Max Boot flip-flops on China's Covid success

After three years, Washington Post columnist Max Boot has changed his mind on the wisdom of Being Like China to fight the coronavirus.

Max Boot Can’t Memory-Hole His Covid Love Letter to the Chinese Communist Party | Mediaite - Isaac Schorr:

December 8, 2022 - "In 2020, Washington Post columnist Max Boot happily served as one of the most useful idiots in Xi Jinping’s arsenal, prematurely declaring that the genocidal regime Xi leads, the one that had unleashed the coronavirus on the rest of the world, had won the pandemic.

"'China’s success is mainly due to the application of science in a country where people are taught to respect science,' explained Boot, who found it within himself to heap praise upon the Chinese Communist Party for, of all things, separating Covid-positive children from their parents. 'If the virus were a human enemy, [Donald] Trump would have long ago run up the white flag, while China would be accepting its unconditional surrender,” he concluded, putting a bow on a staggering #Resistance artifact that boasted the jaw-dropping title: 'China is beating the coronavirus while Trump leads America to defeat.'

Max Boot in 2014.

"Fast-forward to this week, and Boot has been forced to admit that you do not, under any circumstances, have to hand it to the Chinese Communist Party. His epiphany, however, came without an admission of his own error in judgment.

"'China’s response to the covid-19 pandemic is widely acknowledged as a costly failure: Its draconian lockdowns have made it hard for ordinary people to get food or medicine and are depressing economic growth,' wrote Boot under the headline 'China’s covid policy failed. But don’t get cocky. So did America’s'....

"By the time Boot put pen to paper in 2020, reporting had confirmed that Uyghur prisoners in concentration camps were being subjected to what can only be described as torture. From the Associated Press:

One middle-aged Uighur woman told the AP that when she was detained at the height of China’s coronavirus outbreak, she was forced to drink a medicine that made her feel weak and nauseous. She and others in her cell had to strip naked once a week as guards hosed them and their cells down with disinfectant, she said. “It was scalding,” recounted the woman by phone from Xinjiang, declining to be named out of fear of retribution. “My hands were ruined, my skin was peeling.”

"Only now that the Chinese regime’s pandemic-related crimes have gone mainstream — even Han Chinese citizens are being welded into their homes and forcibly shipped off to quarantine camps — can Boot see the error of the CCP’s ways. And even now, he’s ... uncritically taking China’s word for its Covid-related death count, contrasting it with the death count in the United States, and blasting Republicans for 'flocking to the misguided banner of "medical freedom."' That’s a concept Boot might be particularly ill-suited to heap scorn upon.

"Of course, officials from both major American parties have erred over the course of the last two and half years. But ... the key difference between the U.S. and Chinese response to the pandemic is not, as Boot would sorely love for you to believe, that one was worse because of the involvement of Republicans. It’s that one featured an acknowledgement of the need for tradeoffs, as well as inevitable human error, while the other has been characterized by an unwillingness to compromise and chronic inhumanity. Donald Trump left the White House close two years ago, yet Boot still can’t wrap his mind around the distinction."

Read more: https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/max-boot-cant-memory-hole-his-covid-love-letter-to-the-chinese-communist-party/

Pandemic risk from Wuhan labs warned of in 2018

China, conspiracy theories, and the murky coronavirus origin story | Columbia Journalism Review - Jon Allsop:

April 15, 2020 - "Josh Rogin, of the Washington Post, published a column [April 14] that appeared in the paper’s Global Opinions section, but contained bombshell new reporting. Per Rogin, in early 2018, officials from the US Embassy in Beijing repeatedly visited a laboratory in Wuhan where researchers were studying coronaviruses in bats, and their possible transmissibility to humans. Embassy staff were so concerned about safety issues they said they’d observed on their visits that they sent two warnings back to the State Department, urging the US government to give the lab support. In the first of the cables, which Rogin obtained, officials warned that the lab’s work on coronaviruses 'represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic'....

"Two years later, with a new SARS-like pandemic sweeping the earth, the warning cables 'have fueled discussions inside the US government about whether this or another Wuhan lab was the source of the virus,' Rogin reports. There’s no evidence that the new coronavirus was manufactured; most scientists agree that it came from animals. But as Xiao Qiang, a scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, told Rogin, 'that is not the same as saying it didn’t come from the lab, which spent years testing bat coronaviruses in animals.'

"Rogin’s story was shared widely on social media, including by prominent mainstream journalists..... This was not surprising: earlier this year, Tom Cotton, a hawkish Republican from Arkansas, mentioned the Wuhan lab in an interview on Fox News ... but was pilloried by major news organizations for spreading a “fringe' 'conspiracy theory' that 'was already debunked'....

"The US intelligence community reportedly believes that the Chinese government has grossly understated the full extent of the coronavirus outbreak in the country, and it’s far from alone in that assessment. According to the [New York] Times, officials in Wuhan have, in recent weeks, broken up virtual groups set up by victims’ relatives, censored photos of relatives collecting victims’ ashes, and even assigned minders to supervise burials. In the early days of the virus, Chinese authorities silenced Li Wenliang, a doctor who tried to raise an early alarm.... Journalists who tried to blow the whistle disappeared. Last month, Beijing expelled American reporters working for the Times, the Post, and the Wall Street Journal....

"Last week, China imposed tight restrictions on the publication of academic research linked to the origins of the coronavirus. As Rogin notes, its government won’t answer even basic questions on the topic, and has tried to suppress investigations into the possible involvement of the two labs in Wuhan. 'Beijing has yet to provide US experts with samples of the novel coronavirus collected from the earliest cases,' Rogin writes. A Shanghai lab that published the virus genome in January 'was quickly shut down by authorities for "rectification"'....

"The most useful response, here, is not to get sucked into the right-wing fever swamps, but to isolate legitimate questions, and try and report out the answers. As Rogin writes, the coronavirus origin story 'is not just about blame. It’s crucial to understanding how the novel coronavirus pandemic started because that informs how to prevent the next one.'"

Read more: https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/china_coronavirus_wuhan_lab_trump.php

Afghanistan Papers show years of official lying

The ‘Afghanistan Papers’ Confirm Critics’ Worst Fears About America’s Longest War – Reason.com - Steven Greenjut, Orange County Register:

December 20, 2019 - "It's been 18 years since the United States invaded Afghanistan in what officials promised to be a decisive mission to uproot a breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. You're totally not shocked to learn that things didn't quite work out as promised, and that the government repeatedly misled the public about its level of success, about the fundamental purpose of the endeavor and just about everything....

"That's how government behaves — not that many readers believed anti-war libertarians as we warned about such things at the time. I'm surprised it took so long for anyone to notice, and that the latest evidence — a meticulously reported project by The Washington Post — has been met with yawns. It's hard to compete for attention with the ongoing impeachment proceedings, but the 'Afghan Papers' should cause heads to roll (or explode)....

"On the Orange County Register editorial board, we issued our warnings about overseas commitments — the costs in lives and treasure and the impossibility of turning impoverished backwaters into modern democracies. We were accused of basically being bad Americans. Yet the Afghan and Iraq conflicts turned out pretty much as we and other critics predicted, as the Post report reveals in maddening detail.

"Most people have long realized that Iraq was a debacle ... that had little to do with the 9/11 attacks, but Afghanistan seemed more defensible given that the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalists clearly had set up shop there. But the Post report suggests that even that reality didn't make the war's focus clear....  The newspaper found 'that as the war dragged on, the goals and mission kept changing and a lack of faith in the U.S. strategy took root' at the highest levels. Officials couldn't even agree on the purpose of the war....

"The arrogance of American officials always amazed me. Our country's large-scale efforts to transform parts of this country — the War on Poverty, the Great Society — failed spectacularly. Yet our leaders thought they could invade a country that most Americans couldn't pinpoint on a map, and which had a history of repelling invaders (think of Russia), and fundamentally transform its society. And they kept spinning Americans and distorting 'statistics to make it appear the United States was winning the war when that was not the case'....

"Some of the Post's stories were eye-opening: how military officials were ordered to spend millions of dollars a day in small regions, even though no one had any idea what to do with it. That's government. It literally dumps money on problems and hopes it will create progress, when all it does is encourage corruption. Even more amazing, our military couldn't distinguish between friends and enemies....

"These days, we're all sure our fellow partisans are brilliant and the other side is evil, but this ought to give everyone pause: President Barack Obama's policy in Afghanistan wasn't appreciably different from George W. Bush's — and neither of them had any particular success. Both made grandiose promises about 'winning' and eradicating terrorists, but neither delivered."

Read more: https://reason.com/2019/12/20/the-afghanistan-papers-confirm-critics-worst-fears-about-americas-longest-war/
'via Blog this'

Help fix U.S. democracy: befriend a libertarian

Are Libertarian Friends the Key to Fixing American Democracy? - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Katherine Mangu-Ward:

October 26, 2017 - "Bursting your personal political bubble is important, but hard. It's so annoying to talk to people who totally disagree with you, amirite? Today in a forum on fixing democracy in The Washington Post Magazine, I argue that libertarians are the gateway drug to transpartisan understanding:

On the left and finding that Trump fans turn your stomach? Consider chatting with someone who will give you a hearty amen when you grouse about his immigration restrictionism and warmongering over a craft cocktail or a joint, but can still offer some insight into why a sane person might think environmental regulatory rollback or Social Security privatization is a good idea.

On the right and struggling to figure out how you'd connect with a blue-haired Occupy Wall Streeter? Find a libertarian: We'll grab some burgers and cigars. We can talk about repealing Obamacare and cutting taxes before easing into a conversation about why it might be time to seriously consider reforming our criminal justice system.

"Innovative solution for repairing America's broken civic institutions, or shameless bid to make new friends? You decide."

Read more: http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/26/are-libertarian-friends-the-key-to-fixin
'via Blog this'

Rethinking the Lockean Proviso

Libertarian property rights and the Lockean sufficiency proviso - The Washington Post - Fabian Wendt, Volokh Conspiracy:

September 22, 2017 - "John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1689) contains a defense of private property that makes use of the idea of labor-mixing. In §27, Locke writes: ‘[…] for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.’ The ‘at least’ clause has become known as the ‘Lockean proviso’. It is usually understood as specifying a limit to labor-based acquisition of private property.

"Since libertarians care a lot about private property and its justification, the Lockean proviso has been an important tenet in libertarian theories of justice....  Right-libertarians either reject the Lockean proviso or endorse very weak interpretations of it, while left-libertarians endorse some egalitarian interpretation of the Lockean proviso (which allows appropriation until one has one’s equal share of natural resources or as long as the appropriation is compatible with equality of opportunity for welfare).

"In between right- and left-libertarianism, there is room for moderate interpretations of the proviso, and in particular for a sufficientarian interpretation, a sufficiency proviso. It is remarkable that this option has rarely been defended. The resulting theory of justice can be called ‘moderate libertarianism’.... [M]oderate libertarianism has advantages over both left- and right-libertarianism because it better coheres with the most plausible rationale for endorsing a libertarian theory of justice in the first place.

"What is this rationale for endorsing a libertarian theory of justice? It starts with the rather trivial fact that persons are purposive beings. They have the capacity to pursue all kinds of projects. Almost all projects require external resources, and they require being able to count on one’s resources. For that reason, persons as project-pursuers need the opportunity to acquire private property in external resources in one way or another. Following Eric Mack, one can take this to establish a ‘natural right to the practice of private property’. Together with the idea of self-ownership, this natural right can be regarded as the core of a libertarian theory of justice. Note that the project pursuit rationale for libertarianism does not rely on the moral force of Lockean labor-mixing. Rather, private property as a practice is justified as being responsive to persons as project pursuers....

"[I]f one embraces a libertarian theory of justice due to the project pursuit rationale, then one should also embrace a sufficientarian proviso. The basic idea is simple: Without sufficient resources, people are unable to live their lives as project pursuers. Because this is so, a libertarian who advances a libertarian theory of justice because s/he cares about people as project pursuers must also care about everyone actually having sufficient resources for living a life as a project-pursuer. This is why some sort of sufficientarian proviso should be incorporated into a libertarian theory of justice....

"First of all, my sufficiency proviso does not apply to specific acts of appropriation, but to the practice of private property as a whole. The practice of private property is justified because private property is necessary for living as a project pursuer, but it can only be justified under condition that it actually enables everyone to live as a project pursuer.

"Second, the sufficiency proviso does not unconditionally require us to bring everyone above the sufficiency threshold. The proviso only prescribes that the practice of private property should be designed in a way that makes sure that everyone has sufficient resources to live as a project pursuer, if this is possible without undermining the point of having a practice of private property in the first place."

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/22/libertarian-property-rights-and-lockes-sufficiency-proviso/?utm_term=.47439424a2b7
'via Blog this'

U.S. Senate unanimously passes Right to Try bill

Senate passes ‘right to try’ bill to help terminally ill patients get experimental drugs - The Washington Post - Laurie McGinley:

August 2, 2017 - "The Senate on Thursday passed by unanimous consent a measure designed to make it easier for terminally ill patients to get access to experimental treatments without oversight from the Food and Drug Administration.

"The 'right-to-try' legislation has been championed by the libertarian Goldwater Institute, which has worked to pass similar legislation in 37 states. The federal version, now headed to the House, would bar the government from blocking patients from getting access to medications that have undergone only preliminary testing in humans. Patients first would have to try all other available treatments and be unable to participate in clinical trials.

"The bill would provide drug companies some legal protection if a treatment results in harm.

"'Patients with terminal diseases ought to have a right to access treatments that have demonstrated a level of safety and could potentially save their lives,' Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who wrote the bill, said in a statement after the vote....

"A previous version of the measure barred the FDA from considering any information on safety problems as part of its approval process for a drug used under right to try. The latest version was modified to allow the agency to consider such information if it is critical to determining whether the drug meets the agency's safety standards.

"The Senate's action on the right-to-try bill was part of a deal struck between Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Johnson, who had threatened to hold up a must-pass FDA funding reauthorization bill unless a vote on his legislation took place."

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/08/03/senate-passes-right-to-try-bill-to-help-terminally-ill-patients-get-experimental-drugs/?utm_term=.d90cbd0fab84
'via Blog this'

Johnson, PACs fight to get him into debates

Libertarians hope rallies and ads can nudge them into the presidential debates - The Washington Post - David Weigel:

August 27, 2016 - "Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson ... a two-term governor of New Mexico, has avoided the fringe label that often sticks to third-party candidates. Since announcing former Massachusetts governor William Weld as his running mate, Johnson has risen in polls to the high single digits — and to the mid-teens in some swing states. His rallies draw hundreds of voters, bigger than anything he saw during his 2012 bid. He talks about 'spoiling the party,' and voters cheer.

""Despite that, Johnson is struggling to grab the prize he has eyed all year: To be invited to the televised presidential debates. He needs to close in on 15 percent in an average of polls, and he’s doing what he can. Two super PACs are trying to boost him in. It’s not clear that they can pull it off....

"The Commission on Presidential Debates, which has controlled the process since 1988, has held fast to its 15 percent threshold. A Johnson-backed lawsuit against that threshold was thrown out this month, though, and the voters filing into Johnson-Weld rallies this week were acutely aware that their man might be kept offstage....

"Two libertarian efforts are underway to boost Johnson past the debate commission’s 15-percent hurdle. Purple PAC, steered by former Cato Institute president Ed Crane, began a $1 million ad buy this week, with cable spots casting Johnson as an 'honorable choice' who favors tolerance and free markets.... Alternative PAC, launched by former FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe, is spending $50,000 to kick-start a Web campaign aimed at millennials....

"As Purple PAC’s Crane noted, the two standard-bearers for libertarianism have become some of the least ideological candidates in America.... That’s led to steady criticism from more traditional libertarians, who pounce on every Johnson or Weld sop to the center as a gaffe. Weld, who signed a gun-control bill as governor, struggled to win the Libertarian vice-presidential nomination.... After Johnson refused to rule out a tax on carbon — only if it was revenue-neutral and it replaced income taxes — he was criticized by libertarians on social media.

“'I’m still on the fence about whether I’m going to cast a write-in vote for None of the Above or myself,' said Darryl Perry, a New Hampshire voter who ran against Johnson for the Libertarian presidential nomination. 'I know a few [people] who have said, "Well, he’s the lesser of the evils." The lesser evil is still evil in my eyes.'

"But the dazzling possibility of the debate invite — something no Libertarian candidate has ever achieved — has kept most fellow travelers on board.... At one rally, in Concord, close to 300 people stood in a steady and meteorology-defying rain to hear Weld and Johnson speak about the six-lane highway between the parties.

"'Standing in the rain,' Johnson said with disbelief. 'You honor us. You really do.'"

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/libertarians-hope-rallies-and-ads-can-nudge-them-into-the-presidential-debates/2016/08/27/2517567c-6b9d-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html
'via Blog this'

Purple PAC spending $1M on TV ads (video)

Super PAC goes on the air for Gary Johnson as he struggles for debate access - The Washington Post - David Weigel:

August 25, 2016 - ""Purple PAC, the Libertarian-friendly super PAC steered by former Cato Institute president Ed Crane, has put $1 million into cable TV spots that will run for at least 10 days.

"The goal: boosting former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson's name recognition to get him polling close enough to 15 percent to cross into the televised presidential debates.

"'This thing can really catch fire," Crane said in a short interview. 'If Gary is in the debates against two people who are very unpopular, it could be quite a dramatic change in how voters look at the election'....

"But to achieve that, Johnson needs to crack 15 percent support — something no third-party candidate has done since 1992, and something made trickier by the splintering of the anti-Trump vote....

 "Meanwhile, a new Quinnipiac poll found Johnson at 10 percent in a four-way presidential race. Six times as many poll respondents — 62 percent — said that Johnson should be onstage at the debates."

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/25/super-pac-goes-on-the-air-for-gary-johnson-as-he-struggles-for-debate-access/
'via Blog this'

Johnson in "most negative race of my career"

Libertarian Party faces a nomination fight in a #NeverTrump world - Washington Post - David Weigel:

May 13, 2016 - "Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico and 2012 Libertarian Party nominee for president, may have found his moment.... .... One small problem: Johnson is not the Libertarian Party’s nominee for 2016. Not yet. When the party meets at the end of the month, in Orlando, its hundreds of delegates will not be bound to any candidate. And Johnson has been under assault, for months, by two rivals who say he would blow the election.

"'It’s the most negative race of my career, by far,' said Johnson in an interview this week.... 'This is very personal, and I don’t get it. My defense is: None of it is being thrown back at them. You want to talk about the issues? Then fine, fine. But holy cow! It’s silly, just silly.'

"As the Libertarian Party faces perhaps the biggest opening of its 40-year history, it’s hosting a contest between the amiable left-libertarian Johnson, the youthful party activist Austin Petersen, and the larger-than-life anti-virus pioneer John McAfee. Johnson’s 2012 performance — a record 1.3 million votes for the party — has been dismissed by challengers who think he’s too compromised or easygoing to seize the moment....

"The Libertarian nomination seems even more valuable now, with a March poll by Monmouth University putting Johnson — by far the best-known candidate — at 11 percent in a race with Clinton and Trump. Johnson, as the only candidate to serve in elected office, says he could build on that and crack the 15 percent threshold for entering the presidential debates. McAfee and Petersen are convinced that he would waste it. This is no year for an 'experienced' candidate, much less one who spent the past few years in the edible marijuana business....

"At the highest-profile moment of the race so far, a debate on Fox Business, Petersen attempted to trip up Johnson with libertarian logic puzzles. His supporters have widely circulated the resulting videos, in which Petersen’s bumper sticker-perfect answers run against Johnson’s attempts to talk through the issues.

“'Should a Jewish baker be required to bake a Nazi wedding cake?' asked Petersen in a discussion about religious liberty. 'That would be my contention,' said Johnson....  'How about the utility that is privately owned, and because it’s the only market where I can buy my electricity, they’re gonna cut me off?' 'This betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the free market,' said Petersen.... Later, Petersen goaded Johnson over a libertarian heresy – questioning whether people adjudicated mentally ill should be allowed to purchase firearms....

"In an interview this week, Johnson acknowledged that the campaign had been negative and denied that Petersen had gotten under his skin. 'I think I do a pretty good job of communicating what it is I want to communicate,' he said. The problem was that he wanted to deal with real-world implications, not theory, on something like guns being denied to dangerous people. 'We should absolutely be open to a discussion on how that might get accomplished. And having vetoed as many bills as I’ve vetoed, I’ve not seen any proposals that might preclude me from having a gun for failing some test. So, open to a discussion? Yes!'”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/13/libertarian-party-faces-a-nomination-fight-in-a-nevertrump-world/
'via Blog this'

Decriminalize drug use & possession, medical experts urge in advance of UN session

Top medical experts say we should decriminalize all drugs and maybe go even further - The Washington Post - Christopher Ingraham:

March 24, 2016 - "A group of 22 medical experts convened by Johns Hopkins University and The Lancet have called today for the decriminalization of all nonviolent drug use and possession....

"Their report comes ahead of a special UN General Assembly Session on drugs to be held next month, where the world's countries will re-evaluate the past half-century of drug policy and, in the hope of many experts, chart a more public health-centered approach going forward.

"In a lengthy review of the state of global drug policy, the Hopkins-Lancet experts conclude that the prohibitionist anti-drug policies of the past 50 years 'directly and indirectly contribute to lethal violence, disease, discrimination, forced displacement, injustice and the undermining of people’s right to health.' They cite, among other things:

• A 'striking increase' in homicide in Mexico since the government decided to militarize its response to the drug trade in 2006. The increase has been so great that experts have had to revise life expectancy downward in that country;
• The 'excessive use' of incarceration as a drug control measure, which the experts identify as the "biggest contribution" to higher rates of HIV and Hepatitis C infection among drug users;
• Stark racial disparities in drug law enforcement, particularly in the United States;
• And human rights violations arising from excessively punitive drug control measures, including an increase in the torture and abuse of drug prisoners in places like Mexico.

"'The goal of prohibiting all use, possession, production and trafficking of illicit drugs is the basis of many of our national drug laws, but these policies are based on ideas about drug use and drug dependence that are not scientifically grounded,' said Commissioner Dr. Chris Beyrer of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, in a statement.

"For instance, the last time the UN held a special session on drugs, in 1998, it set itself the goal of a 'drug-free world' by 2008.

"The Hopkins-Lancet commissioners also fault UN drug regulators for failing to distinguish between drug use and drug abuse. 'The idea that all drug use is dangerous and evil has led to enforcement-heavy policies and has made it difficult to see potentially dangerous drugs in the same light as potentially dangerous foods, tobacco and alcohol, for which the goal of social policy is to reduce potential harms,' they write."

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/24/top-medical-experts-say-we-should-decriminalize-all-drugs-and-maybe-go-even-further/
'via Blog this'

Where Charles Koch & Bernie Sanders agree

Charles Koch: This is the one issue where Bernie Sanders is right - The Washington Post:

February 18, 2016 - "Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) often sounds like he’s running as much against me as he is the other candidates.... I see benefits in searching for common ground and greater civility during this overly negative campaign season. That’s why, in spite of the fact that he often misrepresents where I stand on issues, the senator should know that we do agree on at least one....

"The senator is upset with a political and economic system that is often rigged to help the privileged few at the expense of everyone else, particularly the least advantaged. He believes that we have a two-tiered society that increasingly dooms millions of our fellow citizens to lives of poverty and hopelessness. He thinks many corporations seek and benefit from corporate welfare while ordinary citizens are denied opportunities and a level playing field.

"I agree with him.

"Democrats and Republicans have too often favored policies and regulations that pick winners and losers. This helps perpetuate a cycle of control, dependency, cronyism and poverty in the United States.... Large portions of the business community have actively pushed for these policies.

"Consider the regulations, handouts, mandates, subsidies and other forms of largesse our elected officials dole out to the wealthy and well-connected. The tax code alone contains $1.5 trillion in exemptions and special-interest carve-outs. Anti-competitive regulations cost businesses an additional $1.9 trillion every year. Perversely, this regulatory burden falls hardest on small companies, innovators and the poor, while benefitting many large companies like ours. This unfairly benefits established firms and penalizes new entrants, contributing to a two-tiered society.

"Whenever we allow government to pick winners and losers, we impede progress and move further away from a society of mutual benefit. This pits individuals and groups against each other and corrupts the business community, which inevitably becomes less focused on creating value for customers. That’s why Koch Industries opposes all forms of corporate welfare — even those that benefit us. (The government’s ethanol mandate is a good example. We oppose that mandate, even though we are the fifth-largest ethanol producer in the United States)....

"I applaud the senator for giving a voice to many Americans struggling to get ahead in a system too often stacked in favor of the haves, but I disagree with his desire to expand the federal government’s control over people’s lives. This is what built so many barriers to opportunity in the first place.

"Consider America’s War on Poverty. Since its launch under President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, we have spent roughly $22 trillion, yet our poverty rate remains at 14.8 percent. Instead of preventing, curing and relieving the causes and symptoms of poverty (the goals of the program when it began), too many communities have been torn apart and remain in peril while even more tax dollars pour into this broken system.

"It is results, not intentions, that matter. History has proven that a bigger, more controlling, more complex and costlier federal government leaves the disadvantaged less likely to improve their lives....

"When it comes to electing our next president, we should reward those candidates, Democrat or Republican, most committed to the principles of a free society. Those principles start with the right to live your life as you see fit as long as you don’t infringe on the ability of others to do the same. They include equality before the law, free speech and free markets and treating people with dignity, respect and tolerance. In a society governed by such principles, people succeed by helping others improve their lives."

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-koch-this-is-the-one-issue-where-bernie-sanders-is-right/2016/02/18/cdd2c228-d5c1-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html
'via Blog this'

Cruz: give Nevada federal land to state (video)

Cruz hits Nevada airwaves with a libertarian land-rights pitch - Washington Post - David Weigel:

February 18, 2015 -"Sen. Ted Cruz is gearing up for the sleepy, overshadowed Nevada caucuses with a campaign tour and a new TV spot — one that demonstrates how he's trying to own the 'liberty lane' of the primaries now that Sen. Rand Paul is out of the Republican presidential race.

"In 'Nevada Land,' Cruz (R-Tex.) pledges to give 'full control' of Nevada land to the state, putting him in league with hard-line conservatives and libertarians from the grass roots to the American Legislative Exchange Council.

"'Eighty-five percent of Nevada is owned and regulated by the federal government,' Cruz says in the ad. "And Donald Trump wants to keep big government in charge. That's ridiculous'....

"Pulling back land rights from Washington has been a cause for Western Republicans for a generation, epitomized by the high-profile crusades of the Bundy family to claim land rights over territory claimed by the feds. Cruz and Paul (R-Ky.) suggested that Cliven Bundy's 2014 standoff with federal agents came from a legitimate anger....

"Cruz's endorsers in Nevada include Republican state Rep. Michele Fiore, an ally of the Bundys who became a mediator when Ammon Bundy led a temporary takeover of an Oregon wildlife refuge. And the movement to give lands back to the states is supported by some of the most powerful and deep-pocketed libertarian donors in America.

"It's unclear whether that can boost Cruz in Nevada. A CNN-ORC poll this week found Trump 28 points ahead of Cruz in that state. Local Republicans say that the Texan and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) are much better organized than Trump in the state, with local offices and a canvassing team trying to turn out voters for the easily forgotten caucuses. A Cruz surprise might depend on the sort of rural libertarian voters who gave GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul strong finishes in 2008 and 2012."

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/18/cruz-hits-nevada-airwaves-with-a-libertarian-land-rights-pitch/
'via Blog this'

Rubio camp dodges absenteeism issue by shooting messenger

How a libertarian TV host became the focus of a Bush-Rubio fight - Washington Post - David Weigel:

January 14, 2016 - "Atlanta-based TV commentator Ben Swann is used to seeing his work recycled. Early in his career, in New Mexico, he racked up awards for spot news reporting. After President Obama took office, he launched a video series called 'Reality Check,' the sort of behind-the-news feature that assures his audience that they are being rescued from the lies of the day.... The twist: Swann is an extremely skeptical libertarian....

"In 2013, he filmed a short independent documentary about the 'Rethink 9/11' campaign in New York, which had bought a billboard to drum up support for a fresh investigation into the collapse of the 7 World Trade Center building.... Swann admitted that the video could hurt him....  'Probably the people we got the most pushback from were libertarians, who said: Hey, don't talk about this. You'll look like you're crazy,' said Swann. 'Everybody who asks those questions gets smeared. All of a sudden, you're a truther'....

"Wednesday afternoon ... the New York Times's Maggie Haberman spotlighted Swann's cameo in an ad by the pro-Jeb Bush super PAC Right to Rise. Swann's October 'Fact Check' segment on Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio's voting record in the U.S. Senate was the one RTR used to quickly explain his absences. Matter-of-factly, Haberman noted that Swann had 'examined questions about whether 7 World Trade Center could have collapsed as authorities said it did, and allegations that the gunman in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings didn’t act alone.' Swann told The Washington Post that he did not receive a request for comment until the post went up....

"But just the whiff of "9/11 trutherism" pulled Rubio's campaign into the fray. Rubio's rapid response pro, Joe Pounder, cited it as more proof of Bush's desperation.

.@JebBush so desperate to launch false attacks on @marcorubio that they are using a 9-11 and Sandy Hook truther http://nyti.ms/1JLdHN9
5:28 PM - 13 Jan 2016

"Here was an ad hominem attack, defined. No one had disputed Swann's 'Reality Check' segment — and no one was really explaining how he talked about conspiracy theories. Consistently, he has explored them as a reporter, asking why other people are asking questions. He is as likely to debunk the questions as to leave them open....

"After Swann saw his reputation battered on Twitter, he noticed that Pounder, in his old role at the oppo shop America Rising, had promoted his work at least twice.... In 2012 ... it did not matter that Swann was a libertarian-leaning reporter who would check into oddball theories instead of quickly dismissing them. In 2016, with Rubio under attack, this began to matter a great deal."

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/14/how-a-libertarian-tv-host-became-the-focus-of-a-bush-rubio-fight/
'via Blog this'

Republican Liberty Caucus endorses Rand Paul

Rand Paul wins support of GOP ‘liberty’ caucus - The Washington Post - David Wiegel:

January 12, 2015 - "The Republican Liberty Caucus, a 25-year old union of the GOP's libertarian-leaning activists, has endorsed Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) for president over Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). Coming just hours before Paul gets a Senate vote on his legislation to audit the Federal Reserve, his campaign is calling this a victory in the 'liberty lane' of the Republican primary.

"'Senator Paul is the candidate of choice among our state charters and membership at large,' said RLC National Chairman Matt Nye in a Tuesday morning statement. 'Senator Paul has been a consistent favorite with our members since he announced his candidacy."

"As Paul's presidential campaign has worked to regain footing in the primary, it's beseeched libertarian-leaning Republicans not to join Cruz's bandwagon. That effort has largely succeed, with some close calls. In October, the Paul campaign worked hurriedly to win a straw poll at the RLC's New Hampshire-based convention, where Cruz made a surprise appearance. When a confusing two-ballot system handed Paul the win, Cruz's campaign declared partial victory anyway, noting that "51 percent" of the combined ballots were marked for Cruz.

"In the ensuing weeks, despite well-received debate performances, Paul continued to lag behind Cruz. On Jan. 3, RLC National Director Steve Hoffman told the blog Conservative Fifty that he was personally switching from Paul to Cruz....

"Paul has sharpened his rhetoric about Cruz; in a series of half-festive, half-revealing New Years tweets, he resolved 'to give @TedCruz more lead time before I announce my policy positions, so he can replicate them faster.' Had the RLC issued no endorsement, after endorsing Paul's father in the 2012 primaries, it would have hinted at serious defections from his base. But two-thirds of RLC members, many of whom entered or re-engaged with politics because of Ron Paul's presidential campaigns, prevented catastrophe.

"Cruz's campaign, which has alerted reporters to any defections from Paul's camp, was sanguine about the RLC vote....

"Paul's campaign, meanwhile, was boasting of an unconditional victory.

"'As the only liberty-minded candidate,' said Paul spokesman Sergio Gor, 'Senator Paul is very pleased and grateful to the Republican Liberty Caucus.'"

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/12/rand-paul-wins-support-of-gop-liberty-caucus/
'via Blog this'

Clint Bolick named to Arizona Supreme Court

Institute for Justice co-founder named to Arizona Supreme Court - The Washington Post - Jonathan H. Adler, The Volokh Conspiracy:

January 6, 2016 - "This morning, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey announced the appointment of Clint Bolick to the Arizona Supreme Court. The appointment is notable in several respects. This is Ducey’s first Supreme Court appointment. In selecting Bolick, Ducey also went outside party ranks. (Ducey is a Republican; Bolick is an independent.)

"The most notable thing about this appointment is Bolick’s extensive background in libertarian public interest litigation and advocacy of greater judicial protection of property rights and economic liberty. Among other things, Bolick co-founded the Institute for Justice, served as president of the Alliance for School Choice, and (most recently) was vice president for litigation at the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute. Before co-founding IJ, Bolick had worked at the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Justice Department. He is also the author of several books, including Unfinished Business: A Civil Rights Strategy for America’s Third Century, David’s Hammer: The Case for an Activist Judiciary,” and, most recently, Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution (co-authored with Jeb Bush)....

"In making the appointment, Ducey praised Bolick as a 'nationally renowned and respected as a constitutional law scholar and as a champion of liberty.' According to Ducey, Bolick 'brings extensive experience and expertise, an unwavering regard for the rule of law and a firm commitment to the state and citizens of Arizona. I’m confident Clint will serve impartially and honorably in this important role.'

"Bolick will face an initial retention election in two years, and then every six years thereafter. Justices on the Arizona Supreme Court also must retire at age 70."

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/06/institute-for-justice-co-founder-named-to-arizona-supreme-court/

'via Blog this'

Is the U.S. Constitution a libertarian document?

“Is the Constitution Libertarian?” My Baxter Liberty Initiative Lecture on 10/6 - The Washington Post - Randy Barnett, the Volokh Conspiracy:

September 29, 2015 - "On Tuesday, October 6th, I will be giving the Baxter Liberty Initiative Lecture, sponsored by the Political Science Department of the University of California at Berkeley. The topic on which I was asked to speak is 'Is the Constitution Libertarian?'...  I just finished writing my lecture. Here is a portion of how it begins:

"Truth be told, libertarians have a love-hate relationship with the Constitution. On the one hand libertarians, like most Americans, revere the Constitution. Libertarians particularly appreciate its express guarantees of individual liberty and its mechanisms to preserve limited government. If being American is to subscribe to a creed, then the Constitution, along with the Declaration of Independence, are the foundational statements of this creed.

"But some libertarians have issues with the Constitution as well. And here I speak for myself, as well as others. There was a reason I eschewed writing about and teaching Constitutional Law when I became a law professor in favor of teaching Contracts. For, after taking Constitutional Law in law school, I considered the Constitution a noble, but largely failed experiment in limiting the powers of government. In my con law class, every time we got to one of the 'good parts' of the text that protected liberty, we turned the page to read a Supreme Court opinion explaining why that clause did not really mean what it appeared to mean....

"This fundamental failure of the Constitution to limit the size and scope of government has even led some libertarians to contend that the enactment of the Constitution represented a coup d’état by big government Federalists against the more preferable state-centered regime defined by the Articles of Confederation and favored by the Antifederalists.

"Yet many libertarians are genuinely torn, one might go so far as to say schizophrenic, about how the Constitution has actually worked out. Big and intrusive as government is today, it could be much worse. Few can point to other countries where individuals are freer in practice than in the U.S.... Libertarians still refer to the U.S. as a 'free country,' maybe still the freest on earth. That the Constitution deserves at least some of the credit for this freedom seems likely."

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/29/is-the-constitution-libertarian-my-baxter-liberty-initiative-lecture-on-106/
'via Blog this'

Libertarian legal ideas going mainsteam

The Rehabilitationists: The Libertarian Movement to Undo the New Deal | The New Republic - Brian Beutler:

August 30, 2015 - "In November 2013, a who’s who of America’s conservative legal establishment descended on the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., for an annual meeting of the Federalist Society, the most influential conservative legal organization in the country. Current presidential candidates Scott Walker and Ted Cruz each made appearances.... Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was a featured speaker.... One of the biggest stars of the conference, however, was neither a Senate-confirmed official nor an elected politician, but a libertarian law professor at Georgetown named Randy Barnett....

"'The younger people, the people in law school, they seem to be gravitating toward people like Randy,' said attendee Josh Blackman, an associate law professor at the South Texas College of Law and a close friend of Barnett’s. 'When he gets off the stage he’s mobbed. ... There’s a crowd of people five or six feet deep surrounding him'....

"Barnett and his compatriots represent the vanguard of a lasting shift toward greater libertarian influence over our law schools and, increasingly, throughout our legal system. They’re building networks for students and young lawyers and laying the foundation for a more free-market cast of federal judges in the next presidential administration. Their goal is to fundamentally reshape the courts in ways that will have profound effects on society....

"Barnett believes the Constitution exists to secure inalienable property and contract rights for individuals. This may sound like a bland and inconsequential opinion, but if widely adopted by our courts and political systems it would prohibit or call into question basic governmental protections—minimum wages, food-safety regulations, child-labor laws—that most of us take for granted. For nearly a century now, a legal counterculture has insisted that the whole New Deal project was a big, unconstitutional error, and Barnett is a big part of that movement today....

"All libertarians want to fight federal regulations in Congress and the executive branch. But Barnett and his allies think courts should be empowered to throw regulations out even if political majorities support them. These ... professors have established beachheads at law schools across the country. In 2002, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh founded a blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, as a hub for libertarian ideas, including Lochner revisionism. Today, it has become the most prominent academic legal blog in the country and now publishes under the auspices of The Washington Post. It boasts nearly two dozen contributing professors and mainlines detailed and informed libertarian legal arguments to thousands of the nation’s top lawyers, law students, clerks, judges, and opinion-makers every day.

"The contributors to The Volokh Conspiracy teach at the University of Minnesota, Northwestern, Emory, Duke, and elsewhere. Several hold positions at George Mason University’s law school, which is famous for its conservative faculty and, in 36 short years, has rocketed to prominence as one of the 50 best law schools in the country....

"In 1991, two former members of the Reagan administration, Chip Mellor and Clint Bolick, founded the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public-interest law firm now based in Arlington, Virginia, with $350,000 a year in seed money from the oil and gas magnate Charles Koch. They’ve challenged state licensing laws on behalf of hair braiders, florists, and other tradespeople across the country, but have also undertaken loftier crusades, including a doomed effort to overturn the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that contractors pay their employees competitive wages on government-funded projects....

"With five offices around the country, a legal clinic training students at the University of Chicago Law School, and a staff of nearly 100, the Institute for Justice has become a proving ground for aspiring, ideologically committed lawyers. Every year, the group sends lawyers to law schools around the country to give presentations on public-interest law and recruit students into its ranks."

Read more: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122645/rehabilitationists-libertarian-movement-undo-new-deal
'via Blog this'

250,000 applications for Liberland citizenship

250,000 people have requested citizenship in a country that might not exist - Washington Post - Adam Taylor:

April 22, 2015 - "About 250,000 people have applied for citizenship in Liberland in less than two weeks, Vit Jedlicka, president of Liberland, told the Czech news agency CTK on Tuesday.

"However, some of these potential Liberlanders may be in for a shock. For one thing, it's unclear at the time of writing whether the country they are applying for citizenship in really exists at all.

"If it does, it would be Europe's newest nation. Jedlicka proclaimed the Free Republic of Liberland a sovereign state April 13. The Czech politician – known for his Eurosceptic, libertarian views – claimed a disputed area between Croatia and Serbia to make up the state.

"Realizing that the land was claimed by no one, Jedlicka claimed the approximately 3 square miles by the Danube river. He set up a Web site, created a flag, a coat of arms, a motto ('To live and let live') and drew up laws and a constitution....

"The proposed country would be a libertarian paradise. Taxes would be optional in Liberland and government power severely restricted, Jedlicka told the international press. On the Web site, anyone could apply to be a citizen – providing they do not have a criminal record or a 'communist, Nazi or other extremist past'.

"This idea seems to have captured people's imagination. Liberland and Jedlicka have become an international news story and 110,000 people have liked a Facebook page devoted to the new country....

"Exactly how serious Liberland is is unclear right now. When one group of journalists tried to visit the new country last week, they were turned away by Croatian border police. They were told that a Liberland flag that had been planted at the site has been removed.

"And so far, no other state has recognized Liberland. Croatia and Serbia have made no public announcements about their new neighbor. Politicians from further afield don't seem to be taking it seriously."

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/22/250000-people-have-requested-citizenship-in-a-country-that-might-not-exist/ 'via Blog this'

Who will Peter Thiel back for POTUS in 2016?

Which 2016 Republican Is Libertarian Billionaire Peter Thiel Going To Back - BuzzFeed News:

March 28, 2015 - "The question of [Peter] Thiel’s loyalties looms large in the Republicans’ heated 2016 fundraising race. The gay, libertarian tech tycoon has funneled millions of dollars in recent years to a diverse array of causes and campaigns, from marriage equality advocacy groups to insurgent Tea Party candidates. In an era when a single motivated billionaire can prop up a presidential candidate all on his own, Thiel’s endorsement would be a major coup for any campaign. But only two contenders in the emerging GOP field can claim an inside track to the billionaire’s cash: Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

"Thiel’s ties to Paul ... are well established. During the 2012 election, Thiel gave $2.6 million to a super PAC supporting Rand’s father, Ron Paul — an eccentric libertarian protest candidate with a narrow but devoted grassroots following. And since then, he has reportedly been an ally and adviser to the younger Paul, opening doors for the senator in Silicon Valley, connecting him with donors and tech operatives, and meeting privately with him as recently as last summer....

"Last year, when a New York Times story described Paul’s political and fundraising infrastructure as feeble and unimpressive, his advisers fired back by giving the Washington Post an exclusive on its 50-state political network. The Post story described Thiel as a 'looming figure in Paul’s constellation of friends, advisers, and possible bundlers,' and 'one of his top West Coast allies'.

"Less well known, however, is Thiel’s longtime support for Cruz.... In 2009, Thiel contributed $251,000 to support the star litigator’s bid for Texas attorney general. Cruz eventually aborted the campaign, but the billionaire’s donations made up one-fifth of his entire campaign war chest. When he then ran for Senate in 2012, Thiel plowed $1 million into Club for Growth, the conservative pressure group that heavily funded Cruz’s primary bid.

"Asked about Cruz last September, Thiel told The Daily Caller, 'Well I think he’s very smart. I think one of the challenges we have in the Republican Party is … our representatives, our senators, are somewhat lower IQ than the people on the other side. So, I think there is something to be said for getting some really smart people in there'....

"Thiel has not yet announced his support for any presidential candidate, and through a spokesman, he declined to comment.... Advisers to both Paul and Cruz also declined comment, but people in both camps said they are courting the billionaire."

Read more: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/which-2016-republican-is-libertarian-billionaire-peter-thiel
'via Blog this'

Some important new libertarian books

Some important new books on libertarianism - The Washington Post - Ilya Somin, The Volokh Conspiracy:

February 26, 2015 - "A number of new books on libertarianism and related issues have come out recently or should be in print soon. If you are interested in libertarianism, these books may well be of interest to you....

"Perhaps the one with the broadest appeal is The Libertarian Mind, by David Boaz of the Cato Institute. It is the best recent introduction to libertarianism for a popular audience. Boaz does an excellent job of surveying both the history of libertarianism and libertarian positions on a variety of modern political issues. He is especially good on 'noneconomic' issues that many people with only a passing knowledge of libertarian thought don’t normally associate with the movement. For example, he emphasizes that libertarian thinkers were calling for the abolition of anti-sodomy laws, the War on Drugs, and other pernicious 'social' regulations long before these became mainstream positions elsewhere on the political spectrum.... Boaz also does a good job of raising and addressing a variety of standard objections to libertarian ideas that are traditional advanced by critics (particularly mainstream liberals and conservatives in the United States)....

"Jacob Levy’s Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom is a great overview of a longstanding issue in libertarian thought (and liberal thought more generally): the appropriate role of 'intermediate groups' such as religious organizations, voluntary associations, and organized ethnic groups. While such groups can enhance individual liberty, they can also undermine it....He argues that neither pure freedom of association nor complete homogenization of groups to eliminate illiberal tendencies is defensible. Thus, he concludes that the tension between group pluralism and the possible need for centralized control of these groups in order to protect individuals can’t be completely eradicated....

"Finally, I very much look forward to Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski’s book Markets Without Limits. Despite the title, the authors don’t claim that markets should be literally without limits, in the sense that any and all possible commercial transactions are morally defensible. Rather, as the authors put it, they argue that '[i]f you may do it for free, you may do it for money.' For example, if it is permissible to donate organs, it should also be permissible to sell them in organ markets. On the other hand, it is wrong for a hit man to commit murder for profit, because committing murder is wrong regardless of whether he gets paid for it or not."

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/02/26/some-important-new-books-on-libertarianism/
'via Blog this'