Mediaboss Marketing

According to Reasons Robby Soave, white nationalist and alt-right leader Richard Spencer attempted to crash a Libertarian gathering in Washington D.C., but after a heated argument with one of its famous attendees, Spencer was escorted out.

The incident happened Saturday night during 10th annual International Students for Liberty Conference at thethe Marriott Wardman in Woodley Park where the event was being held. Spencer reportedly attempted to host an unscheduled and unwanted conversation at the bar of the hotel regarding his pro-white nationalist views with attendees.

According to economist and author Steve Horowitz, the group Hoppe Caucus a group of alt-right libertarians named after philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe intended to bring Spencer to the hotel at the same time as the ISL conference as an intentional troll, even including a sign that saidRichard Spencer ISFLC 17.

Soave gives more details of Spencers time at the hotel, and his inevitabledeparture.

Eventually, Jeffrey Tuckeran influential libertarian thinkerconfronted Spencer and made clear to the alt-right provocateur that he did not belong at ISFLC. Some shouting ensued, and hotel staff intervened. Shortly thereafter, Spencer left.

Its not completely clear whether Spencer departed of his own accord: he seems to think he was forced to leave, while others say he asked security to see him out safely, even though he was in no danger. But it hardly matters: the Marriott Wardman hotel is private property, and should enjoy the absolute right to evict irksome and unwelcome guests from its premises.

Horowitz says that when conference attendees heard Spencer was at the bar, and number wentto confront him. At first there was an attempt at rational discussion, but as the crowd grew in size, and the shouting match between Spencer and Tucker grew heated, the hotel staff saw fit to kick everyone out of the bar. Spencer reportedly asked to be escorted out for his own safety, though Horowitz denies that Spencer was ever in any danger.

You can watch video of the exchange between Spencer and Tucker below:

One common theme many of the Libertarians discussing this incident share is that Spencer, and the alt-right are not welcome amongst the Libertarians. As the Libertarians of SFL demonstrated, and Soave writes into words, the incident should make abundantly clear that the alt-rights racism is incompatible with the principles of a free society. Libertarianism is an individualist philosophy that considers all people deserving of equal rights. In contrast, Spencer is a tribalist and collectivist whose personal commitment to identity politics vastly exceeds the lefts.

As well, the SFL President Wolf von Laer said in a statement that his organization did not invite Spencer, and that they reject his hateful message and we wholeheartedly oppose his obsolete ideology.

See original here:
White nationalist Richard Spencer attempts to troll Libertarian conference and is promptly rejected - TheBlaze.com

Jeff Malet Photography/NewscomOn Saturday, alt-right leader Richard Spencer crashed the 10th annual International Students for Liberty Conference at a hotel in Washington, D.C. After quarreling with conference attendees, he left the premises.

Spencer, a self-declared white nationalist who believes the U.S. is losing its white identity, had no business attending a gathering of libertarian students, and conference organizers had every right to eject him. Indeed, their decision to do so was a valid exercise of libertarian principles in action.

I attended the conference, along with several other Reason staffers. The Reason Foundation is a co-sponsor of ISFLC, and hosted several events during the conference. One of those events, a panel discussion about sex trafficking featuring Reason Associate Editor Elizabeth Nolan Brown and Director of Criminal Justice Reform Lauren Krisai, unfolded at roughly the same time as Spencer's unsolicited visit. I was in the audience at that event, and did not cross paths with Spencer.

But it's clear from video footage that Spencer set himself up in the bar of the hotelthe Marriott Wardman in Woodley Parkand attempted to host an unscheduled and unwanted conversation about his despicable views. To be absolutely clear: Spencer was not welcome at the hotel and had not been invited to participate in ISFLC.

"We did not invite Mr. Spencer," said SFL CEO Wolf von Laer in a statement. "We reject his hateful message and we wholeheartedly oppose his obsolete ideology."

Eventually, Jeffrey Tuckeran influential libertarian thinkerconfronted Spencer and made clear to the alt-right provocateur that he "did not belong" at ISFLC. Some shouting ensued, and hotel staff intervened. Shortly thereafter, Spencer left.

It's not completely clear whether Spencer departed of his own accord: he seems to think he was forced to leave, while others say he asked security to see him out safely, even though he was in no danger. But it hardly matters: the Marriott Wardman hotel is private property, and should enjoy the absolute right to evict irksome and unwelcome guests from its premises.

Spencer has attempted to wring as much publicity from the incident as possiblehe tweeted about it no fewer than 40 times, by my count. In his mind, libertarians are "lolbertarians" who need to "accept the reality of race" and get serious about "white replacement." To the extent that his only goal in life is to garner more attention for his fringe worldview, I suppose the stunt was a successhere I am writing about it. Congrats to you, guy who thinks "the United States is a European country."

In any case, the incident should make abundantly clear that the alt-right's racism is incompatible with the principles of a free society. Libertarianism is an individualist philosophy that considers all people deserving of equal rights. In contrast, Spencer is a tribalist and collectivist whose personal commitment to identity politics vastly exceeds the left's.

Spencer is entitled to broadcast his vile opinions, and to make equal use of public resources. He should not be attacked on the street, or anywhere else. But no private actor is required to give him a platformotherwise, property rights would cease to matter.

ISFLC, an organization that works tirelessly to support the cause of liberty all over the worldnot just for white American college studentshandled the matter correctly, in my view.

Disclaimer: I am a friend of Students for Liberty, and won the organization's 2016 Alumni of the Year Award.

View original post here:
Alt-Right Leader Richard Spencer Crashed a Student Libertarian Conference and Was Shunned - Reason (blog)

And now for something fun: Steven Greenhut, a very intelligent and conscientious writerand one of my former editors from my time in Californiawill be on Maui this weekend to do a talk for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaiiabout public employee unions and pensions.

County public employees in the state of Hawaii make among the highest wages in the nation, even after adjusted for Hawaiis high cost of living, states the lecture notice. Steven Greenhut is the author of Plunder! How public employee unions are raiding treasuries, controlling our lives and bankrupting the nation. He will open the books on police and fire departments across the country, and show that the problems of pension spiking, overtime, and Cadillac benefits are also happening in Hawaii.

Greenhut is the Western Region Director for the R Street Institute, a columnist for the Orange County Register and a true libertarian. He opposes public employee unions, big public pensions, eminent domain (which he also wrote a book about), civil asset forfeiture, the drug war, militarized law enforcement and interventionist wars of all types, shapes and sizes.

Seriously, this will be a good talk. Greenhut will speak at 11:30am on Friday, Feb. 24 at the Maui Country Club (48 Nonohe Pl., Paia). The cost is $20, and it includes lunch. Click here for more information.

Photo courtesy Steven Greenhut

Read the original post:
Libertarian author Steven Greenhut will talk public employee pensions at Maui County Club - MauiTime Weekly

On August 1, 2016, Ben Shapiro, a conservative American political commentator, was notified that DePaul Universitys administration had banned him from speaking at the university due to security concerns. The Washington Times reported that Shapiro called the ban an assault on free speech.

Shapiro further stated:

Its both pathetic and predictable that the university is happy to grant a veto on speakers to snowflake leftists so long as the leftists threaten violence. He told The Daily Wire. This is how free speech dies: when people in power cave to the bullies rather than standing up for basic rights.

This drama continued November 16, 2016, when DePaul University, again banned Ben Shapiro from speaking at a public event sponsored by the DePaul chapter of Young Americans for Freedom; the talk was on campus intolerance. Not only was Shapiro refused entry to participate as a speaker at this event, he was also refused admittance as an audience member.

The Claremont Independent reported that, Pulitzer Prize winning author, George Will, was dis-invited to speak at, Scripps College ninth annual Elizabeth Hubert Malott Public Affairs Program. The mission of this program is to bring speakers to campus whose political views differ from the majority of students at the all-womens college.

It appeared the dis-invitation was due to a recent column Will wrote on sexual harassment on college campuses.

Neither Shapiro or Will were allowed to exercise their freedom of speech and academic expression in the very halls that are supposed to teach students about wide ranging perspectives, culture, and viewpoints.

Instead, there is a trend that demonstrates that higher education is being drowned out by liberal cries for greater tolerance.

However, what is tolerance if the very actions that defend tolerance instead demonstrate intolerance?

What does it mean, if you only hear what you prefer to hear, and not truly hear what other people are saying? What does it say, if you resort to violence to force others to stop a free exchange of ideas and thoughts?

Is that truly being tolerant? Or are violent acts an acceptable means to actively engage in intolerance under the false guise of being accepting?

This backlash against liberal intolerance is even starting to reverberate even with other self-professed liberals.

Just two years ago, President Obama gave a speech about this same issue and stated, Ive heard of some college campuses where they dont want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative. Or they dont want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African-Americans, or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women. I dont agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view.

Is it really acceptable to cast out a speaker or initiate violence just because someone else says things that you disagree with?

Such discriminatory actions undercut the very freedoms that are defined within the U.S. Constitution; the ones that afford all Americans the right to speak freely.

This kind of dangerous thinking certainly hints at fascism and undermines core American values.

The purpose of going to a college or university is not just to get a degree, its also to be exposed to a variety of views and ideologies. When ideas go unrepresented in key discussions it turns classrooms into echo chambers rather than sounding boards.

According to a study conducted by the Association for Psychological Science, over a third of social psychologists admitted to discriminating against conservatives, even if they are qualified for a position. If liberals are so interested in having more acceptance and more tolerance in America then they should focus not only on others, but on themselves.

You can blame everyone else all you want, but true change wont occur until you change yourself.

You must accept peoples right to have a differing opinion than your own, and you must understand and realize that not everyone will agree with you. This doesnt make them a racist, a misogynist, or a homophobe it simply means that they have a different point of view.

During the 2016 presidential election both major parties provided further evidence that labeling people who have differing viewpoints does not always work. If you want to create change, insults are less useful than discourse. Americans should, and need to, debate ideas and differing perspectives, but such a debate cannot occur if only one perspective is allowed to speak.

Being close-minded towards other avenues of thought doesnt demonstrate tolerance, it demonstrates rudeness. It demonstrates a lack of flexibility and openness. It demonstrates intolerance.

A commonly used quote that applies to both family and friendships is, If you want to stay friends, dont talk about politics. Why should that be? Why shouldnt people be able to freely discuss varying political thought without jeopardizing both familial relationships and friendships? If people truly want to unite this country then they must realize that you cant always blame the other side for your problems, you have to take responsibility; not just on common issues, but on the acceptance that all perspectives should be allowed the same freedoms and tolerances you yourself are asking be given to you. Ask for greater tolerance of all thought, not just your own.

* Ryan Kuo is a student attending Oregon State University for his BS in political science.

The main BeingLibertarian.com account, used for editorials and guest author submissions. The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions. Contact the Editor at editor@beinglibertarian.email

Like Loading...

Go here to see the original:
The Intolerance of Thought - Being Libertarian

In the past decade, America has experienced an increase in identity politics, centered on race, gender, sexual orientation, and class status. This, combined with a two-party system, has resulted in very divided far Left and far Right ideologies. Identity has become a cornerstone of American politics.

This mindset only serves to further drive the wedge between the Left and the Right, observed through the recent riots at UC Berkeley, where a Left-wing fascist group, ironically calling themselves Antifa (short for Anti-Fascists), deemed violence an appropriate method to silence those whose opinions they disagree with. This collectivist mindset has swept across politics recently, and is now commonplace in the Left-wing progressive movement.

These are people who pretend to be protecting the rights of minority groups, like gays and blacks, but who are quick to label anyone from these minority groups as traitors, coons, and Uncle Toms if they fail to fall in line and preach their message. They fail to see how these people are not part of a group mindset, but are actually individuals with their own opinions and ability to think for themselves. This failure has led to Orwellian ideas like wrongthink, the idea that someones thoughts or expressed opinions can somehow be dangerous and must be met with violence to defend oneself from being assaulted. This of course is a ridiculous and draconian mindset to have.

Of course, as one may expect, the rise of identity politics on the Left has begun to seep into the Right as well, though it is not quite mainstream enough to be able to point to any solid examples. One can easily point to the Left and find numerous examples of identity politics run amok, but the Right has far fewer instances where this is plainly seen. Even the Alt-Right, which also often resorts to name calling and ridicule of anyone who disagrees with them, is more inclusive than far-Left groups.

Libertarianism has no place for identity politics; each person, despite his race, class, gender, or sexual orientation is seen to be an individual and is judged as such. This is why it can be difficult to find two libertarians who agree with one another on many issues outside of the ideologys core principles of property rights, individual freedoms, and so on.

The Libertarian Party is quickly becoming the bastion of individualism, a place for all people to come together and express their ideas without fear of reprisal or violence simply because their ideas do not conform to the collectivist mindset of the Left.

The group mindset is failing, and when the disenfranchised have realized that neither major party supports all of their personal ideals, they will begin to search for something new. The Libertarian Party stands to gain much traction from this shift away from collectivist group-think towards individualist ideology.

When identity politics divides the country into small groups who hate one another, individualism suddenly becomes a uniting force. As such, libertarianism outdoes any other political ideology.

So, to the women, minorities, members of the LGBT community, and anyone else who feels that these characteristics are arbitrary and do not actually define who they are and what they should believe, as the far-Left expects they should, the Libertarian Party is here and we welcome you.

Lets try freedom for a change.

* Christopher Lee McKitrick is a 29 year old New Hampshire native, a US Army veteran, and beer enthusiast. In his free time he enjoys hiking, writing, and reading.

The main BeingLibertarian.com account, used for editorials and guest author submissions. The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions. Contact the Editor at editor@beinglibertarian.email

Like Loading...

Excerpt from:
Identity Politics and Libertarianism - Being Libertarian