Mediaboss Marketing

The Oxford Dictionary defines Liberty as the The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on ones behaviour or political views. It is a privilege to be living under a constitution which protects personal liberty from governmental tyranny. However, it begs the question, why is liberty even important? What function does it play in our society?

Liberty, most importantly, allows for individual empowerment. When a human being is free, they act independently of any other coercive institution. Free men have the liberty to express their thoughts, make judgements and act in any way they please. Therefore, these men will be accountable for their own judgements; they must accept moral responsibility for wrongdoing or any harm caused and take credit for any improvements they introduced. This burden of a responsibility that falls on any free man is the backbone of individual empowerment. If the individual is free to make decisions as he wishes, he must also be free to bear the consequences of those decisions as an individual. Otherwise, total reliance on the self and individuality as a concept cannot exist, and therefore the individual is disempowered. The individual which has had harm done to him is also disempowered if you do not allow him to hold other individuals accountable for their actions. This doctrine of self-reliance and self-responsibility is the backbone of the individual as a single, free, and ultimately powerful entity.

Individual empowerment is also the key to happiness. Liberty allows individuals to pursue their own interests. This free pursuit of interests is ultimately important if men want to lead happy and fulfilled lives: each individual is different, and therefore the fields or topics they are interested in will differ. Living as an individual means men are empowered to follow their passions and dreams, instead of being dragged into a decision which the collective has taken. Therefore freedom will ultimately lead to a happier society, and flourishing humankind.

The empowerment of the individual is also crucial in developing the peoples character. An empowered individual is free to make poor decisions and mistakes. These mistakes might be harmful to others or harmful to themselves. However, the mistakes themselves arent important. What is crucial is that the individual learns from these mistakes. If an individual is accountable for their own actions, they will have to bear the consequences. The effect felt by the individual could include moral guilt, bodily injuries, or even a prison sentence. If individuals feel these consequences then the next time they make an important decision, they will contemplate the situation more fully, consider the potential consequences more closely and make a better decision. They will learn from their mistakes, and the individuals judgement will improve. This is essential in developing peoples character.

The mistakes made by the individual will also lead to the development of a strong moral compass and resilient conscience. In order to develop a moral compass in the nuanced, difficult and hazy field of moral decision making the individual must personally have made bad and good decisions, and recognise whether a decision was morally right or wrong. Using this moral framework gained from experience, the individual will attain a capacity to recognise the good and bad in any moral dilemma. This leads to the development of their conscience and moral sense of right and wrong. This aspect of individual empowerment is therefore crucial to creating a functioning, cohesive and overall moral society.

Social liberty is also key in reducing social tensions. Despite the underlying principles of tolerance and freedom that any libertarian society should have, we must accept that different individuals live according to different values. Different sets of values lead to radically different opinions about certain social issues. When controversial matters are dealt with through political spheres, social divisions and fragmentation is caused. One example of a controversial social matter is gay marriage; the solution to the problem is simple. If we privatise marriage, get the state out of marriage and give people the freedom to decide how to define marriage, then the problem is solved. Homosexuals who want to get married will be free to do so and will be free to live by their own values. People that dont believe in gay marriage are free to live by their values and not participate in gay marriage. Both sets of values can co-exist side by side peacefully. This prevents a conflict between the two sets of values in the political arena, and one set of values emerging as the winner, preventing tensions within political channels. Based on the principle of social liberty, it is also right for the government to defund Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States. Individuals would still be perfectly free to decide whether they think that having an abortion is the morally right or wrong choice to make; the practice of abortion would not be banned. However, the state should not get involved in deciding which value is the correct one. By funding Planned Parenthood, the state is in effect endorsing the practice of abortion. It is simply wrong to impose pro-abortion values on other citizens by forcing pro-lifers to commit taxpayer money to a practice that they believe is immoral!

The principle stands as this: if an individual has certain values and beliefs on social issues which conflict with other individuals, instead of solving the issue by asking the politicians to make a judgement, each individual should have the liberty to live by their own values (in line with J.S. Mills Harm Principle). This would prevent political tensions and a showdown between the sets of social values. Therefore, social liberty overall reduces social tensions, and individuals with different sets of beliefs are able to co-exist peacefully.

Another important aspect of liberty is economic liberty. I believe economic liberty is the only way to create a moral society. The morality of capitalism and economic liberty is that people engage in voluntary transaction of goods and services. In socialist or statist societies, the government coerces their citizens to hand over money; this is intrinsically immoral. However, when there is economic liberty, and the individual is free to do what they want with their money, the concept of consent in transactions emerges.

In addition, economic liberty creates a less selfish society. Under a statist or socialist government, individuals feel entitled to whatever goods or services they receive, even if they cannot afford them. Under capitalism, in order to earn money and buy goods and services, you need to provide a service to someone else. It can be described as forced altruism, because if you do not earn money you simply starve and die. In other words, Capitalist populations understand that in order to gain access to money, before you take value out of society (in the form of cash), you need to contribute and generate value for society (by providing your labour to a business).

Economic liberty also plays an essential part in preserving personal freedom. The fundamental threat to freedom is the power to coerce, which comes from centralised governments and a lack of economic liberty. When the power that comes from government gets into the wrong hands, liberty is sacrificed; an evil individual could misuse government powers to become oppressive. This has happened before in societies with socialist policies and a planned economy, like in Nazi Germany or Venezuela. The concentration of power in the hands of the federal government could easily lead to the creation of a despotic regime. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power. Socialism is the enemy of freedom. It requires that economic activity be organised using directives from central government. This in turn concentrates power into the hands of bureaucrats. Under a capitalist system with economic liberty, by removing the organisation of economic activity from the control of political authority, the free market naturally eliminates this source of power and potential destruction. There has never once existed a free society which wasnt based on free markets and the voluntary exchange of goods and services. Economic liberty and capitalism is an essential part of a free society. Removing economic liberty would therefore be a danger to the free society as a whole.

Liberty matters to me because I want to free to pursue my own interests in life. I want the liberty to take my own path in life and nurture my inherent talents. I want to be able to tailor my career to my set of abilities and by doing so fulfil my full potential, not simply become a pawn used by the government to meet its annual production targets. I want to be able to take advantage of my inherent sets of skills. Without liberty, the government would be able to impose on me what I should or should not do, and therefore prevent my areas of talent may being fully. That is why I personally value liberty very highly.

* Keyvan Farmanfarmaian is a British libertarian living in London.

The main BeingLibertarian.com account, used for editorials and guest author submissions. The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions. Contact the Editor at editor@beinglibertarian.email

Like Loading...

Read the original:
Liberty The Greatest Force For Good - Being Libertarian

When the hype of the 2016 presidential election dies down, it should serve as a stark reminder that the only true loser in the race was liberty. The question has shifted in recent years from what the role of government is to how much that role need be increased, and for what reasons. Needless to say, this will only serve to usurp more power from the individual, and the costs thereof will come from his or her pocket. Owing to this current need, I think we should take a moment to reflect upon the bedrock concepts of freedom and the benefits they provide to us all.

Like many others, I found Bastiat to be one of the most inspiring sources of libertarian philosophy, and his terminology still rings true today. All of us, through birth or experience, inherit and develop our own skills. It stands to reason that one should be able to marshal their faculties toward creative goals of their own choosing, and that the fruits of such endeavors are the rightful gains of their creator. It is entirely in keeping with the well-being and dignity of the individual that they ought to be free to pursue their own prosperity, provided that in doing so they do not violate the freedom likewise belonging to their fellow man. This mindset is at the very core of what it means to be free, and it serves to empower the individual over the institutions and parties that would otherwise repress the common man purely through their numbers or capacity for coercion. Anyone remotely well-versed in the history of human affairs should understand that where individuals are not in control of their own destiny, misery and stagnation tend to manifest as the watchful vulture does over a dying man.

But the well-being of the little guy is not the only benefit that individual freedom offers. Society at large is rejuvenated by the liberty of its members, purely through the standards that society will set for itself. If individuals are encouraged to make their own destiny and are similarly rewarded for providing a product or service to society, individuals are compelled to do so by their own rational self-interest. It might very well be said that socioeconomic liberty is the ideal foundation for human society, as it is the only option which demands that an individual provide something of value to earn something of value in return.

On the topic of economic liberty, it is in that realm that we can see the more tangible strengths of individual freedom as they pertain to society at large. It would be no small exaggeration to say that free market capitalism turned the United States of America into an economic superpower, leading her into dominance in domestic industrial output and international trade. The same free market principles have pulled more human beings out of abject poverty than any government program or international relief effort ever devised. The reasoning behind this is simple, and explained most concisely by Milton Friedman, who argued that there is nobody more careful with ones money than themselves. When the gains and losses are your own, there is greater incentive to make smart decisions and invest wisely. There is no such incentive for those with no skin in the game, who can slice money off of your paycheck to fund their ideas and suffer no consequences for being wrong.

In more philosophical considerations, social liberty is a source of good to a species oft-tangled in tragedy at the hands of abusive authorities. It would be difficult to imagine living a happy life if your every word had to be stripped of dissenting sentiment, carefully crafted to avoid betraying a thought you might be incarcerated or killed for. The freedom to say what you want and think what you will does not exist so friends can discuss their favorite pizza toppings. It is a right necessary to the development of an informed public capable of governing themselves fairly and justly. Social liberty is indeed the greatest violence-reduction construct yet invented, for it allows difference and even conflict of a kind while maintaining peace and civility among the people. What could possibly ensure a healthier society than the freedom of its members to be the people they want to be and share their ideas with one another?

But in conclusion, liberty is only as strong as the individual is. It means something slightly different to each one of us, and it provides a rally point for people of all varieties to come together and fight for something that unites them in common goodness. I think of the freedom I have inherited, and the sheer amount of blood and sweat that has been shed by those who came before me. It never fails to convince me that I am not wrong in wishing to preserve it.

As Thomas Jefferson warned, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

* Jesse James is 21 years old. He is an unpublished writer of mostly science fiction and horror. However, his literary passions are historical and political in nature. He resides in Quebec, Canada, which has given him some less than favorable views on government intervention.

The main BeingLibertarian.com account, used for editorials and guest author submissions. The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions. Contact the Editor at editor@beinglibertarian.email

Like Loading...

See the original post:
Remedial Liberty - Being Libertarian

By Kelsey Snell, and David Weigel, and Ed O'Keefe By Kelsey Snell, and David Weigel, and Ed O'Keefe February 1 at 4:47 PM

Senate Republicans moved aggressively Wednesday to push through several of Trumps Cabinet nominees, the latest round in an escalating showdown with Democrats trying to thwart President Trumps administration.

Republicans lashed out angrily at Democrats trying to stall the presidents nominees at the committee level, suspending the rules to approve two nominees, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) for secretary of health and human services and Steven T. Mnuchin to lead the Treasury.

Republicans also advanced the nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) for attorney general, and they finalized confirmation of former ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson for secretary of state by a vote of 56 to 43.

The day was not without its setbacks for Republicans, however. Two GOP senators, Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine), signaled they do not plan to support the presidents nominee for education secretary, Betsy DeVos leaving Republicans one vote shy of the number needed to doom her nomination. Both senators cited their uncertainty about whether DeVos, an avid supporter of charter schools and school vouchers, is sufficiently committed to helping public schools.

The drama on Capitol Hill unfolded at a time when Democrats, under intense pressure from liberal activists, have become increasingly emboldened to block Trumps agenda and appointees.

Democrats were enraged by the administrations executive order issued over the weekend to bar travel to the United States by those from seven majority-Muslim countries. They galvanized around the firing of acting attorney general Sally Yates, who was dismissed for refusing to enforce the ban. And some Democrats were also angered by the presidents nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court on Tuesday night, arguing that Republicans cannot expect them to swiftly approve the selection after their blockade of then-President Barack Obamas nominee, Judge Merrick Garland.

[Two GOP senators announce opposition to DeVos]

Several Democrats sided with Republicans, however, to approve Tillerson, including senators from states that Trump won during the election: Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Joe Manchin III (W.Va.). Maine Sen. Angus King (I) and Sen. Mark R. Warner (Va.) also supported Tillerson.

There is little Democrats can do to prevent final confirmation of any of Trumps picks because the GOP needs only 51 votes to approve them in the full Senate and there are 52 Republican senators.

With Tillerson, six high-ranking Trump nominees have been approved by the full Senate: Elaine Chao as transportation secretary; retired generals John Kelly and Jim Mattis at the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon; Mike Pompeo to lead the CIA; and Nikki Haley to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Over in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republicans celebrated Sessionss approval on a party-line vote of 11 to 9, with Democrats present and opposing his nomination.

Senator Sessions has devoted his life to public service, and his qualifications cannot be questioned, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said in a statement following the Sessions vote. He has a history of protecting and defending the Constitution and the rule of law for all people.

But a committee hearing to approve Trumps pick for the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, was delayed after Democrats failed to show up. So was a hearing to vet Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) to lead the Office of Management and Budget was delayed Wednesday, though the delay happened before the panel convened.

And on Tuesday, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved the nominations of former Texas governor Rick Perry to be energy secretary and Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) to be interior secretary.

Republicans came to the aid of Trumps nominees after Democrats dipped into their procedural arsenal to stall many of them at committee hearings on Monday, echoing growing liberal anger in the streets.

Democrats are going to keep fighting back, said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). We are going to stand with people across the country. And we will keep pushing Republicans to put country above party and stand with us.

That stance was met with praise from liberal activists, labor unions and constituents.

Were seeing someone who came into office with a historic popular vote loss come in and push a radical, unconstitutional agenda, said Kurt Walters, the campaign director of the transparency group Demand Progress. Yes, radical and bold tactics are what senators should be using in response.

At Senate Finance on Wednesday morning, Chair Orrin G. Hatch (Utah) rammed through Mnuchin and Price after Democrats did not show up for that hearing. Their nominations now head to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote, although it is unclear when that will occur.

Republicans on this committee showed up to do our jobs. Yesterday, rather than accept anything less than their desired outcome, our Democrat colleagues chose to cower in the hallway and hold a press conference, Hatch charged.

Incensed by the Democratic boycott, GOP members spent Tuesday exploring how they could quickly approve Price and Mnuchin and punish Democrats for their surprise move.

Committee staffers scoured the panels lengthy rulebook and discovered it permits the majority party to temporarily suspend the rules and meet without Democrats. Hatch said he consulted the Senate parliamentarian, who serves as a referee on all disputes in committees and on the Senate floor, who said doing so was within bounds.

After weeks of back-and-forth about Trumps nominees, the boycott was the last straw, explained Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), who pushed staffers to explore their options.

The ultimate result was not in doubt. Getting to the ultimate was in doubt, he added. For us, it was going to get done. Why not find a way to do it since they werent going to show up for a committee meeting? To them, slowing down the process just gave them the time to do that and try to make cases against us.

Democrats were told Wednesday morning that Finance would reconvene. But they were not given any indication that Hatch would alter the rules, according to a spokesman for Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top committee Democrat.

Democrats complained that Mnuchin misled the committee by initially misstating his personal wealth on a financial disclosure form and misrepresenting under oath how OneWest Bank, which he led, scrutinized mortgage documents. And Wyden pointed to discounted stock buys Price made in a health-care company, first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

We felt it was important to say we need this information to do our job, Wyden said Wednesday after Hatch forced the party-line vote.

Other Republicans dismissed accusations that the GOP is bending Senate procedure to quickly confirm Trumps picks.

I think people expect senators to show up for work and be there. Its unfortunate, said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).

Democrats defended their actions as a necessary step to register their frustration after a small group of Republicans refused to allow them to question the nominees once new information came to light.

Over at the Environment and Public Works Committee, where Pruitt is being considered, Republicans vented their frustration at the lack of Democrats who came.

A GOP aide displayed a chart designed to show how quickly past EPA nominees were confirmed. Notably missing, however, was Obamas second EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy. Nominated in March 2013, McCarthy was not confirmed until July of that year at one point, Republicans on the Environment committee boycotted a meeting to demand that McCarthy answer more questions.

That was not a new president, newly elected, said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), arguing that the GOP boycott differed because it happened during Obamas second term. A newly elected president, I believe, has a right to their Cabinet.

Sean Sullivan and Karoun Demirjian contributed to this report.

Read more at PowerPost

Read the original:
Republicans aggressively push approval of Trump Cabinet nominees - Washington Post

Sens. Susan Collins(R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said Wednesday that they intend to vote against the confirmation ofPresident Trumps education secretary nominee, Betsy DeVos, givingDemocrats two of at least three Republican votes they would need to block her appointment.

Republican leaders said that despite the defections, they are confident DeVos will be confirmed.

Shell be confirmed you can take that to the bank,Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the majority whip.

Both Collins and Murkowski said on the Senate floor that while they appreciate DeVoss efforts to help at-risk children through advocating for vouchers and charter schools, they are concerned that DeVos lacks the experience needed to serve as education secretary and improve public schools, particularly in rural areas. DeVos has no professional experience in public schools, and she did not attend public schools herself or send her own children to them.

The mission of the Department of Education is broad, but supporting public education is at its core, Collins said. Im concerned that Mrs. Devoss lack of experience with public schools will make it difficult for her to fully understand, identify and assist with those challenges, particularly for our rural schools in states like Maine.

[Senate panel votes in favor of Betsy DeVos, Trumps education pick]

Murkowski said children in remote communities across Alaska depend on a strong public school system, and that she isnt persuaded that DeVos has the background to strengthen that system. As she left the Senate floor, Murkowski said that her decision was the result of an outpouring of responses from Alaskans as well as her own research. I was trying to get to yes. I just couldnt, she said.

A final confirmation vote is expected on the Senate floor either over the weekend or early next week, according to aides to Republican leadership.

There are 48 senators in the Democratic caucus. If they vote as a bloc against DeVos, and if they are joined by Murkowski and Collins, the vote to confirm would be 50-50. In that event, Vice President Pence a staunch DeVos supporter would cast the tiebreaking vote. It would mark the first tiebreaking vote by a vice president since Richard Cheney did so nine years ago. Joe Biden, Cheneys successor, went eight years as vice president without ever breaking a tie.

[DeVos questionnaire appears to include passages from uncited sources]

If a third Republican senator votes against DeVos, she could lose the confirmation vote. Several are facing constituent pressure to oppose the nominee, including Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) Im all for her, Toomey told The Washington Post on Wednesday.

Alaskas junior senator, Dan Sullivan (R),would not say whether he will vote yes or no on DeVos. But his tone suggested he would lean toward support.

He detailed concerns similar to what Sen. Murkowski was talking about. We have very almost frontier-type education environments where theres only one school in the communities. Theres no choice at all.

But Ive had very good meetings with the nominee, he added. From my perspective I think shes going to be adequately focused on those issues.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the Trump administration has zero concerns that DeVoss nomination will be voted down.

I am 100 percent confident she will be the next secretary of education, Spicer said at Wednesdays news briefing.

[Six astonishing things Betsy DeVos said and refused to say at her confirmation hearing]

Trumps nomination of DeVos, a Michigan billionaire and major donor to Republican causes,has triggered a sharp partisan battle, and she has faced an unprecedented level of opposition for a prospective education secretary. Both of the nations largest teachers unions mounted campaigns against her immediately after her nomination, but opposition broadened after she stumbled over basic education policy questions during her Jan. 17 confirmation hearing. Parents and teachers have flooded the Senates phone lines and email inboxes in recent weeks, urging senators to vote against DeVos.

The nation is speaking out. [S]enators need to listen, said Lily Eskelsen Garcia, president of the National Education Association.

Several previous nominees were confirmed on a voice vote or by unanimous consent. The deepest divisionto date was over the nomination of John B. King Jr., who was confirmed in March 2016 on a 49-40 vote. Even then, key Republicans including Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Education Committee, and Mitch McConnell (Ky.), the majority leader voted in Kings favor, giving his confirmation a bipartisan blessing.

Kelsey Snell, Paul Kane and Ed OKeefe contributed to this report.

Read more here:
Two Republican senators say they will vote against DeVos for education secretary - Washington Post

Todd Spangler, Detroit Free Press , WZZM 2:58 PM. EST February 01, 2017

DeVos speaks during her confirmation hearing for Secretary of Education before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on Capitol Hill January 17, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON - What previously appeared to be a near-certain chance of Michigan's Betsy DeVos becoming President Donald Trump's education secretary took a hit today as two Republican U.S. senators said they would vote against her.

U.S. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska delivered statements from the floor of the U.S. Senate saying they could not support DeVos' nomination, questioning both her experience and commitment to public schools.

"Mrs. DeVos is the product of her experience," said Collins. "She appears to view education through the lens of her experience of promoting alternatives to public education in Detroit and other cities." She went onto say that "concentration on charter schools and vouchers ... raises the question about whether or not she fully appreciates that the secretary of education's primary focus must be on helping states and communities strengthen our public schools."

"I think Mrs. DeVos has much to learn about our nation's public schools," said Murkowski, who, like Collins raised concerns that her lack of experience with public schools could have a particular impact in rural areas in states like hers. She has been so involved in one side (of school vouchers and school choice), she may be unaware of what actually is successful within public schools and what is broke and how to fix them."

With Collins and Murkowski saying they will vote against DeVos -- and earlier indications that all of the 48 Senate Democrats and the two independents who caucus with them would likely vote against her -- her nomination could result in a 50-50 tie when it goes to the floor. That tie would be broken on DeVos' behalf by Vice President Mike Pence in his role as Senate president -- though both sides will be looking for members of the other party to pick off in the meantime.

On Tuesday, both Collins and Murkowski voted in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to allow DeVos' nomination to proceed to the floor for a full vote out of deference to the new president but refused to commit to a final vote for her. A date for her final vote has not yet been set.

2017 Detroit Free Press

WZZM

Betsy DeVos' confirmation moves ahead after fractious debate

WZZM

Hundreds rally against Betsy DeVos in her hometown

WZZM

Calvin College alumni sign letter opposing DeVos nomination

Follow this link:
2 Republicans say they oppose Betsy DeVos as Education pick - WZZM13.com