ND Libertarians select candidates for 2016

Libertarians select slate of candidates for 2016 - Brett Williamson, Bismarck Tribune:

November 7, 2015 - "Libertarians from North Dakota and South Dakota gathered Saturday at the Baymont Inn and Suites in Mandan and selected candidates for the 2016 election.

Candidates selected for North Dakota were: Jack Seaman for U.S. House, Robert Marquette for U.S. Senate, Joshua Voytek for lieutenant governor, Kevin Johnson for District 16 representative, Nick Bata for insurance commissioner, Tom Skadeland for public service commissioner, and Roland Riemers for state auditor.... The Libertarian nominations for governor and state treasurer were postponed to a later date.

"This was a convention for the people looking for a change in their government.

"In the 2014 elections, the Libertarian Party was able to capture more than 5 percent of the vote for certain races and was added to the 2016 ballot. This is not their first year on the ballot, but it is the first year the Libertarian Party was added because of votes rather than petition....

"The convention was a time for change for the North Dakota Libertarian Party. Along with selecting candidates for 2016 races, the four-year North Dakota Libertarian party chairman, Roland Riemers, was replaced in a vote by Anthony Mangnall....

"In 2014, Mangnall ran for tax commissioner and was able to pull 6.4 percent of the vote to the Libertarian Party."

Read more: http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/libertarians-select-slate-of-candidates-for/article_1e88a0c6-33ff-5a91-a982-dcc9779e6c83.html
'via Blog this'

I wanted to print a defense of 'libertarian brutalism', but ...

Yesterday I excerpted, and linked to, an article by Jeffrey Tucker contrasting two types of libertarians. The first holds culturally 'liberal' or 'cosmopolitan' views: "human co-operation," "the rights of all", "allow[ing] human associations of all sorts to flourish," and "getting along rather than tearing each other apart." The second holds culturally 'conservative,' 'reactionary' or 'tribalist' views: wanting to "form homogeneous tribes" "work out their biases," "ostracize others based on 'politically incorrect standards," and "hate to their hearts content" in their own set-apart space.

The above is a conflict over ends, not means: both types are libertarian insofar as they see liberty as the way to their ends, and state power as an impediment to them. However, Tucker sees inescapable conflict when these two come together. And even the terms he adopts for them - "humanitarians" vs. "brutalists" - show his bias.

That's a bias I share, by the way. But that is not what the blog is for; it's meant to present the "Big Tent", libertarianism in all its facets. So, while I printed Tucker's article, I didn't want to leave it at that, giving only one side of the issue.

Today, then, I went looking for a defense of 'brutalism': a response to Tucker that would either explain why 'brutalism' is fine, or, at minimum, show how 'brutalists' and 'humanitarians' can work together. But ...  I could find nothing on the web. There were a lot of responses to Tucker's article; but none that met his argument directly. Instead, they decided to talk about a different issue.

Christoper Cantwell, for instance, describes Tucker's article thusly: "In the ongoing conflict between leftist infiltrators who want to redefine libertarianism, and purists who wish to stay on message, yet another high profile libertarian has ditched principle for popularity, and condemned principled action as racist, and misogynist." Huh? How are promoting tribalism, ostracism, and hatred "staying on message?" When did promoting those values become "principled action"?

They didn't, of course, and Cantwell does not even try to pretend they did. Instead (while accusing Tucker of attacking a strawman), he attacks a strawman of his own, the idea of "thick libertarianism": "According to Jeffrey Tucker, the people Tom Woods referred to as 'thick libertarians' are the 'humanitarians' who love all that is beautiful about liberty."

"Thick libertarianism" is the idea that liberal, and even progressive, end-values are or should be somehow part of the libertarian message. "Thin libertarianism," on the other hand, is the idea that libertarianism, per se, is end-value-neutral. That does not mean, as Objectivists like Peter Schwartz would have it, that libertarians espouse no end-values: it means that each libertarian espouses his or her own end-values, and advocates liberty as a means to those.

Holding to a "thin" libertarianism indeed means staying on message: if something doesn't affect liberty, the movement and party should leave it up to the individual. So it's not surprising that Cantwell tried this dodge. What is surprising is that virtually everyone else writing against Tucker's article did, too.

For instance, TJ at The Anarchist Notebook responded: "Once more there is an attempt to define libertarianism as something more than simply being against the initiation of violence or aggression against an innocent person or their property." Matthew Muncel, at Divine Anarchy, wrote an "Intro to Brutalism" explaining that was the whole point:  "Jeffery Tucker joined ranks among the Thick libertarians and wrote an entire article in which he labeled himself and all those like him as 'humanitarian' and the 'thin libertarians' as Brutalists."  Daniel Phillips of The Intellectual Conservative chimed in that "I certainly side with the 'thin' 'brutalists' associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com."

Even those who tried to see both sides did the same, like Henry Moore at The Libertarian Liquidationist: "As someone who respects individuals and ideas in both camps, I can sympathize with each. My alliance with certain humanitarians (roughly left/center thick libertarians) is more pragmatic, and my identification as a brutalist (roughly right/center thin libertarians) is more principled."

And that was it for the day: No attempts to deal with Tucker and his thesis; nothing but attacks on a "thick libertarian" strawman, perhaps in the hopes that the resulting pile of straw would succeed in hiding the issue. Perhaps I'll try again tomorrow.

2 types of libertarians: 'humanitarians' vs. 'brutalists'

Against Libertarian Brutalism | Foundation for Economic Education: Jeffrey A. Tucker, The Freeman:

March 12, 2014 - "Why should we favor human liberty over a social order ruled by power? In providing the answer, I would suggest that libertarians can generally be divided into two camps: humanitarians and brutalists.

"The humanitarians are drawn to reasons such as the following. Liberty allows peaceful human cooperation. It inspires the creative service of others. It keeps violence at bay. It allows for capital formation and prosperity. It protects human rights of all against invasion. It allows human associations of all sorts to flourish on their own terms. It socializes people with rewards toward getting along rather than tearing each other apart, and leads to a world in which people are valued as ends in themselves rather than fodder in the central plan.

"But they are not the only reasons that people support liberty. There is a segment of the population of self-described libertarians — described here as brutalists — who find all the above rather boring, broad, and excessively humanitarian. To them, what’s impressive about liberty is that it allows people to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on 'politically incorrect' standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means....

"These two impulses are radically different. The first values the social peace that emerges from freedom, while the second values the freedom to reject cooperation in favor of gut-level prejudice. The first wants to reduce the role of power and privilege in the world, while the second wants the freedom to assert power and privilege within the strict confines of private property rights and the freedom to disassociate....

"Humanitarianism ... seeks the well-being of the human person and the flourishing of society in all its complexity. Libertarian humanitarianism sees the best means to achieve this as the self-ordering social system itself, unimpeded by external controls through the violent means of the State. The goal here is essentially benevolent, and the means by which it is achieved put a premium on social peace, free association, mutually beneficial exchange, the organic development of institutions, and the beauty of life itself....

"[B]rutalism is rooted in the pure theory of the rights of individuals to live their values whatever they may be. The core truth is there and indisputable, but the application is made raw to push a point. Thus do the brutalists assert the right to be racist, the right to be a misogynist, the right to hate Jews or foreigners, the right to ignore civil standards of social engagement, the right to be uncivilized, to be rude and crude....

"Further, the brutalist believes that he already knows the results of human liberty, and they often conform to the throne-and-altar impulses of times past. After all, in their view, liberty means the unleashing of all the basest impulses of human nature that they believe the modern state has suppressed: the desire to abide in racial and religious homogeneity, the moral permanency of patriarchy, the revulsion against homosexuality, and so on. What most people regard as modernity’s advances against prejudice, the brutalists regard as imposed exceptions from the long history of humanity’s tribalist and religiously based instincts.

"Of course the brutalist as I’ve described him is an ideal type, probably not fully personified in any particular thinker. But the brutalist impulse is everywhere in evidence, especially on social media. It is a tendency of thought with predictable positions and biases. It is a main source for racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic strains within the libertarian world — at once denying that this sentence is true while asserting with equal passion the rights of individuals to hold and act on such views....

"It all comes down to the fundamental motivation behind the support of liberty itself. What is its overarching purpose? What is its dominant historical contribution? What is its future? Here the humanitarians are fundamentally at odds with brutalism."

Read more: http://fee.org/freeman/against-libertarian-brutalism/
'via Blog this'

Marijuana use a human right, Mexican Supreme Court rules

Pot gets green light from Mexico's Supreme Court - Mexico Daily News:

November 5, 2015 - "By four votes to one, the court’s first chamber approved the cultivation, processing and possession of cannabis for personal use. However, the ruling will only apply to four activists – Josefina Ricaño Vàndala, Armando Santacruz González, José Pablo Girault and Juan Francisco Torres Landa Ruffo – who challenged the law by applying to set up a marijuana club in 2013 for recreational, non-commercial use....

"'The ruling will only apply to the persons it protects – the resolution of the first chamber does not legalize the supply or sale [of cannabis],' said Humberto Castellejos, legal counsel in the office of the president. 'Growing it with any other objective, even for recreation, is a crime according to the law.'

"Nevertheless, campaigners for legalization including the four activists who challenged the law, are optimistic that the ruling will pave the way for an eventual dismantling of Mexico’s strict marijuana laws....

"The ruling is the first of its kind and establishes a precedent for similar cases in future. Four more like it would establish jurisprudence and require the federal government to change Mexico’s cannabis laws.

"Another legalization campaigner, Hector Aguilar Camín, also welcomed the ruling. 'This is a watershed decision; we have to start separating the substance from the hell produced by its persecution,' he said in reference to Mexico’s drug wars, which have killed thousands of people.

"'Our objective was always to change drug policy in this country, which is one of the main motors for the violence, corruption and the violation of human rights in Mexico,' said Santacruz Gonzàlez.

"Mexican law permits possession of up to five grams of cannabis, but activists say this is a halfway measure as few users buy such small amounts....

Supreme Court Judge Arturo Zaldivar, who proposed the ruling, based his argument on the human right to 'personal development' and recreation that did not harm others."

Read more: http://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/pot-gets-green-light-from-supreme-court/
'via Blog this'

Marijuana legalization defeated in Ohio

Future of Legal Marijuana in Doubt After Ohio Defeat - News, Sports, Jobs - The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register - Associated Press:

November 5, 2015 - "The future of marijuana in Ohio faced an uncertain future Wednesday after the resounding defeat of an effort to legalize cannabis for both medical and recreational use in a single vote - though few believe the fight is over.

"The proposal rejected by voters on Tuesday is expected to be followed in 2016 by a more conventional legalization initiative, one that doesn't give exclusive growing rights to private investors....

"'I think there is consensus that it's not over and done, that some type of legalization of marijuana in Ohio is still going to be a part of the public discussion,' said Joe Cornely of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation.

"Farmers who would have been shut out of growing opportunities under the plan had joined business groups, children's hospitals, the state NAACP and a host of other groups in opposing the initiative brought by a group called ResponsibleOhio.

"Gov. John Kasich, a Republican presidential candidate, praised voters for their decision to reject marijuana, which he said would have been bad for families....

"Concerns about possibly creating what was dubbed 'a marijuana monopoly' appeared to be the major factor in its defeat, and a leading voice in the mainstream legalization movement said that sent an important national message. Economists more likely would have considered the growing site setup an oligopoly, a not-so-voter-friendly word.

"'The silver lining of the defeat is it's going to discourage anyone else from trying the oligopoly model in other states,' said Ethan Nadelmann, founder and director of the Drug Policy Alliance, the nation's largest drug policy reform organization.

"At least 10 other states are working on some sort of legalization initiative next year, whether for recreational or medical cannabis. In Ohio, the Cleveland-based Ohioans to End Prohibition has been working on its own hybrid plan, which leaves cannabis production to the free market....

"A Quinnipiac University poll released last month found that 53 percent of Ohio voters supported recreational marijuana, as opposed to 44 percent who opposed it. The poll also found that 90 percent of Ohio voters supported medical marijuana, compared with 9 percent who opposed it. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points."

Read more: http://www.theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/646186/Future-of-Legal-Marijuana-in-Dou---.html
'via Blog this'

Arkansas LP nominates 23 before early deadline

Arkansas Libertarians Nominate 23, Including Full Congressional Slate - Steve Brawner, KUAR Public Radio:

 October 26, 2015 - "The Libertarian Party of Arkansas selected 23 candidates to run for office Saturday in a special nominating convention, including individuals to run for the five congressional races on next year’s ballot.

"Frank Gilbert was nominated to run for the U.S. Senate seat held by U.S. Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark. Gilbert won 2% of the vote running for governor in 2014.

"Nathan LaFrance, who won 2% of the vote running for Senate in 2014, will campaign for the 3rd District House seat held by U.S. Rep. Steve Womack, R-Rogers. Chris Hayes, who won 6% of the vote campaigning for state treasurer in 2014, will run for the 2nd District House seat held by U.S. Rep. French Hill, R-Little Rock. Mark West of Oil Trough is the party’s nominee for the 1st District House seat held by U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Jonesboro. Kerry Hicks of Mena is campaigning for the 4th District House seat held by U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Hot Springs....

"In a press release, the party said it could nominate more candidates if it wins a lawsuit asking for more time.

"Third parties must nominate candidates for the 2016 general election by the first week of November, which is the end of the filing period for Republican and Democratic candidates. The early deadline is a result of a law passed this year in order to make it possible for Arkansas’ primaries to be on March 1, the so-called 'SEC primary' involving other Southern states.

"Attorney James Linger will represent the Libertarian Party in the case in U.S. District Court, where Judge James Moody will preside.....

"Libertarians finished their ballot access drive in June by gathering the required signatures of 10,000 registered voters. To avoid collecting signatures again in 2018, the Libertarian candidate for president must receive 3% of the popular vote in the 2016 general election.

 "The party also nominated two candidates for the Arkansas Senate and eight candidates for the Arkansas House."

Read more: http://ualrpublicradio.org/post/arkansas-libertarians-nominate-23-including-full-congressional-slate#stream/0

Kochs invest millions in free-market education

Koch Foundations Invest in Libertarian Education | Al Jazeera America - Dave Levinthal:

October 30, 2015 - "Higher education has become a top Koch priority in recent years. And their funding — as well as pushback against it — is increasing.

"During 2013, a pair of private charitable foundations Charles Koch leads and personally bankrolls combined to spread more than $19.3 million across 210 college campuses in 46 states and the District of Columbia, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of Internal Revenue Service tax filings....That represents a significant increase from the $12.7 million the Koch foundations distributed among 163 college campuses in 41 states and the District of Columbia during 2012....

"The Kochs are among many wealthy political patrons who give money to education, along with conservative Robert McNair, independent Michael Bloomberg and liberal billionaire financier George Soros.... The Kochs’ giving, however, has a laser-like focus on a specific, politically relevant discipline — free market economics — unmatched by other political mega-donors. Koch officials routinely cultivate relationships with professors and deans and fund specific courses of economic study pitched by them.

"Detractors argue the Koch brothers’ college-focused money, by helping advance a philosophy of economic liberty, is eroding a fundamental aspect of higher education: academic freedom....

"But some conservatives and libertarians consider the Kochs’ investments in higher education a much-needed counterweight to an American higher education system that historically tilts leftward....

"'Since the ‘60s, they’ve been imbued with the sense that the world would be a better place if the country instituted their libertarian values,' author Brian Doherty said of the brothers.

"'For Charles, his time horizon, as he gets a little older, has become a little shorter. He has lots of money, and he wants to see action in his lifetime,' continued Doherty, the author of Radicals for Capitalism: A freewheeling history of the modern American libertarian movement and senior editor at Reason who’s interviewed both Koch brothers."

Read more: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/30/koch-foundations-invest-in-higher-education.html
'via Blog this'