Archive for the ‘Libertarian’ Category

Architects Reveal Bizarre Plans for a Libertarian City in the Metaverse – Hyperallergic

Interior of the Liberland Metaverse City Hall, designed by Zaha Hadid Architects for the Free Republic of Liberland (all images courtesy ZHA and Mytaverse)

In the lingo, this imaginary place is known as the Metaverse, Neal Stephenson wrote in his 1992 novel Snow Crash, whose protagonist, Hiro, spends most of his time in virtual reality. There is a reason that the modern-day and ever-growing metaverse takes its name from Stephensons seminal work of science fiction: 30 years later, the book no longer reads as excitingly futuristic, but more like prophecy. If the fictional negotiation between escapism into virtual spaces and a physical world that increasingly struggles to support terrestrial existence felt like a stimulating thought exercise in the 1990s, it feels downright terrifying now, as we crest the rollercoaster and begin the plunge.

If Stephenson hears about plans for the new cyber-urban Liberland metaverse, revealed this week by Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA), he will no doubt experience the kind of grim satisfaction that comes from being right about something terrible. The curving cityscape design features the soft, yonic structures for which the firms founding architect became internationally famous, and embodies the kind of paleo-futuristic aesthetics that weve been worshipping since 2001 (the Space Odyssey, not the year).

But its not the design that is troubling about this corner of the metaverse, so much as the fact that its meant to be the meta-counterpart to the real-world Free Republic of Liberland. Situated as a sovereign state between Croatia and Serbia on the west bank of the Danube River, Liberland declared itself a state in 2015 and prides itself on personal and economic freedom for its people. Per a statement on its website, this includes limited power given to the government to ensure less interference with the freedom of the people and the nation as a whole. It is not currently recognized by any other nations.

The citizenry is comprised of 7,000 online applicants, chosen from a pool of 700,000 by the nations founder, Euroskeptic Czech politician Vit Jedlika. According to reporting by CNN, the country itself is an uninhabited patch of land stretching a little over four miles, which is politically contested, heavily forested, and contains only badly maintained access roads and an abandoned run-down house. Extremely fitting, since that is exactly the amount of infrastructure that can be supported under the principles of Libertarianism.

But in the metaverse, oh ho! Liberland can flourish, unconcerned with having to maintain tedious infrastructure, since its already been provided. Certainly, there are bound to be many Stephenson fans in the mix, spending cryptocurrency, visiting business incubators, and attending a gallery for NFT art shows (just to make things extra insufferable). ZHA principal architect Patrik Schumacher proposes that the metaverse is such a good match for Libertarians because both prioritize goals of decentralization and autonomy.

Its a very lively scene of contributorsa lot of IT and crypto and tech entrepreneurs who find the world too restrictive, he told CNN. (If there is one category of people who are incredibly oppressed and never get to do whatever they want, its tech entrepreneurs!)

Plans for Liberland are still developing, but the virtual city hopes to distinguish itself from the rest of the metaverse by creating certain zones which will be free of collective rulemaking, according to Schumacher. Again, it is hard to imagine what Libertarian tech bros need to get up to that they are not already rampantly allowed to do, but one suspects it may not be fully legal.

The Liberland metaverse is currently in beta, being tested on two virtual floors in one of the buildings. Invited guests may explore the space as avatars, chat with each other, and share their screens on one of the rooms windows. An opening party for 100 attendees is planned for April 13, which is the birthday of the third United States President and libertarian hero Thomas Jefferson (eye roll emoji). In the meantime, if youd like some light reading, Ill leave you with another Snow Crash excerpt that feels not-at-all relevant, in terms of the toxic culture of doing whatever you want.

All these beefy Caucasians with guns! Get enough of them together, looking for the America they always believed theyd grow up in, and they glom together like overcooked rice, form integral, starchy little units. With their power tools, portable generators, weapons, four-wheel-drive vehicles, and personal computers, they are like beavers hyped up on crystal meth, manic engineers without a blueprint, chewing through the wilderness, building things and abandoning them, altering the flow of mighty rivers and then moving on because the place aint what it used to be. The byproduct of the lifestyle is polluted rivers, greenhouse effect, spouse abuse, televangelists, and serial killers. But as long as you have that fourwheel-drive vehicle and can keep driving north, you can sustain it, keep moving just quickly enough to stay one step ahead of your own waste stream. In twenty years, ten million white people will converge on the north pole and park their bagos there. The low-grade waste heat of their thermodynamically intense lifestyle will turn the crystalline icescape pliable and treacherous. It will melt a hole through the polar icecap, and all that metal will sink to the bottom, sucking the biomass down with it.

Science fiction, am I right?

The rest is here:
Architects Reveal Bizarre Plans for a Libertarian City in the Metaverse - Hyperallergic

Mike Bordes: Free staters and Libertarians are the only RINOs here – The Laconia Daily Sun

Normally I wouldn't waste my time responding to an negative letter to the editor like the one from Joseph McCarthy but I need to set the record straight.

The Free Staters and the Libertarians are the FAKE Republicans a.k.a RINOs: they can't run as Libertarians because New Hampshire doesn't have a Libertarian Party. So, instead they write letters to the editor with their faulty, so-called "Republican advice". Remember, they and the extreme "Far Right" Republicans who blindly follow the Free Staters are truly the RINOs none of them are even close to being true Republicans. Remember, they're the ones who want the state of NH to secede from the Union.

Rather than trying to secede from the Union, they should move to a different country. I was elected to represent all my constituents it doesn't matter their political philosophy or ideals. When the majority speaks out in favor of the nursing home and sheriff's department it is my duty as an elected official to listen and support all the above.

Time and time again we see those who claim to "back the blue" slash law enforcement budgets meanwhile true supporters of first responders like myself co-sponsor bills like 1587-FN that rights the wrong done to our group two firefighters and law enforcement officers with their pensions.

When I was elected I vowed to look out for everyone not just my own personal agenda, again I must state many representatives can learn from this and I pray the public seeks common sense over extremists in any party.

I vowed to support Gov. Chris Sununu and the NH Advantage, Second Amendment rights and to back first responders. Promises made, promises kept end of story. I will never be or support extremists in either party.

Excerpt from:
Mike Bordes: Free staters and Libertarians are the only RINOs here - The Laconia Daily Sun

Nevadans may have one fewer political party on ballots in 2024 – The Nevada Independent

Its easy enough to get on Nevadas ballots if youre a Republican or a Democrat. Its both a little easier and considerably more complicated if youre not.

The easy part, if youre not a Republican or a Democrat and youre running for partisan public office most elected offices youve heard of, like governor or assemblyperson, in other words, plus a few others is you dont have to think about primaries. Those, according to statute, are reserved for what the law calls major political parties the two political parties youve heard of who have won nearly every partisan election in this state since the Silver Party stopped being a going concern during the Taft Administration. Consequently, assuming you meet the minimum requirements to file and serve for public office, you can rest easy, secure in the knowledge your name will be on your voters general election ballots in November.

The harder part, however, depends on how you want to run for partisan office without being a Republican or a Democrat.

If youre planning on running as a nonpartisan candidate as someone without any party affiliation at all for a partisan office, then the law requires you to run as an independent candidate (not to be confused with the Independent American Party). To do so, you either need to get a petition supporting your candidacy signed by 250 voters (if youre running for statewide office), 100 voters (if youre running for county or district office), or one percent of the number of registered voters in your county or district whichever is lesser. In some races in rural Nevada, you might run out of signature lines before you run out of fingers and toes.

If youre planning on running as what is colloquially referred to as a third party candidate, however a minor party candidate, in statutory terms then you better hope your party of choice has ballot access.

***

Creating a political party in Nevada is almost laughably easy. Just write a certificate of existence with the name of your party, the names of its officers, the names of the members of its executive committee, and the name of the person authorized to file the list of candidates for partisan office, then submit it to the Secretary of State.

Its not hard. Heres a free template:

Todays Date

Your Political Party

Certificate of Existence

Nevada Secretary of State

ATTN: Election Division

101 North Carson Street, Suite 3

Carson City, NV 89701

This certificate of existence, pursuant to NRS 293.171, hereby declares the existence of a new political party, named Your Political Party, to the office of the Secretary of State. The First Officer of Your Political Party is Your Name. The Second Officer of Your Political Party is Their Name. The First Officer and Second Officer constitute the Executive Committee of Your Political Party. The person authorized to file the list of candidates for partisan office for Your Political Party is the First Officer, Your Name.

For any questions regarding this submission, please contact First Officer Your Name at Your Phone Number or Your Email Address.

Sincerely,

You

Go ahead copy and paste that into the word processor or text editor of your choice, personalize it a bit, and mail it to the Secretary of State. Tell them The Nevada Independent sent you.

Legally, the only real requirement is plurality since the law says your certificate of existence must have names (plural) of officers (plural), then your new political party must have at least two members. Even that modest requirement was seldom adhered to strictly, however if the Legal Marijuana NOW Nevada Party ever had more than one member when they filed their certificate of existence in 2016, the acting chairperson, treasurer, and secretary never bothered to commit their names to electronic paper.

Getting your new political partys candidates on any of Nevadas ballots, however, is a bit more involved, which is why only two minor parties have succeeded at doing so since 2010. NRS 293.1715 doesnt grant ballot access to just any group of nobodies who send the secretary of state a letter. Instead, it provides minor parties three options to earn and maintain ballot access.

If your party is extremely lucky, at least one percent of Nevadas voters will voluntarily choose to register to vote under your party affiliation if they do, you automatically get to file your candidates for partisan public office. This is why the Independent American Party which has attracted nearly 100,000 very confused voters who think theyre not actually registered with any political party at all will remain on our ballots until either the heat death of the universe, the end of electoral politics in this state, or until someone finally makes them remove Independent from their name.

If your party is moderately lucky, at least one percent of those who vote for a Nevadan congressional candidate will also vote for one of your partys candidates somewhere on their ballot. This could be any of your partys candidates it could be your presidential candidate, it could be a candidate for Clark County District Attorney, or it could even be a Washoe County commissioner candidate. This, with a couple of exceptions well get into shortly, is how the Libertarian Party has kept its candidates on Nevadas ballots since the law was changed in 1993 to require a minor party candidate to receive only one percent of Nevadas congressional votes instead of the three percent originally required in 1987.

One of the exceptions happened because the Libertarian Party was extremely lucky in 2020 none of the partys candidates met this threshold in 2018, but ballot access was maintained because just over one percent of Nevadas voters were registered Libertarian on January 1, 2020. They were considerably less lucky, however, when none of the partys candidates reached the one percent threshold in 2000 and consequently lost ballot access going into 2002.

After the 2000 election, the Libertarian Party had to earn ballot access for its candidates in 2002 the same way the Green Party tried to earn ballot access for itself in 2016 they put together a statewide petition drive. Unlike a nonpartisan candidate, however, they had to collect far more than 250 signatures. A political party without existing ballot access needs at least as many signatures as one percent of the congressional voters in the last election for any of its candidates to show up on a single ballot. Because 1,355,607 Nevadans voted for (or against) a congressional representative in 2020, minor parties without ballot access need to collect at least 13,557 signatures this year and, as many signatures are duplicates or invalid, they should probably collect another 7,000 signatures or so just to be on the safe side.

The deadline for turning those signatures in, by the way, is 10 days before the third Friday of June (June 7, this year), long before most voters are even thinking about an election. If your party doesnt have enough signatures, or if too many of your signatures are thrown into the trash (sorry, Green Party), none of your candidates will make it onto a single Nevadan ballot.

This is where most candidates give up or, more accurately, decide its not worth betting their presence on Nevadas November ballots on the petitioning skills of the Green or Legal Marijuana NOW or whatever other minor party. If a candidate runs as a nonpartisan, they need no more than 250 signatures, and frequently far fewer. Run as a nonpartisan candidate in either an Esmeralda or Lincoln county commission district race and you only need about as many signatures as you have fingers. If you want to run in the same race as a Green Party candidate, you better hope someone can miracle 20,000 signatures or so for you by the beginning of June.

Losing ballot access in Nevada, in other words by failing to have enough registered voters and failing to secure enough votes in an election is catastrophic for minor parties. To overcome the loss, minor parties have to commit to spending tens of thousands of dollars (well in excess of what a minor party can usually expect to raise in a decade) on a statewide petition drive with no guarantee of success. Failing that, they disappear off of the ballot entirely, never to return.

***

The Libertarian Party of Nevada might maybe run the risk of losing ballot access this year.

To understand why, we need to take a look at how the Libertarian Party has secured ballot access for itself in the past:

During presidential years, the Libertarian Party has been incredibly fortunate. Gary Johnson ran some truly impressive campaigns, for a minor party candidate, in 2012 and 2016, and Jo Jorgensen enjoyed a bit of afterglow from those runs in 2020.

Support for the rest of the partys candidates, however, has been lackluster for over a decade.

Part of the problem is Nevadas status as a swing state because every election in Nevada feels like it could go to either major party, both of the major parties are far more likely to run candidates in every partisan race than they were in the past. In 1998, for example, there were no Democratic candidates for secretary of state or treasurer consequently, those who werent interested in voting for Republicans Dean Heller or Brian Krolicki had to either vote for a minor party candidate or vote for None of These Candidates.

Nowadays, however, there are Republicans in every partisan race in the state and Democrats in most of them (except in rural Nevada, where there arent enough voters to reach the necessary threshold to maintain ballot access even if a Libertarian won something for once). Consequently, there are fewer races, like Kim Schjangs run for state Senate against David Parks in 2016, where a Libertarian can get double-digit percentages of the vote in a race by being the only opposing candidate.

The other part of the problem is that Americans are frankly just less likely to vote for minor party candidates than they used to be. From 1980 to 2000, minor party presidential candidates earned over five percent of the popular vote three times once when John Anderson ran in 1980, followed by Ross Perots two runs in 1992 and 1996. Not a single minor party presidential candidate has repeated the feat since Gary Johnsons most successful run, in 2016, only netted him 3.28 percent. Ralph Nader, meanwhile, didnt even earn that much in 2000 he only received 2.74 percent of the popular vote.

Even those modest percentages are enough to secure ballot access in Nevada, however provided the rest of the partys candidates can achieve even that much. Other than its presidential tickets, however, the Libertarian Partys statewide candidates have routinely failed to even reach the necessary 1 percent threshold for over a decade. The last time a non-presidential Libertarian candidate won over 1 percent of Nevadas votes in a statewide race was in 2004, when Thomas L. Hurst ran for Senate. Tim Hagan came closest since then in 2018 during his run for Senate, but he only picked up 0.96 percent. Art Lampitt, Jr. didnt even earn 5,000 votes from his gubernatorial run in 2010 he needed at least another 2,000 votes to reach the necessary threshold.

During non-presidential years, however, there has been a comparatively surefire way for the Libertarian Party to maintain ballot access, at least when the party could be bothered to execute it run someone for a Clark County partisan race.

The reason is mathematics more than 70 percent of Nevadas voters live in Clark County mixed with a greater willingness for voters to vote for a minor party candidate as they get closer to the bottom of their ballots. When a minor party is lucky, they stumble into a two-way race in Nevadas most populous county, like the Libertarian Party did in 2014 when Jim Duensing ran for district attorney against the man who was prosecuting him for resisting arrest at a traffic stop. Even if theyre less lucky, however, like in 2010, minor party candidates for offices like county assessor, county recorder, or public administrator routinely get nearly 2 percent of the vote. That doesnt sound like much, but 2 percent of 70 percent of the states voters works out to 1.4 percent not enough to make much news, but more than enough to secure ballot access and allow your partys candidates to run for office without a petition drive in the subsequent election season.

When the Libertarian Party hasnt thrown someone at a Clark County partisan office during a non-presidential year like 2022 their luck has been pressed to the wall. In 2018, they only kept ballot access because, for the first and last time in state party history, over 1 percent of the registered voters in the state registered as Libertarians they are currently 14 voters shy of that threshold now. In 2006, it took Tom Koziol securing over 5 percent of the vote in his run for Washoe County assessor to reach the necessary 1 percent statewide threshold and he barely made it.

***

The reason I bring all of this up is two-fold.

The first reason is, just like in 2018, the Libertarian Party of Nevada chose not to run anyone for a Clark County-wide partisan office. Theyre not even running anyone for a Washoe County-wide partisan office. The closest theyre coming to running anyone that far down-ballot is a Clark County commissioner candidate (not a single one of those has ever secured ballot access for the Libertarian Party) and a Washoe County commissioner candidate (one of those somehow actually did keep the Libertarian Partys ballot access alive Ernest Walker pulled the improbable off in a two-way race for county commissioner in 1996). Instead, theyre running candidates in every statewide race, from senator and governor to controller races which, historically, the party has historically struggled to get more than a few thousand votes in.

Additionally, only one race Darby Lee Burns candidacy against Richard McArthur (R-Las Vegas) in Assembly District 4 is a two-way race. Securing ballot access from an Assembly race isnt impossible Nate Santucci received enough votes to secure ballot access in his run for Assembly District 22 in 2008 but its not exactly probable. Despite earning nearly 40 percent of the vote and running a comparatively energetic campaign, by minor party candidate standards, Dennis Hof still fell 100 votes short of the necessary threshold when he ran against James Oscarson in 2016.

If a single paper candidate a candidate who paid the filing fee and then disappeared for the rest of the year filed for Clark County clerk before the filing deadline, that candidate would be in a three-way race at the bottom of the ballot where a few extra voters will happily vote for a minor party candidate because the stakes are, in their minds, nonexistent. Instead, the partys ballot access fortunes likely rest upon two three-way statewide races the attorney general race, which is likely to be high profile this year (and, consequently, one voters are less likely to vote for minor party candidates) and the race for controller, which might maybe have a low enough profile in Nevadas voters minds for a few thousand voters to vote for a Libertarian while they vote for major party candidates farther up their ballots.

Maybe.

The second reason is admittedly personal. I used to be a member of the Libertarian Party of Nevada, and while I was one, I was usually in a position to strongly influence where we filed our candidates (unlike major parties, minor parties in Nevada actually get to pick and choose who runs under their banner and where). In 2018, however, my colleagues, who were flush with confidence following Gary Johnsons unprecedented success in 2016, talked us out of running any paper candidates for a Clark County-wide partisan office we were, you see, beyond running paper candidates and worrying about ballot access.

In retrospect, we were most certainly not.

After 2018, I started to wonder if I was sinking my energies into something which did some long-term good, or if I was just wasting my time. Two years later, I developed severe ideological differences with some of the new activists and leaders who joined after the pandemic and grew increasingly dissatisfied with the systemic dysfunction of the national party. Finally, tired of spending time on a project I no longer believed in anymore, I left the Libertarian Party.

Even so, even with all of the differences Ive developed with the party through the years, I spent over a decade organizing and running for office with the party to, if not succeed on my or our own merits, to at least ensure somebody could succeed under that banner under their own merits at some later point down the road. I may not agree with what the party stands for today, I certainly have no intention of voting for their candidates, and I certainly wont encourage anyone else to but, for purely personal and sentimental reasons, I would still miss seeing Libertarian Party candidates on my ballot.

It would mean all of my efforts for the party all of them were ultimately for nothing.

Which perhaps they were.

Perhaps, given the direction the party is taking these days, its for the best if they were.

Whether its really for the best or not, though, Nevadans are seeing fewer and fewer choices on our ballots, and thats not something I can cheer for. If past experience the experience of the Green Party, the Natural Law Party, the Tea Party, or the other minor parties who no longer place candidates on our ballots anymore is any guide, if the Libertarian Party doesnt earn ballot access this year, we may never get their choice back.

Correction: (5/27/22 at 7:03 p.m. ): The original version of this column said that the last time a non-presidential Libertarian candidate won more than 1 percent of Nevadas votes in a statewide race was in 2004, when Thomas L. Hurst ran for Senate and that Tim Hagan (it was actually Jared Lord) had come closest since then.

David Colborne ran for office twice and served on the executive committees for his state and county Libertarian Party chapters. He is now an IT manager, a registered nonpartisan voter, the father of two sons, and a weekly opinion columnist for The Nevada Independent. You can follow him on Twitter @DavidColborne or email him at [emailprotected].

Read more:
Nevadans may have one fewer political party on ballots in 2024 - The Nevada Independent

The Political Compass of Housing and Urbanism – Planetizen

One idea that seems to have become widespread online is the political compass, a graph dividing political ideologies into four groups: Authoritarian Left (left-wing economically, but socially conservative and/or favoring a strong state), Libertarian-Left (also economically leftish, but more pro-civil liberties), Authoritarian Right (economically and socially conservative, generally favoring activist government in order to ensure law and order), and Libertarian Right (economically conservative, socially tolerant).

It seems to me that the political compass is easy to adapt to arguments about urbanism. For example, one axis of conflict is "status quo vs. YIMBY"- people who favor lots of new housing (colloquially referred to as "YIMBYs") vs. people who favor the zoning status quo. Another axis of conflict is "Sprawl vs. Smart Growth"people who view additional suburbanization as essentially harmless vs. people who view it as environmentally or socially harmful.

So for example, a libertarian purist would be at the "YIMBY/Sprawl" extreme, because a pure libertarian would believe that a) government has no business limiting the housing supply but b) also has no business limiting sprawl. For example, market urbanistScott Beyer is somewhere in this quadrant; he values the benefits of urban life and supports new infill housing, but views suburban development as a legitimate consumer choice that should not be overly restricted.

On the other hand, Todd Litman (who has written extensively on the Planetizen blog) is perhaps in the YIMBY/Smart Growth column; he has written extensively about the benefits of more walkable development, but has also discussed the importance of new housing supply in holding down housing costs. I am instinctively sympathetic towards this group, although in regions with housing shortages, I am more willing than I used to be to support additional suburban housing.

The "Status Quo*/Smart Growth" grouping seems to be very popular among older urbanists. The core idea animating this group is that even though sprawl is environmentally harmful, new infill development should still be carefully regulated. The major constituency for this group is older urban homeowners, who benefit from rising home prices, and who see no obvious benefit from new housing in their neighborhoods. Members of this group seem to be motivated by a variety of concerns, such as fear of gentrification, fear of low-quality architecture, and dislike of tall buildings. Others simply are unwilling to believe that the law of supply and demand applies to market-rate housing. More moderate members of this grouping claim to favor new housing is long as it is "affordable" (i.e. subsidized so it can cater to low- and moderate- income urbanites).

The "Status Quo/Sprawl" grouping tends not to have as much support among planning commentators as the other three groupings, but is arguably popular among suburban homeowners and the politicians who represent them. People in this grouping are perfectly happy with suburbia the way it is, and fear that new housing might bring a variety of unwelcome change. They tend to favor new housing, as long as it is low-density sprawl. President Trumps claims that he was protecting suburbia from civil rights laws was an attempt to cater to this group; similarly, sprawl advocate Joel Kotkin has criticized attempts to add density to existing neighborhoods.

I also note that the two "status quo" groups share a variety of concerns: both urban and suburban opponents of new housing fear that new housing might bring increased traffic, limit automobile parking, or otherwise stress infrastructure.

It also seems to me that the two "status quo" groups tend to be more politically extreme than the two YIMBY groupings: in my experience, YIMBYs tend to be center-left, while right-wingers and socialists tend to be more skeptical of new housing. In New York, the most "YIMBY" candidate was moderate Democrat Kathryn Garcia, while both the leading Republican and the more left-wing candidates tended to favor more obstacles to non-subsidized housing. However, I do not know if New York City is typical of the nation in this regard, so perhaps I am overgeneralizing here.

*More colloquially, NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). However, this term is a bit underinclusive, since some people seem to be against new housing in anyone's back yard.

Visit link:
The Political Compass of Housing and Urbanism - Planetizen

Stoics and storms – Counterpoint – ABC News

In these confusing and confronting times might there be some ancient wisdom that we could turn to that will help guide us through. Amanda Ruggeri argues that 'whether it's war or a pandemic, our health or finances, no matter how challenging our lives might feel, the Stoics tell us, we still can thrive'.She explains the history of the Stoics and reminds us that 'for Stoics, it isn't the thing itself that causes turmoil. It's how you think about it. And few things cause more distress than fighting against circumstances outside of our control, or getting attached to an outcome that isn't in our power'. The Stoics teach us to recognize what you can (and can't) control, choose how to respond, see every challenge as a learning opportunity and to remember that change and loss is constant. She explains what that means in our times and why we need to remember that this too shall pass.

Then, (at 14 mins) Amanda gets on her soapbox to rant about one person making a difference.

Also, (at 15 mins) what are the limits of libertarianism? Joel Kotkin explains that 'in recent years, libertarians increasingly seem less concerned with how their policies might actually impact people. Convinced that markets are virtually always the best way to approach any issue, they have allied with many of the same forces monopoly capital, anti-suburban zealots and thetech-oligarchy which are systematically undermining the popular rationale for market capitalism'. He goes through some core libertarian beliefs and how they've changed and says that 'in many ways, libertarians, like all of us, are victims of history' and that to become relevant again, libertarians need to go beyond their dogmatic attachments, focus on bolstering the vitality competitive free markets'. That 'libertarian ideas still have great relevance, but only so much as they reflect markets that are open to competition and capable of improving everyday lives'.

Then, (at 28 mins) have Russia and Ukraine always been so intertwined? Professor Sheila Fitzpatrick explains the history of their shared history and says that ' Ukrainians tell a story of the origins of the Ukrainian nation going back to 11th century Kyiv, surviving centuries of oppression by Russia and Poland, and, finally, emerging out of the wreckage of the Soviet Union as a sovereign Ukrainian state in 1991. For the Russians, the various western and southern provinces now called Ukraine were populated by Slavic border people (Ukrainians) who were essentially Russian. They considered this land as a part of the Russian Empire for centuries'. She says that 'it is not clear if the younger post-Soviet generation in particular, young men liable for military conscription see Ukraine and its current Western orientation in the same way as their elders' and that 'it remains to be seen how the Russian Army and Russians back home will feel about the killing of Ukrainians: Slavic kith and kin'.

Finally, (at 40 mins) are all natural disasters caused by climate change? Fred Pearce argues that 'there is a growing debate among environmental scientists about whether it is counterproductive to always focus on climate change as a cause of such disasters. Some say it sidelines local ways of reducing vulnerability to extreme weather and that it can end up absolving policymakers of their own failures to climate-proof their citizens'. He goes through some recent disasters such as the floods in Germany, the food crisis in Madagascar and the dry state of Lake Chad in West Africa, all of which were blamed on climate change but in reality was a mix of poor irrigation practices or government polices. He believes that 'no doubt climate changes intensifies the situation, however other drivers are key' and we ignore them at our peril.

Read the rest here:
Stoics and storms - Counterpoint - ABC News