Archive for February, 2015

Rand Paul at CPAC: The government can quite frankly get lost!

Rand Paul has always been somewhat of a rock star at the Conservative Political Action Conference which, in past years, has shown a decided libertarian bent.

This year, Paul is hoping for more of the same. The Republican senator from Kentucky will address the conference Friday, laying out more of his signature message of small government and personal freedom.

"We must remember that our rights are unlimited, un-enumerated, and given to us by God," Paul will say, according to excerpts of his speech. "Your rights are who you are. Your rights are what you are. Your rights are in your DNA and the government can -- quite frankly - get lost!"

The potential 2016 presidential candidate has been widely embraced at the conference, bringing in throngs of supporters wearing "Stand with Rand" gear and handily winning its straw poll for the past two years. The conference has been a family affair of sorts; Paul's father, former Texas congressman Ron Paul, won the straw poll in 2010 and 2011.

Rand Paul cited familial ties on Fox News on Wednesday - but not his own. Instead, he took aim at former Florida governor Jeb Bush, a rival who will be looking to solidify his standing among the Republican base at the event.

Paul said that Bush's having a father and brother who were both president "tends to draw some attention," but he believes that Bush may have some issues at CPAC.

"We think there will be a lot of friendly faces for us. There's definitely a place for moderates, but it may not be the same level of enthusiasm for moderates at this conference," Paul said on "The Kelly File."

Paul has made clear that one of the core audiences he is trying to attract both at the conference and beyond is young people. Paul said that he can't predict the poll but that he has spent a "lot of time going to universities, talking to young people" about how the "government ought to stay out of their lives." It's a message, he said, that resonates with them.

Referring to another potential GOP presidential candidate. Paul said he did not know much about Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, but he continued to hit Bush, saying that young people are "not very tolerant of hypocrisy." The idea that Bush admitted that he smoked marijuana while "in an elite prep school" but is "willing to put somebody in jail for medical marijuana," Paul said, won't play well among young people.

Katie Zezima covers the White House for Post Politics and The Fix.

View post:
Rand Paul at CPAC: The government can quite frankly get lost!

Volokh Conspiracy: Hows this for a working definition of a libertarian?

Ilyas post about recent libertarian books of interest raised the question in the comments of what makes someone a libertarian. I doubt any two libertarians agree on the exact boundaries of libertarianism, but hows this for a working definition: A libertarian is someone who generally opposes government interference with and regulation of civil society, even when the result of such government action would be to clamp down on things the individual in question personally dislikes, finds offensive, or morally disapproves of.

Thus, for example, a libertarian who hates smoking opposes smoking bans in private restaurants, a libertarian who thinks homosexual sodomy is immoral nevertheless opposes sodomy laws, a libertarian who finds certain forms of hate speech offensive still opposes hate speech laws, a libertarian who believes in eating natural foods opposes bans or special taxes on processed foods, and a libertarian who thinks that all employers should pay a living wage nevertheless opposes living wage legislation. It doesnt matter whether the libertarian holds these positions because he believes in natural rights, for utilitarian reasons, or because he thinks God wants us to live in a libertarian society.

David Bernstein is the George Mason University Foundation Professor at the George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, VA. He is the author of Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights Against Progressive Reform (2011); You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws (2003);

Go here to read the rest:
Volokh Conspiracy: Hows this for a working definition of a libertarian?

Volokh Conspiracy: Some important new books on libertarianism

A number of new books on libertarianism and related issues have come out recently or should be in print soon. If you are interested in libertarianism, these books may well be of interest to you.

I. David Boazs The Libertarian Mind.

Perhaps the one with the broadest appeal is The Libertarian Mind, by David Boaz of the Cato Institute. It is the best recent introduction to libertarianism for a popular audience. Boaz does an excellent job of surveying both the history of libertarianism and libertarian positions on a variety of modern political issues. He is especially good on noneconomic issues that many people with only a passing knowledge of libertarian thought dont normally associate with the movement. For example, he emphasizes that libertarian thinkers were calling for the abolition of anti-sodomy laws, the War on Drugs, and other pernicious social regulations long before these became mainstream positions elsewhere on the political spectrum. In the nineteenth century and early twentieth centuries, they were among the first to advocate the abolition of slavery and laws banning married women from owning property and women in general from entering into various professions. Boaz also does a good job of raising and addressing a variety of standard objections to libertarian ideas that are traditional advanced by critics (particularly mainstream liberals and conservatives in the United States). For example, one chapter has a strong discussion of how civil society efforts are much more successful at caring for the poor than advocates of large welfare states generally assume.

In part because of the books broad scope, there are places where it glosses over important issues. For example, Boaz only briefly mentions the problem of political ignorance, which in my view is a much more central element of the case for limiting the power of democratic governments than his analysis suggests. The book also includes very little discussion of internal disagreements among libertarians, such as that between utilitarians libertarians and advocates of natural rights, the longstanding debate between majority who advocate tightly limited government and the minority who advocate anarchism. Similarly, Boaz assumes with relatively little argument that a highly dovish foreign policy is the right approach for libertarians; that is indeed the dominant view among American libertarians today, but it is far from the only one, either today or historically.

Despite a few limitations like these, this is an extremely valuable contribution to the public debate. As an introduction to libertarian ideas, I think it can be usefully paired with British political scientist Mark Penningtons 2011 book Robust Political Economy, which outlines the libertarian take on several major public policy issues in greater social scientific depth, and also devotes more attention to countries outside the United States.

II. Jacob Levy, Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom.

McGill political theorist Jacob Levys Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom is a great overview of a longstanding issue in libertarian thought (and liberal thought more generally): the appropriate role of intermediate groups such as religious organizations, voluntary associations, and organized ethnic groups. While such groups can enhance individual liberty, they can also undermine it. As Levy shows, for centuries liberal thinkers have been divided between those who claimed that intermediate groups should have wide autonomy to organize themselves as they see fit, and those who argue that the state must tightly regulate them, lest they become a threat to individual freedom. We see this today, for example, in debates between those who argue that traditional religious groups should have wide autonomy, and those who fear that extending such autonomy to ,e.g., fundamentalist Muslims and Christians, would lead to subordination of women and other injustices. Levy effectively traces this longstanding debate back to the origins of liberal thought in the early through the Enlightenment, the American and French Revolutions, nineteenth century thinkers like de Tocqueville and Mill, and on to the present day.

Levys normative chapters are a bit less strong than the historical ones. He argues that neither pure freedom of association nor complete homogenization of groups to eliminate illiberal tendencies is defensible. Thus, he concludes that the tension between group pluralism and the possible need for centralized control of these groups in order to protect individuals cant be completely eradicated. This is true as far as it goes; like Levy, I am skeptical that any rights should be absolutely inviolable, regardless of circumstances. But I think he tends to underrate the case for strong (even if not completely unlimited) freedom of association and the ways in which competition between groups can give individuals a wide range of options and mitigate abuses, even without extensive government intervention. Be that as it may, this book is a must-read for both libertarians and others interested in debates over freedom of association.

III. Brennan and Jaworskis Markets Without Limits.

Finally, I very much look forward to Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworskis book Markets Without Limits. Despite the title, the authors dont claim that markets should be literally without limits, in the sense that any and all possible commercial transactions are morally defensible. Rather, as the authors put it, they argue that [i]f you may do it for free, you may do it for money. For example, if it is permissible to donate organs, it should also be permissible to sell them in organ markets. On the other hand, it is wrong for a hit man to commit murder for profit, because committing murder is wrong regardless of whether he gets paid for it or not.

Here is the original post:
Volokh Conspiracy: Some important new books on libertarianism

Niskanen Center, New Libertarian Think Tank, Launches with Focus on Congressional Action

WASHINGTON, Feb. 26, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --The Niskanen Center, a newly established Washington-based think tank, announced this week its plans to build momentum and deliver results for libertarian policies in Congress and across the federal government. The group's initial focus will be on expanding legal immigration; replacing command-and-control greenhouse gas regulation with market-friendly emission controls; strengthening civil liberties protections; reducing defense spending and improving Pentagon planning procedures; and reforming entitlement policy.

"Our mission is simple: to produce concrete results libertarian-friendly legislation and regulation. Success requires us to build the foundations necessary for libertarian policies to become viable in Congress and throughout government," said Jerry Taylor, president of the Niskanen Center. "Niskanen's approach accepts the political terrain and embraces relative policy improvements. Above all, we seek meaningful reforms, whether sweeping in scope or cumulative."

The Niskanen Center's audience is the Washington insiders policy-oriented legislators, presidential appointees, career civil servants in planning, evaluation and budget offices, congressional committee staff, engaged academics, and interest group analysts who together decide the pace and direction of policy change.

The Niskanen Center's focus on policy change complements the work of existing libertarian organizations, most of which are engaged in other activities such as analyzing or criticizing public policy, changing public opinion, blocking counterproductive regulation and legislation, and electing friendly politicians.

Taylor added that there are two important guidelines for the Center's work:

1. Embracing relative policy improvements The Niskanen Center believes that while major changes in legislative or administrative policy are possible, they are rare. More typical are marginal policy changes that, cumulatively, often have major impact and help set the stage for more sweeping reforms down the road. The Niskanen Center will aggressively forward second, third, or fourth best reforms (as allowed by the political terrain) if they represent improvement over current policy while keeping an eye out for windows of opportunity for more sweeping change.

2. Willingness to compromise The Niskanen Center further believes that sustainable policy change is rarely possible without broad coalitions across partisan and ideological lines. Assembling such coalitions will require the Center to tailor its reform proposals so as to be compatible with the preferences of those who often do not share our beliefs. Hence, the exact nature of our reform proposals will likely mutate and evolve in the course of the deal making necessary to construct winning political coalitions.

The Center is named after Will (Bill) Niskanen, former chairman of the Cato Institute. Before his time at Cato, Niskanen was a defense policy analyst at RAND, director of program analysis at the Institute for Defense Analyses, assistant director of the Office of Management and Budget, professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley, chief economist at the Ford Motor Company, professor of economics at UCLA, and a member (and later, acting chairman) of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan.

"Bill Niskanen was a personification of the qualities we embrace at the Niskanen Center. He was an exemplary scholar who never let ideology or partisanship color his interpretation of facts and data. He was an idealist but, at the same time, a political realist with a burning desire to improve the state of affairs to whatever extent he could," added Taylor.

For more about the Niskanen Center's theory of policy change and the Center's approach,read our conspectus and visit http://www.niskanencenter.org

Go here to read the rest:
Niskanen Center, New Libertarian Think Tank, Launches with Focus on Congressional Action

Progressives and conservatives in PAS clash

With the party election looming, tensions are running high between the progressives and the spiritual conservatives in the Islamist party.

PETALING JAYA: In another Pakatan-led hudud saga twist, Kota Baru PAS Division Youth chief, Rosli Allani Abdul Kadir in defending DAPs Gobind Singh Deo, accused PAS assistant secretary-general Takiyuddin Hassan of being arrogant and emotional when the latter demanded DAP leave Pakatan.

According to The Star Online, Rosli said, We are surprised with Datuk Takiyuddins remarks. It was immature and does not represent the overall views of the Kota Baru PAS area or Kelantan PAS.

Datuk Takiyuddin should adopt a moderate approach to reconcile both parties rather than add fuel to fire and he must remember the words of the late Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat that PAS was a brother to DAP and PKR in Pakatan and PAS must play a role to advise its coalition partners rather than run them down.

Rationalising that Gobinds hard hitting statement may have been his personal views, Rosli said Takiyuddins response was therefore inappropriate, adding that he should have used appropriate party channels to address the issue instead.

Gobind, who is DAP Legal Bureau chief, told PAS on Tuesday that it would no longer be seen as part of the opposition alliance if it went ahead with its hudud plan.

Takiyuddin responded just as harshly demanding DAP stay out of PAS affairs.

Meanwhile, Johor PAS deputy commissioner Dzulkefly Ahmad yesterday pointed out that PAS presidency was not exclusively for the ulama faction in the party and professionals could compete for the top post as well.

At a press conference, Dzulkelfly said, The presidents post is an administrative one and choosing someone from the professional group does not mean we are turning our backs on the ulama.

He reminded everyone that former presidents from the professional group included Abbas Alias, Burhanuddin Al-Helmy and Mohd Asri Muda.

View original post here:
Progressives and conservatives in PAS clash