Mediaboss Marketing

Last summer, Motherboard's Matthew Cassel visited a group of libertarians and crypto enthusiasts who are trying to create their own micronation called Liberland on disputed land sitting between Croatia and Serbia.

As Yugoslavia splintered in the early 1990s, various countries rose from the former territory but a tiny island on the Danube River fell into dispute between Serbia and Croatia. In 2015, Vit Jedlicka, a Czech citizen, planted a flag on the island and declared it a new country, Liberland, with Jedlicka at its helm as president. He and other libertarians have pinned their hopes on the micronation despite Liberland being unrecognized by any country and inaccessible to any of the people eager to become citizens because Croatian border police arrest anyone who tries to step foot on the island.

Cassel visited the Liberlanders during Floating Man, a multi-day festival celebrating the unrealized dream of making a libertarian nation run on Bitcoin and the blockchain. When asked who Liberlanders were and what they had in common, Jedlicka told VICE: "People that believe in freedom and want to start somethingthey're kind of fed up with existing systems, they understand that it's easier to actually start new things than to fix anything in the existing political system.

At Floating Man, individuals and citizens are free to talk about whatever they like. VICE heard presentations ranging from discussions of crypto-anarchism and darknet markets to how we dont really have diseases and opera performances.

Motherboard talked with Zuzana Uchnarova, a Bitcoin miner who dreams of becoming an ambassador of Liberland, who explained that "for you, [Liberland] is just a dream but for me it's real. I know we want to change the world and I know we want to change something."

Vit Jetlika, President of Liberland, ferries a boatload of festival attendees to visit the uninhabited island after his house boat broke down and nearly sank. Photo: Jake Kruty (IG: @jakedog___)

Uchnarova added that she thought Liberland could be a new Dubai, or home to a fantastical space program.

"We would like to build a new Dubai here, maybe more than Dubai," she said. "Maybe we will build something that will transfer us to orbit directly. My dream is to have a hotel in orbit and everything will be paid for by bitcoins."

Founded and backed by individuals who made early fortunes in cryptocurrency, Liberland and its denizens have a dream of integrating it into every facet of life. Jedlicka wants financial transactions to exist on the blockchain, but also the countrys Congress, Senate, justice system, and voting system.

In Liberland, taxes will give you merits that can be used for voting. The more taxes you pay, the more tokens you recieve. Jedlicka believes this is much fairer than trying to give everyone the same vote.

"If you paid $30 million in taxes, you still have one vote. That's one of the things that's a little broken about the systems that we are living in, Jedlicka said. It's very important to do it so that the majority of society cannot dictate the minority, especially the minority that actually pays the taxes and makes the country possible.

A Liberland flag and a beer sit in the grass on the Serbian banks of the Danube River. Photo: Jake Kruty (IG: @jakedog___)

In a discussion with Jillian Crandall, an architect and instructor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Edward Ongweso Jr, a staff writer at Motherboard, the CRYPTOLAND panel talked more about the community and its goals, and how it intersects with current themes around crypto-colonialism, or crypto-wealthy people trying to set up enclaves that benefit them in foreign territories.

"It stems from the foundation of a very explicit tax haven from the EU for people who are self-proclaimed techno-libertarians and right-libertarians, to form their own community, Crandall explained. "Where I get concerned is where these systems are being rolled out as a techno-fix for a more efficient governance systems that allow its citizens to participate in a voting structure that they're being told is a very democratic voting structure increasing efficiencies because its using computational technologies and using the blockchain (which is a very transparent, trustless system). People might say yeah, absolutely, I want to get behind that, I like how that sounds. But they might not understand that the more tokens you have, the more votes you have, the more pull you have.

Read more here:
Inside Liberland, a Crypto-Libertarian Micronation In Eastern Europe

Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers Union and a regular opinion contributor to Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective.

OPINION: The Prime Minister can shuffle her front bench, sack a few lame ducks and shovel even more responsibility onto her few capable ministers. It will not work.

Her administration is caught in a death-spiral from which there is no return, and from which there will be no respite.

This government is done. Their poll numbers are buoyant but, as we have been taught many times in recent years, polls are misleading and unreliable.

READ MORE:* What the polls show: National nears pre-pandemic support, Labour's reign vulnerable* Chris Hipkins as Police Minister may be 'window dressing for the public' - Mark Mitchell* Can Labour attack Christopher Luxon and 'be kind' at the same time?

The one thing a poll can tell you with certainty is the trend; and the trend is clear. The electorate has tired of this government, or, perhaps, they have simply tired of its leader.

Ardern is trapped by her past success, and her past mistakes. She has one achievement: Covid.

Everything else has been a failure or of no enduring electoral weight, and more concerning for the ninth floor, she appears to be losing control of her own party.

She can sack Poto Williams, but she lacks the mana to fire Nanaia Mahuta, a much larger electoral liability but with a lot more political oomph.

ROBERT KITCHIN/Stuff

Damien Grant sees Nanaia Mahuta as an electoral liability for Jacinda Ardern, but the strength of the Mori caucus offers Mahuta protection.

The Prime Minister is unwilling or, more likely, unable to stand up to the Mori caucus, whose demands on issues like co-governance is proving a marketing bonanza to the Taxpayers Union, whose Three Waters rural road-show is playing to packed halls.

Defenders of Ardern will point to her outstanding performance in the aftermath of the Christchurch terror attack and the response to White Island, and in moments of crisis this Prime Minister has no equal. It is difficult to envision Luxon acting with such pathos or empathy.

Yet none of it matters. Even the Covid response is looking tattered in retrospect, with the missteps of not ordering stock in time, border failures, and the public relations disaster of how the parliamentary lawn protest was handled.

Within the political right, there is a belief that they are now a government in waiting. Christopher Luxon is confident. David Seymour is fizzing in anticipation. Chris Bishop, Nicola Willis, Brooke van Velden and even Todd Muller are waiting to get their mittens onto the levers of state.

Chris McKeen/Stuff

Christopher Luxon is talking the talk, but it may be what he hasnt said or done which will really count come the next election.

The mood of the boardroom, at least from my anecdotal encounters, is an expectation, even anticipation, that the irresponsible and unresponsive Ardern ministry will soon be swept away.

Well. Maybe.

Elections are tricky things. Favourites do not always win, and we should never underestimate the power of office, nor the ferocity of an incumbent with her back to the wall and everything to play for.

Few electoral certainties are more famous than Thomas E Dewey, the clean-cut Republican with the Freddie Mercury moustache, pegged to defeat incumbent Harry S Truman in the 1948 presidential election.

Deweys defeat is notable because it was unexpected, but it is also relevant because he was the front-runner and took the path often favoured by front-runners play it safe.

Brook Mitchell/Getty Images

Scott Morrison surprised everyone with his come-from-behind victory in Australias 2019 election. He is pictured with his family on that election night.

He ran a campaign so bland that one paper mocked that he had four stump speeches that could be summarised as: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead.

Across the Tasman we saw a similar result in 2019, when the unpopular Liberal administration headed by Scott Morrison held onto power against predictions of certain defeat.

Morrison had been consistently behind in the polls, but when the time came to vote for change, many Australians mysteriously decided not to.

Labour leader Bill Shorten ran a risk-adverse campaign, avoiding big commitments, that was later de-constructed by his party as lacking a political strategy and with a cluttered policy agenda.

Perhaps the most relevant upset, when looking at our upcoming election, is the 1992 election in the United Kingdom.

Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

John Major may not have been Britains highest performing prime minister, but he still managed to win when it mattered.

John Major was the dour and unimpressive successor to Margaret Thatcher, whose government was grappling with falling house prices, 10% interest rates, rising unemployment and dismal polling. Yet his Conservatives snatched a remarkable win against the run of play.

Voters, it has been claimed, simply didnt find opposition leader Neil Kinnock convincing, and the Tories were successful in painting Labour as lacking fiscal responsibility.

Opinion polls are like by-elections and high-school sweethearts an opportunity to experiment without having to make a serious commitment. What matters is what voters will do once in the cardboard confines of a polling booth.

National is too confident. They are standing at the edge of the dance, waiting for the voter to tire of their current partner rather than seeking to cut in. It is significant that the Taxpayers Union, and not the National Party, is holding rallies against Three Waters.

SUPPLIED/Stuff

The Prime Minister enjoys a moment Chris Luxon is unlikely to ever have, getting US airtime with Stephen Colbert.

For all her failings, Ardern retains enormous respect and, in some quarters, genuine affection. Many voters secretly quite like the fact that our Prime Minister is feted on the global stage.

Chris Luxon isnt a celebrity. He will not be invited to meet Stephen Colbert. Anthony Albanese will not give him a hug. Ardern has a cachet he lacks and, maybe, voters will pause before letting her go.

And here is the real challenge for National. Economic uncertainty has fallen over the country like a hoar frost, and if this uncertainty is matched with a savage downturn, two things will come into play.

First, if it is a global meltdown, Ardern and Grant Robertson will not be held responsible, any more than they were held responsible for Covid.

Stuff

Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers' Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective.

Second, who are voters going to trust more to look after them: the empathetic Ardern and her big-spending, fiscally irresponsible Robertson, or the former airline executive?

Luxon hasnt made it clear what National would do if elected, other than a few populist policies. He is playing it safe.

Because they have not defined themselves, National and its leader is providing the Government the opportunity to do it for them, which partly explains why we are seeing Labour running negative attacks on Luxon.

It would take a massive effort for National to lose the next election, against an unpopular administration which has lost its mandate and credibility. They seem up for that challenge.

Read this article:
The Ardern Government is in a death spiral with no hope... or is it? - Stuff

I have been married three times, and I would like to think that makes me equipped to tell the difference between love and lust. Most of us realise we are in love in the most unromantic of situations. For me, it was when I was heavily pregnant, had severe vertigo and had just vomited in the doctors surgery.

Ive wet myself, I announced a few minutes later, mortified and weeping in the passenger seat of my husbands prized black VW Golf, convinced he was ready to jump ship.

Its OK, darling, he whispered, leaning over to buckle my belly into the seat. In that moment, I knew that this really was love. It wasnt that I didnt think I loved him before, but age had altered the way I felt about things. I had said it to someone else before, and it hadnt worked out, and I wondered what that elusive glue was that kept couples happy together for ever.

I was 39, and he was 48. We had been together for three years, marrying seven months after wed met. We had both been in relationships that had changed us. They had shaped us into people who could build a life together.

My husband and I come from similar backgrounds: our mothers were both raised in Karachi and we grew up speaking English and Urdu, navigating what it meant to be of Pakistani heritage in Britain, and Muslim. Despite these similarities, we chose different ends of the spectrum of life as our starting points He went backpacking across the globe in his 20s; I got married.

He used to describe himself as a liberal libertarian, open to all the experiences of life. I was an uptight, conservative Muslim woman, who was once nicknamed the runaway bride because I had left two arranged marriages. He spent his life avoiding girls like me, and if wed met earlier it would never have worked. Ironically, it was the very things that I thought would put someone off me that he had liked: I had a juicy past, I had lived on the edges of acceptability, albeit reluctantly, and I had nothing to hide.

I often ask him what made him pursue me. I fancied you, he says. It never fails to raise a smile, because who doesnt want to be lusted after? I never knew how nice it would be to be with someone who speaks Urdu, he once added, thoughtfully.

Esther Perel, the author of Mating in Captivity says, Love is a vessel that contains both security and adventure. For my husband and me, our diversity of thought brings the adventure, and the familiarity of our experiences offers security. It has been the bridge between lust and love.

Single friends ask how I knew I could trust that it would be different this time, how I knew that he was the one; the answer is that I didnt. I just knew what I wanted my life to look like, and I could see he wanted the same, and that was what made it worth taking the risk. So, I made myself vulnerable. Life had taught me that whatever happened, I would handle it.

It is always in the most ordinary moments that I have felt extraordinary love for my husband. Like the Valentines Day after our first child was born, when I was breastfeeding in bed, exhausted from motherhood. He brought me a cup of tea and a packet of cheese-and-onion crisps my favourite. I cried. It was confirmation that he knew me, the tiny things about me, like the way I take my tea, or the fact that I dont like sultanas in scones, or the kind of things I watch on TV.

My Nani used to say that it takes 20 years to fall in love, and I would laugh at her practicality, teasing her about whether she had ever really loved her husband, since she had become a widow at 35. But she always smiled when she spoke of my grandfather. Her marriage had been arranged when she was 18, so there hadnt been a long courtship.

I now understand that she was teaching me about true love, that it grows with the years of incremental kindness. Its a lesson I am reminded of every time my husband hands me a cup of tea at the end of a long day.

Read the original here:
Three marriages have taught me what true love looks like a cup of tea and some cheese and onion crisps - The Guardian

By Zoe Han

An overly consolidated market and lack of support for breastfeeding moms are some of the factors contributing to the formula shortage, experts said.

What can be done to prevent shortages of baby formula, tampons and other consumer products?

The U.S. Senate's Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights Subcommittee held a hearing this week to look at the baby-formula market in the U.S., and broader issue of supply-chain issues.

A national infant formula shortage has forced some desperate parents to drive long hours and scour stores and websites to find a formula for their babies. For the seven days ending May 29, 73% of baby formula products nationwide were out of stock, according to Datasembly, a retail-tracking group. And in some states such as California and Georgia, the out-of-stock rates were at more than 90%.

Baby formula isn't the only product vulnerable to sudden shortages; many industries are overly consolidated and overly reliant on a few big players, said one expert at the hearing.

"There are dozens, if not hundreds, of industries that would result in effects that would be far more devastating than what we've seen here," Barry Lynn, executive director of the liberal think tank Open Markets Institute in Washington, D.C., told the Senate hearing of the baby-formula supply-chain shortage.

One example: more than 95% of ingredients in generic drugs come from China, and their supply could easily be disrupted by diplomatic issues between the U.S. and China, Lynn said.

Baby formula stock was already running low before Abbott Laboratories, which controls 40% of the formula market, closed a Michigan manufacturing facility in February. As such, experts say the infant formula shortage was a storm waiting to happen. For decades, the U.S. infant formula market has been controlled by just a few major players.

Heavy tariffs and strict labeling regulations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have made it difficult for other players to enter the market, analysts say. In fact, the onerous process to become a baby-formula manufacturer in the U.S. has resulted in only one new manufacturer successfully registering with FDA in the past 15 years, said Scott Lincicome, director of general economics and trade at the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, at the hearing.

"Today's producer concentration and any resulting problems are primarily the result of federal government policy, not any sort of natural, private-market failure," Lincicome told the hearing.

"I'm really frustrated," said Sen. Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, at the hearing. "Four companies have gained control over the formula market through acquisitions. It leads to a lack of innovation and leads to a lack of resiliency and a consolidated market."

Abbott (ABT), Mead Johnson Nutrition (owned by Reckitt ), Perrigo (PRGO), and Nestl USA (NESN.EB) are the four major players in the baby-formula market in the U.S. The Biden administration invoked the Defense Production Act on May 18 to speed up formula production and import formula from abroad for additional supply.

Abbot, Mead Johnson Nutrition and Nestl USA did not respond immediately to a request for comment. A Perrigo spokesman said the company's products constitute about 8% of the total infant formula market. "The Company is doing everything possible to provide as much infant formula to its retail partners during this challenging time," the spokesman told MarketWatch. "During the three months ending March 31, 2022, we shipped 37% more formula vs. the same period last year."

While U.S. businesses and consumers have encountered numerous shortages due to supply chain disruption during the COVID-19 pandemic, infant formula is different from industries such as semiconductors and automobiles: Just 2% of baby formula products are imported into the U.S.

Tariffs on infant formula range can be as high as to 17.5%.

"Supply, diversity, economic openness [and] low trade barriers really does help in terms of having a better, more stable market," Lincicome said.

At the same time, increasing infrastructure support for breastfeeding would help to alleviate the weight of the demand for infant formula, Ginger Carney, director of clinical nutrition at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., told the Senate hearing.

Carney said breast milk is the optimal choice for infant nutrition, but not all mothers are able to support their babies this way. Many mothers set out to breastfeed but have problems doing it, either because of a lack of educational support or other road blocks, such as going back to work.

"Many mothers may start out breastfeeding, and then they breastfeed for a few weeks for as long as they have maternity leave," Carney said. "And I've noticed a huge drop once mothers have to return to work."

Most employers and workplaces don't provide mothers with a private, clean place for mothers to pump their milk, Carney said, and mothers may feel embarrassed or concerned about retaliation if they take breaks during work to pump. Lower-wage mothers can be subjected to discrimination, Carney said.

It's also a logistical challenge; breast milk must be refrigerated and stored in special storage bags or clean, food-grade containers, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moms who want to pump at work and transport the milk back to their babies need to have all of this equipment with them, as well as a place to plug in the breast pump and keep the milk cool.

Carney used the example of a new mother working at a fast-food outlet. "What are you going to do if you gotta go take a break and say, 'Oh, watch the window. I've gotta go to pump my milk?' They're just not able to do that. It's just not accepted as the norm," Carney said.

-Zoe Han

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

06-19-22 1340ET

Link:
'4 companies have gained control over the formula market': Lawmakers and women's health advocates debate solutions to baby-formula shortage -...

"I think that the [Libertarian Party's] emphasis should be on getting us back to our roots as a country," says Justin Amash. "What this country is about is liberalism in the classical sense, the idea that people should be freeto make their own decisions about their lives, and government to the extent possible should just stay out of it."

Amash was a Republican congressman from Michigan once described by Politico as the House's "new Ron Paul" because of his willingness to buck party-line votes on principle. He switched his party affiliation to Libertarian in his fifth and final term, making him the party's highest officeholder since its founding in 1971. He explored a run for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination in 2020 before changing his mind, paving the way for a run by longtime Libertarian Party member Jo Jorgensen.

Amash was in Reno, Nevada, during the Mises Caucus takeover of the Libertarian Party. He is not a member of the caucus but plans to remain in the party.

Reason's Nick Gillespiesat down with Amash in Reno to ask him about his views of the Mises Caucus, his vision for the future of the party, and his political ambitions for 2024 and beyond.

Produced by Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller; edited by Adam Czarnecki and Danielle Thompson; camera by James Marsh and Weissmueller; sound editing by John Osterhoudt; additional graphics by Regan Taylor and Isaac Reese.

Read more:
'We Believe in Human Cooperation:' Justin Amash's Vision for the Libertarian Party - Reason