Mediaboss Marketing

The Libertarian Futurist Society has announced its finalists for this year's Hall of Fame award. This is one of two prizes the group gives out annually: The Prometheus Award honors the best libertarian-themed novel of the past year, while the Hall of Fame Award goes to libertarian fiction that first appeared at least half a decade ago. The focus is on science fictionhence that word "Futurist"but non-sf works are occasionally added to the mix. (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and The Fountainhead have both been nominated for the Hall of Fame in the past, and in 2000 that prize went to Hans Christian Anderson's "The Emperor's New Clothes.")

This year's nominees are unusual in that they're all short stories rather than novels. From the press release:

"Conquest by Default," by Vernor Vinge (first published 1968 in Analog) is his first exploration of the idea of anarchism, in which a stateless alien society visits an Earth recovering from nuclear war. The story combines a novel approach to the problem of avoiding the decay of anarchy into government with an evocation of the tragic impact of cultural change.

"Coventry," by Robert A. Heinlein (first published 1940 in Astounding Science Fiction) envisions the Covenant, a social compact under which breaking the law, as such, cannot be punished unless actual harm to someone has been demonstrated. The story contrasts that society with a lawless "anarchy" into which those who break the covenant are sent.

"Harrison Bergeron," by Kurt Vonnegut (first published [1961] in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction), satirizes the idea of radical egalitarianism with a portrayal of a society where all talented people are compulsorily brought down to averageuntil one gifted youth rebels against the system.

"Starfog," by Poul Anderson (first published 1967 in Analog) envisions a widespread interstellar society millennia after the fall of a Galactic Empire, unified by the Commonality, a mutual aid organization. The story explores methods of carrying out large-scale projects through voluntary cooperation and market incentives under conditions where central control is unworkable.

"With Folded Hands..." by Jack Williamson (first published 1947 in Astounding Science Fiction), uses science fiction to satirize the modern "nanny state" and explore an ethical theme: the peril of unrestricted authority, even (or especially) when it is used totally altruistically to take care of those subjected to it.

The press release also mentions some nominees that didn't make this year's cut of finalists, including Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale and Philip K. Dick's "The Exit Door Leads In," among others. (They really should give the Dick story the prize sometime. It may be the most anti-authoritarian thing he ever wrote, and it has new resonance in the age of Snowden. Read it here.) Another also-ran is William Golding's Lord of the Flies, which I remember as being rather anti-libertarian, but I read it around 1981 so I might not argue if you tell me I'm wrong down in the comments.

For a list of past winners, go here.

See the original post:
Vonnegut, Heinlein, Kipling, and Others Battle It Out for a Libertarian Award - Reason (blog)

By Ian Tartt

This is intended to be a fun What If? article.Without further ado, lets dive rightinto some alternate history.

Everyone knows how well the Libertarian Party presidential candidate did in the 2016 election, but few remember the events leading up to election night. It all started on September 23rd, 2015, when entrepreneur and blogger Austin Petersen officially announced his candidacy for president. Many were surprised at this announcement due to Petersens record of online shenanigans, but those who had followed him for years noted that he had matured over time. Over the next several months, he personally reached out to hundreds of people and won over their support. They, in turn, pointed him out to their friends and family members and helped build up a large grassroots support network.

This support network made Petersen a well-known candidate throughout the LP and, along with his appearances in various media leading up to the national convention, caused many to speculate that he would likely be the LP presidential candidate. Most, though, believed that former New Mexico governor and 2012 LP presidential candidate Gary Johnson would get the nomination. But, as Johnson got more media attention and people saw how he often looked awkward or rambled while trying to explain his ideas, his popularity began to wane.

Johnsons situation didnt improve at all at the national convention, despite his name recognition and an impressive, professional-looking both. His weak performance in the LP presidential debate, lack of delegate support, and especially his support of Bill Weld for the vice presidential nomination resulted in Petersen narrowly winning the presidential nomination. In his concession speech, Johnson graciously conceded to Petersen, presenting him with a pair of running shoes as a show of support. In addition, Johnson gave a short speech in which he asked the delegates to choose Weld to be Petersens running mate. His request fell on deaf ears, however; later that day, Larry Sharpe, longtime activist and LP member, easily beat out Weld for the VP spot.

After taking a brief post-convention rest to recover, Petersen and Sharpe jumped right into campaigning. Petersens years spent working on television and creating his own media, along with his and Sharpes communication skills, helped the two in getting their message out to the world. Those who had endorsed Petersen for the nomination continued their support, while Sharpes smooth style and likeability helped cut through ideological differences among libertarians and helped unite the LP behind the ticket. The two ran a solid campaign under the slogan Taking Over The Government to Leave Everyone Alone.

During a CNN Libertarian Town Hall, a woman whose son died of a heroin overdose challenged them on their views about ending the War on Drugs. Sharpe sympathized with the woman for her loss and explained how drug addicts are able to get effective treatment in countries where drugs are decriminalized, which hed like to see happen here so people wouldnt die or spend their life behind bars. His comments earned him a round of applause and presented a consistent libertarian message to tens of thousands of people, as did the rest of the town hall. Petersen received some pushback for his support of allowing businesses to refuse service, but won some over by tying it into the greater concept of property rights, explaining how the free market punishes discrimination, and asking if a Jewish baker should be forced to bake a Nazi cake. Both during and after the town hall, social media was buzzing with positive reactions to the candidates and excitement for the election.

Due to their sizeable following and ability to clearly articulate the ideas of liberty to the average person, Petersen and Sharpe were often asked if they would have a spoiler effect on the election. In response, they pointed out exit polls which revealed that most third-party voters split about equally among Democrats and Republicans, and a small percentage would have abstained from voting entirely if the third-party candidate they supported had not run. They also commented on how strange it is that third-party candidates get the blame when unlikeable major-party candidates do poorly. This helped ease concerns among those leaning toward supporting the ticket and caused many to jump onboard.

As the presidential debates drew near, a massive wave of support for including Petersen and Sharpe arose. Many who participated in polls enthusiastically named the LP ticket as their preferred choice, and supporters all over social media added Let Austin Debate to their pictures. Unfortunately, the two didnt get enough support in the polls to be included. However, not missing an opportunity to get their views out to millions of people, Petersen livestreamed his responses to the questions Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton got during the presidential debates, and Sharpe did the same for questions asked of Mike Pence and Tim Kaine during the vice presidential debate. As a result, the ticket gained even more attention and support after the debates.

After what felt like an eternity, the big day finally arrived. Voters finished selecting their candidates of choice, polling places closed down, and millions of people tuned in to watch the fireworks. No matter the outcome, this would surely be a record-breaking year for the LP. Sure enough, it was. The disdain for the major-party candidates, the growing disdain for government expansion, the solid team of Petersen and Sharpe and the united LP behind them, and the influence of social media all came together in a way never before seen in modern politics. Once the dust settled, the final numbers blew everyone away: 7,010,351 votes, approximately 5.12% of the popular vote, and two electoral votes from faithless electors.

Although they didnt win the presidency, Petersen and Sharpe shattered every previous LP record and accomplished some significant milestones. For one, they were the first LP presidential ticket to get an electoral vote since John Hospers and Theodora Nathan (the first LP presidential ticket) in 1972. Next, they topped 5% of the popular vote, which meant the LP officially qualified for minor party status and gained the option to accept federal matching funds if it so chooses (whether or not it should is up for debate). And perhaps most significantly, they presented a clear, consistent message of liberty to more Americans than any LP presidential ticket in history. In doing so, not only did they likely draw in many new converts to libertarianism, but they also set up the next LP ticket to go even farther.

Because of their efforts, Petersen and Sharpe are now respected throughout the LP. Petersen has returned to managing his many websites and business ventures, and Sharpe is being discussed as a potential future presidential candidate or a candidate for New York governor in the meantime. And though infighting is a recurring problem in the liberty movement, libertarians were able to mostly set aside their differences and support the ticket, meaning the LP is in better shape than its been in a long time. In a year with so much hostility and division, its nice to know that so many people, both in and out of the LP, were able to come together in support of liberty.

2016 electionalternate historyaustin petersenLarry SharpePartyWhat If?

Follow this link:
The 2016 Libertarian Party Ticket In an Alternate Universe - The Libertarian Republic

President-elect Donald Trump is taking his time choosing a nominee for secretary of the US Department of Agricultureit's the last open Cabinet post. But the USDA isn't the only federal agency that lacks a proposed incoming leader just a week ahead of Inauguration Day. And while candidates for the USDA post have streamed thorough Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago to plead their case, the Trump team has revealed little about whom it's considering to head the Food and Drug Administration.

O'Neill declared that the FDA should stop requiring drug makers to prove their products actually work"Let's prove efficacy after they've been legalized," he said.

Until Thursday. Stat News reports that two Silicon Valley titans, Jim O'Neill and Balaji Srinivasan, met with Trump on January 12 to "discuss running the agency." Neither are medical doctors or scientiststhe typical backgrounds for most previous FDA commissioners. Rather, they're tech guru-investors who espouse virulently libertarian views, including disdain for the FDA's role in regulating the pharmaceutical industry.

O'Neill is a managing director of Mithril Capital, an investment firm founded by Peter Thiel, himself a hyperlibertarian investor and an early supporter of Trump's candidacy. In a 2014 speech before a biotechnology group, O'Neill declared that the FDA should stop requiring drug makers to prove their products actually work"Let's prove efficacy after they've been legalized," he said.

Srinivasan, co-founder of the bitcoin startup 21.co and a partner at the venture capital firm at Andreessen Horowitz, has opined that information technology makes the FDA role in drug regulation obsolete:

Srinivasan, too, is associated with Thiel, who is an investor in Srinivasan's bitcoin firm.

NeitherSrinivasan nor O'Neill has said much publicly about the FDA's other policy portfolio: overseeing food safety, including recently enacted rules designed to push the meat industry to rely less on antibiotics necessary for human medicine.

Trump himself has been opaque on the question of food safety regulationsthough back in September, his campaign website did post, and quickly remove, a "fact sheet" denouncing the "FDA food police."

View post:
Brace Yourselves for the Libertarian Tech Bro Takeover of the FDA - Mother Jones

The Libertarian Party (LP) is your representative in American politics.We are the only political organization which respects you as a unique and responsible individual.

The Platform is our official statement on issues. It is edited and adopted every two years.

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

What do Libertarians have in common with liberals? What do Libertarians have in common with conservatives? Findanswers to these and other frequently-asked-questions here.

Connect with your state affiliate and see what is happening locally.

The Libertarian Party (LP)is governed by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC). Learn more aboutwho currently serves on the committee.

LNC Staff work at the partyheadquarters in Alexandria, VA, and remotely.Learn more about these Libertarians working for you.

Continued here:
Libertarian Party | Libertarian Party

Those of us who favor individual freedom with personal responsibility have been unable to agree upon a generally acceptable name for ourselves and our philosophy of liberty. This would be relatively unimportant except for the fact that the opposition will call us by some name, even though we might not desire to be identified by any name at all. Since this is so, we might better select a name with some logic instead of permitting the opposition to saddle us with an epithet.

Some of us call ourselves individualists, but others point out that the opposition often uses that word to describe a heartless person who doesnt care about the problems and aspirations of other people.

Some of us call ourselves conservatives, but that term describes many persons who base their approval of an institution more on its age than on its inherent worth.

Many of us call ourselves liberals. And it is true that the word liberal once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding.

Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word libertarian.

Websters New International Dictionary defines a libertarian as One who holds to the doctrine of free will; also, one who upholds the principles of liberty, esp. individual liberty of thought and action.

In popular terminology, a libertarian is the opposite of an authoritarian. Strictly speaking, a libertarian is one who rejects the idea of using violence or the threat of violencelegal or illegalto impose his will or viewpoint upon any peaceful person. Generally speaking, a libertarian is one who wants to be governed far less than he is today.

A libertarian believes that the government should protect all persons equally against external and internal aggression, but should otherwise generally leave people alone to work out their own problems and aspirations.

While a libertarian expects the government to render equal protection to all persons against outright fraud and misrepresentation, he doesnt expect the government to protect anyone from the consequences of his own free choices. A libertarian holds that persons who make wise choices are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their wisdom, and that persons who make unwise choices have no right to demand that the government reimburse them for their folly.

A libertarian expects his government to establish, support, and enforce the decisions of impartial courts of justicecourts which do not recognize or refer to a persons race, religion, or economic status. If justice is to be rendered, the decisions of these courts must be as binding upon government officials and their actions as upon other persons and their actions.

A libertarian respects the right of every person to use and enjoy his honestly acquired propertyto trade it, to sell it, or even to give it awayfor he knows that human liberty cannot long endure when that fundamental right is rejected or even seriously impaired.

A libertarian believes that the daily needs of the people can best be satisfied through the voluntary processes of a free and competitive market. And he holds the strong belief that free persons, using their own honestly acquired money, are in the best possible position to understand and aid their fellow men who are in need of help.

A libertarian favors a strictly limited form of government with many checks and balancesand divisions of authorityto foil the abuses of the fearful power of government. And generally speaking, he is one who sees less, rather than more, need to govern the actions of others.

A libertarian has much faith in himself and other free persons to find maximum happiness and prosperity in a society wherein no person has the authority to force any other peaceful person to conform to his viewpoints or desires in any manner. His way of life is based on respect for himself and for all others.

A libertarian doesnt advocate violent rebellion against prevailing governmentsexcept as a last resort before the concentration camps. But when a libertarian sees harm rather than good in certain acts of government, he is obligated to try his best to explain to others who advocate those measures why such compulsory means cannot bring the ends which even they desire.

The libertarians goal is friendship and peace with his neighbors at home and abroad.

It is not the difference in taste between individuals that Libertarians object to, but the forcing of ones tastes upon another.

Charles T. Sprading

The idea of governing by force another man, who I believe to be my equal in the sight of God, is repugnant to me. I do not want to do it. I do not want any one to govern me by any kind of force. I am a reasoning being, and I only need to be shown what is best for me, when I will take that course or do that thing simply because it is best, and so will you. I do not believe that a soul was ever forced toward anything except toward ruin.

Samuel Milton Jones

Liberty for the few is not liberty. Liberty for me and slavery for you means slavery for both.

Samuel Milton Jones

The institutions of civil liberty leave each man to run his career in life in his own way, only guaranteeing to him that whatever he does in the way of industry, economy, prudence, sound judgment, etc., shall redound to his welfare and shall not be diverted to someone elses benefit. Of course it is a necessary corollary that each man shall also bear the penalty of his own vices and his own mistakes.

We are told what fine things would happen if every one of us would go and do something for the welfare of somebody else; but why not contemplate also the immense gain which would ensue if everybody would do something for himself?

Wherever collective standards, codes, ideals, and motives take the place of individual responsibility, we know from ample experience that the spontaneity and independent responsibility which are essential to moral vigor are sure to be lost.

William Graham Sumner

More here:
Who Is a Libertarian? | Foundation for Economic Education