Mediaboss Marketing

Earlier this month the New York Times wondered aloud if the libertarian moment had arrived. A good question, to be sure.

To answer it, though, Times reporter Robert Draper sought out not quite the top libertarian thinkers in the world, but instead those people most easily reached within a ten-minute walk from the Capitol or the Empire State Building.

Draper begins with an ex-MTV personality and proceeds from there. None of the people whose work and writing have shaped the libertarian movement, and who have converted so many people to our point of view, make an appearance. Ask the hordes of young kids who are devouring libertarian classics how many of them were introduced to libertarianism, or even slightly influenced, by the figures on whom the Times chooses to rely. You already know the answer.

The movements major thinkers have rather more intellectual heft behind them, which I suspect is why the Times would prefer to keep them from you. Far better for libertarianism to seem like an ill-focused, adolescent rebellion against authority per se, instead of a serious, intellectually exciting school of thought that challenges every last platitude about the State we were taught in its ubiquitous schools.

Economist and historian Bob Higgs shared my impression of the Times article:

Of course, its easy to ridicule libertarians if you focus exclusively on the lifestyle camp. Easy, too, to accuse them of inconsistency, because in truth these particular libertarians are inconsistent. Easy, too, to minimize their impact by concentrating heavily on conventional electoral politics, as if no other form of societal change were conceivable. Easy, too, to ignore completely the only ones the anarchists who cannot be accused of inconsistency or ridiculed for their impotence as players in the conventional political game, a game for which they have only contempt. Finally, its easy, too and a great deal more interesting for general, clueless readers to focus on the hip libertarians.

As Bob points out, the Time reporter says he finds inconsistency among libertarians, because some want to cut only this much, or abolish only those things. But this is what he gets for focusing on the political class and the Beltway brand of libertarianism. Libertarianism is about as consistent a philosophy as a Times reader is likely to encounter. We oppose aggression, period. That means we oppose the State, which amounts to institutionalized aggression.

We have zero interest in public policy, a term that begs every important moral question. To ask what kind of public policy ought to exist in such-and-such area implicitly assumes (1) that private property is subject to majority vote; (2) that people can be expropriated by the State to whatever degree the State considers necessary in order to carry out the public policy in question; (3) that there exists an institution with moral legitimacy that may direct our physical resources and even our lives in particular ways against our wills, even when we are causing no particular harm to anyone.

Still, I note in passing, political consultants are doing their best to make a quick buck on the rising tide of libertarianism. A fundraising email I receive from time to time urges people to get involved in the political process, since simply educating people (contemptuous, condescending quotation marks in original) isnt enough. Instead, theyre told, its more important to spend their time supporting political candidates who occasionally give a decent speech but who otherwise deny libertarian principles on a routine basis, in the spurious hope that once in office, these candidates will throw off their conventional exteriors and announce themselves as libertarians.

The Times, too, thinks primarily about politics, of all things, when assessing whether the libertarian moment has arrived. The article is fixated on the political class. But why conceive of the question so narrowly? Why should we assess the growth and significance of libertarianism on the basis of political metrics alone?

Read the original post:
Is This the Libertarian Moment?

Few movements in the United States today harbor stranger political ideas than the self-proclaimed libertarians. The Rand Paul school of libertarianism is at least as far outside the mainstream on the right as, say, a rather doctrinaire old-school form of Marxism/Leninism is on the left. The difference is this: The mainstream media isnt telling us that were in the middle of a Marxist/Leninist moment. Leninist politicians arent being touted as serious presidential contenders. And all the media chatter were hearing about a Libertarian moment ignores the very harsh, extreme and sometimes downright ugly ideas that are being disseminated under that banner.

Its great to have allies like Rand Paul working alongside other Americans to defend our right to privacy, restrain the NSA and reduce the military/industrial complexs grip on foreign policy. Its possible to admire their political courage in these areas while at the same time recognize that we may not care for the environment they inhabit.

Theres another reason to challenge libertarians on the extreme nature of their ideology: A number of them seem determined to drive competing ideas out of the free market for ideaswhich isnt very libertarian of them. There has been a concerted effort to marginalize mainstream values and ideas about everything from workers rights to the role of government in national life. So by all means, lets have an open debate. Lets make sure that all ideas, no matter how unusual they may seem, are welcome for debate and consideration. But lets not allow any political movement to become a Trojan horse, one which is allowed to have a moment without ever telling us what it really represents.

Obviously, not every self-proclaimed libertarian believes these ideas, but libertarianism is a space which nurtures them. Can the Republican Party really succeed by embracing this space? Why does the mainstream media treat libertarian ideas as somehow more legitimate than, say, the social welfare principles which guide Great Britain or Sweden?

Here are seven of modern libertarianisms strangest and most extreme notions.

1. Parents should be allowed to let their children starve to death.Were not making this up. From progressive writerMatt Bruenig(viaSean McElweeat Salon) comes this excerpt from libertarian economist Murray Rothbard:

a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children,but also should not have alegal obligationto feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so.But the parent should have the legal rightnotto feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.

Note the repetitive use of the word it to describe the child. This linguistic dehumanization of helpless individuals is surprisingly common in libertarian literature. (See Ayn Rand and the young Alan Greenspan for further examples.)

Rothbard is a member of the so-called Austrian School of economics, cofounded the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and is widely admired among libertarians. He continues:

The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.(Again, whether or not a parent has amoralrather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?The answer is of course yes, followinga fortiorifrom the larger right to allowanybaby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such neglect down to a minimum.)

Read the original post:
The 7 strangest libertarian ideas

*New* Winning Fortunes Progressives - Far East Fortunes - WMS Slot Machine Bonus
Just wanting to show some play on a newer game by WMS Filmed at the Borgata in Atlantic City, NJ Thanks for watching and stopping by! Please feel free to sub...

By: CasinomanCT - Slot Machine Wins!

See the article here:
*New* Winning Fortunes Progressives - Far East Fortunes - WMS Slot Machine Bonus - Video

In 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture scrapped the Food Pyramid that it had promoted for nearly two decades. Split into six sections, the Food Pyramid rested on a hefty load of complex carbohydrates: 611 servings of bread, cereal, rice, and pasta.

Oof.

Whatever else one may say of it, the Food Pyramid was clear, specific, and so simple that even a child could understand it. But there was just one problem: Americans were getting fatter. Increasingly, nutritionists blamed the carbs.

So out went the Food Pyramid, and in came MyPlate, a guide whose visual recommendations are so vague that anyone not deeply connected to the ongoing nutritional debate might have a hard time saying why it even exists or what it is trying to accomplish. Still, at least it doesnt recommend the massive daily doses of pasta.

Americans, being the good, obedient souls that they are, promptly started losing weight.

GOVERNMENT-CENTRIC THINKING At least thats the story told here in Washington, where all the right-thinking folks hold that every good outcome has a federal explanation. Here, it was the quite possibly improved federal nutrition guidelines, along with first lady Michelle Obamas advocacy against childhood obesity.

If the citizens are happy, then surely a bureaucrat is behind it, and its only a question of figuring out which one to thank. If they are sad, well, in this town, thats just another word for opportunity.

Whatever our ideology, we all grew up playing governmentality games.

A more sensible take on obesity, of course, would be to note that no trend continues forever, not even American fatness. Reversion to the mean, while it hasnt quite happened yet, ought never to surprise. Every trend continues until it cant anymore. None go on forever.

MyPlate serves as a good example of the sort of thinking I like to call SimCity progressivism. On this view, the governments purpose is not necessarily to provide any particular goods or services, and not even (or only) the ones found in the Constitution.

Read the original post:
SimCity Progressives

Guest post written by Abraham Miller

Mr. Miller is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Cincinnati.

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel appears to have won a Pyrrhic victory over SodaStream, resulting in 900 Palestinian workers, who received Israeli wages and benefits, being thrown out of their jobs. SodaStream is putting a good face on the potential closing, saying it is not submitting to the terror-aligned BDS campaign. But two hundred Palestinian workers have already been let go, and to many observers in Israel, the handwriting is on the wall.

In the front ranks of the campaign against SodaStream has been the sanctimonious Oxfam, which proudly reminds us that it does not support BDS, but it is for boycotting SodaStream.

The thing most to be admired about the left is how they are so good at achieving moral clarity, enunciated sometimes with an Oxbridge accent, as long as it is someone elses pocket to be picked and someone elses job that is on the line.

Whether youre a California Central Valley farmer who has been driven into ruin by a man-made drought to save the Delta smelt, a bait fish, or a logger sent to the unemployed lines to save the spotted owl, rest assured that your personal economic disaster was part of a noble venture celebrated by trust fund babies and effete liberals who never got their hands dirty save when changing the ink cartridge on a printer.

Now the left can celebrate sending 900 Palestinians into poverty, people who made four times the going rate for wages in the Palestinian Territoriesthat is if they could have found jobs in an economy with 40% unemployment.

In the Berkeley hills, the peace and justice crew and the gaggle of assorted leftists are opening fine bottles of California wine, looking out over their million-dollar views, and clinking crystal glasses in celebration. Meanwhile some of these 900 former factory workers will find their way into the territories sole thriving industry, terrorism.

As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in The Old Regime and the French Revolution, there is among some segments of society a true absence of the heart, an inability to comprehend or care how their actions affect the lives of others.

The leftist retort is that the settlements are illegal and they impoverish the Palestinians. Like most things that come from the left, the legality or illegality of the settlements is far and away more complex than stated, especially in the SodaStream case, which operates in Area C, an area legally under joint Israeli/Palestinian administration.

Go here to read the rest:
Western Progressives Successfully Prevent Israel's SodaStream From Employing Palestinian Workers