6 ms·

A few of the cases IJ has fought: - a bagel shop owner in Seattle wanted the right to hold a sign to promote his business - El Paso, TX passed a law that food

by a5seo 14y ago

A few of the cases IJ has fought: - a bagel shop owner in Seattle wanted the right to hold a sign to promote his business - El Paso, TX passed a law that food trucks could not setup within a block of a traditional restaurant - Florida passed a law requiring interior decorators to get a license - Washington DC passed a law requiring that African hair braiders get a cosmetology license (which requires beauty school degree) yet beauty schools do not teach traditional African hair braiding (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/06/21/154826233/why-its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/06/21/154826233/why-its-...) - Dallas, Texas passed a law saying businesses couldn't display signs in their windows due to safety (of course, nothing requires them to have ANY windows) - New London, CT used eminent domain to take an entire neighborhood of private homes to give the land to Phizer because Phizer would generate more tax revenue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

dmix 14y ago
When I read things like this, I'm amazed libertarians have such a social stigma against them. Austrian economics is debatable in very large populations with entrenched governments but these social issues are so obviously wrong and it seems (civil) libertarians are the only ones highly vocal against them... yet they would still be considered radical in most contexts.
- eru 14y ago
  I guess libertarians would be better off, if the Austrian economics faction within them was less vocal.
  - maratd 14y ago
    There are no factions. If you're a libertarian, you're a supporter of both ... because liberty is the point.
    - kijin 14y ago
      There is such a thing as left-libertarianism...
    - dlitz 14y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
    - vidarh 14y ago
      If liberty was the point, they'd not be libertarians by US standards. Right wing US style libertarianism is "liberty for all, except when it threatens my ability to monopolize property, when I prefer liberty only for me". Maximizing liberty for all necessarily requires severe limitations on government enforcement of private property, for example.
    - anon1385 14y ago
      This isn't true. People who call themselves 'libertarians' seem quite happy to vote for people who are extremely socially conservative. The economics is what they care about (and perhaps pot). Obviously the GOP is very socially conservative, but so are factions of the Libertarian Party. In 2008 the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States was Bob Barr: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr >During his tenure, Barr was regarded as one of the most conservative members of Congress. In 2002, he was described by Bill Shipp in an OnlineAthens.com article as "the idol of the gun-toting, abortion-fighting, IRS-hating hard right wing of American politics" >He voted for the first USA PATRIOT Act >Barr took a lead in legislative debate concerning same-sex marriage. He authored and sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, a law enacted in 1996 which states that only marriages that are between a man and a woman can be federally recognized, and individual states may choose not to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state >Barr was originally a strong supporter of the War on Drugs, reflecting his previous experience as an Anti-Drug Coordinator for the United States Department of Justice. While in Congress, he was a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America. >Barr advocated complete federal prohibition of medical marijuana. In 1998, he successfully blocked implementation of Initiative 59 — the "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998" — which would have legalized medical marijuana in Washington, D.C. The "Barr Amendment" to the 1999 Omnibus spending bill not only blocked implementation of Initiative 59, but also prohibited the vote tally from even being released. Nearly a year passed before a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union eventually revealed the initiative had received 69 percent of the vote. In response to the judge's ruling, Barr simply attached another "Barr Amendment" to the 2000 Omnibus spending bill that overturned Initiative 59 outright. The Barr Amendment also prohibited future laws that would "decrease the penalties for marijuana or other Schedule I drugs" in Washington, D.C. This preemptively blocked future attempts by Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) to reform marijuana laws in DC via the initiative process. In March 2002, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan struck down this portion of the Barr Amendment as being an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. Barr's response to the ruling was defiant: >Clearly, the court today has ignored the constitutional right and responsibility of Congress to pass laws protecting citizens from dangerous and addictive narcotics, and the right of Congress to exert legislative control over the District of Columbia as the nation's capital. —Bob Barr, March 28, 2002
  - NoPiece 14y ago
    I think it is the libertarian foreign policy that is more of a roadblock to the mainstream. Most Americans, left and right support some level of foreign intervention whether it is active military intervention, bases abroad, humanitarian aid, mutual defense treaties, etc... Austrian economics is dry, but pretty plausible and appealing. Isolationism is a tougher sell.
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      There is a very large area between isolationism and having bases abroad and active military interventions.
      - NoPiece 14y ago
        Fair enough, there is a difference between non-intervention and isolationism. However, whatever you call it, that position is much more divergent from mainstream opinions than libertarian economics.
    - dantheman 14y ago
      Isolationism and non-interventionism are two different things. Libertarianism is non-interventionalist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism
    - Benferhat 14y ago
      Branding it "isolationism" is a Fox News trick, which allowed people to quickly and easily dismiss Ron Paul as nonsensical.
      - NoPiece 14y ago
        Maybe it isn't isolationism, but it isn't a trickery to call it such. If you offered the text of the Libertarian platform on international affairs, many was say it describes an isolationist policy, without intending trickery. Also, whatever the position libertarian take today, there have been strong isolationists who have been key members of the movement, like Murray Rothbard who said, "The libertarian position, generally, is minimize State power as much as possible, down to zero, and isolationism is the full expression in foreign affairs of the domestic objective of whittling down State power." http://www.lp.org/platform http://www.lp.org/platform -- American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid.
- joshAg 14y ago
  If I had to guess, it's because they seem to value their economic goals/principles over their social goals/principles, and the economic goals are not always the best of ideas.
  - PKop 14y ago
    I think that's a misreading of their principles then. In very large populations with entrenched gov'ts, the individual suffers the most. The smallest minority is the individual, and individual liberties be they economic, social, political, civil.. all revolve around freedom and protection of individual rights. I think theirs are the best of ideas in all areas, and protection of property rights necessarily involves the economic as well as the social.
    - joshAg 14y ago
      I won't disagree that they say both are equally important, but I hear libertarians talking about economic issues much more than I hear them talk about social issues. And on top of that, they seem to caucus with the republicans much more so than the democrats despite the republicans' horrible (from a libertarian perspective, at least) stances on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and marijuana. Can you think of any libertarians caucusing with democrats? I can think of at least the Pauls caucusing with the republicans.
      - PKop 14y ago
        Aside from gay marriage, I'd say as an individual, economic policies that are very non-libertarian effect me much more than marijuana laws and abortion, which WILL NOT be overturned and is NOT a primary issue for most practical Republican candidates because there are much bigger fish to fry right now. My point is OF COURSE they caucus with the Republicans because economic, property rights are fundamental and effect people much more drastically and completely than do laws against smoking pot, let's be honest. As far as the gay marriage issue, my personal opinion is opposition is waning or at least it's simply not viewed as an important focal point for those that are more concerned with debt, spending, economic growth/freedom, etc.
chops 14y ago
> - New London, CT used eminent domain to take an entire neighborhood of private homes to give the land to Phizer because Phizer would generate more tax revenue. ...and after bulldozing the neighborhood, lost their funding, avandoned the project, and turned the neighborhood into a literal dump. Wow! What a grossly offensive thing for the courts to support, regardless of the fact the outcome was a net negative. Thanks for posting that. I had not heard of that particular case.
- wmil 14y ago
  This one is actually incredibly interesting... it seems like we're not getting the whole story. There isn't much written about the neighbourhood... But looking at the New London wiki page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_London,_Connecticut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_London,_Connecticut , there's some interesting demographic info. In 2000 New London had 25,671 people and was 18.64% black. In 2010 the population was 27,620 and in 2006-2008 14.0% black. So, using some rough math, there were 900 fewer black people in New London after Kelo. Makes you wonder if the Phizer lab was the goal.
  - lhnn 14y ago
    I'm not against theories, but if race filtering was their goal, they seemed to have failed. Moreso when you consider the cost of the effort... so I'm not going for it. And urban blacks (and many urban people, period) are often poor. A business might want cheap land to create a suburban work area. Prices go up, poor people move out. It doesn't have to be racial.

by a5seo 14y ago

dmix 14y ago

When I read things like this, I'm amazed libertarians have such a social stigma against them. Austrian economics is debatable in very large populations with entrenched governments but these social issues are so obviously wrong and it seems (civil) libertarians are the only ones highly vocal against them... yet they would still be considered radical in most contexts.

eru 14y ago
I guess libertarians would be better off, if the Austrian economics faction within them was less vocal.
- maratd 14y ago
  There are no factions. If you're a libertarian, you're a supporter of both ... because liberty is the point.
  - kijin 14y ago
    There is such a thing as left-libertarianism...
  - dlitz 14y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
  - vidarh 14y ago
    If liberty was the point, they'd not be libertarians by US standards. Right wing US style libertarianism is "liberty for all, except when it threatens my ability to monopolize property, when I prefer liberty only for me". Maximizing liberty for all necessarily requires severe limitations on government enforcement of private property, for example.
  - anon1385 14y ago
    This isn't true. People who call themselves 'libertarians' seem quite happy to vote for people who are extremely socially conservative. The economics is what they care about (and perhaps pot). Obviously the GOP is very socially conservative, but so are factions of the Libertarian Party. In 2008 the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States was Bob Barr: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr >During his tenure, Barr was regarded as one of the most conservative members of Congress. In 2002, he was described by Bill Shipp in an OnlineAthens.com article as "the idol of the gun-toting, abortion-fighting, IRS-hating hard right wing of American politics" >He voted for the first USA PATRIOT Act >Barr took a lead in legislative debate concerning same-sex marriage. He authored and sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, a law enacted in 1996 which states that only marriages that are between a man and a woman can be federally recognized, and individual states may choose not to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state >Barr was originally a strong supporter of the War on Drugs, reflecting his previous experience as an Anti-Drug Coordinator for the United States Department of Justice. While in Congress, he was a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America. >Barr advocated complete federal prohibition of medical marijuana. In 1998, he successfully blocked implementation of Initiative 59 — the "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998" — which would have legalized medical marijuana in Washington, D.C. The "Barr Amendment" to the 1999 Omnibus spending bill not only blocked implementation of Initiative 59, but also prohibited the vote tally from even being released. Nearly a year passed before a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union eventually revealed the initiative had received 69 percent of the vote. In response to the judge's ruling, Barr simply attached another "Barr Amendment" to the 2000 Omnibus spending bill that overturned Initiative 59 outright. The Barr Amendment also prohibited future laws that would "decrease the penalties for marijuana or other Schedule I drugs" in Washington, D.C. This preemptively blocked future attempts by Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) to reform marijuana laws in DC via the initiative process. In March 2002, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan struck down this portion of the Barr Amendment as being an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. Barr's response to the ruling was defiant: >Clearly, the court today has ignored the constitutional right and responsibility of Congress to pass laws protecting citizens from dangerous and addictive narcotics, and the right of Congress to exert legislative control over the District of Columbia as the nation's capital. —Bob Barr, March 28, 2002
- NoPiece 14y ago
  I think it is the libertarian foreign policy that is more of a roadblock to the mainstream. Most Americans, left and right support some level of foreign intervention whether it is active military intervention, bases abroad, humanitarian aid, mutual defense treaties, etc... Austrian economics is dry, but pretty plausible and appealing. Isolationism is a tougher sell.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    There is a very large area between isolationism and having bases abroad and active military interventions.
    - NoPiece 14y ago
      Fair enough, there is a difference between non-intervention and isolationism. However, whatever you call it, that position is much more divergent from mainstream opinions than libertarian economics.
  - dantheman 14y ago
    Isolationism and non-interventionism are two different things. Libertarianism is non-interventionalist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism
  - Benferhat 14y ago
    Branding it "isolationism" is a Fox News trick, which allowed people to quickly and easily dismiss Ron Paul as nonsensical.
    - NoPiece 14y ago
      Maybe it isn't isolationism, but it isn't a trickery to call it such. If you offered the text of the Libertarian platform on international affairs, many was say it describes an isolationist policy, without intending trickery. Also, whatever the position libertarian take today, there have been strong isolationists who have been key members of the movement, like Murray Rothbard who said, "The libertarian position, generally, is minimize State power as much as possible, down to zero, and isolationism is the full expression in foreign affairs of the domestic objective of whittling down State power." http://www.lp.org/platform http://www.lp.org/platform -- American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid.
joshAg 14y ago
If I had to guess, it's because they seem to value their economic goals/principles over their social goals/principles, and the economic goals are not always the best of ideas.
- PKop 14y ago
  I think that's a misreading of their principles then. In very large populations with entrenched gov'ts, the individual suffers the most. The smallest minority is the individual, and individual liberties be they economic, social, political, civil.. all revolve around freedom and protection of individual rights. I think theirs are the best of ideas in all areas, and protection of property rights necessarily involves the economic as well as the social.
  - joshAg 14y ago
    I won't disagree that they say both are equally important, but I hear libertarians talking about economic issues much more than I hear them talk about social issues. And on top of that, they seem to caucus with the republicans much more so than the democrats despite the republicans' horrible (from a libertarian perspective, at least) stances on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and marijuana. Can you think of any libertarians caucusing with democrats? I can think of at least the Pauls caucusing with the republicans.
    - PKop 14y ago
      Aside from gay marriage, I'd say as an individual, economic policies that are very non-libertarian effect me much more than marijuana laws and abortion, which WILL NOT be overturned and is NOT a primary issue for most practical Republican candidates because there are much bigger fish to fry right now. My point is OF COURSE they caucus with the Republicans because economic, property rights are fundamental and effect people much more drastically and completely than do laws against smoking pot, let's be honest. As far as the gay marriage issue, my personal opinion is opposition is waning or at least it's simply not viewed as an important focal point for those that are more concerned with debt, spending, economic growth/freedom, etc.

chops 14y ago

> - New London, CT used eminent domain to take an entire neighborhood of private homes to give the land to Phizer because Phizer would generate more tax revenue. ...and after bulldozing the neighborhood, lost their funding, avandoned the project, and turned the neighborhood into a literal dump. Wow! What a grossly offensive thing for the courts to support, regardless of the fact the outcome was a net negative. Thanks for posting that. I had not heard of that particular case.

wmil 14y ago
This one is actually incredibly interesting... it seems like we're not getting the whole story. There isn't much written about the neighbourhood... But looking at the New London wiki page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_London,_Connecticut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_London,_Connecticut , there's some interesting demographic info. In 2000 New London had 25,671 people and was 18.64% black. In 2010 the population was 27,620 and in 2006-2008 14.0% black. So, using some rough math, there were 900 fewer black people in New London after Kelo. Makes you wonder if the Phizer lab was the goal.
- lhnn 14y ago
  I'm not against theories, but if race filtering was their goal, they seemed to have failed. Moreso when you consider the cost of the effort... so I'm not going for it. And urban blacks (and many urban people, period) are often poor. A business might want cheap land to create a suburban work area. Prices go up, poor people move out. It doesn't have to be racial.