Category Archives: Libertarian

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

Libertarian think tanks are not commonly in the habit of sending out press releases praising Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), but that is exactly what happened Wednesday when the R Street Institute commended her call to remove Confederate statues from the U.S. Capitol.

Pelosi posted a letter she sent to Congress Joint Committee on the Library, the committee that oversees the management of the National Statuary Hall collection, to request that they direct the Architect of the Capitol to immediately take steps to remove from public display 11 statues representing Confederate soldiers and officials, including the President and Vice President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens.

Currently, the National Statuary Hall displays 102 statues, consisting of two statues donated by each of the fifty states, one from the District of Columbia, and one of Rosa Parks,who was added by an act of Congress in 2005, and her statue officially unveiled in 2013, the year she would have turned 100. The statue of Davis was donated by Mississippi and the statue of Stephens comes from Georgia.

The statues in the Capitol should embody our highest ideals as Americans, wrote Pelosi, expressing who we are and who we aspire to be as a nation. Monuments to men who advocated cruelty and barbarism to achieve such a plainly racist end are a grotesque affront to these ideals. Their statues pay homage to hate, not heritage. They must be removed.

R Street responded to Pelosis letter by releasing their own press release, applauding her decision.

In 2017, R Street President Eli Lehrer and Demand Progress Policy Director Daniel Schuman co-authored an op-ed calling for these Confederate statues to be removed from public view, and the legislatures of the states represented by those statues invited to nominate new ones.

Mediaite reached out to Lehrer for comment, and asked him about the uniqueness of his organization publicly praising one of Congress most prominent Democrats.

We thought it was important, explained Lehrer, because properly understood libertarianism and classical liberalism is about building a diverse society.

Freedom is important because it allows for diversity, he continued, and puttingsymbols of a cause that existed solely for the purpose of preserving slavery and white supremacy in the very center of American democracy is not consistent with classical liberal values.

Look, the cause for what the Confederacy stood slavery is the least libertarian thing imaginable.

Lehrer noted that the law requires a special act of Congress to actually remove the statues completely from the Capitol property and return them to their states (similar to the congressional act that brought in Rosa Parks as a new statue), but there is no such procedure needed to simply remove them from public display, commenting that this was the solution he and Schuman had proposed in their 2017 op-ed.

Theresnothing that says where they have to be, and they can be hidden, he said. The states can then find more fitting symbols for them, that represent peoplewho are actually good and actually did good things anybody who is there primarily for their service to the Confederacy is not someone who is admirable.

For his own home state, Virginia, Lehrer suggested their Confederate statue should be replaced with Grace Hopper, a computer scientist, a pioneer in computer programming, and a Rear Admiral in the U.S. Navy who passed away in 1992.

Theres only one female scientist or engineer in the collection right now, said Lehrer, calling Hopper perfect for Virginia because the two biggest industries are military and high tech, and observing that there was not currently anything of note in the state named for her.

As for my own home state of Florida, one of our Capitol statues depicts Dr. John B. Gorrie, the physician and inventor who is viewed as the father of air conditioning undoubtedly a most beloved representative for the Sunshine State. The other is Edmund Kirby Smith, a general in the Confederate Army who was born in St. Augustine but had little ties to Florida after his early childhood.

In 2018, the Florida Legislature passed a bill to replace Smith with an actual Floridian, Mary McLeod Bethune, the founder of what is now Bethune-Cookman College, a historically black university in Daytona Beach.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Excerpt from:

Libertarian Think Tank Praises Pelosis Call to Remove Confederate Statues from Capitol: Slavery is The Least Libertarian Thing Imaginable - Mediaite

Democrats seem surprised that Rep. Tom McClintock (RCalif.), a libertarian-leaning conservative, favors the abolition of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that often shields police officers from liability for violating people's constitutional rights. The Democrat opposing McClintock in this year's election, Brynne Kennedy, claims his position on qualified immunity, which she calls "a welcome surprise," implies that he should support the rest of her agenda, including such completely unrelated issues as Medicare, Social Security, and price controls for prescription drugs. If McClintock really wants to prove his bipartisanship, she says, he should agree with her about those issues too.

Given McClintock's history and ideology, Democrats should not have been surprised by his position on qualified immunity, and Kennedy's argument implies that true bipartisanship requires Republicans to agree with Democrats about everything. Her reaction to his stance, whether sincere or not, reflects a broader obstacle to building a trans-ideological coalition for police reform in the wake of George Floyd's death and the ensuing protests. Many left-leaning supporters of that cause either do not understand or willfully ignore the perspective of people like McClintock, and that incomprehension or misrepresentation risks alienating potential allies who disagree with them about a lot of other things.

As the RaleighNews & Observer noted, McClintock is not a newcomer to police reform, which he supported as a state legislator. Back in 2007, McClintock was outraged by the California Supreme Court's decision in Copley Press v. Superior Court,which shielded police disciplinary records from public view. "The Copley decision basically said that disciplinary proceedings against police officers are none of the public's business, even if conducted by a civil service commission under all due process considerations and even if the charges are proven," he said. "In short, once a citizen complains about the misuse of police power, even though the complaint is found to be entirely true, the public has no right to know. That is nuts."

Nor is McClintock a milquetoast when it comes to police invasions of people's homes. Here is what he had to say about no-knock raids this week: "No-knock warrants have proven to be lethal to citizens and police officers, for an obvious reason. The invasion of a person's home is one of the most terrifying powers government possesses. Every person in a free society has the right to take arms against an intruder in their homes, and the authority of the police to make such an intrusion has to be announcedbefore it takes place. To do otherwise places every one of us in mortal peril."

Regarding qualified immunity specifically, the News & Observer notes, "libertarians have long been clamoring for change on the issue." The paper mentions the Institute for Justice, which for years has been backing cases aimed at restricting or eliminating qualified immunity. Conservatives such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and 5th Circuit Judge Don Willett, a Trump appointee, also have criticized the doctrine.

McClintock's opposition to qualified immunity makes sense if you understand where he is coming from. During his 2008 House campaign, my formerReason colleague Dave Weigel observed, McClintock "saw the real political split in this country (and everywhere else) as between 'authoritarians and libertarians,' with authoritarians in the saddle now but libertarians coming on strong." McClintock also told Weigel, "I am concerned with civil liberties in this country, and with warrantless surveillance of Americans."

McClintock has been an outspoken critic of the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and he supported amnesty for National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. "I think it would be best if the American government granted him amnesty to get him back to America where he can answer questions without the threat of prosecution," McClintock told a Sacramento TV station in 2013. "We have some very good laws against sharing secrets, and he broke those laws. On the other hand, he broke them for a very good reason:because those laws were being used in direct contravention of our Fourth Amendment rights as Americans."

McClintock also has broken with most of his Republican colleagues in backing marijuana reform. He was an early supporter of legislation aimed at stopping federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries and repealing the national ban on cannabis as it relates to conduct that is allowed by state law. McClintock opposed federal marijuana prohibition years before many prominent Democrats decided it was safe or politically expedient to do so. That position reflects not just a libertarian sensibility but a principled defense of federalism, a cause that many conservatives abandon when it proves inconvenient.

The fact that progressives can find common ground with McClintock on some issues, of course, hardly means he is about to embrace the rest of their agenda. Likewise with other conservatives, libertarians, and moderates, whether they have long supported police reform or are newly sympathetic because of the problems highlighted by George Floyd's death and other recent travesties.

It may seem obvious that you cannot build a coalition on an issue like police reform if you insist that your allies agree with you about everything or if you mistakenly treat them as Johnny-come-latelies. But progressives are making both of those mistakes.

Instead of supporting the four-page, stand-alone qualified immunity bill that Rep. Justin Amash (LMich.) introduced, House Democrats produced a 134-page billthat addresses qualified immunity but also includes several provisions Republicans are likely to oppose, including increased Justice Department scrutiny of local law enforcement polices and practices, government-backed racial profiling lawsuits, "training on racial bias" for federal law enforcement agents, and financial penalties for states that fail to ban chokeholds or are deficient in reporting data on traffic and pedestrian stops, body searches, and the use of force.

There is a huge gap between the Democrats' grab bag of proposalsmany of which are worthy ideasand the reforms that Republicans seem inclined to support. "The fact that it has no Republican sponsors, the fact that there was no effort to contact any of us to have us weigh in on the legislation, suggests it's designed to be a message piece, as opposed to a real piece of legislation," says Sen. Mitt Romney (RUtah), who plans to introduce a bipartisan police reform bill. "We should vote on each proposal separately," Amash argues. "Massive bills with dozens of topics aren't serious efforts to change law. They're messaging bills with no expectation of getting signed. They cram in so much that they're never written well or reviewed carefully."

The "defund police" slogan adopted by many activists (but wisely eschewed by most Democrats in Congress) poses similar problems. Some people who use it mean it literally, while others have in mind a restructuring of police departments and/or the transfer of money from them to social programs. Whatever the intent, the slogan is bound to alienate people who would otherwise be inclined to support reforms aimed at preventing police from abusing their powers and holding them accountable when they do. The fact that Donald Trump has latched onto the meme as a way of discrediting Democratic reformers is not a good sign. While "defund police" may appeal to some progressives and libertarians, it is not a message that will help attract broad public support for reforms.

It is also a strategic mistake for progressive reformers to act as if they own this issue when many people who don't agree with them on other subjects have been fighting this battle for a long time. As a libertarian who has been covering police abuse, the drug war, criminal justice reform, and civil liberties for more than three decades, I find that attitude irritating, and I'm sure other nonprogressives do as well. But this is not about personal pique; it's about how people with different ideological perspectives can come together on this issue now and avoid squandering an opportunity, perhaps the best we've had in many years, to do some good.

David Menschel, a criminal defense attorney, activist, and documentarian who runs the Vital Projects Fund, describes himself as a "left-winger," but he recognizes that progressives and libertarians are natural allies on this issue. He poses some provocative questions to libertarians about whether they are prepared to support social programs aimed at performing functions currently handled by the police. While that is a good conversation to have, it is not directly relevant to seizing this moment, which requires not only getting along with people who have different political views but also compromising with grudging supporters of reform who may be willing to back specific, concrete proposals to address police abuse that fall far short of the fundamental restructuring Menschel has in mind.

Much of the action on police reform is happening on the local and state levels, as you would expect given our federalist system of government. But to the extent that Congress can address the issue, we should be thinking about changes that might gain the support of not only Tom McClintock and Mitt Romney but also Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (RKy.), who has not heretofore distinguished himself as a criminal justice reformer but lately has been making noises about racial disparities in law enforcement. I'm not sure how much change someone like McConnell can stomach, but reform-minded legislators should find out before it's too late.

Original post:

How Not To Build a Transpartisan Coalition for Police Reform - Reason

And a ballot drop box is located near you.

Democratic, Libertarian, Republican and unaffiliated voters be on the watch for your Primary Election ballot in your mailbox. Ballots are being mailed the week of June 8, 2020. And remember,DouglasVotes.comis always your best source for up-to-date election information.

What ballot(s) should I expect to receive?Registered Democratic, Libertarian or Republican voters will receive one mail ballot for that partys Primary Election. Unaffiliated voters will receive TWO mail ballots (one Democratic and one Republican) but may return ONLY ONE. VisitDouglasVotes.comand read the2020 Primary Election Frequently Asked Questionsfor more information.

If you have not received your expected ballot(s) at the address associated with your voter registration by June 17, contact the Douglas County Elections office at 303.660.7444.

Whats on the ballot?Visit the Douglas Countyballot information pageto review a sample composite ballot for all items on Douglas County ballots.

Vote Early. Near You.Ballot drop boxes are open now through 7 p.m. on Election Day, June 30, 2020. Deliver your ballot for free using one of theconvenient ballot drop box locations countywide.

Will you turn 18 by the Nov. 3, 2020, General Election?Seventeen-year-olds who meet this criteria are able to vote in the Primary Election. Those who are pre-registered as Democratic, Libertarian, Republican or unaffiliated voters will receive their ballot(s) by mail. Visit the2020 Primary Election Frequently Asked Questionsfor more information.

Not registered to vote but want to be?Colorado election law allows voter registration up to and on Election Day. If you live in Douglas County, plan to vote in the Primary Election and are not registered to vote, do so atDouglasVotes.comby June 22 to receive a ballot by mail after that time you must visit a VSPC.

Voter Service and Polling Centers (VSPC).Three Douglas County VSPCs open Monday, June 22 in Castle Rock, Highlands Ranch and Lone Tree. At a VSPC you may register to vote, update your voter registration, replace a ballot, vote in person or use an ADA-accessible voting machine. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency, in-person services may be limited or unavailable at certain locations please checkDouglasVotes.comor call 303.660.7444 before visiting a VSPC to confirm availability.

When is the last possible day to vote?Know your ballot deadline. No matter how you deliver it, your ballot must be received by 7 p.m. on Election Day, June 30.

Have questions or need assistance?Please visitDouglasVotes.comor contact Douglas County Elections by phone at 303.660.7444.

See original here:

Primary Election ballots are in the mail | YourHub - The Know

Why are Republicans in the Iowa Statehouse so afraid of democracy?

Perhaps they are not all afraid, but State Sen. Roby Smith, R-Davenport, certainly is, and based on this weeks vote in the Iowa Senate, it would sure seem that the rest of the GOP crew sitting in the Legislature are scared as well.

That can be the only possible explanation for their recent efforts to push through a last-minute amendment on a benign bill regarding county seals on ballots that passed the Iowa House 97-0. Sen. Smith and his fellow republicans pushed through the amendment under the guise of supposedly supporting safe, secure and reliable elections.

Partisan stonewalling and coronavirus conspire against Iowa candidates

Iowa Senate bars secretary of state from mailing absentee ballot requests

Make no mistake, the only things these scaredy cats are trying to keep safe and secure are their political careers by attempting to suppress a large segment of Iowa voters and striving to prevent them from having multiple choices on the ballot.

The amendment, that was passed the Iowa Senate along party lines this week, would require a written request from voters before the secretary of state would be able to mail out absentee ballots to Iowa voters. Im sure this has nothing to do with the record turnout Iowa saw during the primary elections on June 2. Turnout was high, largely due to the number of absentee ballots that were received in an election praised by Secretary of State Paul Pate (a Republican, mind you) as a huge success and an example of how counties, state agencies and the federal government working together to ensure Iowans could vote safely.

Let me say that quote again, just in case Sen. Smith and company missed it: This election was a terrific example of counties, state agencies and the federal government working together to ensure Iowans could vote safely.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

So we had a massively successful, safe and reliable election, and Republicans want us to believe that they are doing this for the betterment of Iowa voters.

But, wait! Theres more!

In an obvious move to keep third-party and independent candidates off the ballots, Smith tacked on a massive increase in the number of signatures that are required to obtain ballot access in Iowa. The amendment would increase the number of signatures required to gain ballot access for president, governor and U.S. Senate by 266 percent. The impact is even more devastating for prospective candidates who want to run for U.S. House, whose signature requirements would be raised from 375 to 2,000, an increase of more than 500 percent!

This is clearly an effort to alienate the 33 percent of Iowa voters who are so sick and tired of the partisan games played that they choose to register as either independent or third party when they fill out their voter registration cards. For a party that likes to espouse the virtues of freedom, Republicans sure love working to silence Iowans, huh?

I dont often take to calling out other parties. As somebody that was a Republican for nearly 20 years before becoming a Libertarian, and whose family is made up almost entirely of Republicans, I dont make these claims lightly. It is, however, glaringly obvious that this is not the same GOP that my great grandmother, who greatly influenced my political path, proudly represented her entire life. This is a party that can clearly see the writing on the wall, and are choosing to play political games to save their party and careers that are on life support.

They are waging a battle against freedom and democracy, plain and simple, and they deserve to be called out for doing so.

Mike Conner is Libertarian Party of Iowa chairman.

Follow this link:

Scared for their jobs, Iowa Republicans are gaming the democratic process - The Gazette

As a Christian libertarian, few things worry me more than the rise of socialism in America.

A March 2020 Gallup poll found that four out of ten Americans have a positive view of socialism. Among Democrats, 65 percent surveyed said they hold a favorable view of the doctrine.

Whats particularly alarming is that this embrace of socialism is making its way into Americas churches. In recent years, among my Christian friends, family members, and fellow church members, Ive seen sympathy for socialism expressed in various ways. Sometimes its outright support for socialistic policies like the Green New Deal. Other times its support for thinly veiled Marxist concepts or anti-capitalist rhetoric.

Ive had long discussions with people whove tried to convince me that Jesus of Nazareth, whom I recognize as God in flesh, was a socialist. Almost universally, I find these individuals dont misunderstand Jesus. They misunderstand socialism.

Reciting the evils of socialismwhich are legionis easy enough, but Ive found relating these lessons to the Gospel is somewhat more difficult.

Did Jesus not say money is the root of all evil? Did Jesus not say it would be exceedingly difficult for the rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Didnt Jesus tell a rich man to sell all his possessions and then give it to the poor? Did Jesus not tell a parable about a landowner paying workers the same wage to all workers, even though some worked less than others?

Pointing out that socialism has killed tens of millions of people doesnt address these questions. But there are simple and persuasive answers to each of them, which I know now after reading Lawrence Reeds new book Was Jesus a Socialist?

As a full disclosure, Reed is FEEs president emeritus and a man I can consider a personal friend and mentor. My personal feelings aside, in his new bookwhich was officially released on Mondayhes provided a timely and meticulously well-researched work that deserves attention, especially from those who see Americas churches as the way forward for a loving and peaceful society.

Like it or not, Christian Socialism is on the rise. How we confront it will be one of the greatest challenges Christians face during turbulent times. To be clear, I dont believe Jesus was a capitalist. Or a libertarian. Or a Democrat or Republican.

As Daniel Hannan observed in a wonderful foreword to Reeds book, Jesus transcended such descriptions and showed little interest in the political or social structures of His own time, let alone of todays.

My kingdom is not of this world, Jesus told Pontius Pilate, according to John 18:36. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

Unfortunately, this simple truth will not dissuade people from claiming Jesus was a socialist. For Christians seeking intellectual ammunition to rebut such claims, youll not find a better place to start than Reeds new book.

Heres a brief list of observations, facts, and musings about socialism, wealth, and Jesus from the book.

This is just a small taste of what youll learn from reading Lawrence Reeds new book Was Jesus a Socialist?

Read the original post:

61 Quick Facts and Observations on Socialism, Jesus, and Wealth | Jon Miltimore - Foundation for Economic Education

While the distance in votes between District 1 Commissioner Dave Nelson widened a smidge, there are still only 23 votes between he and challenger Danny Tarkanian.

As of Thursday afternoon, Nelson was ahead 5,803-5,780 with 62 new ballots added to the mix, according to the Douglas County Clerk-Treasurers Office.

Nelson received 12 more votes than Tarkanian on Thursday.

Ballots are expected to continue to trickle in by mail through 5 p.m. Tuesday. Thats also the deadline for the voters whose ballots were rejected due to signature issues to come to the Clerks Office and sign their ballots or show identification.

District 5 Commission candidate Walt Nowosad had 552 votes over opponent Nate Tolbert on Thursday. Nowosads lead has increased by 11 votes since Tuesday.

While the vote isnt final, Mark Gardners 2,336-vote lead over District 3 Commissioner Larry Walsh assures his victory in the primary.

He will go on to face Ruhenstroth Libertarian Charles Holt in the November general election. No Libertarian has ever won a seat on the county commission. The last non-Republican to hold a seat on the board of commissioners was independent Cecil Stodieck, who ran unopposed in 1946 and only served two years.

Read more:

Nelson lead up to 23 votes over Tarkanian - The Record-Courier

Rep. Justin AmashJustin AmashThe Hill's Campaign Report: DOJ, intel to be major issues in 2020 Amash decides against Libertarian campaign for president The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - In reversal, Trump says he won't disband coronavirus task force MORE (L-Mich.) announced Saturday he will not run for president as a Libertarian, saying the circumstances do not lend themselves toward a successful third-party campaign.

Ive spent nearly three weeks assessing the race, appearing in media, talking to delegates and donors, watching the Libertarian Partys convention plan unfold, and gathering feedback from family, friends, and other advisers, Amash tweeted. After much reflection, Ive concluded that circumstances dont lend themselves to my success as a candidate for president this year, and therefore I will not be a candidate.

After much reflection, Ive concluded that circumstances dont lend themselves to my success as a candidate for president this year, and therefore I will not be a candidate.

Amash maintained that a third-party candidate could contribute a fresh outlook on politics for American voters, but said the intensely partisan atmosphere surrounding the 2020 race would hinder a successful Libertarian campaign.

I continue to believe that a candidate from outside the old parties, offering a vision of government grounded in liberty and equality, can break through in the right environment. But this environment presents extraordinary challenges, Amash said. Polarization is near an all-time high. Electoral success requires an audience willing to consider alternatives, but both social media and traditional media are dominated by voices strongly averse to the political risks posed by a viable third candidate.

Amash teased a third-party campaign late last month when he launched an exploratory committee to seek the Libertarian Partys presidential nomination. The Michigan lawmaker, who formerly belonged to the Republican Party, had been toying for months with the prospect of launching a third-party White House bid.

Known as a conservative with an independent streak, Amash began souring on the GOP after President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump slams Fox after hydroxychloroquine warning: 'Looking for a new outlet' Trump threatens permanent freeze on WHO funding without 'major' reforms within 30 days Schumer: Trump's statements on hydroxychloroquine 'is reckless, reckless, reckless' MOREs inauguration, accusing the party of abandoning fiscal conservatism and turning a blind eye to misbehavior to appease the president.

His national profile steadily rose with his increasingly vocal barbs against the president and some of his House colleagues, which came to a head when he said hewould back Democratsin their impeachment effort and formally left the Republican Party.

This president will be in power for only a short time, but excusing his misbehavior will forever tarnish your name. To my Republican colleagues: Step outside your media and social bubble. History will not look kindly on disingenuous, frivolous, and false defenses of this man, Amash said before supporting the Houses impeachment resolution in October.

If he had run, Amash easily would have been the highest-profile third-party candidate in the race, with no candidate thus far this cycleenjoying the name recognition of the Green Partys Jill Stein or the Libertarian Partys Gary JohnsonGary Earl JohnsonAmash decides against Libertarian campaign for president The Hill's Campaign Report: Amash moves toward Libertarian presidential bid Amash launches exploratory committee for Libertarian presidential run MORE in 2016.

Amash expressed concerns over the Libertarian Partys organizational footing in the 2020 race, citing struggles to get on the ballot in all 50 states in November and unity around an ultimate nominee. However, he said he was optimistic about Libertarian candidates chances down the ballot and said he will help the party make electoral gains.

Ive been speaking directly to delegates about this opportunity for only a short time, but these conversations have solidified my belief that the Libertarian Party is well positioned to become a major and consistent contender to win elections at all levels of government, he said. I remain invested in helping the party realize these possibilities and look forward to the successes ahead.

Amashs decision frees him up to focus on reelection in his Michigan House district, which the GOP is eager to flip. The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan election handicapper, rates Amashs seat as Lean Republican.

Updated at 2:36 p.m.

Go here to read the rest:

Amash decides against Libertarian campaign for president | TheHill - The Hill

A group of 35 independent gyms and fitness centers is suing the state, saying they could reopen for business safely but theyre not being allowed to.

In a May 11 filing with the Lake County Court of Common Please, attorney Maurice Thompson argued that gyms "pose a significantly lower risk of harmful infections than nearly any alternative operation."

He said the gyms maintain private memberships, control who can come in and often operate by appointment. He added that, while "nearly 100% of deaths" from COVID-19 are people over 60, the same percentage of his clients' customers are under that age.

Thompson argued these gyms should never have been closed because they could have been operating safely all along.

"In prohibiting healthy behavior through exercise at Ohio gyms, Defendants continue to obstruct rather than advance Ohioans health, all the while having continuously overinflated the risk of harm to the general public," the complaint reads.

The lawsuit names Ohio Department of Health director Amy Acton and the Lake County General Health District as defendants.

Thompsons libertarian 1851 Center for Constitutional Lawfiled an earlier suit for a Columbus bridal shopclaiming it was unfairly shut down as a non-essential business. Thompson lost that case, but says this one is even stronger because the original stay-at-home order has changed.

The newStay Safe Ohio order, in basically opening80% of the economyand leaving gyms out, is much more arbitrary and much more unequal," Thompson says.

Asked about the lawsuit, Gov. Mike DeWine said he gets "sued a lot." On Thursday, the governor announced that gyms and fitness centers would be able to reopen May 26, with new guidelines developed by a state working group.

Continued here:

Libertarian Group Sues Ohio Again On Behalf Of Closed Gyms - WOSU

With less than two weeks left before 1,000 or so Libertarian Party delegates select their 2020 presidential and vice presidential nominees in an unprecedented online-only vote, you could probably forgive Jacob Hornberger for being a little irritable.

Hornberger, the 70-year-old founder of the Future of Freedom Foundation, has, after all, won a clear majority of the party's presidential primaries and caucuses, nonbinding though they may be. He has been in and out and back in Libertarian politics for more than two decades now. And yet ever since Rep. Justin Amash (LMich.) threw his hat into the ring on April 28, Hornberger has been all but ignored by the mainstream media, while Amash galivants on cable news networks and HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher.

So it came as little surprise Saturday night that when the formerly Republican and independent congressman participated in his first Libertarian presidential debate, it was Hornbergerauthor of an eight-part blog series titled, "Justin Amash, LP Interloper"who came out swinging hardest.

"Even the libertarian-leaning conservative members of Congress have websites that direct children to the website of the CIAthe most evil agency in U.S. history," Hornberger charged in his opening statement, reiterating his critique of a student resource page at amash.house.gov. "Conservatives love free enterprise, but have long supported the evil, immoral, socialist, central-planning, Republican/Democratic system of immigration controls, which has brought death and suffering to countless people, as well as a brutal police state consisting of highway checkpoints and other initiations of force against innocent people."

Running as he is a "campaign of principle for the party of principle," in a cycle where many Libertarians seem particularly eager to shed their image as a refuge for ideologically alienated and/or politically opportunistic ex-Republicans, Hornberger portrayed Amash as someone merely tinkering around the edges of the welfare/warfare state.

"Conservatives love to 'reform,'" he said. "But reform of tyranny is not freedom. Freedom is a dismantling of tyranny.In this election Libertarian Party members are asked to trade away our principles for a conservative/progressive/libertarian mush, all for the sake of big publicity and the hopes of garnering votes. If we make that trade, we become like them. We become conservatives and progressives. We become the party of expediency."

Those who assume Amash will waltz to a first-ballot nomination over Memorial Day weekend should take a look at the Libertarian Party of Kentucky's post-debate voting exercise among one-quarter of confirmed L.P. convention delegates. In the first round of polling, Amash received just 33.3 percent of the vote, compared to runner-up Hornberger's 21 percent. (The party requires winning candidates to earn 50 percent plus one vote, using an instant runoff process in which the last-place finisher in each round, and everyone under 5 percent, gets lopped off for the next.)

Amash eventually won the informal vote, but it took him six rounds. Here's how the totals went, as reported:

Round 1: Amash 33.3 percent, Hornberger 21 percent, Jo Jorgensen 16.6 percent, Vermin Supreme 7.7 percent, Judge Jim Gray 6.6 percent, Adam Kokesh 6.2 percent, John Monds 5 percent, Arvin Vohra 1.5 percent.

Round 2: Amash 35.1 percent, Hornberger 23.3 percent, Jorgensen 18.5 percent, Supreme 9.3 percent, Kokesh 7.7 percent, Gray 7 percent.

Round 3: Amash 37.3 percent, Hornberger 22.4 percent, Jorgensen 21.6 percent, Supreme 10.1 percent, Kokesh 8.6 percent.

Round 4: Amash 39.3 percent, Jorgensen 24.8 percent, Hornberger 22.9 percent, Supreme 13 percent.

Round 5: Amash 43.8 percent, Jorgensen 30.5 percent, Hornberger 25.7 percent.

Round 6: Amash 55.6 percent, Jorgensen 44.4 percent.

Jorgensen, the 1996 Libertarian vice presidential nominee who caught Hornberger from behind in Round 4 and eventually elbowed him out, is campaigning in a sort of third lane between the no-holds-barred radicalism of Hornberger and anarchist Adam Kokesh, and the more pragmatic approach favored by Amash and Judge Jim Gray. "I'm offering something that's principled and practical," she said in her closing statement Saturday night.

Jorgensen was the only other debate participant to significantly challenge Amash, albeit in a much less abrasive way than Hornberger (who said that he could not commit to endorsing the congressman should he win the nomination). In her opening statement, she asked Amash a series of questions, most of which he didn't address.

"Would you use your authority as commander-in-chief to end our involvement in foreign wars, stop subsidizing the defense of wealthy allies, and bring our troops home? I will," Jorgensen said. "Would youuse your pardon power to free people convicted of exposing government corruption, violating unconstitutional laws, or committing so-called crimes when there's no victim? I will. Would you immediately stop construction on President Trump's border wall boondoggle, and work to eliminate quotas on immigration so that anyone who wishes to come to America could do so legally? I will. And last, where do you stand on one of the most divisive issues in America: abortion? Do you support the Libertarian Party platform? I do. It's not enough to be better than Trump or Biden. Our nominee must be deeply principled with a long commitment to our party."

Amash did address abortion in the debate, saying at first: "I'm pro-life. I believe that the pro-life position is a Libertarian position, and my goal is to work outside of the Libertarian Party to convince people of that. I work with pregnancy resource centers, for example, here in West Michigan, to try to get the message out and spread the message about life. I don't think that the government is most effective at doing that sort of thing. As a president, the Libertarian Party supports the idea of not funding abortion providers. So, the Libertarian Party is aligned with my position on that."

Hornberger then grilled the congressman further:

Hornberger: You of course pride yourself on being a strict constitutionalist, a supporter of the Constitution. And you supported a bill that calledI think it was in the past couple of yearsthat called for a nationwide criminal ban on abortion, in which people who were caught engaging in an abortion would be convicted of a federal felony involving a five-year jail sentence. Can you tell me where in the Constitution you rely on to support this federal felony offense for abortion?

Amash: So I'm not sure about the particular bill you're referencing, because it was in the past and I don't know exactly which bill

Hornberger: It's House bill 36.

Amash: But I can answer the question. The 14th Amendment provides the power to have the federal government address state violations of people's rights. And as someone who's pro-life, I believe that a baby inside the womb is a life. And if I believe that that person is a life, then I think it's appropriate for the federal government to tell states that it is not okay to discriminate against these lives.

Now, as a presidential candidate, as a presidential nominee, I won't be making the legislation; the legislature will decide that. Congress decides on the legislation and sends things to my desk. With the parties very divided over this issue, nothing's going to come to my desk that does that.

That's my view of it, and when I'm voting in Congress, that's how I would vote. But as a presidential candidate, with respect to people who are concerned within the party because there is a split within the party between pro-life people and pro-choice people, the president will have very little opportunity for that kind of thing, because there is a huge divide within the party. So the only thing that is likely to come to my desk as president is a bill to not fund abortion providers, no federal funding for abortion providers, and that is something that all Libertarians within the party agree on. At least, the vast majority of them agree on that.

Hornberger's most influential backers, at the Libertarian Party Mises Caucus and on the podcasting airwaves, have dinged Amash for backing the "Deep State" in the impeachment of President Donald Trump (despite Amash's lead role in nearly de-funding the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance operations back in 2013), and for potentially being another in a lengthening line of ex-Republicans who fail to ignite a lasting ideological fire.

"I even think that in some scenarios 1 percent might be better than 4 percent," libertarian comedian Dave Smith said to Hornberger on an episode of his Part of the Problem podcast last month. "I think those votes are worthless if you didn't actually convert people or introduce them to liberty or change their way of looking at the world at all."

Or as Ludwig von Mises Institute senior fellow and popular podcaster Tom Woods, with whom Smith taped an Amash-criticizing podcast last week, said at a Mises Caucus-sponsored event down the street from the 2018 Libertarian National Convention: "So yeah, we won't get the 70 million votes, but maybe we get 1 million people who say, 'I never looked at the world the same way again after I listened to those people.'"

Amash's answer to the broad critique is to remind people that most Americans are not self-identified libertarians, no matter how intrinsically libertarian they may be without knowing it, and that political actors wishing to have any kind of influence need to acknowledge the fallen world around them.

"I've been a libertarian my entire life, a small-l libertarian," Amash said Saturday. "And I believe that when you work within government, you have to make those changes that will convince people to come to your side.You have to present libertarianism to them with the issues that they care about or are concerned about right now. It can't be some kind of overnight experiment where we re-work all of society or re-work all of our government."

"In fact," Amash continued, "that's arrogance in the form of central planning of another sort, to come in and say, 'We're just going to throw out everything we have overnight and start anew.' We have to do things gradually and carefully, and we have to trust the people to make decisions through our constitutional system of government."

Read the rest here:

The Libertarian Party Critique of Justin Amash - Reason

Justin Amash may not have that big an effect on the presidential contest after all. Photo: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Imag

Its a vast understatement to say that the 2020 presidential contest is being haunted by what happened in 2016. For one thing, it helps explain the widespread belief that Donald Trump will win despite considerable evidence inimical to his cause, whether that belief is based on mistrust of polls, or observation of the enthusiasm of his base, or the suspicion that he sold his soul to the Infernal Lord Satan in exchange for earthly power.

There is one particular element of the 2016 experience, however, that may be less compelling than others looking ahead to November: the strength of minor political parties, which had a boffo year last time around. As I noted recently, there are multiple reasons for expecting a considerably diminished showing by the Greens, the Libertarians, and other minor parties in November, ranging from less-well-known presidential candidates to the impact of the coronavirus on ballot access in states where numerous petitions must be gathered. Justin Amashs recently announced Libertarian candidacy could boost that partys vote a bit, particularly in his home state of Michigan. But as Kyle Kondik and J. Miles Coleman argue in a new analysis at Larry Sabatos Crystal Ball, theres another big reason we can expect minor-party voting to decline: The major parties are significantly more united than they were in 2016:

[T]he top election on this list [of strong third-party performances] 1912 is the cleanest example of a divided party leading to the rise of a big third party vote. Theodore Roosevelt, upset with the performance of his Republican successor, William Howard Taft, tried to win the GOP nomination. He was rebuffed, so he created his own party and ran for president. The Republican vote splintered, and Democrat Woodrow Wilson won the presidency easily despite getting only 42% of the vote.

But we can also see this phenomenon in some of these other elections.

George Wallace, the conservative, segregationist Democrat who ran third party in 1968, ran strongest in the South, the conservative region that had once formed the backbone of the Democratic Party but was in the midst of breaking away from its ancestral party over the partys leftward evolution on civil rights and other issues. This process did not happen overnight: The presidential candidacy of Strom Thurmond two decades prior, in 1948, also represented a backlash spasm by southern conservatives against the growing liberalism of the Democrats.

Indeed, some of the biggest third-party showings preceded major-party splits or transitions, including Wallaces (four years later the once-solid Democratic South had become solidly Republican in voting to reelect Richard Nixon). And there was quite a bit of noisy intraparty opposition to both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton four years ago. In the current race, that has mostly subsided:

Donald Trump had only nominal opposition in the Republican primary, and he dispatched that opposition with impressive ease. After early stumbles, Joe Biden effectively knocked out his rivals over the course of a few weeks in March. While there is a portion of the left that is supportive of Bernie Sanders and highly skeptical of Biden how seriously someone is taking Tara Reades sexual assault allegation against Biden is a good test of Biden skepticism on the left Biden and Sanders themselves seem to get along well, and Biden performing better head-to-head against Sanders than Clinton did suggests more acceptance of his nomination among Democrats.

This naturally removes some of the oxygen for third party candidates, and the lack of major intraparty strife makes this election, to us, more reminiscent of 2004 and 2012, when George W. Bush and Barack Obama won second terms in competitive elections that featured very low levels of third party voting. Indeed, in 2012, Florida was the only state were neither major party candidate took a majority of the vote by 2016, there were 14 states where both major candidates polled under 50%.

Theres another factor that may strengthen party unity while discouraging protest votes. Just about everyone expects a close election, and those who thought Clinton had it in the bag in 2016 and voted third-party (or stayed home) may be particularly immune to minor-party siren songs. The above-mentioned Democrats who are still shocked by what happened four years ago may put on the party harness and never even consider taking it off:

This time, even though Trump generally trails nationally and in at least some of the most important swing states, he still is favored by betting markets, and he usually does better in polls asking people who they believe will win as opposed to those that ask who voters are supporting. Democrats, burned by expectations in 2016, likely will remain guarded no matter what the polls say.

Theres a lot of uncertainty going into this election, much of it associated with how little we know about the trajectory of the coronavirus, the economic damage it has wrought, and how COVID-19 will affect voter turnout. But the odds are higher than ever that any swing vote late in the game will be oscillating between the Donkey and Elephant brands.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

See more here:

Third Parties Unlikely to Wreak Havoc in 2020 Election - New York Magazine