While Rogers County residents may be familiar with the various political party groups that exist within the county, a fledgling political group is hoping to make inroads into Claremore the Northeast Oklahoma Libertarian Party.

Formed earlier this year, the Tulsa-based NEOLP is a group of like-minded Oklahomans who are seeking to gain interest in their philosophies and ideas as an alternative to the traditional two party system.

NEOLP Vice-Chairman Lee Miller of Tulsa explains the groups origins:

In the last presidential election, when (Libertarian candidate) Gary Johnson got more than two and a half percent of the votes (in Oklahoma), that gave the Libertarian party automatic status as an official party in the state, and in response to this, the Northeast Oklahoma Libertarian Party was created, Miller said. The group was formed in April and weve been gaining momentum ever since as people have learned more about us, who we are, what our core ideas are, etc.

Currently, were based in Tulsa, but were wanting to expand, to grow and were hoping to be able to do so in Claremore, to form a smaller, regional group there, he said. Were hoping to inform and educate people in Claremore and Rogers County about the (Libertarian) party to give them another choice besides just Democrat or Republican.

As to Libertarian positions, Miller said the party is less a group of positions than it is a philosophy and set of values, a moral principle of self-ownership, which oftentimes can be misunderstood by those who subscribe to the standard two-party system.

I think the struggle with the party is often that its misunderstood its more of a philosophy, a way of thinking about our rights as citizens in some ways, its more Republican, in other ways, its more Democratic, he said. These misunderstandings (about the party) are simply from people not being informed about what we stand for.

Miller encapsulated the partys key believes in three philosophies:

Firstly, the party is about non-aggression were not going to initiate aggression against another person because of their beliefs, he said. As a party, most of our members are pro-gun, but that doesnt mean its a party of aggression its a party of individual rights and duties.

Secondly, we focus on personal responsibility, he continued. When we make choices in life, there are consequences good choices lead to good consequences, and bad choices lead to bad consequences, and as individuals, those consequences for our actions and choices are ours and ours alone as individuals.

And lastly, were strong proponents of property rights, he said. Whatever you make and can produce, the fruits of your labor whether thats a job you do that earns you a wage or what you can grow out of the ground you should be able to determine what should be done with that. Currently, when we produce something, the government immediately takes a large percentage of it and frequently, theyll take even more again when its time to pay taxes. We feel the individual should have the right the liberty to determine how to distribute what he or she can produce.

What Miller said the group is seeking in Claremore are individuals who want to learn more about the party and to become involved in the groups operations.

There are 800 registered Libertarians in Oklahoma, but right now, the Northeast Oklahoma Libertarian Party group isnt a dues-paying organization, so were not sure how large our membership is, he said. Were wanting to become more-organized, educate the public more, and to be more known for our core values.

Persons interested in learning more about the NEOLP may contact Miller at 918-949-1484 or those wishing to learn more about the Libertarian party may visit the Oklahoma group online at http://www.oklp.org.

Continued here:

Libertarian group seeks expansion into Rogers County - Claremore Daily Progress

Jul 19, 2017 at 7:32 am | Print View

CEDAR RAPIDS The politics-as-usual approach to state government by Republicans and Democrats is unsustainable and hurting vulnerable Iowans, according to Jake Porter, a Libertarian who is joining the race for governor.

Were having this huge budget crisis, and I dont see other candidates proposing real changes, Porter said Tuesday.

Instead, Statehouse lawmakers and the governor are using the budget as a weapon, according to Porter, who will formally announce his candidacy on The Simon Conway Show on WHO Radio between 4 and 7 p.m. Thursday.

Theyve decided were having a budget crisis, so were going to cut the services people use most, whether its mental health services, sexual abuse hotlines, domestic abuse shelters (or) hearing aids for kids, Porter said.

Theyre not actually going after any of the waste that could easily be cut. Theyre going after the things that are going to hurt the most people, probably as an excuse to raise the sales tax next year.

Porter, 29, a Council Bluffs business consultant long active in the Libertarian Party, previously ran for secretary of state. He thinks his views and priorities are more closely aligned with voters than either the Democratic or Republican platform.

He wants to make medical cannabis available, restore voting rights for felons who have served their time, end corporate welfare, return Medicaid to its pre-privatization status and phase out the state sales tax.

He opposes corporate welfare on libertarian principles. Its wrong, Porter said, to ask Iowans to pay millions of dollars to financially sound corporations. He singled out the Research Activities Credit that refunds tax money to corporations even if they have no tax liability.

Theyve put the tax bill on the smallest Iowans and smallest companies, he said. I dont think the state should favor one business over another.

Porter believes Libertarians are more serious about cutting the size of government than Republicans.

Ive watched the budget grow from $6.2 billion from the end of the Culver administration to $7.3 billion under Gov. Terry Branstad, he said. So they cant claim theyve actually cut any government. Theyve grown it while giving large tax breaks to big financially sound corporations.

Porter called turning over Medicaid management to private companies an example of big government cronyism by former Gov. Terry Branstads administration. Porter would return management responsibility to the Department of Human Services and then make improvements.

The state has messed around for far too long while people who could benefit from medical cannabis have suffered, Porter said. While he would favor legalization of marijuana for recreational use, I dont think the Legislature is going to pass that.

Despite the changes the Legislature has made, current law makes it difficult, nearly impossible, for Iowans who need cannabidiol to get it, he said.

As a Libertarian, Porter said, he would have the advantage of being able to work with and around the major political parties by using the governors bully pulpit to open a dialogue with voters and pressure lawmakers to act on his priorities.

The only who dont agree are the big corporate interests or those in the Legislature, As governor, you can go around and talk about issues and you can pound the issues until (lawmakers) basically have to do something about it, he said.

Porter said his campaign website, jakeporter.org, will go live Thursday afternoon.

l Comments: (319) 398-8375; james.lynch@thegazette.com

We make it easy to stay connected:

View original post here:

Libertarian Iowa gubernatorial candidate calls for 'real changes ... - The Gazette: Eastern Iowa Breaking News and Headlines

Editor's note: FreedomFest, held every July in Las Vegas, is the largest annual gathering of libertarians in the country. Today is the first day of the four-day long conference, which is being headlined in its 10th year by William Shatner, John Stossel, Greg Gutfeld, and others. Taking inspiration from the site Humans of New York, Reason is happy to offer Humans of FreedomFest, a series of portraits and brief interviews with various attendees. To read previous installments, go here.

Sarah Siskind, Reason

"My father used the word 'libertarian' as a swear word. 'Oh that's libertarian'... But I was a marxist at the time so I thought, well that's not something I should be. It took me a long time to get over that. I was an anarchist to begin with when I was 15. Then I was a socialist, kind of a Joan Baez socialist. I played the guitar... I know more socialist songs than my socialist colleagues. I wasn't a scholarly Marxist. I read half the Communist Manifesto and I figured that was enough. But the songs were terrific."

Sarah Siskind

"Because I'm pro-choice, among the Republicans sometimes I get into trouble. But I'm a physician. So I leave it to the patient to decide what they want. My feeling, being pro-choice, is that it's a woman's individual decision. Not mine."

"Back in England, at the London School of Economics, he was a socialist when I met him. When we first met."

So did you turn him into a libertarian?

"No. Buying private property, having rent control slammed on us, is what radicalized us."

...Who are you people?

"We can't decide."

Are those your real names?

"We're coming to a conference on privacy. It would be crazy to register in your own name!"

...Can I take your picture?

Both: "No."

This is part of a series. Read previous installments here.

View original post here:

Humans of FreedomFest, Part 4: "My father used...'libertarian' as a swear word." - Reason (blog)

You may have heard the name Austin Petersen before, but if you havent youre probably going to soon. Hes a libertarian activist who has identified himself as an atheist and he recently announced hes running for Senate as a Republican.

Petersen is probably most well known for being the runner-up for the Libertarian Partys nomination for President of the United States in 2016, losing only to Gary Johnson. Earlier this month, however, he said hes running for Senate in Missouri as a Republican (despite his lack of faith).

I interviewed Petersen to ask him about how he plans to court evangelical republicans as a non-believer, his views on separation of church and state, and his move to distance himself from the word atheism.

McAfee: You are a non-believer, which makes you rare in U.S. politics and even rarer in the Republican party. Do you ever worry about surveys that show many Americans wont vote for atheists because of negative stigma attached to non-belief (they think were immoral even compared to rapists)? Some polls, like this one, give us hope but still paint a bleak picture.

Petersen: For the record, I am agnostic I claim neither faith nor disbelief in God. When it comes to Gods existence, I dont know. But to answer your question, yes, the surveys worry me. That said, I refuse to lie to people just to get them to like, or hopefully vote for, me. It seems unfair to ask someone to put me into a position of public trust by betraying that trust. Whats more, even though I make no claim to know about the existence of God, I share a great deal in common with people of faith. I wholeheartedly believe in freedom of religion, and will support peoples right to practice the faith of their choosing without interference. I also share a belief that life begins with conception and ends with natural death, that life trumps choice and that all lives at all stages have a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

McAfee: Interesting. You have repeatedly identified as an atheist (that means you dont actively believe not that you KNOW there is no god). Are you saying that label no longer applies?

Petersen: Its a good question. Ive often conflated the two terms in the past, so Im happy to clarify now. Im an agnostic. I dont actively believe in God, but Im open to the possibility that he may exist. Ultimately, I dont think you can really know either way. What I do know, however, is that its the duty of the government and the duty of its leaders to protect the right of an individual to believe and practice as he or she sees fit.

McAfee: Do you think a lot of fundamentally religious people will vote for you, despite your public atheism, or that youll have to capture more of the less devout voters? Im sure you are aware of the stereotypes about atheists, including that we are actually Satanists, so feel free to address those.

Petersen: I think theyll vote for me. First, because they have before and second, because theyre telling me they will again. The fact is, much of my support base comes from conservative Christians. They generally say they support me because they prefer an honest agnostic to a dishonest believer. Also, the election of Donald Trump indicates that people are less interested in electing a man of the cloth than they are a man of the people.

There are atheists and agnostics that dont care for me much because my beliefs conflict with their own. Thats okay. Ultimately, I will defend the rights of everyone, regardless of whether they have faith or not. Conservative Christians know this because I have demonstrated it publicly and laid my reputation on the line by defending their religious liberty in public debates and forums.

McAfee: Like you, Im an agnostic atheist. In other words, I dont claim to know if any gods exist and I dont actively believe in any. Do you think its a closed-minded position for anyone, believers and atheists alike, to proclaim they know with certainty?

Petersen: Just to be clear, I dont claim to know if God exists and I dont actively believe in Him but I dont actively disbelieve in Him either I just dont know. Thats the honest truth of it. We all could claim closed-mindedness toward those that dont think like we do. But ultimately, like Thomas Jefferson said, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. What does pick my pocket? Government.

McAfee: You say you are an atheist who is pro-life, and thats great, but you have also said women have a choice as to whether or not they get pregnant. Do you legitimately believe that pregnancy is always a choice?

Petersen: One hundred percent of the time? No. But that is such an infinitesimally small amount of the overall abortions that its frequently used to then justify all other abortions. Even pro-choice Governor Gary Johnson signed a bill that banned partial-birth abortions in New Mexico, so at some point we must admit we are dehumanizing the unborn. It is a human. Do all humans deserve the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Absolutely. If we found a cluster of cells on Mars, scientists would say thats evidence of life. So then why is the unborn cluster of human cells not?

McAfee: On that same subject: Youve said you would be an elected official who would fight for pro-life issues, and you defined abortion as murder in the same sentence. That mentality could set the U.S. back to the 1950s in terms of health care, and could be seen as an overreach of governmental authority. As a former libertarian and current republican, how can you justify that government interference?

Petersen: Current libertarian, current Republican. If government is to exist, it must be limited to securing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without life, there is no liberty. How can humanity become a galactic civilization, reaching to the stars to expand and grow, if we do not respect the evolutionary processes of the continuation of our species? If we are not pro-life as a culture and a people, then what is the opposite? If there is no afterlife, then this life is the most precious thing we have. How can we deny to others the lives that we now live? How can we not grant the gift of life to those millions of potential humans who could become scientists, doctors and lawyers?

McAfee: Religious freedom laws have been very controversial, and I loved your question to Gary Johnson on whether a Jewish baker should be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi. To follow on that, can you clarify your beliefs here? Do you, for instance, believe a white baker should be able to reject the business of a black man because of his racial differences?

Petersen: I believe any person should be able to refuse to hand over their private property to anyone for any reason. That being said, Im not interested in going back and overturning the Civil Rights Act. I think the best way forward is to find a way to respect the religious beliefs of our fellow citizens. Religious freedom acts have been passed on the state and federal levels, and I support them.

McAfee: Do you think atheists and other freethinker groups should be less confrontational when it comes to minor violations of separation of church and state? For instance, how would you react to a statute depicting the Ten Commandments placed on government property?

Petersen: Yes, I absolutely do. I roll my eyes at people who think we are somehow having some sort of victory because we removed In God We Trust from money when there are so many other substantive issues that actually affect peoples lives. However, if youre putting up any new religious monuments on public property, all religions or non-religions ought to have equal access to display theirs as well.

McAfee: I am not as concerned about who bakes cakes for whom as I am about religious freedom laws that actually kill children. If you dont know what I mean, Im talking about the handful of states with extreme religious freedom laws allowing parents to literally get away with murder when they use faith healing instead of medicine to treat their terminally ill children. One particularly notable case comes out of Idaho, where more children die due to faith-based neglect than anywhere else. What is your position on these laws, which give special treatment to religious people in a way we wouldnt tolerate if it were another country?

Petersen: The law of the land is the Constitution, and we are all governed by it. No other law is higher. Not Sharia, not the Old Testament, not the Tao Te Ching. No one has the right to harm anyone in the name of religion or in the name of non-religion, as the Communists did in the Soviet Union. I wouldnt be consistently pro-life if I didnt believe that the government had the right to intervene and protect children from being neglected.

McAfee: Personally, I see secularization as beneficial for religions (who dont want the government involved in their worship) as well as for people who dont want religious influences to run their state. Do you value separation of church and state, and recognize that our founders intended to keep these two entities apart for good reasons?

Petersen: Constitutionally, there is no technical separation of church and state. Rather, there is freedom from the establishment of a state religion. Originally, some founders thought this meant that the federal government could not establish a religion, but the states might. Since the Reconstruction Era amendments, however, this has shifted and now the states may not do so. And many state constitutions already have a clause similar to the federal governments.

I agree with James Madison, who wrote, We are teaching the world the great truth that governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of government.

And my greatest inspiration on the issue, which I would have liked to have seen written word-for-word into the Constitution if it had been expedient, comes from Thomas Jeffersons Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: Be it enactedthat no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion

McAfee: Separation of church and state is important to me, and many of my readers, but science issues are perhaps even more crucial. Do you accept the scientific consensus on things like the helpfulness of vaccines, evolution, and climate change influenced in part by humans?

Petersen: I certainly accept it on vaccines and evolution. I am agnostic on the issue of climate change, because climate science relies on predictions. Since predictions have generally the same accuracy rate as astrologers and psychics, I think we ought to get along with our business and avoid centralizing economic planning into the hands of a few self-interested bureaucrats in Washington D.C. If climate change is real, and it very well could be, then progress via industrial capitalism will be the solution. The cause is also the cure.

McAfee: You seem like a rational person. How much of a role do you give to science in your decision-making? Do you check peer-reviewed papers or rely on your instinct?

Petersen: I do check peer-reviewed papers. Im fully willing to change my mind when evidence conflicts with my worldview. Yes, I do have my ideas, but I try to avoid confirming my biases if at all possible. Im open-minded. I like being proven wrong, because even though your ego takes a blow, you learn something, and I love to keep learning and growing intellectually.

McAfee: I couldnt agree more on being proven wrong. Is there anything else youd like to add to this?

Petersen: Theres a reason that the First Amendment comes first. Being able to choose your own religion or choose to not have any religion at all! is a vital part of our inherent liberties as rational human beings. Im committed to preserving liberty above all else, and that includes protecting the freedom of an individuals conscience and intelligence on matters of belief. If elected, I will certainly do this and not only for people I agree with, but also (and especially) for those whose views differ from my own.

Overall, Petersen is an interesting candidate. I dont blame him for avoiding the word atheist, although its worth noting he has repeatedly called himself an atheist and has even called Christianity as the violent cousin of Islam and as the Cult of Christ. So, what do you all think? Would you vote for him?

See the original post here:

Meet the Atheist Libertarian Running for Senate as a Republican - Patheos (blog)

CEDAR RAPIDS The politics-as-usual approach to state government by Republicans and Democrats is unsustainable and hurting vulnerable Iowans, according to Jake Porter, a Libertarian who is joining the race for governor.

Were having this huge budget crisis, and I dont see other candidates proposing real changes, Porter said Tuesday.

Instead, Statehouse lawmakers and the governor are using the budget as a weapon, according to Porter, who will formally announce his candidacy on The Simon Conway Show on WHO Radio between 4 and 7 p.m. Thursday.

Theyve decided were having a budget crisis, so were going to cut the services people use most, whether its mental health services, sexual abuse hotlines, domestic abuse shelters (or) hearing aids for kids, Porter said.

Theyre not actually going after any of the waste that could easily be cut. Theyre going after the things that are going to hurt the most people, probably as an excuse to raise the sales tax next year.

Porter, 29, a Council Bluffs business consultant long active in the Libertarian Party, previously ran for secretary of state. He thinks his views and priorities are more closely aligned with voters than either the Democratic or Republican platform.

He wants to make medical cannabis available, restore voting rights for felons who have served their time, end corporate welfare, return Medicaid to its pre-privatization status and phase out the state sales tax.

He opposes corporate welfare on libertarian principles. Its wrong, Porter said, to ask Iowans to pay millions of dollars to financially sound corporations. He singled out the Research Activities Credit that refunds tax money to corporations even if they have no tax liability.

Theyve put the tax bill on the smallest Iowans and smallest companies, he said. I dont think the state should favor one business over another.

Porter called turning over Medicaid management to private companies an example of big government cronyism by former Gov. Terry Branstads administration. He would return management responsibility to the Department of Human Services and then make improvements.

The state has messed around for far too long while people who could benefit from medical cannabis have suffered, Porter said. While he would favor legalization of marijuana for recreational use, I dont think the Legislature is going to pass that.

Despite the changes the Legislature has made, current law makes it difficult, nearly impossible, for Iowans who need cannabidiol to get it, he said.

As a Libertarian, Porter said, he would have the advantage of being able to work with and around the major political parties by using the governors bully pulpit to open a dialogue with voters and pressure lawmakers to act on his priorities.

As governor, you can go around and talk about issues and you can pound the issues until (lawmakers) basically have to do something about it, he said.

Porter said his campaign website, jakeporter.org, will go live Thursday afternoon.

More here:

Libertarian gubernatorial candidate calls for 'real changes' - Southernminn.com

Ive always been interested in third political parties because of the wrench they can toss in an election even if they cannot win it.

The potential has always existed that a third-party candidate, like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader, could sway the outcome of an election. They could be spoilers, too.

Wyomings third-party movement seemed ripe after Taylor Haynes, did so well in the 2010 governors election.

But it hasnt gained much traction.

Haynes, a rancher and retired physician, was a write-in candidate for governor. He had the support of the tea party and the new Constitution Party.

He received nearly 14,000 votes to come in third in the general election for governor.

With 7 percent of the vote, Haynes outpolled libertarian gubernatorial candidate Mike Wheeler of Casper, who received 5,362 votes.

After the election, Wheeler said he expected some Libertarian Party members to defect and start another third party.

That is what happened. The new Constitution Party gained ballot access as a minor party for the 2012 election cycle through a petition campaign.

Don Wills, a former Libertarian Party president, led the support for the Constitutional Party.

The Wyoming Libertarian Party, Wheeler said, suffers because the national Libertarian Party has such a stigma for its positions on legalizing drugs. National party members, he said, are considered anarchists.

The Wyoming Libertarian Party (WLP) has been active in Wyoming for years.

In the 2014 general election, when the five elected state offices were up for grabs, the WLP was on the ballot with candidates for governor and secretary of state as well as for U.S. senator and U.S. representative.

The party had no legislative candidates in 2014 or 2016.

In 2016, the Libertarians had a candidate for president, Gary Johnson, and one for U.S. representative.

Johnson was expected to do exceptionally well, but it didnt happen.

A former member of the Wyoming Libertarian Party, Barry Turner of Cody said Johnson and the previous libertarian candidate for president, Bob Barr, were basically Republicans.

He said he would like to see the national party come up with a genuine libertarian candidate for president.

Wyoming has often been called a libertarian-type state for the philosophy of many residents in favor of limited government and a general live-and-let-live attitude.

That political inclination hasnt been reflected at the polls, however.

The loose-knit tea party and the Trump phenomena has siphoned off voters to the Republican Party.

The Wyoming Constitution Party has picked up votes that previously would have gone to Libertarian candidates.

The Libertarian Party members, nationally and in Wyoming, moreover, have wrangled over their basic philosophies, such as the degree of resistance to government and taxes.

In Wyoming they have struggled in recent years just to keep the party going.

Despite all the inner conflicts, the WLP has grown substantially over the last decade. In 2006, only 452 residents identified themselves as libertarians. In July 2017, the number of registered libertarians totaled 2,389, according to the secretary of states office.

This compares with 797 members of the Constitution Party, 176,336 Republicans, 47,125 Democrats and 35,973 unaffiliated.

The national Libertarian Party also experienced growth in registration but not in votes at the polls.

The percentage of the American public that identifies as libertarian has steadily increased over the last few years.

A survey by Gallup showed that 27 percent of respondents identified themselves as libertarians, a new high.

Yet they cannot shake their image as a fringe party with some wacky ideas.

Johnsons campaign didnt help. The candidate couldnt explain the significance of Aleppo, Syria, in foreign affairs or identify a world leader he admired.

The libertarians marred their image as a serious political party by their weird silliness at their national convention, according to published sources.

They also were hurt by lack of coverage by the news media, which was focused on the Republican and Democratic candidates for president.

The Wyoming Libertarian Party, meanwhile, has a new president: Howard Kit Carson of Cheyenne. He was the partys candidate for secretary of state in 2014.

Carson said last week that he and other members are working on a platform that the people need to see.

Well find out more about that later.

Follow this link:

Barron: Third-party movement stalled - Casper Star-Tribune Online

By JASON DUBROW July 20. 2017 9:38PM Libertarian candidate Jason Dubrow takes a question during an interview at the New Hampshire Union Leader on June 28, 2017.(DAVID LANE/UNION LEADER) I am Jason Dubrow, a computer engineer living in Dunbarton with my wife, Rebecca, and two children Cassiopeia (7), and Callisto (15 months). Rebecca and I maintain a small farm with chickens, gardens, and a number of beehives. We installed solar panels many years ago to offset our carbon footprint.

New Hampshire has the fifth highest electric rate in the country, the highest in New England. Neighboring states with high electric subsidies, yield higher wholesale rates, in addition to higher property taxes on power generation plants are major culprits for our high electricity costs. I will address high property taxes, which are passed on to the rate payer to lower electric rates. The high cost of electricity is a deterrent to bring new businesses from out of state. If this does not change, our economic growth will stagnate.

Every child should have access to a diverse network of educational opportunities to meet the demands of the 21st century. We continue to educate our children with a one size fits all system. Without a competitive, diverse system of education, our children are left behind. We need more opportunities for our children in New Hampshire regardless of their socioeconomic class to meet the 21st century needs and challenges they face. I will work to open the doors to ensure all children, especially to ensure low income, are not limited to a single option for their education.

Concord uses the same tried and failed methods of solving the drug crisis. We are not winning this battle. We need to follow Portugals lead and decriminalize all drugs. I will work to ensure money targeted for rehabilitation of drug addicts is used for that purpose rather than failed policies such as policing or life support for addicts.

Our state needs new ideas, not a swinging pendulum of the old tired two-party system. And we wonder why government is unable to solve real problems? The Libertarian Party has a wide range of new ideas that will end the duopoly in Concord and force a tripartisan, innovative solution to the problems that face our state. I will work to ensure we keep New Hampshire TRI-partisanship alive with new ideas.

As John Adams once said, Government is instituted for the common good: for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people. And not to profit.

Yours in liberty.

Jason Dubrow of Dunbarton is the Libertarian nominee for state Senate District 16.

State Government State Guest Commentary

Visit link:

Dist. 16 election: Libertarian Jason Dubrow, in his own words - The Union Leader

July 20, 2017

To the Editor:

Democracy in Chains author Nancy MacLean misrepresents my criticism of her connecting the work of my late colleague James Buchanan to that of John C. Calhoun (Nancy MacLean Responds to Her Critics, The Chronicle Review, July 19). My criticism is not that she drew a parallel between Buchanans political economy and that of John C. Calhoun. Instead, my criticism as I say plainly in the essay linked in your report is of her claim that the core ideas of Buchanan (and of others scholars who work in Buchanans tradition) come from John C. Calhoun. Had MacLean merely drawn a parallel between Buchanans efforts to study and compare different constitutional rules and Calhouns similar efforts, Id have raised no protest. But by asserting in her interview with the New Republic that Buchanans ideas trace back to John C. Calhoun andin her book describing Calhoun as the intellectual lodestar of Buchanan and others who work in the classical-liberal tradition she is demonstrably mistaken.

First, Buchanan never mentions Calhoun in any of his vast writings. Second, in an appendix to The Calculus of Consent his most famous book (co-authored with Gordon Tullock) Buchanan not only explicitly identifies several political thinkers as inspiration (nearly all of whom, by the way, pre-date Calhoun), he also explains in detail how their works influenced his own; these explicitly identified precursors to Buchanans political thought include Johannes Althusius, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Wilhelm von Humboldt, James Madison, and Baruch Spinoza. Again, they do not include Calhoun.

Somehow overlooking Buchanans own very clear mention of the thinkers whose ideas he found to be especially influential, MacLean contrary to all available evidence claimed in her book and in her interview that the major inspiration for Buchanans ideas is Calhoun. That claim is not only unsubstantiated, it is preposterous.

Donald J. Boudreaux Professor of Economics and Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center George Mason University Fairfax, Va.

Go here to see the original:

Author's Claim That Calhoun Was Major Inspiration for Nobel-Winning Libertarian Is Absurd - The Chronicle of Higher Education (blog)

With our second anniversary coming up later this year, the Board and senior management of Being Libertarian would like to extend a thank you to all our loyal followers who have helped make our once-humble platform a true hub for the international libertarian movement.

In light of our momentous growth and expansion, Being Libertarian will be ceasing most activity, including the posting of new images, articles, and videos across our platforms. This will, however, only be for a short period of time, as the senior management engages with one another on our path forward. The structures which were created almost two years ago are not keeping up with our growth and professionalization in all the respects they should be, so the Board is going to readjust and reconsider various elements of Being Libertarians constitution and operations.

While no new content will be created for the next while, followers of Being Libertarian on Facebook will be treated to some of our older articles and videos from our impressive archive of content. We encourage you to continue engaging, and thank you again for your continued support.

Martin van Staden is the Editor in Chief of Being Libertarian.

This post was written by Martin van Staden.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Martin van Staden is the Editor in Chief of Being Libertarian, the Legal Researcher at the Free Market Foundation, a co-founder of the RationalStandard.com, and the Southern African Academic Programs Director at Students For Liberty. The views expressed in his articles are his own and do not represent any of the aforementioned organizations.

Like Loading...

Link:

ANNOUNCEMENT: Being Libertarian 'Going Dark' in Light of Corporate Readjustment - Being Libertarian

CEDAR RAPIDS The politics-as-usual approach to state government by Republicans and Democrats is unsustainable and hurting vulnerable Iowans, according to Jake Porter, a Libertarian who is joining the race for governor.

Were having this huge budget crisis, and I dont see other candidates proposing real changes, Porter said Tuesday.

Instead, Statehouse lawmakers and the governor are using the budget as a weapon, according to Porter, who will formally announce his candidacy on The Simon Conway Show on WHO Radio between 4 and 7 p.m. Thursday.

Theyve decided were having a budget crisis, so were going to cut the services people use most, whether its mental health services, sexual abuse hotlines, domestic abuse shelters (or) hearing aids for kids, Porter said.

Theyre not actually going after any of the waste that could easily be cut. Theyre going after the things that are going to hurt the most people, probably as an excuse to raise the sales tax next year.

Porter, 29, a Council Bluffs business consultant long active in the Libertarian Party, previously ran for secretary of state. He thinks his views and priorities are more closely aligned with voters than either the Democratic or Republican platform.

He wants to make medical cannabis available, restore voting rights for felons who have served their time, end corporate welfare, return Medicaid to its pre-privatization status and phase out the state sales tax.

He opposes corporate welfare on libertarian principles. Its wrong, Porter said, to ask Iowans to pay millions of dollars to financially sound corporations. He singled out the Research Activities Credit that refunds tax money to corporations even if they have no tax liability.

Theyve put the tax bill on the smallest Iowans and smallest companies, he said. I dont think the state should favor one business over another.

Porter called turning over Medicaid management to private companies an example of big government cronyism by former Gov. Terry Branstads administration. He would return management responsibility to the Department of Human Services and then make improvements.

The state has messed around for far too long while people who could benefit from medical cannabis have suffered, Porter said. While he would favor legalization of marijuana for recreational use, I dont think the Legislature is going to pass that.

Despite the changes the Legislature has made, current law makes it difficult, nearly impossible, for Iowans who need cannabidiol to get it, he said.

As a Libertarian, Porter said, he would have the advantage of being able to work with and around the major political parties by using the governors bully pulpit to open a dialogue with voters and pressure lawmakers to act on his priorities.

As governor, you can go around and talk about issues and you can pound the issues until (lawmakers) basically have to do something about it, he said.

Porter said his campaign website, jakeporter.org, will go live Thursday afternoon.

More:

Libertarian gubernatorial candidate calls for 'real changes ... - Quad City Times

On Thursday, Gerry Cohen, a former special counsel for the General Assembly,made an interesting observation on Facebook: both the Wake Democratic and Republican parties missed the deadline to nominate candidates for the county Board of Elections. And that, he wrote, means that if Governor Cooper is successful in his effort to overturn a law passed last year that reconfigured the structure of election boards, the Wake board will consist of "two Libertarians and an unaffiliated voter." (The courts have so far rejected Cooper's challenge, but he is appealing.)

Here's why: the old state law allows each party chair to nominate up to three registered voters for each county board. The state board, controlled by the governor's party, then selects the members of each county board from the nominees presented by the parties but cannot appoint more than two members of the same party to the three-person board. The law also sets a deadline; this year, June 12. The Wake GOP submitted its nominations on June 19; the Democrats on July 10.

This sluggishness would be unimportant if it weren't for two key factors: the ongoing legal battle between the governor and the legislature, and the fact that, for the first time in history, the Wake County Libertarian Party submitted nominations for the Wake County Board of Electionsand managed to do it a month early.

Cohen says he'd been following this closely because he was hoping to earn a spot on the board and was surprised that the Dems missed the deadline. And since the Libertarian nominees are the only candidates who fulfill all the requirements of the old law, they might be the only candidates available for consideration. The Libertarians, thinking ahead, also nominated an unaffiliated voter, Jon Byers, for the third spot.

If Governor Cooper's legal challenge fails, the county board would consist of two members of the political party with the most registered voters and two members of the party with the second-most registered votersi.e., Democrats and Republicans. This would render the candidates put forward by the Libertarian party ineligible.

Brian Irving, chairman of the state Libertarian Party, wrote in an email that the structure put forward by the legislature would really just shut out third parties and independents more than they already are. Byers, the Libertarians' unaffiliated candidate, says he feels the representation of independent voters, who make up a third of all registered voters in Wake County, is an important step toward a democracy that reaches beyond party politics.

The state and Wake County Democratic Party offices did not respond to requests for comment, nor did the governor's office. The Wake GOP referred theINDY's request for comment to the state party, which did not respond.

This article appeared in print with the headline "Lose by Winning"

Link:

If Roy Cooper Wins an Elections Lawsuit, Wake Libertarians Could Come Out on Top - The Independent Weekly

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Give Libertarian candidates more coverage

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

NorthJersey Published 4:42 p.m. ET July 18, 2017 | Updated 4:42 p.m. ET July 18, 2017

Peter Rohrman(Photo: Mitsu Yasukawa/ Staff Photographer)

Regarding Residents invite gubernatorial hopefuls (Page A4, July 14):

Is there any reason why this story did not mention the Libertarian Party candidate Peter Rohrman for governor, who is on the ballot, in your voting block article today? Is there a reason why the media continually give plenty of free press to the Democrat and Republican candidates and yet rarely mentions any other choices on the ballot? The Record should be informing readers about all the choices on the ballot for governor, not just those from the two parties that have created all of the problems our state currently faces?

Please provide information on the real choices for governor in New Jersey, not just the two disaster parties.

Mike Mazzeo

Waldwick, July 14

Read or Share this story: https://njersy.co/2vfSiXm

Go here to read the rest:

Letter: Give Libertarian candidates more coverage - NorthJersey.com

The race for governor has more than two candidates, although the third man in the race is getting far less attention. Michael Pope spent some time with him on the campaign trail.

Michael Pope has this profile on Cliff Hyra, the Libertarian candidate for governor.

Outside the Clarendon Metro station in Arlington on a sweltering afternoon, a candidate for governor is struggling against the summertime heat to get the attention of voters.

Hi Im Cliff Hyra. Im the Libertarian candidate for governor of Virginia.

Oh yeah?

Yes sir. Im running for a more inclusive and innovative Virginia. I want to reform the tax and regulatory system. I want to reform the criminal justice system, and make things more fair for everybody here in Virginia."

"Thats cool, man.

Cliff Hyra will be on the ballot statewide as a candidate for governor. But you may not have heard of him. The patent attorney from Northern Virginia is running as a Libertarian, a party he describes as conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. If elected governor he says he would use the power of the office to ramp down the War on Drugs.

Thats something I could do immediately as soon as I came into office I could order law enforcement to deprioritize marijuana use. I dont want to see anybody whos arrested only for marijuna use. Its certainly a very poor use of scare resources.

He would also take aim at the criminal justice system.

The sentences that are handed down are very often disproportionate. If you look at surveys showing the levels of use between African American and other communities and then the levels of arrests are very disproportionate.

The last Libertarian candidate to run for governor was Robert Sarvis, who ran against Terry McAuliffe and Ken Cuccinelli. He did better than any other third party candidate in the last 40 years. But that still wasnt enough to crack 10%.

Sarvis was out campaigning with Hyra. The problem is that we dont actually have a level playing field. We have to spend a lot of effort just to get on the ballot. Once were on the ballot, theres an effort to keep us out of the debates.

Sarvissays he should have been included in the debates. I was polling at 10%. I got 145,000 votes and I still wasnt allowed in the debates, and I think thats a tragedy.

"If this race is as close as I think it could be, then the Libertarian candidate could play the spoiler and in that case he would hurt Ed Gillespie."

So far, Hyra has yet to receive an invitation to any of the debates this year. The Virginia Bar Association will be conducting the first debate this weekend, and they wont be including Hyra because he doesnt have the necessary polling numbers and he hasnt raised enough money.

But Christopher Newport Universitys Quentin Kidd says that doesnt mean he wont have an influence over the outcome of the election.

"Remember the last time Ed Gillespie came within 17,000 votes of beating Mark Warner. If this is a 17,000 vote race then you could be in a situation where the Libertarian candidate does in fact play the spoiler.

If this race is as close as I think it could be, then the Libertarian candidate could play the spoiler and in that case he would hurt Ed Gillespie.

On some issues, Hyra and Gillespie arent all that far apart. Take the issue of expanding Medicaid.

Expansion is forever. Its almost a poison pill because once you get that expansion its really hard to roll it back."

And then there's abortion.

In general, on abortion issues I would defer to the legislature. So the exception to that would be if theres something that I feel is unconstitutional.

But then theres the controversial issues of the pipelines.

Well Im opposed to the pipelines, and Im opposed to them mainly for property rights reasons. You have the federal government, and theyre taking private property and its for the benefit of a private company, Dominion Power.

Back on the campaign trail in Clarendon, Hyra is making an elevator pitch at the top of an escalator.

I think its very unfortunate some of the rhetoric that weve seen recently thats been very discouraging to people who want to visit here from overseas. But I think they are a wonderful asset, and I hope that we can reverse the trend in that respect."

Thats cool, man.

OK, very nice meeting you.

I really hope you make it.

Read this article:

Meet Your Libertarian Candidate for Governor, Cliff Hyra - WVTF

Augustus Sol Invictus, the lawyer, "revolutionary conservative," and crusader "to guard western civilization against foreign aggression and internal corruption," has for the past few years been the single most controversial member of Florida's Libertarian Party, for reasons Brian Doherty reported on at length (including an interview with the man himself) in October 2015. (Among the colorful details you will find there: disputed allegations of neo-Nazism, accurate reports of ritual goat sacrifice, and an O. Henry-style appearance from dirty trickster Roger Stone.)

Well, as of July 13, after years of recriminations, resignations, and mutual accusations of bad faith, the L.P. won't have Invictus to kick around anymore. The onetime trouncee in an unusual L.P. primary fight over Florida's U.S. Senate election in 2016 posted a video on his Facebook page, declaring that he was "Moving from the collegiate levels to the big leagues, and playing to win," seeking along the way to "unite the right wing of American politics at long last in order to save our country and our civilization." You can watch the full video here, and also see recent footage of Invictus speaking at an L.P. gathering in Queens, and also an alt-right rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

In May, Invictus and I both gave lunchtime talks at the Florida L.P. 2017 state convention (snippet from him here; my full thing here), after which I had two main takeaways: 1) The Party was clearly rattled by his ongoing presence (and sponsorship), and 2) his apocalyptic, nationalist-populist vision of libertarianism stuck out like a throbbingly sore thumb compared to what I usually encounter at Libertarian gatherings. I do not often hear discussion, however guarded, about "the genocide of the white race," from either capital- or small-l libertarians these days.

Invictus portrays this as the result of "leftists who have infiltrated and corrupted the Libertarian Party," leading to an insufficient defense of his chin-leading on the front lines of the Free Speech/AntiFa wars. Most L.P. activists I surveyed counter along the lines of Andy Craig: "We can only hope his gang of enablers and skinhead fans now follow him back whence they came." (Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark simply tweeted, "May he go in peace.")

Is it symbolic that a man who seeks to unite white nationalists with western-chauvinist Proud Boys (of which he's a member), a fierce anti-Fed activist who says stuff like "the international finance system must be destroyed, the New World Order must be destroyed, the Left must be destroyed," would find Donald Trump's GOP more copacetic than the contemporary L.P.? Maybe, though I wouldn't read too much into a single case that has all the trappings of an outlier. The man, after all, did lose a party primary election by 48 percentage points. People (including top-ranking candidates) flow in and out of the Libertarian Party like water; it's the fate of third parties in a stubbornly two-party system, even at a time when all the L.P. measurables are at an all-time high.

"We find ourselves afflicted by the deadliest cancer in human history," Augustus Invictus declares in his mission statement at The Revolutionary Conservative, "manifest in the twin symptoms of leftism and international finance: in a word, globalism." It's a diagnosis that has even less resonance within the Libertarian Party in month six of Donald Trump's presidency.

Excerpt from:

Controversial Western Civilization Crusader Augustus Sol Invictus Bolts Libertarian Party for the GOP - Reason (blog)

On Saturday, gubernatorial candidates Ralph Northam and Ed Gillespie will debate at the Homestead in Hot Springs as guests of the Virginia Bar Association.

Libertarian candidate Cliff Hyra wont be on the stage.

The Bar Association says Hyra failed to meet its criteria, which are spelled out in its debate policy. But Hyra does meet those criteria, except one. He is legally qualified to hold the office, and he will be on the ballot. The only criterion he does not meet is subjective: The candidates candidacy must, in the sole and exclusive judgment of the VBA, be significant; he or she must have a reasonable chance of being elected. To be a significant candidate, a candidate must, at least 30 days before a scheduled debate, have demonstrated substantial voter interest and support.

The Bar Association is a private organization, and has every right to make whatever rules it cares to. Whats more, its significant candidate requirement mirrors the rules of many other organizations that sponsor debates which is why debates for high office such as governor and president almost never include third-party candidates.

But the requirement also creates a Catch-22 for Libertarians and other third parties: To get the exposure provided through debates and in media coverage, they first need to be significant but in order to be significant, they first need the exposure provided through debates and media coverage.

Whats more, the VBAs policies undermine one of its stated principles: The VBA debates are not intended to in any way promote or advance one candidate over another. Shutting out one qualified candidate does precisely that.

Were not trying to pick on the VBA here. As noted above, just about every sponsoring organization has similar rules. But those organizations profess to hold debates for the purpose of educating and informing the public. Shutting out a qualified candidate who will be on the ballot achieves the opposite. Most people know generally where Democrats and Republicans stand. They know less about where third parties stand. If sponsoring organizations are truly interested in educating the public rather than enhancing their own perceived prestige then they will invite every candidate on the ballot, not just the big two.

Read this article:

Editorial: Libertarian Cliff Hyra has earned a spot in gubernatorial debates - Richmond.com

There are around 7,000 seats in the upper and lower houses of all the state governments in America, and of those, 4 are currently held by representatives of the Libertarian Party. This statistic provides a simple explanation to why third parties, in general, have such a hard time in elections, particularly the presidential election. In 2016, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson pulled in 3.27% of the national vote, making him, based on numbers, the most successful Libertarian and third party candidate to ever run for president. Today, now over five months into Republican President Donald Trumps term, many officials in both the Democratic and Republican parties are changing their tune and switching their affiliations to be with the Libertarian Party.

The state of New Hampshire has become in a sense the epicenter of Libertarian activity, its state motto of live free or die clearly aligning with the partys principles. The past year has seen three state representatives switching to the party, two coming from the Republicans and one from the Democrats. In a statement regarding why he chose to change, Rep. Brandon Phinney shared that he felt the Republican Party was pressuring him to push certain ideas that didn't align with his own principles. Rep. Joseph Stallcop, the Democratic convert, said that the primary parties goal is simply to expand government and their own agendas, ignoring the protection of the peoples rights. The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire is now gaining ground in passing legislation that aligns with their values too, hoping to soon create laws that legalize recreational marijuana and outlaw the death penalty.

While there are currently no Libertarian officials in Congress, the party has their eyes on certain representatives whose work aligns with the partys values. Many analysts and speculators see the strategy as people running to be elected in one of the primary parties with the motive to convert to the Libertarians once elected. Nebraska State Senator Laura Ebke, the first to officially change to the third party says that this is the wrong strategy, as it could result in the person not getting elected at all. Instead, she sees the opportunity to work with sitting officials who seem to lean their way. While the funding for third party candidates election and reelection campaigns isn't nearly as great as the primary parties, Ebke and others are confident that if their party can be willing to put aside small differences with voters but agree on key points, they have a strong chance at increasing their numbers in state and federal legislatures as well as in the presidential race.

See original here:

Libertarian Party Gaining Ground as Primary Parties Lose Support - The Conservative Nut (blog)

As the American healthcare system continues to seeminglyspend more and get ranked lowerthan other developed countries, many progressives have suggested a shift to single-payer healthcare as a solution.

Such attitudes have been exacerbated by recent Republican attempts to reign in government healthcare spending,prompting 52% of Democrats to say they support a government takeover of healthcare (this is up from 33% in March 2014).

The shortcomings of the US status quo (and any potential Republican reforms) are greatly exaggerated, and adopting a single-payer system is likely to only worsen our quality of care.

Under the guidance of politicians with absolutely no background in healthcare, like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, the left wing has epitomized the success stories of Nordic nations, such asSweden and Denmark (which are ranked second and first, respectively, by US News).

Little do they realize, however, that following these nations examples would undercut the rest of their proposed domestic policies.

The reason Nordic countries can spend so little on healthcare and still score highly on health metrics is because theyspend substantially more on social safety net services, like unemployment coverage, education, and foster care.

When these are taken into consideration,Nordic countriesactually spend more than the US per citizen; keep in mind, all this spending falls on the governments tab (i.e. the taxpayers), while in the USthe majority of healthcare spending is still paid by the individual.

Such high spending is only possible with proportionally higher taxation, but to stay globally competitive, these nations must maintain low corporate tax rates, so the tax burden is shifted to individuals, whopay taxes as high as 60% (incidentally, the amount that the rich contribute is actually less than that of the US).

This social redistribution scheme, where everyone pays in eagerly, is only possible because Scandinavian countries havesmall, homogenous populations, without any commitment to supporting historically impoverished and/or oppressed minorities.

In fact, quite to the contrary, the Nordic countries have some of the most nativist and anti-immigrant policies in Europe, going so faras to build a wall to protect against illegal immigrants and Middle-Eastern refugees. Sound familiar?

American progressives cant have it both ways: you either have a strong social safety net along with border protection and homogeneity, or neither.

A single-payer system has never been attempted in any country as populous and diverse as the US.

Those European nations, like the UK or Germany, that did implement some softer version of universal healthcare have seen mixed results:the UK is often ranked no better than the US, whileGermany has a rampant two tier system, with those able to afford private care receiving far better service than those on the public option.

The healthcare spending is supplemented, once again, by extensive social spending.

These countries are currently struggling with an unsustainable influx of immigrants and refugees (thanks to theSchengen area visa-free travel), which adds an even more unmanageable burden onto their already strained safety nets.

Combine that with the obligations that Germany has towards sustaining the rest of the European Union, who are themselves mired in their own debt crises, and the big picture becomes clear: Europes spending is not sustainable for a growing, diverse population.

The increased taxation and debt that European nations are facing in order to take in these immigrants has fomented nativist sentiments, leading to far right political victories (like Brexit), more walls and fences, and even aggression towards refugees.

This, in turn, has only fanned the flames for the already ostracized populations of Muslims, resulting in the horrific acts of terrorism that have become nearly synonymous with daily news in Europe.

Strained social relations and opposing political agendas, goaded in some part by single-payer healthcare, is not just endangering national finances its costing lives.

The dangers of single-payer medicine in Europe should leave us weary of adopting similar measures in our own country.

We have likewise witnessed arise in racism and xenophobia, which is often justified and exacerbated by the belief that our minority populations are draining our resources.

In expanding our social safety spending, the US would further these nativist sentiments to retreat back into its shell, abandoning the embrace of immigration and economic competitiveness that our nation was founded upon.

In the short term, our poor may be lifted up, but in the long term, such an Elysium would not be competitive globally and eventually collapse under its own weight.

The strong social safety net necessary to improve our national health metrics would alsoperpetuate poverty by disincentivizing work, thus emboldening negative stereotypes about lazy minorities.

To be lasting and self-sustaining, economic mobility (and the improvement that follows in the lifestyles and health outcomes of the impoverished) must come from the free market.

Considering the plethora of options around the globe that businesses have (for where to conduct business), the US must lower taxes if it is to remain competitive and augment said growth.

The American public must, in fact, look to Europe- but not as the city upon a hill which some progressive politicians paint, but as a case study in what not to do.

Single-payer is deceptive in theory and in name: although those like Bernie Sanders would have you believe the rich would be the single-payers, in reality,allof us(and our posterity) would pay dearly.

There is nothing singular about the suffering that would be brought on by single-payer healthcare.

* Adam Barsouk is a student of medicine and health policy at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University. As the son of Soviet escapees, he values the opportunity and freedom that America provided his family, and as a cancer researcher and aspiring physician, hopes to share his commitment by liberating others from the chains and suffering of disease.

Like Loading...

Read the original:

The Perils of Single-Payer Healthcare - Being Libertarian

Libertarians must cast off their niche-party shackles and embrace more moderate stances to compete in the political arena.

The plight of third-party presidential bids in recent United States history have been, to put it in blunt terms, a series of major disappointments. The current Democratic-Republican two-party alignment has been extremely resilient to challenges from any alternative perspectives. Many of the ideological shifts in the American electorate have caused not a new political party to emerge, but rather strategic shifting of the two-party oligopoly to accommodate these new ideals.

Libertarians should observe the current shifting of the Democratic and Republican parties with concern, perhaps even fright. The days of the Reagan coalition, where conservative leaders like William F. Buckley gave a voice at the table (though not a full endorsement) to libertarian thinkers like FA Hayek and Milton Friedman, is long over. Modern right-wing politics now shares no more in common with the ideals of classical liberalism than does the progressive wing. From the neoconservative interventionism of George W. Bush, to the anti-market, anti-civil rights populist-nationalist Trump presidency, any tentative alliance between Republicans and libertarians that may have existed is now dead and buried.

Should libertarians consider a shift to the left? The outlook there is getting more and more concerning as well. An avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders, came within inches of earning the Democratic nomination in 2016. On the horizon, far-left Elizabeth Warren has her crosshairs aimed at the 2020 election. If either of these two candidates grabs the agenda of the Democratic Party away from the more reasonable Clinton-era members, it will represent a major underlying shift in the economic philosophy of the party. No longer will government intervention be deemed a necessary step to correct for perceived market failures or inequities. These far-left ideologues believe, rather, that the government actually does a better job in managing goods and services than does a private market.

Advocates of free markets and personal liberty face a potential political future in which the only two established political choices are between a pseudo-authoritarian and pseudo-socialist party. Neither could be further from the ideals of this countrys founders, save a true shift to pure fascism or communism. What should the only remaining US political party with access to the ballot on all 50 states do? The only strategic answer that makes sense is to flank from the center.

While Gary Johnsons failed 2016 presidential bid was a disappointment given his polling numbers earlier in the campaign season, a quick look at the voters who supported the Libertarian ticket explains a great deal about where the support was coming from. The ANES 2016 survey reveals that voters who went for Johnson identified politically as more moderate than Trump or Clinton supporters. They take more centrist stances on trade, the environment, and many other partisan issues. The 4 million+ people who were drawn to the Johnson-Weld candidacy were not libertarian ideologues, driven by the writings of Murray Rothbard and David Friedman. Rather, they were primarily moderates; dissatisfied with both Clinton and Trumps candidacies and voting in protest of the two major parties. In a time of increasing political polarization, a possible revolt of moderate voters ostracized by the far-left and far-right seems very possibly on the horizon. This opportunity for vote gathering cannot and should not be ignored by the only other US party with the resources and organization to achieve electoral success.

If the Libertarian Party wants to gain relevance and bargaining power in 2020 and perhaps beyond, participants and party members must drop some of more unpopular and radical party positions. Arguments for legalizing all drugs (not just marijuana), a complete elimination of minimum wage laws and regulations, and the complete abolition of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are without a doubt well-principled, and in keeping with an ideal libertarian vision of society, but they are not yet supported by enough of the population to be realistic campaign promises. For too long, ideological purity has superseded more pragmatic, measured goals for the Libertarian Party. They have been acting as a niche party, and this needs to change.

I propose that a center-libertarian party one that espouses the ideas of moderately limited government, social progress, and globalization is the best chance true libertarians have in order to push back against the radicalization of the Democratic and Republican parties. By positioning as the reasoned middle-ground, the party can work to advance some ideological interests that are largely popular (free trade, LGBT rights, lower taxes, reasoned budget cuts, school choice, and a restrained foreign policy to name a few) while offering a solid option to so many moderate voters within the US that while perhaps not true card-holding libertarians are concerned about either the growing authoritarian tendencies of the Republican party or the rapid expansion of economic interventionism and massive budget deficits offered by the left-Democrats.

Many of my libertarian friends will no doubt argue that what I am asking for is a step too far. For too long, I have heard, libertarians have had to choose between the lesser of two evils. A centrist party with only a classical liberal bent would be a return in their eyes to choosing a distant compromise over their preferred ideal ends. But this kind of thinking ignores reality and the pragmatic constraints of an electoral system, and the nature of strategic political bargaining. There are simply not yet enough true believers in minarchist policy for a presidential ticket espousing elimination of nearly 85% of government services to be electable. As political entrepreneurs, the libertarians must act pragmatically: not only is a centrist platform preferable to the options currently tabled by the Republicans and Democrats, but it is where many of the undecided or ostracized voters are likely to lie in 2020.

If libertarians continue to exist on fighting from the fringe of politics, there will be no opportunity to pose any political threat to the rise in statism that we see in the current political climate. The Libertarian Party and its donors must seize this opportunity, and work towards electoral success. The war against tyranny must be fought from the middle, not from the fringe. If we cannot make the adjustments and decisions necessary to compete electorally in a system already so stacked against third party challengers, then we too are equally culpable in the horrifying direction that the American political parties are heading.

* Colin French is a PhD student of political science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He has taught economics, history, and politics at both the secondary and post-secondary levels.

Like Loading...

Here is the original post:

A Case for Centrism - Being Libertarian - Being Libertarian

For libertarians in modern day politics, there has been more commotion regarding the proper stance on borders than ever before. This confusion has focused on the debate between whether we should be proponents of open or closed borders, and depending on who you ask, you get completely conflicting answers.

Why this topic causes so much confusion among libertarians is a complete mystery, as the debate regarding the proper stance on borders has been self-evident for almost 50 years now. So self-evident in fact, that Murray Rothbard barely even addressed it in For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, spending less than a handful of its few hundred pages discussing it. Why it has been so prominent lately though can be attributed to a few things.

Lets start with the overall increase in skepticism shown towards immigration, as it will certainly be brought up as a criticism later.

Nationalism has always been something promoted by the state, with an irrational fear of foreigners likewise trailing close behind. Immigration, however, has always been and still is an overall net benefit to an economy. For starters, immigrants do not steal peoples jobs, because unless you own the company, you do not own your job. Instead, they fill in the gaps left by most natives. In America, immigrants tend to be either exceedingly high or low skilled, complementing the majority of American workers who fall somewhere in the middle. Not only are immigrants less likely to commit crimes than natives, but research also shows that in America, immigrants are assimilating better than ever before. And although we can agree that we have a massively overblown welfare state, immigrants as a whole pay more in then they receive.

Part of the reason this illogical cynicism has been exacerbated in libertarian circles is due to the influx of both Democrats and Republicans abandoning their respective party, choosing to identify as libertarian with no real knowledge of its specifics.

These individuals, ranging from members of the alt-right all the way to full-blown communists, have caused the focus of the issue to be distorted. The open and closed borders distinction serves only to confuse most people through their subjective definitions, misleading many into arguing over inconsequential details. They have in essence academized libertarianism unnecessarily, much like what modern progressives have done with inequality and racism. Thus, taking a settled debate and adding excessive details, oftentimes complicating it to the point of arriving at the opposite answers.

Ironically, Rothbard predicted this would happen, and in For a New Liberty no less. In it, he refers to these groups through the borrowed Marxist terms of left-wing sectarians and right-wing opportunists, and wrote the following:

The critics of libertarian extremist principles are the analog of the Marxian right-wing opportunists. The major problem with the opportunists is that by confining themselves strictly to gradual and practical programs, programs that stand a good chance of immediate adoption, they are in grave danger of completely losing sight of the ultimate objective, the libertarian goal. He who confines himself to calling for a two percent reduction in taxes helps to bury the ultimate goal of abolition of taxation altogether. By concentrating on the immediate means, he helps liquidate the ultimate goal, and therefore the point of being libertarian in the first place. if libertarians refuse to hold aloft the banner of the pure principle, of the ultimate goal, who will? The answer is no one.

With that in mind, we can better understand the libertarian stance on borders, which is the complete abolition of state-owned property, followed by a strict adherence to private property rights. There is no adaptation of government involvement in any issue surrounding libertarianism, and borders are no different. Every issue brought up by the sectarians and opportunists to muddy the waters does not hold water themselves. Claiming the need for government to close borders to combat a problem brought on by the state requires the abandonment of the libertarian foundation. Wed no sooner advocate for the government to nationalize our health industry to solve the current insurance death spiral, brought about through a previous intrusion of government.

Likewise, the idea of handing the state more power to solve a state-sponsored problem is antithetical to libertarianism. It disregards both the truth that government cannot perform even the most menial tasks as efficiently as the market can, as well as the key argument that any authority the state is granted is never willingly given back. Instead, we should combat the states expansion and advocate its dissolution, specifically the policies aggravating the problems at hand, as aggressively as possible at each turn. For example, we may agree that the state is currently subsidizing immigration to the detriment of its citizens well-being, however, giving more authority to the state to solve this matter for reasons of pragmatism only further incentivizes the state to cause crises in other sectors so that it may usurp more authority in its resolution.

But, even the great Murray Rothbard fought vigorously with himself over this, going back and forth later in life. If this tells us nothing else, it means that until such a time where it is the individual property owners choice, the border debate is done a gross injustice when reduced to the polarizing false dichotomy of open or closed.

What solutions can we advocate in the meantime then?

Rather than fall prey to the circular logic of initial state expansion as a means of reaching the goal of abolition, we should spend our time calling out the problems the state is guilty of promoting and educating those we can of the discernable solutions the market provides. With regard to borders, this means calling for the immediate end to all the things currently being provided at the federal level possessing negative incentives. These include subsidized and preferential immigration policies, tax-funded border walls, and above all else, the welfare-warfare state. Similarly, the focus should also be put on decentralization, until the point where the authority resides in each private property owner, as mentioned earlier. We can fight to accomplish these things simultaneously.

Now, to some that are too entrenched in the debate to digest this truth, this may sound contradictory. But we must be vigilant not to allow the aforementioned opportunists to usher in more state power, so that they may wield it for their own ends. We can think of this in simpler terms through another analogy borrowed from Rothbard. We all believe in freedom of speech, yet we know from his teachings that this does not include the ability to yell fire in a theater, or disrupt a service in a private hall. While we want these rights upheld, surely, we would not advocate for the state to establish a Ministry of Speech to achieve that end, as we know it would end up being a complete contradiction of its intended purpose. Likewise, we want private property rights, however, advocating that the state undertakes its implementation through monopolistic tactics should be seen as clearly self-defeating at this point.

The recent election process, however, has shown us that people are yearning for a change from the traditional solutions put forth by government. If we could reunite behind this foundational principle instead of tearing one another down through petty infighting, theres no doubt we could crush any misconception or delusion the left or right throws at us, while simultaneously influencing an untold number of people toward our cause as they witness the veracity of our arguments when put up against the current status quo.

Featured image: http://www.tapwires.com

This post was written by Thomas J. Eckert.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Thomas J. Eckert is college grad with an interest in politics. He studies economics and history and writes in his spare time on political and economic current events.

Like Loading...

The rest is here:

Today's Libertarians Got the Border Debate Wrong The Lowdown on Liberty - Being Libertarian (satire)

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (News release) - After receiving the required number of signatures, the Libertarian Party of Arkansas (LPAR) has received the green light to appear on the 2018 ballot in Arkansas.

Monday, Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin declared the Libertarian Party a New Political Party for the fourth consecutive time.

Now that the LPAR is officially on the ballot for 2018, candidate recruitment will be the partys next major task.

The Party had submitted 15,108 signatures to the Elections Division of the Secretary of States office on June 12. After spending almost three weeks verifying the submitted signatures, the Secretary of State notified the party that its new political party petition was sufficient. Leslie Bellamy, the Director of Elections, informed the party that 12,749 of the signatures were valid.

In accordance with Arkansas Code, new political parties are required to file a petition with the Secretary of State. The party has 90 days to collect signatures from at least 10,000 registered Arkansas voters. To retain ballot access, the partys candidate for Governor will have to receive 3% of the votes cast for Governor.

According to Stephen Wait, the partys Treasurer, Petitioning to become a new political party again cost over $25,000 and a lot of volunteer hours. Despite the obstacles the old parties put in our way, we are happy to provide freedom loving Arkansans the opportunity to vote for candidates who will represent their views.

The Libertarian Party of Arkansas is currently seeking liberty minded individuals who are interested in running for office. The LPARs elections committee has already been contacted by numerous people interested in seeking the partys nomination for various positions.

Vice-chairman, Chris Olson, said It's an important election with all constitutional officers up for election. We are committed to providing the people of Arkansas with a strong set of pro-liberty candidates. We will not shirk from our commitment to providing a consistent voice for limited responsible government. He urged those who are interested in running for office as a Libertarian to contact elections@lpar.org for more information.

Read the original post:

Libertarian Party of Arkansas Set to Appear on 2018 Ballot - Stor - KARK