Mediaboss Marketing

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

by Ram Jayaraman

It seems nowadays that people cannot have a conversation about politics without setting fire to any possible notion of perceived tranquility. Debates seem to irrevocably devolve into ad hominem assaults. However, in the interest of tranquility, I ask that you humor me while I try to describe my political inclinations, and why I think libertarianism is essential to free thought.

The concept of libertarianism is eponymous. At the core of the movement is the idea that ones liberty must be unfettered, necessarily unrestricted provided it does not interfere with the liberty of another. Very broadly speaking, this aligns mostly with the social perspectives of modern liberalism and the economic perspectives of modern conservatism. However, there is an important distinction that must be made which is best highlighted through example. Take the recent gay marriage ruling, for instance. The socially conservative stance, owing primarily to the philosophical tenets set forth by the Judeo-Christian pantheon, posits that marriage is an institution between a biological man and a biological woman. The socially liberal stance posits that marriage is an institution of love and therefore is not confined to heterosexual norms. In contrast, the libertarian stance is simply that the government has no business telling you who you can or cannot marry in a consensual relationship. At first glance, one would argue that the liberal and the libertarian perspectives are synonymous. However, upon closer inspection, this argumentation is deemed specious. Under liberalism, marriage between homosexuals is permissible; id est there exists an implication that the government is allowing its existence. Alternatively, libertarians advocate that the government should not have any leverage to regulate the institution of marriage. This example highlights, in brevity, what libertarianism is: provided I am not harming anyone else, the government should not act to restrict my agency.

Let us take this example a bit further. Assume that someones family does not condone homosexuality and views the practice as an abomination against God. He considers it nothing less than mortal sin, and to those for whom he cares, he vehemently preaches these beliefs. In the system of libertarian thought, his views are irrelevant. Regardless whether he thinks that LGBTQ+ people are destined for eternal damnation, their activities do not disrupt his agency. If one were to assume that these two constructs are mutually exclusive, consider this. The libertarian party has been pro LGBTQ+ rights for decades longer than either of the current duopoly. However, at the time, a sizable proportion of libertarians did not personally espouse gay marriage; they just advocated that they had no business enforcing their beliefs on others.

The current system of political duopoly in the United States has developed the false notion that the government need function as a moral executor. However, morality is relative. Our cultures and our beliefs are relative. My criteria for morality is not necessarily congruent to yours. As such, assuming that neither of our practices harms the other, there is no logical reason that the government should interfere. In the common vernacular, there is no logical reason, within the sphere of libertarianism, to enforce punitive measures for victimless crimes. Moreover, there is also no need to enforce such measures resulting from differences in morality that do not result in a disruption of individual agency. This notion is antithetical to the current paradigm of the duopoly, culminating in the development of a false binary with regard to political ideology.

The hypocrisy of the political binary can be evidenced as follows. Currently, liberals appear to have a disdain for firearms, yet they also believe that Muslim people are not responsible for the acts of war that terrorist cells commit under some perverse banner of Islam. In contrast, conservatives tout the existence and usage of firearms, yet they believe in the restriction of Muslim entry to domestic territory. Statistically, an infinitesimal percentage of firearms that are used in the United States are used for nefarious purposes. Statistically, an infinitesimal percentage of Muslims act in the name of terrorism. If one claims that the potential damage of an event outweighs the statistical insignificance of its occurrence, this would logically imply that liberals would deny Muslims entry to the United States. Analogously, if one claims that the statistical insignificance of an event outweighs its potential damage, this would logically imply that conservatives would allow unbarred entry of Muslims into the United States. Obviously, this is not the case. Both parties exhibit hypocrisy in their logical reasoning.

In summation, here is why libertarianism appeals to me. I barely know what is best for myself. Why on earth, then, would I try to enforce my views on other people? Obviously, there are far more intricacies that cannot be described transiently, but the core of the philosophy remains. Your thoughts are your own. A political party does not own my ideologies. Why should they enforce them upon me? Let me think, and Ill let you think. Thats what libertarianism is: freedom to think, freedom to act, and freedom to be. Liberty.

libertarianLibertyphilosophythought

More:
The Necessity of Libertarian Thought - The Libertarian Republic - The Libertarian Republic

It is well known that the two Koreas have co-existed in a state of mutual disdain for each other since the end of combat operations in the region, just over 60 years ago. North Korea, backed by China, and South Korea, backed by the U.S., have constantly perceived any military buildup performed by the other to be aggressions on their respective sovereignties. This usually results in the nation that feels threatened engaging in a retaliatory action involving some form of military posturing that escalates tensions in the region for a time.

The most recent example of this scenario occurred Monday, March 6. According to a report by The Guardian, North Korea fired four missiles in response to an annual military exercise between South Korean and American forces. Meanwhile, according to Reuters, the U.S. has begun the installation of the Terminal High Altitude Defense anti-missile system, otherwise known as THAAD, in South Korea as a defense against the North. The military exercises, firing of missiles, and installation of THAAD are causing tensions to rise drastically between the countries involved in the region. According to the same Reuters article mentioned above, the North and South have expelled each others diplomats and prohibited the exit of each others citizens. Furthermore, China and South Korea have now entered into a diplomatic standoff with each other, which even involves China closing down some of the South Korean Lotte Groups retail stores.

All of these factors definitely make for a precarious situation among the four nations involved. However, it appears China is not yet ready to throw in the diplomatic towel. China has expressed frustrations with North Koreas attempts at developing a nuclear missile program and has even halted the import of coal for a year in an effort to get the North to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

China has recently offered a possible diplomatic solution to this whole situation. The Associated Press reports that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has suggested that North Korea might stall its missile programs if the U.S.s and South Koreas military exercises are also stalled. It would seem that Wang and China would like for all the parties involved to sit down and discuss the issues between them. This offering by China may not only be a way to avoid conflict, it may also pave the way for a more peaceful co-existence in the region and provide the U.S. with the perfect opportunity to extricate itself permanently from the affairs of East Asia.

The U.S. has been presented with an amazing opportunity. Wangs solution is brilliant, as it has not only North Korea, but also the South and the U.S. end their strategic posturing. This simple act would not only show that all countries involved are willing to come together and work out their differences peacefully, but may also be the only chance for the U.S. to begin pursuing a non-interventionist policy in East Asia.

Chinas solution of having both sides halt their respective military activities would easily open the door to the lessening of hostilities in the region. With the lessening of hostilities, the next step would be to begin removing U.S. troops from the region in order to de-emphasize the threat a foreign army presents. This would establish an atmosphere where the work for peace could truly begin. This work toward peace should place emphasis on trade, for nations who are engaged in trade with one another are far less likely to go to war with one another.

Of course, the odds of North Korea accepting anything close to a peaceful solution are probably extremely long. However, this does not mean that the U.S. should not pursue the present opportunity. Any opportunity for peace, no matter how slim the chances, should never be ignored.

The U.S. military has been in and around the Korean Peninsula for over 60 years. Official policy is that U.S. troops are there to deter the North from invading the South. During that whole time, however, North Korea has done nothing more than isolate itself from the international community and act hostile to the presence of a foreign army near its borders. The interventionist policy of the U.S. is not working. North Korea will never be made less extreme by the military might of a foreign nation. The only way to accomplish that goal is through trade. The U.S. should significantly reduce its military presence in the region. Then, it should begin encouraging more trade in the area. China is already one of the U.S.s largest trade partners. There is no reason to think that China would say no to more trade with the U.S. Plus, once the U.S. ended its military intervention in the region, China and South Korea would no longer have reason to remain in a diplomatic standoff. They would begin engaging in business with each other again. Soon, North Korea would either have to watch everyone around it prosper or end its isolationism in order to join in.

However, none of this will ever have the opportunity to happen if the U.S. and South Korea brushed aside Chinas offer. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that they accept the offer for peaceful diplomacy. A peaceful solution must be sought, or we will see this opportunity slip away without another one in sight.

Libertarians everywhere would love to see the U.S. adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy. We all believe that such a policy would be ideal for this country. However, such a thing will not happen overnight. It will take liberty lovers pushing to slowly chip away bit by bit the interventionist policy of our leaders before our dream can be accomplished. Today, we have presented before us one such opportunity. Let us not allow it to go to waste.

Jon Swain is a recent convert to the liberty movement after becoming disillusioned with Republican politics in the 2016 election cycle. He is currently earning his B.S. in Kinesiology from Mississippi State University and plans to pursue a Masters of Science after graduation.

Photo: Ed Jones

Like Loading...

See the original post:
Peace in Korea - Being Libertarian

President Trump promised to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act "immediately" and "on Day 1" while on the campaign trail. But now, he claims he never said he'd get health care reform done quickly. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

After a smarting defeat on health care, President Trump is moving on to an ambitious bid to rewrite the U.S. tax code. But the ultra-conservative GOP lawmakers who stymied Trump on health care aren't going away, and if Trump is to avoid a second major setback in Congress, he'll need towin over far more of them this time around.

The "House Freedom Caucus,"as the few dozen members of the group callthemselves, blocked Trump and Ryan's health-care bill because it wasn't conservative enough for them, offering too much in the way of benefits and interfering too much in the insurance market. When it became clear the vast majority of thegroup's members were voting no, Trump after a consultation withHouse Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) pulled the bill.

The good news for Trump and Ryan, however, is that they and the House Freedom Caucus have, in their public statements, expressed broad areas of agreement on what to do with the tax code.There's still, however, plenty of potential for conflict as Trump, Ryan and the caucus once again come together in search of a deal.

Here's whatthe House Freedom Caucus's members have said they're looking for.

Members of the group generally endorse the same basic principles for reform: Reduce tax rates for everyone. Then, to make up for some of the revenue the government is foregoing under those new rates, eliminate special deductions, exemptions and loopholes that allow certain categories of taxpayers to avoid paying taxes on portions of their income.

This has long been the position of conservative Republicans, and itis also the approach embodied in the plans proposed by Republicans, including Trump and Ryan. For instance, the plan Ryan and his colleagues in the House put forward last year would eliminate all deductions for individual taxpayers except for the deductions for mortgage interest and charitable giving. Those deductions allow Americans to avoid taxes on money they pay in interest on their homes, along with any donations they make.

That plan might not go far enough for a conservative lawmaker like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). In 2013, Massie told Bloomberg he supported a single tax rate for all taxpayers, with no exceptions whatsoever. I love the flat tax, and Im not afraid of getting rid of every deduction, Massie said.

All the same, mainstream Republicans are basically in agreement with their party's conservative faction when it comes to taxes at least to a far greater degree than they were on health care.

Republicans believe health-care reform is still possible even after House leadership pulled the bill abruptly before it was scheduled for a vote. (Alice Li,Jayne Orenstein/The Washington Post)

Closing loopholes could, in theory, allow Republicans to deliver their promised rate cuts without decreasing the totalrevenue going to the government a combination that would keepthe new legislation from adding to the federal debt.

Under Ryan's plan, by contrast, reduced taxes would mean the federal government would give up at least $2.5 trillion in revenue over a decade, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The figure accounts for increased economic growth, so that is $2.5 trillion that the federal government would have to borrow unless lawmakers found other ways of limiting deductions and loopholes or federal expenditures to save money.

So far, members of the Freedom Caucus have indicated they could accept a plan that implied more borrowing. They are less concerned about closing loopholes than they are about making sure rates go down and that, in general, Americans pay less in taxes.

"I think there's been a lot of flexibility in terms of some of my contacts and conservatives in terms of not making it totally offset," Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the chairman of the Freedom Caucus, told ABC News on Sunday on "This Week," arguing that tax cuts would provide financial relief for ordinary American families.

"Does it have to be fully offset?" Meadows asked. "My personal response is no."

To address the deficit, members of the group almost universally favor steep cuts in government spending, part of an overall mission to shrink government and limit its reach. They also generally believe that lower taxes will produce massive economic growth, so much so that the government may collect even more than it would have under the former higher-taxes, slower-growth scenario.

Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) hinted at that last month onCNN, suggested he would be willing to consider new spending on some of Trump's priorities once taxes had been reduced. "Those spending pieces, we'll debate those coming up the military, the wall, the infrastructure plan but you've got to see tax reform in place first," Brat told CNN last month. "Otherwise, we can't afford it."

If those economic benefits do not materialize, though, the government would be forced to borrow more as it went deeper in debt.

There is one element of Ryan's plan that could be cause for concern among the Freedom Caucus. The plan would effectively levy a new tax on imports, while exempting goods and services exported from the United States for sale abroad from taxation.

Ryan and his allies argue this provision, known as a border adjustment, would simplify the tax system. In essence, the border adjustment would relieve federal authorities of the responsibility of investigating taxpayers' business overseas. Proponents also say the provision would encourage manufacturers to produce domestically and to hire American workers.

Yet conservative lawmakers such as Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) are opposed to any new kind of tax. The border adjustment could increase prices for American consumers buying products from abroad, although economists and legal experts debate the plan's likely practical consequences for customers, and the effects could vary for different businesses.

"My reasoning is very basic," Jordan told the Atlantic. "The idea that youre going to add an entirely new tax is a big problem."

Meadows is not eager for a border adjustment, either, Axios reported. The lack of support from conservative lawmakers could be a problem for GOP leaders.

Republicans are trying to avoid a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. To do so, they will have to write legislation that does not increase the federal borrowing over the long term and they are hoping the border adjustment will help them do so.

Because the United States currently imports more than it exports, the new tax on imports would far exceed the exemption for exports. As a result, the border adjustment would bring in billions in new revenue for the federal government, lessening the need for more borrowing.

In the long term, however, most economists expect U.S. exports to increase. Eventually, they predict, exports should exceed imports to the point where a border adjustment which gets rid of taxes on exports would cost the government money, adding to the national debt. It remains to be seen whether Congress's budgetary referees will give Republicans credit for controlling federal borrowing in the long term, given the uncertain trend in exports.

"Let's go ahead and pass one without [a] border adjustment," Meadows said.

More:
Here's what the Republicans who just stopped Trump want next - Washington Post

New York Times

Dealt a Defeat, Republicans Set Their Sights on Major Tax Cuts New York Times WASHINGTON Picking themselves up after the bruising collapse of their health care plan, President Trump and Republicans in Congress will start this week on a legislative obstacle course that will be even more arduous: the first overhaul of the tax ... In the wake of failure, Republicans eager to push tax cutsMSNBC Priebus: In Wake Of Repeal Failure, Time For Republicans 'To Start Governing'TPM Donald Trump deepens Republican feud over health fiascoThe Australian all 125 news articles »

Link:
Dealt a Defeat, Republicans Set Their Sights on Major Tax Cuts - New York Times

Good morning from Augusta, where Gov. Paul LePage is lining up with President Donald Trump and against many congressional Republicans after intra-party squabbling made leaders pull a proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act on Friday.

The Republican governor was against the bill at its rollout early this month, but he went public in support of it on Thursday after Republicans made changes to the bill that he and other conservatives had asked for, such as an earlier wind-down of support for Medicaid expansion.

But conservatives wanted a fuller repeal, while a bloc of moderate Republicans including U.S. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine opposed it after an estimate found that it would make 14 million people lose coverage by 2018 and increase premiums for many between ages 50 and 64.

On Thursday, LePage told WGAN that Republicans may have been moving too fast on health care. When asked if the bill was worthy of support, he said it was improving. But later that day, his office released a letter dated Wednesday in which he and other governors backed it with his spokeswoman calling it a start.

By Saturday, he was in war mode, telling Fox News Neil Cavuto that any Republican that did not support this effort for fixing the ACA, I think they should lose the next election and Congress is broken with a constitutional crisis looming.

I think the American people elected Donald Trump to bring some change and some reform to this country and if the Republicans in Congress dont realize it, its time for you go home, LePage said.

The governor will be bartending for charity in Hallowell tonight, so well try to ask him more or at least askhim for a stiff drink. More on that in tomorrows Daily Brief. Michael Shepherd

This time two years ago, Republican U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin was facing a 2016 rematch from Democrat Emily Cain in Maines 2nd District. Now, hes a second-term congressman, which has dampened chatter about the 2018 race.

Now, one Democrat is now talking about taking on Poliquin Jonathan Fulford of Monroe, a construction company owner with a populist streak who said on Friday that hes considering a run and may be is more likely to run for the 2nd District than any other public office in 2018.

Fulford is best-known statewide for losing two close races in 2014 and 2016 to Maine Senate President Mike Thibodeau, R-Winterport, in Waldo County, a top legislative swing district.

He ran those races championing progressive causes such as universal health care and is from the wing of the party that pushed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to victory in Maine Democratic presidential caucuses in 2016. Fulford also ran unsuccessfully against Maine Democratic Party Chairman Phil Bartlett last year.

Fulford ran twice as a taxpayer-funded Clean Election candidate which isnt available for federal races and wondered aloud if a Sanders-style campaign model built on small donations would be an option against Poliquin, who raised more than $3.3 million for 2016s race.

Plus, he said theres a lot to get up to speed at the federal level on before running and henoted the possibility of a political realignment in 2018. Both Collins and Poliquin havent ruled out gubernatorial runs that would send politicians scrambling into new primary battles.

Im in the early stages of looking at all those and then evaluating whether or not it makes sense for me to run or not or me to support somebody else or what makes sense, Fulford said. And I dont have an answer yet. Michael Shepherd

Dont judge me. I recently introduced my younger son to Mr. T, who has long been one of my favorite American icons. Despite his tough image, hes a positive force on society and has done a lot of work to help kids. Hes currently a contestant on Dancing with the Stars, which I admit I havent watched but Ive been following his tweets. Sounds like the competition isnt going so well:

To any and everybody who ever felt like quitting Dont quit! he tweeted last night. Try to get back up! Dont stay down!

On the A-Team, however, hes just as likely to be punching bad guys in the face and driving that awesome red and black Chevy van like its a Ferrari. There are lots of explosions and gunfire but one truth about the show is no one ever gets hurt. The boy and I watched an episode the other night and I built Mr. T up, just like he deserved. The boy was impressed.

Daddy, if you were Mr. T what would you do to the bad guys? he said.

Id beat em up! I said. What would you do?

If I was Mr. T Id do a big belly flop right on them, he said.

Obviously, he requires more training. Heres your soundtrack. Christopher Cousins

Excerpt from:
LePage: Republicans who bucked Trump on health care should 'go home' - Bangor Daily News