget deficit), Oklahoma is desperate to reduce its inmate population.

In November of 2016, two state questions were approved by voters: one which reduces possession of small amounts of drugs and stolen property to a misdemeanor, instead of a felony; and one which provides funding to mental health and drug addiction treatment services for minor offenders.

Efforts are underway from a small number of state legislators to overturn the decision of voters, but will likely fail. In addition to these measures, the task force, ordered [by Governor Mary Fallin] to find solutions to the incarceration rate, made its recommendations. They are also mostly leaning toward easing sentencing for small time drug offenders.

The task force believes that, if their recommendations are followed, the prison population can be reduced by 7% over the next ten years through a combination of measures that include: sentence reductions, and funding for additional mental health and drug addiction treatment.

Even this does not reduce the population enough, but it is certainly a start in the right direction.

The task force has recommended that sentencing for possession, with intent to distribute, of meth, crack, or heroin should be reduced to 0 5 years; down from 5 years to life for first time, non-violent offenders. Also, inmates are to become eligible for parole after serving just 1/4 of their sentence, rather than the current 1/3.

There have also been changes implemented at a more local level. In Oklahoma County (the most populated county in the state and host to Oklahoma City), Commissioner Brian Maughan introduced the SHINE program in 2010. The program offers opportunities for voluntary work, but it is also a program which acts as alternative sentencing for small crimes: such as possession of drugs with intent to distribute, in cases where there are relatively small amounts of drugs being carried.

It is a community service program whereby community service can be served in lieu of jail or prison time; with many community projects targeted primarily at cleaning up the county and beautifying blighted areas.

The states other counties have been considering similar programs that work in conjunction with drug courts and offer alternatives to sentencing such as: mental health services and addiction treatment for those guilty of possession of illegal substances, or driving under the influence (DUI).

Oklahoma is justified in these efforts. Since 2010, 31 states have managed to decrease incarceration rates, while at the same time reducing crime rates. There has been a change in attitudes across the United States regarding smaller drug offenses that has been building over the past decade. With cannabis consumption legalized to various degrees in many states, prison populations (as well as crime rates in general) have been decreasing.

There have not only been a decrease in crimes related to drug possession but also in property crimes (on the order of 2% to 3.5%), as well as homicides (on the order of 12% to 19%) in the States that have implemented programs in reduced sentencing or decriminalization.

Going forward, it is likely the trend of reduced sentencing for small time drug offenders will continue, as will a wave of decriminalization. With so many States and local governments considering such measures to reduce incarceration rates in tremendously overcrowded prison populations, that are becoming unsustainable, it wont be long before the Federal Government follows suit for the same reasons. It remains to be seen whether the current administration is supportive. But for now, it looks as though that it is not a priority.

However, it is very early, much too early to tell.

This post was written by Danny Chabino.

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

Like Loading...

Originally posted here:
Reduced Sentences Trending in Oklahoma - Being Libertarian (satire)