Mediaboss Marketing

Tom Grady| Fort Myers News-Press

With the recent spate of bank failures from SVB to Silvergate and most recently Credit Suisse Signature Bank there has been a lot of speculation and teeth-gnashing about how such a thing could happen in a modern economy.

Whether it was their borrowing or lending patterns, economic flux, over-reliance on bonds or investing in high-risk high-tech startups, there is one common element in each of these failures and that has to do with their reckless involvement with cryptocurrency.

Analysts have suggested that Silvergates balance sheet was loaded up with cryptocurrency-related assets and liabilities, while Signature Bank had deposits of crypto companies of up to a fifth of its total.

How could this have happened?

Lets start with the basics. A cryptocurrency is a medium of exchange, like actual money, that exists only in the digital world. At some level this should not be a problem as so much of our modern monetary system happens in the abstract online digital world. Your monthly salary payments are sent directly into your account (for example), you pay bills, put money into retirement or savings accounts, pay off loans and conduct most banking transactions without ever touching actual physical currency. For most readers, paying your utility bills or even for groceries with actual dollar bills is a thing of the past.

But where cryptocurrency is different is that although required to be registered as securities, its not. Also, it is not backed by the good faith and credit of any government. For those libertarians and criminals, this is the utopia you had wished for. For those who are watching their life savings or business investments evaporate, this is the dystopia you had feared.

Of course, with those funds wrapped into other funds in these banking failures, the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve are stepping in where needed so in truth, this wont be seen as a true libertarian experiment when the dust settles.

But heres the rub. Many of these crypto exchanges promoted themselves as legal and safe investments with many implying they were indeed backed by governments or insurers when in truth, they were not. This is where those of us who support free-market economics recognize the failure, and that failure is, simply put, disinformation run amok.

We now have learned that the above banks had relied on cryptocurrencies and related companies, to a fault. Additionally, one could make the case that in the wake of the spectacular fraud of FTX Trading Ltd. (a cryptocurrency exchange and hedge fund) in November, and the resulting industry-wide collapse that followed, most certainly served as a catalyst for the runs on these banks.

And what about those investors who lost tens of thousands in crytpo exchanges but werent so lucky to have their dollars backed by the federal government?

For them, their only recourse is a private cause of action against these exchanges. This is vital information for all of those who were promised that crypto was registered and safe (and were lured in that promise with the misinformation that these funds were indeed secure) but ended up with nothing but losses, there is recourse. And if allowed to be carried out, I for one would conclude that we dont need further government regulations or new laws or bureaucracies to restrict innovation. The laws we have on the books are indeed adequate, we just need to put them to work and we need to hold those wrongdoers accountable in a court of law and the laws, as written, will serve justice to the wrongdoers while allowing smart, ethical investors to continue exploring free-market concepts.

My advice to those who were deceived is to seek out legal counsel, explore your options and take action to hold these wrongdoers accountable and hopefully recover some of your lost savings.

Former State Rep. Tom Grady is a former commissioner, Florida Office of Financial Regulation; former member, SBA Investment Advisory Council; chief investment officer, PureAssets Management Company; former member, Securities Industry Conference on Arbitration (SICA) and regularly serves as an expert witness on this subject for the state attorney in criminal prosecutions.

Read this article:
Bank failures and cryptocurrencies - News-Press

My biggest project this week was finalizing the draft submission of my chapter on land-use regulation for the forthcoming Routledge Handbook of Classical Liberalism, edited by Richard Epstein, Liya Palagashvili, and Mario Rizzo. It so happens I was also a contributor to the Routledge Handbook of Libertarianism, edited by Jason Brennan, Bas van der Vossen, and David Schmidtz, and the Cambridge Handbook of Classical Liberal Thought, edited by M. Todd Henderson.

As a contributor to these three volumes, I should perhaps have a detailed understanding of libertarianism and classical liberalism and how they differ. But I'd be lying if I said I truly have a definitive grasp of the difference between the two!

I've lonh thought that these are different terms for essentially the same thing (the branch of liberalism advocating very tight limits on government power across the board), and that the difference between them is primarily aesthetic. Thus, I've always preferred "libertarian" because it's easier to say and remember, sounds better, and is more widely known. But there are a wide range of theories about the difference between the two. And it's hard for me to say for sure which (if any) are correct.

Here are some possibilities:

1. Classical liberalism is a more moderate version of libertarianism. For example, classical liberals may be open to a wider range of government interventions than libertarians (though both favor far less than modern liberals do). Could be true. But note that some of the most prominent thinkers who call themselves "classical liberals" are not moderate, even as compared to many self-described libertarians. NYU law professor Richard Epstein is probably the most famous and distinguished scholar who calls himself a classical liberal (he is also the director of the Classical Liberal Institute, possibly the most prestigious intellectual organization that labels itself "classical liberal"). Moderate he is noteven by comparison with many who call themselves libertarians. CLI co-director Mario Rizzo, a prominent economist (and leading critic of paternalism) is also not particularly moderate.

2. Calling yourself a "classical liberal" is a way to disassociate from awful, toxic people who call themselves libertarians (racists, xenophobes, etc.). Such trolls are especially common on Twitter. But there are awful people who try to associate themselves virtually any widely used ideological designation (conservatism, progressivism, socialism, etc.). If "classical liberal" avoids this problem, it's mainly because few people know the term.

3. Classical liberal thought is more closely connected with the great liberal thinkers of the Enlightenment and the 19th century (John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, etc.), while libertarians take their bearings from more modern thinkers (F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, etc.). The obvious problem here is that the latter group of thinkers are pretty obviously building on the former in many ways. Also, plenty of self-described libertarians are interested in the older thinkers, too, and many self-described classical liberals are interested in the modern ones.

4. Using "classical liberal" instead of "libertarian" signals greater intellectual sophistication. This may well be true, as only people with extensive knowledge of political theory are likely to know what the former means. But I'm not convinced this is the main reason most self-described classical liberals use the phrase. That said, I myself use "libertarian" in part because the term is better-known and therefore less likely to confuse non-experts.

5. I sometimes see it argued that libertarianism requires adherence to one specific core principle, such as self-ownershp or the "non-aggression principle," while classical liberalism is open to a wider range of justifications for strict limits on government power. But, in truth, there are important differences on core principles between libertarian thinkers. Some justify the theory on the basis of deontological rights-based arguments (e.g.Robert Nozick), some on utilitarian consequentialist grounds (e.g.many prominent economists), and some (myself included) on a combination of the two. Among those who fall in the rights-based camp, there are disagreements over the exact nature and basis of the rights in question.

6. Maybe it's all just a matter of self-definition. If you call yourself a "libertarian," then you are one! Ditto for "classical liberal." The problem with this idea is that it destroys the value of the terms. If there are no substantive constraints on what qualifies as "libertarian" (or "classical liberal" view), then labeling a person or an idea with these words tells us nothing of value. To maintain the usefulness of the term, I want to be able to say that people who, e.g., support nationalism, socialism, or racism, are not true libertarians, regardless of whether they call themselves that. To be sure, there will always be gray areas where it's debatable whether a particular person (or policy) is genuinely libertarian or not. But there are also going to be cases that clearly fall on one side of the line or the other. See here for an explanation of why such insistence on boundaries doesn't run afoul of the so-called "No True Scotsman Fallacy."

I think 1 and 2 above are the most common motivations for the use of "classical liberal" by those who embrace it. But perhaps I have that wrong.

All of the above is an attempt to consider how the terms "libertarian" and "classical liberal" are used today. But it's obviously possible that their meaning will drift over time -as has that of "liberal," "conservative," and "progressive." Those whom we call progressives today are very different from the early 20th century movement that first popularized the term (e.g.the latter had a strong racist streak, while the former does not).

For the moment, I tentatively still think there isn't much substantive difference between "libertarianism" and "classical liberalism," or at the very least that the overlap between the two is far greater than any divergence. But that could potentially change.

Continued here:
Libertarianism vs. Classical Liberalism: Is there a Difference? - Reason

Libertarianism has always been an eccentric ideology. It has not always been an embarrassing one. In the not-too-distant past, to call oneself a libertarian might bring to mind figures such as Nobel Prize-winning economists Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek or philosopher novelist Ayn Rand. As recently as 2016, the Libertarian Party could boast a presidential ticket of two respected former governors who delivered its best national electoral performance. (Only 3.3% of the vote, but still.) Alas, identifying as a libertarian in 2023 invites less savory associations. One may be tempted to tack on an immediate qualifier: not that kind of libertarian.

The meaning of that kind of libertarian is evident to anyone whos spent time on Twitter. These are the trollish edgelords who care more about owning the libs than persuading the persuadable. They hate the woke Left. They dont seem to mind white supremacists. They stripped a statement decrying bigotry as irrational and repugnant from the Libertarian Party platform. The so-called Mises Caucus, which took over the party last spring, has been trashing the good name of libertarianism ever since, destroying the movements reputation one idiotic tweet at a time.

THE PRO- AND ANTI-TRUMP PROTESTS SHOW AMERICA AT ITS BEST

There is more to the movement than the party, as small-l libertarians have always been quick to emphasize. But the broader movement is enduring its own identity crisis. The end of the Cold War marked the beginning of the end for fusionism, the pragmatic alliance of libertarians and free market conservatives against state socialism, opening the door for some libertarians to explore rapprochement with liberals and progressives. The Republican Partys populist turn under former President Donald Trump deepened internal schisms, pulling reactionary libertarians to the right while driving liberal libertarians to the left.

Among the latter group, its not uncommon to question whether the baggage attached to the libertarian label makes its value worth retaining when they could call themselves a classical liberal, neoliberal, or just liberal instead. Yet anyone tempted to run away from the libertarian label should first read an excellent new intellectual history of the movement, Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasis The Individualists.

Zwolinski and Tomasi take a long view of the liberty movement, noting from the outset the impossibility of giving a single definition of libertarianism. What they call strict libertarianism is radical in its adherence to principles, but the libertarian family would be impoverished by excluding more consequentialist thinkers, among them economists and philosophers with a greater interest in redistribution and social justice than the typical strict libertarian. Like any family, the libertarian one also includes some black sheep, in this case, the paleolibertarians, who are more enthusiastic about exercising authority over culture and immigration.

In place of a simple definition, the authors define libertarianism as a cluster concept. We see libertarianism as a distinctive combination of six key commitments: property rights, negative liberty, individualism, free markets, a skepticism of authority, and a belief in the explanatory and normative significance of spontaneous order. Various thinkers prioritize and interpret these concepts in different ways, allowing for a broad range of disagreement within a space that is nonetheless recognizably libertarian.

Zwolinski and Tomasis history is defined by three distinct eras of libertarian thought. The first, which they call the primordial era, covers the development of distinctly libertarian ideas in Europe and the United States in the 19th century. Next is the Cold War era, which is likely the most familiar to readers through the influence of Rand, Friedman, Hayek, and Robert Nozick. Last is the current third wave, thus far characterized by contestation over what a libertarian identity means after the collapse of Soviet communism.

This approach illuminates the history of libertarian ideas, with attention to the threats its leaders were most attuned to in different times and places. In 19th-century Britain and France, the threat was state socialism, which led to a libertarianism recognizably similar to that of the American Cold War era: a radical outgrowth of liberalism focused on economic liberty. The early American experience was quite different. Individualist from the beginning, the great evil for American libertarians was slavery. This inspired a libertarianism that was more anarchist, abolitionist, and, from todays perspective, shockingly anti-capitalist.

Aside from the discussion of these three eras, The Individualists eschews chronological history in favor of dedicating a chapter to each of the six commitments mentioned above, exploring the ways various libertarian thinkers have approached them. The discussion informatively treads familiar territory while highlighting the diversity of libertarian ideas and their sometimes surprising connections to other schools of thought. The chapter on private property, for example, explores influential early American libertarian Benjamin Tuckers attachment to a labor theory of value more commonly associated with Karl Marx, as well as his hostility to land rent, profit, interest, and intellectual property. A later discussion of spontaneous order reveals intriguing admiration for John Rawls from Hayek and James Buchanan.

The authors demur from predicting which way libertarianism is headed next, though its clear where their sympathies lie. Both fuse their enthusiasm for free markets with concern for social justice, as exemplified in Tomasis book Free Market Fairness and Zwolinskis role as founder of the blog Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

If there is one lesson to take away from The Individualists, its that the meaning of libertarianism has always been contested and in flux, a movement more capacious than it is often given credit for. The notion that libertarianism is self-interpreting that its political conclusions can be discovered through a simple, unilinear deduction from first principles has long been part of the lure of libertarianism, they write in the conclusion. But this notion falters when we widen our historical lens.

As for libertarianism right now, recent events have forced a reckoning about the movements insufficient attention to the liberties of black people and other minorities. The rhetorical tendency among libertarians to view the past as a lost golden age of liberty fails to resonate with black people, women, and gay people. Similarly, opposition to the Civil War or parts of the Civil Rights Act among some libertarians, no matter how principled their reasoning, is unlikely to broaden the appeal of the movement. Zwolinski and Tomasi quote Lew Rockwells quip following the beating of Rodney King that while he opposed banning guns, he was beginning to wonder about video cameras.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The comment has only gotten worse with age, as cellphone videos have exposed the abuses of unaccountable, violent policing. A similar divide is evident on the subject of immigration, dividing alt-right restrictionists from libertarians who advocate free movement for all people. (Immigration between countries is, as the authors note, one area where freedom really has regressed.)

Of course, libertarians have also offered positive contributions on matters relating to the oppression of minorities, racial, political, and otherwise. Their radical commitment to liberty has often put them on the right side, from the abolition of slavery to gay rights and ending the drug war, not to mention the triumph of free markets over central planning. Some of todays most forceful advocates of criminal justice reform and open borders come from the liberty movement. The Individualists doesnt shy away from the ugly parts of libertarianism, but it highlights much more that libertarians can take pride in.

Jacob Grier is the author of several books, includingThe New Prohibition: The Dangerous Politics of Tobacco Control, The Rediscovery of Tobacco, Cocktails on Tap, andRaising the Bar.

Excerpt from:
Where is the Libertarian Party headed next? Destroying the movements reputation one idiotic tweet at a time - Washington Examiner

By Philip WegmannRealClearWirehttps://www.realclearwire.com/

Another member of Congress has called on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to challenge former President Donald Trump for the Republican nomination. This time it is Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie.

Endorsements are not unusual, but the move by Massie could undercut recent Trump attacks that DeSantis was once a disciple of RINO loser former House Speaker Paul Ryan.

The most outspoken libertarian in the House, it was Massie, not Trump, who opposed Ryan. He was the only Republican to vote against him for speaker, a move Massie worried would attract the wrath of President Trump because, at the time, thats how strongly Trump had endorsed him.

Go back and roll the tape, Massie told RealClearPolitics, noting how Trumps endorsement effectively quelled all opposition from the speakers right flank. A perennial thorn in the side of GOP leadership, he tried assuaging the anger of the populist president by cribbing his vocabulary. On the floor, Massie said his opposition stemmed only from a desire to drain the swamp.

The current Trump complaint that DeSantis was in cahoots with Ryan while in Congress, Massie said, is a joke. He should know.

Massie was one of the so-called insurgents who was regularly at war with Ryans predecessor, Speaker John Boehner. He recalled sitting at dinner with then-Rep. DeSantis and rejoicing when news broke that Boehners most loyal lieutenant, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, lost his primary.

We relished those election results, Massie said. We were both so excited to see Eric Cantor lose. He said of his former colleague, a founding member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, Ron wasnt a fan of any of [GOP House] leadership.

Perhaps only the most diehard Tea Party member will remember that pre-Trump palace intrigue. They still know Massie, though. He was an early and vocal critic of Dr. Anthony Fauci and a consistent critic of massive government spending during the pandemic, which made him loathed in Washington but beloved outside the Beltway. More recently, Tucker Carlson of Fox News suggested that Speaker Kevin McCarthy shore up his right flank by rewarding Massie with plum committee assignments, a move that ultimately helped the California Republican win the gavel.

Massie has stayed in frequent touch with DeSantis since the Florida Republican left Congress. He told RCP that the two were often on the phone during the pandemic and he described the governor, whom he last spoke to on Sunday, as a very thoughtful person who is strong on policy and understands how you get stuff passed in Congress.

He isnt under any delusions that the upcoming primary will be a strictly academic exercise. Massie once believed that libertarians like Sen. Rand Paul had a shot at the presidency because of policy.

But after some soul-searching, he previously said, I realized when they voted for Rand and Ron and me in these primaries, they werent voting for libertarian ideas they were voting for the craziest son of a bitch in the race. And Trump won best-in-class, as we had up until he came along.

How does that rubric apply to the coming primary?

I know DeSantis can win, Massie said, skirting the question somewhat, because Ive seen him up in the polls just four months ago over Trump in Kentucky, which is Trump Central. Hes got a great chance. People want somebody who can drain the swamp.

He chalked up Trumps recent surge in the polls to his legal troubles, what Massie called unfair persecution. But he added that DeSantis has strong support and is not even in the race. After Trump-backed candidates faltered in the midterms, he noted that DeSantis win in Florida was the bright spot in an otherwise post-election malaise.

Why DeSantis over Trump, though? While Massie had his differences with the former president, he often voted in support of his agenda. Trump had a tough job its a deep swamp, he replied. But he did make some mistakes, like hiring the wrong people and keeping the wrong people around too long, Massie continued, pointing to Fauci in particular.

And these are things that Ron DeSantis will get right.

Read more:
Rep. Massie: Trump is wrong about DeSantis - The Highland County Press

Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

Re: Trump indicted (Page A1, March 31).

I had the honor of serving on a Santa Clara County grand jury. At no time during this process was anyone asked to state political affiliations.

The seriousness of this vital service to our criminal justice system and particularly regarding the fact that no one, ever, no matter their status, is above the law cannot be over-emphasized. In our current reality, the world is reminded that Donald Trump is a Republican due to his and other supporters incessant hyperbolic rhetoric permeating the airwaves.

I believe that the grand jury, in this case, was totally unbiased and based its decision fully on the facts and witness testimonies. I know I did, when in the same position. I continue to be optimistic regarding this jurys decision, trusting our great democracy. I pray others will as well. I hope we never forget the blessing of equal justice under the law.

Barbara HawthorneSan Jose

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy says the Donald Trump indictment has irreparably harmed the country. What on earth is he talking about?

Prosecution of misdemeanor or felony crime is harmful, illegal, unconstitutional, wrong? The answer to his befuddling statement is found in a message on a popular T-shirt: Trust God. Not government.

McCarthy is trafficking in the popular libertarian philosophy, which is also the evangelical church argument, that government is evil. The fundamentalist church and its anti-civic bedfellows, patriotic libertarian Republicans, are the only forces for good on earth.

The problem with this is that our patriotic ancestors in 1776 were not fighting against government and law, they were fighting against Kings government and Kings law. Our ancestors wanted Peoples government, and Peoples law. When laws are made by the people, they are blessed by God, and people have respect for them.

Kimball ShinkoskeyWoods Cross, Utah

Congratulations Tennessee Republicans. Your House expelled the two black guys but kept the white woman who stood with them 100% in support of their protest of the murder of three 9-year-olds and three adults at a Christian school.

You did all of that on Maundy Thursday. Nice. I can now understand I dont give a damn about no Tennessee Vols much better.

George LicinaSanta Rosa

Regarding Susan Swopes letter (Gun owner attitudes must change for safety, Page A6, April 4) about Second Amendment rights, while I endorse her views completely, I think it is very hard to prohibit the rights provided by the Second Amendment despite her leading questions to gun owners.

However, I certainly think that it is possible to limit access to assault weapons in all states. Just that would drastically reduce the number of children and adults murdered in mass shootings. Many states have even eliminated the need for a permit to conceal or openly carry a firearm. This was backed by the NRA, and leaders within the organization called the move a monumental moment for the Second Amendment.

One wonders what would it take for Congress to stand up to the NRA and put some more stringent measures in place for people to exercise their right to bear arms.

Prakash NarayanFremont

Re: The teen mental health crisis is not the place to cut corners (Page A6, March 30).

In response to Lisa Jarvis oped about increasing teen suicidality, I suspect that part of the problem is that young people are more and more aware of a dissonance between their own values justice, equality, freedom, care for the planet, helping the disenfranchised and what is presented to them as a coveted future of financial and social success, by agreeing to work for companies that dont make the common good a priority and instead push their profit at the expense of those values.

They can see how they would have to compromise their own values in order to fit in that culture. If that is the case, no amount of meds and psychiatric care will be the solution.

Monique VazirePalo Alto

Read more here:
Letters: Grand jury | Peoples law | Wrong note | Careful approach | Dissonance in values - The Mercury News