Mediaboss Marketing

Only a few years after its greatest triumph, the Libertarian Party is collapsing, torn apart by an insurgency of alt-right sympathizers with racist tendencies. Libertarianism, the idea that state power must be absolutely minimized, relies on ideas of individual rights that seem flatly inconsistent with racism. And yet libertarian rhetoric has always had powerful attractions for those who wanted to resist racial equality. How is that possible?

There is in fact a connection, but it is one of psychology and political history rather than logic.

I just published a history of libertarianism. The book is a critical introduction to this ideology, which has done so much to shape American politics. I focused on its major thinkers Hayek, Friedman, Epstein, Rothbard, Nozick and Rand and sought to address their strongest arguments. None of them were racists, and most rejected racism vehemently, so I largely ignored the linkage with racism. Yet now it presents itself.

In May, the party was taken over at its national convention by the so-called Mises Caucus, a far-right group, some of whose members have been associated with racist and antisemitic ideas. The caucus is named after the libertarian economist Ludwig von Mises, whose philosophy was pretty crude (as I explained in the book) but who firmly condemned racism.

On Martin Luther King Jr. Day this year, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire tweeted (in a later deleted post) that America isnt in debt to black people. If anything its the other way around. Caucus members have called for violent repression of antifa and Black Lives Matter protesters. The new leaderships first and most prominent decision was to remove from the party platform language declaring, We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant.

As a result, the party is facing mass defections. In 2016, Gary Johnson was the most successful Libertarian presidential candidate in history. He got almost 4.5 million votes (3.3 percent of the votes cast, three times more than any previous Libertarian candidate, including Johnson himself in 2012).

The crackup is in part the result of crass political machinations. The insurgents are funded by donors who have been close to former President Trump, suggesting that the takeover is part of a coordinated Republican stratagem to destroy a party that has been draining away Republican votes. If Trump had gotten every Libertarian vote in 2020, he would have won. The chairman of the New Mexico Libertarian Party wrote that the leadership has adopted messaging and communications hostile to the principles for which the Libertarian Party was founded, serving no purpose other than to antagonize and embarrass. That may indeed be the purpose. Battles for control of the state party are also happening in Virginia and Massachusetts.

This stratagem would not be possible unless the alt-right people were available for recruitment. There is a reason why they joined the Libertarians instead of the Greens, another third party whose principles are equally antithetical to them.

The connection between libertarianism and race dates back to 1964. After he had the Republican presidential nomination, Barry Goldwater (himself no racist) voted against the Civil Rights Act on libertarian grounds: In a speech co-authored by future Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, he said that the freedom to associate means the same thing as the freedom not to associate. In so doing, he transformed the Republican coalition. Eisenhower had gotten about 40 percent of the Black vote in 1956; Nixon in 1960, about a third; Goldwater, 6 percent. Goldwater was the first Republican ever to win in Georgia and the first since Reconstruction to carry Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina. Richard Nixons eagerness to woo the voters who had supported George Wallace in 1968 consolidated the racial polarization of American politics.

Racism seems to be part of libertarianisms appeal to some Americans. It is easier to oppose government power if you dont like what that power will be used for. Some of the libertarian leadership noticed that and has made racist appeals for decades. Some libertarians even dream of abandoning the state for clusters of self-governing enclaves, some of which could be all white. Ayn Rand called racism the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. But her condemnation of unproductive, parasitic moochers has more resonance when you think you know who those people are.

Libertarianism offers a peculiar vision of the heroic solitary individual who sustains himself without any external support. It says, I dont depend on anybody. I can take care of myself. This fantasy of autarky can also involve the capacity to separate from people one doesnt like. It denies any obligation to them that might be based either on shared membership in a community or on a history of wrongs that one has involuntarily benefited from. The fantasy is easy to swallow if it means that one gets to keep more of what one has. Here as elsewhere in libertarian thought, there is an active partnership between delusion and greed.

Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law at Northwestern University, is the author of Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martins Press).Follow him on Twitter@AndrewKoppelman.

Read more:
The Libertarian Party is collapsing. Heres why - The Hill

By Ron Paul

Sunday was an historic election day for Italy. A conservative alliance with a populist flair absolutely trounced the technocrats who had been running the country into the ground for the past several years.

The previous prime minister, former Goldman Sachs banker Mario Draghi, implemented one of the most restrictive and inhuman Covid shutdowns, which, along with supporting economically suicidal sanctions against Russia, have left Italy an economic basket case.

Replacing the bland banker will likely be Giorgia Meloni from the right-wing Sons of Italy party. Meloni will be a first for Italy: the first female prime minister. But dont expect the Left to celebrate it: her name cannot be mentioned in the mainstream media without reference to Mussolini.

Ironically, the democratic victory of Meloni and the rest of the Italian right likely owes a great deal of gratitude to one of Europes most undemocratic and anti-democratic leaders: European Union Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen.

On the eve of the Italian elections, the unelected von der Leyen warned Italians that if they voted for the wrong parties they would be punished. Asked about the surge of the political opposition in Italy on the eve of the elections, she warned Italian voters, we will see the result of the vote in Italy. If things go in a difficult direction and Ive spoken about Hungary and Poland we have the tools.

In other words, her message to Italian voters was yes you can vote, but if you vote in a way I do not approveof, you will be punished.

Italians rushed to vote in a way she did not approve of. It will be interesting to see what happens.

How does any of this relate to the United States as the US moves closer to the midterm elections? Americans have also been given warnings by the political elites that they dare not vote for the wrong candidates or parties.

On September 1st, President Biden issued a warning similar to that of Europes von der Leyen. In one of the most bizarre speeches in political history, Biden warned that Trump supporters are determined to take this country backwards backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love. They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fan the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.

He spoke on a frightening, red-lit stage with US Marines serving as props on either side of him. This was no Checkers speech with Nixon speaking wistfully about his cocker spaniel. No, it was a declaration of war against half of the country.

A few weeks ago Sweden threw its left-wing government out and Sunday the Italians did the same. While the political differences in Europe seem more cosmetic than substantive for example Italys presumptive new prime minister supports weapons to Ukraine just like her predecessor there is still a strong feeling of popular revolt against political elites in the air.

That doesnt mean things will easily go our way, as there is no automatic libertarian surge. But we must study hard and take advantage of every single opportunity. People are sick of the elites? That means they are likely open to the concepts of non-interventionism and sound money. Lets help educate them!

Originally published by the Ron Paul Institute on 9/26/22

Go here to see the original:
Ron Paul: Will Italys Election Foreshadow US Midterms? - Libertarian Party

Wars cannot be fought successfully by libertarians. They demand collective effort, shared sacrifice, strategies for deploying scarce economic resources and collaboration with allies. All are anathema to a libertarian like the prime minister, Liz Truss.

State initiative inviting collective effort and sacrifice is off-limits as nannying. Demands on the better-off and on companies enjoying extreme windfall profits to share their proper burden are vetoed as coercive and confiscatory. Even working with the foreign other is regarded with suspicion as a constraint on sovereignty. Put not your trust in libertarians especially in war.

It may be indirect, but Britain is in a war against Russia. But we are the country taking the winter threat of Putin-induced energy shortages least seriously. We are alone in not asking for energy savings or efficiencies from business or households in exchange for the generous bounty of an indiscriminate price cap offered to everyone regardless of circumstance. With negligible capacity to store gas ourselves, we depend on the kindness of EU countries to help us if Putin turns the screw on gas supplies this winter. And we are the country whose incredible fiscal policy stupendous tax cuts at the same time as huge spending on an indiscriminate energy cap is cast as if the world were as placid as a millpond, so provoking contagion in the financial markets that risks damage to our allies.

The emphatically non-libertarian Biden administration openly regards Truss as out to lunch but so do former friends in the EU. The design of Trusss energy price guarantee package, up to 150bn, is regarded with incredulity. Her veto of a 15m public information campaign designed to suggest how citizens might save energy because it represented a state intrusion into personal space is an accurate window into Trusss worldview. She truly believes this libertarian nonsense.

In her world, there can be no collective endeavour to save energy and no fair sharing of sacrifice. Thus, it is illegitimate to tax the windfall profits of energy companies, let alone curb the speculative activity of energy traders bewildered by the scale of the profits they are making. This would improperly confiscate profit, which is the driver of all human activity: any obligation to society or others is delusional.

Thus the outgoing CEO of Shell, Ben van Beurden, may say publicly, as he did last week, that the market cannot be allowed to operate to hurt the weakest: One way or another, there needs to be government intervention... that somehow results in protecting the poorest. And that probably means governments need to tax people in this room [of energy companies] to pay for it I think we just have to accept [that] as a societal reality.

But Truss lives in the parallel universe of libertarian Ayn Rand novels in which alleged societal realities are the enemy of the moral imperatives of choice, personal freedom and individual responsibility. In her view, Van Beurden suffers from false consciousness, as Marxists used to say of workers content to live with capitalism. Shell may have got lucky with the oil price, but its sole responsibility is to distribute its profits, however excessive or lucky, to shareholders who will spend it as they think fit or invest in what it considers likely to yield profit in future. It must and should not worry about those realities. She doesnt. So why should Shell?

Thus the irresponsible approach to energy. Capping the unit cost of energy so that the average bill is 2,500 per household this winter is certainly better than no cap, but for the 10.5 million people on absolute low incomes after housing costs, bills on that scale remain impossible. They should have had more relief, the better-off, less. Further windfall taxes should have been levied on energy companies, as Shells CEO suggested, and a huge campaign launched on energy saving. The government should set an example; following Germany, France and Spain, no public building should be heated above 19C. There could be traffic speed limits and restraints on lighting buildings, adverts and shop fronts. EU states are setting targets for reducing energy usage by 8%-10%. Why not Britain? The whole package could have been targeted and cheaper, and the billions saved could have been spent on a mass programme to scale up the insulation of our hopelessly energy-inefficient housing stock.

No dice. Instead, our government is praying that we will avoid the National Grids extreme scenario of Putin-induced, Europe-wide energy shortages and France, Belgium and Holland being incapable of supplying us electricity in the winter, which would force a succession of three-hour rolling blackouts. But France has signalled that it may not be able to export energy this winter and Putin, after a fall in gas prices over September, is all but certain to reproduce what he has done with Opec and impose gas shortages or even no gas on Europe. The extreme scenario is all too likely.

Worse, as the Bank of England told the government last week, its mini-budget of 45bn of tax cuts on top of this carelessly expensive approach to energy nearly triggered a financial implosion. Yet the markets are now learning that Truss wants to use investment zones to butcher up to another 12bn of corporation tax revenue even as the Bank comes to the end of its emergency gilt-buying programme. Trusss Britain is a hotbed of financial instability.

Yet the country and the Conservative party are chained to this imbecilic policy framework for at least the next two years. It may lead to political annihilation for the Tories at the next general election, but the damage that is being done remains colossal and hard to repair. Even the chancellor, vainly trying to cap the number of investment zones, and Jacob Rees-Mogg, suffering a veto of his proposed energy public information campaign both fully paid up members of the right must be dazed by the ideological obstinacy of their leader. The only silver lining is that Britain, after this, will never again flirt with toxic libertarianism.

Will Hutton is an Observer columnist

This article was amended on 9 October 2022. An earlier version referred to the government capping energy bills at 2,500 per household this winter. The energy price cap announced by Liz Truss is a limit on the unit cost of electricity and gas, not on overall bills; the 2,500 a year figure relates to the average amount that a typical household will pay under the new cap. This has been corrected.

See more here:
We are the country taking the energy crisis least seriously. Even Shells boss is baffled - The Guardian

Have you lost friends over politics? If so, theres a show I want to introduce to you.

There are four things you should do, in conversation, to avoid arguments. You can do these things and become even more persuasive at the same time.

Would you like to know what those four things are?

Recently, I came across a podcast episode that I want to share with you. I want to share it because it matches the classical spirit of the Advocates for Self-Government. Our organization was founded by a salesman to help people get better at selling Liberty.

I came across this episode because its host, Jim Babka, is the editor-at-large here at The Advocates. His show is called Gracearchy with Jim Babka.

Gracearchy is a neologism about ending the blame and scapegoating that is typical in politics, and replacing it with genuine understanding. If you listen to a few episodes, youll quickly gather that the host is a voluntaryist libertarian.

Recently, Jim interviewed Duane Lester, Director of Issue Education for the Grassroots Leadership Academy. Together, they explored more gracious political conversation.

And you can learn these four powerful techniques by watching or listening to this episode of Gracearchy with Jim Babka. Once youve got these down, you can rinse and repeat for each conversation you have.

Duane also explained how to apply the three languages of politics without trying to use a language other than your own. This insight will allow you to still be yourself yet state your own views more clearly than ever.

Duanes training sessions draw crowds at conferences around the country. If you would like to have him come train your local group in these techniques, you can also find out how to do that by watching the show.

More Persuasion: Less Fighting

Youll find Duanes advice to be quite practical and instantly useful.

And Jim has been called an outside the box thinker. His new show reaches a niche audience. I encourage you to check it out on YouTube, and even do as I have Click the bell and subscribe to AHO Network, which hosts this show.

Mike SerticPresidentAdvocates for Self-Government

Originally posted here:
How to sell freedom without fighting | The Advocates for Self-Government - The Liberator Online

End the hatred and the violence!

I didnt intend to research Kentucky Senator Rand Pauls father Ron Paul. I initially was reading about the early life of Oath Keeper Stewart Rhodes (Im assuming we all know he shot himself in the eye), and was surprised to learn that Rhodes had worked for Congressman Ron Paul in his Texas, and Washington D.C. offices and had been a volunteer in Montana during Ron Pauls 2008 presidential campaign.

I didnt think it was explosive information until I read the February 1, 2022 DK diary by David Neiwert in which he interviewed Rhodes ex-wife Tasha Adams. The way Adams explained it, the Ron Paul presidential campaign of 2008 was the seminal event that caused Rhodes to start the Oath Keepers.

What Adams said was: I think what he [Rhodes] saw was the energy of the Ron Paul movementhe saw the money, he saw the youth, he saw the people willing to donate their hours and their time, andyou know, typical narcissists, thats what they do, they absorb energy from people, right?and so I think he saw all that energy, he saw all that and he wanted to find a way to take it for himself.

It was news to me that when Rhodes founded the Oath Keepers in 2009, he went after the veterans, military personnel, and police officers he and Adams had met during the campaign, who were drawn to Pauls libertarian views. In fact, Rhodes focused on recruiting and encouraging them to remain true to the oath they swore to defend the Constitution and to disobey orders they considered illegal. Rhodes badly wanted to be their leader, and recruited many of them, who had nowhere to go after Pauls campaign ended in 2012, and before Trump declared his intention to run for president in 2015.

When I looked up Ron Paul, I was flabbergasted. I knew that he had been a Libertarian Congressman who had run for president three times; twice against former President Obama. What I didnt realize was that the former Air Force flight surgeon and OBGYN, was the orchestratorof a well-organized grassroots movement that had attracted some people who would later join the Oath Keepers and others who were just like the MAGAs, without the moniker or the caps. Neither did I know that for decades Paul had published (They were written under his name although he said he neither wrote them nor read them) and profited from political newsletters that were chock-full of conspiratorial, racist, and anti-government ravings. Just like Trumps slurs and lies, Pauls newsletters slurred and lied about revered people, like the Rev. Martin Luther King, and others.

According to author James Kirchick, who exposed the newsletters, and did a broader investigation into Pauls history of associations with all manner of groups and individuals on the extreme right, Ron Paul was truly an Angry White Man, and that was the title of Kirchicks book about him, which was published on the day of the 2008 New Hampshire primary.

Before writing this diary, I knew nothing about the United States Libertarian Party, which defines itself as a party that promotes civil liberties, non-interventionism, laissez-faire capitalism, and limiting the size and scope of government. But, if the behavior of the right- wing Libertarians can be used as an example, they are all angry white people. During the Trump years, I had no idea that the MAGAs who participated in the Insurrection;refused to wear masks,get vaccinated, stop attending huge COVID spreading events, stop harassingparents in school board meetings and at schools, stop threatening and harassingelection workers, hospital doctors and nurses,politicians, POC, Muslims, Jews, and LGBTQ children and adults possibly considered themselves to be right-wing Libertarians. To me, they just were/are lawless, racist, violent, intellectually challenged, selfish, amoral, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, homophobic, misogynistic, anti-American Republican gun-toting extremists, seditionists, and/or domestic terrorists. And, I still believe thats true. I also didnt know that Libertarianism means that you believe in Originalism regarding the Constitution, which is the position of Clarence Thomas and Ron Paul, such odd bedfellows.

As a Congressman, Ron Paul's nickname Dr. No reflects both his medical degree and his assertion that he would "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure was expressly authorized by the Constitution. This position frequently resulted in Paul casting the sole "no" vote against proposed legislation. And, it meant that Justice Clarence Thomas, for most of his SCOTUS career until recently, also voted alone, even when he agreed with other conservatives because he made up his Originalist positions.

When Ron Paul launched his third and final presidential campaign in 2012, according to Mother Jones, his extremist positions were met with jeers from the party establishment. To name a few of Pauls positions: He didnt believe in the IRS or the Federal Reserve. He wanted to abolish half of federal agencies, including the departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor; Eviscerate Entitlements (He said Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were unconstitutional), Enable State Extremism (Allow states to set their own policies on abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school); Legalize Prostitution; Legalize Drugs (including cocaine and heroine); Keep Monopolies in Tact (Remove federal anti-trust legislation); Stop Policing the Environment; Get Rid of the Civil Rights Act; and End Birthright Citizenship, among other things. And, his foreign policy was American Isolationism.

And, the people who supported Paul, among others, were survivalists, white supremacists, anti-Zionists, anti-government extremists (who wanted no legal restraints), American Isolationists, Libertarians, conservatives, people in the military and law enforcement (they were some of his largest donors), young, disaffected Democrats and independents who loved his isolationist stance on foreign policy and libertarian approach to social issues, anti-war activists, and rich folks (who wanted no governmental restraints to restraintheir greed and hunger for power). I would imagine he also appealed to racists, homophobes, misogynists, and evangelicals. In effect, they were just like current day MAGAs and members of the Republican cult, although there were far fewer of them back then. (They must not believe in birth control or abortionbecause they seem to have experienced exponential growth.)

And, their behavior during Pauls campaign was similar to how Trumps MAGA supporters behave. Pauls boisterous supporters raised hell in caucus states. His cheering throngs were loud and clear at the presidential debates. And, even after Paul withdrew, the feeling was that his followers would continue to make nuisances of themselves at state conventions.

When Paul was asked what he wanted from a campaign, that he couldnt win, he said he wanted his followers to run for office, win, and continue to do that to expand the movement and its influence in government. At the time, main stream Republicans felt that Ron Paul and his followers would fade out of the picture. Four years later, the coalition of people Paul had gathered together had greatly expanded, and they elected Trump as president.

After reading all that I did, what I dont understand is why former Congressman Ron Paul never has never been publiclyblamedandpilloriedrighteously castigated for the inestimable damage his actions, newsletters, opinions, and followers have doneto our democracy, democratic institutions,and to human decency within our country. He also hasnt been publicly identified in MSM for being Stewart Rhodes role model. Nor has Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, his son the obstructionist, been tarnished for his fathers actions,opinions, and behavior, which is consistent with his own, although he has tried to rebrand himself for a larger audience. But, we should never forget how dangerous they both are.

As James Kirchick so eloquently wrote in 2018 when his book Angry White Man, was published: Long before Donald Trump emerged as the most prominent purveyor of a racist conspiracy theory concerning the countrys first black president, played political footsie with white supremacists, condemned globalism, sold himself to the masses as a guru of personal enrichment, attacked American allies as scroungers, and made overtures to authoritarian regimes like Russia, there was Ron Paul. The ideological similarities between the two men, and the ways in which they created support, are striking.

The rest is here:
Rand Paul's daddy Ron Paul, the Angry White Man, who spawned a generation of obstructionist haters - Daily Kos