A Failed Promise

A viewpoint on our increasing lack of statesmanship.

By John Bonanni

Newly elected presidents win elections by convincing voters of their opponent’s inability to avoid the mistakes of the previous administration. Inevitably, the victor creates their demise through the overexposure of a personal or political agenda; usually fostered by a congressional ambush of the opposing party. The self-assassination of Bill Clinton’s character
sidetracked his plan of prosperity for all and reset tolerances of moral relativity. George W. Bush’s candidacy was little more than a minor political blue blood riding on family gravitas with historical probitas. Barack Obama offered a passive standard of diplomacy and strategic leadership. All eventually failed the promise that has never been entirely kept since the country’s inception.

In 2008, we were at the threshold of the most significant opportunity for nation building since the American Civil War. Our discriminatory traditions that had evolved from reluctantly
freeing uneducated, labor-trafficked men and women of color to tolerating them as socially inferior, ineducable freeloaders continued its function in the form of economic discrimination.

We continued the traditional pattern of political yin and yang that had occurred since the country’s founding. From Edward Rutledge to Henry Clay to George Wallace—and there is a
basketful of biased politicos who fill the bill of racial complicity throughout our history—to today, race-based statesmanship had been a covert operative. It is not the failure of the political process. It is a persistent disregard for ethics, integrity, and human dignity.

The 20th-century remake of Abraham Lincoln, in the person of John F. Kennedy, redressed wounds that were assumed to have been healed by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments one hundred years earlier. Progress was made, but racially biased entrenchment merely found new ways to function.

Somehow, the promise of tolerance and inclusion in the Obama Administration produced another racial equality revival. What could have been a correction of racial modus operandi erupted into a seizure of miscalculations and false patronizations; resulting in a political upset that produced the present near-constitutional crisis.

Democratic arrogance and dismissive self-righteousness in concert with Republican managerial ineptness and empathetic bankruptcy emboldened politically under-served voting blocks to deliver Donald Trump, a presidential entity who assumed the self-assassinating character of Clinton, the mismanagement of Bush, and the tenuous soapboxing of Obama into a predatory, reactionary, and dysfunctional sideshow of fright and oratorical floundering.

This new mix of presidential malfunction further damaged the dubious claim of American exceptionalism. From “Putting People First” (Clinton), “Compassionate Conservatism” (Bush), to “Yes We Can” (Obama), it seemed that no variation on the American exceptionalism theme in recent generations could achieve enough improvement to convince disenfranchised voters that change was working. America, apparently, needed to be made great again.

America is not unequivocally great. No country is. It has great ideas. We had tripped at the starting gate in 1776 by denying inalienable rights to an entire race of people, and inequality festered for generations to come in racial theatrics supported by both progressive and conservative agendas. How can a country claim exceptionalism as a clarion call when a fifth of its population had been dehumanized and considered property? Perhaps if we had addressed the accessibility of opportunity for all citizens, we might now be enjoying the pleasure of each other’s prosperity as a national pastime.

For generations, inert executive and entrenched legislative leadership have responded with obstructionism and preoccupied our energies with perfunctory grandstanding, bequeathing to us the civil unrest of our cities, the bankruptcy of our healthcare, the corruption of our processes. Did not these conditions of inequality demand the attention of the elected administration and the American public? Did we not dump excellent English tea for this misrepresentation? The pursuit of reconciliation through economic equality had been abandoned
once again.

So, we suffer still, not having completed the national purpose of self-determination. Democrats lure disenfranchised groups with proudly hailed social engineering programs that barely sustain a living environment. Republicans smugly shake off organizations they deem to be unworthy takers. Forever in debt and bereft of resources, these groups never gain access to building financial well being.

Our legislators bludgeon our economic stability, chalk up an astronomical national debt service, shackle tools of commerce and reduce educational institutions to reclusive safe spaces instead of centers of tolerance. This recurring depletion of statesmanship creates a congressional and social oligarchy and invites irreparable harm to democratic function. This time, with an administration filled with generals and independently wealthy individuals, our government resembles the largest, most powerful banana republic in history; which is the antithesis of a constitutional republic designed to empower every individual.

John spent a career in theatre management on tour, on Broadway, at Radio City Music Hall and many places in between managing every sensitive person he ever encountered. He now writes about them, among other things.

Stiglitz and Tocqueville on Freedom and Equality

By C.M. Hoy

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics, is a professor of economics at Columbia University, and he is very concerned that there is far too much inequality of income in the United States. He believes that this inequality is the source of many problems in our country and that the government must take strong action to lower this disparity in income. He states his views in an article, “Inequality is Holding Back the Recovery,” and his book, The Price of Inequality. I am concerned by several aspects of his analysis and one aspect in particular as I will make clear in the ensuing paragraphs.

There is so much inequality in the U.S., that, says Stiglitz, “Tocqueville, who in the 1830s found the egalitarian impulse to be the essence of the American character, is rolling in his grave.” This remark is very misleading. Alexis de Tocqueville unequivocally indicated that equality was the wave of the future; however, he was not an egalitarian or a proponent of equality as this statement might lead you to believe. To conclude that Tocqueville was an egalitarian because he announced that egalitarianism was in our future, is like concluding that when Paul Revere shouted the British are coming, he was a supporter of the British invasion.

Tocqueville believes that liberty and equality do not mix and that equality could be inimical to liberty. He places liberty above equality.

Neither in his article nor his book does Stiglitz indicate that there is tension between equality and liberty. He misrepresents what the foremost problem for Tocqueville is, how to preserve individual freedom in an age of equality. For theorists other than Tocqueville, equality versus freedom is the major issue in the debate over equality. Stiglitz though appears to be ignorant of any literature contrasting equality and freedom. This is a major gap in his argument and knowledge. Since he cites Tocqueville as an authority, we will demonstrate that this authority is not a proponent of equality but liberty. This will set the record straight on Tocqueville and, perhaps, this will elevate the debate over inequality, to include a concern for liberty, which Tocqueville believes trumps equality.

Gita May, who has published widely on the French Enlightenment, states: “It was Tocqueville’s conviction that the particular quest for equality can only end up in servitude; that there is tension-and, not a concordance-between liberty and equality, and that egalitarianism can all too easily lead to the worst kind of tyranny… and can lead to questioning of the legitimacy of private property, this last bulwark of the individual against the state… He was keenly aware of the dangers presented to individual liberty.” Instead of referring to Tocqueville as an egalitarian, May instead refers to him “as a political libertarian.”

Tocqueville would unequivocally oppose the use of coercion to promote material equality.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. writes of Tocqueville that “The revolution of equality, he believed, was irresistible.” Schlesinger adds: “Tocqueville’s consuming passion was liberty; the challenge before a western man in his mind was to devise ways of securing liberty in the era of equality. He was vividly aware of the perils in the new dispensation. It was no simple thing to reconcile liberty and equality.”

Primrose Pratt Tisham tells us that “Tocqueville worried continuously that liberty was especially threatened in France where the passion for equality subsumed the desire for freedom.”

George Wilson Pierson describes Tocqueville as the “foreboding prophet of equality.”

These authors indicate that Tocqueville is not an egalitarian and they indicate that Tocqueville perceives a problem between equality and freedom, a problem that Stiglitz is either unaware of or simply ignores.

In the preface to the second volume of Democracy in America Tocqueville writes,” I believe that many persons would take it upon themselves to inform men of the benefits which they might hope to receive from the establishment of equality, while very few would venture to point out from afar the dangers which it would be attended. It is principally of these dangers, therefore, that I directed my gaze; and, believing that I had discerned what they are, it would have been cowardice to say nothing about them.”

In book 2, chapter 1, Tocqueville says, “that political freedom in its excesses may compromise the tranquility, the property, the lives of individuals are obvious even to narrow and unthinking minds. On the contrary, none but attentive and clear-sighted men perceive the perils with which equality threatens us, and they commonly avoid pointing them out. They know that the calamities they apprehend are remote and flatter themselves that they will only fall upon future generations, for which the present generation takes but little thought. The evils that freedom sometimes brings with it are immediate; they are apparent to all, and all are more or less affected by them. The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only in intervals; and at the moment at which they become the most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.”

Tocqueville further says, “I think that Democratic communities have a natural taste for freedom; left to themselves, they will seek it, cherish it, and view any privation of it with regret. But for equality their passion is ardent, insatiable, incessant, and invincible; they call for equality in freedom; if they cannot obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery.”

Please note that for Tocqueville equality and slavery are not mutually exclusive.

In book 2 chapter 4, he says, “but I contend that to combat the evils which equality may produce, there is only one effectual remedy: namely, political freedom.”

In book 4 chapter 1 he says: “I am convinced however that anarchy is not the principle of evil that democratic ages have to fear, but the least. For the principle of equality begets two tendencies: the one leads men straight to independence and may suddenly drive them into anarchy the other conducts them by a longer, more secret, more certain road to servitude. Nations readily discern the former tendency and are prepared to resist it; they are led away by the latter without receiving its drift hence it is peculiarly important to point it out.”

In a note in Tocqueville’s diary titled “My Instincts, My Opinions,” he writes “Liberty is the first of my passions. That is the plain truth.”

Obviously, equality is not his prime mover.

In Tocqueville’s Essay on American Government and Religion, he states: “we are ourselves going, my dear friend, toward a democratie [an equality] without limits. I do not say that it is a good thing…”

What would truly make Tocqueville roll over in his grave is someone representing him as a votary of egalitarianism rather than liberty.

In addition to Tocqueville, last century, there were at least four major writers who critically examined the relationship between equality (equality of condition or outcome) and concluded that liberty and equality were often in conflict with each other. And they came down on the side of liberty. The four that I have in mind is the sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf, the philosopher Robert Nozick, and the economists F. A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman.

In his book and his article, Stiglitz never so much as mentions the first three authors though he does discuss Friedman. However, his discussion of Friedman is rather odd. Though Friedman has written on the issues of equality, inequality, and individual liberty, Stiglitz never discusses Friedman’s ideas on these issues. Though the subject of Stiglitz book and article ostensibly is equality and inequality, he ignores Friedman’s treatment of these issues and wandering far afield, rather criticizes Friedman for not recognizing the imperfections of markets, such as asymmetric information, externalities, and public goods. He also criticizes Friedman’s view of the cause of the Great Depression. He is offended that Friedman argues that government was the cause of the Great Depression. He criticizes Friedman on many grounds but never discusses Friedman’s argument on the central topic of his (Stiglitz’s) book and article, on which Friedman has written so profoundly.

Browsing through the index to his book, neither the word liberty or freedom is ever mentioned. The lack of any discussion of the dilemma between liberty and equality is a major shortcoming of any discussion of equality of outcome, and it is thus a major shortcoming in Stiglitz as well.

By ignoring the incisive writings of Dahrendorf, Nozick, Hayek, Friedman, and Tocqueville, on the relationship between freedom and egalitarianism, Stiglitz provides an astonishingly shallow analysis.

In addition to the main problem in Stiglitz’s analysis, the complete absence of any discussion of the effects of egalitarianism on liberty, there are three other aspects of his analysis that we will briefly note.

In The Price of Inequality, he refers to “the alleged inequality- inefficiency trade-off, ” and he says that it “may not exist.” This trade-off shows, if true, that inequality is conducive to greater output and greater productivity than is equality. Though here he seems to think that the trade-off does not exist, in his textbook, Economics, he refers to an “incentive – equality trade-off, ” and he draws a graph with equality on the vertical axis and output on the horizontal axis showing that as equality increases output decreases. He says, “One of the basic questions facing members of society in their choice of tax rates and welfare systems is, how much would incentives be diminished by an increase in tax rates to finance a better welfare system and thus reduce inequality? What would be the results of those reduced incentives?”

No wonder there is an “alleged inequality-inefficiency trade-off.” Professor Stiglitz has been teaching it to generations of economics students.

Again, in The Price of Inequality, Stiglitz indicates that unions are essential for increasing wages in general and lessening inequality. But this is not what he is teaching economic students in his textbook. In Economics, he shows that as unions raise the wages of some workers “firms will employ fewer workers.” Even union employees that benefit in the short run could lose in the long run as employers do not replace the expiring capital and “jobs decrease.” Also, the unions gain pay increases for some workers by “the reduced employment of workers in the unionized sector” increasing “the supply of labor in the nonunionized sector, driving down wages there.” And finally, “the higher wages [of unionized workers] may well be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.”

Higher prices, increased unemployment in the union sector, and lower wages in the nonunionized sector do not seem likely to lower inequality, and they most certainly will not improve living conditions. There is a significant discrepancy between what Stiglitz teaches economic students and what he teaches the general public.

Finally, and again wandering rather far afield from his topic, Stiglitz is upset that industries such as the airlines have been deregulated. It appears that he would like to reregulate these industries. And he believes that further government regulations are in the general interest.

However, perhaps we should proceed cautiously. Additional regulations could prove onerous to producers, and this might concern Stiglitz. For example, the government might force authors to recall their defective products from the market. As the adage goes, be careful what you wish for, you just may get it.

“I have a PhD from Columbia University. I am a Professor of Economics at the County College of Morris in New Jersey. I have written many articles on individual freedom in regard to speech, equality, and the marketplace. I am the author of A Philosophy Of Individual Freedom: The Political Thought of F. A. Hayek published by Greenwood Press.” – C.M. Hoy

Puerto Pobre – How Government has Guaranteed Puerto Rico’s Economic Failure

By Clyde Myers

Though Puerto Rico has been held as a US territory since 1889, it wasn’t until 1917 when President Woodrow Wilson needed to find a way to force Puerto Ricans to fight in WWI that they were granted a pseudo-citizenship that came with many caveats and limitations… sort of a ‘friends without benefits’ arrangement. Hence, the Jones-Shafroth Act was born and given the status of US Citizen to all Puerto Ricans, which granted them the privilege of dying in their oppressors’ wars.

Puerto Rico has never really flourished under US control, though it has certainly seen better days. Government regulations have always stifled their small economy, but it just seems to keep getting worse. Local policies aren’t the only ones to blame either. Several US federal policies are among the largest contributors to the hardships felt by ordinary residents of the small, Caribbean island. I want to call these policies antiquated, but that word implies that there was ever a time when the policies were fair or proper, and it would be impossible to make that case.


Puerto Rico is a part of the United States. The dollar is their currency, and they are bound by US laws, including the federal minimum wage. But how is that a bad thing? Don’t people in Puerto Rico deserve a living wage? I would argue that certainly, they do and it is exactly the minimum wage need that prevents them from earning one.

Though only 46 percent of the 3.7 million population of Puerto Rico participates in the workforce, as compared to about 60% in the mainland US, their median household income is just under $20,000 per year. Compare that to the almost $52,000 US median, which is slightly lower in my home state of Indiana’s at $50,532. A person making the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour would make $14,500 per year based on a 40-hour workweek for 50 weeks per year. That sounds like nothing and, even compared to a very modest $50k per year. But consider that minimum wage in Puerto Rico is 74.3% of the median, things start to come into perspective. Since prices are higher in Puerto Rico, it’s kind of like if we were to have an $18.50 per hour minimum wage here on the mainland, except that $18.50 would only buy you $10 worth of goods and services.

So, Puerto Rico has an idle workforce that can’t go to work because it’s illegal for them to work for less than minimum wage. Yes, people who make minimum wage are poor, especially in a place where everything costs more, but to make it illegal to pay people below a living wage, minimum wage laws have forced many Puerto Ricans into living on no wage at all. In its attempts to outlaw poverty, the government has created more poverty and made it more severe.


This federal statute is intended to make sure that maritime commerce between US ports is conducted using US ships, which also must be constructed in America and owned by Americans. This protectionism keeps Puerto Rico from being able to import or export anything unless they use the US Merchant Marine, which means US ships, constructed in the US, and crewed by US staff. This makes imports cost twice as much as they do in neighboring Caribbean nations. Their incentive to export is likewise reduced as Puerto Rico’s goods are more expensive and less competitive than mainland consumers and wholesalers can get elsewhere.


As it is not officially a state and therefore does not have representation in US Congress, they are not subject to the federal income tax. This often plants the notion that Puerto Rico is some tax haven in the minds of typical mainlanders. This is not the case. Puerto Rico imposes its income tax and sales tax. Still, the biggest blow to Puerto Rican prosperity came in the form of Section 936 of US Internal Revenue Code, which removed tax exemptions for US companies with subsidiaries in Puerto Rico. Former President Bill Clinton signed legislation in 1996 that scaled back these exemptions over a ten year period. This effective tax hike went into full effect in 2006 and had since led to massive job losses, and Puerto Rico has endured 12 consecutive years of economic depression across the island.

One-third of Puerto Rico’s workforce is employed by the government. One-third of Puerto Ricans are on food stamps, not to mention other forms of help. Let’s assume that there’s no convergence between those groups for the sake of this article, though I suppose it is entirely possible that government employees may also be on some forms of assistance.

The largest employer on the Island is the government, because there is so much support that needs to be distributed. More help means less incentive to work, and the fewer people work, the more they need help. The more aid they need, the more government programs and employees are needed yet, with the decrease in jobs, the less money there is flowing into the government to pay those government salaries and cover the program budgets, creating a massively unsustainable situation that will lead to a crash.

Like much of the world, they will most likely see the failures of government as a pressing need for more and more government, and they will suffer more and more unintended consequences. I’m rooting for Puerto Rican statehood if that’s what they want. They deserve proper representation, but I fear that the United States and its own twenty billion dollar debt and thousands of unsustainable public programs could never save them from the consequences of the US’s poor decision-making and underhanded dealings that put Puerto Rico in this situation in the first place. If they could resist the call of socialism, they’d be better off pursuing independence.

Clyde Myers is a columnist and blogger from Columbus, Indiana where he serves in the leadership of the local Libertarian Party.


Tax Policy Helped Create Puerto Rico’s Fiscal Crisis

Do Not Engage

 This article submitted by Christopher Peffers

I got in an argument with a liberal on Facebook the other day. This is a pretty common occurrence for me (and much of America) but I don’t mind. I like the arguing. Nothing gets my fire burning like a good debate. It’s good to throw around ideas with people that disagree: you’ll either learn something new or sharpen your own viewpoint for later debates. It’s a win-win as long as it’s a good debate. This was not a good debate however. I like to think of myself as a pretty level headed person but I’m ashamed to say I lost control pretty quick. I’ll attach the original post then continue my thoughts below.


Post in question*

There’s a lot to process there. Usually I find it’s good to focus a rebuttal on one point and go from there (one good thing to keep in mind when forming an argument is that one good point alone is better than that same good point with a few weaker points your opposition can attack aggressively). What I’m not proud of is I didn’t focus on the thing that bothered me the most. I went after Hillary right away. Called her a crook and a liar and maybe even a sociopath (the Clintons often get me seeing red in conversation). I should have focused on the most offensive thing in that statement: point number 3.

I understand it can be tough to debate certain people. There’s a certain class of people who never quite learned how to have a discussion. No matter what you say they’ll dig their heels into the same tired points over and over again. They’ll respond to a thoughtful point with insults and screaming. The original poster phrased it succinctly: they are not there to have a talk, they are simply basking in their own self-righteousness. I have a name for people like this. I call them “everyone at one point or another in their lives.”

It’s good to realize when you’re wasting your breath and need to move on. The entire modern world was mostly built by people who realized they weren’t getting anything done and decided to pursue a more successful path. The freedom to pick our battles is one of the most positive things about modern life. Specialization is one of the greatest forces for our accomplishments as a society and may be the core reason we’ve made it this far. Few animals even get a chance to die in a warm room surrounded by loved ones (dogs being the only other one I can think of. Thanks for being bros, dogs.). But it’s necessary to understand that people’s willingness to listen is based on potentially millions of things that any individual trying to convince them has no control over. Refusing to engage people is hands down the worst way to jumpstart a social movement. The people who are your loudest opposition are often times the people most worth engaging. Many times these people are angry simply because everyone refuses to talk to them as if they’re adults. They are treated constantly like their opinions don’t matter and that encourages them to sink deeper into their beliefs.

This attitude is exactly why the democrats lost the election. Well, their first mistake was running Killary instead of Papa Joe (I don’t like Joe Biden but that guy would’ve polled at 70% the moment he stepped in the arena and would’ve never lost that lead). There are a lot of reasons people voted for Trump (it would be asinine to assume 40+ million people had the same motivations for getting up in the morning, let alone picking the leader of the free world) but if we focus on the so-called “swing voters”, the ones who didn’t decide until days before the election, we can get a better picture of why he won. The democrat strategy was to vomit a list of terrible things that Trump has done and they assumed that would be enough. But for the people who made it to November without their final decision this was a problematic strategy. If they were still undecided after the litany of terrible press that followed Trump clearly more of the same wasn’t going to change their minds. Compare that to the republicans strategy of parroting all their concerns and making ambitious promises to fix those concerns immediately. Now, I’m not saying every Trump supporter was stupid enough to believe everything he said. In any other election it would be a terrible strategy. But Hillary was the one person this strategy worked gangbusters against. When they asked each side to present their case one made them a bunch of crazy promises and the other called them evil and idiotic for even considering literally the only other option they had. They felt their opinions were being shouted down so they found someone to shout down the democrats’ opinions.

I suppose refusing to engage is a slight improvement over silencing opinions through oppression. If the louder, angrier potion of our population simply shut up it would certainly be a lot easier to think. This would be a fine decision to make if one doesn’t care if their movement dies. Somehow I don’t think this is what democrats (or any other ideological group) want however. So if you’re willing to listen to what I have to say (admittedly I have zero credentials) I would like to offer one giant piece of advice to get the most out of your debate experiences:

Never outright refuse to debate anyone

This is the simplest piece of advice I can offer. People tend to think of losing an argument as a more damaging act than anything else when trying to get a movement going. This causes them to only pick fights with people they know they can beat. They argue the same few good points against people who haven’t thought out their position as well just so they can add a victory to their group’s pile and call it a day. One argument has never changed anyone’s mind though. People have far more bad ideas than good so evolution has given us this gift of not believing everything we hear right away. To win hearts and minds you must stoke the flames of discussion so they are constantly burning. You may argue with a brick wall for years then one day that wall finally agrees to a point you made and you realize they were listening all along, the change just wasn’t visible until now. And even beyond them, someone might overhear the argument and start silently moving to your side.

I’m not saying you have to continue a bad argument as long as they’re willing to continue, only so much work can be done in a day and we all have our limits. Just don’t flat-out give up on people. That won’t inspire them to get better, only sink lower (sometimes even violently so). Given how close the election was I’d feel comfortable saying it was the sole reason the democrats lost an election they should have won in a landslide.

And conservatives, don’t start getting all smug because the liberals appear slightly worse in this metric at the moment. This has been the trend in American politics for decades now. One party gets in power and decides they don’t have to listen to anything their opposition has to say. It’s why the presidency seems to without fail switch parties every 8 years as of late. The party in power simply becomes insufferable and the swing voters start looking elsewhere. Put the work in to break the cycle.

 This article submitted by Christopher Peffers

Black Market Milk

By Clyde Myers – Clyde Myers is a natural foods enthusiast, Columnist, and Blogger. He has contributed essays on foraging for wild foods in GRIT magazine and has led guided wild food foraging walks for multiple SEED projects. He lives in Columbus Indiana with his wife and two daughters where he is active in the local Libertarian Party.

How regulations and government interventions stifle the local food producers and make their products less safe.

“How much you want?” The shady character asks.

“How much can I get for twenty bucks?” Came my reply, though it didn’t matter. I needed my fix.

I needed the hit, the elixir that keeps me going. I’d pay nearly any price for it and it’s being illegal made me want it all the more. What contraband was I seeking? What had brought me down to the level of a common criminal? Heroin? Cocaine? Even just weed? Nah, Kid’s stuff. Those don’t get me what I’m after. What I am referring to, of course, is the vilest of all contraband…

Milk. Raw Milk. Pure, virgin moo juice.

The shady character? Just a local farmer. She is a good and decent person, performing an essential service that should be hailed as the noblest and righteous of professions. But here in Indiana and several other states, she is a criminal. I too am a criminal. I am a criminal because I want to drink milk that hasn’t been pasteurized. I am a criminal because I value the balance of my gut bacteria. I am a criminal because I want a strong immune system, and I am a criminal because I supported a local farmer. I am a criminal because, as a grown adult, I understand the risks of raw milk and am willing to take that risk.

If you hadn’t already guessed, I’m sort of hippy-dippy natural foods enthusiast. I forage for wild food plants and write about that topic for obscure natural living and farm magazines, my own blog, and I teach foraging classes and workshops several times a year. I grow an extensive organic garden, save and trade seeds, collect rainwater, barter for local organic eggs, etc. In the warmer months, I rarely wear shoes and hardly eat any meal that doesn’t contain some form of kale. Because of this, I am often assumed to be a leftist or at the very least, a Democrat. I am not, but it’s fair to say that most of the people that I interact with self-identify as left of center if not as total socialists.

These are well-intentioned folks with Bernie 2016 and CoExist stickers on their Subarus. We’re talkin’ organic vegetable munching, patchouli wearing, pot smoking, Anti-GMO, granola folks. Many of them struggling small-scale organic farmers or producers themselves. They are sweet folks and some of my favorite people on earth, misguided though they may be. It always strikes me as funny that these folks are so staunchly anti-libertarian, yet local, sustainable food production, which is so close to their hearts and livelihoods, is so incredibly hindered by government intervention that it should make anyone sign up for the LP newsletter and build a shrine to Ayn Rand after about 5 minutes of dealing with the red tape.

Regulations can seem like a good thing on the surface. Humans have been collectively putting their trust in the state to regulate businesses, especially those that can have a direct impact on a person’s health and well-being, for quite a long time. Certainly, no one wants to buy meat tainted by botulism or listeria-ridden spinach, and since businesses seem to survive despite being regulated and so does the food consuming population, we get used to calling regulation a success because we see these businesses working.

What we don’t see are the ones that closed or never got started. We don’t see the growth of current companies that was never able to happen due to the increased burdens from regulation. It is easy to call something a success when there is no metric by which to measure it. There is no unregulated space where all other factors are equal against which we could compare data. So food industry regulations always win the election because they’re always running unopposed. All the while meat still seems to become tainted and listeria still finds its way onto the spinach.

There’s apparently something strange that happens to the space-time continuum when money is transacted for a product. Granny Bess can bake you one of her blue ribbon pies in her uninspected kitchen from rhubarb she grew in her garden, fertilized with manure from her own chickens, and you’re allowed to assume the risk that her processes are clean enough to produce food and that she knows what she’s doing. This is a perfectly legal transaction.

However, if you buy the pie from the same Granny Bess, a pie made in the same kitchen, with the same ingredients, under the same conditions, that transaction is illegal. Even if you pay the many taxes on it, this practice is punishable by law. Why? Because according to the state of Indiana, when money changes hands, Granny Bess needs to not only be inspected but also must buy specific types of equipment, must have hand washing sinks placed at specific locations, and in most cases, must operate out of some space other than her home, as well as a myriad of other regulations. All of these things cost money.

Large scale businesses that are already well established can afford those types of entry barriers to the marketplace or the increased cost of continuing business but Granny Bess probably can’t. She’ll never get her business off the ground if she needs to invest in industrial equipment, pay for her food safety certification classes, then pay whatever the license fee is in addition to finding a suitable space from which to operate. Maybe she didn’t even want to go into business long term. Maybe she just wanted to operate long enough pay off the last of her home before retirement or get her bathroom remodeled. Should it cost her life savings to make a few extra dimes to rub together?

It’s easy to look at this and think that, despite the collateral damage of Granny Bess’s situation, there is a necessary public good that came out of the regulations and that was ensuring the health and safety of consumers. But is that really the outcome? Why can Granny Bess give you one of her pies if it’s so risky? Why can she donate a dozen of them to the school bake sale or the fire station fish fry fundraiser? The pies are still available for public consumption and are still being exchanged for money. The only difference is that Granny Bess isn’t the one benefiting.

How has the risk of consuming it been reduced? It hasn’t.

In his book “Folks, This Ain’t Normal,” organic farmer Joel Salatin, owner/operator of Polyface Farms in Virginia, who has written several books and given multiple TED talks on sustainable agriculture extensively covers the way in which government regulations often keep him from using practices that would make his products have a beneficial impact on the environment and produce products that would be healthier for his customers to consume.

His argument is that it’s not necessarily a bad thing that there are regulations or standards, just that the people making and enforcing these don’t know much, if anything, about the industry they’re regulating at all. These are government bureaucrats for whom the sole purpose of their jobs is supposed to be to keep the public safe from foodborne pathogens and contaminants, but they seldom know the nature of particular pathogens and their interaction with livestock in a holistic, science-based manner.

Salatin points out that they don’t know that pasture raised, grass fed cows are much healthier than cattle from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and don’t require the same antibiotic dosages that cows raised in CAFOs do. They don’t know that the chickens and cattle benefit from being pastured together as it more closely mimics the way ruminants and birds interact in nature. They just see chickens and cows together and say “No, you can’t do that!” Salatin exposes the glaring example that they also didn’t know that their recommendation to feed the remains of slaughtered cows to the next generation of feedlot cows would result in Mad Cow Disease.

Even after supposedly learning from that mistake they still advocate for the practice of feeding dead chickens to cows. They hold these family farms and their healthy animals to the same regulatory standards of the giant CAFOs where the cows stand knee deep in manure that flows to giant manure lagoons and where the fecal particulate in the air is so dense that the animals have to be pumped full of antibiotics just to survive long enough to be slaughtered. The CAFOs can afford to accommodate the regulations. Small time pasture farms have no need for the measures because of their superior practices but still have to bear the cost to accommodate them and often simply cannot.

My self-defeating, Bernie loving friends and colleagues would, unfortunately, argue that the government isn’t regulating enough and that businesses left unchecked would run amok and poison everyone with unsanitary practices. But it’s not that businesses left alone and unregulated would always result in safe, healthy, and ideal products, just that government intervention doesn’t either.

No matter how well intentioned, the net result is that the government ends up enforcing bad practices that contribute to there being more disease, more pollution and more risk to the public health and safety. It stifles local economies, restricts public access to healthy products, discourages ecologically sound land stewardship, and ultimately results in a less healthy and less safe population.


Salatin, Joel. Folks, This Ain’t Normal. 1st ed. New York: Center Street, 2012. Print.

Image Credit.

Guest Post: Make Our Schools Like Uber

According to anyone but a member of the state-run taxi cab coterie, Uber is awesome. It increases consumer choice, uses GPS technology for localization and accountability, drives down costs, and provides a better experience than the traditional taxi cab. But the establishment fears the threat of competition. Schools are no different from any other organizational endeavor. The more our schools become Uber-ized, the more specialized, efficient, and quality the experience for our children will become.

Uber creates a better experience by relying on consumer choice and feedback. It is more localized than a traditional cabs because you choose the pickup location. Each car is equipped with a driver-based GPS to serve the customer’s needs. There is also no argument about payment; the user has agreed to payment before the service has started. Let’s take a moment and imagine if you got into an Uber vehicle and had to pay a taxi tax: the starting rate for a traditional cab. This is the way that we fund education: you live in a district and you pay taxes whether or not you go to a school in that district. There are ways to drive down costs and increase quality by modeling school funding based on consumer choice.

The best way to do that is to let the money follow the children. Sounds pretty logical: the idea funding students instead of institutions. Unfortunately, there is a bureaucracy and unions anathema to the idea. Their intentions are in the right place, their incentives are not. What Uber-izing our schools does it put the money where the kids are. In order to do this, we must shift away from the concept that costs are fixed in schools. Costs change depending on the market forces surrounding them, and demand for good schools will force bad ones to get better.

This is a problem that will be fixed by changing the way we pay, not how much we pay. Since the 1960s, real education spending from the federal government has more than tripled when adjusted for inflation, yet results have flatlined. If costs were fixed, then more money would scale upwards towards quality. Andrew Coulson at the Cato Institute highlights that each child student that graduated in 2009 cost around $151,000, which is triple the amount we spent per child in 1970. “To sum up, we have little to show for the $2 trillion in federal education spending of the past half century. “

Much like school choice advocates, Uber has faced challenges from regulators with vested interests in its failure. The why behind these challenges is not based in any logical opposition to the benefits provided by consumer choice. The challenges exist because of money and special interests aimed at keeping the status quo. The way around this simple: expose consumers to the benefits of choice, and they will choose goods of a better quality. This is exactly how Uber has eroded the taxi cab monopoly, and it’s the way we’ll get better quality schools for our children.

Guest contributor Christopher Blakeley is from The Urban Libertarian. Learn more about him here:

The Urban Libertarian: http://theurbanlibertarian.us/

Link to the Original Article: http://theurbanlibertarian.us/politics/make-our-schools-like-uber.html

Guest Submission: Right To Work Is Anti-Liberty

By: Josh Lents

Living in Hendricks county; the most Republican county in Indiana according to Greg Lenz on the last We Are Libertarians podcast, I’m often witness to much banter about Republican ideals such as smaller government and liberty, but these conversations often involve misguided anti-liberty statements about erecting a giant wall on our border, bombing someone (for freedom no less), or supporting “right to work” legislation. I would like to address the last of these.

People often point out that no one should be forced to join a union because doing so is anti-freedom, and I think we can all agree on that. It would be a violation of the non-aggression principle (NAP) to force anyone to do anything against his or her will. This argument however is a misrepresentation of what the law actually does, and I would counter argue the law itself violates the NAP, instead of the other way around. Are individuals really being forced into unions against their will? It turns out “right to work” has little to do with the individual, and much to do with the private contract rights of employers and unions.

The law prevents unions and employers from signing a private contract to exclusively hire one particular union’s workers for a specific job. Under “right to work,” signing such a contract would be in violation of the law, subject to enforcement by government force. For example, the company I work for hires union workers for one particular job category but not for others. The job category is for a skilled labor position, in which the union trains and has a pool of hundreds of people with that skill set. It benefits my employer because the industry they are in can be a bit unstable at times and having access to a pool of hundreds of qualified workers at the drop of a hat gives them an advantage when bidding on big jobs in which they may need to fill dozens of skilled labor positions over night. It also benefits the employer because the wage and benefits are collectively bargained for ahead of time so they don’t have to negotiate with dozens of individual people separately. Paying dues is a condition of employment no different than any other condition an employer may impose. For instance, my wife works at a hospital and is required to purchase a specific set of scrubs with that hospitals logo on it. This is a condition of her employment, which is no different than being required to pay dues. If I didn’t want to pay dues or if my wife didn’t want to buy those scrubs, there are plenty of other employers that don’t require such things. We are not forced to work for those employers, and therefore, we are not forced to pay those dues, or purchase those scrubs, or accept any other condition of employment.

We may not always like our choices, but they are still ours to make. Taking away the right to exclusively contract ultimately cuts into the union’s power to collectively bargain because without that exclusive contract the union doesn’t have much to bargain. This is the ultimate goal, to break up the unions. Unions are actually a great example of liberty in action. A union is a group of individuals who voluntarily associate together for a common cause. Think of it like a representative government, except with the actual consent of 100% of everyone that is represented. Imagine if you will, the government passing a law which I will call “right to associate,” in which the government makes it illegal for your home owners association (HOA) to require you and your neighbor to pay dues, but still forces the HOA to provide services to you and your neighbors regardless of whether or not they pay dues. This is essentially what “right to work” is; a law of force, and there is no liberty in force.

Josh Lents is 29 years old, currently residing in Avon, Indiana, and graduated from Brownsburg High School. He became interested in the liberty movement during Ron Paul’s 2012 run for president. He also served time in the US Army, including a tour in the Iraq war. Josh is married with one child and another on the way.


Guest Post: Florida Sheriffs and the Fight Against Marijuana

By: Travis Wilson
Florida will be the next battleground for the Medical Marijuana issue to surface. In 2014 voters will have the opportunity to voice their opinions on the matter; this has also given the state’s law enforcement brigades a reason to form an alliance to combat this issue. Elected Sheriffs from all across the state are teaming up to write articles in local papers, performing community outreach projects and citizen awareness campaigns on what they see as the dangers to society if medical marijuana were to be legalized or at a very least decriminalized. What I am here to say is “Sheriffs, Shut up already.”
If it is to be said that Law enforcement is the part of any government that’s sole reason for existence is to enforce the laws, ticket, fine or apprehend and incarcerate law breakers, then it should matter not what the laws are. As a collective of elected officials that swear to uphold the states laws and codes there should be no comment from this group as it would be in their special interest that any substance and product be illegal. In line with the most common defense of their actions, “just doing their jobs”, this would mean that groups of elected sheriffs and officers should not try to influence the changing of these laws by activism or advocacy campaigns.
The Florida Sheriffs Association cites multiple reasons why they oppose these reform measures. Most of these reasons are for the belief in the order to protect the common good or public welfare. Other reasons given by law enforcement are the reports of rising crime rates in areas where marijuana is legalized or decriminalized. Some of these reports are false and others unsupported, but that’s no reason to throw out the results say officers. “Florida’s sheriffs believe that legalizing smoking marijuana, which has no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, is a dangerous decision for our state and its citizens. Florida’s Sheriffs stand firm in their opposition to the legalization of the use, possession, cultivation, delivery and sale of marijuana,” says their website.
The Association also puts in a disclaimer, “Florida sheriffs agree that there may be strains of marijuana that can provide relief for children with severe, intractable seizures. This type of marijuana is high in CBD, a pain relieving and anti-convulsing component of marijuana, and contains minimal amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (the psychoactive ingredient that produces a high). Sheriffs are concerned about manipulation of families in need if the production, distribution, monitoring and quality control are not well defined and regulated.” This is an example of exclusionary or discretionary liberty. When a group or groups are permitted while others are punished for the same act it does not send a clear message as to the reason for the ban in the first place. If the health risks are too great for recreational use by non-sick people than it stands that the health risk would be the same for sick persons. If the safety and security of the community be the reason it stands that the Association would define all crimes as being committed by those who do not suffer from these diseases. Though no study has been done to find this I would bet there would be at least some crime being committed by those that would be accepted to use medical marijuana.
On another side of this issue is the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). LEAP is a group of law enforcement personnel that oppose not only the prohibition of marijuana but of all recognized drugs and substances. Their statement is, “History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor abuse. After a rapist is arrested, there are fewer rapes. After a drug dealer is arrested, however, neither the supply nor the demand for drugs is seriously changed. The arrest merely creates a job opening for an endless stream of drug entrepreneurs who will take huge risks for the sake of the enormous profits created by prohibition. Prohibition costs taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year, yet 40 years and some 40 million arrests later, drugs are cheaper, more potent and far more widely used than at the beginning of this futile crusade.” This is a different view in that instead of police punishing users, seller, buyers, cooks, growers and producers the riddance of prohibition will lead to more crimes of violence or property theft and damage. LEAP believes in a system of regulation and distribution but doesn’t mention who would have this control. This is an area I would like more details to be released.
One more way to look at this issue is the idea of complete abolition of all laws and regulations on every substance, natural plant or drug that is currently under the control of government. This belief is one that reduces the issue down to the basic aspect of property rights and self-ownership. If every man be respected to own and use his property in any way that does not interfere in the rights of others this issue is resolved under this ultimate idea. We do not live in such a world though. We live in a world where what a man does in his own home to his own body by voluntary means has somehow directed an effect unto the entirety of the public and should be shunned and punished by captivity.
The idea of self-governance and self-ownership is lost on the majority of the public. It is a concept that takes away the power to dictate others actions and set prejudices against things or situations that they morally admonish or oppose and replace it with  responsibility for one’s own self and nothing more.
The War on Drugs is ultimately a war on freedom and choice. It is a war on individual liberty and self-ownership. It is the opposition to the freedom that many people claim they seek and many more claim they support. The War on drugs is in one sentence a War on People.
Travis Wilson is a Guest Contributor to We Are Libertarians. He currently resides in Northeast Florida and is a libertarian activist. His other works can be found on his blog at the links below.

For more please check out Thejeffersonpapers.blogspot.com

Guest Submissions at We Are Libertarians do not necessarily represent the views of We Are Libertarians as a whole, or its individual contributors. Opinions are those of the contributor.

Guest Post: What Is Voluntaryism?

VoluntaryismVoluntaryism is the philosophy that one becomes an advocate for when he or she learns to apply the Non-Aggression Principle and its doctrine of Equal Liberty consistently. It has nothing to do with the choices an individual makes, as long as that choice is consistent with the aforementioned principle and doctrine. Voluntaryism is not a political philosophy, though it can be adequately applied to politics, it is a philosophy that is essentially one’s lifestyle. An individual who has no desire to engage in political discourse can be a Voluntaryist, so long as they do not impose their particular beliefs on those who wish to be politically active. Even to an extreme, a tyrant of a commune could also be a Voluntaryist; as well as those who willingly submit to the will of his dictate. By their own volition, they both fit the description of a Voluntaryist. This extreme means he or she who forces freedom and individual liberty is technically the authoritarian (commonly referred to as the liberty-monger).

The root word of Voluntaryism is volunteer, and in every possible context a volunteer is simply understood as “a person who offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task by their own free will or choice; a person who willingly gives consent.” That’s a simple definition, but obviously it is an elementary term that is still misunderstood by many, which includes American politicians, college professors, students, judges, officers of the state, and sadly even those who claim to be Voluntaryists.

I now wish to address that which is sad, and also counter-productive to the advancement of liberty.

“Each faith, each ideology, tends to deviate from its original ideas, sometimes in a quite fundamental way and usually without most members being aware of what has happened.”

   — John Zube

The notion that anyone who holds a set of religious beliefs cannot be a Voluntaryist is not consistent with the philosophy of Voluntaryism itself, and is in fact boldly fallacious. Whether one believes in many gods, a single god, or in an unlimited benevolent government has little to no effect on their philosophy being voluntary. The act of telling other people what they can or can not believe, or what they ought to believe, as if that were the prerequisite for being a consistent Voluntaryist, is actually imposing one’s will on other people, and that force is antithetical to the principle of non-aggression. Any individual who willingly decides to practice a religion without infringing the equal liberty of someone else, has done absolutely no harm, and to impose one’s will on them would be to violate their liberty of conscience.

This was a position taken up by one of The Levellers in Seventeenth century, Richard Overton who wrote: “No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no man’s.” Considering our history, if we aim to be Voluntaryists, true to form, our resistance is not against hierarchies or those who believe in a supreme being at the top of those hierarchies; Nor is our resistance against those who place a government at the top of those hierarchies, while it treads heavily upon their liberties. Throughout history, Voluntaryism has propagated alongside many great differences of beliefs, tastes, and perspectives, but the core tenet of Voluntaryism was neither collectivism or conformity. Long before the word Voluntaryist had even been branded, or The Aim of the Voluntaryist had been locked in; even long before the era of The Levellers and The True Levellers (Both had very different opinions on politics and governance, but surprisingly both had religious beliefs); even before the 1530′s when Etienne de la Boetie wrote The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, the core tenet was no different. Voluntaryism is deeply rooted in voluntary associations, non-aggression, and whether or not we give our consent to being governed by others against our own free will.

Timothy Voluntaryist Fogle is a first time Guest Contributor at We Are Libertarians. This piece was originally posted on The Autarchist.Papers – his personal periodical about the Libertarian philosophies of Voluntaryism and Autarchism. It has also been published by TheLibertarianLiquidationist.com.

Guest Post: Libertarianism & The Charge of Utopia


One of the most prevalent claims against libertarians is that their ideas are Utopian in nature, but this can only be construed as a bad thing if you use the definition given by Sir Thomas More. The word Utopia first came about in the 1500’s through the philosopher and author Thomas More. If one examines the book they would find that the mythical place described in the book Utopia is nowhere near its present day meaning and by all accounts would never form in a libertarian society. Presently defined as an ideal place or state it would fit the vision of libertarians. It is here that the separation of definition takes place from the fiction story to the present day definition.

Of the many themes in More’s description of Utopia, I want to compare two major areas as they are the very basis to individual liberty and libertarianism as a whole; Private Property and Self-Ownership. These two points in Thomas More’s fictional story are meant to lead to a Utopia or perfect world, but error on the basis on individual liberty. This is where the charge of libertarians being Utopian by the book’s definition, in their ideas and vision is completely false.

Private Property

“In More’s novel Utopia has no money or private property and there is therefore no greed, power struggles, corruption, or vanity, and very little crime. Everything is held in common and everyone’s needs are supplied” [1].

This is nowhere near a Libertarian stance. The existence of property owned by the state has never been a view expressed by the Libertarian philosophy. Private ownership of property leads to the owner feeling a sense of personal investment in the maintenance and improvement of that property. When the ownership is transferred to the state that investment is not realized and the property is subject to abuse and quickly falls into disrepair and dilapidated. Simply look into your local public housing projects to see this effect in comparison to a area of high private home properties.

In the modern day definition of utopia, a libertarian society would be centered around the Right of Private Property and its protection.  As Ludwig von Mises once stated, “If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization.” Private ownership of property is one of the fundamental tenets of libertarianism. It leads to the production of goods and the means of labor to produce those goods. It is this ownership that allows individuals to create homes and businesses.


In More’s description of his utopia he includes the custom of owning servants or slaves, Labeled as “bondmen”, these unfortunate people are owned by others to be put to work in the home and wherever else needed. In no way does this represent the libertarian view of self-ownership. The belief that you, and you alone, can own your body and the fruits of your labor and toil is a vital, central axiom of libertarianism and cannot, in any way be construed to include any sort of servitude or bond to another person.

Another point in this issue is the way in More’s Utopia there are authority figures set into every community and city; eventually leading to a central ruler and its court. This point is a little different in the Libertarian stance. Libertarianism is broad and a very large-tent term. It contains those that believe in the minimal amount of outside governance and also those that believe in no governance but self-rule.

How do you define the word Utopian? With the charge that libertarians are Utopian in their ideas one would have to differentiate the term from the classical to the modern.

In the classical sense, in no way, shape, or form would that type of society exist, or even begin to exist under the libertarian positions of Private Property and Self-Ownership.

In the modern day definition, a more perfect world, or a utopia could exist under a libertarian society. This begs the question though; shouldn’t this be wanted by all, and embraced by everyone?

With the modern definition being what it is, I must ask, if libertarians are Utopian in belief, what does that make the other party’s ideals? What is the purpose of all the added regulations, laws, rules, and restrictions? What are they working towards? Is it all for the ultimate goal of total control? Of course these are rhetorical questions! I already know the answers.

Travis Wilson is a Guest Contributor to We Are Libertarians. He currently resides in Northeast Florida and is a libertarian activist. His other works can be found on his blog at the links below.

Link directly to the blog post: http://thejeffersonpapers.blogspot.com/2013/11/intentions-and-results.html?m=0

For more please check out Thejeffersonpapers.blogspot.com

New Poll Finds “Libertarian Renaissance in America”

(From the Intellectual Ammunition section in Volume 18, No. 18 of the Liberator Online. Subscribe here!)

A new poll indicates America is smack dab in the midst of “a libertarian renaissance in 2013.” So reports the highly-regarded website POLITICO.

The poll finds that fully “78 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents self-identify as fiscally conservative and socially moderate.”

Further: “Told that libertarians generally believe individuals should be free to do as they like as long as they don’t hurt others and that the government should keep out of people’s day-to-day lives, 58 percent of the full national sample said they agree.”

“It’s not that Republicans are suddenly self-identifying as ‘libertarians’ and devouring Ayn Rand novels,” says POLITICO, “but more that they seem to be embracing underlying libertarian priorities and views about the role of government.”

FreedomWorks, the liberty-minded organization that sponsored the poll of 1,000 registered voters, makes the same point. They say their poll “identifies voters who can be fairly identified as ‘libertarian’ based on their fiscally conservative, but socially moderate to liberal answers to questions on polls.

“We do not claim that these are hardcore libertarians who have all read Ayn Rand and F. A. Hayek, or are as ideologically self-aware as readers of Reason magazine. Rather, these voters’ libertarian beliefs distinguish them from liberals and conservatives, even if the word ‘libertarian’ may be unfamiliar to them.”

The poll has lots of great news for libertarians. It suggests that libertarians and libertarian-leaning Republicans could be on the way to becoming more influential within the GOP than the party’s social conservatives, military hawks and neo-conservatives.

When asked what they are most interested in, fully 40 percent of Republican voters chose “individual freedom through lower taxes and reducing the size and scope of government.” Just 27 percent picked “traditional values,” and only 18 percent chose a “strong national defense.”

Fully one-fourth of Republicans in the poll self-identified as “libertarian” or “lean libertarian.” 42 percent of Republicans view the term “libertarian” favorably and 10 percent don’t know it.

The poll also shows that libertarians have more work to do to get the word out.

Overall 27 percent of voters said they didn’t know enough about libertarianism to offer an opinion. About 40 percent of 18-to-32-year-olds view the word “libertarian” favorably. But about a third don’t know what it means.

Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway, who conducted the poll, told POLITICO that a large and growing number of voters feel the government is too expensive, too invasive and too expansive.

“The perfect storm is being created between the NSA, the IRS, the implementation of Obamacare and now Syria,” Conway said. “People are looking at the government more suspiciously. They’re looking with deeper scrutiny and reasonable suspicion.”

The poll also found a healthy distrust of government.

Fully 61 percent said “economic policies coming out of Washington” are hurting more than helping. 64 percent of 25-to-32-year-olds who have been in the workforce a substantial time said they favor “smaller government with fewer services but lower taxes.” And two-thirds of 18-to-32-year-olds are favorable towards “free market” and similar terms.

Asked which party they trust to “reform government in Washington,” a whopping 40 percent of American voters say “neither” party can be trusted — outnumbering both the 30 percent who trust the Democrats to reform government and the 25 percent who trust the Republicans. Even among self-identified Republicans, 41 percent say they trust “neither” party.

Matthews: The Lego Gun Scare


In an absurd display of zero tolerance and anti-gun hysteria, a Palmer, Massachusetts kindergartener was given detention for bringing a Lego gun the size of a quarter onto a school bus. The boy was also forced to write a letter of apology to the bus driver. As much as I’d like to believe that this will instill the child with a healthy disrespect for unwarranted authority, I tragically fear that he will instead be shamed into the submissive acceptance of his incompetent overlords.

The 6-year-old boy was playing with the diminutive toy when another student alerted the bus driver about the impending doom of the G.I. Joe accessory. Acting with all of the tact and logic one expects from a public school employee, the driver then put the children in an exponentially more dangerous situation by bringing the vehicle to an abrupt stop. The Old Mill Pond Elementary School then meted out its punishment to the youngster, presumably feeling as wise as Solomon.

Mieke Crane, the boy’s mother, was not thrilled with the schools draconian response:

I think they overreacted, totally. I totally do…At six-years-old, I don’t really think he understood the zero-tolerance policy and related it to this as the same.”

This is not the first time that school officials have overreacted in the name of zero-tolerance. As I have written about before at Wondergressive, earlier this year a 7-year-old boy was suspended for biting a Pop-Tart into (supposedly) the shape of a gun. Colorado second grader Alex Evans was suspended in February for throwing an imaginary grenade while playing soldier at recess. First grader Rodney Lynch was actually suspended for making a gun gesture with his hand, pointing it at a fellow classmate and saying “Pow!”

Most disturbingly, Honor Student Savana Redding, then 13, was strip-searched down to her underwear under suspicion of possessing prescription-strength Ibuprofen. The humiliating search proved fruitless. The Supreme Court decided 8-1 that the school officials did indeed violate Redding’s 4th Amendment rights by illegally searching her. However, the Justices ruled that the officials could not personally be held liable for their criminal actions. All in the name of zero-tolerance for both guns and drugs.

Sanity and reason are not the end-goals of these bizarre, one-size-always-fits-all policies. Instead they serve to protect teachers and union officials from parents who might sue for malfeasance or neglect.

Recite the magic incantation of “Procedures were followed!” and no litigious harm shall befall you! As long as these bus drivers, teachers and principals are not held accountable for their misdeeds, the absurdity will only magnify. Only when they are personally liable for their own actions will they (unwillingly) step away from the Cliffs of Insanity.

Stories like this help to reveal the madness that is currently brewing in American public schools. They also help illustrate the growing fear of firearms in the country. The disconcerting part of this trend is that fear is a rational response to something threatening. The current mania sweeping the nation is more properly described as an irrational phobia of guns – hoplophobia to be exact.

Despite highly visible and tragic events like the Sandy Hook shooting, violent crime has actually been dropping for about two decades. The gun murder rate has almost halved in that stretch. The overall non-fatal violent crime rate involving guns dropped 75% between 1993 and 2011.

Yet despite this good news, when polled by PewResearchCenter, a whopping 56% of Americans falsely believed that gun crime had increased over that period. Only 12% correctly responded that crime has plummeted.

As witnessed by the innumerable calls for further gun control post-Sandy Hook, Americans are increasingly frightened of firearms despite the demonstrable reality that the world around them continues to be safer than at any time since the early ’90s. This irrational fear is crescendoing into a palpable phobia for all things ballistic.

This fear of guns is very animistic in nature. In animistic religions, plants, animals, and even inanimate objects are imbued with special powers or spiritual significance. When you look at the irrational hatred of firearms through this lens, the insanity of zero-tolerance begins to come sharply into focus. It doesn’t matter that the Lego gun is the size of a quarter, in the eyes of hoplophobes it is still a gun with magical powers. It doesn’t matter that it’s simply a kid’s Pop-Tart chewed into an ambiguous shape, it looks like a gun, dammit!

The best example of this phobia is poor 7-year-old Rodney Lynch, whom I previously mentioned was suspended for making a gun shape with his hand. He was punished merely for making a representation of a firearm. In more Biblical terms, he was penalized for making a graven image of an unholy object. He had to be punished for this sin, lest he or others repeat the blasphemy.

Another aspect of this irrational fear is that it’s only directed towards everyday citizens, something that doesn’t apply to police officers, who are viewed as a special breed of humans. Famously, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had to walk back gun control legislation because it didn’t exempt police officers from the ban on “high-capacity” magazines.

To clarify the governor’s position, spokesman Matthew Wing said:

Police officers possessing ammunition clip [sic] with more than seven bullets are not in violation of this law and they never will be, period.”

This special privilege granted to the Boys in Blue seem unwarranted given their behavior.

During the manhunt for former – LAPD officer Christopher Dorner earlier this year, at least seven officers amazingly mistook Margie Carranza, 47, and her mother, Emma Hernandez, 71, for the sizable black fugitive. They fired upon the pair and Hernandez was shot twice in the back. Carranza was injured from flying glass and shrapnel from the over two dozen bullet holes that were found in the back of their pickup truck.

Those officers seem like models of restraint.

More recently, Philly.com reported on a surge in police shootings in the City of Brotherly Love:

The number of shootings by police in 2012 resulting in death or injury climbed to the highest level it’s been in 10 years. Philadelphia police shot 52 suspects last year while responding to calls for reported crimes. Of those shot, 15 people died.”

These shootings represent a 50% increase over 2011. The police department hasn’t provided a reason for the increase and they have refused to release any information concerning the shootings.

Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey supported his department’s use of force, saying:

I think we have a solid policy and consider it best practice.”

Mistakes were made. Procedures were followed.

Another disgusting aspect of this animism manifests itself in the way it’s reported. Almost invariably the passive voice is used to describe police officers shooting a victim.

Three years ago in Detroit, a 7-year-old girl was fatally shot during a raid in search of a murder suspect. The police fired a flash-bang into the house to disorient its occupants and stormed in. Rather than directly blaming Officer Joseph Weekley for killing the girl, amazingly the Associated Press writes that “A gunshot then went off inside, fatally striking [Aiyana Stanley-Jones] in the head while she slept on the couch.”

A human being didn’t pull the trigger. The gun magically “went off.” The writer then reports that “[Weekley] didn’t prevent his gun from firing” and later that “Police have said his gun accidentally discharged.”

Guns don’t accidentally discharge. The safety was off and someone pulled the trigger when it was pointed at a human being. But in the animistic view of firearms, they possess a will of their own and the supernatural ability to impart it on the world.

The hoplophobia of many Americans today has manifested itself in bizarre and increasingly paranoid ways. Pop-Tarts and Legos are viewed as functional weapons by school officials yet the violence perpetrated by police officers is seemingly justified in the eyes of the press and the public. Malfeasance is explained away by triggers with self-determination.

Guns are tools, just like automobiles or hammers or ladders, and they can be dangerous when they are misused. But they are not magical talismans. They are not to be inherently feared. Rather, like with any dangerous device, criminal users of firearms or cars should be held culpable for their neglect or malicious intent.

People need to be educated about guns and their productive uses and also their potential dangers. By outlawing the mere representation of firearms, it ensures that people will continue to reflexively and irrationally fear them, knee-jerking into draconian and pointless legislation.

More education and less bed-wetting terror is needed to end this hysteria. However, I fear that many people deem guns to be too impure and icky to dare challenge their own animistic preconceptions of them.

For the sake of liberty, I hope I’m wrong.

Evan Matthews is a Guest Contributor to We Are Libertarians.














Miah: The Kokesh March is Peaceful!

Veterans Protest Against Iraq War

“One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

I am opening this piece with a quote by MLK, one that was contained in a letter he wrote while in jail. I guess you could say the July 4th Civil Disobedience march on D.C. is very similar to the type of activism MLK practiced. Not to harp too much on that, but just chew on that for a moment before I get really get going.

So wait. What? What am I actually talking about here? Well, for any of you that may have been living under a rock for the past couple of weeks, there is going to be an open carry civil disobedience march on Washington D.C. on July 4th this year. It is expected to draw roughly 1,000 people to the capital to march – rifles slung, from the “National Cemetery…across the Memorial Bridge, down Independence Avenue, around the Capitol, the Supreme Court and the White House, then down Constitution Avenue to peacefully return to Virginia across the Memorial Bridge.” A very bold route for certain, but bold compared to what? It’s going to be a tight group of people moving through D.C. that day, and a peaceful group at that. The event organizer has even stated that anyone participating that meets resistance from the police should submit peacefully. Maybe they’ll need a bunch of handcuffs. Maybe they’ll need none at all.

So there are quite a few people out there talking about this event already and it’s more than a month away. But most of them are full of s***. Let’s start with the plain ol facts to calm the rustled jimmies of so many.

  • This protest is a peaceful one and is not being organized as a violent march or an attempt to start the revolution. In many different ways this is solidified in truth starting with the statement above regarding police resistance. You also have to realize that the event organizer is going to have everyone get into a military type formation in order to literally march into D.C. The ranks will be inspected as to uphold the limitations that the group has imposed such as: 1. only active duty police are allowed to possess handguns in formation. And 2. all others are long guns only. It is said that all participants must be dressed professionally – which I am taking to mean no tactical vests full of ammunition (appearing outright ready for violence). Basically this is going to be a well-organized and respectfully armed group protesting against government. That doesn’t sound so bad right?
  • This is a civil disobedience march. Laws are going to be broken and that’s the point. As with so many others in activism, arrest is inevitable and is sometimes a great tool to prove one’s point. We know what the laws are. We know what the consequences of breaking said laws are. And with those two points in mind, we are being adults about this in the strictest sense.
  • The person organizing this event is not doing this just for themselves. This is not just for attention or fame. Like with anything this is for a cause and has a purpose. I can’t honestly prove this to you. However, I can say that anyone who questions the intent of the organizer should investigate for themselves and be wary of a lot of misinformation.

This isn’t going to be much different from what hundreds of Cop Block members do every single day, what Antonio Buehler of the Peaceful Streets Project does, what Adam ‘Ademo’ Mueller does constantly, what types of things Pete Eyre gets himself into or even to go back, MLK and Rosa Parks. This is a being called a march to mark the high water mark of government and to turn the tide. It is really that simple.

It is to provide the world, history, and all of us right here, right now, an indicator of where our government is and that we are under it. I could go into many a lofty ideals that this march could portray (or mean), but that’s up to each individual to decide for themselves while they are there. And yet so many are being talked down to by all their friends for wanting to go.

So many people are being attacked right now for their support of this event. I will flatly state that it is mostly due to who is organizing the event. Adam Kokesh has a history of being anti-military, and most of the GOP hates him for that. He has been very active over the years with in-your-face activism and has (in my opinion) been very successful in his endeavors. Still, I don’t think people understand how the Libertarian and Anarchist world works when it comes to mass organization. Some feel that we do not need leaders and some would say that we should simply not follow them as strictly.

Many say events like this only work with mass solidarity and that this event has no solid end goal to rally around and so it will be fractured. That’s not even remotely true. But to point out the fact that we are dealing with a group of Libertarians and Anarchists, we all pretty much have solidarity all of the freaking time towards a common goal – which I guess some are calling a bad thing.

This event will be historical. It may not be recorded in the textbooks or talked about much in the news, but it will be a moment when a group of people stopped hiding behind their little parties and elected officials e-mail inboxes, and go out of their way to say “F*** YOU GOVERNMENT.” Let me sum up exactly how I feel about it all with a quote that always goes over well except for with this event – a quote from a well-respected man whom I do not particularly like, but it speaks volumes of truth.

“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson

So ask yourself, “When was the last time the government feared the people?” When was the last time a group of people took a stand as nothing but individuals and stood up in peaceful protest against the government? We are NOT looking for bloodshed! Let’s make that clear. We are NOT looking to preempt the revolution! We ARE looking for some respect as human beings and also for an opportunity to showcase the atrocity in front of us known which is the Federal Government.

The only negative I have seen thus far is that now Alex Jones is calling for his army of tools to show up. That makes me say “thank goodness for the guidelines surrounding this event.” Not that him doing that will be all negative. It should bring many more cameras to the event which is never a bad thing when dealing with a police state.

Event Page: https://www.facebook.com/events/252728144871259/
Current Counts as of this Writing:  Going 4,557 Maybe 4,039
Known Number of Federal Crimes: 4,450
Adam Kokesh : http://www.adamvstheman.com/
DC Police Chief’s response: http://libertycrier.com/government/d-c-police-chief-vows-to-take-action-against-july-4th-gun-marchers/

Miah Akston is a Guest Contributor at We Are Libertarians. She has been a presence on the We Are Libertarians podcast and is also the mastermind behind Creating Miah (if you don’t know look it up), and The Uncontrollables – a podcast at Indiana Talks.

Miah’s views do not necessarily reflect the opinions of We Are Libertarians as a whole – nor other WAL contributors. In fact, Miah was inspired to write this piece based on Daniel Peffers’ recent article opposing the Kokesh march. See his statement Adam vs. Activism here: https://wearelibertarians.com/peffers-adam-vs-activism/

Ripley: Scandal and Government


During a recent commencement speech at Ohio State University President Obama lashed out at political opponents.

“Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems.” President Obama continued, “Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.”

One of those voices was Thomas Jefferson who once said, “Most bad government has grown out of too much government.”  Today we are witnessing just how bad the government can get, and how right our founding fathers were about limiting the size of government.

Over one-third of the house committees are involved in hearings related to missteps and wrongdoings committed by the Obama White House. Improper targeting by the IRS, the Benghazi terror attacks, seizing the phone records of Associated Press reporters, and an investigation into political fundraising for Obamacare will keep our elected officials busy for a month in oversight and criminal investigations.

President Obama tried to distance himself from some of these incidents by claiming that he learned about them from the same media reports that the American people watched as these stories broke. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has spent the better part of a week re-enforcing the “know nothing” status of the Oval Office: “We are not involved in decisions made in connection with criminal investigations, as those matters are handled independently by the Justice Department.”

Tell that to the Associated Press. The Justice Department secretly subpoenaed two months of phone records of AP employees in what some have called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into a news organization. This aggressive trend of intimidating the press and informants from bringing government wrongdoing to light is troubling. The Obama administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all past presidents combined.

Senator Rand Paul added: “The Fourth Amendment is not just a protection against unreasonable searches and seizures; it is a fundamental protection for the First Amendment and all other Constitutional rights. It sets a high bar, a warrant, for the government to take actions that could chill exercise of any of those rights. We must guard it with all the vigor that we guard other constitutional protections.”

In other news that President Obama knew nothing about, the Justice Department is investigating the IRS for improperly targeting conservative groups seeking a tax exempt status. An independent report from the Inspector General’s office confirmed these findings and acting director Steven Miller was fired. However, Miller’s departure has not toned down the rhetoric.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “These allegations are serious — that there was an effort to bring the power of the federal government to bear on those the administration disagreed with, in the middle of a heated national election. We are determined to get answers.” Former White House senior adviser David Axelrod, quickly came to the president’s defense:  “Part of being president is there’s so much underneath you that you can’t know because the government is so vast.”

This excuse strikes at the heart of the issue. Thomas Jefferson also said, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” Conservative groups and the Associated Press saw their liberty trampled by an ever-growing government, as did the families of the four Americans who were left to die in Benghazi. But President Obama isn’t alone in dealing with scandals. They are historically a bi-partisan issue.

President Nixon had a rough night at the Watergate hotel, President Reagan forgot about an arms embargo with Iran, President Clinton “did not have sexual relations with that woman,” and President George W. Bush thought there were weapons of mass destruction hiding under oil wells in Iraq.

Over the coming months, numerous hearings and investigations will shed more light on recent events and tell us why government has gotten so bad. We may even see a few of these past transgressions used to give insights in to the current White House woes. There will be grandstanding and ceremonial bills and rhetoric laden press conferences. What you will not find are laws that reduce the size of government which, as Thomas Jefferson would tell us, is exactly what is needed.

Ripley: Fort Wayne Indiana & Responsible Budgeting


Fort Wayne has a $6 million budget deficit and a $65 million backlog of unfunded street repairs that dwindling reserve funds can no longer cover. Too many years of short-sighted planning and a “don’t just stand there, spend something” mentality led to this mess. A bi-partisan fiscal policy group was even created to fix it.

City officials would have us believe that the loss of revenue due to the property tax caps – $53 million lost since 2009 – is largely responsible for the current condition of the budget. However, the impact of the tax caps was known and was predictable for the past 5 years. If you know that your income is going down, doesn’t it make sense to cut your spending as a first step to solvency?

Not according to the policy group. They have recommended a smorgasbord of new taxes to fill in the budget gaps. The adoption of two new local option income taxes (LOIT), each at a .25 percent rate is at the top of the list. These new income taxes would cost the average tax payer an additional $120 per year and would raise nearly $14 million in annual revenue for the city.

The financial policy group also recommends a municipal cumulative capital development fund implemented that would raise an additional $1 million through a property tax. They would also like to tap into the banked levy that adds $1 million, and utilize $1 million in interest from the $75 million legacy fund over the next 5 years to address street repairs backlog.

Other governmental bodies are not in agreement with raising taxes. Allen County officials have rightly pointed out that the LOIT’s would impact nearly 70,000 residents in unincorporated areas.  These residents do not have access to all of the city services and they do not have the ability to vote for city representatives.  This is a clear case of taxation without representation.

To soften the negative reaction to higher taxes, the policy group proposed a $5 million reduction in city operating expenses.  The first recommendation is to add a fire protection fee to the City Utilities bill that would free up $3.5 million in the budget. The policy group has also recommended changing the healthcare policy for city employees and revamping how sick time is accrued.

Unfortunately, these recommendations do not lead to a true reduction in spending. The fire protection fee adds about $2.40 per month to our City Utility bill. This is technically a “tax increase” in the form of a new fee. Whether or not the unions will allow employee benefits to be reduced is far from known at this time as well.

If benefits are really being looked at as a source of savings, then the policy group did not dig deep enough. During the last election the salaries of Fort Wayne officials were called in to question.  Our Mayor, Chief Operator, and City Controller are all paid more than Indiana State Governor Mike Pence who makes $111,687.94 per year.  There is a case to be made that salaries of top officials have climbed past appropriate levels given the financial state of the city.

It’s important to remember that the property tax caps were enacted by Indiana voters to reduce the size and spending of local government. Cities and counties that responded to the call for smaller government across the state are in strong financial shape. Cities like Fort Wayne, whose administration lacked even the most basic of fiscal discipline, are now in need of new revenues to maintain their poor spending practices.

Citizens must demand that their local government act as good stewards of tax dollars and pass balanced budgets. Families across the state have made difficult decisions in the face of a down economy and the government should be expected to do the same.

Until the city learns how not to spend more than it takes in, handing over more tax dollars to the city administration to solve the budget problem is equivalent to giving an alcoholic more booze to sober him up.

Ryan Ripley is a 33 year old husband and father of two from Fort Wayne, Indiana. He graduated from Indiana Wesleyan University with a BS in Business Administration. Prior to joining the Libertarian Party Ryan ran for a seat on the Marshall County Council in 2010 and on the Plymouth Common Council in 2011 as a Democrat. During that time he also served as the acting Chairman of the Marshall County Democratic Party. Ryan can be found on Twitter (@ryanripley) and can also be reached at ryan@ryanripley.com

Guest Submissions can be sent to Ruiz@wearelibertarians.com. Please provide links to any sources cited in your submission. Every variety of libertarian thought is welcomed. However, We Are Libertarians will keep up a standard of professionalism and as such will not accept pieces based solely on conspiracy theories and/or  pieces that are overly obscene. We look forward to your contributions! 

Ripley: Rhetoric Chess


Shortly after joining the Libertarian Party I realized that this is a community of intelligent, policy-minded individuals. Discussions can become deep quickly and often become impassioned. The Constitution is upheld and defended on principle, conspiracy theories are traded like baseball cards, and holes in economic theories are called out faster than you can say Henry Hazlitt.

From the inside the community looks like a bazaar of ideas being freely shared and sharpened. From the outside, it simply looks bizarre.

This outside perception is problematic. An election is won by convincing people to show up to the polls and vote for your candidate. These people have mortgages to pay, kids to feed, and all of the other distractions of day-to-day living. Their limited attention to our message must fit into this very small window of opportunity and it must appeal to the typical voter.  But this is no easy task.

Being the “Party of Principle” complicates this situation even further. The positions that we take as libertarians are typically well researched, constitutional, and counter-culture. Without the proper context, our positions can seem extreme. Take for example the stance that the Department of Education (DoE) should be eliminated.

In “Liberty Defined,” Dr. Ron Paul provides the key arguments against the DoE:

  • There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education.
  • There is no evidence that the $70 billion spent annually on the DoE has improved the quality of education.
  • The current system is not sustainable.

Unfortunately, most Americans view our public education system as a “sacred cow” that shapes our society and provides the best education in the world. What we have here is the right idea, but the wrong message.

Fortunately, Republicans and Democrats have perfected the art of condensing their messages into sound bites that are easy for voters and the media to consume. By borrowing this technique we can frame the discussion around our principles and have policy discussions on our terms. This important skill improves communication with the voters and prepares candidates for debates where two minute responses are the norm.

Let’s look again at education. We know the federal story, however; at the local level the Libertarian Party supports school choice and advocates strongly for parents and teachers to be the authority on the curriculum used in the classroom. This is a good statement, but can we frame the story to our advantage? Keep in mind that many of the voters we are targeting know the teachers in their communities. Vouchers and other school choice programs have been characterized as anti-teacher initiatives.

Framing the discussion away from the constitutional argument and far from the emotional pitfalls of changing the public education system, we can have a more meaningful discussion. Consider the ultimate prize of the libertarian position and it is simple to come up with a properly framed statement on education:  Hoosiers should decide how to educate their children, not politicians.

That statement reveals the ultimate benefit of the libertarian approach to education and it is easy for the voters to remember. Our opponents could try to agree with the statement, but their votes to fund the Department of Education betray such efforts to mislead the public. At that point we can dive deeper in to the issue and have the discussion on our terms.

Taxation is another topic that causes emotions to run high. When libertarians talk about eliminating income and property taxes some people immediately agree. Others worry that the government would no longer provide “essential services”.

If we tell the voters that every government spent dollar is taxed away from us we frames the taxation discussion in terms of cutting spending – which will end up eliminating taxes – and also helps a candidate pivot to a related topic – like tax abatements.

After setting the stage with our statement on taxation a candidate could make an impact by asking the following question:  Tax payers create government jobs every day, where’s their abatement?  This framing could lead to some more difficult moments for Republican and Democratic candidates.

It is important to keep in mind that we are not throwing away our principles with this approach. The principles and values of our party are what set us apart from Republicans and Democrats. By framing the discussion in a digestible way, we give undecided votes an on-ramp to our way of thinking. We can throw Rothbard and Spooner at them later. For now, it’s more important that potential voters understand the goal of our policies and realize that they are not as bizarre as some might make them out to be.

Ryan Ripley is a 33 year old husband and father of two from Fort Wayne, Indiana. He graduated from Indiana Wesleyan University with a BS in Business Administration. Prior to joining the Libertarian Party Ryan ran for a seat on the Marshall County Council in 2010 and on the Plymouth Common Council in 2011 as a Democrat. During that time he also served as the acting Chairman of the Marshall County Democratic Party. Ryan can be found on Twitter (@ryanripley) and can also be reached at ryan@ryanripley.com

Guest Submissions can be sent to Ruiz@wearelibertarians.com. Please provide links to any sources cited in your submission. Every variety of libertarian thought is welcomed. However, We Are Libertarians will keep up a standard of professionalism and as such will not accept pieces based solely on conspiracy theories and/or  pieces that are overly obscene. We look forward to your contributions! 

Eppenbaugh: Racism & Engineering

Purdue Engineering


It is a given that students in college will always try to find some way to make life a bit more exciting in between studying at 3am, researching a group project at the library, and taking endless amounts of exams. These extra-curricular activities range from bar runs, to frat parties, to minor mischief. However, a group of students at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana decided to pass the time by creating a music video. At the same time, they proved that engineers lie about how much work they actually do. A bunch of engineering students, created a parody song titled “This is Engineering,” of the song “Thrift Shop,” by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis. In the video they sing about how they do a lot of work and dance around many of the classrooms on campus. They even get Purdue President Mitch Daniels involved in the video. Now who could potentially be against such a video (Indiana University fans not withstanding)?

Believe it or not there is someone who is against the video (and they’re from Purdue no less).  Bill Mullen, Professor of English and American Studies wrote an op-ed for the Lafayette Journal-Courier claiming that Purdue University should take down the video because there was not enough diversity in it. Professor Mullen makes “demands,” including taking down the video and providing money for a video with a diverse group. He gives no proof that the University directly funded this video. For all we know the students put up no money, and just asked various people throughout the University to use their equipment. As a member of the Purdue Anti-racism coalition, he makes a lot of assumptions about the video that help fuel racism.

It seems that people tend to understand things a lot better when Morgan Freeman is talking about any topic. He gave an interview on 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace on racism. Morgan Freeman gives the perfect solution for stopping racism, and that is to stop talking about it. It seems that there are too many people who still look at the color of a person’s skin. Dr. Martin Luther King believed that there would be a time where his, “four little children will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Racism exists because we talk about it too much, not because we don’t talk about it enough. Politicians on both sides of the aisle use race to advance their own agendas. Whatever happened to looking at someone as a Man or a Woman? Either people have forgotten about it, or they’ve never been taught it.

Gary D. Eppenbaugh is a Guest Contributor. 

Guest Submissions can be sent to Ruiz@wearelibertarians.com. Please provide links to any sources cited in your submission. Every variety of libertarian thought is welcomed. However, We Are Libertarians will maintain a standard of professionalism and as such will not accept pieces based solely on conspiracy theories and/or  pieces that are overly obscene. We look forward to your contributions!  – Joe Ruiz, Managing Editor

Morrell: The Mike Pence Plan



This might come as a surprise to pretty much everyone: I am a Libertarian and a pragmatist. I want a slim government (Local, State, and Federal).

Governor Mike Pence is trying to pass a 10% tax cut on Indiana incomes. From a distance it sounds like a nice proposal. But to be honest, Indiana has pretty well right-sized government. Our constitution requires the state to provide some very important services. We have to provide for excellent common schools. Our citizens chose a state government that provides for top-notch transportation. Heck, our motto is “The Crossroads of America.”

The Pence plan would reduce our income taxes from 3.4 to 3.1%. If you make $35K a year, that is a tax burden of $1,190 bucks. The Pence plan saves you about $105 a year…Sorry but you are really not going to miss those savings.
Now the State Senate wants to reduce the proposed tax cut to a mere 3%. That is a whopping $45 bucks a year. That way the Senate can save face for the Governor’s campaign promise of cutting taxes. The Senate is simply trying to find a small victory that they can celebrate for the next cycle. We need real tax cuts, but not from Indiana’s income tax. We need them from federal taxes, local property taxes, and sales taxes. Of all of the taxes I pay, the Indiana income tax is probably the most reasonable.

Like I said, I am a Libertarian. I want to cut taxes, streamline government, and LIVE FREE. But for $45 bucks a year? Keep that cash and come up with a real way to make my life more free. Improve the roads, lower my property taxes, or repeal a law or two, or three.

Jeremiah Morrell is a Guest Contributor at We Are Libertarians. He was the 2012 LPIN candidate for State Representative in District 54, earning 27% of the vote. Jeremiah has served on the LPIN’s State Central Committee for three terms. He holds a BS in Management from Indiana Wesleyan University. As almost all other Libertarians, Jeremiah works a day job that allows him to work within the LP.  He is a Sales Representative at Gerdau, selling steel in Indiana and Kentucky.

Guest Submissions can be sent to Ruiz@wearelibertarians.com. Please provide links to any sources cited in your submission. Every variety of libertarian thought is welcomed. However, We Are Libertarians will keep up a standard of professionalism and as such will not accept pieces based solely on conspiracy theories and/or  pieces that are overly obscene. We look forward to your contributions! 

Knarr: “DOMA” is a Misnomer

DOMA, which stands for the Defense of Marriage Act, is quite inappropriately named. First of all, there is nothing contained in it that defends my marriage. Second, even if I did need some outside party to defend my marriage (which I don’t), I certainly would not choose the government to do so.

How does DOMA defend my marriage? By refusing to acknowledge someone else’s marriage? That is exclusivity, not defense. Refusal to acknowledge the marriage of two loving people does not make my marriage more sound anymore than refusing someone else food makes me more full. It is simply a ridiculous idea. The value and sanctity of my marriage is based solely upon the value my wife and I place on our marriage and how we act within the bounds of that marriage.

I don’t know how many times I have heard, since this debate started, that “the Bible defines marriage as one man and one woman.” I find it ironic that in a country which was founded largely to escape religious persecution, so many would use their own religion to persecute others. Not everyone in this country is a Christian. And not all Christians in this country use their religion as a reason to deny others their Constitutional right to equal protection under the law. I do not want to live under Sharia law, regardless of which religion it is that is imposing it on the rest. I consider it a great thing that residents of this country are free to choose any religion they want, or no religion at all, if that is their preference.

As for the idea of the government being the one to defend my marriage, that is simply out of the question. How is a government which cannot balance the budget, repeatedly violates our civil rights in name of “security” (NDAA, Patriot Act, TSA, etc), and starts wars with no exit strategy supposed to make me feel more secure in my marriage? I would sooner entrust my marriage to a pack of wolves. At least they understand the concept of loyalty.

In summary, the time for DOMA to be overturned was before it was ever passed and signed into law. But as the saying goes, better late than never. It is past time that we live up the ideal put forth in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.”

Knarr: On the State of the Union Address

We need to socialize everything we can, ensure that only the government is armed for your own good, end the war in Afghanistan sometime (but only when Israel and AIPAC are ready for us to go to war somewhere else), improve the economy by spending more of your hard-earned dollars, and continue the policy of nation building and sending our money overseas. That is the sentiment of what I heard during President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Address last night.

That is it in a nutshell. These are really the exact same policies that the Republicans are promoting – just wrapped in a different nutshell. When are we going to wake up and realize that whether it is a peanut or a macadamia nut, once we crack them open, they are still nuts?

How can we change it? Well, it’s easy really.

Bring the troops home tomorrow and let the Department of Defense concentrate on defense. Pass a balanced budget in 2013 and demand a balanced budget every year from here on out just like the rest of us have to do at home. Get the government out of healthcare, out of the way of our teachers, and out of our wallets. Stop the printing presses at the Federal Reserve and make the United States of America operate on a budget. Live on the hard work and sweat and blood this country was founded on.

Most importantly as my friend, Andy Horning always says, “If you keep voting for what you have always voted for, you will keep getting what you have always got.” It is time for a change from the two-party system. Check out your local or state Libertarian Party. We are the real voice for change and we will stand for what’s right for the American people each and every day.

Ken Knarr is a Guest Contributor. 

Guest Submissions can be sent to Ruiz@wearelibertarians.com. Please provide links to any sources cited in your submission. Every variety of libertarian thought is welcomed. However, We Are Libertarians will maintain a standard of professionalism and as such will not accept pieces based solely on conspiracy theories and/or  pieces that are overly obscene. We look forward to your contributions!  – Joe Ruiz, Managing Editor