Archive for the ‘Libertarian’ Category

Humans of FreedomFest, Part 4: "My father used…’libertarian’ as a swear word." – Reason (blog)

Editor's note: FreedomFest, held every July in Las Vegas, is the largest annual gathering of libertarians in the country. Today is the first day of the four-day long conference, which is being headlined in its 10th year by William Shatner, John Stossel, Greg Gutfeld, and others. Taking inspiration from the site Humans of New York, Reason is happy to offer Humans of FreedomFest, a series of portraits and brief interviews with various attendees. To read previous installments, go here.

Sarah Siskind, Reason

"My father used the word 'libertarian' as a swear word. 'Oh that's libertarian'... But I was a marxist at the time so I thought, well that's not something I should be. It took me a long time to get over that. I was an anarchist to begin with when I was 15. Then I was a socialist, kind of a Joan Baez socialist. I played the guitar... I know more socialist songs than my socialist colleagues. I wasn't a scholarly Marxist. I read half the Communist Manifesto and I figured that was enough. But the songs were terrific."

Sarah Siskind

"Because I'm pro-choice, among the Republicans sometimes I get into trouble. But I'm a physician. So I leave it to the patient to decide what they want. My feeling, being pro-choice, is that it's a woman's individual decision. Not mine."

"Back in England, at the London School of Economics, he was a socialist when I met him. When we first met."

So did you turn him into a libertarian?

"No. Buying private property, having rent control slammed on us, is what radicalized us."

...Who are you people?

"We can't decide."

Are those your real names?

"We're coming to a conference on privacy. It would be crazy to register in your own name!"

...Can I take your picture?

Both: "No."

This is part of a series. Read previous installments here.

Read the rest here:
Humans of FreedomFest, Part 4: "My father used...'libertarian' as a swear word." - Reason (blog)

Libertarian group seeks expansion into Rogers County – Claremore Daily Progress

While Rogers County residents may be familiar with the various political party groups that exist within the county, a fledgling political group is hoping to make inroads into Claremore the Northeast Oklahoma Libertarian Party.

Formed earlier this year, the Tulsa-based NEOLP is a group of like-minded Oklahomans who are seeking to gain interest in their philosophies and ideas as an alternative to the traditional two party system.

NEOLP Vice-Chairman Lee Miller of Tulsa explains the groups origins:

In the last presidential election, when (Libertarian candidate) Gary Johnson got more than two and a half percent of the votes (in Oklahoma), that gave the Libertarian party automatic status as an official party in the state, and in response to this, the Northeast Oklahoma Libertarian Party was created, Miller said. The group was formed in April and weve been gaining momentum ever since as people have learned more about us, who we are, what our core ideas are, etc.

Currently, were based in Tulsa, but were wanting to expand, to grow and were hoping to be able to do so in Claremore, to form a smaller, regional group there, he said. Were hoping to inform and educate people in Claremore and Rogers County about the (Libertarian) party to give them another choice besides just Democrat or Republican.

As to Libertarian positions, Miller said the party is less a group of positions than it is a philosophy and set of values, a moral principle of self-ownership, which oftentimes can be misunderstood by those who subscribe to the standard two-party system.

I think the struggle with the party is often that its misunderstood its more of a philosophy, a way of thinking about our rights as citizens in some ways, its more Republican, in other ways, its more Democratic, he said. These misunderstandings (about the party) are simply from people not being informed about what we stand for.

Miller encapsulated the partys key believes in three philosophies:

Firstly, the party is about non-aggression were not going to initiate aggression against another person because of their beliefs, he said. As a party, most of our members are pro-gun, but that doesnt mean its a party of aggression its a party of individual rights and duties.

Secondly, we focus on personal responsibility, he continued. When we make choices in life, there are consequences good choices lead to good consequences, and bad choices lead to bad consequences, and as individuals, those consequences for our actions and choices are ours and ours alone as individuals.

And lastly, were strong proponents of property rights, he said. Whatever you make and can produce, the fruits of your labor whether thats a job you do that earns you a wage or what you can grow out of the ground you should be able to determine what should be done with that. Currently, when we produce something, the government immediately takes a large percentage of it and frequently, theyll take even more again when its time to pay taxes. We feel the individual should have the right the liberty to determine how to distribute what he or she can produce.

What Miller said the group is seeking in Claremore are individuals who want to learn more about the party and to become involved in the groups operations.

There are 800 registered Libertarians in Oklahoma, but right now, the Northeast Oklahoma Libertarian Party group isnt a dues-paying organization, so were not sure how large our membership is, he said. Were wanting to become more-organized, educate the public more, and to be more known for our core values.

Persons interested in learning more about the NEOLP may contact Miller at 918-949-1484 or those wishing to learn more about the Libertarian party may visit the Oklahoma group online at http://www.oklp.org.

View original post here:
Libertarian group seeks expansion into Rogers County - Claremore Daily Progress

Release the Hyra: Libertarian Party Candidate Is Challenging … – AltDaily

Ralph Northam and Ed Gillespie won their parties respective primaries in June and are campaigning fiercely to be Virginias next governor. But theyre not the only candidates in the race.

The Libertarian Party of Virginia hosted a special convention in May and nominated Cliff Hyra, a 34-year-old patent attorney who lives in Mechanicsville with his wife and three children. After meeting the states petition requirements, Hyra recently officially announced his candidacy and will be a third option on the ballot in November.

AltDaily had the chance to ask him a few questions by phone.

AltDaily: Youve said you became a Libertarian in college. Can you elaborate on that?

Cliff Hyra: Sure. I guess when I was a kid I considered myself a Democrat, but I just started to be exposed to more of the idea of freedom. I started reading a little bit of [Friedrich] Hayek and [Ayn] Rand and [Milton] Friedmanstarted to get interested in the idea that even if you disagree with what somebodys doing, it may be better if everybody leaves each other alone, as long as theyre not harming anybody. So that began my journey to Libertarianism, and I think it crystallized for me in law school. I went to George Mason, and its known for its economics and maybe more Libertarian bent. I had some excellent professors like Don Boudreaux and Tyler Cowen, who are pretty well-known Libertarian thinkers, and I think they added to that idea of personal freedom and libertythe idea that Libertarianism really has a lot of solutions to real-world problems. The evidence shows that Libertarian economic solutions are very successful. So since then, Ive been voting Libertarian for my entire adult life.

And youve got a ready response for anyone who points out that you dont have any legislative experience?

Yes. About a quarter of sitting governors havent held any prior elected office, so its not unusual to go straight into the state executive position without previous political experience. Im a business owner and life-long resident of Virginia. Im a family man. I have three children and another one on the wayso Im very familiar with the problems that people face here in Virginia.

Ralph Northam and Ed Gillespie have raised more than $11 million combined. Whats your strategy for competing against the major parties?

You know, you can do very well working with a smaller budget. Its all about getting your message out there, so any way that we can do that: traveling around the state and meeting with different groups, trying to do as much media as possible, targeted ad spending.

Fundamentally, its about the ideas. Even in the last presidential election, when ideas got people really excitedeither in a positive or a negative waythey really got a lot of exposure, even without spending a lot of money. That race was quite different than this one, but even so, theres a lot of opportunities when youre pushing ideas that people are interested in.

Whats the status of you getting into any of the planned debates?

I have not been invited to any of the debates Theyve said, Well, these are our standards for getting in, but theyre quite subjective.

Ive heard that Ralph Northam claims that hes open to my participation in the debates. Ed Gillespies camp, theyve stated that theyre not open to it. Im not sure, really, what theyre afraid of, but I think people would really be well-served by participation of a third party.

Ive listened a lot to what the other candidates have said, and too much of what theyre talking about is just political gotchatrying to score points on the other side. Even looking at their websites, they have a lot of nice goal statements, but they dont really talk much about how to get there. I think it would be great for me to be in the debate and forcing the other candidates to respond to some of these policy proposals and say where they stand. At this stage, we havent seen any evidence that were going to get that. Were certainly working with the debate sponsors and the other candidates to do everything we can to get in the debates, but we havent seen much positive progress so far.

You grew up in northern Virginia, you went to college at Virginia Tech, and you live outside Richmond now. It seems like you could draw support from a lot of parts of the state. Im wondering: How well do you know Hampton Roads, and do you have any campaign stops planned here?

Hampton Roads is one of the first places that I visited after I announced that I was planning to run, and I visited with several groups down there. Ive never lived there or worked there, but I know a lot of people down there, and I certainly plan to come back again and again over the course of the campaign and get to know as many people and voters groups down there as I can.

Every locality has their own issues. As Ive learned down in Hampton Roads, you guys dont like tolls too much! I think there was one specific project that was handled very poorly. In other areas of the state, theyve been handled a little bit better, and theyve worked out much betterespecially some of the HOT lanes that run between northern Virginia and closer to where I am nowtheyve been really successful. Each area has its unique issues, and Im certainly committed to getting out to every location in the state and addressing the peoples concerns.

One of the tenets of your campaign is civility and respect. I wonder if you could say at least one positive thing about your opponents?

I think that Northamhes making some of the right noises about drug legalization. For example, hes come out in favor of decriminalization of marijuana. Im certainly partial to that. On Gillespies side, hes come out and recognized that theres a need for tax reform in the statethat we have a really absurd state income tax. Its never been cut; the brackets havent been adjusted in over 50 years. He recognizes theres something to be done there. I think both of them fall short on their ideas in both areas. I would go much further than them in both cases.

Its very easy for me, honestly, as a Libertarian, to look at good things on each side because Im not really a left-right kind of guy. I recognize that theres good ideas on both sides, and thats one of the advantages that I would have as a governor: the ability to pick and choose the right solutions from either side of the aisle and work with whoever I need to to get that done without the worry that I have to satisfy other people in my party.

I see a lot of positive positions on both the left and the right. Im not interested so much in partisanship, but just really arriving at the right answer and looking at what people have done in other states, trying to be more innovative and adopting some of the best practices that have already been found to work. We could have the same good results here in Virginia if there was the political will for it.

You and your wife are expecting your fourth child in August. How does she feel about you campaigning with a newborn baby in your lives?

Well, that was the first thing I did when considering runningwas talk to her about what she thought. She was all in favor of it. Shes always been very supportive of everything that Ive done, and shes really amazing and a wonderful wife. When I started my law practice, she was very supportive of that, and we were just expecting our first child at the time. It was really as the recession was just getting started. I had planned it ahead of that, and then the economy kept getting worse and worse. She said, No problem. I have confidence in you. Go out and do it. And I did. Thats the wonderful thing about her. Shes really strong. Shes great with the kids, and we have a lot of family close by. Im sure it wont be the easiest thing weve ever done, but if you dont challenge yourself, you dont grow.

You just announced your candidacy in the last two weeks. Youve got about 1,200 likes on Facebook and $28,000 in the bank. If we talk again in October, where do you think youll beor where do you hope to be with your campaign?

The skys the limit. Im running the campaign to win it. I think thats importantthat you set out with that goal in mind. Realistically, I understand that the chances of that are low. At the same time, weve seen how things can snowball. Again, even with the election last year: very unexpected, very surprising. Never say never.

If its not the year that happens, another great thing would be if we could hit 10 percent vote mark, which it looked like Rob Sarvis was going to hit for a while back in 2013 and got pretty close to it. If we can build on some of that momentum, hit that 10 percent markthats kind of the magic number for the Libertarian Partythat would give us automatic ballot access as a major party for the next four years.

That would be really good both for Libertarians, of course, but also for the people of Virginia. Theres a lot of racesespecially at the state levelthat are uncontested. I think at least 70 percent of races are uncontested, so you dont even have a choice. Wed love to field candidates in all those races and give people a choice, an alternative, but because we dont have the automatic ballot access, its really difficult to get on the ballot. We have to get so many petitions signed and so forth. So that would be a major milestone if we could reach that 10 percent level of support.

Even if the level of support isnt that high, if I can affect the debate, if I can force the other candidates to talk about some of these issues that I think are really important and that they seem to be shying away from, thatll be a success as well.

Im hoping that we do talk againmaybe in a couple monthsand we can focus more on the issues. For now, maybe you could summarize your ideas on tax reform?

Sure. As I was mentioning, Virginias taxes are really unusual. We hit our top rate at only $17,000 of income per year, so somebody whos making $30,000 in Virginia is paying more than double the state income tax that someone would pay in California. Californias, of course, well known as one of the highest tax states in the nation, if not the highest. My proposal would be to exempt the first $60,000 of household income from the state income tax. Thats $3,000 back in the pockets of the average family each year. The average family would pay no state income tax. Of course, people could do so much with that money, investing in themselves, their children, their businesses, their futures. Thats the crux of that.

Some of the other reforms Im talking about help to deal with the fiscal impact, although the fiscal impact of that cut is really muted compared to the positive impact on peoples lives because its well-targeted at the people who are paying the most disproportionate amount under the current tax system.

How does that work mathematically to be revenue-neutral? Do you tax higher incomes at a higher rate?

Im not proposing increasing any taxes. Im proposing to pay for the cut out of spending. Theres a lot of low-hanging fruit in Virginia where were spending money, and were really not getting anything back in return.

One of the issues that I like to talk about a lot is criminal justice. Elsewhere in the country, drug arrests are going down a lot, along with violent crimes and property crimes. Here in Virginia, weve had the same thing: Violent and property crimes have been going down, which is wonderful, but drug arrests have been going the opposite direction; theyve been going way up. Theyve about doubled in the last 15 years, to the point where were arresting about 3,000 Virginians for drug crimes each year60 percent of them for marijuana, 80 percent of those for just possession. It costs quite a lot of money just in direct costsover $25,000 a yearto incarcerate one person. This is for something that is legal in 29 other states and the District of Columbia. It has a really disproportionate impact on some of the African-American, disadvantaged communities here in Virginia.

We would actually be better off taking that money and setting it on firebecause at least we wouldnt be making things worse. Its not only not benefiting us in any way, its actually making things worse. Youre taking people away from their families and from their jobs, so the total impact on the economy is actually much greater than that. Thats something that we can cut, and not only will it not harm anybody, but actually by cuttingby decriminalizing marijuana and hopefully legalizing itwe can generate additional tax revenue. We can make peoples lives better.

Theres a lot of areas we can cut without having to make a cut to state services, just by making the state government more innovative, more inclusive, and focusing on those areas where its benefiting all Virginians and having respect for them and leaving them to make their own decisions, make their own choices in their own lives, as long as theyre not hurting anybody else.

What else do you want people to know about you?

One of the other issues that Im pushing is school choice. Were widely recognized to have one of the very worst charter school systems in the entire country. We recently had a bill vetoed in May that would have been a real good start there. I think there are some other states where weve seen tremendous progress. We can have the same benefits here in Virginia if we had the political willif we had the right person in the governors office.

And also healthcare. Theres a limit to what we can do here in Virginia, but we can start by introducing more choice, more competition, getting rid of bad regulations. We can increase access and reduce costs.

If anybodys interested in the ideas that Im putting forward, I would encourage them to learn more at my website: CliffHyra.com. They can sign up for the email newsletter. They can check out some of my upcoming events on Facebook. I hope to meet everybody out on the campaign trail in the coming days.

comments

Jim Roberts lives in Norfolk with his wife and two children. He grew up in Virginia Beach, earned degrees at Virginia Tech and William and Mary, and works in corporate communications at Huntington Ingalls Industries.

Read more:
Release the Hyra: Libertarian Party Candidate Is Challenging ... - AltDaily

Dist. 16 election: Libertarian Jason Dubrow, in his own words – The Union Leader

By JASON DUBROW July 20. 2017 9:38PM Libertarian candidate Jason Dubrow takes a question during an interview at the New Hampshire Union Leader on June 28, 2017.(DAVID LANE/UNION LEADER) I am Jason Dubrow, a computer engineer living in Dunbarton with my wife, Rebecca, and two children Cassiopeia (7), and Callisto (15 months). Rebecca and I maintain a small farm with chickens, gardens, and a number of beehives. We installed solar panels many years ago to offset our carbon footprint.

New Hampshire has the fifth highest electric rate in the country, the highest in New England. Neighboring states with high electric subsidies, yield higher wholesale rates, in addition to higher property taxes on power generation plants are major culprits for our high electricity costs. I will address high property taxes, which are passed on to the rate payer to lower electric rates. The high cost of electricity is a deterrent to bring new businesses from out of state. If this does not change, our economic growth will stagnate.

Every child should have access to a diverse network of educational opportunities to meet the demands of the 21st century. We continue to educate our children with a one size fits all system. Without a competitive, diverse system of education, our children are left behind. We need more opportunities for our children in New Hampshire regardless of their socioeconomic class to meet the 21st century needs and challenges they face. I will work to open the doors to ensure all children, especially to ensure low income, are not limited to a single option for their education.

Concord uses the same tried and failed methods of solving the drug crisis. We are not winning this battle. We need to follow Portugals lead and decriminalize all drugs. I will work to ensure money targeted for rehabilitation of drug addicts is used for that purpose rather than failed policies such as policing or life support for addicts.

Our state needs new ideas, not a swinging pendulum of the old tired two-party system. And we wonder why government is unable to solve real problems? The Libertarian Party has a wide range of new ideas that will end the duopoly in Concord and force a tripartisan, innovative solution to the problems that face our state. I will work to ensure we keep New Hampshire TRI-partisanship alive with new ideas.

As John Adams once said, Government is instituted for the common good: for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people. And not to profit.

Yours in liberty.

Jason Dubrow of Dunbarton is the Libertarian nominee for state Senate District 16.

State Government State Guest Commentary

Read the rest here:
Dist. 16 election: Libertarian Jason Dubrow, in his own words - The Union Leader

Meet the Atheist Libertarian Running for Senate as a Republican – Patheos (blog)

You may have heard the name Austin Petersen before, but if you havent youre probably going to soon. Hes a libertarian activist who has identified himself as an atheist and he recently announced hes running for Senate as a Republican.

Petersen is probably most well known for being the runner-up for the Libertarian Partys nomination for President of the United States in 2016, losing only to Gary Johnson. Earlier this month, however, he said hes running for Senate in Missouri as a Republican (despite his lack of faith).

I interviewed Petersen to ask him about how he plans to court evangelical republicans as a non-believer, his views on separation of church and state, and his move to distance himself from the word atheism.

McAfee: You are a non-believer, which makes you rare in U.S. politics and even rarer in the Republican party. Do you ever worry about surveys that show many Americans wont vote for atheists because of negative stigma attached to non-belief (they think were immoral even compared to rapists)? Some polls, like this one, give us hope but still paint a bleak picture.

Petersen: For the record, I am agnostic I claim neither faith nor disbelief in God. When it comes to Gods existence, I dont know. But to answer your question, yes, the surveys worry me. That said, I refuse to lie to people just to get them to like, or hopefully vote for, me. It seems unfair to ask someone to put me into a position of public trust by betraying that trust. Whats more, even though I make no claim to know about the existence of God, I share a great deal in common with people of faith. I wholeheartedly believe in freedom of religion, and will support peoples right to practice the faith of their choosing without interference. I also share a belief that life begins with conception and ends with natural death, that life trumps choice and that all lives at all stages have a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

McAfee: Interesting. You have repeatedly identified as an atheist (that means you dont actively believe not that you KNOW there is no god). Are you saying that label no longer applies?

Petersen: Its a good question. Ive often conflated the two terms in the past, so Im happy to clarify now. Im an agnostic. I dont actively believe in God, but Im open to the possibility that he may exist. Ultimately, I dont think you can really know either way. What I do know, however, is that its the duty of the government and the duty of its leaders to protect the right of an individual to believe and practice as he or she sees fit.

McAfee: Do you think a lot of fundamentally religious people will vote for you, despite your public atheism, or that youll have to capture more of the less devout voters? Im sure you are aware of the stereotypes about atheists, including that we are actually Satanists, so feel free to address those.

Petersen: I think theyll vote for me. First, because they have before and second, because theyre telling me they will again. The fact is, much of my support base comes from conservative Christians. They generally say they support me because they prefer an honest agnostic to a dishonest believer. Also, the election of Donald Trump indicates that people are less interested in electing a man of the cloth than they are a man of the people.

There are atheists and agnostics that dont care for me much because my beliefs conflict with their own. Thats okay. Ultimately, I will defend the rights of everyone, regardless of whether they have faith or not. Conservative Christians know this because I have demonstrated it publicly and laid my reputation on the line by defending their religious liberty in public debates and forums.

McAfee: Like you, Im an agnostic atheist. In other words, I dont claim to know if any gods exist and I dont actively believe in any. Do you think its a closed-minded position for anyone, believers and atheists alike, to proclaim they know with certainty?

Petersen: Just to be clear, I dont claim to know if God exists and I dont actively believe in Him but I dont actively disbelieve in Him either I just dont know. Thats the honest truth of it. We all could claim closed-mindedness toward those that dont think like we do. But ultimately, like Thomas Jefferson said, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. What does pick my pocket? Government.

McAfee: You say you are an atheist who is pro-life, and thats great, but you have also said women have a choice as to whether or not they get pregnant. Do you legitimately believe that pregnancy is always a choice?

Petersen: One hundred percent of the time? No. But that is such an infinitesimally small amount of the overall abortions that its frequently used to then justify all other abortions. Even pro-choice Governor Gary Johnson signed a bill that banned partial-birth abortions in New Mexico, so at some point we must admit we are dehumanizing the unborn. It is a human. Do all humans deserve the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Absolutely. If we found a cluster of cells on Mars, scientists would say thats evidence of life. So then why is the unborn cluster of human cells not?

McAfee: On that same subject: Youve said you would be an elected official who would fight for pro-life issues, and you defined abortion as murder in the same sentence. That mentality could set the U.S. back to the 1950s in terms of health care, and could be seen as an overreach of governmental authority. As a former libertarian and current republican, how can you justify that government interference?

Petersen: Current libertarian, current Republican. If government is to exist, it must be limited to securing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without life, there is no liberty. How can humanity become a galactic civilization, reaching to the stars to expand and grow, if we do not respect the evolutionary processes of the continuation of our species? If we are not pro-life as a culture and a people, then what is the opposite? If there is no afterlife, then this life is the most precious thing we have. How can we deny to others the lives that we now live? How can we not grant the gift of life to those millions of potential humans who could become scientists, doctors and lawyers?

McAfee: Religious freedom laws have been very controversial, and I loved your question to Gary Johnson on whether a Jewish baker should be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi. To follow on that, can you clarify your beliefs here? Do you, for instance, believe a white baker should be able to reject the business of a black man because of his racial differences?

Petersen: I believe any person should be able to refuse to hand over their private property to anyone for any reason. That being said, Im not interested in going back and overturning the Civil Rights Act. I think the best way forward is to find a way to respect the religious beliefs of our fellow citizens. Religious freedom acts have been passed on the state and federal levels, and I support them.

McAfee: Do you think atheists and other freethinker groups should be less confrontational when it comes to minor violations of separation of church and state? For instance, how would you react to a statute depicting the Ten Commandments placed on government property?

Petersen: Yes, I absolutely do. I roll my eyes at people who think we are somehow having some sort of victory because we removed In God We Trust from money when there are so many other substantive issues that actually affect peoples lives. However, if youre putting up any new religious monuments on public property, all religions or non-religions ought to have equal access to display theirs as well.

McAfee: I am not as concerned about who bakes cakes for whom as I am about religious freedom laws that actually kill children. If you dont know what I mean, Im talking about the handful of states with extreme religious freedom laws allowing parents to literally get away with murder when they use faith healing instead of medicine to treat their terminally ill children. One particularly notable case comes out of Idaho, where more children die due to faith-based neglect than anywhere else. What is your position on these laws, which give special treatment to religious people in a way we wouldnt tolerate if it were another country?

Petersen: The law of the land is the Constitution, and we are all governed by it. No other law is higher. Not Sharia, not the Old Testament, not the Tao Te Ching. No one has the right to harm anyone in the name of religion or in the name of non-religion, as the Communists did in the Soviet Union. I wouldnt be consistently pro-life if I didnt believe that the government had the right to intervene and protect children from being neglected.

McAfee: Personally, I see secularization as beneficial for religions (who dont want the government involved in their worship) as well as for people who dont want religious influences to run their state. Do you value separation of church and state, and recognize that our founders intended to keep these two entities apart for good reasons?

Petersen: Constitutionally, there is no technical separation of church and state. Rather, there is freedom from the establishment of a state religion. Originally, some founders thought this meant that the federal government could not establish a religion, but the states might. Since the Reconstruction Era amendments, however, this has shifted and now the states may not do so. And many state constitutions already have a clause similar to the federal governments.

I agree with James Madison, who wrote, We are teaching the world the great truth that governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of government.

And my greatest inspiration on the issue, which I would have liked to have seen written word-for-word into the Constitution if it had been expedient, comes from Thomas Jeffersons Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: Be it enactedthat no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion

McAfee: Separation of church and state is important to me, and many of my readers, but science issues are perhaps even more crucial. Do you accept the scientific consensus on things like the helpfulness of vaccines, evolution, and climate change influenced in part by humans?

Petersen: I certainly accept it on vaccines and evolution. I am agnostic on the issue of climate change, because climate science relies on predictions. Since predictions have generally the same accuracy rate as astrologers and psychics, I think we ought to get along with our business and avoid centralizing economic planning into the hands of a few self-interested bureaucrats in Washington D.C. If climate change is real, and it very well could be, then progress via industrial capitalism will be the solution. The cause is also the cure.

McAfee: You seem like a rational person. How much of a role do you give to science in your decision-making? Do you check peer-reviewed papers or rely on your instinct?

Petersen: I do check peer-reviewed papers. Im fully willing to change my mind when evidence conflicts with my worldview. Yes, I do have my ideas, but I try to avoid confirming my biases if at all possible. Im open-minded. I like being proven wrong, because even though your ego takes a blow, you learn something, and I love to keep learning and growing intellectually.

McAfee: I couldnt agree more on being proven wrong. Is there anything else youd like to add to this?

Petersen: Theres a reason that the First Amendment comes first. Being able to choose your own religion or choose to not have any religion at all! is a vital part of our inherent liberties as rational human beings. Im committed to preserving liberty above all else, and that includes protecting the freedom of an individuals conscience and intelligence on matters of belief. If elected, I will certainly do this and not only for people I agree with, but also (and especially) for those whose views differ from my own.

Overall, Petersen is an interesting candidate. I dont blame him for avoiding the word atheist, although its worth noting he has repeatedly called himself an atheist and has even called Christianity as the violent cousin of Islam and as the Cult of Christ. So, what do you all think? Would you vote for him?

See more here:
Meet the Atheist Libertarian Running for Senate as a Republican - Patheos (blog)