Mediaboss Marketing

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

byBenjamin Hitzig

What do Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Ron Paul have in common? Well at first glance not much, as ideologically the three dont share that much common ground. Bernie Sanders believes that the top 1% should pay their fair share. Donald Trump believes that the solution to the majority of the drug and immigration problem is building a wall andcutting regulations. Ron Paul believes the core issues revolve around three things: interventionism, high taxes, and the war on drugs all of which he wants to repeal. Although the end goals of these three are very different, one thing that they all have in common is that they have a message that unified different individuals.

Bernie Sanders unified a large portion of younger millennials, many of whom believed a class of elites stacked the deck against them. Ron Paul unified people from both sides of the spectrum who felt dissatisfied because of a failed war on drugs, expensive and endless foreign wars, and soaring tax rates which he promised would be cut back. He even went as far as to say the IRS would be dismantled and replaced with nothing. Donald Trump gathered a large portion of the middle American population as well as a silent majority from everywhere in the U.S. who felt like their freedom of speech had been suppressed by the left, their healthcare had been destroyed by the Obama, and feared that illegal immigration and terrorism would lead to chaos.

It is important to recognize that Bernie Sanders appeared as a hero to a younger generation. Ron Paul appeared as a hero to a wide demographic of freedom fighters. Trump was looked at as such by a silent but growing demographic that felt forgotten about. How can this apply to the Libertarians of 2016? and furthermore, how can we achieve a larger audience by conveying a message of free market/personal libertywhile staying true to our principles?

In an article published by The Washington Examiner, Thomas Massie (R. Kentucky), gives us a little insight as to why Trump won. He says that He, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul were not supported because of their values. instead they were supported because they had the craziest views, and Donald Trump had the craziest of the crazy. Thomas Massie isnt even wrong. Donald Trump didnt do the whole political thing, instead he talked to people like they were people. A steal worker in Pittsburgh probably doesnt want some suit in Washington talking down to him. Donald Trump knew that, and Hillary Clinton didnt. And although many of Trumps views could be seen as controversial, they resonated with a large portion of the population.

This leads us to the main question we have to ask ourselves: how can we convey the principles of liberty in a voice that can resonate to the public? Ron and Rand Paul have been able to break through to mainstream popularity in the past, so how can it be done again? In the age of Trump, we have a new and unique opportunity to convey our message. More people are opened to listening than ever before. We just need a strong unified message, so now comes the question of what the message would be.

Do we tell people to destroy roads? Probably not a place to start. What about taxation being theft? Well, its the truth, sure, but once again maybe not a place to start. How about the war on drugs? More people on both sides of the aisle are realizing its a failure, however a portion of the older crowd still wants every illegal substance to stay illegal. How about less government? This works on a bunch of different levels Reagan and Trump were both able to ride this ideology into the white house, so why not a libertarian? Its actually pretty simple, with the revelations of WikiLeaks, more people are realizing how much of our privacy is being invaded. So instead of throwing ten ideas at the general public at once, lets stick to just one at the outset. Lets push the ideology of limited government and show people its stronglylibertarian, but also ubiquitously beneficial.

Donald TrumpissueslibertarianlibertarianismLimited Governmentpersonalitiesrand paulron paulThomas Massie

See the original post:
How Libertarians Can Find Voter Popularity Through Unification - The Libertarian Republic

Being Libertarian

Shortcuts & Delusions: Chasing Shadows, Tilting At Windmills Being Libertarian For years, a great many conservatives and libertarians warned that President Obama was a socialist, communist, or worse. Obama is undoubtedly of the Progressive Left, but he turned out to be a bigger advocate for corporatism than the workers owning the ... and more »

See the original post here:
Shortcuts & Delusions: Chasing Shadows, Tilting At Windmills - Being Libertarian

Being Libertarian

How The Tax Code Picks Winners And Losers Being Libertarian It's never optimal for the government to sway private decision making one way or the other, even if it's encouraging actions we support. This can be tough to process even for the most libertarian-leaning minds. This is especially true for tax policy ...

See more here:
How The Tax Code Picks Winners And Losers - Being Libertarian

The Republican and Democratic conventions to select their candidates to replace Ryan Zinke were held in a convention hall holding hundreds of delegates and on-lookers. The Libertarian convention, held at the Eagle Lodge in Helena last Saturday, was attended by three dozen loyalists including 21 delegates. It was the only convention that featured homemade brownies as a snack. The Libertarian Party has been considered an also ran party garnering single-digit vote results after their candidates paid their campaign fees then went fishing. Ron Vandevender, Chairman of the Montana Libertarian Party, is vowing to change that. Referencing two presidential candidates with the lowest likeability ratings in history and now two candidates that support the same policies and personalities Ron proclaimed, No more AAA ball. We are in this to win and build a party that can continue to win. We have the message, and this is the time for that message. The candidate selected was Mark Wicks, a published author and third generation rancher from Inverness who augments his income by delivering the rural mail and selling produce at various venues including farmers markets and road side stands. He has a degree in Aviation maintenance. Mark explained, I am just like many Montanans. I need several revenue streams to care for my family. It is a lot of work but it is what a father does. He is married to Beth and has a son Hunter (18), and three daughters Jewel (16), Choral (12), and Liberty (4). His children are all involved in the family enterprises. I think many people will see me as the candidate that truly understands the average Montanan and their daily struggles and hopes.

Positions Wicks first mentioned position concerned the long-standing platform of the Republican Party to eliminate the U.S. Dept of Education. George W. Bush opposed this plank so delegates to the Republican convention deleted it. Mark Wicks says, Reduce government spending and programs across the board starting with the Dept. of Education. Take that money and block grant it to the states. We have great teachers. Set them free and let them teach. Veterans: We should give all veterans a Medicaid card which is accepted by every hospital. They should not have to drive hundreds of miles over icy roads when quality care is right at hand. Functionality of Congress: We must stop runaway spending and social engineering. To accomplish this we must return to the intent of the 10th amendment of the Constitution. Neither major party wants to solve problems but rather prefer to cast blame. We elect Democrats and Republicans over and over yet everything just gets worse. Transfer of Federal lands to Montana: I believe federal lands would be better managed under local control. But I would never accept selling large parcels of public lands. There may be a few isolated parcels that should be considered but not many. If we were to sell off lands favored by hunters, fishermen, and wildlife I would insist on a public easement that would forever guarantee public access. Wicks admits getting out his message is problematic with only $1000 to put into the effort. But he is hopeful, The national party must recognize that out of the five federal races going on right now Montana leans the most Libertarian and is the most affordable. Libertarians across the country should be energized by this opportunity to establish a beach-head in Congress. Wicks joined all candidates at the convention in an oath to not make personal attacks against their opponents but rather to honestly discuss the philosophical differences between them. Keeping true to that he said, I am a no strings attached candidate. The other two will be beholding to the special interests and to their parties supported by the same special interests. People want a real discussion of the real issues facing America and our families. We will not accept campaigns driven by messages of 140 characters or less such as I will drain the swamp or Make America Great Again. Asked what separated him from Democratic candidate, Rob Quist, Wicks replied, Rob Quist is probably a nice guy but he plainly advocates for national registration of guns. I have never heard of anyone which thinks this is an acceptable idea. On Gianforte he said, He has worked hard and accomplished a lot. And he accomplishes a lot of good through his philanthropy. But what he offers is just more of the same partisan politics and sound bites. Wicks smiled and said, He also wants to drain the swamp. In the last election 6 percent of Montanans voted Libertarian for president. Six percent is a long way from a winning 34 percent. But Mark Wicks and Ron Vandevender vow to give it their best.

Original post:
Libertarians chose Wicks as candidate - Laurel Outlook (subscription)

Milo Yiannopoulos: Where do we start?

Before we raise our pitchforks and torches, I personally am not offended in any way with what he has to say. In fact, I find it all extremely entertaining. This opinion has nothing to do with hate speech or racism. I heard his statements on his alleged promotion of pedophilia months and months ago on The Joe Rogan Experience, and took it as a partial joke and am surprised it took this long to surface. My opinion on him has little to do with his explosive nature or his comedic tropes, but more to do with questioning what the end goal in all of this is, and how he in any way helps or advances the libertarian message. Is he the next Christopher Hitchens? Or is he just a re-hashed neo-con who doesnt like the GOP power structure, and is more akin to a right-wing Lena Dunham begging for attention? I would personally argue that he is far more the latter than a paradigm shifter of societys problems, and that he does not benefit libertarians at all.

I was introduced to him several years back, and my initial reaction was one of comedic enjoyment. I appreciated how easily he was able to make liberals who thought they had dignified and logical points turn into erratic and scrambling messes in mere minutes. With his abrasively flamboyant and no-holds-barred statements, Milo was able to expose many of our liberal foes as nothing more than sanctimonious sophists who would quickly abandon everything they said about acceptance, and encouraging diversity in thought the second they were faced with a minority that starkly opposed them. However, after hearing respectable long format interviews with him on The Joe Rogan Experience, The Rubin Report and listening to a talk he gave along with Christina Hoff Sommers and Stephen Crowder, I started to realize his entire message is nothing at all but recycled talking points and quasi neo-conservativism but delivered by an openly gay, Jewish immigrant. Dr. Sommers explained masterfully how third wave feminism is not a positive movement for women and is closer to a female supremacy movement than a bid for equality. Milo approached the mic and blew our minds with one statement, Feminism is cancer. Funny? Totally. Informative, new or intellectual? Not quite. Rush Limbaugh has said the same things for years. Anyone can do that, given you are okay with a certain amount of condemnation. When listening to him speak with Joe Rogan, it was more of the same: humorous, but not a solitary mind-blowing thought, not a single thing I havent heard a thousand times before, albeit he just takes the gloves off, uses foul language and employs ad hominems. But he hasnt espoused a single bit of knowledge that I nor any other self-respecting non-Leftist hasnt heard already. Unless he is attempting to attract liberal converts, which I do not think he is.

In addition to not really saying anything earth-shattering, Milo does us something of a disservice insofar he is now to an extent representing libertarians, and much of this may have to do with our lack of promotion in mainstream media and culture, as well as internal failures to market our movement more effectively. Milo often suggests he is fighting for libertarian voices to be able to speak unhindered, as well as alt-right and Republican voices; however I do not believe Walter Block, Ron Paul or Tom Woods are having a hard time speaking at all. He isnt a libertarian in any way, and has gone to great lengths, like he did in his interview with The Nation, to suggest he doesnt quite see us in a positive light, stating, Libertarians are children. Libertarians are people who have given up looking for an answer. This whole everybody do what they want is code for leave me to do what I want. Its selfish and childish. Its an admission that you have given up trying to work out what a good society would look like, how the world should be ordered and instead just retreated back into selfishness. Thats why theyre so obsessed with weed, Bitcoin, and hacking. To me, this sounds like a John McCain interview. My issue stems from the fact that he is the loudest voice in the room, and he is doing the talking for us. A person who slanders the entire libertarian philosophy is doing the talking for libertarians in the mainstream. But we will risk our necks for him and fully associate ourselves with him just because he mentions libertarianism a couple times? Something seems off about that.

Many of my libertarian peers have pushed back at me and suggested that we have to support his right to free speech. I totally agree. Milo has a right to speak at public universities. He has a right to some degree of protection from out of control rioters. We are forced to fund these institutions and therefore we could demand diversity of thought, no matter how foolish the thought may be. Even the former President of Iran was allowed to speak some years ago at Columbia, and was given the opportunity to talk and answer questions. I believe President Ahmadinejad is a far more offensive person than Milo is.

Milo, however, doesnt have the right to speak at CPAC, or at a private event or institution. A publishing company does not have to publish his book. Their refusal to do so is not a resistance to free speech; it is a capitalist business decision in which one weighs the risk of releasing it versus the reward. All libertarians should support the right to choose who you enter into contracts with and your right to discriminate as a business or property owner. If private institutions and universities decide to shun him, it is their right, just as it is our right to no longer associate with the aforementioned institutions and universities. This actually works; take a look at the University of Missouri, whos reckless expansion of rules following a series of alleged racist incidents have led to a drop in applicants.

In short, I do not see what we gain from defending Yiannopoulos so vigorously. We should support his right to speak as much as he wants, but he espouses nothing new, he does nothing to promote free market economics in any way, he supports the police state at every turn and has no interest in scaling back Western influence via militaristic intervention. Milo is a great entertainer, but we gain nothing from going out of our way to defend him. He will be fine without us.

* Nick Verdino is a libertarian and identifies as an anarcho-capitalist, who lives in Chicago, Illinois. He holds a bachelors degree in political science and philosophy from the University of Akron in Ohio.

Like Loading...

View post:
What do Libertarians Stand to Gain by Defending Milo Yiannopoulos? - Being Libertarian