Mediaboss Marketing

Over the past couple years; the concept of privilege has grown to be a ubiquitous part of the public discourse. Its moved from a topic confined in large part to the ivory towers of academia, to one that is a commonplace aspect of mainstream political and social commentary. Its propagation can be seen in the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, perhaps the most visible (or at least most militant) force for racial identity politics.

Before the last presidential election, I wrote that Gary Johnsons approach to Black Lives Matter, and the issues BLM raises, was the correct one; because, whenever individuals are being targeted simply because they are members of a certain group (be it racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, or otherwise), then it becomes a fight that those who love liberty should support.

Racial discrimination is real, and it should be combated. How we choose to combat it, whether through state action or fostering better social understanding amongst our fellow citizens, is another matter. But we should not have a knee-jerk reaction to the notion per se.

Libertarians frequent tendency to belittle the notion of privilege has had the unfortunate consequence of rendering their views tangential to the debate. This has resulted in negative consequences, as in the absence of rigorous interrogation the idea of privilege has come to mean something far broader than the mistreatment of certain historically underserved ethnic groups. It permeates all manner of discourse. Not only is there white privilege now, but also male privilege, straight privilege, cis privilege, thin privilege, and wealth privilege.

Privilege is a slippery concept, because it usually connotes not just an unearned status, but an undeserved one. We would say that status, especially status created by socio-economic means, cannot be called underserved per se.

To borrow a concept from Socrates (if you will permit me to use the philosophy of an old white man to mansplain for a moment) it seems that all the different kinds of privilege pose a ti esti question.

A ti esti or what is it question is a cornerstone of the Socratic method of philosophical inquiry. It essentially posits that one can only really understand a thing, and make judgments about it, when one understands what that thing actually is. Admittedly, Socrates, at least as he is portrayed by Plato in his dialogues, can be awfully pedantic to the point of obtuseness. Yet, the idea that one ought to know what a thing is before making statements about it is a sound one.

After all, how can anyone check their privilege when they do not understand what privilege actually is, let alone what constitutes their privilege in particular?

When people are told to check their privilege, or are instructed in what makes them privileged, there is never a rigorous explanation of what the locus of privilege actually is. It is a question to which the answer is usually assumed, and that is not a good thing. Without recognizing that a whole range of things has now been grouped under a single unhelpful descriptor, the notion of privilege has instead served to position public discourse. Rather than enhancing understanding of how certain groups are treated in a society, the concept of privilege has created a fracturing into tribes.

In reality, the notion of privilege has come to be a weapon used by political activists, principally of the left, to sow divides between segments of society and to create a hierarchy of oppression within a movement.

Oppression (which might be seen as the opposite side of privilege on a notional axis of entitlement) has become a kind of currency within certain groups. This has been thanks to groups like Occupy Wall Street, and its intellectual successors, who fostered the notion of the progressive stack, in which people would be heard on the basis of their level of lack of privilege.

The problem with this sort of thinking is two-fold.

First, it assumes that one can actually define all the kinds of privilege and how they impact individuals. I already explained how that was impossible to do and that no one has ever really tried to do it.

Second, the progressive stack assumes that all the kinds of oppression, once defined, can be added together into a coherent formula. This too is simply leftist black magic, since it is patently obvious no such calculation is possible.

The result is a number of competing formulae, often competing within the minds of individuals. So whether someone who is black, or an immigrant, or trans-gender, or gender queer is more oppressed than another is entirely in the eye of the beholder. That alone should be proof that the concept of privilege, as it is understood, is deeply flawed. Worse still, it is now clear that some activists have started claiming kinds of oppression in order to appear more worthy of a platform. This should be no surprise; given the perverse incentives the progressive stack and the philosophy behind it create.

The problem with discussing privilege as a monolith is that it obscures real social issues from those that are fabricated to win attention. As people who support individual liberty, we should be excited to see people finding new ways of expressing their identities. The truest flowering of freedom is the ability to be ones self without any external authority telling one otherwise.

Yet, we must also stand against the notion that being different automatically means one is oppressed by the white mono-culture, or whatever you want to call it.

We are all different, and society benefits when we embrace those differences.

Trying to turn those differences into weapons to segment the worthy and unworthy is wholly wrong. It is every bit as moronic as the old tools of division like racism and sexism, which the left claims to be fighting against.

This post was written by John Engle.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

John Engle is a merchant banker and author living in the Chicago area. His company, Almington Capital, invests in both early-stage venture capital and in public equities. His writing has been featured in a number of academic journals, as well as the blogs of the Heartland Institute, Grassroot Institute, and Tenth Amendment Center. A graduate of Trinity College Dublin, Ireland and the University of Oxford, Johns first book, Trinity Student Pranks: A History of Mischief and Mayhem, was published in September 2013.

Like Loading...

Go here to see the original:
What is Privilege? The Right Engle - Being Libertarian

Trigger Warning: I am sure that I am going to cause a lot of eyebrows to raise from the second sentence, but please bear with me for this very succinct article.

A lot of libertarians and non-libertarians alike have the misunderstanding that libertarians are against collectivism, socialism, redistribution and social justice. Additionally, liberty, freedom and rights are some of the most ambiguous concepts within the studies of political science, ethics and philosophy. In actuality, the basis of libertarianism is the concept of liberty which contends that everyone has the capacity and autonomy to achieve and pursue whatever their inclination or preference as long as its not at the expense of anyone elses liberty. Henceforth, if someone has their liberties violated, then this is what I call coercion and even extortion whether thats from a private individual, an aggregate of individuals, bureaucrats, the federal government, governments abroad or anyone!

In this case, some may argue that the concept of liberty does not denote or connote true freedom which is the power or right to act, think or speak in anyway without any hindrance or constraint and they are actually right. The reason being the most quintessential component of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, an axiom meaning that it is iniquitous or immoral to violate the liberty of another individual or group of people. In this case, if a group of people wants to practice redistribution and practice or catalyze an outcome of social justice within their own societies, then ideally, they should have the prerogative to do so under the contextual and paradigmatic framework of libertarianism.

The only times that these aforementioned ideals that are lauded by the left become problematical and adversarial to the liberty movement is when government, corporations, terrorists or any group of people coerce other people to abide or acquiesce to universal healthcare, socialism, bureaucratized charity (welfare), redistribution, etc. To force someone to do something against their will is criminal and no one or entity is an exception.

Therefore, volunteerism is another essential ideal to libertarianism because people should have the right to provide mutual aid in the form of finances, healthcare, jobs, food, housing, air condition/heating for ones property, clothing, security protection, education and other necessities and amenities to someone or others if thats their inclination to do so.

If people volunteer to provide resources to others then its their right to do so, but when government forces society to pay people that are impoverished, then this violates the non-aggression principle and this is unscrupulous and criminal. If we look at this on a microcosmic or miniature scale, this is like an extortionist pointing a pistol to your head and forcing you to withdraw funds from your savings account to give to the extortionist because he wants to feed his family and friends! The definition of a right is a moral and legal entitlement to life, liberty and the pursuit of property and happiness as long as no one elses rights are violated.

In closing, people have the right to redistribute their resources, universalize healthcare and do other socialist oriented initiatives as long as they dont violate the rights of us freedom loving or non-freedom loving individuals. To coerce a group of people from practicing socialist or redistributionist initiatives within the private sector is anti-libertarian. In this case, lets go back to basics and focus on the non-aggression axiom and prioritize volunteerism over coercion.

This post was written by Baruti Libre.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Baruti Kafele, who is affectionately known as Baruti Libre, is an intellectual entrepreneur, social scientist, proud libertarian, and real estate broker who ensures quality and superiority from his enterprises to his scholarship. Baruti Libre is the chief executive of the successful fashion and multimedia firm called LiBRE BRAND-Freedom of Flyness which is a globally-recognized and viable brand based on the ideals of liberty and freedom. Follow him on Instagram and Twitter @BarutiLibre and visit his websites for literature and apparel.

Like Loading...

Continue reading here:
Volunteerism over Coercion Back to the Basics - Being Libertarian

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) are up in arms after Attorney General Jeff Sessions released sentencing guidelines last week indicating his favor of mandatory minimum sentences that were being phased out by the Obama administration.

The two libertarian lawmakers have been long-time advocates for criminal justice reform. They feel that the Trump Administration under Sessions is clearly headed in the wrong direction on this particular policy, which will only serve to clog the prisons further while doing little to prevent crime.

Mandatory minimum sentences have unfairly and disproportionately incarcerated too many minorities for too long, Paul said in a press release. Attorney General Sessions new policy will accentuate that injustice. Instead, we should treat our nations drug epidemic as a health crisis and less as a lock em up and throw away the key problem.

Amash concurred with Pauls statement. He said the following in a Twitter post from May 12, Lets pass criminal justice reform to put an end to this unjust, ineffective, and costly policy.

Despite their objections, Sessions is determined to return to tough on crime policies that have cost America billions and left the country with the largest prison population in the entire world. He released a memo last week including a strong endorsement for mandatory minimum policies.

It is a core principle that prosecutors should charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense, Sessions wrote. This policy affirms our responsibility to enforce the law, is moral and just, and produces consistency. This policy fully utilizes the tools Congress has given us. By definition, the most serious offenses are those that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences.

This is not the only issue in which the Trump administration has been hostile toward civil liberties. Trump publicly indicated his support for civil asset forfeiture, and Sessions has been a fervent crusader for drug prohibition throughout his political career. Criminal justice reformers expecting common sense reform while either of these men are in charge will likely be disappointed.

More here:
Libertarian Lawmakers Criticize Trump Administration's Support Of Mandatory Minimum Policies - The Liberty Conservative

Updated on May 15, 2017 at 7:45 p.m.

After a report surfaced on Monday that President Trump shared classified information with Russian officials during an Oval Office meeting last week, some Senate Republicans initially rushed to defend the president, while other GOP lawmakers, as well as congressional Democrats, expressed alarm.

Its no longer classified the minute he utters it, Republican Senator Jim Risch said, according to Talking Points Memos Alice Ollstein. Risch reportedly noted that the president has the ability to declassify anything at any time without any process. Republican Senator John McCain initially took a similar tack. We certainly dont want any president to leak classified information, but the president does have the right to do that, he said, according to the Associated Presss Erica Werner. On Twitter, however, McCain shared the report later in the evening and wrote: If true, deeply disturbing.

In the House, a spokesman for Republican Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters: We have no way to know what was said, but protecting our nations secrets is paramount. The speaker hopes for a full explanation of the facts from the administration.

The incident marks the second time in less than a week that congressional Republicans have had to scramble to respond to an immediately controversial move by the president. Last Tuesday, the administration sent shockwaves through official Washington with the news that the president had abruptly fired FBI Director James Comey.

A report in The Washington Post on Monday stated that President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said that Trumps disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

Administration officials quickly pushed back on the allegations. The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said in a carefully worded statement that did not wade deeply into the substance of the allegations. The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries, he said. At no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed, and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.

However, The New York Times and BuzzFeed posted stories Monday evening that appeared to confirm the Posts reporting that the president shared highly classified information with Russian officials.

In stark contrast to the immediate reactions of some of his colleagues, Republican Senator Bob Corker reportedly expressed concern over the report.

The White House has got to do something soon to bring itself under control and in order. Its going to happen, Corker said, per Bloombergs Sahil Kapur. Obviously theyre in a downward spiral right now and theyve got to figure out a way to come to grips w[ith] all thats happening.

On Monday, congressional Democrats harshly criticized the Post report, with some arguing that if the allegations prove to be true, the president put national security at risk.

If true, this is a slap in the face to the intel community, tweeted Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is currently investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, including potential ties between Trump associates and Russia. Risking sources & methods is inexcusable, particularly with the Russians.

Senator Bernie Sanders, who remains an Independent but is a member of Senate Democratic leadership, called Trumps reported actions reckless and dangerous. In a statement, the senator said: Protecting our national security is one of the most important tasks a president has, and Trump is failing at it.

Democratic Senator Kamala Harris of California said on Twitter that if true, this is a serious threat to national security.

House Democrats Elijah Cummings, the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, and John Conyers, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, released a joint statement arguing that Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives need a briefing from the national security adviser and the directors of our nations intelligence agencies to get to the bottom of these allegations. The congressmen added that if audio recordings exist of the meeting, Congress needs to obtain them immediately.

Some Republican lawmakers appeared unprepared to respond. I havent seen the story, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida said, according to Politicos Burgess Everett. Sometimes this stuff is breaking faster than our ability to check online.

Go here to see the original:
Republicans Display a Mix of Defense and Alarm on Trump Allegations - The Atlantic

Its the question of the hour, every hour now: What has to happen to make Republicans, even a few of them, put country before party and do what needs to be done about Donald Trump?

That something serious needs to be done is clear. Trump has arguably been impeachable since the day he took office, over his clear flouting of the emoluments clause and anti-nepotism laws. But I get that those werent big enough deals to light up public opinion. And maybe the Comey firing isnt either, even after it came out Monday evening that Trump had shared our friends best, biggest and most secret secrets with the Russians right afterward. The recent rash of polls, before this latest news, on the matter tend to show pluralities disapproving of the firing, but the usual Trump die-hard group of about 30 percent supporting, with a frustratingly high dont know enough to have an opinion.

But it has enraged informed opinion, and its no mystery why. If you are a Republican or conservative who has concocted in your brain some justification for what Trump did, consider this hypothetical. Imagine Hillary Clinton had won. She became the president. James Comey was investigating her campaign. And she fired him. After asking him to dinner and trying to exact a pledge of loyalty from him.

You wouldnt be able to see straight. The House Judiciary Committee would without any doubt have already started drawing up articles of impeachment. Fox News would have started running a Hillary Clinton days remaining in office chyron.

And your outrage would be justified. It would have been intolerable for a President Clinton to have done that (and I would not have defended it, but Im also certain she never would have done such a thing). And its intolerable for President Trump to do it.

Republicans know this. They know that a special prosecutor is not only justified but necessary, even though only two of them that Im aware of (House members Walter Jones and Justin Amash) have joined the call for one. Those two, at least, seefinallyhow dangerous Trump is. They understand that they cant control him the way they once thought.

Yet the overwhelmingly majority of them, led by Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, persist in obsequiousness. As I wrote Friday, If they can pass their tax cuts for the rich, end Obamacare, and put conservative judges on the Supreme Court and the federal circuit courts, theyll let Trump do what he wants.

So, back to the question: What has to happen? One of two things.

First, there does exist a chance, however slim, that something substantive that Trump says or doesvolunteering our allies secrets to the Russians, for instance!or some substantive revelation, will be too much even for Republicans. Hard to know what this would be. It would have to be something with dead-obvious constitutional ramifications. In other words, this eliminates a lot of things. They impeached Bill Clinton over lying about blow jobs. But a woman or ten could come forward with explosive sexual allegations and the tapes to prove it, and if it didnt involved Trumps comportment as president I dont think the GOP would budge.

But lets say, for example, that Trump did reinstitute taping in the Oval Office, and did have tapes of his chats with Comeybut destroyed them. Those tapes would be, would have been, the property not of the president but of the government of the United States. The Presidential Records Act requires that any tapes be preserved.

If that were to happen, that just might do it. Were probably about to watch some version of this play out before us. It seems pretty clear, from the way Trump and Sean Spicer have talked, that he was indeed taping. Will Republicans demand the tapes? Lindsey Graham has, although he also gave Trump the out of saying that he (Graham) doubts they really exist. But if they do exist, and if they would prove (as everyone assumes) that Trump is lying, then who could put it past him destroying them?

But were still only at might, which brings us to the second thing that may flip Republicans. And its really the only thing. Self-preservation. Lets say my destroyed tapes scenario turns out to be true. Then there will be multiple calls for impeachment and/or resignation, from nearly every Democrat, from most important newspapers, and even from a few Republicans.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

Then Trumps polling numbers go down below 30. And 30 percent is a crucial benchmark because thats about the percentage of Americans who are loyal partisan Republicans. If hes down to 25, that will mean hes losing even Republicans in fairly large numbers. That, in turn, will mean hell start to be a liability to Republican House members in swing districts. And if gets down into the low 20s, that will mean Republicans are really jumping ship.

The Cook Report currently rates six Republican-held House seats as toss-ups, 18 as leaning Republican, and 19 as likely Republican. If Trumps ratings tumble, Cook will start shifting some likelys to leaning, and it will come clear to Ryan that his majority is seriously at risk.

In other wordsand this is the hard political pointit doesnt have to be that the GOP House members in the deepest-reddest districts feel that Trump threatens their hold on their seats. That wont happen until Trump gets down to the single digits. But if the 43 Republicans Cook rates as representing potentially vulnerable districts sense that Trump is going to bring them down, then essentially the whole party will abandon Trump if the leaders decide its what they have to do to keep the House majority. The House majority is more important to them than Trump for a host of reasons. Trumps just useful to them, for now.

Now that I think about it, the scenario above wont really count as putting country ahead of party, will it? It will merely constitute putting the congressional Republican Party ahead of the presidential Republican Party. So the real answer to the question that opened this column, about when Republicans will put country ahead of party, is never.

But you knew that already.

View post:
The Republicans' Trump ProblemAnd Ours - Daily Beast