Category Archives: Libertarian

SUNDAY, MARCH 12, 2017, 2:42 P.M.

Mark Wicks, standing, addresses Montana Libertarians gathering for their party's nominating convention in Helena, Mont., on Saturday, March 11, 2017. Wicks will represent the Libertarian Party in the May 25 special election to fill the state's vacant congressional seat. (Bobby Caina Calvan / AP)

HELENA Montanas Libertarian Party picked Mark Wicks to be its candidate in the May 25 special election, finalizing the slate to fill the states vacant congressional seat.

The 46-year-old cattle rancher and writer from Inverness will be up against Democrat Rob Quist, a political newcomer, and Republican Greg Gianforte, who unsuccessfully ran for governor last fall.

The Libertarian Party selected Wicks during a nominating convention Saturday in Helena attended by about three dozen people.

Wicks acknowledged the long odds against him.

I know its an uphill battle, he said. I can see where I have a lot of advantages. My party is not fighting with anybody. The other parties are fighting back and forth. Im going to stand up and show that Montana can send somebody back to Washington who can stand up for Montana.

After being nominated, Wicks brushed off questions about his ability to mount a serious campaign. He said he would travel the state to convince voters that his candidacy represents an opportunity to set aside the hyper-partisanship in Washington.

With just $1,000 in the bank, Wicks has little chance of getting the necessary attention from voters across the expansive state.

He said he would draw votes from Republicans and Democrats alike, but rejected that he would act as a spoiler.

He took a jab at Gianforte, a wealthy Bozeman entrepreneur, who Wicks noted has the ability to self-finance his congressional campaign as he did in his bid for governor. And Wicks asserted Quist as out of touch with the philosophical and political convictions of most Montanans.

A tight race between Gianforte and Quist could put Wicks in a position to influence the outcome of the race.

In the 2016 gubernatorial campaign, the Libertarian ticket drew 3 percent of the vote just below the 4 percent margin separating Gianforte and Gov. Steve Bullock, who was re-elected with slightly more than half of all votes cast.

Each candidate has their own ideas about the direction we should take for our country, but Gregs running for Congress to be on Montanas side, said the Republicans spokesman, Shane Scanlon.

Quist said he welcomed Wicks in the race.

Its good for Montanans to have choices in this election and we are confident that Rob Quist will earn Montanans vote as an independent voice for Montana, said Quists spokeswoman, Tina Olechowski.

Quist, a well-known entertainer, stumped for votes in Helena and Butte on Saturday and was scheduled to hold a rally in Polson later in the evening. He was expected to meet with supporters in Whitefish on Monday.

View post:

Libertarians pick Inverness rancher for congressional race - The Spokesman-Review

STAUNTON Libertarian Will Hammer will take another crack at the House of Delegates 20 District seat this fall. The lifelong Staunton resident announced his candidacy on Friday evening, taking aim at the controversial Atlantic Coast Pipeline, and advocating for marijuana legalization.

The incumbent, Del. Richard Dickie Bell, R-Staunton, has held the seat since 2010. He easily won election in 2009, and has cruised in his three successive bids, winning at least 70 percent of the vote each time.

Hammer will try to break Bells grip on the seat in the November election this year, but he will likely have an uphill climb to do it. He polled 24 percent of the vote in 2015, a respectable showing for a third-party candidate, though he was also the only challenger on the ballot that year. The Democratic Party did not put up a candidate against Bell in 2015.

Hammer hopes to capitalize on voters frustration with incumbents from both parties, something that helped propel outsider Donald Trump to the presidency last year. While the rhetoric from the 2016 campaign has cooled somewhat, still-simmering skepticism from the electorate could open the door for a third-party candidate or independent in local and state races this fall, analysts say.

I believe that my strong showing in 2015 and the growing distrust and distaste for the two major parties, specifically incumbents, represents a great opportunity to go to Richmond as a third-party candidate, Hammer said in a press release.

He also hopes the controversy of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline will buoy his chances this year. Property rights a key issue for the Libertarian Party has been one of the defining issues in protests against the pipeline.

I will fight against the Dominion pipeline because property rights are sacred, Hammer said, referring to the company heading up the effort to build the conduit.

In addition, he vows to end gerrymandering and corruption, and to bring transparency to Richmond, if elected. Gun rights and marijuana legalization are also planks on his platform. While the former will no doubt play well in the conservative district, particularly in its more rural precincts, the latter may turn some hard-line law-and-order voters, especially senior citizens, off from his candidacy.

But Hammer sees legalizing marijuana as an economic issue, more than anything else.

[It] will reduce government expenditure and create a booming new industry, which means thousands of jobs, he said in the release.

A 2009 graduate of Hampden-Sydney College, Hammer describes himself as an entrepreneur and libertarian activist.

He was awarded the Patrick Henry Award by the Libertarian Party in 2016 for the campaign he waged a year earlier against Bell, in which Hammer raised the profile of libertarian issues.

If you are tired of business as usual and the duopoly of the Republicans and Democrats, Hammer said, join me and lets seriously drain the swamp known as Richmond.

Read the original here:

Anti-pipeline, pro-marijuana Libertarian announces bid for House seat - The Daily Progress

Being Libertarian

Why Israel Matters Being Libertarian A famous political commentator once compared getting a consensus among libertarians to herding cats, he wasn't wrong. Those who identify as libertarians range from the classical liberals (in the mold of our Founding Fathers) to those libertines who ...

See original here:

Why Israel Matters - Being Libertarian

According to VPAP, it looks like theres going to be a Libertarian candidate (named Jason Carrier) for governor of Virginia, assuming of course that hes able to make the ballot (not an easy matter in Virginia). Heres some of what he has to say on his Facebook page. To put it mildly, hes not a fan of liberals, progressives, Democratsall of whom he seems to think are socialists, which he also believes are identical to National Socialists, whichyeah, dont ask.

If we are tired of how the government taxes us, spies on us, restricts our liberty, it is up to regular Americans (Farmer, Truck Drivers, Veterans, IT nerds) to run for office.

So for those of you who dont know, I am running for Governor of Virginia as the Libertarian candidate. The party asked and I said yes. I have never been a politician and I am going to need all the help I can get. This means volunteers and fund raising, etc. The first step is getting 10,000 names ballot petition. If you are interested in helping please let me know. I will be setting up website, and other items I hope this week. If you are interested in helping please PM me. If you have any questions about the LP party where we stand on issues ask them here, I will do my best to answer them.

As a Libertarian I support withholding all federal funds from all states they should stand on there own as much as possible and reject all federal mandates not in the constitution

I keep hearing people refer to Trump as Orange Hitler. I dont understand this label. Hitler was a socialist Trump is into Cronyism. Hitler build camps to keep people in Germany, Trump says he wants to throw people out. Although deportations are down. Hitler passed Universal Health Care, Trump says ObamaCare will be repelled, although he has not done it yet. Hitler passed 100% Gun registration and bans for people that were unstable, Trump says he supports the second amendment. Hitler believed in free education, Trumps says pay your own way. Hitler wanted to tax the rich to pay for social programs, Trumps say 15% flat tax. Hell based on the analysis of the Nazis party platform, Hitler would be head of the Democratic National Community. Just saying these are fact. Call Trump and asshole if you want, but Hitler is a bit of a stretch

I was talking today about the Federal land grabs out west, specifically Utah and Nevada. It is like the government is trying to round it citizen up put them into reservations where they have to buy water, food, shelter, and medical from them. It just seems wrong to me.

This meme is funny but historically inaccurate Nazis were socialists people rioting and burning books are socialists same shit different time

I going to post this and I am sure it is going to piss off my fellow Libertarians. I saw Trump signed an executive order that for every new regulation passed two had to be taken away. This is pretty awesome. So could he be the Libertarian president we were hoping for? Internet trolling done now to work

So ODU just released a study that shows Clinton got at least 800,000 votes from non citizen can we now get voter ID laws. I dont want Republicans to cheat either. Libertarians please feel free to cheat as much as we need to

Love me some Ron Paul

I am not a Trump supporter, but if you are attacking black performers for reaching across the aisle and calling them every racist slur in the book, you are an asshole. I heard what people called Steve Harvey, it is not acceptable.

If they lived in reality they would not advocate Socalism. It has failed for 100 years, and killed 200 million people, but lets give it one more try, with the most technically advanced military in the world, what could go wrong

Nazis were national Socalist party of Germany, same as USSR. I dont know why we dont teach this

Go here to see the original:

Meet Your (Possible) 2017 Virginia Libertarian Candidate for Governor - Blue Virginia (press release) (blog)

Libertarian Party(Photo: Courtesy/Special to Poweshiek County CR)

The Iowa Secretary of State has announced that the Libertarian Party of Iowa has obtained official political party status in Iowa, effective March 1. The Libertarian Partys presidential nominee, Gary Johnson, received 59,186 votes, which was 3.8 percent of the vote in the November 2016 general election, surpassing the two percent threshold required by Iowa Code to obtain official political party status.

Johnsons 3.8 percent of the vote in Iowa was slightly more than the 3.3 percent he received nationally

I would like to congratulate the Libertarian Party of Iowa on being recognized as an official political party by the state, Secretary Paul D. Pate said. I encourage all Iowans to become and remain active in the political process.

Prior to the 2016 election, the Libertarian Party in Iowa was considered a non-party political organization (NPPO) and did not have some of the privileges granted to the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, two parties with political party status.

NPPOs must have their presidential or gubernatorial candidate receive more than 2 percent of the vote to be recognized as a full-status political party. If a partys nominee does not receive two percent of the total votes cast, the partys status is cancelled.

Political party status gives the Libertarian Party the ability to participate in primary elections in 2018. The Libertarian Party will be included as an option for Iowans on voter registration forms as well.

Libertarian Party state chair, Keith Laube, stated, Having our candidates be part of the Primary Election will allow voters to become familiar with our candidates earlier in the election season. Our candidates will know they are on the November ballot in early June rather than late August. This will help organize stronger campaigns and provide voters more opportunity to understand Libertarian views. Laube added, Having more candidates share their ideas by being involved in the entire election cycle is good for Iowa.

The last instance when a non-party political organization was successful at gaining political party status in Iowa was in the year 2000. Iowa Green Party nominee Ralph Nader received 29,374 votes, or 2.2 percent of the total votes cast for president.

The current number of voters registered as Libertarian in Iowa is 9,100.

Iowa voters could start registering as a Libertarian in. Since January 2016, voters are able to register to vote and change their political party affiliation on the Iowa Secretary of State website. Major party status will become effective 21 days from the filing.

Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/2mHl3Lb

More here:

Iowa Libertarian Party official party - DesMoinesRegister.com

President Trump issued a new executive order this week that revises, rescinds, and replaces his prior order banning immigration from several majority-Muslim countries. The new order, which is scheduled to taked effect on March 16, is supposed to bolster the White Houses case in court, resolving legal defects that prevented the ban from prevailing the first time around.

In some ways, it accomplishes its goal, but in other ways, the new order undermines several legal arguments that the administration has been making.

While defending the president against a lawsuit brought by the state of Washington, the administrations attorneys justified his list of seven majority-Muslim countries by stating that they were previously identified as posing a heightened risk of terrorism by Congress or the Executive Branch. In fact, they said, Congress itself identified Iraq and Syria as countries of concern.

This argument was always weak because, although Congress did single out these countries for additional vetting, it still specifically provided for the ability of Iraqi and Syrian nationals to come to America so long as they had a visa. But now the president has excluded Iraq from the list, which means its justification that this list was something Congress put together is gone.

The whole point of the ban, as the administration put it, was to establish adequate standards to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists. In other words, because the vetting process is inadequate, and these nationalities are (in the eyes of the administration) inherently dangerous, people from the selected countries cannot be allowed in.

The new order exempts current visa holders from these countries. But this change totally undermines the argument that these nationals are dangerous even if they are screened. By fixing one problem, the administration creates another one for itself. If these nationals are dangerous, why would it concede to allow any of them in?

Heres a more immediate concern for the administration. When the original order was challenged, the administration argued in court that any delay in implementation immediately harms the public by thwarting enforcement of an Executive Order issued by the President, based on his national security judgment. It is likely that they will argue the same when this one is challenged.

President Trump signed a new executive order on immigration Monday that revised his first one halted by the courts. Here's a look at what is different about this new order and whether it will face the same legal issues. Photo: Getty

Yet the new order delays the effective date for more than a week. It does so to resolve a potential legal concern tied to banning people without notice. But the delay effectively eviscerates the argument from the presidents legal team that a judges decision to suspend enforcement of it would impose irreparable harm. A judge could respond, If thats true, did the presidents delay also harm the United States?

The administration also claimed that this was not a ban intended to reduce admissions of immigrants from these majority Muslim countries. Instead, it was just a temporary 90-day pause on entries from these places to allow the government to review vetting procedures. But now the new order restarts this timeline.

Why would the clock on reviewing procedures stop ticking just because the old order wasnt blocking entries? This provides evidence that these timelines were in fact arbitrary and that the goal wasnt about giving the administration time to review, but rather about cutting legal immigration of peoplemainly Muslim immigrantsthat the administration simply does not like.

Despite all of the changes, the fundamental problems persist. The order still references 1952 law providing that the president can exclude any class of alien if he finds them detrimental. But this justification ignores a later-enacted 1965 law that bans discrimination against immigrant visa applicants based on nationality. While the 1965 law provides a list of exceptions, the 1952 law was specifically not included among them.

Congress did not want to allow the president this authority. In fact, it specifically debated the question of whether difficult-to-screen countries should be included under the 1965 non-discrimination rule and decided that they should be.

This means that the executive order re-boot is still legally suspect. Indeed, in some ways, because it undermines so many of the governments arguments, the order has become even more suspect than it was before, and the courts should tell the president to go back to the drawing board once again.

David J. Bier is an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institutes Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.

Read more from the original source:

A libertarian explains why Trump's new travel ban is still legally ... - MarketWatch

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan speaks on the proposed American Health Care Act.

On Monday, congressional Republicans rolled out their new health care plan, which is supposed to repeal and replace Obamacare. Donald Trump hailed our wonderful new Healthcare Bill. But his enthusiasm for the proposed American Health Care Act is not widely shared. In addition to the expected critiques from the left, the bill has been forcefully condemned by a wide range of conservative and libertarian health care experts. These leading critics of Obamacare argue that the GOP proposal is just as bad, and possibly even worse.

Michael Cannon, well-known health care analyst for the libertarian Cato Institute, offered a particularly harsh appraisal, denouncing the new bill as Obamacare lite or worse:

This bill is a train wreck waiting to happen The Obamacare regulations it retains are already causing insurance markets to collapse. It would allow that collapse to continue, and even accelerate the collapse.

Republicans dont seem to have any concept of the quagmire they are about to enter with this bill.

If this is the choice, it would be better if Congress simply did nothing.

As Cannon explains,the new GOP plan has a similar structure to Obamacare, fails to address most of its flaws, and may well make some of them worse. Republicans should take note: If one of Obamacares leading critics concludes that your repeal and replace bill is even worse than Obamacare, and worse than doing nothing, thats a pretty damning indictment.

Other right of center economists and health care experts have offered similarly damning assessments, including Megan McArdle, Peter Suderman, Scott Sumner, and Avik Roy. Roy argues that the proposal includes some valuable reforms for Medicaid, but concludes that this benefit is outweighed by the many harmful aspects of the plan. Sudermans bottom line is even more negative: In general, its not clear what problems this particular bill would actually solve.

I am no fan of Obamacare myself, and was involved in helping develop the constitutional case against it that led to the Supreme Courts controversial ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius. But I find it sobering that even many of the ACAs toughest critics fear that the GOP alternative is likely to be worse.

A crucial point emphasized by many of these critics is that the GOP plan does little or nothing to constrain health care costs or open up the insurance industry to wider market competition. As Cannon puts it, Congress needs to enact reforms that make health care more affordable, rather than just subsidize unaffordable care. The GOP plan, he explains, does mostly the latter, often even more inefficiently and coercively than Obamacare.

McArdle points out that the new plan is as much a gigantic Rube Goldberg contraption as Obamacare is. She also notes that the GOP hopes to use many of the same procedural tricks to disguise its flaws as Democrats did with those of the ACA. It is far from clear they will manage to get away with it.

Because the plan is so enormously complicated and has so many moving parts, it could easily unravel in a wide range of unexpected ways, as the different components fail to interact as expected. For reasons F.A. Hayek famously explained, even the wisest of bureaucratic central planners lack the knowledge to foresee and offset such problems. And todays Republican Party is not exactly overflowing with wisdom and competence.

If the GOP plan falters like Obamacare has, its flaws will be exacerbated by another feature the two policies have in common: lack of bipartisan support. If it gets through Congress at all, the AHCA is likely to pass on a strict party-line vote or close to it, just like the ACA. From the standpoint of the opposition party, the optimal political strategy will be sit back, watch the trainwreck happen, and saddle the party that passed the plan with the blame.

Just as Republicans had no incentive to help Obama fix the flaws in the ACA, so Democrats will have no incentive to help fix problems with the new GOP plan. Partisan bias is a powerful and increasingly pernicious force, and it could potentially undermine the GOPs health care policy. Admittedly, Democratic opposition may not matter much if the Republicans expand their congressional majorities in 2018 and 2020. But recent history suggests that neither party can count on controlling Congress for long. And in the Senate, many bills are subject to filibuster, effectively requiring 60 votes to pass.

This entire sorry state of affairs is even more the fault of congressional Republicans than Donald nobody knew health care could be so complicated Trump. These had seven years to come up with an alternative to Obamacare, and so far their work product is far from impressive. Sad! Nonetheless, Trumps ignorance, reckless statements, and disdain for free market ideas have also contributed to the problem.

Despite GOP control of both houses of Congress, there is a very real chance that the new bill will not pass. It has already come under fire from both conservative and moderate wings of the party. Given the narrowness of the 52-48 Republican majority in the Senate and the unyielding opposition of Democrats, the plan will be defeated if even as few as three Republicans defect.

In fairness, given the divisions within the party, it is not an easy task to cobble together a bill that is both an improvement over Obamacare and acceptable to all the key factions within the GOP. Whether Republicans can overcome these problems and come up with something better than this initial effort remains to be seen. At this point, it is hard to be optimistic.

Here is the original post:

Conservative and libertarian health care experts pan GOP's Obamacare lite plan - Washington Post

Now that we have a new regime in place (at the top of our political atmosphere), and the turmoil between angered voters has been put on a soft mute (for now), you cant help but take in the freshness of it all. Or can you?

Weve seen an about-face trend in the stock market from what was predicted but where is all this money? People are still living in a constant state of financial alertness, for good reason. We have seen this playout too many times in the past generation. Regime change equals economic redirection. Which side of the fence you are on depends how you are projected to fare over the next few years, if you follow trends.

Lets turn back the clock to 2000. Bush is in, and the conservatives are celebrating their national championship. Liberals are cringing at the prospect of reigning in the expansion of government entitlements and the influx of a new idea of tolerance. The glut of big money investment is about to roll out into corporate take-overs and incessant greed of the, soon to be feared, one percent.

We all know how the Bush administration went; ugh, debt, debt and some more debt. That deficit rose quicker than the technology of those futuristic new smart phones that were coming out. We wanted change we needed change. But, all we did was change the side of the celebration.

We pumped more and more into government expansion and entitlements for those street-destroying celebrators of change. The held-out hand seemed not to drop a thing, as the ones that were used to holding on to their investments and portfolios found new interests in storm shelters and 30-round magazines. Those same people probably thought at the time, that the Arkansas dress destroyer was a saint compared to what was coming out of Kenya.

The eight year reign of the liberal agenda helped the hopeless aspire to receive far more than they contributed: citing free phones, healthcare and questionable bathroom preferences. Our national debt continues to climb, right along with a manifested racial divide and sprinkled in terrorist attacks , as well as those killer cops.

Still, the winners of 08 claimed that progress was the right track for the equality of all. You were deemed a racist, intolerant, or a bigot if you thought otherwise.

2016: The year of what just happened? Well, it happened again. The swing back to conservative-ism or, as the newly found losers called it, not my America.

Here we are, primed for the run. As I alluded to previously, the so-far surprise market is a base moniker of how we are doing, right? First quarter projections are now rolling in and American manufacturing as a whole is taking a woodshed beating. We are seeing it in non-technical manufacturing very hard, reminding those who have been around long enough to boast those comments, remember 01, or 09? We took a beating those years. Head scratcher, huh?

If you were to make a prediction of the outlook for 2017, it looks like a safe bet for the status quo. The only thing different is that the winners gloated a little more, and the losers well, are they done yet? It is merely a continuation of the same things we have dealt with our entire adult lives. So, it might be a good idea to keep conserving your money, play wisely with retirements, and for heavens sake get on that highway of progress; that fabled economic growth that every politician ever has spouted about.

We are all meant to be winners in this game of big ol gubmint, or so they say. The nation may veer to the left or to the right and back again, but we continue in the same basic direction, paying our forced tithes to the downward spiral. To be happy about it you simply need to jump onto a different bandwagon every four or eight years. My hope is for the bandwagon of Enough Already. But dont look to jump on it anytime soon.

* Wes Fischer self supporting libertarian focused on shrinking our government one action at a time.

Like Loading...

See the original post here:

I'm with the Band(wagon) - Being Libertarian

FreedomFestThe 10th year of FreedomFest, the world's largest annual gathering of libertarian and free-market thinkers, activists, and policymakers takes place in Las Vegas between July 19 to July 22 at Bally's Paris resort.

Confirmed speakers include Star Trek's William Shatner talking about space exploration and the cultural staying power of Star Trek. Newscasting legend John Stossel will be there and there will be a celebration of the life and ideas of Steve Forbes, longtime FreedomFest "co-ambassador." There will also be a slate of special "Reason Day" sessions that deliver cutting-edge views on "Free Minds and Free Markets." You want to "boldly go where no man, woman, or child has gone before?" Then come to Reason Day, where we will be talking about rockets, hyperloops, radical self-evolution, and the next stages of disruptiveand libertatingchange.

To add to the excitement, FreedomFest impresario Mark Skousen has teamed up with Newsmax magazine to produce a list of "the 50 Most Influential Libertarians" in each of eight different categories such as business and finance, entertainment and the news, freedom-movement organizations, media, politics, and academia.

Among the Reasoners in the hunt are Ronald Bailey, Brian Doherty, and Virginia Postrel (authors); John Stossel, Matt Welch, and myself (media); and Katherine Mangu-Ward, David Nott, and Robert W. Poole (think tanks and educational institutions).

You can vote for up to five candidates in each category and the survey is open until March 15.

Go here now to cast your ballot and get $100 off your FreedomFest registration fee.

Over the past years, Reason TV has interviewed dozens of libertarians ranging from P.J. O'Rourke to Penn Jillette to John Mackey to Crossfit creator Greg Glassman to LP presidential ticket Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. Go here for a complete list.

And click below to watch last year's raucous debate among Matt Welch, Jeffrey Tucker, Dan Magru, Wayne Allyn Root and me over whether libertarians should vote for Donald Trump. Called the most controversial and intense panel ever at FreedomFest, it's something to behold.

Link:

Who Are the Most Influential Libertarians? FreedomFest Wants To Know! - Reason (blog)

(Screenshot)

Being a libertarian in college can feel like youre a Jedi surrounded by a droid army. Youre constantly under attack with only a few friends. Well, this is the way Tom Ciccotta portrayed it in a New York Times op-ed on February 28th.

Leftists, in an effort to make campuses welcoming ostensibly, for everyone end up frequently silencing conservative and libertarian students, Ciccotta, a senior at Bucknell University, wrote. They paint any argument that isnt progressive as immoral, so conservative students can find themselves branded as such. Needless to say, this can be socially isolating.

Ciccotta is completely sincere in his analysis about life as a libertarian on campus. But is his experience the norm or the exception?

Christina Herrin attended The University of Iowa, one of the most liberal colleges in the state. She was regularly involved in the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) and as well as Rand Pauls presidential campaign in 2015 and 2016. She told Red Alert Politics that there were many instances in which she felt the administration and other students were against her. On one occasion, pro-life chalking they etched was washed away because it was offensive. In another instance, Iowas YAL chapter was kicked off campus while trying to demonstrate against the war on drugs.

I agree 100 percent with [Ciccottas] article and institutions that promote free speech zones and safe spaces and dont encourage diversity of thought are doing a great disservice to my generation, Herrin said. It is sad to me because even though I dont agree, the amount I have learned while debating with others has taught me so much about my own argument, and has actually pushed me to be more conservative/liberty minded.

It was frustrating and difficult for me, as a student, to have friends who were unwilling to even come listen to Rand Paul speak when we brought him to campus because he was whatever liberal sound bite youd like to insert, she continued. It is hard to have people that are so guarded by their walls to even look at another opinion.

Conner Dunleavy, who attends the University atAlbany, also felt that college campuses were biased against libertarian positions. He said that he was lucky because libertarian-leaning organizations like YAL were growing rapidly. However, outside of that, there were very few people willing to be open to his politics.

Outside of our clubs, however, universities are often political deserts where only the perceived majority opinion is tolerated, Conner Dunleavy said to RAP. Naturally it seems conservative students were our allies, outnumbered together and facing the sometimes violent liberal students who tend to try shouting down minority opinions.

Yet, Ciccotta, Dunleavy, and Herrins experiences werent universal among prominent libertarians when they were in college.

I do not feel like my views get silenced as much, but there is a lack of political diversity in most of the liberal arts majors, said Vamsi Krishna Pappusetti, a student at Arizona State University. My YAL chapter does not get protested nor do the faculty keep us from tabling or holding meetings. We try to table out as much as we can and I never really dealt with many hecklers. I cannot say the same for other students though from either TP USA or College Republicans.

So while most libertarians did feel isolated in a political desert, there were exceptions to the rule. Not every student felt surrounded waiting for Yoda to save them.

View original post here:

Is it lonely being a libertarian in college? - Red Alert Politics