Mediaboss Marketing

Published: Monday, May 5, 2014 at 10:38 p.m. Last Modified: Tuesday, May 6, 2014 at 9:41 a.m.

Lucas Jewell, a 22-year-old libertarian activist and former U.S. Navy air traffic controller, has filed to run for the Alachua County Commission District 4 seat Commissioner Susan Baird will vacate after this November's election.

Jewell is relatively new to Gainesville, having moved here in January to be closer to his mother after her husband died in a car accident.

I mean, I'm going to live here for a while and you can either sit back and complain about things or you can say, 'Screw it, I'm going to throw my hat in the ring and see what happens,' he said.

Jewell grew up in North Florida and told The Sun he enlisted in the Navy in 2010 at 18 years old, serving as an air traffic controller before he was eventually honorably discharged in March 2013 after filing as a conscientious objector.

After leaving the military, he got involved as the business manager for Adam vs. The Man, a talk show helmed by libertarian activist Adam Kokesh that has existed in various formats (mostly online).

While he worked with Adam vs. The Man, Jewell said he participated in Smoke Down Prohibition rallies in Philadelphia during which people would smoke marijuana publicly as an act of civil disobedience meant to make the legalization issue more visible.

Jewell told The Sun he was arrested at a Smoke Down Prohibition event in June 2013, while Kokesh had already been arrested at a prior rally.

He said he had a hand-rolled tobacco cigarette and was trying to get the police to focus on him so others wouldn't be arrested. I don't know how regular people get arrested, but libertarians don't really comply, he said.

Jewell said he sat down and forced the authorities to carry him off.

Link:
Libertarian activist to run for District 4 Alachua County seat

COLUMBUS, OhioLibertarian gubernatorial hopeful Charlie Earl will not appear on Tuesdays primary ballot after a last-ditch appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.

Late Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas denied a request for an emergency order to force Earl and Steve Linnabary, the Libertarian candidate for attorney general, onto the primary ballot.

However, Libertarian Party of Ohio attorney Mark Brown said the party will continue to fight in court to add Earl and Linnabary to the general election ballot.

In March, Secretary of State Jon Husted in March struck the names of Earl and Linnabary from the primary ballot on the grounds that petition signature collectors for him didnt properly disclose that the party employed them.

The Libertarian Party of Ohio asked Thomas to issue a stay and an emergency injunction to overturn Husteds decision. Thomas denied the request on Monday afternoon without comment, according to a Supreme Court notification sent to Libertarian Party attorney Mark Brown.

Two federal courts previously sided with Husted in the case. Justice Elena Kagan also declined to issue an emergency order.

By missing the primary, Libertarians fear Earl and Linnabary will be prevented under Ohio's "sore-loser" law from attempting a write-in campaign for governor in the general election.

Brown said the Libertarians will petition a federal appeals court by the end of the week to have the two added to the general election ballot.

If Earl appears on the ballot, observers say he could draw conservative support away from incumbent Republican Gov. John Kasich to the benefit of Democrat Ed FitzGerald.

More here:
Libertarian Charlie Earl will miss Tuesday's primary after U.S. Supreme Court justice denies emergency order

Former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum has a penchant for dismissing the libertarian movement, and he made that once again on Monday evening when he dismissed the electoral prospects of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), telling CNN that the Republican Party is not a libertarian party.

Crossfire host Van Jones asked Santorum for his thoughts on the Kentucky senator, who is currently the frontrunner for the 2016 GOP: Do you agree with his ideas, are you going to support Rand Paul?

Theres diversity in the Republican Party, Santorum hesitated, but Jones pressed further: Is he the new face of the Republican Party? Is this your leader?

Well, no, hes not my leader, I can tell you that for sure, the former senator scoffed. His father and I had some disagreements during the last campaign.

Jones then asked him outright: If a libertarian like him becomes the leader of the Republican Party gets the nomination would you vote for them?

First off, I dont think that will happen, Santorum asserted, because the Republican Party is not a libertarian party, it is a conservative party. And it will nominate a conservative, and not a libertarian.

Santorum then went on to reassert his belief in modestly increasing the federal minimum wage.

Watch below, via CNN:

Please enable Javascript to watch.

[h/t TheDC] [Image via screengrab]

Here is the original post:
Santorum Dismisses Rand Paul: The Republican Party Is Not a Libertarian Party

Tatiana Moroz libertarian music
via YouTube Capture.

By: Bruce Majors

See more here:
Tatiana Moroz libertarian music - Video

Marxists were notorious for infighting over the most trivial differences. One group would secede from another, reverse the word order of the group it had seceded from, and declare itself the new and pure group. The first group, the new group would declare to the world, was part of the fascist conspiracy to suppress the coming workers triumph, even though the differences between the two groups were completely undetectable even to an expert.

An informal debate taking place among libertarians these days, regarding whether people ought to be thick or thin libertarians, is of a different character. It strikes at the very heart of what libertarianism is.

The thin libertarian believes in the nonaggression principle, that one may not initiate physical force against anyone else. The thin libertarian thinks of himself simply as a libertarian, without labels. Most thick libertarians likewise believe in the nonaggression principle, but they believe that for the struggle for liberty to be coherent, libertarians must be committed to a slate of other views as well.

Before I proceed, let me anticipate an objection. Shouldnt I spend my time attacking the state instead of criticizing other libertarians?

In my work over the years, I have attempted to leave no stone unturned in exposing the evils and lies of the state, and building up the libertarian alternative. As a matter of fact, I have a new book on the verge of release that continues in that tradition: Against the State: An Anarcho-Capitalist Manifesto.

Second, theres nothing wrong with what some people disparage as infighting. A respectful exchange of ideas is how a school of thought develops. And I agree with Tom Woods: it is not true, as many allege, that libertarians are uniquely prone to arguments among themselves. Just observe the Democrats, the Republicans, your homeowners association, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims or, for that matter, just about anyone.

Proponents of a thick libertarianism suggest that libertarians are bound to defend something more than the nonaggression principle, and that libertarianism involves commitments beyond just this. One such proponent recently said, I continue to have trouble believing that the libertarian philosophy is concerned only with the proper and improper uses of force. But no matter how difficult it may be for that person to believe, that is precisely what libertarianism is, and that is all it is.

As Murray Rothbard, Mr. Libertarian himself, once explained:

There are libertarians who are indeed hedonists and devotees of alternative lifestyles, and that there are also libertarians who are firm adherents of bourgeois conventional or religious morality. There are libertarian libertines and there are libertarians who cleave firmly to the disciplines of natural or religious law. There are other libertarians who have no moral theory at all apart from the imperative of non-violation of rights. That is because libertarianism per se has no general or personal moral theory.

Libertarianism does not offer a way of life; it offers liberty, so that each person is free to adopt and act upon his own values and moral principles. Libertarians agree with Lord Acton that liberty is the highest political end not necessarily the highest end on everyones personal scale of values.

Read the original post:
The Future of Libertarianism