Is July 4 a racist holiday?

And now July 4 is racist | Liberty Classroom - Tom Woods:

July 4, 2020 - "Even Independence Day is racist now.... There's a hashtag trending on Twitter today: #FvckTheFourth [there's also #FvcktheForth and #Fvckthe4th - gd]. Classy, as we've come to expect.

"One person asked: why are black people celebrating the day some slaveholders won their independence? Well, I suppose instead we could celebrate the non-Western societies that were spreading the ideas of natural rights and individual liberty that this very person is appealing to today. Perhaps he could name a few to kick it off? We'll wait.

"You'd think people could at least pause to acknowledge that the very principles they claim to appeal to – equality under the law, individual rights, etc. – emerged from the Western civilization they profess to despise....

"Naturally we're encountering even more frequently than usual the old chestnut about the Declaration of Independence having been hypocritical in its claims about equality because those claims applied only to whites. Well, our old friend Kevin Gutzman, celebrated Madison and Jefferson biographer and faculty member at my Liberty Classroom, has a nice reply to that. Enjoy:...

"Of the five men who drafted the Declaration of Independence:

1. Roger Sherman of Connecticut drafted the Connecticut law that abolished slavery in Connecticut;
2. Benjamin Franklin was the president of an abolition society that submitted a petition for the abolition of slavery to the first US Congress;
3. John Adams, as the chief draftsman of the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, wrote the section that was read by a Massachusetts court as having abolished slavery in Massachusetts;
4. Thomas Jefferson co-sponsored a 1769 bill to abolish slavery in Virginia, wrote the first draft of the law that banned slavery from the Midwest, called for and signed the law that abolished the international slave trade, wrote the most influential antislavery book in American history, drafted a bill (which failed by one vote in Congress) that would have banned slavery from most of today's Deep South, and wrote the part of the Declaration of Independence that says "all men are created equal"; and
5. Robert Livingston … well, his record I don't know as well, but I do know that several of his political allies in New York and some of his relatives were involved in antislavery, which led to abolition of New York slavery under a 1799 law signed by his friend Governor John Jay.

So why do we say slaves weren't included in 'all men are created equal'?

It seems to me that people are making a lot of uninformed assertions. (In case you want to know more about Jefferson and blacks, I not-so-humbly refer you to the "Colonization" chapter in my latest book, Thomas Jefferson – Revolutionary.) There's also quite a bit of "they're responsible for not having their novel ideas sooner" in criticism of 18th-century American/Western men.

I'll add to this comment that I don't quite understand the psychology driving people to join in this public breast-beating about their supposed (though not actual) moral superiority to the people who made the American Revolution. I'm trying to be charitable, but every potential explanation that occurs to me isn't positive.

"Beautiful. I'd say learning American history from non-crazy people is more urgent than usual these days."

Hornberger's narrative of wins

Hornberger's narrative of wins

by George J. Dance

May 20, 2020 - Things have certainly changed since my last post on the Libertarian Party (LP) presidential contest, back in April, just after Justin Amash had launched his exploratory committee. I concluded that post by writing: "The 2020 race for the LP nomination has not turned into a coronation of Amash. But it is now no longer a coronation of Hornberger, either. For the first time, it has become a real contest worth paying close attention to."

With Amash deciding not to run, the LP POTUS race is still worth paying attention to. However, there is a danger that it is back to being a coronation of Jacob Hornberger. Hornberger is the wrong messenger, with - not exactly the wrong message, but the wrong strategy of campaigning on that message. Despite his differing background and a belief in limited government, his is essentially the Abolitionist strategy of Murray Rothbard: the wrong strategy, out of sync with the public at large, potential libertarian voters, the majority of registered libertarians, and even (I believe) the majority of party members. Hornberger will have no easier a time getting his message across with his strategy than Vermin Supreme would; if the former gets media coverage at all, it will be only as a scary caricature.

At the same time, Hornberger could be the candidate the membership wants. After all, the LP has run three Gradualist campaigns in a row; why shouldn't the Abolitionists get a turn? Also, many vocal members, from Dave Smith to Tom Woods to the Mises Caucus to Hornberger himself, have spent the last 4 years trying to frame Gary Johnson's last campaign - the one that gave the party a record number of both voters and registrants - as a failure and even a betrayal. Finally, a different sort of framing has also been going on, with Hornberger cast as the rank-and-file members' choice opposed only by the party elite, the LP's very own Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders.

That last picture has been built through a constructed narrative that Hornberger overwhelmingly won the LP primaries. He and his supporters can be expected to puff up his record this way; but even non-Abolitionists like those at Reason have gotten in on the act. For instance, the headline of Reason's story on the Super Tuesday primaries (only one of which he won) began: "Libertarian Super Tuesday: Big Night for Jacob Hornberger...," telling those of use who might have missed it that "the trend line is unmistakable — the Libertarian front-runner at this point is longtime libertarian-movement hand and Future of Freedom Foundation founder Jacob Hornberger,"  adding for good measure at the end that, "for the moment, Jacob Hornberger is your Libertarian front-runner."

After Amash jumped into the race, Reason ran an article which told us in its second paragraph: "Hornberger, the 70-year-old founder of the Future of Freedom Foundation, has, after all, won a clear majority of the party's presidential primaries and caucuses, nonbinding though they may be."  The next day, when Amash jumped back out, Reason told us: "Jacob Hornberger has won by far the most of the party's nonbinding primaries and caucuses."

To evaluate that narrative requires examining the primary and caucus results in more detail; so let us do so. 

Hornberger won a clear majority vote in only two states, Missouri (in which he was the only person on the primary ballot) and Minnesota (after 7 rounds of instant-runoff caucus voting). He also won 47% in Iowa - a genuinely impressive win which began the narrative. He won 2 primaries - Ohio and Connecticut - with less than a third of the vote, and another - California - with less than 20%. And he won New York with no votes at all: that state's Secretary of State disqualified all the candidates but Hornberger, cancelled the LP primary, and simply declared him the winner.

Against these 7 wins we have to balance Hornberger's 4 losses, winning just under 25% in Nebraska, 9.6% in both North Carolina and Massachusetts, and no votes, again, in Maine.

Even throwing out the New York travesty, that gives the man 6 wins and 4 losses; so he definitely won a majority; possibly even a "clear majority" (of states, not of votes, or even of votes in most of the states he won). But the winner "by far'? That sounds as if the LP, in violation of all social distancing guidelines, has clutched Hornberger and Abolitionism to its bosom; which is not what the vote results look like to me at all.

Which is precisely the misleading picture this narrative of wins seems designed to convey. It sends exactly the wrong message to those who haven't chosen Hornberger: that the rest of the party has. I expect Hornberger to last until the final ballot; as other candidates drop off, and their supporters lose their own preference, they may be tempted to vote for Hornberger in the belief that they will be putting the party's interests first.

They will not. This man has trouble getting even libertarians to vote for him; and I expect him to be a disaster as a candidate. But let that wait for the morrow. 

Sarwark re-elected Libertarian chair in landslide

Libertarian Party Rebuffs Mises Uprising - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Matt Welch:

July 4, 2018 - "The Libertarian Party on Monday afternoon re-elected in a surprising first-ballot landslide incumbent Chair Nicholas Sarwark to an unprecedented third consecutive two-year term. In doing so, the nation's third-largest political party swatted down what was supposed to be the most contentious challenge at its biannual national convention — to a leadership that was considered by various critics to be too operationally incremental, too ideologically tepid, and too (in the words of Ludwig von Mises Institute Senior Fellow and popular podcaster Tom Woods at a nearby New Orleans rally Saturday) 'SJW-friendly.'

"Sarwark's main opponent, the Mises Caucus-endorsed Joshua Smith, stumbled badly in a defensive debate performance at the New Orleans Hyatt Regency Sunday night, and ended up Monday on the business end of a 65 percent-22 percent rout. In the vice chair race, two-term incumbent Arvin Vohra, who has become a lightning rod over the past year-plus for intentionally provocative public comments such as 'Bad Idea: School Shootings. Good Idea: School Board Shootings,' was resoundingly drummed out of office, never receiving more than 11 percent of the vote in three rounds of balloting that ended Tuesday with a positivity-exuding 33-year-old finance/tech/consulting guy named Alex Merced squeaking past the 50 percent finish line.

"'What I think the race shows is that if you want to change the direction of the Libertarian Party, if you have new ideas about how we can grow and reach new members, the election of Merced to vice chair shows that the delegates want that kind of change,' Sarwark told me Tuesday afternoon. 'If your campaign is seen, or has themes of trying to kick people out, of trying to attack people like Gov. Weld, or... basically anyone — if your campaign was seen as trying to drive people out of the party, the delegates soundly rejected that. And I think that that is the biggest takeaway from the convention.'

"Weld, the controversial-within-the-party 2016 vice presidential nominee and former moderate Republican Massachusetts governor who is laying the groundwork for a possible 2020 presidential run (and was everywhere to be seen at the convention, amiably taking on all skeptical comers), played a pivotal role in the decisive debate. Candidates had the opportunity to ask their opponents one question, and when it was Smith's turn, a delegate in the audience shouted out, 'What do you think about Bill Weld?!' (Weld-heckling was a sporadic feature throughout the three-day event.) Smith decided to make that his question.

"'What I think about Bill Weld," Sarwark started slowly, building into a feisty crescendo, 'is that he is still in the Libertarian Party, while many of his opponents are not. [He's been] raising money for and endorsing Libertarian candidates. He is fundraising for us. And the exposure of Bill Weld to the Libertarian Party has not made the Libertarian Party more like an establishment Republican, but has made Bill Weld a lot more like a Libertarian....He knows something about winning public office, and [we need to] learn how to do that from anybody who will help us, anybody who will join us. And we should not PUSH PEOPLE OUT who are willing to help!'

"As New York gubernatorial candidate and popular party organizer Larry Sharpe, who had backed Smith, commented later, after that exchange it was 'game over'."

Read more: https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/04/libertarian-party-rebuffs-mises-uprising
'via Blog this'

WWE wrestler Kane to run for mayor

WWE's Kane Runs For Mayor - Being Libertarian - Brandon Kirby:

March 25, 2017 -  "Best known for lighting people on fire and chokeslamming his enemies, World Wresting Entertainment’s Glenn Jacobs, better known as Kane, sets his sights on the political ring to run for Knox County [Tennessee] mayor, according to the Associated Press.

"Standing at 6’9 and weighing over 324lbs, The Devil’s Favourite Demon had a successful 22-year career in the WWE.... Outside of the world of wrestling, Jacobs and his wife own and operate Jacobs Insurance Associates, LLC, offering auto, business, flood, home, life, and motorcycle insurance.

"The successful businessman and entertainer’s bid for mayor is sure to excite libertarians. Jacobs is actively involved in libertarian politics, supporting Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, is a member of the Free State Project, and spoke at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum and the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

"In an interview with Fox Business, Jacobs cited Harry Browne, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, and Mary Ruwart as influences on his political thinking. The former world champion also cited the non-aggression principle as his guiding principle.

"In an interview with Tom Woods, Jacobs elaborated, 'Then I realized that it really is a philosophy that we’re talking about, you know — the nonaggression axiom, that the government should be bound by the same moral laws that the rest of us are. Once you realize that, you’re like, "Oh!" Your entire world opens up, and then your entire paradigm changes.'

"In the interview he also indicated that he believes taxation is theft."

Read more: https://beinglibertarian.com/wwes-kane-runs-mayor/
'via Blog this'