According to Joe Biden, delaying the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan from May 1, 2021 to September 11, 2021 has ensured that Afghanistan will never again serve as a “haven” for anti-American terrorists.
Here is Jacob Hornberger’s discussion of the announcement. https://www.fff.org/2021/04/15/the-big-whopper-on-afghanistan/
An article by Steven Greenhut was republished on Reason.com
…a pro-Trump website argued that libertarians such as myself ought to stop supporting third-party candidates and join their side in an effort to stand up to the Left—something of urgency now that Democrats control the presidency, the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.
These days, that’s a non-persuasive argument given that the GOP has embraced many policy positions—and attitudes—that have little to do with advancing human liberty. Throughout my career, conservatives and libertarians have been allies on many issues and at odds on others, but now we’re like residents of different planets.
The Trump era solidified long-brewing changes in the conservative movement, as it moved toward a more European-style approach that wasn’t concerned about limits on government power. Trump wasn’t a political thinker, but a marketing savant who tapped into popular and often-legitimate resentments of the increasingly “woke” Left.
Republican politicians mostly stood by Trump, even as he shattered democratic norms and reshaped conservative policy prescriptions, less out of fear of Trump himself and more out of fear of the conservative grassroots voter. What does it even mean to be a conservative these days?
In 2020, the GOP dispensed with its platform and passed a resolution stating its enthusiast support for the president’s agenda. Party platforms are unenforceable, but they provide the faithful with an opportunity to create a mission statement. Apparently, being a conservative now means supporting whatever the leader happens to believe.
… the concern over the concentrated influence of corporate special interests that Berle and Means articulated (Adolf A. Berle and Gardiner C. Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property (New York: Routledge, 2017), 5.) is valid, but not because corporate special interests will prevent economic regulation, but because they consistently agitate for it. Little has changed in the past century. Corporate executives continue to agitate for favorable regulations, contrary to the media narrative, as we see in Big Tech’s support of net neutrality and, most recently, calls from hedge fund managers for government intervention in the stock market after millions of small investors drove up the stock of GameStop. Patrick Newman recently posed the question, “Are we on the cusp of a new Progressive Era?”
“To call an ardent, violent Trump supporter a “libertarian” departs substantially from the traditional meaning of the term.
The confusion stems from two very different conceptions of what it means to be “against government.” In the typical partisan battle, the agitators are against the particular people in charge of the current government: they are challenging King George, Tsar Nicolas II, Nancy Pelosi. They do not question the idea of government itself. They believe that when controlled by people with good intentions—namely themselves—the government solves problems and improves the human condition. Once they displace the incumbents, the dissenters will set up their own government, giving it large, and growing, responsibilities.
The other conception of being “against government” is the position that government itself is not a moral, rational, and responsible problem-solving agency, no matter who tries to run it. Therefore, we should—prudently and thoughtfully—move away from our dependence on it. This is the libertarian perspective.”
Let’s put the top 100 immigration reform experts in the county into one room, along with the Times’s entire editorial staff. Let’s give them the fastest computers in the world. Let’s assign three research assistants to each of the experts. Let them come up with the best comprehensive immigration reform plan in history.
What would be the result? A continuation of the immigration crisis, and perhaps even a worsening of it.
In fact, let’s pull together all the conservative-oriented libertarians who favor immigration controls. Let’s put them into a room with 50 of the top progressives and 50 of the top conservatives in the country, with the aim of producing an ideal comprehensive immigration reform plan.
It wouldn’t make any difference. The outcome would be continued crisis, perhaps even a worsening of it.
There is a simple reason for this phenomenon. It’s called socialism. Socialism produces crises and chaos. For more than a 100 years, there have been people who have tried to make socialism work. They have failed. They will always fail because socialism is an inherently defective system
There is but one solution to America’s immigration morass: The free market and limited government, which, in the context of immigration, means open borders. I repeat: There is no other solution — no other way to finally bring an end to America’s decades-old immigration crisis. Freedom, free markets, and limited government are also the only way to bring an end to the death, suffering, tyranny, and police state that come with a socialist immigration system.
“But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love … Was not Amos an extremist for justice: ‘Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.’ … And John Bunyan: ‘I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.’ And Abraham Lincoln: ‘This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.’ And Thomas Jefferson: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….’ So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary’s hill three men…were [all] crucified for the same crime–the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth, and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation, and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.”– Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail”