Mediaboss Marketing

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By Zach Foster

Most people are used to seeing signs that say, dont feed the animals, as those signs are posted in parks and zoos. Whatno one expects to see, however, are signs that say Do not feed the people, right?

One of the oldest traditions of Western civilization is giving alms to the poor, including feeding the homeless. The City of Los Angeles almost made it illegal to feed the homeless. This is how a group of activists stopped big government in its tracks.

In 2013, Los Angeles City Councilman Tom LaBonge introduced a motion before the City Council prohibiting anyone from feeding the homeless in public rights of way (sidewalks, street corners, open areas). The councilmen justified the motion on health and food safety reasons. Libertarian activist Angela McArdle had a problem with the motion.

Who are they to tell the people theyre not allowed to help the needy? says McArdle. According to the paralegal and Libertarian activist, she and her friends have been feeding the homeless for years. LaBonges rationalization for the motion was that it protected the homeless from food poisoning from improperly prepared food. If people wanted to help them, they would have to incorporate, become accountable to the IRS, open a kitchen, and have their facilities inspected by city, county, state, and federal bureaucrats.

Not all homeless people are out there on the corners asking for change. Most of them keep a low profileits so easy to get harassed or assaulted. A lot of them really do go hungry and need the help. If I want to make sandwiches at home and hand them to the homeless people I see on my way to work, thats my business.

One of the biggest problems with the motion proposed in the L.A. City Council is its typical of the current atmosphere. Very few cities in densely-populated California actually do anything to solve the problem of homelessness. Rather than developing and enacting policies to reduce homelessness, city councils go for the quick fix and make it illegal to be homeless.

By passing vagrancy laws, restricting the hours and use of public spaces, and making feeding the homeless in public spaces illegal, cities merely pass the buck as entire tent cities and homeless populations are legislated out of one city after another. They bounce around the L.A. County grid like ping pong balls.

Just recently, the City of L.A. made it illegal for people to sleep in their car, McArdle says. That infuriates me. My legal clients are people who were wrongfully evicted or foreclosed on. The first few nights, many of them have nothing but their car for them and their children to sleep in for that night. All the City government did was take away another safety net protecting people from the city streets at night.

Angela McArdle, paralegal and Libertarian activist

In addition to losing a layer of protection against the grittier kinds of people found on city streets and alleys, people in violation of this ordinance will be ticketed or possibly detained. That only creates another financial burden for the homeless, many of whom lost their homes due to financial struggles, not delinquent behavior. Restricting the public from feeding the homeless is one more burden on the latter group.

Angela McArdle and friends joined up with the non-profit Monday Night Mission to protest the indefensible motion. The protest was held on Hollywood and Vine, fittingly in the district of Tom LaBonge, sponsor of the anti-homeless motion. Nearly a thousand people attended and it was covered in the local L.A. TV stations. The overwhelming show of public opposition to the motion put an end to it before it was voted on.

Three years later, Tom LaBonge retired amidst allegations of misuse of $600,000 in taxpayer funds. The L.A. Times reported that the City Attorneys investigative task force has approved only $83,000 of the $600,000 spent by LaBonges office.

The defeat of the anti-homeless motion is an example of ordinary citizens standing up to government overreach. Libertarians often get discouraged because its so difficult electing Libertarians to high office. But what Angela McArdle and her friends did shows how city governments can be tyrannical too, not just the Feds, and that We the People have power over the bureaucrats who want to rule us.

Im proud we were able to make a difference, McArdle says with a broad smile, but even if the motion had passed, I would have broken that law a hundred times. Now thats the spirit! Not surprisingly, McArdle found a home for her activism in the Libertarian Party.

activismActivisthomelesshomelessnessLos Angeleslos angeles times

See the rest here:
Feeding the Homeless: Activist Stands Up to City Government - The Libertarian Republic

Last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rankled many libertarians with his vote to confirm unreconstructed drug warrior and criminal justice reform opponent Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. Last night, the libertarian-leaning senator answered those critics and explained his vote on Fox Business Network's Kennedy program:

I think personal considerations; I've known him for a long time. I didn't like the way Democrats vilified and tried to create him into some sort of racist monster, which is not who he is. So the fact that they used character assassination, I didn't want to be associated with that.

But I can tell people, libertarians across the country, that there is no stronger voice in the U.S. Senate for opposing militarization of the police, opposing the drug war, opposing the surveillance state. And so if people want to apply a purity test to me they're more than welcome, but I would suggest that maybe they spend some of their time on the other 99 less libertarian senators.

You can watch the whole interview, which covers angry constituent townhalls, Paul's Obamacare-replacement bill, and whether the left is developing its own version of the Tea Party, below:

Paul's vote, you'll recall, was also couched in his ongoing opposition to President Trump appointing Elliott Abrams to the number-two slot at the State Department, an effort that at minimum coincided with success.

Paul's confirmation strategery has received praise from W. James Antle III and a sympathetic ear from his former co-author Jack Hunter, while prompting a BuzzFeed News piece titled "How Rand Paul Is Navigating The Trump Presidency."

Reason on Jeff Sessions here, on Rand Paul here.

Continued here:
Rand Paul, to Libertarians Critical of His Sessions Vote: 'I would ... - Reason (blog)

Im A Libertarian Man, and I Support Feminism

I want to discuss a topic that I feel all libertarians should be supporters of Feminism! Lets face it, libertarians need to stop being so freaking anti-feminist, once and for all; though I think most libertarians are pro-feminist deep down inside. Feminism in its original meaning is 100% a libertarian/capitalist movement.

First off, lets just say why feminists in the original sense should hate government. Governments used to not allow women to own property or businesses of any kind. Literally setting it up so that (in many states) if a woman was married to a man, and didnt have a male son when the man died, she would likely be forced to give the business to the closest male relative, likely without any compensation for it.

For many years, women were not legally allowed to vote in America. Women were denied access to schools for most of history. Many governments would even be able to shut down a business just for hiring and using women workers, if complained about. Occupational licensing was made difficult to obtain, and women were denied the right to become things such as lawyers, doctors and more. Women were put in many situations where their property and rights werent respected. Up until the 1950s, many states didnt even care if a man casually beat his wife as long as no serious damage was caused.

There was a discriminatory agent around and, holy sh*t, it was the government. The government, being a male created tool which blocked womens rights (they did not have voting rights), created a male only majority that damaged the rights of women. They did this with Jim Crow; they did this to the Native American community; they did it to women; from this, its easy to say women were treated poorly by society and viewed as tools in male oppression.

We cant just say Oh, that was the past, today is what counts; Its called all f*cking history, compared to the last 50 damn years! For most of American history, women had very few rights compared to men. We did live in an anti-female society. In world history, for 99% of the time, women didnt have an equal say. We are living in the [maybe] .3% that they do. This is something I see libertarians pretend isnt the case and that is morally and historically just a total wasteland of wrong. What caused this to end? Well, like most problems, it was the market. Let me list what the market did to help womens rights.

Changes in Labor The movement of manual labor economies to white collar jobs: with the rise of technology, people arent cutting down trees, farming, or doing a lot of other jobs which, from a physical perspective, women arent as capable of doing. More people in the early 20th century moved into jobs where they worked in an office, developed things with their minds, and from that, the door was opened, and women were needed in that pool of the labor market.

Modern Medicine Another was the rise of modern medicine, and women not dying as frequently while giving birth. Everyone having a mom is new to history. If a person lived before the 20th century, there was a good chance their mom died giving birth to them, or giving birth to their siblings. The older women were, the more likely it was to happen. This is why women, for most of history, would be married at a very young age and asked to have children at about 15-18 years old. Modern medicine made it so that giving birth at age 30 isnt a death sentence anymore. This opens options for new career choices.

A Rise in Wealth and Education The rise of women in education and early careers, caused a rise in wealth. People had more money, and America got an expanded labor force, allowing for care services which make parenting while both parents work a real thing and not a financial impracticality. For the first time, it is profitable for both parents to work, even if that requires housekeeping or day care services. The market did something very new when it moved people away from farms and into cities. People came for factory jobs and, as the need for child labor dropped, the rise of public schools began. Women got the invite to join, and for the first time in history, lower, middle, and upper income girls were able to attend schools. This was likely the greatest thing ever to aid in the rise of women in the economy. Birth Control Birth control and the greatness of Roe vs Wade here is a simple fact, being pregnant as a choice rather than it being obligatory, is a great thing!

So where does this bring us?

Why are women still complaining?

Feminists do have a point, these problems exist, and there are two sets of solutions.

The first solution is culture: shows such as Jessica Jones, or Legend of Korra, that are geared towards a male audience but turn women into these non-sexualized, awesome characters (who say what theyd like, have relationships with who they want, and kick-ass) are honestly doing more to change the stigma in how men treat women than any protest has. Culture and actions in media are changing this culture to the benefit of women.

The second solution is capitalism: women make less than men on average due to chosen career paths? Libertarians have a solution for that eliminate government backed student loans. Banks will still loan money, but not to poorly performing majors and people will now financially be forced to pursue higher earning fields such as math or science. In this, they will also see a decline in older, lesser earning majors slowing down the new supply of labor in that pool and opening other options.

Women complain about birth control and abortion rights? Libertarian have a solution for that. Its called deregulation where birth control is easier to obtain and lower FDA times to get approvals on new drugs.

Women complain about men being abusive? Libertarians have a solution for that. Just imagine how much better the police would function without the war on drugs, without so much time/money going to victim-less crimes and more attention going to real abuses.

Libertarians have solutions to female problems, and female problems in culture do indeed exist. Why a woman gets called a slut for having sex with twenty people, but a man gets called awesome is confusing. Why so many parents tell their daughters to marry wealthy men at a young age is genuinely sad. Solutions do exist on both a personal and government level.

Im tired of libertarians failing and failing hard. We are turning our movement into something which sees Milo Yianhoweveryouspellit say women shouldnt pursue science and we go Hahaha thats funny! We are seeing many in the liberty movement casually bash feminist and instead of saying We see your problems as real, and we have answers for you! we stay in this male bubble of bashing women. Its why libertarians dont succeed. When we ignore the problems and just bash the idea that the problems exist we lose a voter! We lose a supporter! We lose a volunteer! We lose a libertarian! We create a communist!

So, I support feminism, and libertarianism is 100% a feminist friendly movement.

This post was written by Charles Peralo.

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

Like Loading...

Read this article:
I'm a Libertarian Man, and I Support Feminism. - Being Libertarian

Recently somebody posted this on FB:

It sparked a fascinating conversation:

Melody: Jesus was speaking to the individual, NOT the government. If your so concerned about refugees, then YOU need to get off your butt and go help them. Leave the safty of your country and go help them. Im tired of people using Jesus to justify more government control.

Dan: You are incorrect and B16 in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate more than denounces you. Then prior to that, there is PP and Mater et Magistra.

You need to learn your faith.

Melody: I know my Faith, I also know that The Catholic Faith (plus others) teaches that it is the individual NOT the government who is responsible for caring for humanity.

Mary: Melody we dont need to do a thing about abortion. Its an individual choice. Is this what you are saying?

Liz: I came to the same conclusion, Mary.

This is like a little microcosm of the American Church. Melody has absorbed the strange libertarian lie that that state is somehow free to ignore the natural law and do Whatever because the natural law applies only to individuals. She, of course, is thinking only of the gospel commands about care for the least of these. And she relies on the lie that things like food, shelter, and elementary demands of basic justice to human beings are charity. She then proceeds to the lie that since these things are charity they are no business of the state.

But in fact, things like food, shelter, and health care are not charity. They are due human beings in justice and ensuring justice is precisely the task of the state. Therefore it is not either/or, but both/and. We are to personally care for the least of these. We are also to see to it that the state does too.

This is ironically illustrated by Mary, who takes Melody at her word and takes it to the conclusion the anti-abortion-but-not-prolife right ever seems to realize by pointing out that if the state is not supposed to help protect the human right of the least of these, then it follows that the whole point of the prolife struggle to get the state to stop its laissez faire approach to abortion is without foundation.

The great irony here is that Liz, a pro-choice atheist who has been rather shocked to discover she has a lot in common with a bunch of devout, Mass-going Catholics with strong empathy for the Catholic social justice tradition finds herself suddenly in bed with Melody, a libertarian, anti-abortion-but-not-prolife Catholic who mouths all the right wing excuses for ignoring the Church on everything but abortion.

I wrote them both and told them I hope they both feel exquisitely uncomfortable being in bed with one another. Liz, at any rate, has enough of a sense of humor to appreciate the irony of her predicament. Melody I dont know and am not sure if she even realizes that she just made the libertarian case for every pro-choice person on planet Earth. But Liz, I think, must realize that her pro-choice philosophy undergirds the libertarian case for the selfishness Melody is advocatinga selfishness Liz loathes.

The way out of their strange bedfellows dilemma is, of course, embrace of the complete and consistent Catholic ethic of life and rejection of the libertarianism they each selectively embrace.

No idea what will happen next.

See more here:
Libertarians and Pro-Choice Advocates: Peas in a Pod - Patheos (blog)

The White House has riled the country's civil libertarian wing after President Trump enthusiastically voiced support for a controversial law enforcement tool that allows an individuals property or assets to be seized without a guilty verdict.

The president weighed in on what's known as "civil asset forfeiture" during an Oval Office meeting last week with sheriffs. Thepresident, who ran on a law-and-order message, said he shared their desire to strengthen the practice and even said he would destroy the career of a Texas politician trying to end it.

The comments revived tensions with libertarians who have been fighting the practice under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Already piqued by the selection of former Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, a vocal supporter of asset forfeiture, to lead the Justice Department, the Libertarian Party itself condemned the comments.

It was really disappointing to hear those words. He campaigned on the idea of helping people who are on the low end of the economic spectrum and this [law] disproportionately affects minorities and those who do not have the means to hire an attorney, Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark told Fox News.

Sarwark called the practice "immoral," adding that it is simply government theft of individual property that flips the nations legal system on its head.

While laws differ across the country, most states allow law enforcement to seize an individuals assets or property on the suspicion they have been involved in criminal activity. Even if a person is found to be not guilty, some jurisdictions allow the government to keep their property.

Sheriff John Aubrey of Louisville, Ky., said he was heartened by his meeting with Trump because he, unlike the last administration, will give them a "fair hearing" on asset forfeiture.

He also believes there is a misconception that police just take property but stressed that they cannot do so before gettinga court order.

Trump signaled he would fight reform efforts in Congress, saying politicians could get beat up really badly by the voters if they pursue laws to limit police authority.

The comments could signal an abrupt halt to efforts to curb the practice under the Obama administration, which also had faced heavy criticism from civil libertarians and criminal justice reform advocates.

Brittany Hunter of the free-market Foundation for Economic Education wrote that the presidents egregious comments effectively destroy any hope that his administration will be better on this issue than President Obama. In fact, the situation may very well become worse.

According to the Institute for Justice, a civil liberties law firm, the Department of Justices Assets Forfeiture Fund generated $93.7 million in revenue in 1986. By 2014, the annual figure had reached $4.5 billion -- a 4,667 percent increase. The practice surged for years under the Obama administration.

While critics believe the policy creates a profit incentive for law enforcement, police organizations say it is an important tool and charges of abuse have been blown out of proportion.

There are those who see an incident of one and want to apply the rule of many, but we have found the annual number of incidents [of abuse] is miniscule, Jonathan Thompson of the National Sheriffs Association told Fox News.

Thompson said the issue was addressed in a conversation with Sessions, who views it as a priority, and he believes the Trump administration will be more supportive than the Obama administration in lifting the burden on local law enforcement.

He added that law enforcement are not opposed to reforms and that he plans to keep his focus on increasing independent judicial review and transparency.

Candidates running on the Libertarian ticket in the midterm elections are likely to make Trumps record on criminal justice reform and the Sessions selection an issue, in a bid to peel off voters from across the political spectrum.

Our candidates will make [asset forfeiture] an issue for Republicans and Democrats on the state and federal level in 2018. We will make them answer to voters on these issues, Sarwark warned.

Many of the states key to Trumps victory have passed reforms.

Last year, Ohio passed a law that prohibits taking assets valued at less than $15,000 without a criminal conviction. Other states also passed differing degrees of reform, including New Hampshire, Florida, Montana, Nebraska, Minnesota, Maryland and New Mexico.

Largely an uncontroversial issue for decades, the governments war on drugs in the 1980s led to its rapid expansion, but media coverage of abuses has led to a public blowback.

A 2015 report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), found that of those Philadelphia residents who had their assets taken, nearly one-third were never convicted of a crime and that almost 60 percent of cash seizures were for amounts less than $250.

Civil asset forfeiture reform is an area where you cannot ignore the public demand, said Kanya Bennett, legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Continued here:
Libertarians split with Trump over controversial police tactic - Fox News