hipsterlibertarian: From the article: Women tend to vote for Democrats and non-libertarian Republicans over candidates who more consistently advocate limited government. On an anecdotal level, it’s not uncommon in the youth liberty movement where I work to joke about how an upcoming event will be awesome because there will be “at least one girl for every 30 guys!” (We do actually have a much better ratio than that, I promise.) Some of this discrepancy is perhaps due to a problem of messaging to which libertarians are especially prone: In focusing on the rights and value inherent to the individual, it’s easy for us to forget that the average citizen thinks of herself (and is thought of by those around her) as a member of a number of social categories: female, Muslim, middle class, Hispanic. And, for better or worse, these perceptions influence both the way a person thinks she “should” think about politics and the way others expect her to think about politics. So whether we like it or not, if the liberty movement seeks to continue to grow in popularity, libertarians must learn to speak to the many distinct audiences who may not yet support our message. With women, many say, this messaging problem is particularly tricky because apparently “women are natural socialists”: We want everyone to share and everyone to get along. We are nurturers, and we expect the “haves” to take care of the “have-nots,” the strong to take care of the weak, and the brave to protect the others. … We want everyone to like us and we want everyone to like each other. Men, to put it simply, are more independent in thought and action. Now, this “women are natural socialists” line is one I’ve heard a lot — and one which I don’t find particularly helpful in this or any political debate. After all, if the gentler sex just can’t help loving big government, why bother their pretty little heads arguing with them about it? No use fighting nature, and anyway, dinner will boil over while she tries to think! But the modern liberty movement was actually founded by three (or four?) women, so theoretically libertarianism shouldn’t be too much of a stretch for women today. What’s good for the gander should be good for the goose, and a visit to any Ron Paul rally will make clear that the ideas of liberty appeal to a very wide range of people from all walks of life — all social categories, if you will. Read the whole thing here. Lovely, as always, Bonnie! c:

Apropos to today apparently being International Women’s Day, I’ve got a new piece up at the Daily Caller about why women should be libertarians.

Libertarianism is all about leading by example. Top-down paternalism is the most condescending, morally void, and impotent form of government—regardless of whether it is parental or state rule.

Psychological research continuously shows that respectful dialogue-rich authoritative parenting produces more nurturing parent-child relationships with fewer instances of destructive behaviours and that ‘Because I said so’ authoritarian parenting tends to produce less confident, less happy children with lower self-esteem and lower creativity, in addition to alienated, resentful parent-child relationships. 

We have an obligation to demand and create a government worth respecting, which respects its citizens. Oppression is overwhelmingly psychological in nature; recognize the symptoms and treat the disease.

(Source: http://sinfulcadbury.tumblr.com)

ladysatan:

The dog was named Parrot. This was taken moments before Parrot was murdered by the cop. The cop drove his knee into the middle of Parrot’s back while stretching Parrot’s forelegs behind him, as one would do with an armed criminal. Without waiting to determine whether this technique would calm Parrot, the cop grabbed Parrot, lifted him off the ground, and brought him to the top of the concrete staircase. He threw Parrot over the banister, down twelve steps, and onto the concrete floor. Then, the cop stood at the top of the stairs, drew his weapon, and executed Parrot. Aaron, the animal’s owner, cannot recall the number of shots fired. Witnesses state that Parrot was not harming anybody and was simply frightened by the cop.

It was all I could do just to keep from crying, reading this.

The state of animal rights and police accountability in this country are abominable. Even if the dog had been vicious, the sheer absurdity of shooting one who we can assume suffered multiple broken bones—in addition to almost certain internal bleeding and loss of consciousness—is just too much to bear. In America, the law treats pets like property.  

You want to know why I’m so concerned with property rights? Among many other reasons, like dignity, peace of mind, and the right to keep what one has earned, I care about property rights because without them, the state cannot be held accountable for the destruction inherent to its existence. And when pets are considered property, respect for property rights prevents egregious rights violations, most importantly negative rights, such as the right not to be killed.

I write this as my puppy naps beside me and it is physically painful to imagine if she were the one who was brutally murdered. In all honesty, I would have probably assaulted the officer and attempted to shield my puppy from him, because this situation does nothing if not demand vigilantism.

What I ask is that each time you hear someone bring up the topic of animal rights, consider that for so many people, myself included, their pet is their child. Now consider whether the state would be justified in killing your child, especially if your child stated a willingness to become violent, if the police attacked you. In Parrot’s case, there was no threat of violence, but I am of the position that murdering an animal, especially without allowing their owner to diffuse the situation, is wrong and should be prosecuted in all cases, unless it is a case of documentable self-defense, as with humans.

This case of abuse is disgusting and I cannot fathom the emotional turmoil from which the owner suffers. Sociopaths like this should not be stationed anywhere with potential warm-blooded assault; basic respect for living things is paramount in any kind of position whose responsibility it is to ‘preserve the peace’. If we fail to demand this, we tacitly consent to institutionalized violence. 

fastcompany:

We hear support for legalizing marijuana is at an all time high. A while back Print Magazine asked four designers to imagine what a legal pot package might look like. Here’s what they produced.

I love packaging design. Love it. Way back when I thought I was going to go into art, that’s where I thought I was headed, so obviously, the intersection of design and libertarianism makes me so happy! Is this not reason alone to legalize it? Those little nickel bags are so tacky.*

*Oh, and I don’t smoke (or drink; I’m an unbiased straight-edge libertarian). As long as I don’t have to deal with the negative externalities, I am fully supportive of your right to, though.

(Source: http://www.fastcodesign.com/1320039/imagine-pot-was-legal-how-would-you-brand-it)

Privatization and deregulation: do it for the children. Do it for innovation, creativity, growth, and the humanity which is repressed by the systematic indoctrination ingrained within the public school system.

It is an injustice to subject innocent human beings to ritualistic, impersonal, and largely non-nurturing institutions which are not so different, in reality, to the similarly rigid and ritualistic insanity that comprises our prison system. Psychological oppression is no more acceptable than its physical counterpart; we need to stop communicating through complacency that it is.

(Source: http://thinksquad.tumblr.com/post/10143219294)

Check one: ‘socialist,’ ‘libertarian,’ ‘polyamorous,’ ‘confused,’ or ‘other’

I’ve gone through the difficult process of coming out as a libertarian, but now I’m wondering if I’m just ‘confused’… Not because I do not adhere to/strongly believe in libertarianism, but because, to compare political leaning to sexuality, I am starting to wonder if I am even sure from what species I have chosen (if that makes sense). I mean, is it just me, or does anyone else just have days where you have no idea what is going on (in the news, in terms of the human psyche, with others’ moral economies, with physics (well, my basal ganglia is damaged, so my constant running into things is probably not a universal experience))? My personality type (ENTP) is supposed to have trouble with tradition/convention/norms, but I’m pretty sure that’s meant more on a functional level than conceptual. Maybe I’m just reality-challenged. I did, after all, fail those assignments in elementary school which told us to decide if statements were fact or opinion and I wrote that all of them were opinions (‘this is green.’ ‘no, that’s teal.’ ‘this is money.’ ‘no, that’s paper with traces of cocaine on it.’).

And I think I’m the only person who’s annoyed by their own introspection. Totally useless. I could have run a mile in the time I wasted thinking about this, or talked in a high pitched voice at my dog using grammatically incorrect pronouns, but instead I am slowly atrophying into a libertarian stereotype while destroying my retinas ughhhhh……

In light of Occupy Wall Street, I’d like to offer a gentle reminder that you are responsible for yourself; the police, like the rest of the government, will not defend your rights for you. So protect yourselves, be safe, and know your rights.

(Source: http://nopalxochitl.tumblr.com/post/4581978332)

No one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens but its lowest ones.

Nelson Mandela (via girlwholoveshumanity)

Chief Raoni crying when he learned that the President of Brazil approved the Belo Monte dam project on the Xingu indigenous lands. Belo Monte will be bigger than the Panama Canal, flooding nearly a million acres of rainforest & indigenous lands. 40,000 indigenous and local people will be forced off their lands (as well as millions of unknown species & plants).

Anyone who’s heard me discuss economic development knows that I do not like Brazil (nor do I like Latin America in general as an economist, but that’s a rant for another time). This is a pretty good summary of why. Brazil’s impressive ‘development’, warranting its inclusion in BRICS as an up-and-coming country (as an economic power), has been driven primarily by heavy ISI strategies and generally large government, which allowed human development to lag embarrassingly behind economic growth (I never harp on income inequality, except in Latin America, in which case, it is the largest gap in the world and is caused almost exclusively by corruption and clientelism (whoa, I just realized that I wrote about that exact issue today on my LA Politics exam)). At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter if you miraculously created a competitive government-owned oil company (Petrobras or PBR) or a solid aeronautics industry; property rights and, in turn, human rights, are destroyed through big government and its ability to transcend accountability and responsibility. Violations of indigenous peoples’ rights are almost always at the hand of the government… Less than 100 years ago, the US government separated ‘mixed’ Native American/Whites from their families, to prevent cultural assimilation with the ‘uncivilized’—my mother was actually afraid to record her ethnicity on any kind of government documentation until recently. Not to mention the government shoved all of these people into Oklahoma, which has got to suck, in and of itself (I apologize to any followers hailing from the desert).

(Source: http://fugu-suicide.tumblr.com/post/10795058768/this-isnt-something-i-post-normally-but-this-hit)