Tag Archives: Libertarianism

The Great Libertarian Holocaust of 2017

rigged

Libertarianism to put simply, is either committing suicide, or being exterminated.

In the last two years and from working on two political campaigns this years, I believe it is a force that most are not willing to acknowledge, but does in fact exist.

Whether you like Trump or not, these are the forces at hand we’re dealing with, those desperate to stop him. When you point to who that includes, it’s generally what libertarians have considered arch-nemeses. George Soros, Clinton Foundation, Saudis. The party establishment invited them in on the pretense of 5%, and WHEN THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN, the party will explode like a neutron star. Outlets such as Reason, Being Libertarian, Liberty Republic, etc. they will decline in popularity, traffic, and alexa ratings.

Simply put, the LP is on the wrong side of the playing field. The LP is a populist party and by accepting Clinton foundation money in the form of purchasing a seat for Bill Weld—aka Hilary’s protector in her worst times of need—-the LP has distanced itself from populism. It no longer has that integrity. Simply put, 2017 will be like a Game of Thrones Winter for both the LP and alas, even the Liberty Movement.

If the LP is about motivating the ideology of liberty, it has certainly drained me. This is not enjoyable anymore. And Libertarians are foolish to think they are alone. If the LP does not act soon, it will implode like a neutron star, and will be as relevant as the anti-masonic party. Adam Kokesh is not the answer, and if he even recovers from this recent hit he’s taken, we are more than glad to expose him.

There is only one option that remains, and that is the party RECALLING the ticket. And  despite my battles with both, I believe that should be an Petersen/Invictus ticket. A ticket like that now, while the Clinton campaign is on the major defensive, is the only way 5% is realistically achievable. Gary Johnson has been a historically loser for the 21st century, and I don’t trust him to kick a 3% 20 yard field goal. And Weld turning this into an establishment party has only exacerbated the damage.

Advertisements

Darrell Castle on Jason Stapleton Program: “I’ve never said I was more libertarian than Gary Johnson”

Darrell Castle, the Constitution Party presidential candidate, made an appearance on the Jason Stapleton Program on September 14th, 2016. About Castle, Stapleton said in his introduction of the Tennessee lawyer: “He is running on what I would consider a very libertarian platform. “

However, Castle said at the 7:05 minute mark:

Well first of all, Jason, let me tell you that I’ve never said I was more libertarian than Gary Johnson. No. People have said that about me, and it’s been on the internet for quite some time.

The full interview is 52 minutes long:

Ron Paul Insitute: Gary Johnson and Bill Weld Presidential Campaign Dragging Libertarianism Through the Mud

undefined
Written by the staff of the Ron Paul Institute, RonPaulInstitute.org, August 28th, 2016:

Ron Paul Institute Senior Fellow Adam Dick, in a Wake Up Call Podcast interview posted on Friday, argues that Libertarian Party presidential and vice-presidential nominees Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have drug the term “libertarian” through the mud with their advocacy of anti-libertarian positions on matters ranging from their choices for Supreme Court appointments to PATRIOT Act reauthorization to foreign intervention to the use of terror watch lists to outlaw people possessing guns.

Dick addresses the Libertarian presidential ticket during an in-depth discussion of his new book, A Tipping Point for Liberty: Exposing and Defeating Leviathan Government. During Dick’s interview with hosts Adam Camac and Daniel Laguros, the discussion is centered on topics examined in the book, including the development of a police state in America, the war on drugs, and United States wars abroad. It is when the conversation turns to the book’s section dealing with libertarianism that Dick presents an evaluation of the Libertarian presidential ticket.

Dick begins his discussion of Johnson and Weld by noting that Dick is “sure there are plenty of candidates running on the state and local level” under the party banner “who really are libertarian.” But, Dick continues, “when I saw Bill Weld get the vice presidential nomination, I knew that was trouble because the guy is not libertarian.”

Weld was Johnson’s choice for Vice President, and Johnson has said that Johnson and Weld, who are both former state governors, would pretty much serve as co-presidents if elected.

Discussing some of Weld’s activities prior to becoming the vice presidential nominee, Dick notes Weld “was one of a group of politicians who wrote a letter to members of Congress telling them that it was important to reauthorize the portions of the PATRIOT Act that were set to sunset.” Dick continues that “these are some of the worst sections of the PATRIOT Act, some of the sections that are most abusive of freedom, and that’s why they were the few provisions that had sunset provisions to begin with.”

Dick also discusses in the interview how Weld “praised George W. Bush’s foreign policy not too long after the 2003 Iraq invasion.” This puts Weld squarely at odds with libertarians’ support for a noninterventionist foreign policy.

Looking at domestic policy, Dick argues that Weld has shown extreme disrespect for the liberty at the core of the libertarian message by saying during a campaign interview that nobody on the US government’s terror watch lists should be able to buy a gun. Dick explains that bureaucrats arbitrarily add people’s names to the lists without the need to show any respect for due process rights.

Turning to the Libertarian ticket’s potential Supreme Court nominees, Dick discusses in the interview how Johnson has deferred to Weld on the picking of Supreme Court nominees, with Weld identifying as the kind of people Johnson would appoint to the court current Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and US appellate court Judge Merrick Garland, who President Barack Obama has nominated for appointment to the Supreme Court. Concludes Dick, “There’s no argument that either Justice Breyer or Judge Garland is a libertarian, but here we have the Libertarian presidential ticket saying that is the kind of people they want to put on the court.”

The end result of such significant anti-libertarian positions being advanced by the Libertarian presidential ticket is that, even if the ticket wins a high percentage on election day, it will, Dick says, be “an absolute failure” for advancing libertarianism. That is because “they’ve drug [the term ‘libertarian’] through the mud, made it difficult for people to understand what it even means.” But, Dick predicts that the ticket ultimately will not do as well as some current polling suggests. Instead, much of the early gauged support, Dick says, “will probably dry up” because Johnson and Weld “are being so wishy-washy that they are not giving people a good reason to really support them.”

Listen to Dick’s complete Wake Up Call Podcast interview here.

Dick’s discussion in the Wake Up Call Podcast interview of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld’s presidential ticket brings together separate critiques of the nominees’ stands concerning the PATRIOT Act, foreign policy, use of terror watch lists to outlaw gun possession, and Supreme Court justices that Dick has presented over the past few months at the Ron Paul Institute’s audio show Five Minutes Five Issues.


Copyright © 2016 by Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Joe Kopsick speaks to the Illinois Center Right Coalition

Joe Kopsick, an independent write-in candidate for Congress in Illinois’ 10th congressional district, delivered a speech to a meeting of the Illinois Center Right Coalition held in Niles Public Library on August 20th, 2016. Kopsick read his prepared remarks before the conservative statewide group and later answered questions from the audience. This ATPR editor asked Kopsick, a self-described libertarian anarchist, a question about who influenced him the most in his political beliefs, as well as his opinion on the idea of eliminating U.S. foreign aid to every country, including ones the U.S. forms alliances with. Kopsick’s speech and question and answer session with those in attendance lasted about 16 minutes and was recorded by ATPR. Kopsick, whose bid this year is the third time he has run for Congress, published the revised and updated text of his speech on his campaign blog, The Aquarian Agrarian:

Speech to the Ilinois Center Right Coalition (I.C.R.C.) on August 20th, 2016

Written on August 19th and 20th, 2016

Some content originally appeared in
“Address to the Illinois Center-Right Coalition (I.C.R.C.) on June 25th, 2016”

Some content appearing here may have been
removed from final edition of delivered speech

written on June 24th and 25th, 2016
and edited on July 19th and August 8th and 22nd, 2016

Good afternoon and thank you for having me. My name is Joe Kopsick, I live in Lake Bluff, and I’m running for the U.S. House of Representatives’ seat from Illinois’s 10th District. My candidacy has been endorsed by Timothy Goodcase, David Earl Williams, Dan Rutherford, Mike Psak, Charles Allan January, Phil Collins, and William Leubscher; and vetted by the Illinois LiberTEA organization.

My district is Illinois’s 10th, which is most of Lake County and parts of Cook County. There, incumbent Republican Bob Dold is being challenged by former congressman Democrat Brad Schneider. I am a write-in candidate, and I am the only other candidate in the race besides Dold and Schneider.

I entered the race in November because I felt that the candidates were not ideologically diverse enough, that neither candidate was ideologically consistent, and that their records didn’t sufficiently support constitutional limitations on the powers of the federal government. In my opinion, both candidates supported growth of the size, scope, and cost of government; and supported continued and increased federal involvement in issues that rightfully belong to the states and to the people. For example, both of my opponents support domestic surveillance, gun control, foreign aid, sanctions, keeping Obamacare in place, and federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

As for me, the major themes of my candidacy are: liberty and limited government; non-interventionism in foreign policy; personal freedom and individual rights; due process, and security through privacy; balanced budgets and fiscal solvency; free movement of labor and capital; and the notion that government should be funded through penalties on waste, rather than through taxation of labor, sales, and investment that has the effect of discouraging those types of productive behavior.

If elected, I would vote to eliminate and/or restructure between four and seven unconstitutional executive departments; decrease spending by between $1.25 and $1.75 trillion [dollars], fire dozens of executive “czars”; and devolve the issues of health, education, retirement savings, and the social safety net back to the states.
I would help reduce the size of the federal workforce by voting to abolish the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Education, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development; and I would additionally support either abolishing the Department of Homeland Security, or restructuring segments of it under the Departments of Justice and Defense.

On spending, I would vote to vote to support a Cut, Cap, and Balance plan that requires at least a 7-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases; and I would also support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. Throughout a transition to a new taxation policy, I would support gradually decreasing flat taxes across the board; while keeping tax cuts in place; and eliminating loopholes, tax credits, and differential taxation.

On income taxes, I would vote to support a reduction of the individual income tax to between 12.5% and 20% in the short term. I would also accept a Negative Income Tax, or a value-added national sales tax. But in the long term, I would support the abolition of the personal income tax, and repealing the 16th Amendment, unless the Negative Income Tax were to remain popular and a constitutional amendment authorizing it were to be ratified.

I believe that taxes on personal income, investment, consumption, imports, property values, and the “inflation tax on savings”, have the effect of discouraging productive economic behavior. I would hope to replace all current forms of federal revenue with user fees, voluntary contributions, and a reform of property taxes, involving a Single Tax on the abuse, disuse, and blight of landed property, including fees paid to communities in exchange for the privilege of extracting natural resources.

On trade, I believe that free trade is fair trade. I would vote to support real free trade – the free movement of labor and capital – as opposed to “smart trade” or “managed trade”, or so-called “fair trade”. I would vote to eliminate tariffs, which I believe have the effect of discouraging the importation of goods. I hope to help bring about reduced prices for American consumers by reducing and repealing tariffs, as well as sales taxes.

I believe that increasing tariffs would only embolden foreign companies to increase worker exploitation and labor rights abuses (in order to offset the costs of the tariffs), and that this would increase human rights abuses abroad, making trade with such countries more controversial, thus making sanctions more likely, potentially leading to trade wars and cold wars.
On wages, I believe the minimum wage increases unemployment and fuels a cycle of price inflation; I would vote to oppose minimum wage increases for federal employees and others. Instead, I would vote to reduce sales and import taxes, audit the Federal Reserve, get the value of the dollar stable and increasing, so that the dollar has enough purchasing power to buy what people need.

I would also vote to eliminate the artificial business privileges erected by government, and to cut all of the “corporate welfare” before considering reducing the “social welfare” that it makes necessary. Crucial to eliminating artificial business privilege are abolishing the departments and chambers of commerce, urging states to abolish their secretaries’ of state’ offices (or at least limit or revoke their powers to charter and extend limited liability to new corporations), and urge local businesses to invest in independent business alliances instead of local chambers of commerce often serving as lobbying agencies.

On labor unions, we have to find the people on the left that are willing to acknowledge that the free-rider problem is created by the same federal law that limits their right to wildcat and sympathy strikes, and also effectually limits the number of unions that can represent workers in the same workplace. I believe that unions and businesses have the right to enter into a contract saying that that union has exclusive rights to represent the workers, so this means I don’t support Right to Work laws.

Although (as a candidate for federal office) I would support little federal involvement in private-sector unions and state and local government employee unions, and thus support devolving the issue of labor to the states, I would not vote to interfere with states that passRight to Work laws. Instead, I would urge states to (1) protect concerted activity in the workplace, (2) nullify the Wagner Act and Taft-Hartley Act, (3) loosen union voting requirements to prompt negotiation with management, and (4) require employers to inform prospective employees as to whether and when they will be required to join a union as a condition of being hired. Concerning federal employees, I would vote to do the same.

On jobs: while voting to devolve education to the states, I would urge them to implement waiver programs, in order to bring automotive and wood shop classes back to high schools, while protecting against the threat of personal injury lawsuits. I would also urge states to get lower or remove occupational licensing standards for lower-skilled professions. For governments to impose fees, and wield monopolies in issuing licenses and permits of all kinds – cutting someone’s hair, buying alcohol or tobacco, exercising the right to vote, buying a gun, getting married, or driving a car – these are all examples of government turning our natural rights into paid privileges.

Regarding immigration: although taxpaying citizens do shoulder the burden of taking care of illegal immigrants, in my opinion this is primarily the fault of an expansive and unfunded federal welfare state, not the fault of people who crossed a border without committing any other crimes that harmed persons or damaged their property. I believe that welfare for immigrants should be dealt with on a state and local basis, and I would vote to support legislative rather than executive deferred action for childhood arrivals and their parents.

Concerning the recent call for “No Fly, No Buy”, I would vote to support transparency into these secret No-Fly lists, and my record would reflect a cautious concern regarding due process for suspected terrorists and the mentally ill. I believe that people are innocent until proven guilty, even if they’re accused of terrorist acts; that the Eighth Amendment prohibits torture; and that all persons – not just all citizens– have rights and deserve fair trials.

On health, I would vote to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and oppose taxing hospital workers’ income and medical device sales.

On Social Security, I would vote to support allowing young workers to opt-out of the program. I support the personalization – rather than privatization – of retirement accounts. I would vote to support devolving this issue to the states, I would consider block grants, and unless and until that can be accomplished, I would vote to oppose means-testing Social Security and oppose raising the retirement age.

Finally, I’ll fight the licensing monopolies’ stranglehold on our freedoms to do as we please: in our workplaces, in our beds, in our cars, with our guns, with our money, in our homes, in our papers and effects, et cetera.

Please support me, Joe Kopsick, as a write-in candidate for U.S. Representative in Illinois’s 10th District on November 8th. Thank you.

Thomas L. Knapp: “Clinton Presidency vs. Trump Presidency: How I See It “

Thomas L. Knapp

Thomas L. Knapp is an IPR contributor, libertarian activist and writer currently seeking the Reform Party’s vice-presidential nomination. He published the following commentary on his blog, Knappster, earlier today:

Disclaimer: I do not support Hillary Clinton. I do not support Donald Trump. I’m not going to vote for either one of them, especially not just to stop the other one from winning, nor am I going to encourage anyone else to do so. That said, I do think that their presidencies would be bad in different ways.

For purposes of metaphor, let’s pretend that “the country” is an individual man or woman and that “the presidency” is that person’s daily activities.

Here’s what Mr. or Ms. America looks like as a Clinton presidency (in my opinion):

Every day, seven days a week, he or she sits down at a table, puts his or her right hand on the table, palm down, fingers spread, and then with his or her left hand uses a ball peen hammer to hit the right hand, sharply and with vigor, for eight straight hours. Presumably after four or eight years of that, every bone in the right hand will be not just broken but irreparably pulverized.

So to put it a different way: A Clinton presidency will be routinely ugly and painful and damaging and permanently disfiguring, but only suicidal on a freak accident basis (e.g. he or she accidentally hits herself hard right between the eyes on the backswing).

Here’s what Mr. or Mrs. America looks like as a Trump presidency (in my opinion):

He or she has an apartment, and an office, on the 100th floors of adjacent buildings with a very narrow alley (3 or 4 feet wide) between them. Instead of taking an elevator down 100 floors down, then 100 floors up, every morning and every night, he or she decides it makes more sense to just jump across that alley twice a day. The office and the apartment both have balconies, and to make it more exciting, every morning and evening he or she dips his or her hands and feet in grease before climbing up on the balcony railing for the jump.

So to put it a different way: A Trump presidency won’t be nearly as routinely ugly and painful as a Clinton presidency. It will be exciting and exhilarating … until, one morning or evening, the jump becomes a 100-story fall followed by a terminal velocity encounter with hard asphalt.

I don’t really care much for either prospect.

Libertarian Party to Democrats: “It’s cruel to be kind”

Helping Hand to Man in Need

For Immediate Release
Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Libertarian Party to Democrats: It’s cruel to be kind

Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark released the following statement today:

Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, and other speakers at the Democratic National Convention are espousing the virtue of love and the need to take care of our fellow man, suggesting that this can be accomplished through government programs such as welfare and socialized medicine.

But love is not born of force. Force is cold, impersonal, and offensive. And it doesn’t work.

In fact, government programs often hurt the very people they’re intended to help.

Real love is being committed not just to an ideal, but to what works. It requires opening one’s eyes to see the results that actions produce.

Government welfare creates an unhealthy dependence which traps generations in poverty. One need only drive by a housing project to get an idea of the horrible results it produces.

Minimum wage hurts the very poor. The most desperate for jobs lose their jobs. Others are deprived of jobs that otherwise would have been created and that would have released them from the cycle of poverty which haunts their souls.

Minimum wage forces small-business owners to work long, low-wage hours, and some make no money at all, or lose money, while putting their life savings at risk.

Minimum wage hurts customers. The people who shop at Walmart earn, on average, about the same wage as the people who work there. A forced pay hike for low-income Walmart workers is a forced pay cut for low-income Walmart customers.

Well intended actions that ignore results are not love, but dogma. Ignoring their devastating effects is cruel and inhumane.

The Libertarian solution is born both of a deep desire to see that all of mankind has opportunity, prosperity, and good health, and of a commitment to understanding and responding to what works and what doesn’t work.

To empower people to rise from poverty, we must remove government regulations and high taxes that hamper small businesses—and their ability to create jobs. We must remove regulations that drive up prices and lower everyone’s standard of living.

We must stop handing out privileged and unaffordable pensions and perks to government workers on the backs of private-sector workers who will see a fraction of those benefits.

We must stop dishing out lucrative bailouts, handouts, and contracts to crony capitalists on the backs of hard-working, private-sector taxpayers.

We must end the War on Drugs to bring down high crimes rates that plague poor neighborhoods.

We must repeal minimum-wage laws that prevent lowest-skilled workers from grabbing a rung on the economic ladder toward self-sufficiency and dignity.

A true commitment to those in need requires us to be vigorous about ending programs which do them harm. That is why Libertarians advocate policies that promote freedom, opportunity, prosperity, well-being, and peace.

Libertarianism is love.

(Press release from LP.org)