Mediaboss Marketing

Im A Libertarian Man, and I Support Feminism

I want to discuss a topic that I feel all libertarians should be supporters of Feminism! Lets face it, libertarians need to stop being so freaking anti-feminist, once and for all; though I think most libertarians are pro-feminist deep down inside. Feminism in its original meaning is 100% a libertarian/capitalist movement.

First off, lets just say why feminists in the original sense should hate government. Governments used to not allow women to own property or businesses of any kind. Literally setting it up so that (in many states) if a woman was married to a man, and didnt have a male son when the man died, she would likely be forced to give the business to the closest male relative, likely without any compensation for it.

For many years, women were not legally allowed to vote in America. Women were denied access to schools for most of history. Many governments would even be able to shut down a business just for hiring and using women workers, if complained about. Occupational licensing was made difficult to obtain, and women were denied the right to become things such as lawyers, doctors and more. Women were put in many situations where their property and rights werent respected. Up until the 1950s, many states didnt even care if a man casually beat his wife as long as no serious damage was caused.

There was a discriminatory agent around and, holy sh*t, it was the government. The government, being a male created tool which blocked womens rights (they did not have voting rights), created a male only majority that damaged the rights of women. They did this with Jim Crow; they did this to the Native American community; they did it to women; from this, its easy to say women were treated poorly by society and viewed as tools in male oppression.

We cant just say Oh, that was the past, today is what counts; Its called all f*cking history, compared to the last 50 damn years! For most of American history, women had very few rights compared to men. We did live in an anti-female society. In world history, for 99% of the time, women didnt have an equal say. We are living in the [maybe] .3% that they do. This is something I see libertarians pretend isnt the case and that is morally and historically just a total wasteland of wrong. What caused this to end? Well, like most problems, it was the market. Let me list what the market did to help womens rights.

Changes in Labor The movement of manual labor economies to white collar jobs: with the rise of technology, people arent cutting down trees, farming, or doing a lot of other jobs which, from a physical perspective, women arent as capable of doing. More people in the early 20th century moved into jobs where they worked in an office, developed things with their minds, and from that, the door was opened, and women were needed in that pool of the labor market.

Modern Medicine Another was the rise of modern medicine, and women not dying as frequently while giving birth. Everyone having a mom is new to history. If a person lived before the 20th century, there was a good chance their mom died giving birth to them, or giving birth to their siblings. The older women were, the more likely it was to happen. This is why women, for most of history, would be married at a very young age and asked to have children at about 15-18 years old. Modern medicine made it so that giving birth at age 30 isnt a death sentence anymore. This opens options for new career choices.

A Rise in Wealth and Education The rise of women in education and early careers, caused a rise in wealth. People had more money, and America got an expanded labor force, allowing for care services which make parenting while both parents work a real thing and not a financial impracticality. For the first time, it is profitable for both parents to work, even if that requires housekeeping or day care services. The market did something very new when it moved people away from farms and into cities. People came for factory jobs and, as the need for child labor dropped, the rise of public schools began. Women got the invite to join, and for the first time in history, lower, middle, and upper income girls were able to attend schools. This was likely the greatest thing ever to aid in the rise of women in the economy. Birth Control Birth control and the greatness of Roe vs Wade here is a simple fact, being pregnant as a choice rather than it being obligatory, is a great thing!

So where does this bring us?

Why are women still complaining?

Feminists do have a point, these problems exist, and there are two sets of solutions.

The first solution is culture: shows such as Jessica Jones, or Legend of Korra, that are geared towards a male audience but turn women into these non-sexualized, awesome characters (who say what theyd like, have relationships with who they want, and kick-ass) are honestly doing more to change the stigma in how men treat women than any protest has. Culture and actions in media are changing this culture to the benefit of women.

The second solution is capitalism: women make less than men on average due to chosen career paths? Libertarians have a solution for that eliminate government backed student loans. Banks will still loan money, but not to poorly performing majors and people will now financially be forced to pursue higher earning fields such as math or science. In this, they will also see a decline in older, lesser earning majors slowing down the new supply of labor in that pool and opening other options.

Women complain about birth control and abortion rights? Libertarian have a solution for that. Its called deregulation where birth control is easier to obtain and lower FDA times to get approvals on new drugs.

Women complain about men being abusive? Libertarians have a solution for that. Just imagine how much better the police would function without the war on drugs, without so much time/money going to victim-less crimes and more attention going to real abuses.

Libertarians have solutions to female problems, and female problems in culture do indeed exist. Why a woman gets called a slut for having sex with twenty people, but a man gets called awesome is confusing. Why so many parents tell their daughters to marry wealthy men at a young age is genuinely sad. Solutions do exist on both a personal and government level.

Im tired of libertarians failing and failing hard. We are turning our movement into something which sees Milo Yianhoweveryouspellit say women shouldnt pursue science and we go Hahaha thats funny! We are seeing many in the liberty movement casually bash feminist and instead of saying We see your problems as real, and we have answers for you! we stay in this male bubble of bashing women. Its why libertarians dont succeed. When we ignore the problems and just bash the idea that the problems exist we lose a voter! We lose a supporter! We lose a volunteer! We lose a libertarian! We create a communist!

So, I support feminism, and libertarianism is 100% a feminist friendly movement.

This post was written by Charles Peralo.

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

Like Loading...

Read this article:
I'm a Libertarian Man, and I Support Feminism. - Being Libertarian

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