Upcoming Events:
J. Millard Tawes Crab and Clam Bake
Wednesday, 21 July, 12:30 pm to 4 pm
Somers Cove Marina, Crisfield, Maryland
http://www.crisfieldchamber.com/clambake.htm
MDLP Central Committee Meeting
This is special meeting of the CC for the purpose of nominating 2 potential candidates for the state House of Delegates elections this November:
Josh Crandall 31st legislative district (AA County)
Ron Owens-Bey 45th legislative district (NE Baltimore City)
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, 21 July, 7 pm, at the home of Robert Glaser.
http://www.md.lp.org/events/events.php?2010#202
There will be a fundraising event for Mike Calpino, candidate for the Wicomico County Council, next Saturday:
Bivalve, MD: On Saturday July 24, 2010 from 7:00pm - 9:00pm, District 2 Wicomico County Coucnil candidate, Mike Calpino (Libertarian), will be holding an Ice Cream Social at the West Side Community Center in Bivalve, Maryland. This will be a joint fund raising event with fellow AFP/Tea Party activist and At-Large Wicomico County Council candidate, Mike Brewington (Democrat). Both candidates will be speaking to share their vision for Wicomico County and what the Liberty Movement is all about.
Contact Muir Boda for more details, at (410) 603-3347, or mwboda@me.com.
Congratulations to Dr. Richard Davis, our candidate for the US House 1st district, for being endorsed by the Conservative Congress:
http://www.examiner.com/x-53057-Wicomico-Libertarian-Party-Examiner~y2010m7d14-Dr-Richard-Davis-endorsed-by-the-Conservative-Congress?cid=channel-rss-Politics
Not a member of the MDLP? Has your membership expired? Please join; your much-needed funds go to ballot access, outreach, publishing the triennial newsletter, and supporting our candidates.
http://www.md.lp.org/join-form.pdf (cash, check, money order)
https://co.clickandpledge.com/advanced/default.aspx?wid=23698 (credit card)
If you prefer, I would be happy to mail you an order form.
Be sure to join the MDLP Yahoo Groups email lists, particularly the "announce" and discussion lists: http://www.md.lp.org/email_lists.php
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Where Do Libertarians Belong?
Brink Lindsey, Jonah Goldberg & Matt Kibbe from the August-September 2010 issue
For those who cherish the ideals of free minds and free markets, 21st century politics in the United States has not been a particularly welcoming place. The big-government conservatism of George W. Bush has been followed by the bigger- government liberalism of Barack Obama. The twin crises of 9/11 and the 2008 financial meltdown spawned the twin leviathans of national security hyperextension and the never-ending bailout. The nation’s political class has rallied around the economic ideas of John Maynard Keynes, and the country’s short-term financial picture only looks tenable when compared to the long-term fiscal nightmare that just about everyone agrees is coming.
So where should libertarians drop anchor and forge alliances within the famous four-sided Nolan Chart spectrum of political beliefs and groupings? In this exchange, Contributing Editor Brink Lindsey argues that it’s time, once and for all, to sever the libertarian-conservative alliance that dates back to the New Deal while remaining skeptical about the illiberal populism of Tea Party activism. In response, a conservative writer—National Review Online Editor-at-Large Jonah Goldberg—disputes Lindsey’s portrayal of the right and contends that the only major party giving free market economics the time of day is the GOP. Meanwhile, FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe tells Lindsey and his think tank fellow travelers to climb down off that high horse and celebrate the most promising limited-government popular uprising in generations.
Read more at Reason
For those who cherish the ideals of free minds and free markets, 21st century politics in the United States has not been a particularly welcoming place. The big-government conservatism of George W. Bush has been followed by the bigger- government liberalism of Barack Obama. The twin crises of 9/11 and the 2008 financial meltdown spawned the twin leviathans of national security hyperextension and the never-ending bailout. The nation’s political class has rallied around the economic ideas of John Maynard Keynes, and the country’s short-term financial picture only looks tenable when compared to the long-term fiscal nightmare that just about everyone agrees is coming.
So where should libertarians drop anchor and forge alliances within the famous four-sided Nolan Chart spectrum of political beliefs and groupings? In this exchange, Contributing Editor Brink Lindsey argues that it’s time, once and for all, to sever the libertarian-conservative alliance that dates back to the New Deal while remaining skeptical about the illiberal populism of Tea Party activism. In response, a conservative writer—National Review Online Editor-at-Large Jonah Goldberg—disputes Lindsey’s portrayal of the right and contends that the only major party giving free market economics the time of day is the GOP. Meanwhile, FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe tells Lindsey and his think tank fellow travelers to climb down off that high horse and celebrate the most promising limited-government popular uprising in generations.
Read more at Reason
Toy Story 3 and the Tea Party Movement
How concerns about lost liberty are filtering into mainstream culture. by David Harsanyi
July 14, 2010
Is Toy Story 3 a parable for today's deep political discontent?
Think about it. A slick sloganeering teddy bear convinces a gaggle of beleaguered toys that he holds the key to a brighter future. The toys, longing for leadership after years of broken promises and incompetence, uncritically submit to the teddy bear's vision.
Before long, even non-Ivy Leaguers like Mr. Potato Head, Rex, and Slinky catch on. All creeds of plaything are forced to sacrifice liberty and happiness for the collective good—as imagined by a technocratic leader, his feckless vice-leader (a Ken doll), and their muscle (a giant baby doll).
First there is concern and then anger and then revolt. Even Barbie—having shown no interest in political activism for more than 50 years—unleashes the best line in the history of animated films: "Authority should derive from the consent of the governed, not from the threat of force!"
Naturally, that's the lesson the screenwriters for Toy Story 3 were trying to convey to the American people. Though, admittedly, my 6-year-old had a somewhat different interpretation of Pixar's creation. Then again, she's a hopeless bleeding heart.
I, on the other hand, need this. Before children, a movie theater was a place for me to escape into flimsy narratives, hyper-violence, and juvenile bromances.
Read More at Reason
July 14, 2010
Is Toy Story 3 a parable for today's deep political discontent?
Think about it. A slick sloganeering teddy bear convinces a gaggle of beleaguered toys that he holds the key to a brighter future. The toys, longing for leadership after years of broken promises and incompetence, uncritically submit to the teddy bear's vision.
Before long, even non-Ivy Leaguers like Mr. Potato Head, Rex, and Slinky catch on. All creeds of plaything are forced to sacrifice liberty and happiness for the collective good—as imagined by a technocratic leader, his feckless vice-leader (a Ken doll), and their muscle (a giant baby doll).
First there is concern and then anger and then revolt. Even Barbie—having shown no interest in political activism for more than 50 years—unleashes the best line in the history of animated films: "Authority should derive from the consent of the governed, not from the threat of force!"
Naturally, that's the lesson the screenwriters for Toy Story 3 were trying to convey to the American people. Though, admittedly, my 6-year-old had a somewhat different interpretation of Pixar's creation. Then again, she's a hopeless bleeding heart.
I, on the other hand, need this. Before children, a movie theater was a place for me to escape into flimsy narratives, hyper-violence, and juvenile bromances.
Read More at Reason
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Washington's Parasites Take Aim at Apple
by David Boaz
This article appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on July 11, 2010
Following in the distinguished footsteps of Microsoft and Google, Apple is the latest innovative company to be targeted by politicians and regulators for being too successful. Will it be sucked into Washington's "parasite economy"?
For more than a decade, Microsoft went about its business, developing software, selling it to customers, and — happily, legally — making money. Then in 1995, after repeated assaults by the Justice Department's antitrust division, Microsoft broke down and started playing the Beltway game — defensively at first.
Washington politicians and journalists sneered at Microsoft's initial political innocence. A congressional aide said, "They don't want to play the D.C. game, that's clear, and they've gotten away with it so far. The problem is, in the long run they won't be able to."
The political establishment was essentially telling Bill Gates, "Nice little company ya got there. Shame if anything happened to it."
And Microsoft got the message: If you want to produce something in America, you'd better play the game. Contribute to politicians' campaigns, hire their friends, go hat in hand to a congressional hearing, and apologize for your success.
A decade later, it was Google. After a humble start in a Stanford dorm room, Google delivered a cheap and indispensable product and became the biggest success story of the early 21st century.
But in our modern politicized economy — which author Jonathan Rauch called the "parasite economy" — no good deed goes unpunished for long. Some policymakers threatened to create a federal Office of Search Engines to regulate Google. The George W. Bush administration wanted Google to turn over a million random Web addresses and records of all searches from a one-week period. Congress investigated how the company deals with the Chinese government's demands for censorship.
So, like Microsoft and other companies before it, Google opened a Washington office and hired well-connected lobbyists.
And now Apple. After years as a cute little niche player, Apple has suddenly started producing wildly popular products such as the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. The Federal Trade Commission has started rumbling about Apple's threat to competition. Note the absurdity here: Apple creates whole new products and industries, consumer benefits that didn't exist before, and the federal government worries that it's somehow going to "limit" competition in a field it brought to the market.
Apple's competitors, including the massive Google, continue to play the game by filing complaints with the government.
Read More at CATO
This article appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on July 11, 2010
Following in the distinguished footsteps of Microsoft and Google, Apple is the latest innovative company to be targeted by politicians and regulators for being too successful. Will it be sucked into Washington's "parasite economy"?
For more than a decade, Microsoft went about its business, developing software, selling it to customers, and — happily, legally — making money. Then in 1995, after repeated assaults by the Justice Department's antitrust division, Microsoft broke down and started playing the Beltway game — defensively at first.
Washington politicians and journalists sneered at Microsoft's initial political innocence. A congressional aide said, "They don't want to play the D.C. game, that's clear, and they've gotten away with it so far. The problem is, in the long run they won't be able to."
The political establishment was essentially telling Bill Gates, "Nice little company ya got there. Shame if anything happened to it."
And Microsoft got the message: If you want to produce something in America, you'd better play the game. Contribute to politicians' campaigns, hire their friends, go hat in hand to a congressional hearing, and apologize for your success.
A decade later, it was Google. After a humble start in a Stanford dorm room, Google delivered a cheap and indispensable product and became the biggest success story of the early 21st century.
But in our modern politicized economy — which author Jonathan Rauch called the "parasite economy" — no good deed goes unpunished for long. Some policymakers threatened to create a federal Office of Search Engines to regulate Google. The George W. Bush administration wanted Google to turn over a million random Web addresses and records of all searches from a one-week period. Congress investigated how the company deals with the Chinese government's demands for censorship.
So, like Microsoft and other companies before it, Google opened a Washington office and hired well-connected lobbyists.
And now Apple. After years as a cute little niche player, Apple has suddenly started producing wildly popular products such as the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. The Federal Trade Commission has started rumbling about Apple's threat to competition. Note the absurdity here: Apple creates whole new products and industries, consumer benefits that didn't exist before, and the federal government worries that it's somehow going to "limit" competition in a field it brought to the market.
Apple's competitors, including the massive Google, continue to play the game by filing complaints with the government.
Read More at CATO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)