Mediaboss Marketing

Screenshot via ZodiacThe Washington Post's Alyssa Rosenberg notes that David Fincher's Zodiac was released 10 years ago. The film received rave reviews, but still seems underappreciated by the general public. In her retrospective, Rosenberg notes that Zodiacwhich chronicles the efforts of police officers and journalists to catch a real-life serial killer in the 1960s and 70sstill resonates:

The characters have resources to pursue their investigations, and they're given time and plenty of leeway by their superiors (though one local politician runs for governor on the argument that the cops didn't have what they needed to crack the case). And neither is "Zodiac" a story about the sorts of failures involved in the Vietnam War, where brilliant people, restricted both by their own faith in technocratic solutions and their fears of being seen as soft on Communism, made fatally terrible decisions.

Instead, Fincher captures the uncertainty and loss of confidence that follow from a prolonged failure by institutions and people who are doing everything they're supposed to, only to find that it doesn't produce the correct results.

Ten years after "Zodiac" was released, and almost fifty years after the July 4 killing that sets the movie in motion, we're still living with and working through the consequences of the decline and loss of faith David Fincher captured in this masterful film. Fincher's "Fight Club" offered up a vision of weaponized male turned against society as a whole, while his "Gone Girl" portrayed female anger that had been distilled into a particularly venomous domestic poison. "Zodiac" is his movie for the rest of us, who have to live in a world going slowly insane without losing ourselves.

For me, Zodiac was a story about obsessionwhat it feels like to care about something that most other people have lost interest in. The serial killerwho calls himself the Zodiac and sends cryptic messages to the authoritiesslaughters a handful of people, and then largely retreats into the shadows. He botches some of his attacks, and others don't fit his profile, calling into question whether he's a single person or a group of completely unrelated nutcases taking advantage of a momentary spotlight.

As days become weeks and even years, everybody moves on, except the police officers assigned to the case and the newspaper cartoonist who can't let it go. They're driven, not by public safetyas one character points out, more people die crossing the street than at the hands of the Zodiac killerbut by their own insatiable, personal need to solve the case. Asked why he still cares about a serial killer who has long since fallen inactive, Jake Gyllenhaal's character snaps, "I need to know who he is!" Anyone who's ever attempted a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle, but misplaced the last few pieces, will relate.

Zodiac also makes some lightly libertarian criticisms of authorityin particular, its limits. The various representatives of the institutions that fail to capture the killerthe police, newspapers, local politiciansaren't evil, or incompetent. They're decent people trying to do right by the citizens of California. But they encounter structural problems: the crimes cross city and county lines, and no single entity has all the relevant information. In an early scene, the lead detectives ask a county official to make copies of the evidence in his possession and fax it to San Francisco PD. He replies, "We don't have telefax yet."

The film also explores the notion that violence is random, and its underlying causes don't fit neatly into preconceived narratives. The Zodiac killer isn't Hannibal Lecter, or Ramsay Bolton. He's a weird loner whose actions don't reflect a discernible ideology of evil. This kind of real-world violence is the hardest to address through public policy, because there's no identifiable reason for it.

In the end, it took someone outside the law enforcement bureaucracyGyllenhaal's character, cartoonist Robert Graysmithto finally solve the case, to the extent that it's solved at all.

More here:
Zodiac Turns 10: Why This Amazing Film Is Libertarian - Hit & Run ... - Reason (blog)

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

Dries Van Thielen

TLR: Why will the 2017 elections be more successful than the one in 2012?

VALENTINE: Like the American Libertarian Party, the Dutch Libertarian Party was inspired by dogmatic anarchists. However, similar to the American Libertarian Party, we recently had a strong disagreement on approach. On the one side, we had dogmatic theorists, stating that the libertarian ideology could not dilute. On the other side, we had an uprising of pragmatics favoring a more conciliatory attitude. We went along with the pragmatics and thus far we reached a wider audience and I myself, receive more phone calls from journalists. Without betraying our ideology, we composed a more attractive program which resulted in more and younger members.

TLR: Your campaign shows similarities with Gary Johnsons presidential campaign which was unable to attract major media attention. What is the approach of the LP towards media?

VALENTINE: For 2017, our strategy consists out of two approaches. First, we try to attract political attention for the upcoming elections. In doing so, we make efforts to draw attention by focusing on social media Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or LinkedIn and mixing ourselves in online discussions by creating our own content. You see, similar to Johnson, we are never asked for political debates. When we are debating on a local level, the audience is drawn into our ideas since we pose a different concept than spending more money on topic A or B as our colleagues propose. Political TV debates are somnolent since no party offers solutions for ongoing problems (like poverty, ).

Secondly, we try to look further than the upcoming elections. In 2017, we will work to introduce three cornerstones (political, intellectual and social) of libertarianism in the LP. A political cornerstone since it is the only way to become more influential in the Netherlands. An intellectual cornerstone since we are too often drawn to American media outlets (FEE, Libertarian Republic, CATO, and Mises.org,), focusing on the United States. Instead, we would introduce our own articles and platform focusing on the Netherlands.

Third, a social cornerstone, showing the power of freedom and individual cooperation. We missed out on a strong equip of volunteers throughout the years, being active in the fibers of society will change that. Currently, we are working to maintain and professionalize our team.

TLR: According to your recent Twitter campaign (#Nexit), the Netherlands have to opt out of the EU and NATO. Why would this be a good idea?

VALENTINE: People who join politics are well-intended, I presume. They join a party with the firm belief to change the mishaps in their respective country. So did the EU: it started with good intentions free movement of goods, people and capital, a lessening of trade restrictions These ideas are utterly libertarian-inspired, but the reality and elaboration differ from these well-intended ideas. Nowadays, we have an army of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and Luxembourg, designing our society! This is as un-libertarian as can be.

Without sounding too much like Geert Wilders (the entire Preliminary Election Program of PVV is 1 page long), I believe that the EU-agreements can be summed up on 1 page: freedom and free trade doesnt need codices. Brussels needs to disappear and The Hague needs to retake control.

As an alternative to the European Union, I would suggest the model Switzerland holds up. Granted, it isnt a libertarian utopia, but it only has 8 million inhabitants divided amongst 26 cantons, each with its respective constitution. The smallest particle decides which results in a more involved population. The citizens witness first handed the effects of their own policies.

TLR: And NATO?

VALENTINE: The same goes up with NATO. The NATO pact took off with good intentions, for we have to defend ourselves against invaders: libertarians arent pacifists. However, similar to the EU the intentions are overtaken by reality.

See, the moment we centralize our countrys interests, it gets troublesome since the organization you transfer your own interests to, has incentives of their own. In the case of NATO, the interests of its largest member the United States prevail on the ones of smaller member states (Netherlands and Belgium).

It is untenable to keep this relic from the Cold War alive as you take into account what it is used for nowadays: bombing sovereign states. Consistently bombing neighboring countries will not lead to a more secure Europe.

TLR: Can free trade solve the question of security, as a reaction for the dismantling of NATO? The majority of wars are fought for a lack of free trade.

VALENTINE: If goods dont pass the border, troops will. No sane country will put well-functioning commercial relations at risk since every interaction is advantageous for both participants. It would benefit the world if the world-wide free trade would be allowed (decline of poverty as the main advantage).

TLR: Besides free movement of goods and capital, your program mentions the open border solution based on the 19th-century European model. Will every individual integrate into this model?

VALENTINE: We favor the open border policy. Every individual is free to cross borders but we will check in your country of origin, whether you have ties with terrorist organizations.

Also, we encourage immigrants to work as soon as they enter the country instead of being pampered by the government, as is the case nowadays. Only, we will not allow immigrants to make use of the social benefits. In doing so, we counter the argument (theyll ruin our welfare) made by advocates of closed borders.

I find our system logical. Therefore, we counter the argument made by Geert Wilders. He states: We have to close borders, no one is allowed to cross borders and the Muslims already residing in the Netherlands will soon be kicked out! These accusations are nonsense and will harm the economy.

TLR: You grew accustomed to libertarianism by the writings of Ron Paul. Do you have any book recommendations for our readers?

VALENTINE: As an introduction into libertarianism, I highly recommend Revolution: A Manifesto by Dr. Ron Paul. Besides the classics (Economics in One Lesson or The Law), I was impressed by Matt RadleysThe Evolution of Everything. He refers to himself as a libertarian in minuscule. Many libertarians are attracted to libertarianism for its moral or economic aspect. It never goes both ways. The entire world is driven by invisible natural laws so it is unnecessary and illogical to set up structures according to Radley.

Since it is election season, I am currently reading The audacity to win by David Plouffe, Obamas Senior Advisor. It was he who was responsible for his (re-)election which interests me nowadays and I think it is a good read for many (non-pragmatic) libertarians. Unfortunately, the story does not tell itself.

TLR: I heard a passionate libertarian. When do you call the elections successful?

VALENTINE: The goal of the American Libertarian Party was to reach for 5% of the votes mainly to become a household name. The same goes up for us: the long-term is more important than these elections. If we reach 1 seat in parliament, it will be considered a grandiose success. Even if we reach 0.5 seats, which will correspond with about 20 thousand votes, these elections will be considered successful. This way, we will become a party worth taking into account.

EUGlobal Politicsimmigrationlibertarian partyNAvoNetherlandsRobert Valentine

Read more:
Dutch Libertarian Party Pres. Robert Valentine: If Goods Don't Pass the Border, Troops Will - The Libertarian Republic

Image courtesy of Flickr Creative Commons

With the victory of Betsy DeVos, it seems the Department of Education may be entering its end-of-life phase. Although I would thoroughly enjoy finishing it off with a few blows of a hammer (then poking it to ensure it is good and dead), the narrowness of her victory margin suggests that detractors will successfully petition to keep the department on life support for some time. Even though the mere existence of a Department of Education flies in the face of the Constitution, people have gotten rather used to it: kind of like the awkward office Christmas parties that everybody dreads but cant abandon because they are considered an integral part of polite society. Right below muh roads in importance is muh public schools. Publications like the New Republic seem to look at Ron Pauls revolutionary idea of public school abolishment as a sure symptom of severe mental illness (reason alone for me to strongly consider his stance).

I have both hope and misgivings about the appointment of DeVos, but I find the clear disdain for her, exhibited by some of my least-favorite talking heads, mildly encouraging. I am, at the very least, interested to see what she will do, and I hope that one of her first orders of system dismantling is to staunch the bleeding of tax dollars into higher education.

From a pragmatic perspective, this move is clearly a simpler one than some of her other endeavors will likely be. The people attending college are adults and (one would hope) better able to handle the removal of their babysitter. But the reason for its importance goes beyond mere convenience. Higher education and more specifically the governments funding of it lies at the crux of many of our most pressing problems in the United States.

Until recently, I would likely have promoted our illustrious institutes of education as a solution to problems, instead of their cause; probably because the Department of Education has the word education right in its name, and that sounded so promising. I wont go into all the spectacular examples that have proven this line of thinking obsolete, but I think most people who are not either Shaun King or professors teaching seminars entitled Why All White Men Are Hitler would agree that these institutions are largely failing to educate anybody. This fact is not likely to change overnight, but merely extricating the government from them accomplishes one vitally important end quashing the illusion of entitlement that is destroying our country.

One of the first experiences many people have when officially reaching adulthood is navigating college. When state schools are so heavily funded by taxes, supplemented by state-run student loans and grants, students are immediately handed a large sum of their tuition for free and thereby unaware of the true cost of education. According to the New America Foundation (cited in The Atlantic), the federal government (your taxes) spent $69 billion on funding for higher education in 2013 (and that does not include loans). Worse, as soon as students arrive on campus, peppy student body representatives are handing these mini adults their free condoms, meal cards, and bus passes. Two seconds after reaching adulthood, they are having the idea that life is supposed to be free reinforced.

Women are oppressed by their own fertility and must be compensated. We are all victims of natural hunger and must have meals provided by well, it doesnt really matter who is paying for it, as long as WE are not. No apartments are available next to campus, so we need transportation somebody needs to cover that. And we have the right to receive education, in the area of our interest, be it interpretive dance or something even less practical.

Furthermore, we have the right to be assisted by tax money in these endeavors. If we shockingly find ourselves unable to secure a spot in a wildly successful dance company, we can have our student loans forgiven, as if doing so just required an apology and a conciliatory handshake. We have a right, nay, a DUTY, to pursue our destiny.

Mind you, I am not discouraging individuals or businesses who want to assist struggling students in these areas. Quite the contrary. I am merely pointing out that by having the government do it, we are eliminating the faces of the generous donors and the natural gratitude that often follows direct receipt of a gift. We are replacing that with the impression that these services somehow grow on trees. There is a condom tree, a bus pass tree, and a tree that produces the gelatin dessert served in your dining hall.

This may account for the tree-hugging movement among environmentalists. They got their degrees at these schools.

Unfortunately, once the government has sold this lie to students, it has them in prime position to sell them more. Consider that if these items did grow on trees, the government would tax and regulate them until they were prohibitively expensive, then heroically find ways to cut costs for students by making somebody else pay for it. The legislators who did this would now be considered champions of equality and education by the students, even as they grift those very students future selves out of tax money.

And thus, the cycle of government dependence is born at the commencement of higher education. State-sponsored universities are creating citizens who see legislators as saviors and imagined entitlements as natural resources.

Eliminating government involvement is not likely to turn clueless students into responsible adults overnight, but it will hopefully avoid our current crisis of sending intelligent young people into expensive schools and having them emerge 4 years later, 50 economic I.Q. points lower.

If we are going to kill the beast of overreaching government, we need to go for the jugular: tax-funded higher education.

Like Loading...

The rest is here:
Muh State Universities: Breaking Free of Indoctrination - Being Libertarian

Conservative and libertarian law professors demand more politically balanced faculties

February 28, 2017

Law schools are notoriously one-sided when it comes to the political leanings of their faculty, and conservative and libertarian academics are tiredof seeking change behind the scenes.

More than two dozen law professors, many familiar to College Fix readers, sent an open letter to the executive committee of the Association of American Law Schools.

It lays bare their grievances against AALSs failure to take concrete preliminary steps to promote viewpoint diversity among law faculties, in the words of the professor who shared it, libertarian luminary Randy Barnett of Georgetown.

Drafted by Case Western Reserve Law Prof. George Dent, who has led a yearslong effort in the association to promote diversity beyond skin color and sex, the letter says conservatives and libertarians are grossly underrepresented on law faculties:

For several years now a number of legal scholars have asked the AALS to support the commitment to viewpoint diversity stated in its by-laws.

While the new executive director seems also to take us seriously, and this years AALS annual meeting seemed to have better balanced panels, the association refuses to go further, the letter says.

At last years annual meeting, several professors met with the executive committee to ask for creation of a Political Diversity Task Force; for viewpoint diversity to be made a regular element of the sabbatical reviews for member schools; and for access to the associations Faculty Appointments Register, to help them track viewpoint diversity in hiring.

Its been a year since AALSsaid it would create subcommittees to examinethese requests, and nothing has happened, says the letter:

We fear that the Executive Committee does not take our concerns seriously and intends to take no action to address them. Both scholarship and teaching suffer when law schools are echo chambers in which only one side of current debates is given a voice.

The signatories include Case Western Reserves Jonathan Adler, University of San Diegos Gail Heriot (a potential Trump administration pick), George Masons Ilya Somin and UCLAs Eugene Volokh.

Read the letter.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

Read the original post:
Conservative and libertarian law professors demand more politically balanced faculties - The College Fix

Being Libertarian

Realism or Idealism: Why Not Both? Being Libertarian I am not suggesting that all libertarians fit neatly into these two categories, but those who do are prevalent. I'm asserting that these libertarians are needlessly in opposition, when in fact these sides are complementary, not antagonistic. Is it a ...

Read more from the original source:
Realism or Idealism: Why Not Both? - Being Libertarian