The Little Brown Reader

LP News Online: December 2003: Libertarians pick up 20 wins in local elections

Read It Rating: 7
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 2
Learning Percentage: 55%

Posted by Lance Brown at 07:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 24, 2003

Austin Free Staters: Onward to New Hampshire!

Onward to New Hampshire!

By Mark Lisheron
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Sunday, November 16, 2003

Alan Weiss, Michael Badnarik and Rick McGinnis want to experience their ideal of liberty in their lifetimes.

To secure their freedom, they have pledged to move from Austin to New Hampshire along with men and women from all over the country.

Once there, these people, members of the Free State Project, intend to set about creating a place to prosper without government interfering in how citizens live. Now, if they can only put up with the cold.

...

Read It Rating: 6.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 1
Learning Percentage: 30%

Posted by Lance Brown at 01:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 14, 2003

Knapp on Party Loyalty of Libertarian Leaders, Part II

This is Tom Knapp's follow-up article to his first article about "Libertarians for McClintock", the break-off group that supported the conservative Republican in last month's recall election here. He does a good job of clarifying and responding to people who had problems with his first article -- which sort of includes me, although I wrote my response to his first commentary before I read his follow-up. In other words, he had answered my complaint before I wrote it. ;-)

He does make one factual error, however:

There was no particular reason that the California LP couldn't have said "none of the three registered Libertarians running represent our positions as well as Tom McClintock does. We're endorsing him."

There was a particular reason that they couldn't do such a thing: they are prohibited from doing so by the Bylaws of the California LP.

And he makes one error of judgment, in my opinion (though he seems to hedge this point in a way that corrects the error when he mentions these points elsewhere):

It's a matter of public record that the California LP's executive committee chose, instead, to endorse Ned Roscoe, one of the three registered Libertarians running in the election. Once that endorsement was undertaken, officers in the California LP had two reasonable and ethical options:

* Endorse and support Roscoe;

* Resign their positions of trust within the California LP and endorse or support McClintock.

There was a third reasonable and ethical option, in my opinion: to wash one's hands of the whole torrid waste of time that the recall ended up being, and take no firm position, nor engage in any substantial action, relating to the candidates in said election.

To say that because 10 people made a misguided decision via e-mail relating to a rushed, nontraditional election (that would be the LPC Executive Committee voting to endorse Ned Roscoe), that all the leaders of the California LP had to get behind them or resign their position, is going too far with the "positions of trust" angle. Nothing about my Chairmanship of the Nevada County LP, to my knowledge, mandates that I have to endorse and support anyone that the "higher-ups" choose to endorse. To borrow a popular phrase, they're not the boss of me. And that's especially true in an election that defies the conventional mold, as this past one did, big time.

My job is to support Libertarian candidates, and nominally, I did so. I didn't think it was a good idea to support Ned Roscoe's campaign, and I didn't think I had much of a chance of convincing anyone to vote for Jack Hickey. Our executive board, like most regjonal boards (I think), decided not to try and come up with an endorsement under the rushed schedule and weird format of the election. So, Hickey got my glancing support, for all the good it did. All things considered, there were better ways for me to serve the LP as a regional leader during that time, and that's what I focused on. The recall, candidate-wise, was a wash for the California LP, and that's being generous. Making us look silly and tiny, by campaigning actively for Jack Hickey, or making us look ridiculous and foolish by helping Ned Rosoce promote his "smoker's candidacy", would, in both cases, not have helped advance liberty, or the LPC.

It didn't have to be that way, but that's how it ended up. I don't oppose or disparage Tom Knapp's view that the "Libertarians for McClintock" who were currently holding LP offices were wrong to to do both things at once (though I think to include gubernatorial candidates from 5 years ago is an untenable stretch). I do oppose his view that leaders should have supported Ned Roscoe or left the party.

(As I noted, he does clarify this elsewhere by saying, effectively "or at least don't support the other party's candidate" -- but in his maxim about the "two options", he includes no such clarification, and implies that to do other than one of those options indicates a lack of integrity, among other things. That's wrong. It simply wasn't that simple.)

Tom's column:
Party loyalty redux:
The Life of the Party, part 10
by Thomas L. Knapp

Read It Rating: 7
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: .9
Learning Percentage: 22%

Posted by Lance Brown at 12:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 13, 2003

Libertarians pick up 20 wins in local elections

Twenty Libertarians emerged victorious in local elections held around the country on November 4, including five who made a "clean sweep" of contested offices in Michigan.

LP Executive Director Joe Seehusen said he was "delighted" with the results.

"I'm especially thrilled that 16 of our 20 victories were higher-level offices such as city and county council, which means Libertarians are going to have a positive impact on many Americans' lives," he said.

In addition, several Libertarian candidates were victorious against incumbents, noted Seehusen.
"Libertarians booted out seven incumbents, which shows that when our candidates run aggressive, properly funded campaigns, they can compete with Democrats and Republicans," he said.

In all, about 210 LP candidates were on the ballot in local elections in 28 states.
Libertarian victories included:

* In Michigan, three incumbent Libertarian city council members were re-elected in a "clean sweep" for LP officeholders, said Oakland County LP Communications Director Greg Dirasian.

In addition, two other Libertarians were elected to city councils for the first time.

"The Libertarian Party of Michigan had the biggest night in its history on November 4," said Michigan LP State Chair Bill Gelineau.

...

Full Release

Read It Rating: 9.1
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 2.65
Learning Percentage: 88%

Posted by Lance Brown at 01:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 12, 2003

Jim Peron on Fred Phelps and Public Property

Baptist Hate-Mongers

by Jim Peron

Fred Phelps says he's a minister of God. Indicative of this is the fact that he's a particularly vicious mullah of the fundamentalist sect. He's an old minister and perhaps his advanced age explains his faith: a form of Alzheimer's that makes one forget reality and believe fantasies instead. Phelps is a Baptist, and I don't say that to libel him. He's actually a Baptist minister and his congregation is loyal. They'll follow him around America to picket and demonstrate.

Instead of burning crosses he carries them and he doesn't actually wear sheetsâ€”that we know of. But nonetheless he is clearly one of the most vocal hate-mongers in America today. But Phelps does deserve some credit. Unwittingly -- wit and Phelps do not go together well -- he exposed the contradictions of public property.

Many people remember the vicious murder of Matthew Shepard. Shepard was just 21 years old when a group of thugs abducted him. They took him to a remote hillside outside Laramie, Wyoming and beat him viciously. They tied him to a fence and left him to die. Shepard was found in a coma but it was too late. On October 12, 1998 he died.

Shepard's death horrified most decent people. Fred Phelps was not one of them. Phelps is a verbal gay-basher. He's a man driven by his obsessive hatred of gay people. No doubt God whispers instructions in his ears much the way God instructs bin Laden to use air planes filled with innocent people as weapons against buildings filled with other innocent people. Phelps and his congregation, sans sheets, picketed Shepard's funeral. Phelps was seen screaming—he screams a lot—and carrying a sign that said: "God hates fags."

Of course if we believed the fundamentalists of the world today, we'd have to conclude that God's primary motivation for everything is hatred. These theological terrorists, not to mention their compatriots who use actual bombs, are very quick to rattle off an ever growing list of people and groups which are singled out for God's hatred. For Phelps gay people are at the top of the list.

Phelps wants to "commemorate" the murder of Shepard. But not because he finds such a murder reprehensible. He wants to place a granite monument in a city park in Casper, Wyoming—he picked Casper because Shepard was born there. The monument would say: "Matthew Shepard Entered Hell October 12, 1998, at Age 21 In Defiance of God's Warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."

...

The city of Casper is not thrilled with Phelps putting his monument there. But Phelps can use the park in many ways. He can hold his rallies there and as long as the parks are open for use by the "public" then can't ban Phelps. Such conflict is inherent in "public" property.

Three churches in Casper have volunteered to have the Ten Commandments monument moved to their property. The Eagles Club said they'd be happy to take the monument back. They don't want to encourage Phelps either. The mayor wants the monument put on private property as well.

But the conflict is not caused by a monument—it's caused by the public nature of the park. It would make far more sense to sell the park to the Eagles Club and let them run it. The city of Casper might win this battle but as long as they have "public" parks they'll lose the war.

Conservative-Libertarian Split: Liberals Get It, Conservatives Don't

Read It Rating: 9
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: .2
Learning Percentage: 65%

Posted by Lance Brown at 04:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Doug Powers: The Libertarians' only hope

I don't have time to get into it, but this guy is wrong. And wrong-headed.

WorldNetDaily: The Libertarians' only hope
by Doug Powers

Posted: September 1, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

As a former card-carrying Libertarian, I agree with much of the party's platform. No other political entity is closer to my personal belief system than the Libertarians, but I have never voted for one. They won't win big. They can't win big. Here are the drastic, and perhaps to them, unconscionable, measures they need to even the deck, and how this will win them a lot of new supporters, even while losing some current ones.

Since it's difficult to design a political system for people who loathe political systems, being a Libertarian is tougher to manage than most other political philosophies. Like a group called "Humans Against Heartbeats," to some in the party, its very existence tends to contradict its own cause. In this form of government, trying to change the entire system will usually require some help from within the existing system. The best way to do this would be to disguise themselves as members of the existing system, but Libertarian philosophy precludes this.

...

Read It Rating: 2
Left/Right Rating: R2
Freedom Rating: -2
Learning Percentage: 0%

Posted by Lance Brown at 04:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Conservative-Libertarian Split: Liberals Get It, Conservatives Don't

by W. James Antle III
15 October 2003

The left is aware of the emerging conservative-libertarian schism while the right for the most part remains in denial.

The truth is out of the bag: U.S. conservatives have conceded defeat in the battle for limited government and constitutionalism and have decided to change the subject. But the American right's flagging commitment to containing the state's ambitions comes at a price. It will be paid in lost liberty, smothered wealth creation and possibly irreversible changes in what it means to be a modern American conservative and what the project of conservatism can hope to accomplish.

Libertarians have primarily identified themselves as operationally members of the political right since the end of World War II. Today this broad coalition is in serious trouble, as many who think of themselves as libertarian do not identify with conservatives at all and growing numbers of them are finding much to identify with on the left. They are not just deserting conservative Republicans for the Libertarian Party. Some libertarians in good standing are actually thinking of voting Democratic.

Noah Shachtman is the latest pundit to point all this out. In a piece that appeared in the web edition of The American Prospect on October 7, the noted commentator on defense, politics and technology introduced readers to libertarians who are growing increasingly restive within the Republican Party. Some of them, like 25-year-old blogger and Institute for Humane Studies staff member Alina Stefanescu, could once legitimately be described as right-wingers. Today, they are steeling themselves for their 2004 presidential vote. The candidate who looks most attractive to them is not President George W. Bush...

Read It Rating: 8
Left/Right Rating: R3
Freedom Rating: 1.1
Learning Percentage: 40%

Posted by Lance Brown at 03:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Libertarians offer political alternative

By Karen Mortensen
Assistant Copy Editor
October 16, 2003

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
From the time most Americans are very young, this conceptual view of citizens' rights in the United States has been instilled in them.

Though many citizens take this idea for granted, the Auburn University Libertarians boast that their political views thrive on this belief, according to the AUL Web site.

"That's what makes our country the greatest, is for people in it to be free," AUL president Dick Clark said.

...

Read It Rating: 6.6
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 3.5
Learning Percentage: 55%

Posted by Lance Brown at 03:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 09, 2003

Welty brings Libertarian background to election

3rd Ward: Welty brings Libertarian background to election

Christy Ann Welty, who is running unopposed for the 3rd Ward city council seat, says serving on the council will be "a chance to make a difference in something real."

...
Welty's involvement with the Libertarian Party began when she was pregnant with her youngest child, who is now 6. When her children grow up enough to ask why things are the way they are, she said, she wants to be able to tell them what she did "instead of just sitting by and complaining."

News: http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/106707334833691.xml

Read It Rating: 5.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 3.5
Learning Percentage: 95%

Posted by Lance Brown at 02:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 07, 2003

Knapp (and me) on Party Loyalty and the California Recall

In this article, Tom Knapp makes what seem to me to be contrasting points: that he's not a stickler for "party loyalty at any cost", and that Libertarian leaders who support non-Libertarian candidates -- specifically, those Libertarians who supported Republican Tom McClintock in the California recall election -- should be booted from their leadership positions.

You can see the contrast yourself, in just a few excerpts:

I've never been a stickler for "Party loyalty at any cost." The proof of a political party is found in various puddings -- electoral viability among them -- and it doesn't surprise or, usually, offend me, to see Libertarian activists go "off the reservation" in support of a non-LP candidate.

...

Unlike some, I'm not inclined to question the libertarian credentials of those who choose to endorse conservative candidates like McClintock or Campbell. I can understand the reasons why one might be moved to do so, even if I disagree with those reasons.

Then the contrast:

However, I am moved to point out that the Libertarian Party is a political organization, distinct from other such organizations, with a mission that includes running its own candidates for office rather than endorsing the candidates of other parties. And I'm also inclined to a certain, very specific sentiment: those "Libertarian leaders" who do choose to go around endorsing non-LP candidates in races where the LP has a non-repugnant candidate should never, ever, ever, under any circumstances, be considered by the membership of the LP for election to Party office or nomination as candidates for public office under the LP banner. They've established that their loyalties are not to the LP, but to another party (or, alternatively, that they can't be relied on to have any loyalties at all).

So, he's not usually offended by Libertarians who support non-Libertarian candidates, and he doesn't question their libertarian credentials, but he does hold "Libertarian leaders" to a standard such that they shouldn't be permitted to be such leaders if they go off the reservation in races "where the LP has a non-repugnant candidate".

I think his case is complicated by the fact that the candidate who was endorsed by the California LP was plenty repugnant -- running a ridiculous, embarrassing "smoker's candidate" campaign (including having his website at SmokersParty.com -- speaking of "party loyalty"), and, it's largely believed, running more to promote his chain of cigarette stores than to win votes or bring in new Libertarians. Practically nobody supported his campaign, despite the party's endorsement, and personally I think it's good that they didn't. Ned Roscoe was a net negative candidate -- doing more harm than good for the LPC. A vote for him was sending a message to him and to the LPC that his campaign, and his endorsement, were good ideas. They were not good ideas.

Which leaves Jack Hickey, the other Libertarian candidate on the ballot. (The third "Libertarian" was only that because of his registration, and said he was not really a libertarian.) There was nothing particularly wrong with Jack, but there was also little to no point in working to advance his campaign. It was clear that he would only earn a handful of votes -- particularly without the party's endorsement -- and that he would have absolutely no effective impact whatsoever on the election. I voted for Jack Hickey, but I didn't see the point in actively supporting him. It's one thing when there are 5 or 6 candidates, and only the one Libertarian, and the goal is to make that person have the best showing possible. It's another thing entirely when there are 135 candidates, and the main/endorsed Libertarian is a joke who is damaging the party, and it's quite obvious that the two in-party candidates are simply not going to have a notable impact on the election. He wasn't "repugnant", to use Tom's term, but neither was he in any real way distinguished above the other 100-plus random folks on the ballot. With the party's endorsement (or at least, without the party dissing him as they did by endorsing the smoker's joker), he probably would have amounted to a more worthwhile candidate -- even though he wasn't a viable one, under any circumstances. Any way you slice it, he was hard to get fired up about.

I was all-but frothing at the mouth to actively support a candidate in this election, and frankly I just determined it would simply be a waste of time (in the case of Jack Hickey), or damaging to the cause (in the case of Ned Roscoe).

In such a situation, I can certainly see where some libertarians would come to believe that they would serve liberty, and even the Libertarian Party, best by supporting the visible candidate who has strong libertarian leanings, and who has long been friendly to the LPC itself -- in this case, Tom McClintock. I also agree with those that said it was only worth doing so if he had a real chance of winning, but I'll give those who did support him the benefit of the doubt and assume that they thought that he had that real chance. Even I went so far as to basically say that McClintock would be the best choice (of the front-runners) for Governor, but I didn't endorse him, and I didn't vote for him, because I refuse to support the Republican Party (or Democratic Party) in any way.

However -- and this might be the most important point -- there is nothing in my official responsibilities as a regional Chairman for the Libertarian Party that prohibited me from endorsing or supporting McClintock. There are rules about such things, and in this case the rule is that Libertarian Party leadership organizations aren't allowed to endorse or materially support candidates from other parties. Meaning, me and the Nevada County Libertarian Party executive board couldn't vote to endorse him, or use our resources to support him. There is no such prohibition on individual leaders, and since the regional bylaws are modeled after the state bylaws, I presume the same is true at the statewide level.

Why does that matter? Because in Tom Knapp's column, he asserts that these folks who supported McClintock are betraying the trust that goes with their elected leadership positions within the LP organization. And I'm saying that it's only his opinion that that's the case -- that the official rules don't make any such stipulation. They do make stipulations about such situations, but not with the restrictions that Tom is looking to have party members enforce.

He even goes so far as to include Steve Kubby, the 1998 LP gubernatorial candidate in California, in the group of "Libertarian leaders" who broke the faith -- seemingly implying that if someone was nominated to an office 5 years ago, that they still operate under some sort of party-based strictures on their political conduct. I think that's quite a stretch. Steve Kubby doesn't even live in California now, and as far as I'm concerned, he has more than fulfilled the obligation that he took on by being the 1998 nominee. Steve Kubby has done a great deal for liberty and for the Libertarian Party in the past 5 years, and I think he has long been off the hook in terms of his obligation from 1998.

To be fair, Knapp is not suggesting an outright purge of these disloyalists, he simply thinks they should be removed from their offices of trust at the next opportunity to do so, and that they should never again be entrusted with such positions.

Maybe that's so. But he states it as if they broke some hard and fast rule -- and I don't think he properly takes into account the unique nature of this recall election, nor the unique dismalness of the LPC's slate of candidates.

Sure, it's fair to question the party loyalty (and the good sense) of the folks who chose to actively support a Republican in this recent election -- but I don't think it was nearly as cut-and-dry as Tom Knapp was making it out to be.

That said, I believe that the Republican and Democratic parties are hopelessly corrupted and immoral institutions, and that to provide material support for them or their candidates is a bad thing for this country (and in this case, for the state of California). Not because it's an indicator of disloyalty to your "home party", if you're a Libertarian, or Green, or whatever -- but because they are organizations that are making things worse, and supporting them amounts to helping to make things worse. That's the reason I didn't vote for or endorse Tom McClintock -- because he is an agent of an organization that is harming individuals, communities, and whole nations. And if I was going to hold a grudge toward those who did support him, that would be the reason I would hold the grudge. The party loyalty issue pales in comparison, I think. What matters is what will make things better -- what will increase individual liberty. And providing support to Republican Party candidates or loyalists will not.

Tom's column:
Californication, LP-style:
The Life of the Party, part 9
By Thomas L. Knapp

Read It Rating: 7.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 1.5
Learning Percentage: 20%

Posted by Lance Brown at 07:12 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 28, 2003

Alabama LP Release: Libertarians call for Fuller’s resignation

PRESS RELEASE

Libertarian Party of Alabama • 2330 Highland Ave • Birmingham, AL 35205
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information contact:

Stephen P. Gordon
Vice Chair, LPA
(256) 227-8360
stephen@gordonnet.net

-or-

Jonny Letson
Huntsville District Chair, LPA
(256) 603-2824
jonlet@twintronix.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Libertarians call for Fuller’s resignation

Huntsville - October 26, 2003 - North Alabama libertarians are calling for either answers from, or the removal of, Bill Fuller as the Commissioner of State Department of Human Resources (DHR). Huntsville District Chair of the Libertarian Party of Alabama (LPA) Jonny Letson states, "Bill Fuller, in showing no expression of urgency or major concern in an undelayed reuniting of Marta Alonzo and her infant son, causes me, and I am sure, many other parents, to feel he is lacking in his abilities to act as commissioner over a children's welfare service."

The DHR has become involved in the case of Marta Alonzo, a working Guatemalan mother and her infant son, Javier. For months, Marta, probably aged around seventeen, and Javier, who just turned one, have been placed in separate foster homes. There have been no allegations of child abuse made in this case. Until yesterday, there had be no mention of neglect.

Baby Javier was taken from his home in February while has mother was at work. Two women reportedly walked by the baby’s uncle, who was babysitting, and removed the Javier from his house. The baby had, at this time, just begun treatment for scabies by Dr. Ernie Hendrix.

After the child was taken to the local hospital, he was unnecessarily treated for scabies again, and would have been released from the hospital, if not for the intervention of one of the women who reportedly took the baby from his home.

At this point the DHR became involved. District Judge Jeanie Anderson ordered the Alonzo family to be split up and placed in separate foster homes. There is ongoing debate as to whether the Alonzo’s civil and other legal rights have been violated.

Alonzo was provided a Spanish interpreter, and not one in her native tongue of the Joyabaj dialect of K’iche’ Maya. This is a native American language which has no relationship to Spanish. According to Helen Rivas, an activist for the Hispanic community and an expert on Maya culture, "This girl has never had the opportunity to defend herself or her actions in her own language."

Mike Gibson of the DHR defends the translations with, "We believe in this case Spanish was the appropriate language."

Decatur Attorney Clint Brown wonders how she can communicate with her attorneys. He adds that cases like this illustrate why the Civil Rights Act mandates that any agency which uses federal funding, such as DHR, must provide clients written notice in their primary language of their right to an interpreter.

The Athens News-Courier reports that Alonzo has signed letters written K’iche’ Maya, English and Spanish requesting that she be represented by Brown.
Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Abuse Protection Reform, maintains that the state has flagrantly violated the R.C. consent decree if the child was removed from his mother with no evidence of abuse or neglect. Wexler added, "And you absolutely never remove a child [from his mother] just because the child’s poverty is being confused with child neglect."

Rivas agrees with Wexler’s assessment, saying, "We cannot take children away from the poor."

Fuller said that he spoke with Alonzo and that she was happy with her court-appointed attorney, Brian Jones. He also said that she cannot choose her own lawyer because she is a minor. Fuller also denied a request from Brown to meet with him.

Brown responded, "We're talking about something as basic as the right to confer with the counsel of your choice."

The Birmingham News reported yesterday that Fuller said the baby was "in such bad shape from neglect" that he was admitted to the hospital. However, the Decatur Daily states that Dr. Hendrix reported that the baby was healthy and there were no signs of the abuse and neglect that usually are cited as reasons for removal of a child. Hendrix also reports that Marta took meticulous care of the baby, who was in good health other than the scabies.

Before being silenced by Judge Anderson, Hendrix detailed his version of the story in the Athens Times-Courier. This accounting is available on the internet here. As Hendrix is now under a gag order, citizens must trust public officials, such as Commissioner Fuller to provide accurate and complete information regarding the case.

The Birmingham News reported that Fuller said, "These DHR caseworkers on the [February] 26th saved his life. There's no question but that he was in imminent danger."

The American Academy of Dermatology states scabies is caused by a mite, and the most significant symptom is serious itching. It is quite common, with an estimated 300 million cases worldwide each year. According to the American Social Health Association, scabies does not usually cause anything more than discomfort and inconvenience. Occasionally, secondary bacterial infections may occur due to aggressive scratching, they add.

Tony Cheek, Libertarian and web master for the el Jaguar internet site agrees with the medical experts, stating, "The kid probably had better chances of being killed by a falling meteor while in his crib."

Stephen Gordon, LPA vice chair stated, "Bill Fuller seems to have had the power to reunite the Alonzo family for some time, and has not done so. I am sure that Fuller would not tolerate such DHR delay had he been separated from his baby for over half a year."

"Clearly, this case of scabies was not life-threatening," said Gordon. "No allegations of child abuse have been made. Fuller needs to immediately provide sufficient information to substantiate his claim that the life of the child was spared by DHR actions, or resign from his office as a consequence of his statement and the refusal of the DHR to allow a breast-feeding baby the comfort of his own mother."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional information: http://al.lp.org/alonzo.htm

Most recent updates:

Editorial: http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/opinion/editorials/031026a.shtml

From the platform of the Libertarian Party:

We believe that families and households are private institutions, which should be free from government intrusion and interference. Children [in this case, Marta Alonzo] always should have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood. We call for repeal of all "children's codes" or statutes which abridge due process protections for young people.

Posted by Lance Brown at 01:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Selzer to Libertarians: Support Your Candidates

Received via e-mail...

SUPPORT YOUR CANDIDATES
by Mark Selzer

Libertarians sometimes get impatient and support some candidate from another party that sounds a little Libertarian on some issue or another. This is because they do not see Libertarians taking over the political world yet and they feel this person may be a good compromise. Well before you do that remember that if it was not for uncompromising Libertarians being on the ballot those politicians probably would not even be aware of our ideas. Uncompromising Libertarians on the ballot taking up a percentage of the vote have kept those ideas alive and influencing the politicians in the old and the new parties.

Also, why would someone run as a Libertarian taking up their valuable time and money if they can not count on your support and your vote? How will we attract capable and/or wealthy and attractive candidates to carry the Libertarian torch if you are not going to give them your vote and your loyalty?

So next time you are tempted to vote for the lesser of two evils rather than the Libertarian just remember the lesion of the last presidential election. So many people who wanted smaller government decided to vote for GW Bush because he said he wanted to cut taxes. But now just like all the times before Republicans have said that, once he got into office he raised taxes through the roof while saying he is lowering them. Not only has GW doubled and quadrupled social spending in the U.S. he has also put almost everyone in Afghanistan and Iraq on welfare too. Instead of fighting terrorists he has decided to put them all on welfare, food stamps and subsidized medical care as well as giving them a cushy government job. 2 out of every 10 people in Iraq will be getting a well paying government job on the backs of U.S. taxpayers. Thanks to GW and his fellow comrades in the Republican Party Iraq will soon be a worker's paradise. GW has added about $5000 per year per person to the tax bill of every American for the next 10 years. So don't get fooled again, vote Libertarian 110% of the time.

I have seen some Libertarians get impatient on social issues and think that some other party may make more progress on civil rights and point out that more Democrats voted to end the Federal prosecution of medical marijuana cases than Republicans. Or because more Democrats are against the war. Well do you think they would be as strongly with us on those issues or others if we were not keeping it alive and keeping the pressure on them by being on the ballot for 30 years pushing our point of view? I think not.

I have also seen Libertarians join some other flash in the pan third party because they think that they have a better chance than us of bringing about change. Well Libertarians have seen many third parties come and go in the 30 years and we will still be here to bury the next one.

So next time you see a Libertarian candidate at a supper club or a convention thank them for carrying the torch for you and better yet, volunteer to help their campaign or donate to it. All they get for their efforts is your support and appreciation, so lets give it to them.

By voting Libertarian you amplify your vote by a hundred times. Let us say you joined the Democrats to turn them around on the drug war and civil rights or the Republicans to make them really become the small government party. This would be futile because you will never get to the 60 or 70 percent mark it would take to turn those parties around. You will just be de-clawed and de-fanged and help to add your support, numbers and votes to the people who are in control of those parties who are raising taxes and taking away your civil rights. But as a Libertarian you can through a big government politician out of office with only one or two percent of the vote.

The Republican and Democratic parties are like ships sinking in a mire of big government bureaucracy and by getting aboard you are just adding your weight and helping them sink faster, no matter what your intentions are when you decided to join. Your voice, even though it may be the opposite of the people in charge of that party, will just be used to shovel more coal on the fire to help them go faster down the track towards an ever bigger left or right wing big brother. Only outside those parties will you be able to derail that train.

So lets keep our eyes on the prize and understand that we are a minority opinion and we will not get that opinion heard by adding our voice to someone that disagrees with us, in whole or in part, and who is part of the big government machine.

Mark Selzer
Southern Vice Chair
California Libertarian Party

Posted by Lance Brown at 12:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 09, 2003

New Hampshire free-staters prepare for newcomers

By Kate McCann, Associated Press Writer, 10/4/2003

CONCORD, N.H. -- New Hampshire members of the Free State Project were still celebrating when their phones started ringing and the e-mails started coming.

Most had worked for months to promote New Hampshire over nine rivals as a prospective home for 20,000 project members from around the country. But Wednesday's victory announcement caught many unprepared.
...

"It's just going nuts," said Babiarz, a database consultant from Grafton. "New Hampshire businesses are calling me asking how they can help facilitate the move. People are asking where's the best place to live."

Babiarz said he even got an e-mail from a moving company trying to drum up business.

Granite Staters among the 5,400 free staters nationwide will meet Sunday in Bow to plan and assign tasks such as directing newcomers to real estate offices, schools and business opportunities.
...

We're Number One ... But Is That Good?

Read It Rating: 5.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 1
Learning Percentage: 30%

Posted by Lance Brown at 02:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

We're Number One ... But Is That Good?

by Jacob G. Hornberger, October 3, 2003

Did you know that the United States has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, that the U.S. inmate population has quadrupled since 1980 to two million people, that $46 billion a year is spent on U.S. prisons, that more than half of the incarcerations are for nonviolent offenses, and that blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are over-represented throughout the U.S. prison system? That's right -- believe it or not, our nation has a higher incarceration rate than North Korea, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Burma, or Iran.

At the rate that U.S. officials are rounding up people in Iraq, however, it's entirely possible that Iraq could overtake the United States and vault into first place, especially given that U.S. occupational officials are exercising unfettered and omnipotent power to incarcerate anyone they want -- without charges, arrest warrants, indictments, convictions, or any judicial supervision whatsoever. And the number of inmates in Iraq is almost certain to grow, given that no one except family members, who are powerless to do anything about it, seems to care.

...

A Culture Based on Murder

Read It Rating: 9.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 2
Learning Percentage: 20%

Posted by Lance Brown at 02:36 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A Culture Based on Murder

This essay is excellent.

by Sean Haugh

On September 3rd, Paul Hill was executed by the taxpayers of Florida for the murder of abortionist John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett, and the wounding of June Barrett.

The murder of Paul Hill adds a new level to the anti-death penalty slogan, "why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?" His sad case, and the reaction to it all across the country, paints a portrait of a society lost in amoral murderous solipsism. Or, in simpler terms, we see killing someone as the easiest solution to just about any problem.

At every level of this warped tale, you find someone who is utterly convinced that their brand of murder is completely justified, and so hypocritical that they feel justified in killing anyone who opposes them.

...

"Bootleg Butts and the Power Wonks"

Read It Rating: 9.5
Left/Right Rating: R1
Freedom Rating: 2
Learning Percentage: 10%

Posted by Lance Brown at 02:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 08, 2003

Bootleg Butts and the Power Wonks

by Garry Reed

High Tax Blamed For Rise In Smoking

My first reaction to that Daily Mail headline was the classic furrowed-brow slack-jawed squinty-eyed "Huh?" How does raising cigarette taxes cause increased smoking? Wouldn't higher taxes cause decreased smoking? Eventually, 100 watts of GE Soft White winked on above my head. Of course. Smuggling. Seems the Brits had just discovered the Law of Unintended Consequences. Jacking up cigarette taxes made it profitable to sell bootlegged smokes on the black market (or what libertarians fittingly call the Free Market).

But while smuggling makes cigarettes cheaper, how does it increase the actual number of smokers? One way, the article enlightens us, is the practice of hawking cigarettes out the back of vans to school children. Surprise! Smuggling drives out legitimate business and attracts less virtuous entrepreneurs.
...

Read It Rating: 4.5
Left/Right Rating: R1
Freedom Rating: .4
Learning Percentage: 20%

Posted by Lance Brown at 11:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Julian Sanchez: Misapprehending millennial politics

There's quite a bit of article between the first bit I excerpt and the last bit. Lots of related links in the full article, too.

The Kids Are All Right?
Misapprehending millennial politics

by Julian Sanchez
Reason

Ah, kids today. Just when it seemed that every possible form of youthful rebellion had been tamed, absorbed, and turned into a jeans commercial, they find one sure to shock their Boomer parents: become conservatives.

Such, at any rate, is the impression you might get from following the news. A May article in The New York Times Magazine -- one whose author will doubtless burn in one of hell's warmer and more feces-filled concentric circles for coining the term "Young Hipublicans" -- claimed that conservatism is becoming mainstream on American college campuses. In a recent American Conservative editorial, Gavin McInnis, right-leaning editor of the painfully cool magazine Vice, spotted the same trend even among his core audience of Williamsburg hipsters. A study by the Harvard Institute of Politics found that undergraduates supported the war in Iraq by a ratio of two to one --a lower level of support than among the general public, but high for the college set -- and were about as likely to identify as Republicans as they were to call themselves Democrats. Jim Eltringham of the Leadership Institute, a group which aids conservative campus groups, offers anecdotal confirmation of the trend, reporting strong recent growth in student organizations on the right. At the same time, these young conservatives seem not to be plagued by the disdain for homosexuals or immigrants that sometimes cause libertarians to shrink from association with their adult counterparts.

In short, it seems as though Millennials—the post-Gen X cohort born after 1981—are leaning to the right, with a strong libertarian streak. Alas, it's not true.

...

Gen Xers were stereotyped as politically "apathetic," but as a character in the archetypal Gen X film Slacker notes, withdrawing in disgust is not the same thing as apathy. Millennials do not withdraw in disgust: They are politically engaged in a way not seen since the Greatest Generation born in the early decades of the last century. If that engagement is shaped by the collectivist attitudes that are already becoming apparent, many of us may soon be nostalgic for apathy.

Full article

Read It Rating: 8
Left/Right Rating: R1
Freedom Rating: 0
Learning Percentage: 30%

Posted by Lance Brown at 05:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Students for Individual Liberty aims to educate

by Rae Licari
September 09, 2003

People say that some of the best learning experiences in college come not only from the classroom but from outside activities as well. A new student organization at UNO called Students for Individual Liberty aims to provide that sort of non-lecture education for UNO students.

"Our goal is to spread awareness of libertarian philosophy," said Adam Horn, one of the group's founding members and current president.

Horn stressed, however, that while the group's focus was on the libertarian philosophy, it was not affiliated with the libertarian party.

The libertarian philosophy focuses on individual rights and choices.

John Yenny, another founding member and current treasurer, summed up the libertarian philosophy: "Let people choose what's best for them."
...

Ready to vote with their feet

Read It Rating: 4.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 3
Learning Percentage: 60%

Posted by Lance Brown at 05:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Free Staters: Ready to vote with their feet

Originally published October 1, 2003

THIS CENTURY'S first potential large-scale political experiment takes its next baby-step today. The 5,400-some folks in the Free State Project will find out which of 10 low-population U.S. states their majority picked to conquer by persuasion. If the Free Staters can swell their ranks to more than 20,000 by 2006, all have pledged to move in (but not live together) across the favored state by 2011.

...

Free Staters - many of them Libertarians -want to slash government and repeal laws that punish nonthreatening behavior, but the specifics are fuzzy. The nonprofit project will not set up a political platform; the plan is to leave it to the immigrants. But if 20,000 "rugged individualists" do move in somewhere, would they really be able to agree on everything? Plus, the states on the chosen list may be "liberty-friendly," but it's not clear how persuadable the locals would be.

Still, it's heartening that those so dissatisfied with this country's politics believe they can work within the system to change it. Perhaps more will be inspired to participate in their country's business by watching these practical idealists try to seed a state.

Read It Rating: 6
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: .25
Learning Percentage: 10%

BTW, the state they picked was New Hampshire.

Posted by Lance Brown at 03:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 03, 2003

Russell Madden: For the Little Guy

I'm posting this entire essay, because I want to make sure it remains available, and the original location doesn't convince me that they'll ensure that. This essay is excellent; you should read it. People you know should read it too. And so on.

For the Little Guy, by Russell Madden

For the Little Guy

by Russell Madden

As someone who has fought for years in my own small ways for freedom, I have been accused of many negative things. Because I believe in the right of rich people who come by their wealth honestly to enjoy all the benefits of their money, I have been attacked as an elitist. Because I believe in the sanctity of private property, I have been told I don't "care" about education when I oppose yet another school bond vote or "optional" sales tax. Because I believe in personal responsibility, I have been charged with heartlessness given my disagreement with welfare — whether in the form of AFDC or food stamps or Medicaid.

These and other positions have led various critics to brand me as an enemy of "the little guy."

Heaven knows, I enjoy no shortage of adversaries.

Many professional politicians have made their careers embracing "the little guy." Some wear their "compassion" on their sleeves, elbowing each other aside as they race towards the microphones and television cameras to prove to any and all that they "feel" the pain of "the little guy," that they "care" more than their rivals do about that neglected victim's plight.

Others wear the "populist" label, decrying all the low-end jobs being "exported" to other countries. These righteous individuals just know that a major part of the unemployment problem results from our sieve-like borders. If only we could keep out all those damned foreigners, the Second Dawning of America would draw nigh.

A significant number of the defenders of "the little guy" wax indignant at the evils of Corporate America. They are convinced that the only thing of interest to the CEO's of Big Business is increasing their companies' bottom lines: "people before profits" is the mantra chanted by these protesting, tenderhearted activists.

An exemplar of what awaits "the little guy" should his self-proclaimed supporters prevail occurred at a recent World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Cancun, Mexico. With confident assurance, these proponents of policies advancing the cause of "the little guy" told the world that they sought to uphold the vision of those admirable leaders, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Mao Zedong. This remarkable triumvirate "'represent the social justice movement, and they did a lot of good things for people.'" Exemplars of "freedom," these three icons "battled the exploitation of the common man." People — not power or money — motivated these guardians to retain power for "the masses, not...a certain handful of people." (Quotes from [2].)

Capitalism is the enemy of the "developing world," and the source of "misery, poverty" and "destruction." Better for the inhabitants of Africa to avoid luxuries such as "running water and electricity" than to suffer under the yoke of "colonization and colonialism." Not only is trade negative for people, it also represents an assault on "plants and animals" and on the earth, itself. [2] Indeed, the very prospect of allowing "unsafe," even "deadly," genetically-modified and -enhanced food to enter into the markets of Third World countries is sufficient to send many into apoplexy. [1]

These enlightened individuals are joined in decrying commerce by conservatives who see trade as weakening "U.S. sovereignty and economic independence." Better, they think, to place stiff tariffs on any goods imported into this country. [2]

When the most recent WTO talks ended, those who laud the dead torchbearers of communism called it a "victory for the working poor, family farmers, farm workers, the indigenous, the poor, and for immigrants all over the world." They brushed off complaints by some such as author Paul Driessen that those deceased heroes murdered tens of millions of their own citizens and kept those who survived destitute and miserable. [2]

The representatives of "rich" nations, however, were unhappy. One U. S. House Representative, Charles Stenholm, said this setback delayed the day when farmers would "give up subsidies" and rely more upon the "market than...government." Others said they wanted to lower tariffs and other barriers to trade. [3]

Others disagreed with such goals, maintaining that keeping American subsidies is better than giving "charity" to the rest of the world. The prospect of permitting poorer nations to postpone tariff reductions did not set well with some, either. [3]

Sadly, it is precisely "the little guy" who is getting screwed in this struggle. Yes, it is wonderful for a politician to back a loosening of the ropes strangling world trade. Such a stance is less than believable, however, when the American political machine continues agricultural policies begun in the Depression that increase food prices for U.S. consumers while simultaneously undercutting the ability of farmers in poor countries to compete against American products dumped into their markets.

How can we take seriously an administration that preaches "free trade" while imposing tariffs on foreign steel that "save" less than two-thousand jobs (at nearly $800,000 per) in that industry while losing a far greater number of employees (about forty-five thousand) dependent on steel for their own livelihoods? [4]

Where is the sense in a mindset that cloaks itself in empathy for single-mothers while jacking up their living expenses and imposing walls of licensing and permits and regulations they must scale before they can create and run their own businesses?

When will people recognize that asking the State to usurp the world of medical care will not guarantee lower prices, improved treatment, accelerated innovation, or greater accessibility to the disadvantaged?

Who in his right head could believe that inflating away the modest savings of the "working poor" (as though the "rich" do not work...) and depressing their retirement income possibilities is a better course to follow than encouraging individual responsibility and decision-making?

What will it take to shake clear the intellectual cobwebs that obscure the vision of those who claim that tyrants are good for the average citizen; that poverty, disease, primitive living conditions, and lack of even the most modest luxuries form an existence worthy to be pursued; that dying in the desert while seeking a crappy job in America serves the illegal indigent right?

Why do so many of "the little guys" swallow the poison that freedom is their enemy and slavery their savior; that they are being "exploited" when offered a job; that the same desire they have — to make more money — is golden as "wages" but evil when it occurs in the form of "profits"; that a collectivism that extolls the "masses" means that he — as an individual — will prosper; that all the political posturing designed to succor him will, instead, benefit those who know that poor people are their meal tickets to a comfortable life?

While I do often praise the extremely productive, the exceptionally creative, the extraordinarily hardworking, I do so knowing that — short of total tyranny — that rare group will usually manage to prosper, even if at reduced levels. Their very personal qualities help ensure that they can and will maneuver through or jump around or over most of the roadblocks placed in their path.

It's the average person, however, the mediocre, the less bright, the less skilled or educated who will stumble or surrender or wander bewildered when confronted with a twisting maze of laws or a thick tangle of red tape they neither comprehend nor can navigate.

You don't help the crippled by tossing rocks at their feet. You don't aid the weak by stacking weights upon their bowed backs. You don't console the frightened by perpetually scaring them to death with dire predictions of disaster and calamity they are told they cannot possibly handle.

Only those with the courage and the integrity to battle for liberty — for the removal of the chains binding our arms — only these uncommon souls deserve the title of "Champion of the Common Man."

Maybe someday "the little guy" will figure that out, too.

References

[1] Morano, Marc. "Mexican Village Plays Host to Fight Over Genetically Modified Food." CNSNews.com. 9-15-03. here

[2] Morano, Marc. "WTO Protesters Praise Marx, Lenin, Mao as 'Freedom Fighters.'" CNSNews.com. 9-15-03. here

[3] Scott, Alwyn. "WTO talks shatter amid clash of rich, poor nations." The Seattle Times 9-15-03. here

[4] Williams, Walter. "Economic Stupidity." WorldNetDaily 4-30-03. here

See Russ Madden's articles, short stories, novel excerpts, and items of interest to Objectivists, libertarians, and sci-fi fans at http://home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/webdocs/.

-30-
from The Laissez Faire Electronic Times, Vol 2, No 37, September 22, 2003 Editor: Emile Zola Publisher: Digital Monetary Trust

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Read It Rating: 10
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 4
Learning Percentage: 15%

Posted by Lance Brown at 04:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Ilana Mercer: Libertarians who loathe Israel

This column was one of the first big shots fired in what has become a significant battle. I posted a link to one of the other shots fired (fired back at Ilana in part for this very column, in fact) a while ago (see: Shame on WorldNetDaily).

Her column is basically a series of distortions and snide slams, wherein she mocks those libertarians who speak at all in sympathy for the beleaguered Palestinians, and who speak out against Israel's extremely heavy-handed "defensive" tactics.

She doesn't quite make the claim that such people are anti-semitic, but she wants to pretty bad. She comes about as close as she pssobily can without going over. You can see it right in the column's title: the libertarians mentioned above don't "loathe" Israel -- they oppose a number of the policies of its government and leaders. None of them say they loathe Israel -- in fact, I'd wager that few if any of them have expressed emotions toward the nation of Israel at all. It's about policies, and the actions of leaders -- but Ilana's trying to convince you it's about a whole nation of people, and that libertarians who oppose the government of Israel's aggressive, xenophobic actions toward the Palestinian people, and their clear-cutting "defensive" measures and police actions toward those same people on their own land are actually libertarians who loathe the people of Israel -- namely, Jews.

You can see her try to make that switch-over right in the first few sentences of her ~~tirade~~ column, below.

One result of this (or at least this theme) is that someone wrote in to me saying that his friend came to him saying Libertarians are anti-semitic. Thanks a lot, Ilana.

WorldNetDaily: Libertarians who loathe Israel

by Ilana Mercer

Posted: August 13, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Admittedly, there is a lot about the Israeli side of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute to be critical of. For one, demolishing the homes of a terrorist's family isn't just or prudent. But it's hard to make sense of a perspective that sees everything Israel does as arch-evil, as is the case with those libertarians who religiously and robotically depict Israel as the devil incarnate.

So, how about it? Is Israel always wrong? Is there nothing redeeming about a people that revived a desolate land and a long-dead biblical language just over 100 years ago? ...

Read It Rating: 3.5
Left/Right Rating: R2
Freedom Rating: -2
Learning Percentage: 6%

Posted by Lance Brown at 02:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 01, 2003

Autobiography of Bryan Caplan

01 June 2003

by Bryan Caplan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Note to the Reader: This essay was originally solicited by Walter Block
for his forthcoming volume of libertarian autobiographies. Much to my
surprise, however, he was only willing to accept it for publication if I
heavily edited the content, particularly the sections critical of Murray
Rothbard and Austrian economics. His main argument was that if it accepted
my essay unchanged, he would have to allow other contributors to reply to
my controversial views. I remain puzzled by this idea. It seems to me
that the only way to "reply" to an autobiography would be to accuse the
author of misrepresenting the story of his life. Unfortunately, Walter and
I were unable to reach a mutually acceptable compromise, so I have decided
to run the unedited, uncut, no-holds-barred version here on my webpage.
Enjoy. - B.C.

High School

It began with Ayn Rand, as it proverbially does....

Continue...

(That link is actually to the location where I encountered this autobio, on the Libertarian International website. Here is the same document on Bryan's website.)

Read It Rating: 5.5
Left/Right Rating: R1
Freedom Rating: 1.5
Learning Percentage: 90%

Posted by Lance Brown at 01:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 21, 2003

The late great United States of America

The late great United States of America
by Roderick T. Beaman

I've been saying for a while that this country is doomed. But I have felt that it would last until around 2020. Recent events have forced me to move that timetable up. This country will come apart by 2010. The recent case of The United States of America vs. Vernice Kuglin has caused my reassessment.

...

Arizona's Clean Elections law: Trio is in hot water over meaning of political 'party'

Hmmm...if one court case can cause Roderick to move up his U.S.A. doomsday scenario by 10 years just like that, I'm wondering a little about the stability of his new prediction.

That said, he may be right that the case he mentions will lead to some unraveling of things on the federal level. There's a huge movement in this country around the idea that there is no law that requires most Americans to pay income tax (as well as a sub-movement around the idea that the 16th Amendment was never actually ratified)...if that movement ends up proving its remarkable theory, and the courts accept it -- well, it might not make the country "come apart", as Roderick "Doomsayer" Beaman puts it, but it will surely shake things up.

Read It Rating: 5.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 1
Learning Percentage: 30%

Posted by Lance Brown at 09:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 17, 2003

Shame on WorldNetDaily

Most of this article by Jacob Hornberger is about a feud between he and Ilana Mercer, over what Hornberger believes is an unjustified attack on his colleague Sheldon Richman. That part of the article isn't very interesting. But he makes a worthwhile (more generalized) point at the end, and I've excerpted that here. I've noticed the same tendency that he has with some "conservatives" in forums other than WorldNetDaily.

Shame on WorldNetDaily

...

Think about it: What do many conservatives stand for today? They stand for nothing more than developing reforms to the socialist New Deal-Great Society programs that they now embrace and that their predecessors once called for repealing, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They also favor public (i.e., government) schooling, income taxation, the IRS, economic regulations, illegal invasions and occupations, the drug war, indefinite detentions, suppression of civil liberties, gun control, an ever-growing military-industrial complex, uncontrollable government spending, especially on America's 51st state, Iraq, and executive nullification of constitutional provisions.

But rather than admit the error of their ways and reject the socialistic and interventionist means that their predecessors once opposed -- rather than join up with us libertarians to lead America and the world to the highest reaches of freedom, peace, and prosperity ever attained by man -- all too many conservatives now remain steadfastly committed to embracing the omnipotent state, even while incessantly calling for new reforms to fix the perverse results of this morally and economically bankrupt system.

Equally tragic, in the process some conservatives seem to have added a new war to all the others that they are waging around the world -- a war against libertarianism and truth. What a shame.

Read It Rating: 4.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: .5
Learning Percentage: 45%

Posted by Lance Brown at 02:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 09, 2003

Knapp: Engaging the Greens

The Libertarian Party is not a party of "the right."

Go Tom!

Engaging the Greens

There's no easy way to begin this article, so I'm going to just throw caution to the wind and begin it in the hardest way possible -- with two allegations:

1) Too many Americans regard Libertarians as "disgruntled conservatives" -- people who would be comfortable in the Republican Party "if only the GOP did what it promised to do."

2) Too many Libertarians -- at the individual and organizational level -- give credence to this assumption in too many ways, from choices of rhetoric to choices of focus.

Please don't read too much into these allegations. I am not saying that Libertarians have nothing in common with conservatives, or that "disgruntled conservatives" might not find themselves more at home in the LP. However, to the extent that the commonalities between conservatives and Libertarians take center stage, the Libertarian Party automatically limits its ability to forge an identity of its own ... an identity that it not only deserves, but desperately needs if it is ever to aspire to something other than "also ran" status.

...

Repeat three times after me: The Libertarian Party is not a party of "the right." Nor are we a party of "the left." We're a different kind of animal entirely, and until we start acting like one, we're just urinating into the wind.

Read It Rating: 10
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 4
Learning Percentage: 20%

Posted by Lance Brown at 01:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 08, 2003

Libertarians urge overturning ban on re-imported prescription drugs

====================================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
====================================
For release: September 4, 2003
====================================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008
====================================

Libertarians urge overturning ban
on re-imported prescription drugs

WASHINGTON, DC -- The federal ban on re-imported prescription drugs has
turned ailing senior citizens into criminals and dramatically inflated
the cost of medicine, says the Libertarian Party, which is supporting
legislation that would overturn the policy.

"This is price-fixing by the federal government, plain and simple,"
said Joseph Seehusen, Libertarian Party executive director. "In an
attempt to further enrich the pharmaceutical industry, politicians are
gouging senior citizens and interfering with every American's right to
buy products from wherever they choose."

Spurred by growing anger over skyrocketing drug prices, the U.S. House
took a step toward overturning the ban in July, when it passed a bill
that would allow drugs to be re-imported from Canada and 25 other
nations. But the Senate refused to adopt that legislation, and this
week a House-Senate conference committee is set to decide whether to
include that language in its $400 billion prescription drug bill.

Currently many Americans are purchasing the U.S.-made drugs in Canada
and other nations that sell them less expensively, then "re-importing"
them illegally into the United States.

The pharmaceutical industry and the FDA have launched a campaign
against the bill, arguing that re-importation could bring unsafe
medicines into the United States.

But Libertarians say the safety argument is just a scare tactic.

"Pharmaceutical companies disingenuously claim to want to 'protect'
people from the drugs that they themselves produced," Seehusen said.
"The truth is that this industry is far more worried about protecting
its government-protected profits than it is about protecting public
health."

The free-market itself offers all the protection that consumers need,
Seehusen said.

"If companies produce a defective product, bad publicity results, sales
plummet, and eventually executives get fired," he said. "Severe cases
can result in ruinous lawsuits and even criminal charges against
negligent executives.

"The same free market that rewards successful companies imposes a harsh
penalty on those that make harmful products -- whether those companies
are located in Canada, Germany, or the United States."

The real issue is economics, not safety, said Seehusen, who pointed out
that senior citizens are paying up to six times more for drugs in the
United States. The breast cancer drug Tamoxifen costs $60 in Munich but
$360 in the United States, for example.

"By outlawing these drugs, the government is simply propping up prices
for its corporate clients and gouging senior citizens in the process,"
he said.

That's why Libertarians support overturning the ban on re-imported
drugs.

"The free-market is the best prescription for reducing health-care
costs," Seehusen said. "It's time to decriminalize prescription drugs,
and protect senior citizens from the government."

Posted by Lance Brown at 02:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 18, 2003

Davy Crockett vs. Welfare

Read It Rating: 8
Left/Right Rating: R2
Freedom Rating: 5
Learning Percentage: 70%

Posted by Lance Brown at 04:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 17, 2003

Trio is in hot water over meaning of political 'party'

Commission orders the Dist. 17 candidates to repay $104,237 they spent on booze, food.

DAVID PITTMAN
Tucson Citizen

Thursday, July 31, 2003

A trio of defeated Phoenix-area legislative candidates spent thousands of dollars on alcohol, food, rental cars and entertainment expenses at trendy Scottsdale nightspots - and used Clean Elections money to do it.

...

Yuri Downing, the son of state Rep. Ted Downing, D-Tucson, said the trio is guilty of only one thing: attempting to run an unorthodox campaign to attract youthful voters.

District 17 includes south Scottsdale and most of Tempe. It takes in all of the Arizona State University campus and most of the students attending the university.

"We are Libertarian candidates, we knew going into the campaign that the odds of us winning were very small," said Yuri Downing. "The only hope we had was to go after the younger demographic, get them registered and to the polls. Those people aren't in church on Sunday morning. So we targeted the places where they do go."

What the three Libertarian candidates did was campaign at sporting events and at campus-area parties and popular watering holes. Yuri Downing said there is nothing wrong with that, accusing the commission of trying to "micro-manage" the trio's campaign.

"Are they saying I didn't run the campaign the way they would have run it?" he asked. "They have no right, either legally or morally, to make that decision."

LP News Online: September 2003: Libertarians earn solid support in e-thePeople.org polls

Read It Rating: 7
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: -1
Learning Percentage: 70%

Posted by Lance Brown at 10:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Other Guevara:Costa Rica's Libertarian revolutionary

The Other Guevara

Reason interviews Costa Rica's Libertarian revolutionary

Excerpt:

Perhaps surprisingly, the most successful libertarian party in recent years has arisen in Latin America, where left and right wing variants of statism have been the norm for much of the 20th century. In Costa Rica, the ten-year-old Movimiento Libertario has managed to elect six diputados to the country's 57-seat congress. The chief architect of that success was Otto Guevara, who served as the party's first elected diputado, from 1998 to 2002. In late July, he spoke with Reason during a visit to Washington, D.C.'s Cato Institute.

What inspired you to launch a Costa Rican libertarian party?

To understand the birth of Movimiento Libertario, you need to put yourself in the context of the Costa Rica of that time. Costa Rica is a substantially socialist country, with a state monopoly on alcohol, a state monopoly on insurance. There's a state monopoly in telecommunications, in agriculture, in fuel refinement and distribution. Education is constitutionally free, mandatory, and run by the state. Ninety-three percent of the population, girls and boys, attends public, state schools.

Costa Rica, like a majority of the Latin American states, experimented with a development scheme based on import substitution. It closed its borders, turned inwards. The state began to make inroads in many other industries—production of fertilizers, of cement, of cotton, of tuna. They had state tuna catching boats! Bankrupt industries were bought by the state with the idea of saving jobs. That's how the state ended up running industries that make chocolates or catch shrimp. It led to $7 billion in losses for Costa Ricans.

In the 1980s, a new form of politics emerged. In the '70s, they had put people on the public payroll. That was no longer sustainable. So they began a practice of instead granting privileges to unions and forced firms to buy licenses for, say, running cabs. These privileges were politically assigned, and as there were three principal banks, heavily controlled by the state, until recently loans, too, were politically assigned.

There were a range of giveaways to the poor as well, like the bono alimenticio to pay for food. A lot of people stopped working because food was guaranteed. Then came the bono de la vivienda or the bono de vivienda popular: $10,000 as a gift of the state for housing. To free education, they added a new benefit called the beca, or bono escolar to pay for schoolbooks.

This is the origin of our movement. Nobody was defending liberty. And it was being lost at an accelerated rate.

Full interview

Read It Rating: 9.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 6
Learning Percentage: 35%

Posted by Lance Brown at 04:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 12, 2003

Libertarians earn solid support in e-thePeople.org polls

The Libertarian Party has been showing up in double digits in several recent polls on the popular political website, e-thePeople.org.

In the unscientific polls, visitors to e-thePeople.org can cast their votes in response to political questions, which are suggested by website visitors.

While the LP has been mentioned in several dozen polls over the past few years, here are eight of the most interesting recent ones:

* "Are there any candidates for [the] 2004 election worth voting for?" (Asked on July 18). The "Libertarian" candidate came in fourth with 13%, behind Republican (48%), Democrat (23%) and "No candidate" (14%). The Green candidate came in fifth at 6%.

* "What describes your personal political ideology?" (February 17). Libertarian came in third with 14%, behind Conservative (53%) and Liberal (33%).

* "If you really thought they could [win], which party would you vote for?" (July 25). The Libertarian Party came in a strong third with 20%, beating the Constitution Party (15%), the Green Party (10%), and the Reform Party (3%). The Republican Party came in first with 30%, followed by the Democratic Party with 22%.