Stossel: The Libertarians deserve another look

Here's why the Libertarian Party might get more votes in 2016 | Fox News - John Stossel:

April 13, 2016 - "Before the primaries, Time Magazine, frequent pusher of trends that do not exist, put Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.) on its cover and called him the 'most interesting man in politics.' Then Paul fizzled, and pundits said the 'libertarian moment,' if there ever was one, had ended....

"But now that, according to ElectionBettingOdds.com, the presidential race will be a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Americans may give libertarianism a second look.

"My TV show recently held a debate between the Libertarian Party's three leading presidential candidates. Compared to the Republican and Democratic contenders, the Libertarians sounded so reasonable to me. Take immigration.

"While Democrats pretend they will carefully vet refugees from Muslim parts of the world, Republicans talk about deporting 11 million people. By contrast, the Libertarians on my show talked about reducing border problems by simplifying our complicated immigration laws.

"'Incentivize legal  immigration so that we can cut down on illegal immigration,' said Libertarian candidate Austin Petersen.... 'people will not break the law, if they know that there's a chance that they can come here [legally]'.... Petersen asked, 'If you were living in a Third World country and your family was starving to death, who would not cross that wall?"....

"Trump shouts about bad effects of global trade, but his destructive bans and tariffs would do much more harm.... Gary Johnson asked during the debate, 'Who benefits from free trade but you and I as consumers? If China wants to subsidize goods and services that they send to the United States, who benefits? We do!'

"He's absolutely right. Cheaper goods from abroad mean Americans have more money to spend on other things, and cheaper ingredients for products we manufacture. Yes, some Americans lose jobs, but more gain work, and better work, because free trade helps Americans expand businesses -- in America.

"Republicans and Democrats also engage in foolish talk about 'creating jobs'.... That's why Johnson was so refreshing in the debate. He said that in eight years as New Mexico's governor, 'I didn't create a single job! Government doesn't create jobs. The private sector does'....

"Right. But government sure can get in the way. 'To start a business, I have to fill out a thousand forms and report to OSHA,' the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, said candidate John McAfee during the debate.... 'If we remove these barriers, industry will take care of itself and jobs will improve.'

"The Libertarian candidates were also skeptical about government imposition on drug users, on cellphone owners who don't want their phones hacked into, and on people trying to accomplish things without first begging for approval from bureaucrats.

"I liked how McAfee put it: 'Some fundamental principles are all that we need to live together in a sane and harmonious fashion. We cannot hit one another. We cannot take each other's stuff. We must keep our word, our agreements and our contracts.'"

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/04/13/another-libertarian-movement.html
'via Blog this'

Shouting match at Texas Libertarian debate

by George J. Dance

April 11, 2016 - The April 8 Libertarian Party of Texas presidential candidates' debate briefly turned into a shouting match, after Libertarian Republic website owner Austin Petersen called former Governor Gary Johnson a "defeatist" and warned the delegates: "Do not nominate this man."

Petersen, Johnson, and the other candidates were responding to a question about the nationally televised presidential debates in the fall, which the Republicans and Democrats monopolize through their bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.

Petersen used his reply to assail the Libertarian Party of Colorado, which had refused to officially invite him to its debate due to his opposition to the party's Statement of Principles: "When the state of Colorado decided that they would not invite me to their forum, specifically because they were afraid of what I had to say in their forum, we drove 18 hours that night, straight to Colorado, to give them a piece of our mind, to tell them about liberty and free speech, and to say what that really means.

"So, if you think that, when the presidential debates come around, that I'm going to slink away, even if they don't invite us, even if we don't make the high percentage, you've got another think coming: I will be there. I will be there," he added, to applause.

Petersen went on to say: "Governor Johnson has stated that there is no way a Libertarian wins the White House unless they get into the debates. What kind of attitude is that?" Johnson interrupted, "It's true!", but Petersen continued: "We've got to be champions. Listen: Why not drop out if you don't get into the debates? Because they're not going to let you in, Governor! You need a champion. I'm the Freedom Ninja, and I will fight for liberty, just like I have every day for ten years!"

After more applause, Petersen summed up: "This is a defeatist attitude: He is a defeatist. Do not nominate this man. Nominate the man who will fight for you till the very end.... Do not give in to defeatism: Fight! Do not give in!"

Next up was Johnson, who responded: "No one works harder than I have, having run for Governor twice and having been the Libertarian nominee in 2012. I will tell you, though, that what experience brings to the table, is: I don't do the things that don't work. I still work as hard, but I don't do the things that didn't work, and that was something that I learned through experience. There is no way that a third party wins if they're not in the presidential debates. I am suing the Presidential Debate Commission to bring that about." That earned a 15-second ovation

"And last week I polled at 11% in a national poll," Johnson continued. "That has never happened before, that my name has been included in this. Now, let me tell you: When it comes to the presidential debates, as the rules now stand, you have to be at 15% to be in the presidential debates. Do you think they're going to state that 'You can't be in the presidential debates' tomorrow, and I'm going to give up? Hell, no! They're going to state that maybe two, three weeks before the election. So this is a No-Give-Up the whole time. And if you think I'm going to give up, then vote for Austin!" More applause.

Petersen began replying, "Let me tell you something–," but was cut off by the moderators, who wished to move on to the next candidate, Shawna Sterling. Several minutes of confusion ensued, with moderator Jax Finkel insisting, "Mr. Petersen, you had your say; thank you very much," Petersen yelling, "No! No! No, no, no!", "Wait a minute, guys!", and "I was pressed! I was addressed!", and Finkel responding, "That's not in our debate rules; thank you." Petersen invoked Ronald Reagan's famous line: "I paid for this microphone." Other candidates then jumped in, with John McAfee telling the moderators, "He was addressed," and Marc Feldman telling Petersen to "show some respect and put down the microphone, and let Shawna speak."

When Sterling finally got to speak, she related her own experience of being excluded from a televised debate in Kentucky and suing, concluding that "the only way to beat them is to beat them in court. Johnson is doing the right thing.... Let them know: we're not going to stop, we're going to fight you, we're not going to let you put us down, and we're going to get ourselves into the debate, however and whatever it's going to take."

Petersen later wrote, on Facebook, that he had wanted to "ask Gary" whether the 2012 nominee would drop out if he were excluded from the debate, or "will you continue to fundraise for your lost cause."

Petersen has been attacking Johnson repeatedly through the state Libertarian debates, accusing the former Governor of "fear-mongering" about Sharia Law, berating him for not standing up for the right of the seriously mentally ill to bear arms, and successfully reframing one debate answer by Johnson, about whether businesses could refuse to serve gays, into a statement that Jewish bakers should be forced to bake Nazi cakes.

Audio only: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCfMhOhUm5s

Maxime Bernier declares for Conservative leader

Maxime Bernier makes Conservative party leadership bid official - Macleans.ca:

April 7, 2016 - "Quebec MP Maxime Bernier became the second official contender for the permanent leadership of the Conservative party Thursday, saying while there may be more than a year to go until the winner is chosen, he’s ready now.

"'It’s time for our conservative movement to have a leader who speaks openly, with passion and conviction, what it is to be a conservative and that’s what I want to do,' Bernier said as he arrived at Conservative headquarters in Ottawa to file his nomination forms.

Bernier, 53, may end up with the distinction of being the lone contender from Quebec, the only province where the Tories actually increased their seat count in the last election.

"He was drawn into federal politics in 2006 in an effort by the Tories to reverse their failure to win any seats at all Quebec in 2004. He captured his riding of Beauce with 67 per cent of the vote that year and has easily won re-election every time since.

"He said he expects he’ll have a strong campaign in Quebec but that he’s running to represent all Canadians.....

"Bernier has long been a champion of supply management in his province, an economic philosophy seemingly out of step with his other more libertarian views about removing government involvement from the private sector.

"He said Canadians should stay tuned for more discussion of those and other policies....

"While Bernier says he’s running now because he’s ready, there are other factors at play for him, as well as anyone else deciding when to officially enter the race.

"Annual limits on donations to leadership campaigns mean anyone who signs up in 2016 can get people to donate the maximum twice – this year and next. Conservatives will vote for a new leader on May 27, 2017.

"Selling memberships is another key goal. Members who want to vote in the race must have been signed up prior to March 28, 2017.... The party is reimbursing candidates $5 for every member they sign up between now and the end of October."

Read more: http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/maxime-bernier-makes-conservative-party-leadership-bid-official/
'via Blog this'

Maine judge revives cannabis legalization initiative

Judge overturns Maine marijuana ballot question denial — Politics — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine - Christopher Cousins:

April 8, 2016 - "A Superior Court judge has overturned Secretary of State Matt Dunlap’s ruling that a citizen petition for a referendum to legalize recreational marijuana in Maine was invalid.

"Superior Court Justice Michaela Murphy made the decision in a 26-page ruling issued Friday. She ruled that Dunlap 'committed an error of law by applying a vague, subjective and/or unduly burdensome interpretation' of the law.

"She wrote that variations in signatures are understandable, given how citizen petitions are conducted.... 'It involves standing in streets, shopping malls, public places and town halls, in both foul and fair weather, and asking for the voters’ support,' Murphy wrote. 'Notaries are often asked to administer an oath in the midst of these less than ideal circumstances. The court finds that requiring a notary to perfectly reproduce his or her commission signature in light of these realities is unduly burdensome to this absolute constitutional right to initiative.'

"Dunlap said he is studying the decision and what it means. Under law, he has three days to decide how to proceed....

"The appeal was filed shortly after the secretary of state’s office invalidated the citizen petition in early March. Petitioners for An Act to Legalize Marijuana turned in more than 99,000 signatures, but only 51,543 could be verified — far short of the statutory threshold of 61,123 valid signatures of registered Maine voters....

"More than 17,000 of the invalid signatures were rejected because the signature of a single notary, Stavros Mendros of Lewiston, did not match the signature the state has on file. Mendros has said he signed the documents....

"The citizens initiative seeks to legalize the possession, purchase, growth and sale of marijuana for Mainers 21 years old or older....

"David Boyer, campaign manager for the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, said he was 'extremely pleased with the court’s decision'.... Boyer said that since the Legislature is still in session and the November ballot is still under development, there should be 'plenty of time' to get the question decided by voters this year."

Read more: http://bangordailynews.com/2016/04/08/politics/judge-overturns-maine-marijuana-ballot-question-denial/
'via Blog this'

What the U.S. Libertarian Party 'pledge' means

"To validate my membership, I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals." – Libertarian Party membership pledge

I pledge allegiance ... to what? | KN@PPSTER - Tom Knapp:

February 25, 2006 - "Often, when debating the meaning of 'the pledge,' Libertarians cite David F. Nolan, the 'founder' (with a few others, but generally recognized as the prime mover in the founding) of the Libertarian Party, to the effect that 'the pledge' was simply intended to let the FBI know that the members of this new political party weren't bomb-throwing revolutionists who would shortly be assaulting the Nixon White House with molotov cocktails.... [see video below - editor]....

"I've stated the content of the pledge. In every form I've seen, it includes the very specific phrase 'initiation of force.' That's important. That phrase has a history which pre-dates the formation of the LP by at least a decade-and-a-half and possibly longer. It is a phrase which carried great weight among the adherents of two particular schools of libertarian thought throughout the 1960s: The Objectivists and the Misesian "anarcho-capitalists" (i.e. the disciples/compatriots, respectively, of Ayn Rand and of Murray N. Rothbard).

"Nolan – or at least those who cite him – expect the rest of us to believe that the occurrence of the phrase in the LP's membership pledge was a mere coincidence: That it did not arise from the ubiquitous use of that phrase within the movement from which the party emerged. Even at first blush, that assertion looks pretty untenable.... In the very first paragraph of the article which he wrote in 1971, promoting the formation of the Libertarian Party ... Nolan describes the movement to which he belongs, and which he hopes to form into a party, as a coalition of 'Randists, Miseists (sic), and elements of the old "radical right"'....

"Nolan's biography at the Advocates for Self-Government site specifically lists Ayn Rand as a writer who 'cemented his innate libertarianism.' Is it possible that someone who regarded Rand in such terms, and whose libertarianism took the form of political action, would entirely miss the core principle of the political branch of her philosophy?

'Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate -- do you hear me? No man may start -- the use of physical force against others.' -- from Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged (1957), and For the New Intellectual (1961), by Ayn Rand....

"Next let's look at Rothbard -- leader of the second faction which Nolan wanted to form a party around....

'The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence ("aggress") against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.' --- from "War, Peace and the State" (1963), by Murray N. Rothbard

"The actual phrase 'initiation of force' seems to have crept into Rothbard's personal vocabulary later rather than sooner....

'The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the 'nonaggression axiom.' 'Aggression' is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else.' – from For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (1973), by Murray N. Rothbard....

"Taken in its obvious historical context, the pledge clearly derives from a Randian and/or Rothbardian worldview and therefore – at a bare minimum – clearly and indisputably binds its takers to a no-coercive-taxes approach (which even the 'Randian minarchists' held to), and less clearly and less indisputably (but still arguably) to Rothbardian anarchism.

"The only way to get around that conclusion is to assert that the framers of the pledge were a bunch of drooling morons who in some strange trance state spontaneously and collectively forgot the entire content of the ideas they stood for, while simultaneously functioning efficiently enough to put together an organization to politically support said ideas ... and who just happened to randomly pick words out of the dictionary which were identical to nearly two decades of predominant phraseology relating to those ideas, for the purpose of saying something entirely different."

Read more: http://knappster.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-pledge-allegiance-to-what.html  'via Blog this'
Published under a Creative Commons CC0 Public Domain Dedication

Libertarians can make their ideas matter in 2016

Stossel Debate Offers Libertarians a Way to Make Their Ideas Matter - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Ed Krajewski:

April 8, 2016 - "There are at least a dozen candidates running for the Libertarian party [presidential nomination], but only [Gary] Johnson has any prior political experience.

"In an election season defined largely by 'anti-establishment' feeling and where Donald Trump is the Republican front runner, that's not necessarily as much of a bonus as it might have been previously. Yet Johnson rejected the Republican Party an entire presidential election cycle before it found itself in its current mess, something that ought to earn him some credibility.

"Johnson is, to say the least, an imperfect candidate in an imperfect Libertarian field.... And yet the field nonetheless offers something refreshing this election cycle. That's because libertarianism, capital-L or not, isn't about individual politicians but individual liberties.

"Libertarians can offer a compelling narrative to an electorate on the verge of facing two major party candidates — Trump and Hillary Clinton — who both have unfavorable ratings north of 50 percent. The unlikeability of the Democratic and Republican nominee could make voters, and maybe even millions of horrified non-voters, more receptive to looking to third parties for articulate ideas and not just cults of personality.

"From police and criminal justice reform to education, immigration, and foreign policy, libertarian ideas offer a path outside of often intractable, and always insufferable, partisan scuffles. Trump and Clinton represent the culmination of a years-long atrophy of both parties, fueled by cronyism, an aversion to critical thinking and, above all, an unquestioning belief that government can work given the correct agenda and helmed by the correct people, even as the outcomes tend to expose the ridiculousness of that belief.

"So libertarians have a chance this election cycle to make their ideas matter. It's unfortunate that there aren't more high profile Libertarian politicians, but also unsurprising. After all, the ideology is averse to government as a desirable career path. If the candidates focus on educating voters about the ideas behind libertarianism and the role government plays in the social ills driving their fears, rather than triangulating (or incoherently rambling) on issues like gay wedding cakes and Sharia law or creating a cult of personality-like sideshow, perhaps they can be successful in contributing to the momentum of libertarian ideas on the policy and cultural front even absent electoral success."

Read more: http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/08/stossel-libertarian-debate-offers-exposu
'via Blog this'

Part 2 of Fox's Libertarian debate airs April 8

Libertarian Debate Was Little-Noticed Breath Of Fresh Air - Lucy Steigerwald, The Federalist:

April 4, 2014 - "In an election season starring two historically loathed frontrunners, the third-most-popular party in the United States got a televised debate for the very first time.... It’s not as if even the libertarian-tolerant FBN was going to give the contenders much to work with. Friday’s debate was pre-taped, and only part one of the two-hour show (part two is on Friday!). Still, it was a debate not starring the usual suspects, right or left, and man does that look good for a change.

"The LP’s presidential choice this year will be likely be a repeat, as it should be. However, competition is libertarian, so joining [Gary] Johnson, 63, on stage were 35-year-old website founder [Austin] Petersen and 70-year-old former antivirus pioneer [John] McAfee, there to explain their positions on issues from abortion to war to Social Security and the social safety net. Even if the results of the experiment were open only to those with cable access, they were also more charming, warm, and spontaneous than anything the major parties can drum up.

"Each candidate supports caution and constitutionality in warfare. Each disavows the war on drugs and the death penalty. McAfee suggested Social Security and foreign aid were promises made, and therefore they can’t be reneged on. Johnson and Petersen argued otherwise.

"On abortion, Petersen said he was pro-life. Johnson and McAfee believe the matter is up to the woman. Petersen, who has spent some time scorning antiwar libertarians on his clickbaity website, appears to have decided on a new tactic that might be called Ron Paul lite. He comes off as a kid in his dad’s suit who just discovered French economist Frederic Bastiat — and not just because he’s the youngest, or '12 years old,' as Stossel put it. However, he delivered good lines, such as “if the American people have to balance their checkbook, so should Congress'.... Perhaps Sen. Ted Cruz supporters might find Petersen appealing, especially if they’re frustrated by Cruz’ recent soul-selling mainstream successes, or his likely loss in the race for the GOP nomination.

"McAfee is the oddest duck, a fascinating contrast between Petersen’s straining efforts at radical constitutionalism and Gary Johnson’s dispassionate moderate (for the LP) manner. McAfee’s early life included a great deal of drug use. His more recent history includes fleeing from Belize because he was a “person of interest” in his neighbor’s murder in 2012.... Maybe his gun-toting hippie with gravitas thing could leech votes away from Sen. Bernie Sanders, or his thoughtful weirdo thing could steal Trump votes.... Strangely, his stances on entitlements and foreign aid is a bit too timid for a libertarian audience, while his paranoia about cyber war and offer to unlock the San Bernardino terrorist’ phone for the FBI makes him come across as less than pure on Fourth Amendment issues.

"The choice is Gary Johnson. Even if there’s something a little uninspiring about him.... With two terms as the governor of New Mexico, Johnson lies in the sweet spot between overly Republican Bob Barr (LP nominee in 2008) and doesn’t-believe-in-drivers-licenses Michael Badnarik (2004). Johnson seems like a human being, both on television and in real life. He is a moderate anti-interventionist, and is pro marijuana, not denying the fact that he indulges in the substance, and even serving as the CEO of a medical marijuana company. His utter lack of apology for using marijuana, combined with his crazy-fit personal life (he’s climbed the seven summits!) may actually make pot users look better, as opposed to making Johnson look worse."

Read more: http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/04/the-libertarian-presidential-debate-was-a-little-noticed-breath-of-fresh-air/
'via Blog this'