The Neolibertarian Network Posted by: Dale Franks
on Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Back in December, Jon and I posted about some plans we had for expanding QandO. After discussing it among the three of us, and changing the blog over to .Blog, we now feel comfortable unveiling those plans to you.
First, we are kicking off the Neolibertarian Network (NN). This will be an aggregation of blogs that fall within the Neolibertarian ideological framework. To this end, we now are using the new URL "neolibertarian.net". Here's how it will work. If you have a neolibertarian blog, contact one of us for inclusion in the Neolibertarian network. Instead of blogrolling you, we will provide a web page that presents your blog's RSS Feed, much as we do at the QandO Newsroom. This will give readers not just a link to your blog, but individual links to all of the separate blog posts from your RSS Feed. If you are approved for inclusion into the NN, then, in return for this, all we ask is that you:
Link to QandO on your blogroll
Include an image link with the NN logo on your main blog page that it linked to the main NN blog page which will be at "www.neolibertarian.net/blogs".
Blogs that do not include these two links will, regretfully, be removed from the network.
You must have a valid RSS feed (not an Atom feed) for inclusion in the NN. Blog submissions must be sent to submissions@qando.net, with the Subject "Neolibertarian Network Blog Submission". Please be sure to include the URL of your RSS Feed. More information about how to get a valid RSS feed URL to us can be found here.
Neolibertarian Network Logo
Next, we will consider article submissions for inclusion on the Articles section of the QandO/NN web site. Each article you submit must be between 750-1200 words, and, again, must fall within the Neolibertarian ideological framework. Acceptable article subjects will be (in no particular order):
Politics/Current Affairs
Security/Military Policy
Foreign Affairs
Neolibertarian Ideology
Health Care
Articles must be original, and have not been published previously in any other location, in any form. You will retain secondary publication rights, with the understanding that no secondary publication will occur until after the article has been posted on QandO for 24 hours. Article submissions must be sent to submissions@qando.net, with the Subject "QandO Article Submission". Submissions must be attached to your email as a text file, or Microsoft Rich Text (RTF) document. Please include your name and a brief bio (i.e. less than 100 words) with your email, so that we may include it with your article. The bio may include a link to your blog or web site.
For those articles we accept, we will, of course, reserve the right to exercise editorial discretion as to length and content.
Finally, in the near future, we will begin publication of a monthly periodical. This periodical will be free, but will be available online only to opt-in subscribers. We will have quite a strict privacy policy, and will not sell or release email addresses to any third party. At that time, all article submissions will be submissions for that publication, and the Articles section of QandO will become a repository for solely those articles that, in our editorial judgement, deserve long-term display to the general population.
Our hope is to open up the available content at QandO to a much wider range of authors, as well as a larger population of readers.
Please contact us if you have any further questions.
I’m glad to finally see this become a reality (new logo too, eh?). The article submissions thing comes as a pleasant surprise.
When I start blogging, I’ll definitely hop on board. I’ve been excited about the prospect since seeing the first mention of the Neolibertarian Network.
It’s very promising when you guys keep making your hopeful prospects into functioning realities. Best of luck!
Do you have a full listing of what you consider to be neolibertarian? I’m still trying to define my politics (they’ve shifted over the past few years from social conservative to social conservative who doesn’t give a damn what you do socially ;)
I’m not Republican, far from Democrat, and consider myself too practical to be a Ayn Rand Objectivist Libertarian type. Although I hate labels, per se, it’s easier to describe my politics to people with something that closely resembles my beliefs enough rather than say "First, I like guns. I like small government. Low taxes. I think homosexuality is wrong but it is not in my best interest to deny others the right to believe it’s ok. I’m religious and think God has no reason to be in anything as petty as politics or government. I feel my parenting skills are good enough to protect my children if they hear the word ’Fuck’ on the radio. I have no problem with preemptive strikes. I firmly believe that the death penalty’s 0% recidivism rate makes it worthwhile. I think if you don’t like how Wal-Mart is killing off Mom & Pop stores that you shouldn’t shop there while you’re bitching about it. I think a country as rich as America should never let a single person go hungry or without basic medical care and that the worst way to make that a reality is to let the government do it. I believe OJ killed Nicole. I think that regulation is less effective that requiring transparency. I support the troops and was formerly one of them."
Phew! I could go on, but it’s not my site ;) So basically, what makes a neolibertarian a neolibertarian?
SaaM: A goal of Neolibertarianism is to build a coalition of roughly like-minded people. There’s no Litmus Test. You don’t build coalitions by seeing how many people you can exclude. Heck, while I agree with McQ and Dale much more often than not, even we don’t always agree. (here’s my take on the necessity and utility of coalitions)
I’d say you qualify, simply based on your above description. If you want to see the rough framework of Neolibertarianism, check here. We may have policy differences, but if you want a less interventionist domestic government, and are willing to accept practical solutions—or, when necessary, least-bad solutions—we’re close enough for coalition.
LOL! ... Uh, no, but then when I thought about it, I said "get your freakin’ mind out of the gutter". And its slightly phallic in a sorta "broke****" kinda way. Reminds me of Norway on the Euro coin.
Yo, Dale, Jon, we ask for humor, well Laura always was able to provide that, but on reflection, we may want to consider the symbolism of her point. ;)
I like this version of the logo much better than previous versions I’ve seen. I would add, though, that the rattle does look just a touch phallic—not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Can supporters place the logo in concert with a link on their blogs, even if their blogs are perhaps not completely appropriate to submit an RSS feed?
I just calls `em like I sees `em. LOL Of course, the "don’t tread on me" portion would then count doubly. Unless you’re into that kind of thing, of course.
To be honest, when I saw the new logo, my first thought was, "Hey, that
looks pretty cool," and my second thought was, "Wait, that rattle
really looks like a penis. Now how do I go about telling the QandO boys
that tactfully?" Fortunately, Laura broke the ice for me and extricated
me from my difficulties.
How about blogs that aren’t 100% political 100% of the time? I would say mine’s about 50% political 50% personal, but I definitely feel I fall into your definitions, broadly speaking...
Excellent idea, but I think the ideology needs more flesh and less "sort of" in it. I liked "Sharp as a Marble’s" description of his beliefs, but I’m curious about how the rest of you feel. I agree that the ideology needs to be less about exclusion, and more about who we include - but to be honest, the one reason anybody would consider "neo-libers" as an option is because standard libertarians are too stuck up to be realistic in their voting.
To wit:
1) I believe in the Constitution _as_written_, not as it has been interpreted by the courts and progressive judges over the last 50-75 years. If someone disagrees with any wording of the Constitution of the United States, they are free to work toward ammending it, but Judicial Fiat is evil and must be stopped.
2) I believe in a strong national defense, and the right to use military force to advance our nation’s sovereign right to self-defense, even if it occassionally requires pre-emptive action. I do not support any requirement to include "world buyin" to our national defense decisions, or to solicit the approval of the United Nations, NATO, or members of the European Union.
3) I believe in limited government. This should be read to include the direct reduction of wealth redistribution through the use of the power of the state, and to a measurable reduction in the size and scope of _all_ governments (federal, state, regional, and local).
4) I believe in lower taxes. Taxes should be lowered for people _WHO_PAY_TAXES_, not for people who don’t pay taxes. I have no problem with lowering the taxes of people who pay little - so long as the lowest rate they get is _zero_, and not "less than zero". (I do not favor giving tax "refunds" to people who paid less in taxes than the "refund" amount.)
5) I believe that taxes should only be paid by individuals, never collectives (corporations, etc.). This is because taxes are _always_ paid by individuals eventually (through higher costs, or increased fees, etc.), so let’s make it clear to them that they are paying _taxes_ out of their own money.
6) I believe in capitalism. I believe that the market economy will correct its own injustices - and that government interference _rarely_ produces a positive result. Only in the cases of the most serious transgressions should the government become involved in regulating the market. Obvious examples of "most serious transgressions" are: fraud, gross negligence resulting in _direct_ injury, monopolies/trusts.
7) I believe in God and Jesus Christ, but I don’t believe that the government should force my beliefs on anyone else. However, I don’t believe that the government should "ban" references to God or Jesus Christ from any governmental edifice, document, presentation, or proceding - so long as it is clear that the reference is not establishing a government requirement or duty to believe in or accept the belief in God or Jesus Christ.
8) I believe that the federal government should be limited in its ability to control land use in the states or communities. Federal agencies that restrict land use due to environmental impact concerns should be disbanded immediately. If environmentalists want to control the use of some area of land, they should _buy_ it (at current market rates) and put it into a perpetual trust to protect it.
9) I believe that property taxes are wrong. The idea that we owe the government for the use of our own land is tantamount to arguing that the government owns all the land and we are merely serfs.
10) I believe that the way to control "out-of-control" government spending is to take away the incentive for politicians to spend our money. The simple answer is to prevent people from voting during the next cycle of elections if they take money/property/direct value from the government (so if they took money from the federal government they would not be allowed to vote during US Congressional, US Senatorial, or US Presidential elections (or constitutional referenda) during the cycle in which they took money). Likewise, for state funds, or regional or local funds. Moreover, organizations that take money/propert/direct value from an government agency would not be allowed to "lobby" _any_ government agency or official (elected or not) for 4 years after they recieved such funds/property/direct value. If there is no "power" to get re-elected by handing out money, I presume that the politicians will seek other ways to retain their power. Perhaps it will be worse than "taxes", but it’s hard to imagine how it could be more pervasive.
11) I support limited, but necessary laws that uphold the morality of society. The idea that morality is a "personal" decision is flawed, in that, weak moral decisions by a small group tend to pollute the morality of future generations of the larger society. At some point, this moral "decline" will inevitably result in a society that is so selfish, so degenerate, and so uncooperative toward their fellow-man, that the society itself will collapse. Therefore, it is necessary that government upholds minimum standards of morality. The objective criteria should be: 1) protect children from their inexperience; 2) support families over individuals; 3) give parents authority over their children - so long as they do not usurp rule #1 (above); 4) prevent the freedoms of one person from infringing on moralities of another (I don’t have to see your porn displayed in plain sight; I don’t have to hear your cursing). This would be controlled at the community level, not at the state or federal level.
12) I believe the United States of America should remove itself from the United Nations immediately. We should kick the U.N. out of New York, and not allow their diplomats into U.S. Territories for any reason other than tourism (subject to the same immigration policies as any other visitor). We should seek a new world body, made up entirely of democratically elected governments, and offer to host that body in the United States (we would have all the offices and meeting halls in New York City already). Membership in said body would be predicated on holding regular, and free elections that utilize secret ballots, and verifiable results.
I have other beliefs, but these would be the foundation of my political philosophy. I’d be curious to read how close I am to others reading this blog.
