Mediaboss Marketing

To the Editor:

I have read several letters to the editor regarding a recent RTC letter apparently mailed to all residents of Lyme and Old Lyme and Id like to share a third perspective on the matter which I hope and expect will appeal to the majority of our citizens the all-too-often-overlooked-and-forgotten Moderate voters. However theyre registered, they vote with their own minds and have no misplaced loyalty to one party or the other.

I felt compelled to participate in this conversation because there are myriad parties sharing very biased opinions and while speaking under the guise of wanting whats best for the towns, finish their statements with telling us what to think and for whom to vote in November. I would say ignore them all and instead listen to friends and associates you know and respect.

For the sake of time, Ill focus on the dog whistle of parental rights. In my experience the term dog whistle is cut from the same cloth as any other strawman fallacy wherein someone misinterprets what you said and ignores your intent and replaces it with their contorted version and then attacks that instead.

People who invoke the term parental rights have different things in mind and different aspirations, said Neal McCluskey, the director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington. My general impression when I see people invoking parental rights, its been connected to a general idea that parents have been cut out of decisions made by schools.

Parental rights is being represented as a dog whistle for banning books and censorship and anyone who utters the phrase should be summarily ignored. This is beyond ironic. The idea of dismissing anyones opinion based on opinion, perspective, or association is the type of bias we should all be fighting against.

The antithesis of parental rights is parental apathy and school districts that lack parental interest have suffered terribly because of the inevitable trickle-down of apathy, disinterest, and lack of motivation experienced by students when their parents leave education to the educators.

We have the greatest teachers in Region 18 and are lucky to have them. I have dealt directly with many of them on a variety of topics and venues and have personally observed their excellence. I have made a point to stress my personal belief that the purpose of school is to educate rather than indoctrinate and to my eye, the faculty, and staff overwhelmingly agree with this perspective.

Strong communities are built when everyone is involved and works together. Parental rights do not negate teachers being free to teach in their own style they only keep the door open so that parents can remain involved in the education of their children. We should avoid at all costs the idea that one group or another is prohibited from expressing their perspective due to dog whistle words/phrases or group affiliation.

It has been my experience that when people have questions and are allowed to ask them, they find the answers to be quite agreeable. When those doors of communication are closed, the rumor mills take over and the worst and most sensational ideas take over the conversation.

There will always be ideas, classes, and curricula being taught in school with which we will disagree but after school, well have co-workers, bosses, and supervisors with whom well disagree too. The purpose of school is to prepare us for working together in spite of difficulties and to learn to disagree pleasantly, respectfully, and productively. Children should be taught to think, not what to think.

Lets keep things simple and look at people based on the content of their character above all other elements. Im sure if we do that earnestly and honestly, well all find that we agree with each other far more than were being led to believe.

Steven WilsonOld Lyme, CT

Wilson, a Republican, is the chair of the Lyme-Old Lyme Board of Education. His letter is not a statement of the board as a whole.

See the rest here:
On 'Dog Whistles' and 'Parental Rights' - CT Examiner

Legislative supermajorities are more than just a number for a party to feel good about. As the nation saw in Tennessee last week, a supermajority creates significant powers that go beyond what a simple majority possesses. Supermajorities grant near-uncheckable control for one party, giving a chance to almost entirely sideline a governor.

And over the last month, Republicans have secured three more.

Many state legislatures across the country have these veto-proof majorities, most of which are held by Republicans. GOP supermajorities in three more chambers have recently formed in states with Democratic governors: Louisiana and North Carolina lawmakers flipped parties, and Wisconsin after a special election to fill a vacant seat.

In North Carolina, state House Republicans earned a veto-proof majority last week after state Rep. Tricia Cotham, who represents a district that favors Democrats, flipped her party affiliation. (Republicans secured a supermajority in the state Senate after Novembers elections.) Top Democrats, including state House Democratic Leader Robert Reives and the state party chair, have called for her to resign.

In an interview with Score, Reives said the supermajority doesnt change the caucus priorities, but hes concerned that therell be things that are enacted that are just not reflective of North Carolina, but are things that would be important to the partisans that participate in the process.

Reives said that Democrats are well-positioned to break the supermajority in future elections although much of that is dependent on a looming redistricting fight, with Republicans poised to redraw the maps this summer, while the state Supreme Court looks eager to overturn a past ruling and clear the way for partisan gerrymandering.

But, Reives argued, that could present unintended problems for the GOP. When youre in a supermajority and you redraw maps, youve got a whole lot of incumbents youve got to protect, he said. In your attempt to protect those incumbents, youre going to have to weaken some incumbents.

Republicans celebrated their supermajority last week, but now its back to work, state House Republican Leader John Bell said in an interview.

Make no mistake, Democrats have always worked very hard to break a supermajority, and trying to break a majority, so that makes no difference, he said. Weve always been able to put our best foot forward, put great candidates forward, and I would think that the general public would see nothing less in the next election.

Over in Wisconsin, Republican state Rep. Dan Knodl narrowly defeated Democrat Jodi Habush Sinykin in a special state Senate election last week, granting Republicans a supermajority there that gives the party the ability to impeach state officials. Republicans do not currently have a supermajority in the state Assembly, meaning the party doesnt have power to override the governors veto.

State Senate Democratic Leader Melissa Agard also expressed confidence in being able to break the GOP supermajority in the future, pointing to liberal Janet Protasiewiczs win on the state Supreme Court. The states legislative and congressional maps, which favor Republicans, are likely to come before the states high court, with its new liberal majority.

Agard also said that the close margin of the special election in a Republican-leaning district was reassuring, and shes hoping Democrats work off that momentum.

Theres a lot of people walking around feeling like theres a chance that we may be able to save democracy in the state of Wisconsin, she said. That feels really bittersweet.

Welcome to Monday. Send tips and hot bagel takes to [emailprotected] and @madfernandez616.

Days until the Kentucky primary: 36

Days until the Mississippi primary: 120

Days until the Louisiana primary: 187

Days until the 2023 election: 211

Days until the 2024 election: 575

Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. Youll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the days biggest stories.

EYES ON AZ Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) is preparing for a reelection bid, The Wall Street Journals Eliza Collins reports. According to slides from a meeting at a recent staff retreat, one slide breaks down the timeline through the remainder of 2023, including getting a poll and opposition research done by Sept. 30 and getting in place campaign staff by Dec. 31. Another slide on current communications strategy emphasizes her independent streak in the Senate.

Republican Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb is set to enter the race for Arizona Senate, per NBC News Vaughn Hillyard. Pinal County is one of the states most populous counties, and Lamb has gained some national name recognition during his time in the role.

2024 WATCH Former Rep. Yvette Herrell (R-N.M.) is holding an announcement rally Monday with Speaker Kevin McCarthy. A spokesperson for Herrell told the Roswell Daily Record that shell be making a campaign announcement, but didnt provide other details. Herrell lost her seat in NM-02 by around one point in November to first year Democratic Rep. Gabe Vasquez.

REDISTRICTING REDUX New York Attorney General Tish James and Gov. Kathy Hochul submitted a court brief Friday in support of having new congressional district lines drawn, POLITICOs Joe Spector reports. The move by the two statewide Democratic leaders helps to reignite the fight over whether the current map that benefited Republicans on Long Island and the Hudson Valley should be redrawn by the states Independent Redistricting Commission ahead of the 2024 elections.

DISCLOSURE DEBACLE Twitter has failed to disclose some political ads running on its site since early March, our Jessica Piper reports. At least three promoted fundraising tweets were not included in Twitters own data, seemingly contradicting the companys policies and raising doubts about the integrity of the platforms data and how many other political ads could go unreported.

LOOKING FOR AIR Donald Trumps opponents are struggling to find a spotlight of their own in the 2024 campaign. POLITICOs Sally Goldenberg and Natalie Allison take a look at how potential and declared candidates like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy are navigating the field amid Trumps indictment.

HONESTLY, NEVERMIND Trump was considering hiring Laura Loomer, a far-right activist and former Florida congressional candidate, for a campaign role, per the New York Times Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan. Some of Mr. Trumps aides were said to have concerns that such a hire would cause a backlash, given her history of inflammatory statements and her embrace of the Republican Partys fringes. That proved to be correct: The New York Timess report on the potential hire ignited a firestorm among some of Mr. Trumps most vocal conservative supporters, and by late Friday, a high-ranking campaign official said Ms. Loomer was no longer going to be hired.

CAMPAIGN IN WAITING A reelection announcement from President Joe Biden is now more likely to be the summer rather than spring, CNNs Kevin Liptak, MJ Lee and Jeff Zeleny report.

In an attempt to boost his standing among young voters, Bidens not-yet-announced reelection bid will utilize hundreds of social media influencers to tout his record, Axios Sophia Cai reports. Plus, they might get their own briefing room.

DNC DANCE Democratic Chicago Mayor-elect Brandon Johnson pitched Biden on holding the Democratic National Convention in his city, per NBC News Natasha Korecki. Johnson discussed it on a call in which the president congratulated him on his mayoral win last week.

THIRD-PARTY CORNER Libertarian Chase Oliver, who ran for Georgia Senate last year and earned 2 percent of the vote, pushing the contest to a runoff, filed to run for president. He announced his bid last week.

Q1 TABS There are 5 days until Q1 reports are due to the FEC. Heres a look at some more hauls.

NV-Sen: Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen raised $2.4 million and had $6 million on hand, per The Nevada Independents Gabby Birenbaum.

AZ-Sen: Sinema brought in around $2 million, per the WSJs Collins. She had close to $10 million on hand, as our Burgess Everett noted last week. For comparison, Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego, who announced his Arizona Senate bid earlier this year, said he raised $3.7 million in Q1, and his campaign didnt announce how much he had in the bank.

CO-03: Democrat Adam Frisch, who narrowly lost to incumbent Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert last year, raised over $1.7 million.

How much did your campaign raise in Q1? Let me know.

The Roe v. Wade framework making abortion mostly legal, but allowing states to impose modest restrictions is where the majority of American voters are, POLITICOs Steve Shepard writes in his latest poll analysis. About six-in-10 voters support legal abortion in most cases with the median voter supporting some restrictions and just over a third who want it to be entirely or mostly illegal. Such a strict prohibition runs headlong into national public opinion. And it raises the question: How, if at all, are Republicans going to find a message that puts the party more in line with the median voter?

State Solutions Inc., a group affiliated with the Republican Governors Association, placed its first broadcast buy in the race for Kentucky governor, per AdImpact. The spot is set to start Wednesday.

Amanda Elliott has launched Anchor City Strategies, a digital consulting firm. She was previously digital director at the Republican Governors Association.

Former Democratic Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes is president of Power to the Polls Wisconsin, a group focused on voter turnout.

Alex Lasry is co-treasurer at the Democratic Governors Association. He ran for Wisconsin Senate (along with Barnes) last year.

Alex Floyd is now communications director for Democratic Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshears reelection campaign. He previously worked on Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams leadership committee.

Ari Appel is chief strategizing officer, Mairead Cahill is political director and Olivia Eggers is press secretary at Building Back Together, the main super PAC supporting the Biden administrations policy agenda.

CODA HEADLINE OF THE DAY: Where are the worst drivers, best restaurants in the D.C. area? The poll data are in. (The Washington Post)

CORRECTION: A previous version of this newsletter incorrectly identified which district Adam Frisch is running in.

Go here to read the rest:
What Republicans can do with their new supermajorities - POLITICO

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