It's Official, Folks...

I'll be in Denver for the Libertarian National Convention.

Bring. It. On.

:)

World's Smallest Political Platform: Why Not?

The World's Smallest Political Platform:

"The Libertarian Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope or power of government at any level or for any purpose."

With all the controversy surrounding the changes made to the Libertarian Party platform at the 2006 convention, and the current movements towards a new platform, I must ask:  Why has the World's Smallest Political Platform (WSPP) gotten so little support?  A petition for the Restore04 movement, which wants to bring back nearly all of the 2004 LP Platform, has approximately 230 signatures, while the online petition for the WSPP has exactly 17 signatures.

Of course, Restore04 has the advantage of being run by David Nolan, the founder of the Libertarian Party.  But why is there so little support for the WSPP?

The WSPP gives us the best chance to be a big tent party.  Instead of saying that you must have a certain policy outlook on specific issues to feel welcome in the LP, we give members a broad, overriding philosophical idea and allow them to form specific policy positions.  The WSPP allows for minarchists, constitutionalists, anarchists and every group in between to feel comfortable with the platform, while many aspects of the 2004 Platform do not.  After the Ruwart controversy and the impending Barr official announcement, unity is something the LP needs right now.  Tensions will be riding high at the convention, and one of the factions will walk out of the convention upset.  Adopting the WSPP may be one of the only ways to keep whichever faction becomes disgruntled from leaving the party. 

Also, the WSPP breeds consistent libertarianism.  From the front page of the WSPP website, Tom Knapp writes:

The WSPP does not require a patterned, formulaic, "evenly distributed" approach to reducing the size, scope and power of government. The program it drives can be opportunistic, utopian, or anything in between. What it does require of the organizations which adopt it is that those organizations' members keep their eye on the big picture: Always reducing the size, scope and power of government, never increasing the size scope or power of government.

What could be better than that.  The WSPP breeds consistency, which is something the LP really badly needs right now.

So, for you Restore04 supporters, what is wrong with the WSPP?  Why can't the WSPP get more support?  If a right-leaning libertarian like myself can come together and support a left-leaning libertarian like Tom Knapp on a platform proposal, the unifying aspects of the idea must be valid.

Cross posted at http://www.lastfreevoice.com

Ron Paul - "The Revolution"

Concise and to the point, Ron Paul has indeed formulated the legacy he wishes to leave. While I hesitate to write a full review as I do not think any review could do this book justice, I will say just one thing: if you consider yourself a libertarian, or a supporter of bringing government back to its Constitutional boundaries, you need to read this book. It will revitalize your thirst for liberty and light the fire of independent thought.

Thoughts on Shane Cory

Most Libertarians will agree that we are going to be better off without Shane Cory as the Libertarian Party Executive Director. Over his tenure, Shane had done different things to anger different factions in the LP. No matter which faction of the Libertarian Party you fit into, Shane probably did something to make you mad. There are, however, lessons to be learned.

First off, the appointment of a new Executive Director needs to bring the position back to being a purely administrative one. Ideally, the position of Executive Director should not have any power at all to issue press releases on a matter of pure policy. While it will help to have someone in the ED role that is ideologically a libertarian (Shane was open about the fact that he wasn't a libertarian), it should never come up because the role is an administrative one. Leave the policy to the individual candidates.

Because the Libertarian Party is so ideologically divided among the various factions, if the ED opines on policy, factions of the party will get angry. If we hire a plumbline libertarian as ED and they opine on policy, he will anger the reforms, as an anarchist ED would. A pragmatic, conservative or reformer ED who is open about policy will anger the anarchists and "purists". We need to return to the true function of the ED -- an administrative role that runs day to day operations at LPHQ without injecting his own policy or issuing policy statement unilaterally.

If we returned the ED to administration and let individual candidates decide their own policy, it would help to ease tensions among the radicals and reforms.

Besides, what could be more libertarian than that.

Blast From the Past: Ron Paul on Gas Prices

Here is an article I came across recently by Ron Paul about gas prices that I thought had some good points behind it. The article is two and a half years old and references Hurricane Katrina, but it's a good resource for what we're going through right now...

A Free Market in Gasoline.

by: Ron Paul
October 31, 2005

Many Americans understandably are upset with the sharp spike in gas prices since Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast in August, and are concerned by reports of oil company profits. But we must understand that high oil prices are not the result of an unregulated free market. On the contrary, the oil industry is among the most regulated and most subsidized of U.S. industries. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves whether too much government involvement in the oil markets, rather than too little regulation, has kept the supply of refined gasoline artificially low.

Consider Marathon Oil, which operates a refinery in Texas City. Marathon recently announced the construction of new refinery that will bring several hundred thousand barrels of oil online every day- which is exactly what the nation needs. But building a new refinery is a daunting task that requires billions of dollars in capital investment. The process of obtaining federal permits alone can take several years. As a result, we won't see a drop of refined gasoline from the new Marathon facility until 2009.

Federal subsidies and regulations are largely responsible for limiting the supply of refined gasoline in this country. The demand for gasoline has risen dramatically in America due to population growth in recent decades, but virtually no new refining capacity has been added. Basic economics tells us that rising demand and a fixed supply will lead to higher prices. No amount of congressional grandstanding about price gouging will change this economic reality. We must increase domestic exploration, drilling, and refining if we hope to maintain reasonable gas prices. We need more competition, which means we need less government.

Most Americans agree that the American economy should not be dependent upon Middle East oil. Economist George Reisman, however, explains that our own domestic regulations make us slaves to OPEC: "Today, it is possible once again to bring about a dramatic fall in the price of oil- indeed, one even larger than occurred in the 1980s. And it could begin right away. All that is necessary is to abolish the U.S. government's restrictions on domestic energy production inspired by the environmentalist movement."

Reisman also explains how abolishing restrictions on coal production, natural gas production, and nuclear power would further reduce the OPEC stranglehold. By increasing the supply of these other energy sources, demand for oil would decrease and prices would drop.

Note that much of the support for unrealistic environmental regulations comes from northeastern politicians and media, who weren't nearly as interested in oil fortunes when the business hit rock bottom in the 1980s. Texas and the gulf coast have always been willing to supply the nation's energy, and it's a bit disingenuous to hear criticism from those who are happy to use oil but don't want refineries in their backyards.

Oil is critical, but it is not a magic commodity that somehow is immune from the laws of economics. In fact, it is precisely because oil is so critical to our economy that we must allow the free market to deliver it. Absent government interference in the oil markets, gas prices would rise or fall according to concrete realities affecting supply and demand. High prices would encourage conservation better than any environmental regulations. Entrepreneurs would race to develop viable alternate fuels if gas prices rose too much.

Centralized government planning, on the other hand, cannot solve our energy dilemmas. The Nixon-era price controls on gasoline in the 1970s produced nothing but disastrous shortages. By contrast, the Reagan administration's immediate deregulation of the oil industry resulted in an unprecedented boom in oil production and a dramatic reduction in prices. This is the lesson we must remember.

What can Congress do to provide Americans with some relief at the pump? First it can suspend federal gas taxes, which would save consumers nearly 20 cents per gallon. In the long term, Congress must pass legislation like HR 4004, which I introduced earlier this month. HR 4004 takes a comprehensive approach by allowing offshore drilling, eliminating regulations that restrict refining, and suspending harmful tax rules that discourage domestic oil production. If we hope to have a stable, affordable supply of gas, we must allow the free market to operate.

What Has the Ron Paul Movement Done for the Libertarian Party?

I have another question for discussion regarding the Ron Paul movement that needs to be out in the open.
What has the Ron Paul movement done for the Libertarian Party?
Ignoring policy implementation and other legislative activities, from a political point of view, has the Ron Paul movement been helpful to the Libertarian Party?
I offer some observations either way.

The Ron Paul movement has been good for the Libertarian Party:
(1) Libertarian ideas are being articulated on national television.
(2) The word "libertarian" was used on television for the first time in a long time.
(3) The Ron Paul movement attracted a lot of people who were apathetic and not involved in politics previously, and these people may end up becoming active Libertarians.

The Ron Paul movement has been bad for the Librtarian Party:
(1) Ron Paul constantly refused to label himeself as a libertarian, instead using the label 'traditional conservative'
(2) Some in the Libertarian Party may believe that in order to achieve a libertarian direction, we need to work within the Republican Party, as Ron did.
(3) Many who want to run for office will do so as "Ron Paul Republicans" rather than Libertarians.
(4) Some people may use Ron's words as being the official positions of the Libertarian Party.Thoughts?

Interesting Quotes on Foreign Policy

I've just come across some interesting quotes about foreign policy. Try to guess the source:

"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be'...I think one way for us to end up being viewed as 'the ugly American' is for us to go around the world saying 'We do it this way; so should you.'"

I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called 'nation building.' I think what we need to do is to convince the people who lived in the lands [themselves] to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here -- we're going to have kind of a 'nation building corps' from America?"

The above quotes come from then Governor George W. Bush, in 2000 when he was making his first run for the Presidency.

The Bush legacy:

• Big Government
• Higher spending
• More government control
• Thousands of Americans dead
• The destruction of the reputation of America abroad.

And there are people who are proud of this man?

There are good candidates out there. Donate to one of them.
George Phillies
Wayne Allyn Root
Bob Barr
Chuck Baldwin

George Phillies Calls for Civility

George Phillies for President 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Debate and Civility

Worcester, Mass, April 29: Libertarian Presidential Candidate George Phillies issued a statement today regarding civility in debate in the Presidential race, taking candidates to task for mudslinging while encouraging his fellow Libertarian candidates not to shy away from asking and answering hard questions.

"Each Party's Presidential campaign has given us spectacular exchanges: Giuliani vs Paul in their first debate.  Clinton vs Obama, debate after debate after debate.  The Libertarian spat between Ruwart and Root," said Phillies. "When exchanges degenerate to the level of a Jerry Springer episode, the issues are lost in the shouting.

"On one hand, many Americans wish that candidates would always be nice to each other.  They're right.  It's bad for America when arguments about flag pins drown out questions on the Federal debt and the trade deficit.

"On the other hand, and I say this to my fellow candidates of all parties, if you can't face down critics in your own party, how will you face down your real opponents this Fall?  To their credit, Senators Clinton, McCain, and Obama took the worst their fellow Democrats and Republicans threw at them.  It was trial by fire, and they emerged as better candidates and better people.  At the very least, they demonstrated their ability to hold their ground and defend their viewpoints.

"Libertarians should take that lesson to heart. The Libertarian Party is a political party, not an academic pontificating society.  Americans expect candidates to differ with their opponents when there are differences, not to pretend those differences aren't there.  They want to see and explore those differences, and we need to let them.

"At the same time, debate can get carried away. Attacks that should be leveled at issues are instead leveled at candidates themselves.  The objective, after all, is to move toward victory in November.  Libertarians expect that Libertarian candidates will campaign for fellow Libertarians, not for our Democratic opponents.  Libertarians expect that Libertarian candidates will take libertarian stands, not embrace positions of the remote religious right.   Libertarians expect that Libertarian candidates will self-identify as Libertarian, not as Republican.  Readers in other parties justly have exactly the same expectations about their own candidates."

Wayne Allyn Root on Foreign Policy

Over at Third Party Watch, a Press Release from the Wayne Allyn Root campaign was posted today. Even know I am committed to supporting George Phillies right now, I do think that Wayne is right on the money with this analysis of foreign policy. I present the release unedited:

There has been a lot of debate and misinformation spread about my supposed views on war and peace. It’s time to set the record straight. I’m no pacifist and that’s a good thing, because no pacifist has ever been, nor ever will be, elected President of these United States.00%;" >I am a strong patriot who loves his country, will defend his country with honor, and is always respectful of our troops who are willing to put their lives on the line for our freedom. But I am most definitely not “pro war.” To the contrary, I am a Libertarian who believes in dramatically altering and re-focusing our foreign policy, foreign aid decisions, war on terror, military objectives, and military/defense budget.

The Libertarian Party advocates a non-interventionist policy in the affairs of other nations. I agree 100% with this stance. It’s time to stop gallivanting across the globe to “nation build” and stuff democracy down the throats of others.

It’s time to admit that the Iraq war, as well as the supposed “post war planning” was a disaster. It is time to admit that while there is a “war on terror,” the war in Iraq had (and has) little do with it. It’s time to admit the war in Iraq has distracted us from the real “war on terror” we are waging against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

It’s time to admit that the war in Iraq has fostered terrorism and civil war. It’s time to admit that our troops are dying in the middle of a sectarian civil war that, to be blunt, is none of our business.

It’s time to admit that our injection into the foreign affairs of others often causes more problems than it solves. It is time to admit that our foreign policy in many cases has caused, as Ron Paul put it, “blow-back.” In other words, by choosing sides we create new enemies and grudges against the United States.

Worse, we often choose the wrong side. As an example, we supposedly deposed the Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein to make the world a safer place for America and our allies such as Israel. Yet it is Shiite-supported Hezbollah that is now attacking Israel, as well as our forces in Iraq, NOT Sunni. It turns out that we did not make the world a safer place. Quite to the contrary, by choosing sides in a war that was none of our business, we made Iraq, and the world, a much more dangerous place. And we did no favors for our ally Israel.

It’s time to admit that our military has been stretched to the breaking point- which has endangered our security at home. It’s time to admit that this occupation of a small country in a far-away land is damaging our economy, and bankrupting our country for future generations. It’s time to admit that if we can’t afford the costs of a war in small, lightly populated countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, we should aim to avoid future wars at all costs (unless we are responding in self defense).

Most importantly, it’s time to admit that no war should be fought in a foreign land under the guise of fighting for the rights and freedom of others, while being used as an excuse here at home to expand government, violate the constitutional rights of Americans, and take away our freedoms. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”

There are a significant number of libertarians (I among them) who believe that only a direct attack or an imminent attack from a foreign enemy can justify our use of the military to defend our country. Of course, there are a few libertarians who would object to a military response even under those conditions, rationalizing that it must have been our country’s fault in the first place, or that non-violence takes precedence over self-defense.

And there are some libertarians who hold a more hawkish view on foreign policy. No less a figure than Ayn Rand wrote that America had the right to invade dictatorship nations and institute successor governments that respect the natural rights and freedoms of their citizens.

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent “rights” of gang rulers. It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.

This right, however, is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of a dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society in the conquered country.

A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a free social system, that is, a system based on the recognition of individual rights.

—- Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness
Chapter 13 – Collectivized “Rights” (1963)

However, while Ayn Rand advocated a moral position for pre-emptive war, when one looks pragmatically at war as a policy, one cannot ignore how it has historically been both costly in terms of lives and treasure. Moreover, the government almost always uses war as an opportunity to expand its size and encroach upon our own civil liberties.

The fundamental basis of libertarianism is ownership of one’s life and honestly acquired property. Very few other actions of the government can do more to infringe upon basic libertarian values than waging a war upon others. Waging war almost always results in the expansion of government and the military-industrial complex, which in turn results in waste, corruption, debt, budget deficits and ultimately higher taxes upon the wages and property of Americans. War, while sometimes unavoidable, should be seen only as a last resort. And when war is waged, its mission should be to eliminate the threat to our country in a manner that minimizes the loss of innocent life.

One action by voters can go a long way to preventing future wars under any circumstances. Electing a Libertarian as President can certainly promote policies that will dramatically reduce, though not eliminate, our risk of being attacked by other nations. That will only happen however if a tough-talking, patriotic Libertarian like myself is the Presidential candidate. No weak-sounding pacifist Libertarian will ever break the 1% of the electorate barrier, let alone wage a credible, realistic campaign to actually win the White House.

America is a nation of parents – mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers – whose number one concern is the safety of their children. They will only choose to elect a President who talks tough to our enemies and makes it clear that America will always respond quickly to any threat to our security. That is the attitude that makes America’s parents feel that their children are safe at night. That makes it all the more necessary to nominate a Libertarian candidate with national defense views that do not appear weak – because a popular, credible LP candidate who does well at the ballot box leads to the election of LP candidates at every level of office from water commissioner and school board to mayors and state assemblyman. It also leads to ballot access in states across the country in the 2012 election.

Given that war is an act that we should aspire to avoid, here are some of the policies a Wayne Root administration would advocate to reduce the likelihood of involving America in future wars:

* We must rapidly and dramatically reduce foreign aid and U.S. military bases around the world. In particular, it is time to end our defense of wealthy countries such as Japan, South Korea and the nations of Western Europe. As a Libertarian and fiscal conservative who stands strongly against welfare and entitlement programs for able-bodied individuals here at home, I believe it’s high-time to stop supporting welfare for able-bodied nations as well.

* More specifically, we must also starve terrorism by stopping the flow of foreign aid to nations that support terrorism. Douglas Casey once defined foreign aid “as a transfer from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.” Our government has given billions of dollars to tin-pot dictators around the world, many of whom are enemies of America and democracy, all while we are denouncing terrorism and funding wars to fight it. It’s time for this misguided and naïve charade to end. Let’s start by eliminating financial support to dictators, with the ultimate goal of cutting foreign aid to a bare minimum everywhere and only if absolutely required for national defense. Let’s bring these monies home to the American taxpayer in a time of economic uncertainty.

* We need to change our system of funding defense. The current system encourages cost overruns and time delays. Figures compiled by the Government Accountability Office showed that 95 major weapons systems exceeded their original budgets by $295 billion in the past seven years. This is a disguised corporate welfare scheme, which is bad for your pocket book and dangerous to our national security. Considering that the entire U.S. budget deficit was $160 billion last year, cutting waste in these 95 programs alone is a great way to reduce the U.S. budget deficit. We need to minimize the number of contractors that are paid based on cost plus. If you were told that you would get $2 for every $1 you spent, how much would you try to spend? Think of the waste and corruption involved in our entire military-industrial complex. Think of the billions of dollars wasted to fatten the wallets of politically connected defense contractors. It’s time to start applying the same criticism, cynicism, and fiscal discipline that we do to welfare (for individuals) to the U.S. defense budget. Waste is waste, whether it’s dressed up as “patriotism” or not. Dramatically cutting waste from the defense budget will automatically dramatically cut the size and scope of government spending- which leads to dramatic reductions in the tax burden to American taxpayers.

* Remove the barriers to free trade, thereby increasing the interdependence of other countries on the success of ours. Nineteenth century French economist Frederic Bastiat once wrote: “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will.” Or to put it another way, greed is good. Create wealth for another nation, and that nation will rarely, if ever, risk damaging or losing that wealth by starting a war.

* Eliminate the international “war on drugs.” This policy will eradicate the huge profits that terrorist groups and terrorist nations reap from the monopolistic prices the “war” creates. The current misguided policy wastes billions of dollars and unwittingly subsidizes America’s enemies around the globe. To be blunt, what farmers in Afghanistan or Columbia grow on their properties is none of the business of the United States of America. But if we stop increasing the profits that this “war” creates, it’s much more likely that they will be harvesting grains instead of poppies and coca leaves.

* Reduce our nation’s tax burden. Competition for industry will compel other nations to also lower their tax burdens, which will decrease their capacity to build weapons of war. And the wealthy society that America creates with a low tax burden will cause others to want to emulate our way of life.

* Open up the Arctic and Gulf of Mexico to oil drilling. This will increase the supply of oil and reduce its price, thereby squeezing the budgets of the socialist oil-rich kingdoms that fund terrorist groups. As long as we are dependent on foreign oil for our energy needs, we will be funding our enemies and thereby encouraging terrorism. America must find a way to develop energy independence so that we can starve the terrorists. Without the money that funds terrorism, terrorism will eventually end.

* The so-called “war on terror” must be aimed at our enemies, not our own American people. Warrantless wiretaps are a violation of the constitution and must be ended immediately. PERIOD. It’s quite simple: if the government has proof of a possible crime being committed then get a judge to issue a warrant. Many provisions of the Patriot Act should be repealed. The so-called “Real ID” program is yet another abuse of the rights of privacy of American citizens. “Real ID” will be a bureaucratic boondoggle run by the same government bureaucrats who lost one laptop and thereby exposed the private information of millions of U.S. veterans to identity thieves. Worse, “Real ID” will turn America into a Big Brother-like police state. As long as the Homeland Security Administration is in place, our liberties will be in jeopardy.

* Bring private industry and American ingenuity into the “war on terror.” Government’s attempts to make us safer against terrorists are often irrational. Seven long years after 9/11 there are still only 50 Arabic-speaking FBI agents out of 10,000 agents in our country. Some people are only half-joking when they state that TSA means “Thousands Standing Around.” If we want the “war on terror” to be a success, without compromising our liberties, we need to get the government largely out of it and bring American private industry into the efforts. Make sea ports, train depots and airports responsible for their own security. I can almost guarantee you they will not be requiring that you dispose of your toothpaste and water bottles. If an airline believes that the best way to protect its passengers (and keep its insurance costs down) is to require ID, search bags and arm pilots, that’s should be up to them. If we want to apprehend Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists, have Congress issue letters of marque and reprisal, as currently authorized in the Constitution, to allow American companies to earn billions of dollars for successfully capturing these thugs here and abroad. Never underestimate a motivated company’s capabilities with billions of dollars at stake to get the job done. Remember how back in 1979 Ross Perot, with the assistance of retired Green Beret Colonel Arthur “Bull” Simons, rescued his employees taken hostage by the Iranian government? Now, imagine unleashing that same level of can do spirit with results-oriented American companies leading the way. That’s how you fight the “war on terror.” Good old American capitalism can triumph when given the opportunity.

* Lastly, if the day should come where war is necessary, it cannot be implemented in contravention with the restrictions imposed by our Constitution. We must reject the notion that the President has the power to declare war. The entire concept of an imperial presidency is anathema to our Constitution’s checks and balances. In a Root Administration, wars and offensive military actions will require Congressional authorization, as our Constitution dictates – preventing a President from ever again involving this nation in unpopular wars without the full support of the American people. And while a military response in self-defense of this nation in the hours after being attacked does not require immediate Congressional approval, the President must seek a timely ratification after the fact. This is clearly a standard that prevents future unnecessary, unpopular or controversial wars or military actions, yet allows America the leeway to defend herself without debate or delay.

Ideally, these policies of a Root Administration will decrease the risk of war and terrorism.

Of course, we cannot assume that non-interventionism will always be sufficient to avoid conflict. There are other groups, cultures, and nations that do not share even slightly the Libertarian “live and let live” sentiment, and will not necessarily act in what we consider a rational manner. Pretending otherwise may well lead to the deaths of many Americans in future terrorist attacks.

We’re already familiar with how many in this country are infected with envy. The envious people amongst us seek to punish or even destroy those who produce the most and reap the rewards of industry. And the politicians these people elect enthusiastically serve their cause, engaging in productivity sapping redistribution-of-wealth schemes in the name of “fairness.”

It’s naïve to believe that people in other nations do not hold similar views. They blame the West for their own failings and the United States, in particular, for representing the epitome of Western Civilization. Islamic Jihadism preaches hatred and destruction of “infidels.” And as long as mothers hate us more than they love their own children, some teenagers and young men (and increasingly women too) will strap explosives to their bodies and detonate them to kill the targets of their hatred – regardless of what a Libertarian administration might do.

Unfortunately, battling this Islamic extremism, hatred and violence is not new. In 1786, long before our foreign interventionist policies of today, Thomas Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and John Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Abdrahaman, the ambassador to Britain for the government of Algiers. They were attempting to negotiate peace with Muslim countries that were engaging in piracy and enslavement of Americans. In a letter to John Jay, Jefferson wrote the following of how Abdrahaman justified attacking innocent Americans:

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

—Joseph Wheelan, Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror, 1801-1805

The United States government for years tried appeasement, making payments in ransom and tribute amounting to 20 percent of its annual revenues to Muslim nations during the year 1800 for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. But our most Libertarian United States President Thomas Jefferson – who hated most all forms of federal power, dramatically reduced the size of the military budget, and warned of foreign entanglements – felt compelled in 1801 to send a U.S. Naval Armada to Tripoli to wage a war against “Barbary Pirates.”

We are in a contest between two civilizations: ours, which values rational thought and individual liberties; and theirs, which is based on theocracy and subservience to an all-powerful government.

During most times we are able to largely ignore our enemies because our own wealth protected us from any threat they could pose. In the long run, free countries with free economies will always outgrow socialist tyrannies.

But technology is making weapons of mass destruction both cheaper to produce and easier to transport. As this trend continues, the risk of a country – or its terrorist agents – being able to harm us will increase.

If the day should come that weapons-of-mass-destruction become affordable to tyrants, and if such tyrants think very little of giving such weapons to terrorists who share a common goal of our destruction, in spite of our libertarian non-interventionism, we may have to rethink our foreign policies and strategies. We know now that some terrorists are willing to fly a plane into a building. If it were possible, these same murderous thugs would not have hesitated to set off a nuclear device in the middle of Manhattan, Hollywood or Disneyworld.

Fortunately, I do not believe it is too late for non-interventionism and our other Libertarian, free market policies to be the solution to avoiding unnecessary war. But we must be vigilant and prepared if we are proven wrong.

In summary, a Wayne Root administration will never unilaterally engage in pre-emptive war and it will implement and champion Libertarian policies that reduce the likelihood of Congress ever having to declare war. A Root administration will stand ready to defend America should she ever be attacked, or if Congress concludes that irrefutable proof exists that our being attacked is unavoidable. And wherever possible, we will employ the superior power of the marketplace to preserve our safety.
If you believe in a future where America does not engage in nation-building, yet our nation remains vigilant and strong enough to defend ourselves from foreign attack, join the Wayne Root campaign to restore America to its constitutional tradition of limited government and non-interventionism.

Libertarians Combat Child Pornography

The following is an unedited media release from the Libertarian Party:

The Libertarian Party is calling for increased coordination and communication between federal and state law enforcement agencies in order to help to apprehend and convict child predators and those who engage in child pornography.

“FBI Chief Howard Mueller was correct when he said we are losing the war on child pornography,” says Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory, referring to comments made by the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday before a House Judiciary Committee meeting. “We have an obligation to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse, and we can do this by increasing communication between state and federal agencies to help combat this repulsive industry. While privacy rights should always be respected in the pursuit of child pornographers, more needs to be done to track down and prosecute the twisted individuals who exploit innocent children.”

Muller stated federal, state and local agencies all needed to be integrated as one method of helping to pursue child pornographers. Mueller also stated that while the FBI had nearly 270 agents working on child pornography cases, there needed to be more resources dedicated to stopping the child porn industry.

“One way in which the FBI can free up more resources for combating child pornography is by reducing expenditures made in investigating and prosecuting victimless crimes among consenting adults,” says Libertarian Party National Media Coordinator Andrew Davis. “Instead of going after crimes where no rights are violated, and both parties involved are consent-giving adults, the FBI will be able to better go after sexual crimes involving children. Protecting individual rights is a core function of government, and that includes protecting the life and liberty of children harmed by exploitation and sexual predators.”

The Libertarian Party is America’s third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

The Mary Ruwart Controversy

Much has been made the last week about the controversy surrounding Mary Ruwart, who is seeking the Libertarian nomination for President, and a portion of her book Short Answers to the Tough Questions. The offending passage is:

"Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will."

Something must be said for political considerations. Whether the Radicals want to admit it or not, Ruwart is running for the nomination of a political party, existing within the American political system. Political considerations must be on the minds of the delegates and those who care about the success of the party. There should be no question whatsoever that statements like these will be taken as psychopathic in the mainstream media, if they get covered. Media coverage is generally light for the LP, but to claim that these statements will go completely uncovered is painfully ignorant of the media and the way they handle third party candidates. The media is a tool of the major party establishment, and will use any reason to destroy minor party candidates. Nominating Ruwart, when she is on the record as saying something as above, will destroy the LP.

johncjackson, for as tounge in cheek as he may seem, has the best observation I've seen on the subject yet:

Child-fucking is not a winning position. I can see it now when she is on MSNBC and they put the bullet points up: Outlaw All Taxes, Legalize Child Rape, Heroin over the counter at Wal-Mart.

This is what we have to deal with in the LP. Amen brother.

UPDATE: It has already begun. Do a "sort by date" Google Blogsearch for Mary Ruwart and you get phrases like:

• "On the other hand, LP presidential contender and mooted vice presidential prospect Mary Ruwart is a defender of consensual kiddie porn. If she’s on the ticket, I won’t be voting for the Libertarians. " -
  
• Right. Yeah. Okay. Apperantly this is too crazy even for Ron Paul supporters, so now this leads the door wide open for Bob Barr to get the nominations.
• So, following this logic, we should also decriminalize murder, seeing as when it is outlawed the cost of a hitman rises, increasing the incentive for someone to kill for money?
  I cannot see how anyone can argue that a child is ready to make the kind of choice that would subject them to child pornography, and in almost every case they will be influenced by either their parents, or the pornographer. Granted, perhaps if she was talking about people who are legally children but widely considered old enough to make sexual decisions, (14-17 years old), her position might be slightly more defencible, but still.
• The bottom line: Ruwart's stumble probably locks up the LP nomination for former GOP Congressman Bob Barr [of Georgia] at next month's nominating convention.

And this goes on and on and on. It isn't to say that Ruwart supports child pornography, it illustrates how people in the mainstream like to marginalize the LP, and this would give them ammunition.

Reduce, Reuse and Recycle Government

Reduce, reuse and recycle government

"Going green" means shrinking government and eliminating waste

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In celebration of Earth Day, the Libertarian Party issued a statement from Executive Director Shane Cory calling for a reduction in government in what he says is the best way to go 'green:'

"The best way to 'go green' is fixing environmental problems at their source, and that source is government. The federal government is by many accounts the largest polluter in the United States. By reducing the size of government and recycling redundant and unnecessary government bureaucracies, we will shrink the size of our 'government footprint,' and in turn, help our environment. More government is not the solution to environmental woes--it's the problem. Until we reduce the size of government, our environmental problems will continue to grow."

The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

For more information on this issue, or to arrange a media interview, please call Andrew Davis at (202) 333-0008 during normal business hours, or at (202) 731-0002 during any other time.

The Vacuum Cleaners -- A Lesson on Taxes

George Phillies for President 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Vacuum Cleaners -- a Lesson on Taxes

Worcester, Mass., April 15: A short comment on vacuum cleaners and taxes from Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies:

"I still have the brush-type vacuum cleaner my mother gave me 40 years ago. It's had several replacement parts, but it runs well. I also have an all-vacuum hose cleaner, not to mention my little floor brushing robot. They run in very different ways, but they have one thing in common: They're all vacuum cleaners. They all transfer dust from the floor to a holder.

"Your federal taxes are a lot like my vacuum cleaners. They run on very different principles, but they all do the same thing: They transfer money from your wallet to the Treasury. The fine details may differ, but in the end every tax leaves you with less money in your wallet.

"We've all heard vacuum spin artists who want to sell you new and different vacuum cleaners. Their spiritual relatives, the tax spin artists, want to sell you new and different taxes. None of the tax spinners talk about the worst tax of all. That's the grandchild tax, under which we spend the money, and our grandchildren get to pay our bills.

"It's always easier to make new taxes sound simpler than old taxes. After all, lobbyists and irate taxpayers concentrate their interests on adjusting real taxes, not on inserting special rules into taxes that don't exist. But once a real tax has been legislated, you can be certain that lobbyists will be hard at work persuading Congress to adjust the rules to benefit beekeepers or computer programmers or accountants--and I'm only listing professions of a few friends.

"The spin artists won't tell you one thing: Change for the sake of change hurts large numbers of fellow Americans. If we eliminate capital loss deductions, Americans who liquidated stock holdings-- holdings they might otherwise have kept without our tax laws -- will be forced to eat their losses. If we change the income tax into a value added tax, every American who put after-tax money into a Roth IRA will now have their money taxed again, to their great personal loss.

"The tax reform that will actually help most Americans is the reform in how taxes are spent. When Uncle Sam spends less money, and therefore stops borrowing money to bloat the national debt, every American will benefit.

Ron Paul and a Brokered Republican Convention

One of the longest standing goals of the Ron Paul movement has been trying to force a brokered Republican convention in September. While many Ron Paul supporters realized that Ron Paul didn't have much of a chance to win the Republican nomination, a brokered convention and significant delegate count could bring momentum and visibility to the Ron Paul Revolution.

The goal continues. Over at NolanChart.com, George Dance writes:

Ask Ron Paul why he remains in the Republican race for President, and he will speak about giving true conservatives someone to vote for. Ask him what he hopes to accomplish, and he will mention adopting a conservative platform, winning the battle of ideas, rallying a new generation to the cause, and the like.

All noble and worthy objectives. However, there are hints that something else may be afoot.

One big hint comes from an unlikely source: Hillary Clinton. Last month, Clinton told Newsweek magazine:

I have a very close race with Senator Obama. There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they're all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we're going to follow the process. [stress added]

Clinton is right. There is a difference between "pledged" delegates and "bound" delegates. Some pledged delegates are bound: that is, they must vote as per the primary or caucus results for their state. Others, though, are unbound: they are free to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Fair enough, because that is technically how the system works. Many have even made the argument that Ron Paul will win the nomination based on a brokered convention and delegate maneuvers. It's technically possible.

However, there is one question left completely unanswered by Ron Paul fanatics: Let's say that you successful force the GOP into a brokered convention. What makes you think that a party which wants perpetual war, big spending, and the government in your bedroom will all come together to support a candidate who runs on a platform of liberty?

Prohibition Party presidential candidate says he’ll probably vote for McCain

Over at Third Party Watch, Cody Quirk is reporting on the intention of Prohibition Party Gene Amondson to vote for Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain:

According to this Orlando Sentinel newspaper story, Prohibition Party presidential candidate Gene Amondson said he will probably vote for the Republican nominee for president.

It is almost always a mistake for any minor party candidate to say that he or she will vote for a major party opponent...

Most of the comments are directed at the futility of a minor party candidate announcing support for a major party candidate and whether or not McCain is still a heavy drinker.

However, I see a different angle: the Prohibition Party, perhaps on it's face the most anti-liberty political party in America, seems comfortable with John McCain. The nanny-state supporting Prohibition Party seems to want to support nanny-state supporting John McCain. Why is anyone surprised?

Protesters Demand Removal of CNN's Jack Cafferty

There is a brewhaha going on with Chinese nationals over remarks made by CNN's Jack Cafferty about China and the protests going on regarding the Chinese hosting of the Olympics.

From the L.A. Times --

On the April 9 airing of "The Situation Room," Cafferty said of America's relationship with China: "We continue to import their junk with the lead paint on them and the poisoned pet food and export . . . jobs to places where you can pay workers a dollar a month to turn out the stuff that we're buying from Wal-Mart. So I think our relationship with China has certainly changed. I think they're basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years."

Well, if it makes any difference Cafferty is exactly right; China is a despotic and totalitarian country which continuously abuses the human rights of its people and is a vocal opponent of freedom.

One of the funnier comments:

"We understand free speech," Lake Wang, 39, told the Los Angeles Times. "But what if Cafferty said this about other racial groups? I think he would be fired. I think he's jealous of China."

No, you do not understand free speech at all. In fact, you are working against it.

The Libertarian Schism

Like most political movements, there is a significant schism in the Libertarian Party, between so called "Minarchists" and Anarchists. Lest one not be fooled: there is a significant minarchist sect in the LP, and there is also a significant anarchist sect within the party. However, I have always believed that distinction to be shortsighted, and here's why.

Let's say there is a train called "liberty" which moves from point A to point Z, with many points in between, in order of the alphabet. Each point represents political change, where point A is big government control, which is where we are all at now. We're all on the train, at point A. Each point along the way moves us closer to individual liberty and less government. Point Z is a stateless society.

As the train moves from point A to point B, the first stop, all the minarchists and anarchists can do is argue about what stop to get off on. Minarchists want to get off the train and believe utopia is at point Q, whereas the anarchists want to take the train all the way to point Z. What both camps fail to understand is that to get where they are going, they have to go through all the points from A-Q together. Each stop along the way is necessary if they are going to get to their end goals. Until we get to point Q, it's silly to argue about whether to stop the train at point Q or Z, because the train is still in the station and not going to leave.

I know this sounds like a silly and stupid example, my point is this: minarchists and anarchists need to put aside their own ideas of what a libertarian utopia should be, because we are not even close to moving in the direction of libertarianism. Until we get to the point of minarchism, there is no difference between minarchism and anarchism. Because we're not even close to limited government, lets work together to shrink the size of government now. When we get to the point where we're at a minimal government, we can argue about whether or not to keep going. But to argue about it now is silly.

I hope that made sense.

Ballot Access and Third Parties

In my state of Illinois, it is being reported that the Green Party will be running 60 candidates in the 2008 election, due to the automatic ballot access they enjoy because of Rich Whitney's qualifying run (over 5%) in the 2006 Illinois Gubernatorial race.

 

This just shows why the children who want to turn the Libertarian Party into a debate society are bad for our party.  There is a simple process to build small political parties:

(1) Concentrate on local and state elections, because strong showing in those races, in many states, mean automatic ballot access.

(2) Automatic ballot access means more candidates, because of the relative ease of getting candidates on the ballot.

(3) More candidates means a higher profile for the party, which means a more effective way to fight for libertarian political policies.

However, with the debate society running fighting against electoral success, things will get worse before they get better.  Let's hope that doesn't happen.

 

 

 

 

 

Bob Barr Forms Presidential Exploratory Committee

Here is a Press Release from the Bob Barr 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee:

Media Address from the Bob Barr 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee:

Addressing Midwestern activists at the Heartland Libertarian Conference today, former Congressman Bob Barr announced the launch of the Bob Barr 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee (BobBarr2008.com).

In his speech, Barr noted that, “America today faces a grave moral and leadership crisis, and those of us who care about our country’s future can no longer sit on the sidelines and remain neutral.” “As Dante Alighieri said many centuries ago,” Barr observed, “the hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” Continuing, Barr stated that, “some say it is not now expedient or politically pragmatic to do the right thing, for the right reason.” But, he then asked his audience, “When has there been a better time? When has the risk of inaction carried more serious consequences? When will it be appropriate to take extraordinary steps? What must happen to our Constitution before we set aside our complacency and expediency in favor of principle?”

Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, where he served as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and as a member of the Committee on Financial Services. Prior to his congressional career, Barr was appointed by President Reagan to serve as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and also served as an official with the CIA for nearly eight years.

Since leaving Congress, Barr has been practicing law and actively advocating American citizens’ right to privacy and other civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. He serves also as a board member for the National Rifle Association, and works with the American Conservative Union and other groups.

Barr’s speech to the Heartland audience touched on the issues the candidates for the two major status quo parties have not addressed sufficiently, namely: the urgent need for truly cutting the size of the federal government, protecting our civil liberties, securing our borders, and fundamentally reforming our tax code.

“Removing ‘earmarks’ but not cutting the underlying spending is simply government as usual and is nothing more than a cynical shell game,” Barr stated; adding, “and that’s the high water mark in the debate thus far.“ Barr said this is not adequate, and that America’s voters deserve better than a choice between the lesser of two evils.”

The Libertarian Party, America’s oldest and largest third party, formed in 1971, is on track to achieve ballot access in at least 48 states. Its nominee will be chosen at the Libertarian National Convention which will be held in Denver, CO May 22 through 26.

This should be interesting. It's obvious that among the current Libertarian Presidential hopefuls, Barr has the largest mainstream media coverage and potential for fundraising. As of April 7th, midnight CDT, he has already raised close to $16,000, so his campaign is walking the walk.

However, there are still questions as to how much of his anti-libertarian past he will keep in his past. On Barr's Issues page, he emphasizes many of the issues that libertarians will like, and emphasizes limited government and restoring individual liberty. However, a lot of libertarians will be skeptical about his stances on school prayer, the drug war, and the Defense of Marriage Act. If he is able to put aside his past positions and come out for policy positions that are libertarian in nature, he will be nearly impossible to beat at convention and will garner more press than the LP has had in a long time. We're in the ramp up period to the convention, so time will tell very quickly whether Barr can talk the talk as well as he walks the walk.

Wasted Vote Syndrome

One of the problems for many independent and third party candidates is overcoming the "wasted vote syndrome", which is the idea that your vote only "counts" if you vote for a major party candidate.

This election, the wasted vote idea is completely irrelevant, because there isn't a choice among the major party candidates. Whether it's Hillary or Obama against McCain, all three choices present the same future: more government control, more spending and perpetual war.

Vote for REAL change. Vote Libertarian.

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Mike Gravel on the Issues

On the heels of Mike Gravel's move to the Libertarian Party and the subsequent skepticism over whether Gravel is actually a Libertarian or not, I've decided to look at Gravel's issues page and view, from my own libertarian perspective, whether his policy proposals work to achieve liberty.

The War in Iraq

Senator Gravel's position on Iraq remains clear and consistent: to commence an immediate and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. troops that will have them home within 120 days. The sooner U.S. troops are withdrawn, the sooner we can pursue aggressive diplomacy to bring an end to the civil war that currently consumes Iraq. Senator Gravel seeks to work with neighboring countries to lead a collective effort to bring peace to Iraq.

Whatever your position initially on whether we should have went to Iraq, Gravel's position seems fairly reasonable. We need the troops home to protect the homeland per the U.S. Constitution and end the unnecessary death and monetary cost of fighting a war against a country that did not attack the United States.

The National Initiative for Democracy

Mike fully supports the National Initiative for Democracy. The NI4D is a way to bring legislative power back to the people. In many states, citizens can put measures on the ballot and Mike believes as citizens of the United States we should all have that power.

The National Initiative for Democracy is basically the idea that like local referendum issues, there should be a mechanism nation wide for national referendum to be placed on the ballot. I do not expend much energy opposing this, but I do not support it, as I believe the federalism laid out in the U.S. Constitution is the best way to achieve liberty.

Iran and Syria

Senator Gravel opposes a military confrontation with Iran and Syria and advocates a diplomatic solution to the current situation.

Reasonable.

Global Warming/Climate Change

Senator Gravel believes that global climate change is a matter of national security and survivability of the planet. As President, he will act swiftly to reduce America's carbon footprint in the world by initiating legislation to tax carbon at the source and cap carbon emissions.

While eco-libertarians would applaud his efforts, I'm going to reserve judgment on this issue. While I do believe there is a certain amount of unfounded hysteria behind "man made" global warming, I do not believe climate change has risen to being a "matter of national security"

Progressive Taxes - A fair Tax

Senator Gravel's Progressive Fair Tax proposal calls for eliminating the IRS and the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax on new products and services. To compensate for the tax on necessities, such as food, lodging, transportation and clothing, there would be a "rebate" to reimburse taxpayers. This would be paid in a monthly check from the government to all citizens. The focus on taxing new goods would also help tackle the global climate change problem.

While I have stated previously that I was going to reserve judgment on the basic economics of the FairTax, one thing is certain: replacing the IRS with a large government bureaucracy and putting every American on the dole by causing them to be dependent on a monthly check from the government is hardly a libertarian idea. Senator Gravel is asking, in his tax proposal, to create a large government bureaucracy to hand out checks monthly to American citizens. How is this even remotely libertarian?

Healthcare

Senator Gravel advocates a universal healthcare system that provides equal medical services to all citizens, paid for by a retail sales tax (a portion of the Progressive Fair tax). Citizens would pay nothing for health benefits.

Ahh yes, here's where it gets interesting: Gravel wants universal single payer healthcare. This policy proposal is so anti-libertarian that it should prevent anyone from ever referring to Gravel as a Libertarian. Also, to claim that "citizens would pay nothing for health benefits" is painfully ignorant, and frankly very stupid. Everything government does is paid for by citizens.

Reproductive Rights

Senator Mike Gravel supports a woman's right to decide if and when to have children. He also supports a woman's right to make the difficult decision about abortion without interference by government authorities.

While I am personally pro-life, there should be little doubt that Gravel's position fits into the mainstream of the Libertarian Party.

Immigration

Senator Gravel favors protecting our borders and monitoring the flow of immigrants into our country. He also favors a guest worker program and setting up naturalization procedures that would fairly bring immigrants into legal status. America must address the root cause of illegal immigration. Any discussion of immigration must include NAFTA and the concept of "free trade." The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been a disaster for the working class of both the U.S. and Mexico and a boon to the international corporate interests.

His immigration stance is reasonable, but he is not going to win friends with an anti-free trade stance. There's a reason nearly every economist on the entire planet is in favor of free trade -- it works, if done right, always.

LGBT Rights

Senator Gravel supports same-sex marriage and opposes the Defense of Marriage Act. He supports expanding hate-crime legislation and opposes laws that allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or one's gender identity or expression.

Again, he is reasonable on protecting the rights of LGBT people, but wants big government intervention and thought control to do it, which is what hate crime laws are. Libertarians do not believe it is ever proper to criminalize thinking a certain way -- and thats what hate crime legislation does.

Social Security

Senator Gravel wants to put real money, rather than borrowed money, in the Social Security Trust Fund. He advocates investing it properly and identifying the interests of individual beneficiaries so they can know what their retirement fund is and leave surplus funds to heirs.

The only way we're ever going to put "real money" into Social Security is to get the government out of the business all together, and allow the people to freely choose to invest and save money, safely, for retirement. Government will always keep their eye on the funds to use for unrelated projects.

Education

Access to public education is a bedrock American value. Why is it then that the United States ranks 49th in literacy and that an estimated 30% of our students don't graduate from high school? Investing in education provides a pathway to a thriving national economy, to individual and family economic opportunity, and to the reduction of poverty. A successful education system requires the commitment of families, the community, and government.

The U.S. ranks low in literacy and education is poor because of the fact that we now have bureaucrats in Washington deciding on our children's curriculum instead of local school boards. Want to make education better? Allow local school boards and parents to decide curriculum and not elected fatcats in Washington. Repeal NCLB and allow local autonomy.

Veteran's Affairs

As President, Senator Gravel would ensure that veterans receive full funding for their most important needs, including healthcare that is indexed to the increasing cost of care and medicine.

Obviously, most of us would find this reasonable.

The War on Drugs

The War on Drugs has been a failure. It is time to end prohibition and start treating addiction as a public health problem. This has ravaged our inner cities, and we are losing an entire generation of men and women to prisons. We must regulate hard drugs for the purpose of treating addicts...

This is perhaps Gravel's most libertarian issue -- if he's going to have a future in this party, he's going to have to emphasize this issue.

Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality aims to keep the Internet free from large companies, which are trying to limit the number of web sites their customers can view and the speed at which they can view them. Senator Gravel guarantees a free and open Internet with unlimited access to all sites. He will do this by supporting legislation and regulation that keeps you in control of your Internet usage and promotes free speech.

This is another issue that Gravel might use to emphasize his libertarian credentials. However, as shown above, getting over some of his immense anti-libertarian economic principles will be a challenge for him gaining support.

Tom Knapp Running For Congress

Libertarian blogger and publisher of Rational Review Tom Knapp is running for Congress, and he has already taken his first shot at the Republican incumbent and the FairTax.

I'm not sure how I feel about the FairTax, and I'm open to consideration and opposing viewpoints. Thoughts?

Central Bank Continuing to Intervene In Markets

Even after it has been acknowledged that the Federal Reserve is stepping over it's limits when it intervenes in our markets, the Treasury doesn't think that the Fed has enough power, so they want to