Mediaboss Marketing

You'll find very little about psychology.

It's a curious, maybe even suspicious gap in libertarian thought. For a political philosophy that characterizes itself as the champion of the individual, there doesn't seem to be very much reflection on the individual and the inner world of individual human beings, which are considered by libertarians to be fundamental and prior to society.

Most popular libertarianism focuses on issues that can be formulated as the following stock headlines:

The President Issues Another Edict That Limits Your Liberty

How This [State, Congressman, or Activist] Is Working to Stop [Government Agency] From Limiting Your Liberty

Why strive so mightily for a marginally healthier military-industrial-corporatist-police-state-complex-thingy and not for substantially healthier individual human minds?

Isn't the inner world of the individual at least equally worthy of libertarian attention? Can we begin to explore the question: "How do human beings constitute themselves as subjects?"

Since I began to seriously explore the question (as one stumbling in the dark and unsure of what I was exploring) in 2012, I am more convinced now than ever before that: "we are acted upon most effectively by power relations internal to our own sense of ourselves" and that "the fundamental exercise of power over individuals is their own confessional interpretation of themselves" (link above).

What the hell does that mean?

Here's just one exploration of the topic at The Last Psychiatrist:

This explains the near-universal anxiety over the movie's frequent use of the word nigger, and someone asked Tarantino if he thought he had used it too much in the movie, and his response was perfect: "too much, in comparison to how much it was used back then?" Nigger, and the violence, was all anyone was upset about. Terry Gross, NPR's mental Fleshlight, asked Tarantino her typically insightful and nuanced questions: "do you enjoy violent movies less after what happened at Sandy Hook?" Sigh. So there's the Terry Gross checklist for reviewing Django: gun=bad and saying nigger=bad. Check and check. You know what no one thought badworthy? When the white guy asked to have a certain slave sent to his room to try out her ample vagina, and the prim white lady of the house happily escorted her up. "Go on, do what you're told, girl."

I'd venture that Terry Gross and and the gang at HuffPoWo would rather be whipped than be-- that's rape, right?-- but that scene didn't light up their amygdalas, only hearing "nigger" did. I find that highly suspicious, or astoundingly obtuse, or both.

Anyway, perfectly ordinary slaveowner DiCaprio asks a rhetorical question, a fundamental question, that has occurred to every 7th grade white boy and about 10% of 7th grade white girls, and the profound question he asked was: "Why don't they just rise up?"

Kneel down, Quentin Tarantino is a genius. That question should properly come from the mouth of the German dentist: this isn't his country, he doesn't really have an instinctive feel for the system, so it's completely legitimate for a guy who doesn't know the score to ask this question, which is why 7th grade boys ask it; they themselves haven't yet felt the crushing weight of the system, so immediately you should ask, how early have girls been crushed that they don't think to ask this? But Tarantino puts this question in the mouth of the power, it is spoken by the very lips of that system; because of course the reason they don't rise up is that he-- that system-- taught them not to. When the system tells you what to do, you have no choice but to obey.

If "the system tells you what to do" doesn't seem very compelling, remember that the movie you are watching is Django UNCHAINED. Why did Django rise up? He went from whipped slave to stylish gunman in 15 minutes. How come Django was so quickly freed not just from physical slavery, but from the 40 years of repeated psychological oppression that still keeps every other slave in self-check? Did he swallow the Red Pill? How did he suddenly acquire the emotional courage to kill white people?

"The dentist freed him." So? Lots of free blacks in the South, no uprisings. "He's 'one in ten thousand'?" Everybody is 1 in 10000, check a chart. "He got a gun?" Doesn't help, even today there are gun owners all over America who feel that they aren't free. No. You should read this next sentence, get yourself a drink, and consider your own slavery: the system told Django that he was allowed to. He was given a document that said he was a bounty hunter, and as an agent of the system, he was allowed to kill white people. That his new job happened to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident, the system decided what he was worth and what he could do with his life. His powers were on loan, he wasn't even a vassal, he was a tool.

This is not to minimize the individual accomplishment of a Django becoming a free man. But for the other slaves, what is the significance?

Of course Tarantino knew that the evil slaveowner's question has a hidden, repressed dark side: DiCaprio is a third generation slave owner, he doesn't own slaves because he hates blacks, he owns them because that's the system; so powerful is that system that he spends his free time not on coke or hookers but on researching scientific justifications for the slavery-- trying to rationalize what he is doing. That is not the behavior of a man at peace with himself, regardless of how much he thinks he likes white cake, it is the behavior of a man in conflict, who suspects he is not free; who realizes, somehow, that the fact that his job happens to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident... do you see? "Why don't they just rise up?" is revealed to be a symptom of the question that has been repressed: "why do the whites own slaves? Why don't they just... stop?" And it never occurs to 7th graders to ask this question because they are too young, yet every adult thinks if he lived back then, he would have been the exception. 1 in 10000, I guess. And here we see how repression always leaves behind a signal of what's been repressed-- how else do you explain the modern need to add the qualifier "evil" to "slaveowner" if not for the deeply buried suspicion that, in fact, you would have been a slaveowner back then? "But at least I wouldn't be evil." Keep telling yourself that. And if some guy in a Tardis showed up and asked, what's up with you and all the slaves, seems like a lot? You'd say what everybody says, "look wildman, don't ask me, that's just the system. Can't change it. Want to rape a black chick?"

Libertarians will frequently remind you that you are a tax slave. "Why don't you just rise up?"

Against what?

Against Obama? He's just a character on TV that's never laid a finger on you.

Against the tax man? What constrains you more than a tax collector who lets you keep enough of your income to buy far more than a 19th century laborer who worked much harder than you?

If individuals exist prior to society, then the government of the outer world that lives in Washington DC is merely a shadow cast by the government that lives in the inner world of our individual minds.

If individuals exist prior to society, then a police state exists in the outer world because one exists in so many of our inner worlds.

If individuals exist prior to society, then abolishing external tyranny must be spearheaded by a psychological project to dismantle the tyranny that is inherent to our own confessional interpretations of ourselves.

The state is not the reason we are not free. That we are not free is the reason that the state exists.

Read more here:
The Humble Libertarian

According to Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary

lib-er-tar-i-an, n. 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.

According to American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000.

NOUN: 1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

The Challenge of Democracy (6th edition), by Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey Berry, and Jerry Goldman

Liberals favor government action to promote equality, whereas conservativesfavor government action to promote order. Libertarians favor freedom and oppose government action to promote either equality or order.

According to What It Means to Be a Libertarian by Charles Murray, Broadway Books, 1997.

The American Founders created a society based on the belief that human happiness is intimately connected with personal freedom and responsibility. The twin pillars of the system they created were limits on the power of the central government and protection of individual rights. . . .

A few people, of whom I am one, think that the Founders insights are as true today as they were two centuries ago. We believe that human happiness requires freedom and that freedom requires limited government.

The correct word for my view of the world is liberal. Liberal is the simplest anglicization of the Latin liber, and freedom is what classical liberalism is all about. The writers of the nineteenth century who expounded on this view were called liberals. In Continental Europe they still are. . . . But words mean what people think they mean, and in the United States the unmodified term liberal now refers to the politics of an expansive government and the welfare state. The contemporary alternative is libertarian. . . .

Libertarianism is a vision of how people should be able to live their lives-as individuals, striving to realize the best they have within them; together, cooperating for the common good without compulsion. It is a vision of how people may endow their lives with meaning-living according to their deepest beliefs and taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Go here to see the original:
What Is Libertarian - Institute for Humane Studies

August 7-9 Arlington, VA

The Libertarian Party@Arlington County Fair

Come work in our booth and help us win some hearts and minds. We will be manning the booth during the following hours:

Friday, August 7th 4 p.m. 10 p.m Saturday, August 8th 10 a.m. 9 p.m. Sunday, August 9th 11 a.m. 7 p.m.

When you RSVP please indicate what hours you will be able to work the booth. For more information on the Fair, go tohttp://arlingtoncountyfair.us/We hope to see you there!

We will be at vendor booth C05.Bridget Ulrich, LPNOVA Chair, will be coordinating volunteers.

************************************************************************** August 7-9 Baki Monotor, Serbia Bodrog Fest 2015 Liberland will have its representatives onsite, Liberlands merchandise will be offered there and Mr. President, Vit Jedlicka, will also be present. There will be an entertainment programme with activities for all ages. You can look forward to exciting music and dramatic performances, video projections, interactive exhibits and much more.

*******************************************************************************************************

Midwest Peace and Liberty conference - PorcFest West

The event Details, such as pricing, registration, and the start and end times are still under development but we wanted to get it posted so you can save the date: Here is what we know:

Originally posted here:
The Insomniac Libertarian

It is useful to post here and on the party facebook page an explanation of what we are about and how we work as our membership is growing.

The Libertarian Party UK is one of three Libertarian Parties in the United Kingdom.

The Libertarian Party UK covers England, Wales and Kernow. The Scottish Libertarian Party covers Scotland The Libertarian Party Northern Ireland

The first two are distinctly different entities, are registered separately with the Electoral Commission and have a cooperation agreement, both are founder members of the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties.

The LPNI is a separate entity for reasons of Electoral Law

As with all registered Parties we are bound by the following Acts Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) The Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA)

The statutory fines for transgressions of the above Acts are severe and heavy.

We also are required to be aware of all legal judgements that govern our activities. In June of 2015 the European Court of Justice made a judgement that the owners of websites and social media are responsible in Law for the content of any third party content or comment that is defamatory, libellous and/or untrue.

Therefore we are occasionally required to delete comments that use bad language or fall under the ECJ. We will also delete any third party comment that advocates violence as it contravenes the Non Agression Principle. (NAP)

There are two registered symbols for the LP-UK, both based on the Gryphon.

Read more from the original source:
Libertarian Party UK | Libertarianism in the UK

10 Lecciones de Economa (que los gobiernos quisieran ocultarle) is the name of my first book (Spanish), available at http://bit.ly/10LeccionesEcon.

Few people outside of jihadist circles have any reaction besides horror and condemnation for the January 7th attacks on the offices of French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo in Paris, in which two masked gunmen shot and killed 12 people, including nine members of the magazines staff and two police officers. The horrific act sparked a nationwide manhunt that culminated today in the deaths of the two suspects, who were holed up with a hostage in a shop north of Paris. The two, who claimed to be trained by al-Qaeda, wished to become martyrs for their Islamist cause, and their wish was granted.

If the goal was to silence opponents of religious extremism (to avenge attacks upon the prophet Mohammed, as one of the gunmen stated), this was a senseless and ultimately futile act of murder; no sooner had news of the attack spread than media outlets were retransmitting many of the cartoons which Charlie Hebdo had published and allegedly so offended the perpetrators. But just as senseless were the reactions of some Westerners even writers, whose livelihoods depend on free expression who questioned the wisdom of Hebdo in publishing such provocative material in the first place. One stunning example came from Joyce Carol Oates, who wondered if the paper had indeed committed a hate crime (update: the tweet has since been deleted; you can view a screenshot here):

This is one of Americas most prolific writers and a recipient of numerous literary awards, someone who has not shied away from controversial subjects herself, and she believes its possible that writing or pictures could be considered a hate crime. Oates is not alone in this sentiment; one-third of Americans, and over half who identify as Democrats, favor hate crime legislation, including some forms of speech.

Lets back up for a minute and consider the concept of a hate crime. This is a product of a politically-correct social climate which seeks to expunge unpopular thought by attributing to it the magical power of violating other peoples rights, which, for the purposes of so-called hate speech, must include the right not to be offended. Apparently, those who are affronted by rude commentary suddenly lose all agency and are unable to turn away from, or condemn with their own rhetoric, the mean things other people say about them or any group they identify with. It might even drive them to commit murder, and whos to say their blind rage didnt play a role? Charlie Hebdos editors should have known that their deliberate provocations of religious extremists would lead to their deaths. How irresponsible of them!

This is what is known as blaming the victim: finding them guilty to some degree for crimes committed against them by others. Imagine telling a rape victim that its terrible she was raped, but why on earth did she go out in public dressed like that? Some men just cant control themselves! And this sort of shaming happens all too frequently to victims of sexual assault.

It shouldnt happen to them, nor to victims of other crimes. But the politically-correct crowd in particular seems incapable of unreservedly condemning violence aimed at suppressing speech, if its victims dont fit their favored ideological mold. There is little doubt that the content in Charlie Hebdo is often crass and confrontational. But that is precisely what satire has to be, if its to be successful. And it is simply not up for debate whether the cartoons and columns they published justified massacring the editorial staff. They didnt. It is entirely possible, and indeed necessary, to defend Charlie Hebdos right to exist against violent thugs, even if one cant endorse its content. To decry their material as racist or Islamophobic in the context of Wednesdays shootings misses the point, and worse: it provides the enemies of reason and tolerance with the very ammunition they need to continue their bloody jihad.

Read the rest here:
The Libertarian Standard Property, Prosperity, Peace