Category Archives: Libertarian

State Rep. Jerry Long found agreement on Thursday with local Libertarians on his opposition to the recent tax increase and FOID cards, but he encountered differences over marijuana laws.

Long, R-Streator, took questions from the Illinois Valley Libertarian Party at the Prairie Lakes Country Club near Marseilles.

He said conservative Republicans like himself are close philosophically to Libertarians, which favor less government in the economy and social affairs.

Last week, Long voted against the state budget that included an income tax increase. He said Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan did not budge "one inch" in his negotiations with Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner.

Rauner, meanwhile, offered to support a temporary tax increase with structural economic reforms, yet Madigan got his way, Long said. That proves again Madigan controls Illinois, Long said.

"Michael Madigan is the problem in Illinois. He drove Illinois into the hole," Long said.

Temporarily, he said, the tax increase will bring more revenue to the state. Long-term, though, it will drive more and more people out of Illinois, reducing the state's tax base, he said.

"A lot of people can't pack up and leave. Farmers can't pack up. How can you pack up your acres and leave?" he said.

On another issue, Long said he supported laws to decriminalize marijuana below half an ounce of marijuana, assessing a small fine in those cases. When people have more than that amount, he said, they're likely distributing.

"No one has ever overdosed on marijuana," one Libertarian said.

The local party's chairwoman, Jenae Wise, pushed Long to support marijuana legalization.

"It would bring so much revenue. That is undeniable," she said.

Long asked, "You don't feel marijuana is the gateway to other drugs?"

The Libertarians said they didn't.

Long said he would be happy to revisit the issue.

"We'll talk about it a little bit later," he said.

Sunday car sales: Long said he was open to allowing car sales on Sundays. State law requires car dealerships be closed on Sundays, a law that dealers convinced the Legislature to support decades ago.

Fireworks: Long said he wouldn't mind legalizing fireworks.

FOID cards: Long said he is pushing a bill to ban the cards, which have long been required of gun owners. But he said Madigan and the Democrats prevented the legislation from going anywhere. "The purpose was to curb crime. It hasn't done that. It gives the state strength over individuals," Long said.

Pensions: Long said the state needs to keep the pension promises it has made to government workers. But he said the state needed to find a way to curb pension spending.

Politics: More Republicans need to be elected, Long said. That's the only way to reduce Madigan's power, he said.

Read more from the original source:

Long, Libertarians have common ground - MyWebTimes.com

Policy leaders are pressing the government to ensure workers have paid time off. Whether government has any businesses dictating what benefits must be included in the employment packages of Americans is rarely considered. The libertarian perspective is all but entirely absent in the discussion. That needs to change.

Our federal government has limited responsibilities, and micromanaging leave practices isn't one of them. Even the best-intentioned policies have unintended consequences that backfire on those they are supposed to help. We need to call out policymakers who use the excuse of a safety net to justify any new rules and regulations that needlessly restrict options for all Americans.

That's the predictable tactic employed by the Left, which is pushing extensive paid leave programs with increasing success. San Francisco's city council created a city-wide paid leave mandate on top of California's state paid leave program. Washington, DC just created an even more generous program.

Liberal women's groups and progressive activists regularly promote social media memes charging the United States is alone in the world in failing to guarantee paid time off for workers. They imply this deficiency is latent sexism or a lack of compassion for workers, women, and children.

But some on the Right are also embracing this logic. The American Enterprise Instituteconsidered a free-market organizationjust released a joint report with the more liberal Brookings Institution, entitled "Paid Family and Medical Leave: An Issue Whose Time Has Come." The authors noted they'd disagreed about the particulars of the best policy solution, but "unanimously agreed that some form of paid parental leave should be offered to help workers at the time of birth, adoption, or fostering of a child."

They outline a "compromise plan" to provide eligible workers with 70 percent of their wages for eight weeks of gender-neutral paid parental leave. This new federal entitlement program would be funded by a dedicated payroll tax and cuts to other spending.

AEI's report came just after the release of the President's budget outline, which included funding to expand the state-based Unemployment Insurance system with the goal of providing workers with a similar benefit.

There is pushback against sweeping new government entitlements. The Independent Women's Forum (where I work) argues that policymakers should instead seek policy reforms that help workers while minimizing economic disruption. Allowing workers to save tax-free for when they need time off for work is one such idea.

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) could also serve as a model to provide a financial boost to lower-income workers who lack paid leave benefits. The IWF argues that any government intervention ought to be need-based, rather than a mandated entitlement program that would effectively do to our compensation system what ObamaCare did to health insurance.

The public likes the idea of government doing something to make sure new parents have a benefit that lets them spend more time at home with their children. But often overlooked is that the money has to come from somewhere. Businesses forced to pay more for benefits have less for increased wages.

Mandates that make employees more expensive offer less incentive for businesses to hire more and more highly skilled employees (that's bad news for lower-wage workers). Employers may avoid hiring those most likely to use benefits, particularly women. A government one-size-fits-all paid leave program would also discourage voluntary alternative work arrangements like job-sharing and telecommuting that benefit employers and employees.

Allowing the government to dictate what must be in our employment contracts is another chip off the block of basic liberty and self-determination. It becomes illegal for an employer to offer a job that doesn't fit the government rule. As an employee, you can't choose to take a greater share of your compensation as take-home pay; you can't decide to save on your own for time away from work in the future; government has decided how this must be handled.

There is also the matter of fairness. A paid leave mandate creates winners and losers. People with families and children will receive the benefits, while those who cannot or choose not to have children will pay for benefits they are far less likely to use.

That doesn't mean that companies shouldn't offer leave benefits. Rather we should allow employers to create a variety of work relationships that appeal to their employees' unique needs. Some workers will gravitate to businesses offering more robust benefits. Others may prefer companies that compensate with higher pay. Enabling people to act on their preferences is what the marketplace is all about.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic with a federal government that is supposed to have limited powers used for very specific purposes. Micromanaging employment contracts or taxing some citizens to give money to others shouldn't be among those powers.

The rest is here:

Libertarians' Lost Voice in the Paid Leave Debate - Reason.com - Reason

There is so very little about the devastating moments after learning about our daughters murder that I remember clearly. Our brains have this amazing capacity for protecting us by limiting the amount of information that we can take in at one time. For nearly six months after the shooting, I asked myself and those around me daily, Did this really happen?

Thats what I thought about on Monday when I learned that Roger Stone, a political strategist, was attacking the parents of Seth Rich, the Democratic National Committee staffer whose murder has attracted the interest of conspiracy theorists. Does anyone else thinks it's odd that Seth Rich's parents have no interest in finding out who killed their son ? #payoff? he asked on Twitter. I thought of their grief, and remembered my own.

Our 6-year-old daughter Ana Grace was murdered in the nations worst elementary school mass shooting on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut. Our son survived. Yet despite hearing from first responders, planning a funeral, and lowering a tiny white coffin into the ground, the idea that we would have to spend the rest of our lives without her was too difficult to accept. I heard her, saw her, and felt her for weeks afterward. I stood in a check-out line at a Target girls section with an arm full of clothing for a boy and a girl the following spring.

A Mother's Fear Post-Sandy Hook

There was just no way I could fathom the amount of pain, the amount of missing, the amount of grief that flooded our world (and continues to) since Anas loss. As the five-year mark of the tragedy approaches, we still struggle. We have done amazing things. We have started a foundation. We have made the world more beautiful and more safe. We have raised tens of thousands of dollars for charity. We have raised awareness and provide funding for programs that reduce social isolation and promote community and connection to reduce violence. Our focus is schools. Our focus is raising our surviving son. Our focus is staying married and healthy and beating dismal odds. And yet for our family, the shock that this is your life for the rest of your life? It never fully goes away.

This level of shock/denial isn't uncommon or even remotely something we should pathologize. In the familiar Kbler-Ross grief stages, denial is the beginning of the journey and acceptance is the final destination. But grief is not linear, nor can it be neatly packaged or compartmentalized into logical phases. Grief is a loopy road full of U-turns and nosedives. Grief is messy and unpredictable. I have often said, Somewhere on the continuum between overwhelmed and overcomingthat is where a griever lives at all times.

I am finally willing to accept that Ana was brutally taken from us. I am willing to accept that my husband and I have joined a large but mostly marginalized tribe called bereaved parents. But I am not willing to accept that we live in an America that normalizes the abuse of bereaved parents who lose their loved ones to tragedy.

Culturally, we have much to understand about grief and providing support to victims. But we are now asking survivors of high-profile tragedy to withstand not only their loss, but flagrant and intentional harm after it.

This harm comes in the form of attacks on parents by conspiracy theorists. My own experience with them has taught me that they come in a few varieties:

Conspiracy theorists have been around for a long time. They shouldn't be confused with those who simply engage in healthy questioning of government, of people, or of ideas. Questioning is necessary and good. The sting of cruelty of those in the second category fades over time. You learn to pick them out and perhaps even feel sorry for them. It is wrong and awful but you come to realize that they are even more miserable than you are. And our local police have been amazing in their response to all of this.

But the third category is where you come in, Roger Stone. You intentionally use your platform to espouse theories debunked by law enforcement and that a bereaved family has expressly asked you to stop promoting.

Your actions have real consequences for those of us grieving. Your continued exploitation of these types of events result in targeted attacks by other hoaxers. Your continued attacks make it nearly impossible for us to heal. It is our job to handle the business of surviving child lossforging a path on a planet with an incomplete family. It should not be our job to deal with the likes of the bullshit you put out.

You identify as a libertarian, conservative, rabble rouser and I counter that you are none of what you describe. There is nothing libertarian about attacking bereaved parents. There is nothing conservative about suggesting that Seth Richs family was paid off. There is no amount of money in the world that would be enough to take part in anything like this.

Be careful when you mess with the bereaved. We are starting to speak out and stand up for each other. Hear the rally cry of a small but fearless group of hurting people reminding you that this isn't funny. This is real.

You are not a rabble rouser. You are irresponsible. You are cruel. You are a bully. You are careless in word and deed. And I will not normalize this. We will not normalize this. None of us should.

See the original post:

An Open Letter to Roger Stone From a Sandy Hook Mother - The ... - The Atlantic

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (News release) - After receiving the required number of signatures, the Libertarian Party of Arkansas (LPAR) has received the green light to appear on the 2018 ballot in Arkansas.

Monday, Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin declared the Libertarian Party a New Political Party for the fourth consecutive time.

Now that the LPAR is officially on the ballot for 2018, candidate recruitment will be the partys next major task.

The Party had submitted 15,108 signatures to the Elections Division of the Secretary of States office on June 12. After spending almost three weeks verifying the submitted signatures, the Secretary of State notified the party that its new political party petition was sufficient. Leslie Bellamy, the Director of Elections, informed the party that 12,749 of the signatures were valid.

In accordance with Arkansas Code, new political parties are required to file a petition with the Secretary of State. The party has 90 days to collect signatures from at least 10,000 registered Arkansas voters. To retain ballot access, the partys candidate for Governor will have to receive 3% of the votes cast for Governor.

According to Stephen Wait, the partys Treasurer, Petitioning to become a new political party again cost over $25,000 and a lot of volunteer hours. Despite the obstacles the old parties put in our way, we are happy to provide freedom loving Arkansans the opportunity to vote for candidates who will represent their views.

The Libertarian Party of Arkansas is currently seeking liberty minded individuals who are interested in running for office. The LPARs elections committee has already been contacted by numerous people interested in seeking the partys nomination for various positions.

Vice-chairman, Chris Olson, said It's an important election with all constitutional officers up for election. We are committed to providing the people of Arkansas with a strong set of pro-liberty candidates. We will not shirk from our commitment to providing a consistent voice for limited responsible government. He urged those who are interested in running for office as a Libertarian to contact elections@lpar.org for more information.

See original here:

Libertarian Party of Arkansas Set to Appear on 2018 Ballot - KARK

For the fourth consecutive election cycle, the Libertarian Party of Arkansas has been declared a "new political party."

Secretary of State Mark Martin's office certified in a letter Monday that the party collected enough valid signatures to qualify for ballot access statewide.

The state Libertarian Party has never met a threshold set in Arkansas law to automatically retain ballot access -- as have the state Republican and Democratic parties -- and avoid a petition process.

Michael Pakko, chair of the Libertarian Party of Arkansas, would like to see the state's process change.

"As far as ballot access goes, we really haven't made much progress there," he said. "I think the weakest part of the whole system of ballot access is it's limited to one single office. If you don't get 3 percent of the vote at the top of the ticket, then you're not a political party."

In Arkansas, a party needs to obtain 3 percent of the total votes cast for the office of governor or nominees for presidential electors at the first general election after certification to retain ballot access.

In 2016, the party's candidate, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, received 2.6 percent of the vote in Arkansas. In 2012, he received 1.5 percent of the vote.

So last month, the party submitted more than 15,000 signatures to the secretary of state's office to become a "new political party." The office's certification means that at least 10,000 were valid -- the requirement for starting any new political party.

Pakko said collecting the signatures through paid canvassers cost about $30,000 this year.

Nationally, the Libertarian party now has ballot access in 38 states. Among states bordering Arkansas, the party currently lacks access only in Tennessee, according to the national party's website.

Pakko said the national party had automatic ballot access in 35 states immediately after the 2016 election, but it failed to meet various requirements in 15 others, including Arkansas.

Libertarians won recognition as an official Arkansas political party for the first time in 2011 after collecting more than 16,000 signatures.

Now that the party is certified, Pakko said its attention will shift to recruiting candidates. The party plans to hold a convention in late February.

"We are a party that believes in limited government, that individuals should have the right to live their lives the way they see fit without interference of government -- so long as you're not imposing on someone else," Pakko said. "It's a very live-and-let-live approach to government. If people believe in that kind of outlook, well, we welcome them to join the Libertarian party."

Mark West, a pastor in Batesville, announced last month that he is running for governor as a Libertarian next year.

Information for this article was contributed by Michael R. Wickline of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

Metro on 07/12/2017

View post:

Libertarians earn spots on '18 ballot, urge better access - Arkansas Online

Being Libertarian

Freedom Philosophy: Canada Divided Over Funding an Illegally-Imprisoned Terrorist Being Libertarian This issue is rife with difficulty and lacks ethical clarity from a libertarian perspective. Under U.S. imprisonment, Khadr didn't receive a trial within a reasonable timeframe, which is illegal. He was also denied habeas corpus, also illegal. Lastly ... Khadr's Compensation: 71% of Canadians say government made wrong call by settling out of court - Angus Reid InstituteAngus Reid Institute all 170 news articles »

Go here to read the rest:

Freedom Philosophy: Canada Divided Over Funding an Illegally-Imprisoned Terrorist - Being Libertarian

Its not surprising that the number of registered Democrats in the state of Louisiana has decreased over the past 16 years. A new analysis from JMC Analytics shows that there has been a significant decrease in the number of registered white Democrats while the number of registered white Republicans has risen.

In 2001, when President George W. Bush took office, white Democrats made up 35% of the registered voters, but today that number has fallen to 18%. Over the same period, the number of Republicans increased from 22% to 30% and Independents increased 8%.

From 2001 to today, black voters in the state rose from 29% to 31%, but Hispanic and Asian voters, combined, increased 66%.

Today, Democrats account for 44% of the voters in the state of Louisiana, while Republicans account for 30% and Independents 26%.

But how many registered Republicans and Democrats are true Republicans or Democrats? There are Democrats that oppose new gun control legislation and Republican that support same-sex marriage. Does support for gun rights define a voter as a Repubican? Does support of same-sex marriage render a voter a Democrat?

The world of political issues is complicated and seemingly not as clear cut as it was in the past. Hypocrisy reins supreme with both Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps the Independents are more respected for having views that seem to conflict with the strict Republican and Democratic Party ideology.

Many people find security in belonging to a group that helps define who they are. Many how identify themselves as Republicans or Democrats do not agree with the strict definition of what it means to be Republican or Democrat, but they gain a stronger sense of identity by adhering allegiance to one party or the other.

The majority of voters in the state of Louisiana, as well as the majority of voters across America, are not truly Republican or Democrat. And these are the voters that decide the outcome of elections.

Look at the breakdown of registered voters in Louisiana 44% are Democrats, 30% are Republicans and 26% are Independents. Based on the breakdown of voters, in a two-candidate race, a Republican or a Democrat would need the support of Independents to win an election.

During the campaign, Donald Trumps appeal stretched beyond the base of the Republican Party. Now as president, Trump appears to be pandering more to his base, which will not be strong enough for reelection in 2020.

On my radio show, I have always emphasized the importance of a candidate projecting an image more moderate than the core of either party. George W. Bush brilliantly used the slogan, Compassionate Conservative to win. Barack Obama presented a more moderate, or populist, position during his two campaigns. Once in office, candidates tend to feed their base voters. That changes toward reelection time. There are those who will vote for the Republican or the Democrat no matter what circumstances surround a campaign, but it is the moderates and the Independents that determine an elections outcome.

In a world where Americans are so quick to label each other -conservative, liberal or whatever - we should all be honest about the reality that most are not as politically pure as the image of either party.

And thats the reason we should not be so quick to label or judge each other.

Original post:

Scoot: Are you Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian? - WWL First News (blog)

PHOENIX -- A federal judge has rebuffed a bid by the Libertarian Party to kill an Arizona law even its sponsors concede was designed to make it harder for minor party candidates to get on the general election ballot.

Judge David Campbell acknowledged Monday the 2015 law sharply increases the number of signatures that Libertarian candidates need to qualify for ballot status. In some cases, the difference is more than 20 times the old requirement.

The result was that only one Libertarian candidate qualified for the ballot in 2016, and none made it to the general election. By contrast, there were 25 in 2004, 19 in 2008 and 18 in 2012.

But Campbell said the new hurdle is not unconstitutionally burdensome. And the judge accepted the arguments that the higher signature requirements ensure that candidates who reach the November ballot have some threshold of support.

But Libertarian Party Chairman Michael Kielsky said the judge ignored not just the higher burden but the games that the Republican-controlled legislature played in making 2015 the change for their own political purposes.

The Republicans set out to get the Libertarians off the ballot and the Republicans succeeded, Kielsky said. And now, Judge Campbell has said, Thats OK.

Kielsky is not just spouting party rhetoric.

In pushing for the change, GOP lawmakers made no secret they do not want Libertarian Party candidates in the race, contending that a vote for a Libertarian is a vote that would otherwise go to a Republican. As proof, some cited the 2012 congressional race.

Republican Jonathan Paton lost the CD 1 race to Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick by 9,180 votes. But Libertarian Kim Allen picked up 15,227 votes -- votes that Rep. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, argued during floor debate likely would have gone to Paton.

And in CD 9, Democrats Kyrsten Sinema defeated Republican Vernon Parker by 10,251 votes, with Libertarian Powell Gammill tallying 16,620.

And if the point was lost, Mesnard made the issue more personal for colleagues, warning them that they, too, could find themselves aced out of a seat if they dont change the signature requirements.

I cant believe we wouldnt see the benefit of this, he said during a floor speech.

The way the legislature accomplished this was to change the rules.

Prior to 2015, would-be candidates qualified for the ballot by getting the signatures of one-half of one percent of all party members within a given area. So for a Republican seeking statewide office, that translated out to 5,660 signatures.

The new formula changed that to one-quarter of a percent -- but for all people who could sign a candidates petition. That adds political independents, who outnumber Democrats and are running neck-in-neck with Republicans, to the equation.

Under the new formula, a Republican statewide candidate in 2016 needed 5,790 signatures.

But the effect on minor parties is more profound,

Using that pre-2016 formula, a Libertarian could run for statewide office with petitions bearing just 134 names, one-half percent of all those registered with the party. But the new formula, which takes into account all the independents, required a Libertarian trying to get on a statewide ballot to get 3,023 signatures.

To put that in perspective that is closed to 12 percent of all registered Libertarians. By contrast, the statewide burden for a GOP candidate, based on the number of registered Republicans, remains close to that one-half of one percent of all adherents.

Its B.S., Kielsky said. Its completely perverse.

But Campbell said there is nothing unconstitutional about the higher requirement to limit the field to bona fide candidates who had some chance of actually winning.

If a candidate was not required to show any threshold of support through votes or petition signatures, she could win her primary and reach the general ballot with no significant modicum of support at all, Campbell continued. And in the case of Libertarians, who often run unopposed in their partys primary, a candidate could win a spot on the general election ballot with only one vote in such a primary.

Anyway, the judge said, Libertarian candidates can now seek out support to get on the ballot from independents, a pool totaling more than one million voters in Arizona.

Kielsky said that misses the point.

That means we have to appeal to things that the independents care about -- but not necessarily the Libertarians care about -- to be a Libertarian candidate, he said. The distinction of being a Libertarian is diluted, if not lost.

And Kielsky called the requirement for a modicum of support a red herring. He said if Libertarians were not picking up significant votes, the GOP-controlled legislature would not have changed the law to keep them off the ballot.

On Twitter: @azcapmedia

Read this article:

Judge upholds law stifling Libertarian ballot presence - Verde Independent

By Charles Ashby Sunday, July 9, 2017

When the Colorado Legislature proposed and the governor later signed a bill limiting law enforcements use of civil asset forfeiture laws, police, prosecutors and even some county commissioners hit the roof.

They all said they needed the ability to keep such assets to help them fight crime.

Now, a former Libertarian Party presidential candidate who lives in Littleton wants to take that idea one step further.

Steve Kerbel, who vied to be his partys presidential nominee last year, submitted a proposed ballot measure Thursday that would prevent any Colorado governmental entity from the state on down from keeping any money they collect from fines or penalties.

Kerbels thinking is that most of those fines are not intended to dissuade people from doing bad things, but as a means to enrich governments or pad their ever-shrinking budgets.

Im not saying that every fine is for self-enrichment, but what I am saying is that we have given the government the privilege to enforce laws, and they have abused their authority, Kerbel said.

The goal here is to bring forth judicious enforcement based on the real intent of the law, rather than just taking advantage of the letter of the law.

His proposal, which if approved would be on the 2018 ballot, would not limit or do away with fines, but redirect them.

Instead of the fining agency keeping that money, it first would go to reimburse a victim for any financial losses.

If there is no victim, such as in a speeding incident, the money would go to a charity of the fine payers choice.

That way, the fines and penalties that various courts and governments assess could still be used as a deterrent. They just cant be used to fund a government agency, Kerbel said.

Its really destroyed the entire law and order purpose and perception, he said. Removing that credibility from the actions of government is damaging. With this law, the deterrent remains. The fines are still payable, but the government just cant have them.

Kerbel said what hes really trying to do is to remove a conflict of interest that governments have put upon themselves.

That conflict is inherent in any government agency trying to enforce a law, and then financially benefiting from it.

Sometimes, Kerbel says, a local governments only motivation in assessing fines and penalties is as a major funding mechanism for themselves.

He points to a small town in Colorado called Mountain View, a town in the Denver metropolitan area that is only six blocks long and two blocks wide.

It gets more than 50 percent of its revenues from traffic violations, Kerbel said.

Its highway robbery. They are openly and obviously manipulating the system.

Even though his measure still has a long way to go to qualify for the ballot, Kerbel said hes already been approached by people in other states and even Australia about the idea.

People are fed up with this pure abuse of authority, Kerbel said.

And its become more transparent as the years go by. As that transparency increases, people become even more fed up.

Go here to read the rest:

Libertarian wants end to governments' ability to profit from fines - Grand Junction Daily Sentinel

The Oklahoma Libertarian Partys most successful candidate to date, Chris Powell, is seeking the nomination for Governor. Powell, of Bethany, received more than 89,000 votes running for county office in 2016, besting Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnsons statewide total of 83,481.

Powell will formally announce at the State Capitol at 1 p.m. July 8.

Powell, active in the OKLP since 2000 including a term as chairman, contrasts his greater depth of political experience as compared to the other Libertarian candidates for the states highest office. In regard to those seeking the Republican and Democrat nominations, Powell says, My life is far more representative of the vast majority of Oklahomans than that of the members of the political establishment in those other two parties. I understand the daily problems of regular people in ways those politicians never can.

Powell intends to focus on empowering local school boards and teachers, elimination of special interest tax credits, state agency consolidation, criminal justice reform, and working to reduce divisions in the Legislature, all of which will help address the ongoing budget problems.

He said, Each vote I get on Nov. 6, 2018, will be a clear message to every elected state official to put aside partisan differences and enact real solutions for our state.

Visit link:

Powell enters race for Libertarian Party gubernatorial nomination - Edmond Sun