There has been talk as of late about the possibility of libertarians and liberals uniting to ‘take down’ President Trump.
How this coup d’état occurs in the material world I’m not quite sure, but it is nonetheless an intriguing question.
Both sides have numerous qualms with the Trump agenda, some of which overlap.
The tightening of the immigration system, the travel ban, and a belief in the existence of authoritarian tendencies point to a teaming up of the administration’s foes.
However, the differences outweigh the similarities and I am far from convinced these two will form a successful resistance.
Libertarians pride themselves on individualism, abiding by the U.S. Constitution’s prescripts, and cherishing free market capitalism.
They support minimal taxation (if any) for all individuals and aim for a general disengagement between the government and the private lives of the people.
This includes very few economic regulations, a reduction to the welfare state, and a refrain from unnecessary international entanglements.
No limits to your speech and no antiquated social restraints.
Within Libertarianism is a codified system of beliefs, whether you agree with them or not, that aim to reduce the state apparatus and maximize the liberty of an individual to live as they wish, without inflicting harm on others.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is often considered one of the leading libertarian voices in the country. Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore/ Flickr (CC BY 2.0)
An ideological line can be drawn straight from principle to policy.
Liberals, on the other hand, fail to present a systematic worldview which applies to the plethora of modern questions.
The most vocal left-of-center Americans have turned all of their attention to protesting whatever Trump does.
And as Trump doesn’t adhere to a concrete vision of government’s role in society, liberals follow him deeper and deeper into a rabbit hole.
They were aroused by the zeal of Bernie-sized federal authority, but tremble in the streets now that it has fallen in the hands of he who shouldn’t be mentioned (‘Calexit’ is the type of irony satirists have a field day over, as highlighted by Edward Morrissey in his piece, “California Has Lost Its Mind”).
Instead of formulating a legislative response to fight Trump’s immigration orders they demand a ‘turn-the-other-cheek’ approach to the law.
Even though changing immigration law is a monumental task, proposing such a change would be a more respectable reaction than the emotional response to border walls and ICE raids.
Apply this to another area of the law and it unfolds quickly.
We all want police officers to follow the law when carrying out search warrants or routine traffic stops.
In what universe would it be suitable for them to neglect the law?
By suggesting that we only follow some laws, the law-abiding argument no longer holds up.
On the constitution, liberals love to cite it when fighting Trump but too often refuse to accept its other necessities.
Staging a sit-in is the first amendment at its finest but allowing a conservative speaker on campus is a bridge too far.
Perhaps the point of greatest separation from libertarians is the way the American left thinks in term of group identity.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) is a leading American liberal. Photo Credit: Nick Fisher/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
This collectivist mindset erodes the focus on the individual which is essential in libertarianism.
Ask your average liberal – millennial or not – and they will most likely describe our current state as a battle between the marginalized and the majority, a society divided among the oppressed and the oppressors.
You are Black, White, Latinx, Muslim, Evangelical, Straight, Gay, Cis or non-Cis, etc.
It’s not you who matters, it’s the group that matters.
This way of thinking appoints all of its resources towards the ‘common good’, a utilitarian goal but one that can easily lead to a starvation for freedom.
The individual becomes relegated to serfdom, pleading for liberties to the group or the state.
I have a hard time believing libertarians and liberals can unite for a common purpose to stop Trump.
Their missions are polar opposites, at times antithetical to the very existence of the other.
It is commonly thought that liberals and libertarians are very similar in their political leanings, but libertarians are simply more frugal with money.
This is a complete understatement of the fundamental differences by which these sides view the world and societal order.
Even if, hypothetically, these two did join forces to take down the President, there aren’t many avenues go down.
Impeachment would lead to Vice President Mike Pence stepping in, someone who libertarians and liberals aren’t too fond of either, or a 2020 defeat, which leaves four years minus a few months left for Trump in the White House.
Some fantasized outcome other than these, as unimaginable as I think it is, would require a serious rebuilding period with the victors sharing the spoils.
As the famous axiom of former Secretary of State Colin Powell (And Pottery Barn) goes, “if you break it, you own it”.
Libertarians and liberals would have a nation-sized divorce on their hands.
As they would try to divide up the assets, their quarrels would become insurmountable.
Unless the Senate Republicans buy into the theory that Trump is a Russian puppet, the Donald is here to stay.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Photo Credit: Ted Eytan/Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
Hongkongers Might Lose Trust In The Judiciary, Thanks To Political Greed
By Raphael Blet
On Tuesday, Justice Thomas Au gave his verdict on the fate of Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung, the two mavericks who were disqualified from taking their oath after not following their scripts and using derogatory terms to describe China.
In an unsurprising move, the High Court decided to ban the two pro-independence lawmakers from taking a second oath, ordered them to vacate their LegCo’s premises and requested them to fully reimburse their salary.
This comes a week after Beijing’s interpretation of the Basic Law’s article 104.
The Basic Law’s interpretation has sparked concern amongst members of the judicial profession who saw it as a threat to Hong Kong’s judicial independence.
For some, the High Court’s decision might be seen as influenced by the NPC’s interpretation although the final verdict would probably not have been different even without an interpretation.
Many put the blame on the Chinese government and see in this interpretation a way for them to interfere in Hong Kong’s affairs.
The LegCo building. Photo Credit: Steve Cadman/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
WRONG: the basic law’s interpretation was in fact done on Hong Kong’s request, as it always did.
The chaos amplified when the Chief Executive decided to challenge the two lawmakers’ oath at the court while this matter could be resolved within the LegCo.
By taking this action, the Chief Executive brought the separation of powers into a vicious circle which has led to more divisions, uncertainties and anger amongst the population.
Read More: Ethnic Minorities Need To Be Embraced As Fellow Hong Kongers
At first, Beijing did probably not give a toss about those the two young people who probably had an overdose of testosterone at the time… Only when the Chief Executive triggered Beijing’s nerves did Beijing decide to interpret article 104.
While Hong Kong’s rule of law hasn’t changed, the public’s level of trust towards local institutions might be at its lowest.
On the other hand, the Western press currently feasts itself at having another occasion to portray Hong Kong in a negative angle.
Yet, it is indeed laborious to understand who is in charge of the matters given that the three powers have been ingested by what can be labelled as “political greed”.
To sweeten the whole chaos, Hong Kong might now have to deal with by-elections and angry voters who felt betrayed by the two excited young politicians.
On both sides, political greed and dishonesty are to blame.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
You can also like our RISE NEWS Hong Kong Facebook page to stay engaged with our local coverage.
Cover Photo Credit: Simon Cocks/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
On American Violence: Is It Guns, Terrorism Or Our Culture?
America. Opening a history book about the United States will take you on a journey through violence. Period paintings, drawings, and certainly texts of many varieties from the mid to late 1700’s all speak to the core belief that the colonists had in using firearms and violence to get themselves out from under the control of the British Crown.
And they did. The visceral effect of the Declaration of Independence on the people and the codifying force of the subsequent Constitution on this new republic had an affect on people who had no desire to be oppressed, unfairly taxed, abused or maligned.
In fact, the Constitution was amended to reflect the deeply held belief that guns belonged in the hands of every person – to be ready to repel invaders, keep the peace and protect themselves from anything that might try to intrude upon the basic freedoms that these visionaries embedded in to these lawful constructs.
Could it be that our fascination with guns is so deeply rooted in our psyche as Americans, because of the anti-colonial and refugee mindset of our founding fathers; through today, where (as the Constitution implies), we must always be at the ready to defend ourselves, and our nation?
For the aforementioned reasons, but also as history has unfolded, to help us protect our national interests, or impose them on others for our own gain? The Civil War. The Mexican – American War. The expansion of western settlement through the slaughter, forced relocation and internment of Native Americans. Those events are from our earliest history, and depict our collective dependence on firearms to both maintain our thirst for freedom, and to simultaneously fuel our growing thirst for territory and power.
The ‘carry forward’ from this long and storied history is that our reliance upon guns is now permanently rooted into our culture. Throughout the world, the US has always had a reputation for being unnecessarily violent, particularly where guns are concerned. But are these perceptions grounded in reality, or is this belief based solely on cultural differences?
It is literally inarguable that a firearm by itself is not the causation of our more recent mass shooting epidemic. ‘Guns don’t kill people – people kill people’. Much like a knife, stick, brick or rock by itself is not usually responsible for the death of a person, guns by themselves are incapable of killing or causing grievous bodily harm.
Someone must take that implement or weapon and pull the trigger. The access to weapons for those who would endeavor to harm others is at the core of the argument of so called ‘gun control’ efforts. That however requires deeper exploration.
There are studies, statistics and opinions all over the map, but suffice to say, there is no clear benefit to gun bans, or stricter gun control measures in modern society, as is plainly visible in these statistics. So what gives? Why the argument that banning guns, or enacting even tougher gun control measures like a ban on certain magazine capacities, or styles of weapons would have any significant impact on curbing mass shootings?
Waiting lists and months long processes to obtain even the most basic of services, such as initial and even secondary evaluations to facilitate accurate diagnosis and treatment; leaves a great many people falling through the very large cracks.
The truth is – it wouldn’t. Those bent on destruction or murder will get guns by other means than legally purchasing them. There is in fact sufficient evidence to demonstrate that many of the violent gun related crimes that have us persistently discussing ‘gun control’ are in fact committed with stolen guns.
To even suggest a ban on guns would facilitate an instrument by which the government would then be compelled to confiscate them. Outside of the obvious constitutional implications, that in and of itself would undoubtedly lead to legal challenges, mass protests, and perhaps even armed insurrection (or as some would say ‘a revolution’).
The fact is that the 2nd Amendment was constructed by the “Founding Fathers” as an instrument to facilitate not only the protection and defense of one’s self against attack or tyranny, but also to enable the Country as a whole to protect itself from potential invaders.
Photo Credit: Valerie Everett/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
According to historical documents examined by the author (and widely available in the public domain), the Constitution -and specifically the 2nd Amendment; was articulated in this way to give “We The People” the ability to ward off an overreaching government with designs on the degradation or eradication of basic civil liberties. We are who and what we are as a Nation because of the wisdom of these documents and founding principles.
I would go so far as to speculate that any would be foreign invaders would have to take in to account the might of not only our military prowess, but also the plain fact that Americans are armed to the teeth as they draw up their battle plans. It’s also worthy mentioning that the Supreme Court has routinely upheld the right of the individual to ‘keep and bear arms’.
Are guns really the problem here?
While our understanding of the human mind, and the ability to more effectively treat mental health issues has vastly expanded in the last 30 years, the trend in access to effective mental health treatment, particularly where the poor, homeless and our military veterans are concerned has left huge gaps in the effective delivery of those services. There aren’t enough qualified practitioners to treat the vast numbers of people who require access to those services.
Waiting lists and months long processes to obtain even the most basic of services, such as initial and even secondary evaluations to facilitate accurate diagnosis and treatment; leaves a great many people falling through the very large cracks.
Struggling to navigate the already arduous landscape that is their daily life. And yet, while over 60% of those who have carried out “mass shootings” since 1970 have had significant mental health diagnoses and presentation, there is also no clear means by which to associate mental health with mass shootings.
Why? Because those with pronounced mental health issues are already supposed to be incapable of purchasing firearms legally. It’s the law. Yet these killers still obtained access to weapons and killed a great many people.
‘Mass shootings’ has become a household term, but why? Why at this point in time? Perhaps these are symptoms of a society that has fallen into a moral slump. A society that’s obsessed with instant gratification via fast food, lightning fast information, electronic pacification and communications tools. Are these things responsible for an overall decay in the fabric of the principles upon which our great nation was built? Do we suffer from a fog of what reality is and was up until this latest technological revolution began?
But looking at the numbers from these sources alone – of 330 terrorist attacks in the United States, since our founding – only 34 are attributed to Islamic terrorism.
The disconnection between our ability to effectively interact with each other, particularly for those who are disenfranchised, maligned, bullied, teased or are otherwise already mentally unstable – could very well be fueling this epidemic. Life has become so virtual – so cold and distant from our humanity, in comparison to the childhood of Gen X’ers for example.
There is no clear answer or solution to the ‘gun problem’. Accordingly, the solution to mass shootings is not nearly so clear as the likes of the New York Times or New York Daily News would surmise in their recent opinion pieces. We don’t have a gun problem, we have a people problem.
This brings us to the topic of terrorism. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” See also Title 22 of the United States Code. Based on those definitions, it is hard to imagine that 102 terrorist acts have been committed on US soil since 9/11. 9/11 itself was three separate acts, at three locations – the Twin Towers (or World Trade Center), the Pentagon, and the plane crash in Somerset County, PA.
225 terror attacks took place, again using this definition, prior to 9/11. While some may be familiar, like the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, I’d never heard of bombings at the LA Times Building, Morgan Bank in NYC, or Chicago’s Haymarket square – which cumulatively killed 71 and injured 380 people. These attacks occurred between 1886 and 1920.
Digging further down in to these numbers, I wanted to examine how many of these attacks were related to “Islamic terrorism”. Those two words are played over and over again on TV, radio, and seen in print and social media all day, every day. The inference is that if we don’t call a possible radical Islamist, or jihad related attack “Islamic terrorism”, then we’re somehow lacking in patriotism, or un-American.
But looking at the numbers from these sources alone – of 330 terrorist attacks in the United States, since our founding – only 34 are attributed to Islamic terrorism.
About 10%, this is true both before, and after 9/11. There are other numbers on this, but drawing off this data set, there is a bigger picture here, both as it relates to our terrorism problem, but also the political maneuvering going in to convincing us who we should fear.
Okay, so what can you do? Care about each other. Pay attention to each other. If you see that someone is in distress – say something. If you see the warning signs of a person who is unraveling before your eyes – do something about it, vs. ignoring the raw humanity of the person is crisis in front of you. The American Psychological Association published a list of things the any of us can do to help prevent violence from occurring. In fact, there are violence prevention experts in many major cities that teach companies, schools and organizations how to empower their HR, security and even ‘rank and file’ personnel to help interdict and prevent violence in those environments. (Felix Nater of Nater Associates comes to mind).
Basic takeaways? Guns aren’t going away. Violence is human nature. Terrorism is violence and weapons combined. The whole ‘if you see something, say something’ campaign really works. There’s a list I saw recently that scared the hell out of me. A list of terror plots that have been disrupted, since 9/11. Again, many of these weren’t familiar to me.
What if someone had called and reported the unstable behavior of any of a number of the mass shooters in our recent times? Could these atrocities have been avoided? I’d suggest that the answer to that question is yes.
Scrutiny, law enforcement investigation and even something as simple as accessing advanced mental health or counseling services could have served to prevent at least some of this violence. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re a part of the problem.
Cover Photo: Peretz Partensky/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
What It Is Really Like To Fight Depression And Anxiety In College
For those of you that do not know me, I am sorry because I can tell some rad jokes.
For those of you that know me, I am loud.
You can probably hear me from a mile away, I snort when I laugh, and if I am not laughing, I am probably unintentionally speaking at a loud volume about the latest thing that has me riled up.
So when you look at me, you would not think that I am anything but happy. Some might even say that I radiate sunshine and light up any room I am in.
But I have a confession…
I hate clichés, but I am one; there is more to me than meets the eye.
Every day is a struggle for me. I suffer from clinically diagnosed severe depression and mild anxiety.
While you may think “well everyone can struggle with depression and anxiety,” I urge you to stop that train of thought. Right now. Like 20 minutes ago right now.
This is a deeply personal issue for me, and I have shared select parts of my story with a handful of people, who still do not know every detail of my battle.
My mother did not know how serious the instability of my mental state was, and to this day, my father has no idea.
So, dear reader, take solace in the fact that this article will save you from reading the gruesome details of my self-harm and suicide attempts.
Instead, I am going to take a minute to talk about stress and our choice of language.
I bet that segway was not something expected of this article.
How can stress and language choice be related to mental health?
Helen Harrop/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
Great Question.
I recently posted a status on Facebook that received a good number of likes, but I do not think the less than 200 words I used could accurately describe how much of an effect language choice has.
Some people took the time to question whether or not my claim to be cautious of language was even valid, arguing that every exclamation should be taken seriously.
Any cry for help in the face of struggle is encouraged, and I hope that if someone is truly struggling, they have at least one person in their life that they can open up to, even if me and my Facebook status are not encouraging enough.
I know when I was drowning, it seemed like my problem would not be taken seriously because of the stigma associated with mental health.
I quickly learned that I could get all of the help I needed through the care of many different outlets, such as medication, therapy and meetings of a 12-step program group called “Emotions Anonymous.”
But I know that I am at a stage in my journey with this illness that I am ready to seek help.
For many others, they hide their pain and choose to use different channels to cope.
I know I used to cut; some may drink; others may turn to drugs; or some might choose to focus their attention in their schoolwork to avoiding dealing with the issue at hand.
All of the above being said, sometimes what these individuals may hear can affect their direction on the journey that is mental illness.
One of my sorority sisters said it best: “Language is a weapon!”
Do not believe me and think I am just another millennial urging for political correctness? Fine. Allow me to offer an example of language as a weapon.
There have been multiple instances where based on my aggressive attitude, men have called me a “bitch.”
I know they were not calling me a bitch to compliment me for getting the job done; their choice of language was a direct attempt to hurt me, to discourage me, maybe even to intimidate me.
Something I refuse to accept, but has become an unfortunate part of the student vernacular, are hyperbolic and dramatic exclamations.
“I am going to kill them!” “I am going to drop out!” “I hate school!”, and more negative, “I hate myself,” “My life sucks,” and “I am going to kill myself.”
So my question becomes if society urges individuals to be careful of their use of offensive language like bitch, c**t, n***er, c***k, etc. and we urge caution of the language we use to refer to others, why does a similar encouragement not follow on how we refer to ourselves?
As someone who is an advocate of therapy and medication, I have come to learn that I have certain triggers that can drastically affect my attitude.
Medically speaking, depression and anxiety are classified as mood disorders.
It genuinely does not take much for something to change my mood from happiest person in the world to stuck in bed for 14 hours.
Besides break ups and seeing tools that I used to hurt myself with, one of my biggest triggers is someone exclaiming “I am going to kill myself” or “I hate myself” because I have been in that situation before and these statements remind me of just how hard my battle is.
They often leave me wondering if the effort I have made to get better is even worth it.
Moreover, when I hear them from someone exclaiming them as a solution to resolving their stress, I find myself asking if it would be okay for me to revert to old habits.
Statements like these that students without a genuine comprehension of mental illness make can have a drastic effect on others who are not quite ready to deal with their journey with mental illness.
While some may argue that it is not my place to encourage individuals, especially students under high stress from academics, to be cautious of their use of “common” language, I will argue that it is my expectation of myself to take care of my well-being before anything else.
Thus, if I find that there are individuals affecting that state of well-being, I have an obligation to urge them to be more considerate and cautious of how they refer to themselves, for the sake of others.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
What Do You Think?