Gay marriage has always been an ideal niche for liberaltarians

At least according to New York Magazine:

Gay marriage has always been an ideal niche for liberaltarians. After all, it's the states, not the feds, that are the ones deciding whether it should be legal, a question that feeds into libertarians' federalist affinities. And when you strip away the cultural and identity politics, gay marriage is really just a fight about whether the government should be allowed to regulate personal liberty. On that, again, libertarians side with liberals.

Yes -- and no. The actual Libertarian Party position on marriage:

Monday, April 13, 2009

Libertarians applaud steps toward marriage equality

America’s third largest party wants government out of marriage entirely

WASHINGTON – America’s third largest party Monday praised officials in Iowa, Vermont and the District of Columbia for taking recent steps toward marriage equality, and urged legislators in all states to scrap government licensing, taxation and regulation of marriage.

“The government’s power to define marriage has historically been used as a tool to retaliate against minority groups, and the right to marry is the newest frontier of civil rights. Libertarians everywhere applaud this advancement of civil rights, but warn the only way to guarantee true marriage equality is to get government out of the question entirely,” said Catherine Sumner, LBGT policy advisor for the Libertarian National Committee.

Libertarian debate from NY post article

A piece written earlier this month by Christopher Beam is causing some reaction on the internet. One example is this American Conservative article.

It's been interesting to follow. Beam states things like this:

For all the talk about casting off government shackles, libertarianism is still considered the crazy uncle of American politics: loud and cocky and occasionally profound but always a bit unhinged. And Rand Paul’s dad is the craziest uncle of all. Ron Paul wants to “end the Fed,” as the title of his book proclaims, and return the country to the gold standard—stances that have made him a tea-party icon. Now, as incoming chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the Fed, he’ll have an even bigger platform. Paul Sr. says there’s not much daylight between him and his son. “I can’t think of anything we grossly disagree on,” he says.

James Banks this:

Movements like these aren’t “crazy,” “impossible” or “utopian.” They seek to implement policies which are not so far beyond the pale of what an average American would be willing to live with. But the lengths to which libertarian activists go seem out of proportion from the perspective of the general public; why move to New Hampshire or a seastead in the ocean when the average citizen’s most intimate, obnoxious interaction with government occurs only once a year (in mid-April) and he is still free to express his opinion at the ballot box? For this reason, some politicians and voters will always channel their inner-libertarian (when organizations like TSA exist to hate)–but being fully possessed by that inner-libertarian is as rare as channeling him is common.

78 year old Julian Heicklen still in jail...

Heicklen is a libertarian and jury rights advocate who was arrested on May 25 for the "crime" of attempting to distribute Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) fliers on public property in front of the US District Courthouse in Manhattan. The formal charges against the 78 year old man are "disorderly conduct" and "resisting arrest."

He is currently being held in the New York City Jail at Riker's Island awaiting a scheduled June 8 hearing though it appears when reading a blog that has been focusing on his case, (link) that there's some concern that the date might be extended. Normally you'd expect someone charged with that level of crime to be out on bail, however he is being held without bail.

When reading another site, jailed activists it's suggested that there was no bond in this case due to a prior failure to appear. I also recommend reading Heicklen's self bio...

The movement towards younger libertarians...

Interesting article from Campus Progress, Behind the New Student Libertarian Movement that's written in their "field report" segment. Realistically the only way for any political party to grow is to recruit new members, either from other parties or to get those who are new to the political world involved. Youth are typically the most dedicated volunteers during election time. Part of the recommended piece:

But even though he appeared at CPAC, McCobin’s tendency to get pegged as a conservative is one of his pet peeves; he is adamant that libertarians, and SFL in particular, are not right-wingers. “There’s definitely a feeling, there’s a lot of pro-liberty individuals, especially younger individuals, who don’t associate with the cultural right, with the conservative, Christian coalition,” McCobin emphasizes. “That’s just not what we’re about.”

For the first time since the early 1980s, SFL holds the position as the only major national student organization dedicated to libertarianism, or as the SFL calls it, “pro-liberty” ideas. The last time there was a visible libertarian student movement, it was strongly allied with the right, united by the common enemy of communism as well as conservative economics.

AZ Libertarian Barry Hess on Immigration Law: a Step toward a “Police State”

Another recommended article on what's taking place in Arizona from - IndependentPoliticalReport. Part of:

All of us now face the inevitable circumstance where, just as in 1940s Germany, supposedly ‘free’ people can be stopped, detained without arrest and ordered by anyone with an official badge to produce their “papers” and ‘prove’ their citizenship, no matter where they are. The very idea runs afoul of the anonymity and the freedom to travel unimpeded in a society that claims to be ‘free’. The Governor has just given her approval to Arizona becoming a police state, claiming the legislation will somehow make ‘us’ safer—by putting all of us in a nice cozy cell.

Left & Libertarians uniting...

L.A. residents travel to Phoenix to protest Arizona’s controversial immigrant law. It has united left-leaning Angelenos with libertarian Arizonans under a tent of pro-civil rights, populist anger.

That's the intro part of an LA Times article I recommend, A journey into fear and racism. Part of the recommended article:

For a lot of Latino people, SB 1070 is a slap in the face, a cheapening of their citizenship. Teresa Muñoz felt such a strong sense of injustice that she brought her 7-year-old, U.S.-born son Edgar to the Phoenix rally. She had him carry a U.S. flag, while she held a sign over his head featuring an arrow and the question "Illegal?"

Believe it or not, a lot of people think they know what an illegal immigrant looks like. They write to me all the time. They see "illegals" everywhere, on their front lawns and in their hospital clinics. A few seem to think every Latino voice in my column belongs to an "illegal," even such unlikely suspects as kids in South-Central mastering Shakespeare.

If they could cross the cultural divide that separates them from their neighbors, they'd see how short-sighted they are. But now their paranoid vision of life has been codified into law in Arizona — and that's scaring their opponents into action.

Political freedom

A recommended wiki piece on the topic of freedom, this time Political Freedom. I don't think many at times realize what is considered to be civil liberties:

Freedom of assembly
Freedom of association
Freedom of movement
Freedom of religion
Freedom of speech
Freedom of the press
Freedom of thought
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, which is related to freedom of privacy
Freedom to bear arms
Suffrage
Scientific freedom
Academic freedom

The free in freedom...

From Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Main Entry: free·dom
Pronunciation: \ˈfrē-dəm\
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous d : ease, facility e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken f : improper familiarity g : boldness of conception or execution h : unrestricted use

Which is interesting to think about with all of the uses of the word "free" in the market place. Fat-free, worry-free, risk-free, acnefree, freehand, freeloader, freestyle, freewheeler, and I could continue.

All using one quality of the word "free" -- yet it can mean so much more...

Will pot become legal in Cali?

Kevin Drum thinks it just may happen this time in an article in Mother Jones. Ten months ago he thought it would take at least ten years, now? He thinks it may happen sooner:

The initiative, sponsored by Richard Lee, who owns several marijuana businesses in Oakland, would legalize possession of up to an ounce of cannabis and cultivation of up to 25 square feet on private property for personal consumption. Beyond that, it would permit local authorities to go further: They'd be allowed to legalize commercial cultivation of larger amounts for sale to anyone over the age of 21.

So, is this a good idea? The fear of moderate proponents of legalization has always been the possibility of large corporations, like Philip Morris, getting into the marijuana business and marketing pot to heavy users. "One person smoking eight joints a day is worth more to the industry than 50 people each smoking a joint a week," says Mark Kleiman, a drug policy expert at UCLA. "If the cannabis industry were to expand greatly, it couldn't do so by increasing the number of casual users. It would have to create and maintain more chronic zonkers."

Lee's initiative opens that door. Philip Morris wouldn't be allowed to engage in interstate commerce of marijuana, but if, say, Humboldt County agreed to allow unlimited cultivation of cannabis, they could grow it in their own fields and sell it through licensed outlets in any other county in California that also permitted commercial sales.

The article is a recommended read, there's much more than what's shared above.

“Tea Party” means nothing

It's a bit of a stronger take than the earlier post about the way in which the original intent of the Tea Party movement has been basically hijacked. I can't say I disagree with it, since part of my reason for not supporting the whole tea party concept was who was out there in front of it. Hence, I recommend Why “Tea Party” Means Nothing! from United Liberty. Just one small portion:

Here’s the problem: the tea parties were not entirely made up of libertarian uproar about BOTH parties, but instead have become a combination of libertarians, paleo-conservatives, and of course neo-cons. Ever since I saw Sean Hannity have a live show at a tea party and talk up the tea parties, I knew that there was a serious misinterpretation about what the tea party movement is and what the true identity is.

Tea Party as a kind of political equivalent of the 1960's countercultural movement?

First, as one who leans Libertarian, I don't embrace nor support most of what those who call themselves "Tea Party" people do. Though many connected to the Libertarian party started the concept of the Tea Parties, I do agree it's been taken over by others in many areas and has gone beyond the principles they started out with. That's been referenced in previous posts about the Right versus the Libertarian when it comes to the Tea Party topic...So, being born in 1960, I found this comparison by Right Side News, interesting:

Think of the Tea Party as a kind of political equivalent of the 1960's countercultural movement - just post Woodstock. That was when it ceased to be a kind of generational expression and became instead a vehicle that could support all sorts of commercialization. There was lots of money to be made. It could be the Tea Party is approaching that point now - a point of exploitation by the powers-that-be. The Tea Party movement is the first big populist movement of the 21st century, and populist movements, being popular, tend to sprawl across the board, meaning different things to different people. Eventually they are ripe for exploitation.

You know, we could tell this past year that something was happening. We sensed that the Tea Party movement was becoming at least partially co-opted because the high profile names suddenly seemed to change from people we'd never heard of to people we had. And we noted that pro-military establishment commentators like Sean Hannity were styling themselves as Tea Party supporters and saw how mainstream political strategists were suddenly proclaiming their fealty to the movement and we began to wonder if a schism was in the offing.

We wrote we didn't "get it." We didn't see how you could support America's military-industrial complex and be pro-freedom and smaller government at the same time. We wrote about these views several times in order to unpack what was and remain a confusing situation because we think the Tea Party now falls into at least three camps. There are those political organizers and commentators who are manipulating the Tea Party movement in order to reap benefits for the Republican party. Then there is the libertarian group that believes in what they perceive as the foundational profile of the Tea Party movement as an anti-tax, pro-freedom movement. Finally, there are likely millions of Tea Party supporters who have a "big tent" approach to the Tea Party's goal and are perhaps satisfied with its anti-government flavor (as it pertains especially to domestic programs) and "give 'em hell" mentality. Whether "conservative" or not, they may make up the biggest group of all - and are no less sincere or motivated than any others.

The best things in life are free...

Yes, the best things in life are free, which typically suggests freedom, liberty, happiness and all of that. This can be something as easy as a free directory submission or something more complex, being free to love the person you want to. Not feeling as if you have to fear that being known. The freedom of taking a walk in a quiet park, with just the sounds of nature. Yes, the best things in life can be free...

Garry Reed compares reaction to blog post to storming the Bastille

When I read the earlier piece on Examiner.com, Calling all Stalinist-Jeffersonian-Bozoian Libertarians, I didn't quite agree with all that Garry Reed shared, but he was expressing his opinion.

Apparently quite a few took issue with his piece, hence, Calling all laissez-faire sovereign individual Libertarians was penned, where Reed stated in part:

The satirically titled article Calling all Stalinist-Jeffersonian-Bozoian Libertarians published on Wednesday immediately attracted the ire of contemporary socialism's apologists who stormed the "add a Comment" box on the article's page like they were storming the Bastille.

The article posited that in today's politico-philosophical world, anyone who embraced the oxymoron of "libertarian socialism" should have no problem with accepting the absurdity of "Stalinist-Jeffersonian-Bozoian Libertarianism."

The socialists (or "progressives," that being the modern, trendy camouflage word for "socialist") angrily pontificated that the libertarian label belonged exclusively to them, that the socialist usage could be traced back 150-200 years, that the libertarian label was stolen from the socialists in 1971 by the Libertarian Party (many non-libertarians harbor the illusion that the LP is somehow the beginning of modern libertarian's existence), and that "anarcho-capitalist" rather than "libertarian socialism" is the true oxymoron (because socialists make no distinction between "capitalism" which is accepted by libertarians as a synonym for voluntary free trade while "corporatism" is an invention of coercive government and is therefore rejected by libertarians, but that's another article).

Perhaps I'm a bit more of a realist, but I think the amount of time we waste on arguing about labels and who is really what just takes us away from some of the larger issues out there that perhaps solutions could be found for. Or at a minimum we'd know which solutions are not going to ever be agreed on.

Each person's concept of what their "political label" is can vary, there is no set formula as it if you believe A then you are this and if you believe B you are this, because at times people believe or don't believe in both A and B at the same time. It's all a matter of degrees. To some, I am very liberal, to others I am very libertarian, to others? I am no way even close to their concept of what a liberal or a libertarian would be. Yet to me? I'm still the same, liberal on some issues and libertarian on others...

Libertarian parenting...

I try to read Brad Warbiany as often as I can, I enjoy his material, but I wanted to share a recent post that I think raises some interesting questions, Libertarian Response To Klingon Upbringing.

The general topic of how does someone who believes in a libertarian philosophy and parenting is one that has been discussed before. Personally as a parent of five, I take a more monarchical view of parenting, I as the parent have the final say, parenting is not a democracy nor based on political models.

That said, the questions asked concerning d’Armond Speers who only spoke Klingon to his child for his first three years, may very well be legal, yet on the other hand, despite believing parenting is not a democracy, a child is not chattel to be a part of some strange experiment and it is up to adults in a community whether decreed by law or by a sense of what is right, to protect the rights of an individual child to a basic level of human support. Learning how to communicate is a basic level of support. Where it gets then interesting is we do allow parents who don't speak English to have children in this country, those children do not often learn English. Yet, the difference in that scenario versus the Klingon one, is until there is a community filled with Klingon speaking people, a child is being isolated purposely by all society, not just one part...

Phillip Carter resigned and what it means...

Phillip Carter, a civil libertarian who supported President Obama recently resigned. It's not gotten a lot of news though with the increased attention of the blogosphere it may be a story that you will see more coverage on. I tend to agree with Glenn Greenwald, Phil Carter's resignation from key detainee policy post:

Carter said he was resigning due to "personal issues," and -- like Greg Craig before him -- remained loyal to Obama by refraining, at least thus far, from publicly criticizing any administration policies. I have no idea what actually motivated Carter's abrupt resignation, but here's what I do know: so many of the detention and other "War on Terror" policies Obama has explicitly adopted were the very same ones which Carter (as well as Obama) repeatedly railed against during the Bush years, in Carter's case primarily in blogs he maintained both at The Washington Post and at Slate. Whatever else is true, the policies Obama has adopted in the last six months in the very areas of Carter's responsibilities were ones Carter vehemently condemned when implemented by Bush.

While in the updates it's states that Carter has stated this is not why he has resigned, it's really hard to not believe that the change in policy from what was promised during and right after the election not being what was actually put into practice had no impact on Phillip Carter...

After everything, Pfizer pulling out of New London...

I followed the Kelo versus New London story for a variety of reasons, one of which is that is where my husband is from, another was that I took issue with the way eminent domain was being used there, and had been used here in Toledo. Now, as a sad end to the whole tale, Pfizer is leaving:

Pfizer’s abandonment of its plans for New London render moot the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on eminent domain in Kelo v. New London. In the case, the city of New London had sought “eminent domain” power to seize the houses of several people living in a run-down neighborhood. The land was to be transformed into Pfizer’s new facility. The city argued it needed to bulldoze blighted areas in order to redevelop them. Susette Kelo argued the government should not have the right to take her home.

More on Glenn Beck the "libertarian"

I read his show transcript about South Park, (link). It's kind of funny...

GLENN: You know what's amazing to me is I'm a libertarian.

STU: And they are, too.

GLENN: And they are, too.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And when you're a libertarian, there ain't anybody coming to your defense.

STU: No.

GLENN: There's no one coming to your defense.

STU: Not even libertarians. Because they are frustrated at everything, even themselves.

GLENN: Libertarians, I mean, Penn Jillette. Penn Jillette, I feel so bad for Penn Jillette. What Penn Jillette has gone through with some of his friends and one of his idols, Tommy Smothers, I mean, honestly I don't know if you've seen this video with Penn Jillette, but it broke my heart. Penn Jillette and I don't agree on a lot of stuff. We're libertarians. We live with it. He doesn't agree on things, I don't agree on things, but I'm not telling him how to live his life and he's not going to tell me how to live my life. And I think we've had a good relationship

.

Libertarianism and abortion

Most of the Libertarians I know are pro-choice, yet I realize Ron Paul is pro-life. I came across this recent article that briefly goes into why it's felt that the Libertarian platform should be one of pro-life as opposed to pro-choice. It's rather thought provoking, part of it:

Abortion is incompatible with the Libertarian ideology. While many would claim that Libertarians by nature would be pro-choice, as abortion to many is seen as a "right", the truth is that abortion is and should be reprehensible to all true disciples of Liberty. How are we to protect the rights of the people if we cannot even guarantee that they will have a right to life? Don't the words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" mean anything anymore? None of our rights and privileges as citizens of the United States are safe if we do not protect the most basic human right - the right to life. Dr. Ron Paul, who has delivered thousands of babies, agrees with this premise, and he sees being pro-life as an essential part of his Libertarian beliefs.

This view is not shared in this article, Truth about political groups where it states:

YAL is neither Republican nor affiliated with any political party as she implies. In fact, I personally find it offensive to be called a Republican. We are an organization for small-government conservatives and libertarians. Libertarians hold very different views from Republicans. Although I cannot speak for every libertarian, libertarians are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-civil rights, pro-human rights, pro-immigration and anti-war. They also support drug legalization, believe in separation of church and state, favor free-market solutions and advocate non-interventionist foreign policy (yes, many are against the Iraq War). Does that sound anything like a Republican?…Precisely. This list is obviously not exhaustive, but it is descriptive enough to show that libertarians are the alternative to Republicans and Democrats that many students seek. Many people have either become fed up with both major political parties or just don’t fall into either the Democrat or the Republican camp. Libertarianism offers a third option, one which many “outsiders” fall into.

So here are ten ways that non-Partygoers can spread the libertarian peanut butter from crust to crust:

Recommended article by Garry Reed. My favorite?

4. Start a blog like The Freedom Files (by freedomphile Rick Davis, self-styled "libertarian writer, avid pop culture junkie, armchair economist, and punk rock aficionado" and cultivate a readership of likeminded libertarian types as he has.

Armed Resistance and Hiding Are Futile, Unless…

I read this piece with interest, because I grew up with relatives that were much more libertarian than me that believed the only way they were going to survive was to have guns and a plan to hide. I recommend this article by Mark R. Crovelli highly.