Skip to main content

Home/ Socialism and the End of the American Dream/ Group items tagged Libertarians

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Paul Merrell

55% Of Americans Want Independent To Run Against Trump, Clinton - 1 views

www.mintpressnews.com/...216590

Auction 2016 Hillary Trump independent polls

shared by Paul Merrell on 23 May 16 - No Cached
  • It’s happening! According to a new poll, Americans have finally maxed out their tolerance for “lesser evils” in presidential politics. The survey, published by independent research firm, Data Targeting, found a majority of Americans now want an independent candidate to take on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump — two of the most disliked candidates in recent history. Researchers for the poll, conducted among 997 registered voters via both home and mobile phones this month, reported that “58% of respondents are dissatisfied with the current group of Republican and Democratic candidates for President” — and that 55 percent believe there should be an independent ticket (it is unclear why 3 percent apparently dislike the current candidates but puzzlingly do not think there should be another option). In perhaps the most extreme finding of the analysis, “a shocking 91% of voters under the age of 29 favor having an independent candidate on the ballot.” Considering younger generations’ lack of party allegiance and disillusionment with the status quo, their disapproval of Clinton and Trump seems predictable — but 91 percent constitutes near-total rejection. Tellingly, over 68 percent of participants in the poll were over the age of 50. Older generations are more likely to be attached to party identity, making their acceptance of other options a telling indicator of the populace’s distaste for their current options.
  • The United States has notoriously clung to the narrow two-party duopoly for most of its history — even as the crafters of the Constitution, for all their staggering shortcomings, cautioned of the dangers of such myopic political representation and party allegiance. But considering the unpopularity of Trump and Clinton — the former has a 55 percent unfavorability liking, the latter 56 percent — Americans appear to be turning a corner on their perception of who deserves power in politics. In fact, 65 percent of poll respondents said they would be “at least somewhat, pretty or very willing to support a candidate for President who is not Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton” — a stark difference from 2012, when Americans resisted deviation from the norm. A Gallup poll from that year highlighted the nation’s two-party rigidity. “U.S. registered voters show limited support for third-party candidates…with the vast majority preferring Barack Obama or Mitt Romney,” analysts reported just a few months before the 2012 general election. They concluded about 5% of Americans would vote for a third-party candidate that year. Just four years later, however, that figure has exploded. As the Data Testing report explains: “In a ballot test against Clinton and Trump, a truly independent candidate starts off with 21% of the vote,” already far greater than 2012’s 5%. “But this number increases to 29% in the ‘Big Sky’ region, 30% in ‘New England’ and 28% in the ‘West’ region.”
  • Independents were even more willing to break away from the options they’ve been given. “Among voters with an unfavorable opinion of both Trump and Clinton, the independent actually wins the ballot test,” researchers reported, noting that of the three options, 7 percent of respondents chose Clinton, 11 percent chose Trump, and a staggering 56 percent chose the unspecified third-party candidate. Though these ballot test findings are lower than the statistic that 65 percent would be open to breaking away from Clinton and Trump, the increase of third-party interest from 2012 remains palpably significant. It should be noted that Data Targeting is a GOP-affiliated political research firm, however, the results indicate little room for bias. In fact, they are paramount in an election where, as the analysis notes, Clinton and Trump provoke more animosity than enthusiasm. Perhaps highlighting lingering attachments to two-party thinking, Clinton’s highest unfavorability rating (78 percent) came from Republicans, while Trump’s highest unfavorability rating (71 percent) came from Democrats. Regardless, it is undeniable Americans are fed up with the system at large. According to another recent poll, just over half believe elections are rigged. Interest in third-party options, like the Libertarian and Green parties, is also steadily growing. As Ron Paul, the outspoken former presidential candidate, whose 2012 campaign wasundermined by the media and Republican establishment, recently said, “I’ve never bought into this idea that the lesser of two evils is a good idea” — and Americans increasingly agree. According to a Gallup poll released last year, 43 percent of Americans identify as independent — the highest number in the history of the poll.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Meanwhile, faith in mainstream media is also dwindling — and it tends to dip even lower in election years, as Americans observe the perpetual circus acts performed by corporate outlets. With contentious power struggles raging both within the major parties and between them, Americans appear to be sobering up to the realities of party dominance and loyalty as they evolve beyond their crumbling political past.
  • Paul Merrell on 23 May 16
     
    Of course the 55% would never agree on a single candidate, so let's not get our hopes up.
Paul Merrell

Trump leads Ohio in 4-way presidential race - The Blade - 0 views

www.toledoblade.com/...n-4-way-presidential-race.html

Auction 2016 polls Trump Hillary johnson Stein

shared by Paul Merrell on 11 Sep 16 - No Cached
  • The presence of minor party candidates on the Ohio ballot appears to hurt Democrat Hillary Clinton more than Republican Donald Trump, according to a poll of likely voters released Thursday. In a four-way race, the latest Quinnipiac University Poll shows the New York real estate mogul with a 4-point lead over the former secretary of state. That’s still within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. “Libertarian Gary Johnson could decide the presidential election in the Buckeye State,” said Peter A. Brown, the Connecticut-based poll’s assistant director. “He is getting 14 percent from Ohio voters, and how that cohort eventually votes could be critical in this swing state and the nation.” In a four-way race, Mr. Trump draws 41 percent to Mrs. Clinton’s 37 percent. Last month’s Ohio poll also had Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump in a statistical tie, but with Mrs. Clinton holding a 2-point edge. Since then, Mr. Johnson’s support in Ohio has climbed 6 percentage points while the Green Party’s Jill Stein, at 4 percent, has added one point.
Paul Merrell

Presidential poll: Donald Trump pulls ahead of Hillary Clinton - CNN.com - 0 views

www.cnn.com/...esidential-polls-election-2016

Auction 2016 polls Clinton Trump Stein Johnson

shared by Paul Merrell on 07 Sep 16 - No Cached
  • Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton start the race to November 8 on essentially even ground, with Trump edging Clinton by a scant two points among likely voters, and the contest sparking sharp divisions along demographic lines in a new CNN/ORC Poll.Trump tops Clinton 45% to 43% in the new survey, with Libertarian Gary Johnson standing at 7% among likely voters in this poll and the Green Party's Jill Stein at just 2%.
  • The topsy-turvy campaign for the presidency has seen both Clinton and Trump holding a significant lead at some point in the last two months, though Clinton has topped Trump more often than not. Most recently, Clinton's convention propelled her to an 8-point lead among registered voters in an early-August CNN/ORC Poll. Clinton's lead has largely evaporated despite a challenging month for Trump, which saw an overhaul of his campaign staff, announcements of support for Clinton from several high-profile Republicans and criticism of his campaign strategy. But most voters say they still expect to see Clinton prevail in November, and 59% think she will be the one to get to 270 electoral votes vs. 34% who think Trump has the better shot at winning.
  • Neither major third party candidate appears to be making the gains necessary to reach the 15% threshold set by the Commission on Presidential Debates, with just three weeks to go before the first debate on September 26.The new poll finds the two major party candidates provoke large gaps by gender, age, race, education and partisanship. Among those likely to turn out in the fall, both candidates have secured about the same share of their own partisans (92% of Democrats back Clinton, 90% of Republicans are behind Trump) but independents give Trump an edge, 49% say they'd vote for him while just 29% of independent voters back Clinton. Another 16% back Johnson, 6% Stein.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Women break for Clinton (53% to 38%) while men shift Trump's way (54% to 32%). Among women, those who are unmarried make up the core of her support, 73% of unmarried women back Clinton compared with just 36% of married women. Among men, no such marriage gap emerges, as both unmarried and married men favor Trump.Younger voters are in Clinton's corner (54% to 29% among those under age 45) while the older ones are more apt to back Trump (54% to 39% among those age 45 or older). Whites mostly support Trump (55% to 34%), while non-whites favor Clinton by a nearly 4-to-1 margin (71% to 18%). Most college grads back Clinton while those without degrees mostly support Trump, and that divide deepens among white voters. Whites who do not hold college degrees support Trump by an almost 3-to-1 margin (68% to 24%) while whites who do have college degrees split 49% for Clinton to 36% for Trump and 11% for Johnson.
  • Support for Johnson seems to be concentrated among groups where Clinton could stand to benefit from consolidating voters. Although direct comparison between the poll's two-way, head-to-head matchup and its four-way matchup doesn't suggest that Johnson is pulling disproportionately from either candidate, his supporters come mostly among groups where a strong third-party bid could harm Clinton's standing: Younger voters (particularly younger men), whites with college degrees, and independents, notably.
  • The poll follows several national polls in August suggesting that the margin between the two candidates had tightened following the conventions. A CNN Poll of Polls analysis released Friday showed that Clinton's lead had been cut in half when compared with the height of her convention bounce.Speaking to reporters aboard her campaign plane Tuesday, Clinton shrugged off a question about the CNN/ORC survey."I really pay no attention to polls. When they are good for me -- and there have been a lot of them that have been good for me recently -- I don't pay attention," Clinton said. "When they are not so good, I don't pay attention. We are on a course that we are sticking with."While enthusiasm for the campaign has continued to inch up, it remains well off the mark compared with this point in other recent presidential election years. In the new poll, 46% say they are extremely or very enthusiastic, compared with 57% at this point in 2012, 60% in early September of 2008 and 64% in September 2004.Further, nearly half of voters say they are less enthusiastic about voting in this election than they have been in previous years, while just 42% say they're more excited about this year's contest. Although this question hasn't been asked in every presidential election year, in CNN/ORC and CNN/USA Today/Gallup results dating back to 2000, this poll marks the first time that a significantly larger share of voters say they are less enthusiastic about this year's election. The lack of enthusiasm spikes among Clinton supporters. A majority of Clinton's supporters say they're less excited about voting this year than usual (55%) while most of Trump's backers say they're more excited this time around (56%).
Paul Merrell

Trump Prepares to Takeover Fed - 0 views

www.counterpunch.org/...trump-prepares-to-takeover-fed

banksters Fed Trump-administration

shared by Paul Merrell on 20 Nov 16 - No Cached
  • In Donald Trump’s first four years as president, he will not only choose three judges for the Supreme Court, he’ll also pick five of the seven members on the Fed Board of Governors. It would be impossible to overstate the effect this is going to have on the nation’s economic future. With both houses of Congress firmly in the GOP’s grip, we could see the most powerful central bank in the world transformed into a purely political institution that follows the diktats of one man. Critics may think that is a vast improvement over the present situation in which the Fed conceals its allegiance to the giant Wall Street investment banks behind a public relations cloud of “independence”, but the idea of one man controlling the price of the world’s reserve currency and, thus, the price of financial assets and commodities across the globe, is equally disturbing. Already we have seen how the Fed’s determination to enrich its constituents has resulted in one titanic asset-price bubble after the other. Imagine if that power was entrusted to just one individual who could be tempted to use that authority to shape economic events in a way that enhanced and perpetuated his own political power. Even so, after seven years of a policy-induced Depression that has increased inequality to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, we think it is high-time that the president use his power to choose the members who will bring the bank back under government control.
  • So, how will Trump’s populism shape his views on who should or should not be a member of the Fed? We don’t know, but we do know that monetary policy is going to change dramatically from the last eight years of unproductive experimentation because Trump has surrounded himself with industry leaders who ascribe to an entirely different philosophy than the one currently in practice. Check this out from monetary analyst Tommy Behnke: “Some of today’s most reasonable mainstream economic voices are included in (Trump’s) inner circle. These names include David Malpass of Encima Global, who co-signed a letter with Jim Grant opposing the Fed’s “inflationary” and “distortive” quantitative easing program; John Paulson of Paulson & Co., who made billions from shorting the housing market before the Great Recession; Andy Beal, a self-described “libertarian kind of guy” who blames the Fed for the credit crisis; and the Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore, who told CSIN in 2012 that he is a “very severe critic” of the Fed’s “incredibly easy-money policies of the past decade.” While none of Trump’s economic advisers are by any means Austrians, they are far more hawkish than most of Presidents Bush and Obama’s past economic advisers.” (Why President Trump Will Fumigate the Fed, Mises Institute)
  • Trump, who is no fan of the Fed’s bond buying program called QE, has admitted he thinks stocks are in a bubble suggesting that he will probably take a more conservative approach to monetary policy. Even so, that doesn’t change the fact he’s going to have to opportunity to personally select the FOMC’s ruling majority, which means that he’ll be in a position to demand their loyalty as a condition of their hiring. Does anyone seriously doubt that Trump would rather control the Fed himself than keep it in the clutches of the cutthroat Wall Street banks? There’s no doubt that the distributional effects of the Fed’s policies helped catapult Trump into the White House. Millions of working class Americans who are sick of the monetary “trickle down” policies and the job-eviscerating trade agreements found a way to express their frustration in the candidacy of Donald Trump. Their collective rage suddenly exploded at the ballotbox on November 8 pushing the real estate tycoon to a victory over opponent Clinton in what many are calling the political upset of the century. Trump tapped into that wellspring of anger and frustration by denouncing the “failed and corrupt political establishment” in which both Hillary Clinton and the Fed feature prominently. Now he’s going to take it to the next level by launching a surprise attack on the Fed which will leave Wall Street stripped of its power-agency and left to fend for itself. This is a blurb from the New York Times: “A core view of many Trump advisers is that the extended period of emergency policy settings has promoted a bubble in the stock market, depressed the incomes of savers, scared the public and encouraged capital misallocation,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. “Right now, these are minority views on the F.O.M.C., but Trump appointees are likely to shift the needle.” (With Trump in Power, the Fed Gets Ready for a Reckoning, New York Times)
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • They’re going to “shift the needle” alright, then they’re going to drive it through the serpent’s heart. The Fed has had every opportunity to show where its loyalties lie and it has sided with Wall Street every single time. There’s a reason why 95 percent of all income gains in the last eight years have gone to the one percent, while working people have struggled just to put food on the table. Just like there’s a reason why stocks have tripled in value in the last eight years while wages and incomes have stagnated and the economy has slowed to a crawl. It’s the policy, stupid. The Fed has created the conditions for a permanent Depression so it can provide infinite cheap money to its crooked reprobate friends on Wall Street. Now their little party is coming to an end. Boo fucking hoo.
Paul Merrell

US Spy Chief Presents Third-Party Debates as Proof RT Is Anti-US - Antiwar.com Blog - 0 views

www.antiwar.com/...debates-as-proof-rt-is-anti-us

shared by Paul Merrell on 07 Jan 17 - No Cached
  • The Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s latest report on the alleged “election hacking” by Russia includes a substantial section focused around the idea that Russian government-funded channel RT is overtly anti-American. This is a common enough accusation, but when set out in a multi-page report format, a lot of the charges fall remarkable short. Nowhere was this more apparent, however, than on the first page of the Annex on RT, which presented the fact that RT America hosted US presidential debates which included third-party candidates. There has of course been long-standing annoyance among many in the US that the “mainstream” US media’s debates consistently exclude all but the Democratic and Republican candidates. US spy agencies, however, see this exclusion as such a core aspect of US democracy that they are presenting more inclusive debates as inherently anti-American. In 2012 RT hosted a third-party candidates debate which included Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein. In 2016 RT ran a pair of primary debates for the same two parties focusing on foreign policy as well as electoral reform. Beyond giving third parties an avenue of debate, the Annex also accuses RT of myriad other “misdeeds” of a similarly dubious nature, complaining RT introduced the show “Breaking the Set” in 2012 with an eye toward “the promotion of radical discontent,” and ran stories critical of the environmental fallout of fracking.
  • While anti-fracking news is common across a lot of media outlets, the report concluded that the only reason RT could possibly be concerned with the practice was that they were trying to protect the profits of major Russian natural gas giant OAO Gazprom. The report also notes RT coverage of police brutality in the US, its sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement, and criticism of mass surveillance as signs they were trying to “undermine viewers’ trust in US democratic procedures.”
  • Paul Merrell on 07 Jan 17
     
    Note to DNI James Clapper: You've mistakenly conflated the message and the messenger. Millions of Americans were upset by those issues long before RT piled on; have you granted them all Russian citizenship?
Paul Merrell

Clinton's third-party headache - POLITICO - 0 views

www.politico.com/...ns-third-party-headache-226700

Auction 2016 polls Hillary Trump Johnson Stein

shared by Paul Merrell on 11 Aug 16 - No Cached
  • A raft of new polls out this week carried almost unanimously good news for Hillary Clinton, staking the Democratic presidential nominee to significant leads over Donald Trump. But there’s one potential warning sign in these polls should the race narrow: Clinton’s lead over Trump shrinks when voters are allowed to choose one of the major third-party candidates in the race. Yet the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket — composed of former GOP Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico and former GOP Gov. Bill Weld of Massachusetts — appears to draw more from voters who might otherwise be aligned with Clinton, especially younger voters.Story Continued Below The same is true of Green Party nominee Jill Stein — though to a lesser degree, since Stein doesn’t earn nearly the same level of support as Johnson.
Paul Merrell

"Destroying" the Johnson Amendment is a poor idea, Mr. President « Hot Air - 0 views

hotair.com/...nt-is-a-poor-idea-mr-president

Trump religious-freedom johnson-amendment

shared by Paul Merrell on 05 Feb 17 - No Cached
  • The National Prayer Breakfast appearance by the President drew the usual rounds of pans and praise this week. (Just as a side note, it’s not really the best forum for stand up comedy and Schwarzenegger jokes.) One item which cropped up and drew a lot of media fire was President Trump’s renewed pledge to do away with the Johnson Amendment. As you will recall, that’s the 1954 law which restricts churches and other tax exempt, non-profit organizations from certain political activities. (NPR actually has a pretty good rundown of it here.) Most specifically in this case – and what most of the debate centers on – is the restriction on preachers who wish to tell their flocks who to vote for from the pulpit. Doing so theoretically places their tax exempt status in jeopardy. That’s the part that the President seems to want to see discarded. (WaPo)
  • This is one of those areas where I once again fall outside much of the conservative mainstream and my inner libertarian hackles are raised. The Johnson Amendment is a relatively toothless artifact of an earlier era and removing it would have almost zero real world impact for the most part, but it at least represents some lip service to a worthwhile principle in government. The amendment itself is really not the issue here. It’s almost entirely symbolic in terms of its effect on the day to day life of Americans. As a previous report indicated, since 2008 (when churches began seriously challenging the law) there has been only one example of a church being investigated on such charges and none have been punished. It’s extremely difficult to enforce and doing so would be met with huge resistance in some quarters. (No politician or law enforcement officer wants to be enshrined in the front page photo of a preacher being hauled off to jail.) So why support the amendment at all? Because we leave decisions about voting to the individual in the United States and, as with many other social and professional interactions, we protect the individual from undue influence by those who hold power over them. I wrote about this exact subject last summer when Trump was first talking about it. Here’s the key portion of the argument.
  • Preaching politics from the pulpit and using that platform to encourage the election of any candidate from either party is simply wrong. We give churches tax exempt status for a variety of reasons, but one of them is that they are outside of the political and governmental body of the nation. Further, a preacher telling you to vote for Candidate A over Candidate B isn’t just appealing to your intelligence and general sensibilities. They are speaking with the authority of the Almighty and providing you with guidance as to the maintenance of your immortal soul. This provides them with a position of vastly undue influence over your choices. It’s a parallel to the reason we don’t allow doctors to engage in sexual relations with their patients… they simply hold too much influence over them from positions of assumed trust.
  • Paul Merrell on 05 Feb 17
     
    Let's not forget that corporations are artificial beings; the notion that they have constitutional rights is anathema to our constitution.
Gary Edwards

End the Fed! Congress Debates the Federal Reserve: Reform or Abolish? - 0 views

www.thenewamerican.com/...eral-reserve-reform-or-abolish

Federal-Reserve-Bankster-Cartel Ron-Paul Libertarian

shared by Gary Edwards on 09 May 12 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 09 May 12
     
    synopsis: Tuesday May 8th, 2012 - Dr. Ron Paul Chaired the Congressional subcommittee holding the first hearings on the Federal Reserve Bankster Cartel.  Dr. Paul has become famous around the world for his tireless efforts to audit, expose, and abolish the central bank. Even making that effort the centerpiece of his "Restore the Constitution - Take Back America" run for the presidency.  He published a best-selling book in 2009 entitled "End the Fed", a title that has become a rallying cry for millions of Americans angry about the institution's multi-trillion-dollar bailouts, market manipulations, corruption, and debasement of the currency. The subcommittee hearing, entitled "The Federal Reserve System: Mend It or End It?", examined a range of different proposals to reform the nation's monetary system - it was supposed to look at six different options emanating from both parties. One of the measures on the agenda was Congressman Paul's own "Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act," legislation to dismantle the central bank and restore sound money based on market principles. "More and more people are beginning to understand just how destructive the Federal Reserve's monetary policy has been. I hope that this hearing will kick start a serious discussion on the need to rein in the Fed," Chairman Paul said in a statement about the event. "A hundred years is far too long for Congress to have taken a hands-off approach. The Fed continues to reward Wall Street banks while destroying the dollar's purchasing power and driving up the cost of living for average Americans. This reckless behavior must come to an end."
Gary Edwards

Gang of 545 and The Basic Flaw by Charley Reese - 2 views

www.lewrockwell.com/...reese494.html

Charlie-Reese Libertarian Gang-of-545

shared by Gary Edwards on 31 May 12 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 31 May 12
     
    Enough said.  Beautifully done Charlie! intro: Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does. One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
  • Gary Edwards on 31 May 12
     
    Bay Area Patriot Group post
Gary Edwards

Ron Paul @ The Daily Bell - The NDAA Repeals More Rights - 1 views

www.thedailybell.com/...l-The-NDAA-Repeals-More-Rights

Ron-Paul NDAA Patriot-Act traitorous-bastards Libertarian

shared by Gary Edwards on 27 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 27 Dec 11
     
    Congressman Ron Paul explains the NDAA - National Defense Authorization Act. This military budget and expense Act has been approved by the USA Senate, and includes presidential authorization to arrest and detain Americans without charges. The Act suspends the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It suspends Habeas Corpus. Ron Paul argues that what the Patriot Act does to destroy the 4th Amendment, the NDAA does to the Bill of Rights 5th Amendment. It seems to me that no representative can take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and then vote for either the Patriot Act or NDA Act. The Bill of Rights states exactly what government can't do. And now these traitorous bastards have done it anyway. And people wonder why Ron Paul is so popular? Americans love their Constitution and will demand representatives that will uphold and defend the individual rights and freedoms that sacred document protects.
Gary Edwards

Liberty Defined: The Ten Principles of a Free Society by Ron Paul - 0 views

www.lewrockwell.com/...paul732.html

Ron-Paul Libertarian Liberty-Tryanny Constitutional-Republic

shared by Gary Edwards on 18 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 18 Jan 12
     
    excerpt: This is the Appendix to Ron Paul's new book, Liberty Defined. Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves. Government may not claim the monopoly over a people's money and governments must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability. Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden. Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm. All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.
Gary Edwards

Matt Stoller: Why Ron Paul Challenges Liberals « naked capitalism - 1 views

www.nakedcapitalism.com/...-paul-challenges-liberals.html

Matt-Stoller Ron-Paul Libertarians

shared by Gary Edwards on 03 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 03 Jan 12
     
    Incredible.  
Paul Merrell

Koch-funded climate change skeptic reverses course - latimes.com - 0 views

www.latimes.com/...ourse-20120729,0,7372823.story

climate change propaganda lobbying koch brothers

shared by Paul Merrell on 30 Jul 12 - No Cached
  • The verdict is in: Global warming is occurring and emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity are the main cause. This, according to Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at UC Berkeley, MacArthur Fellow and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. Never mind that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other climatologists around the world came to such conclusions years ago. The difference now is the source: Muller is a long-standing, colorful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G. Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change. 
  • In an opinion piece in Saturday’s New York Times titled “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic,” Muller writes: “Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”
  • Muller’s New York Times commentary follows research he did last year that confirmed the work of scientists who found the Earth’s temperature was rising. In the past, Muller had criticized which global temperatures were used in such research, contending that some monitoring stations provided inaccurate data.  Now, Berkeley’s research has weighed in on the causes of the temperature rise, testing arguments climate contrarians have used. “What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees?” Muller writes. “We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.”
Gary Edwards

Liberty in the Breach - 2 views

bayareapatriot.blogspot.com/...umbled-across-draft-sarah.html

liberty Liberty-in-the-breach Sarah-Palin Libertarians

shared by Gary Edwards on 10 Feb 12 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 10 Feb 12
     
    Lengthy blog post discussing the Draft Sarah Palin post.
Gary Edwards

Three Schools of Economic Wizardry | The Rugged Individualist - 0 views

theruggedindividualist.wordpress.com/...e-schools-of-economic-wizardry

Mish Mike-Shedlock Voodoo-Economics Economic-Wizards Austrian-Economics Libertarian

shared by Gary Edwards on 16 Jun 12 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 16 Jun 12
     
    Exceellent repub of Mike Shedlock's wonderful article describing the 3 Schools of Economic Wizardry.  Includes a simplified but exacting view of the "why and how"  the Keynesian and Monetarist Wizardry Schools wreck havoc on the world.   ... Keynesian Voodoo Wizards ... Monetarist Voodoo Wizards ... Austrian Realists Remember the voodoo motto: "If it doesn't work, keep doing more of it, even if that is what got you in trouble in the first place!" ..... Excerpt: Once upon a time (today), in a land not so far away (USA), there lived a trio of economic wizards (economists), whose names shall remain anonymous (Paul Krugman, Greg Mankiw, Ben Bernanke). A fourth wizard, Murry Rothbard, is no longer among the living but resides in the netherworld. The above wizards seldom agree with each other because they come from competing schools of wizardry. Three Schools of Economic Wizardry 1. Keynesian School of Fiscal Voodoo and Witchcraft 2. Monetarist School of Monetary Voodoo and Witchcraft 3. Austrian School of Sound Money, Sound Economic Principles and Common Sense. "Dark Arts" Wizardry The first two wizardry schools belong to a class of wizardry promoted to aspiring wizards as the "Dark Arts." Philosophical Beliefs Keynesian wizards believe governments can spend their way to economic health and although fiscal deficits may matter at some point in time, they never matter now, in practice. Monetarist wizards believe money will cure any and every problem if enough is dropped from helicopters and interest rates held low. Austrian wizards believe that economic problems are created by unsound money, haphazard loans, excessive debts, and government manipulations. Keynesian and Monetarist wizards believe in the voodoo principle "the problem is the solution if only you do more of it." The former relies primarily on fiscal voodoo; the latter relies primarily on monetary voodoo. Austrian wizards do not believe "the problem is the solution," no matter ho
Gary Edwards

Voices Without A Vote - YouTube - 0 views

www.youtube.com/watch

Liberty-in-the-breach liberty Libertarian-Conservative

shared by Gary Edwards on 21 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 21 Sep 12
     
    Produced in San Diego County by local college students, and local high schoolers.....can you believe it....in California!!   A group of high school students in San Diego California made this video expressing their concerns about the importance of the upcoming election.  Excellent stuff!  They make a sincere plea for voters to stand up and defend the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuCaWYvpVZg "The teenagers who speak in this video belong to http://www.im2moro.org. These young people realize that if they don't stand up and speak out for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness today, they will be living in a very different America tomorrow."
Paul Merrell

Tech giants reach White House deal on NSA surveillance of customer data | World news | ... - 0 views

www.theguardian.com/...eal-surveillance-customer-data

surveillance state NSA litigation settlement public-disclosure FISA-Court

shared by Paul Merrell on 29 Jan 14 - No Cached
  • The Obama administration has reached a deal with a number of technology giants, allowing the companies to disclose more information on customer data they are compelled to share with the government.Announced on Monday, the transparency arrangement ends months of legal wrangling between the companies and US intelligence agencies before a secret surveillance court, to compel the disclosures.The disclosures are to be nonspecific, listed by the thousand and subject in some cases to a six-month delay – speaking to the large quantities of data that the government still plans on collecting from its technology partners. In order to be more specific about the amount of data turned over, the companies must be less specific about the type of data it is.The deal also explicitly points to a delay of up to two years on revealing information on data collected under surveillance programs the National Security Agency may yet develop.
  • But the deal also purports to shed far more light than ever on a question the intelligence agencies have been extremely reluctant to address – the number of people affected by NSA surveillance.The Justice Department said the transparency deal also applies to phone companies that turn over, on a daily basis, the records of every phone call made in the US. The phone companies have not exhibited the same agitation for transparency in the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations as have tech firms.
  • The new arrangement addresses a major grievance held by Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook and LinkedIn, which all joined a coalition called Reform Government Surveillance in order to pressure the administration into reassuring their customers about the propriety and legality of giving vast amounts of data to the NSA, FBI and other government agencies. It does not curtail the amount of data demanded, which is another demand of the coalition. 
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Additionally, once the NSA or other government agency develops a surveillance effort on “a platform, product or service (whether developed or acquired) for which the company has not previously received such an order”, the firms must wait two years before disclosure of its existence. Such “new capability orders” would subsequently be subject to the same biannual reporting requirements after the two-year period expires.
  • The five firms that were party to the Fisa court transparency suit agreed to drop their case, according to a document released by the court on Monday. Civil libertarians were optimistic about the deal. 
Gary Edwards

The Ten Policy Changes Cruz Thinks Can Transform America - 0 views

blog.heritage.org/...z-thinks-can-transform-america

shared by Gary Edwards on 07 Mar 14 - No Cached
  • 1. “Defend the constitution. All of it.”
  • 2. “We need to abolish the IRS. We need to adopt a simple flat tax that is fair [so] that every American can fill out his taxes on a postcard.”
  • 3. “We need to expand energy in this country and create high-paying jobs all over America.”
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • 4. “We need to expand school choice. Every child deserves an opportunity to have an excellent education, regardless of your race, your class, your creed, where you come from – every child deserves a fair chance at the American Dream.”
  • 5. “We need to repeal Dodd-Frank.”
  • 6. “We need to audit the Federal Reserve
  • Unaccountable power in Washington debasing our currency, driving up the cost of food and gas and the basic stuff of life is hurting Americans who are struggling across this country. And I’ll tell you what else it’s doing: It’s fueling the abuse of power by petro-tyrants like Putin.”
  • 7. “We need to pass a strong balanced budget amendment. We need to stop bankrupting our country.”
  • 8. “We need to repeal every single word of Obamacare.”
  • 9. “We need to stop the lawlessness.
  • This President of the United States is the first President we’ve ever had who thinks he can choose which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore. He announces just about every day one change after another after another in Obamacare. It is utterly lawless. It is inconsistent with our Constitution, and it ought to trouble everyone – Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians.”
  • 10. “We need to end the corruption.
  • We need to eliminate corporate welfare and crony capitalism. If you come to Washington and serve in Congress, there should be a lifetime ban on lobbying. And we need to pass a strong constitutional amendment that puts into law term limits.”
Gary Edwards

Obama To Americans: You Don't Deserve To Be Free - Forbes - 0 views

www.forbes.com/...2

Obammunism Statism Ayn-Rand-Libertarian

shared by Gary Edwards on 02 Jan 14 - No Cached
  • We radical capitalists say that it was the regulatory-welfare state that imploded in 2008. You may disagree, but let’s argue that out, rather than engaging in the Big Lie that what failed was laissez-faire and individualism. The question is: in the messy mixture of government controls and remnants of capitalism, which element caused the Great Depression and the recent financial crisis?
  • By raising that question, we uncover the fundamental: the meaning of capitalism and the meaning of government controls. Capitalism means freedom. Government means force.
  • Suddenly, the whole issue comes into focus: Obama is saying that freedom leads to poverty and force leads to wealth. He’s saying: “Look, we tried leaving you free to live your own life, and that didn’t work. You have to be forced, you have to have your earnings seized by the state, you have to work under our directions–under penalty of fines or imprisonment. You don’t deserve to be free.”
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • As a bit of ugly irony, this is precisely what former white slave-owners said after the Civil War: “The black man can’t handle freedom; we have to force him for his own good.” The innovation of the Left is to extend that viewpoint to all races.
  • Putting the issue as force vs. freedom shows how the shoe is on the other foot regarding what Obama said. Let me re-write it: there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The government will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just pile on even more regulations and raise taxes–especially on the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the losers are protected by more social programs and a higher minimum wage, if there is more Quantitative Easing by the Fed, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle up to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle up, well, that’s the price of the social safety net. Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our intellectuals’ collectivism and Paul Krugman’s skepticism about freedom. That’s in Harvard’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the Soviet Union. It’s not what led to the incredible booms in India and China. And it didn’t work when Europe tried it during over the last decades. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this statist theory.
  • Obama’s real antagonist is Ayn Rand, who made the case that reason is man’s basic means of survival and coercion is anti-reason. Force initiated against free, innocent men is directed at stopping them from acting on their own thinking. It makes them, under threat of fines and imprisonment, act as the government demands rather than as they think their self-interest requires. That’s the whole point of threatening force: to make people act against their own judgment.
Gary Edwards

Obama To Americans: You Don't Deserve To Be Free - Forbes - 1 views

www.forbes.com/...ns-you-dont-deserve-to-be-free

Obammunism Statism Ayn-Rand-Libertarian

shared by Gary Edwards on 02 Jan 14 - No Cached
  • President Obama’s Kansas speech is a remarkable document. In calling for more government controls, more taxation, more collectivism, he has two paragraphs that give the show away. Take a look at them. there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes–especially for the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty. Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.
  • Though not in Washington, I’m in that “certain crowd” that has been saying for decades that the market will take care of everything. It’s not really a crowd, it’s a tiny group of radicals–radicals for capitalism, in Ayn Rand’s well-turned phrase. The only thing that the market doesn’t take care of is anti-market acts: acts that initiate physical force. That’s why we need government: to wield retaliatory force to defend individual rights. Radicals for capitalism would, as the Declaration of Independence says, use government only “to secure these rights”–the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. (Yes, I added “property” in there–property rights are inseparable from the other three.) That’s the political philosophy on which Obama is trying to hang the blame for the recent financial crisis and every other social ill. But ask yourself, are we few radical capitalists in charge? Have radical capitalists been in charge at any time in the last, oh, say 100 years?
  • I pick 100 years deliberately, because it was exactly 100 years ago that a gigantic anti-capitalist measure was put into effect: the Federal Reserve System. For 100 years, government, not the free market, has controlled money and banking. How’s that worked out? How’s the value of the dollar held up since 1913? Is it worth one-fiftieth of its value then or only one-one-hundredth? You be the judge. How did the dollar hold up over the 100 years before this government take-over of money and banking? It actually gained slightly in value.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Laissez-faire hasn’t existed since the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. That was the first of a plethora of government crimes against the free market.
  • The typical Republican would never, ever say “the market will take care of everything.” He’d say, “the market will take care of most things, and for the other things, we need the regulatory-welfare state.” They are for individualism–except when they are against it. They are against free markets and individualism not only when they agree with the Left that we must have antitrust laws and the Federal Reserve, but also when they demand immigration controls, government schools, regulatory agencies, Medicare, laws prohibiting abortion, Social Security, “public works” projects, the “social safety net,” laws against insider trading, banking regulation, and the whole system of fiat money.
  • Even you, dear reader, are probably wondering how on earth anyone could challenge things like Social Security, government schools, and the FDA. But that’s not the point. The point is: these statist, anti-capitalist programs exist and have existed for about a century. The point is: Obama is pretending that the Progressive PGR -2.02% Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society were repealed, so that he can blame the financial crisis on capitalism. He’s pretending that George Bush was George Washington.
  • What Obama is indeed responsible for is the injustice of robbing some to (allegedly) benefit others. To the extent that cronyism, not the free market, sets income, that is an injustice to be laid at the statists’ door.
  • There is no such problem as “unemployment” under capitalism. Prices fall to clear the market. Twice the work force could be employed if average wages dropped in half. But that’s nominal wages; with a constant money supply, prices would also fall in half–or slightly more than that. This isn’t just theory. America’s workforce has grown steadily decade after decade, yet the standard of living has risen at the same time. I grant you that the rise has slowed as statist intervention has grown. Think of the phenomenal progress between, say 1900 and 1920 as compared to the minor progress from 1993 to 2013. Most of the progress in the last 20 years has come in the freest area of the economy: electronics and computing.
  • Gary Edwards on 02 Jan 14
     
    Harry Binswanger defends laissez-faire capitalism, using Ayn Rand Objectivism.
  • Paul Merrell on 02 Jan 14
     
    The major problem with Ayn Rand Objectivism is that it's an "ism." The Utopian ideal it is based on has never existed in reality and likely never will; its principles have never been tested. Moreover, I will argue that Binswanger is incorrect in arguing that the anti-capitalist phenomenon in America began with creation of the Federal Reserve; it dates much farther back. The economic basis for the Revolutionary War was largely the Crown-granted monopolies granted to the first great British "companies" (corporations), which had the effect of forcing North American colonists to pay monopoly rents for common goods and kept American ship owners from importing those goods from elsewhere to sell at a lower price. The Founding Fathers were strongly against privately-owned corporations and government-granted monopolies, with only two exceptions, copyrights for literary works and patents for inventions. The Constitution's prohibition against government-granted monopolies is implicit in its allowance for only two narrowly-defined types. The Founding Fathers' writings explicitly discussed the difference between "natural" monopolies and those created by government or anti-competitive conduct. During the early years of the nation corporations were permitted by the States, but only for public purposes, usually for public works such as bridges or roads for which there was a need to amass capital. These early American corporations were usually chartered only for the time required to complete the public work and to recover the invesment and a small profit, e.g., from tolls for using a bridge or road. Many of the early state constitutions explicitly limited the lifetime of corporations. However, such early opposition to corporations gradually eroded; corporate purposes were expanded, corporations were granted perpetual life, and the corporate form of doing business became much more widespread. Here, it is important to recognize that corporations are market artificialities c
« First ‹ Previous 101 - 120 of 141 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page