Mediaboss Marketing

Have you used your Democracy Vouchers yet? SEEC

The same law firm suing over Seattle's "first in time" rental law is now taking on the city's new public campaign financing program, the first voucher-based system in the country.

Today, the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) announced a lawsuit alleging that Seattle's Democracy Voucher violates the First Amendment by using public dollars to subsidize political campaigns some taxpayers may not agree with. The program uses property tax revenue to gives Seattle residents $100 in vouchers they can donate to city council and city attorney candidates (the mayor's race will also qualify in the future). While other cities and states use other models of public campaign financing, like matching grant programs, Seattle was the first to pass a voucher system.

"'Democracy voucher' is mere euphemism for a law that operates in effect as a politician enrichment tax," the PLF writes in its legal complaint. Appropriate for a firm focused on landlords and property rights, PLF lawyer Ethan Blevins calls out tenant advocate Jon Grant, who has raised nearly $129,000 in vouchers in his race for city council.

"So rental property owners are forced to bankroll a politician who is adverse to their rights and their interests," PLF attorney Ethan Blevins said in a statement.

PLF is representing two Seattle property owners, Mark Elster and Sarah Pynchon. Elster lives in a single-family home he owns in Seattle. Pynchon owns a single-family home in Seattle but rents it out and lives outside the city.

"This program is so patently and obviously unfair, Elster said in a statement. "The democracy voucher program puts other peoples political beliefs into my mouth."

Sightline, a local think tank that advocated for Democracy Vouchers, argued at the time that the program is legal despite federal court decisions defining money as speech. Sightline director Alan Durning says the initiative that created Democracy Vouchers was "carefully vetted by a dozen lawyers," including Constitutional law experts, and he stands by that analysis today.

I would be astonished if there is any legal merit whatsoever in their free speech argument, Durning says. There are at least a dozen cities and states around the country that use public funds to support campaigns and Seattles program doesnt do anything that they dont do. In fact, we give a lot more control to individual voters [by using vouchers instead of a more common block grant system]."

UPDATE: University of Washington Constitutional law professor Hugh Spitzer sounded like he could barely contain his laughter as we talked about the PLFs legal challenge to Democracy Vouchers this afternoon.

The lawsuit claims that Pynchon shouldn't pay towards a public campaign financing system in Seattle because she doesn't live here.

That argument doesnt make any sense at all, Spitzer told me. Theyre saying they dont want to pay taxes, they dont want to support public programs if they dont live in the community. Thats not how property taxes work Thats a silly argument.

More broadly, both Spitzer and Brent Ferguson, a lawyer at the Brennan Center (which advocates for public campaign financing), say they dont expect PLFs challenge to succeed. Public campaign financing schemes have been challenged before, they said. And, while some other models have been struck down or limited, courts have rejected the argument that public campaign financing compels people to support speech they dont agree with, Spitzer and Ferguson said.

The government engages in its own speech all time, Ferguson said. It pays for politicians, it pays for judges, it pays for advocacy. And arguing you disagree with those forms of government speech is never a successful argument to get out of paying taxes, Ferguson said.

Blevins could not immediately be reached for comment.

In an interview, Blevins disagreed. He argued the voucher program is uniquely legally questionable because individual votersinstead of the governmentdistribute the money. "It's the government as the speaker versus the individual as the speaker," he said, arguing that hasn't been tested in court before. (The other lawyers I talked to said the vouchers were not enough to make this system significantly different to a court than other systems.)

Blevins also stood by his argument that it's unfair for his client to pay into a system she can't use. And his other client, "a believer in free markets and individual choice," won't likely be represented by anyone running for office in Seattle, he said. "People who take minority or dissenting viewpoints are undermined" in this system, Blevins said.

Link:
Libertarian Law Firm Sues Over Seattle's Democracy Vouchers - TheStranger.com

CONCORD Rep. Brandon Phinney (Strafford 24-Rochester), formerly a member of the Republican Party, announced Tuesday on the State House steps he is changing his party affiliation to Libertarian.

For the third time this year, a sitting state legislator has left his party and joined the LP. Rep. Caleb Q. Dyer (Hillsborough 37) switched to Libertarian from Republican in February, and Rep. Joseph Stallcop (Cheshire 4) left the Democratic Party in May.

Darryl W. Perry, chair of the New Hampshire Libertarian Party, welcomes any others, unhappy with their party leadership, to join the LP.

When the Libertarian Party had ballot access in the 1990s, the Libertarian House Caucus had four members, Perry said. It is my hope and desire that the civil libertarians, classical liberals, and philosophical libertarians in the New Hampshire General Court will show the same courage shown by Reps. Dyer, Stallcop, and, now, Rep. Brandon Phinney, and abandon the two-party system that has for so long burdened us with taxation, regulation, and legislation that has trampled our freedoms.

Phinney will work with Dyer and Stallcop in the N.H. House Libertarian Caucus to minimize state government, lower taxes, and eliminate barriers to conducting business, and will work hard to increase individual freedom and personal liberty while protecting the rights of individuals and businesses within New Hampshire.

Phinney brings his experience serving in the New Hampshire National Guard and the states Department of Corrections to the caucus.

We were elected to the peoples house to serve their will, their interests, and limit government interference in their lives, Phinney said of his differences with the GOP. I was not elected to do the bidding of a political party at the expense of my principles. Establishment partisan politics do nothing to protect the rights of people, but instead only serve to prop up and expand government with arcane plans to irresponsibly spend our money and enact burdensome regulations on businesses, small and large alike. The Libertarian Party platform gives us, as legislators, the best possible framework to expand social freedoms, support a free-market economy, and ensure the checks and balances on government power are enforced.

See more here:
Rochester Rep switches to Libertarian Party - Foster's Daily Democrat

Its easy for an individual that has been cringeworthy himself on many occasions even on a national stage (also, it seems you may be lacking some self-awareness with that egotistical prick comment, Mr. Ive Read 100 Books On This Ideology) to separate himself from any of the blame when it comes to how cringeworthy some libertarians are.

Aside from that, Charles Peralos assertion that libertarians are [] the cringe lords of Facebook stood out to me as a poor generalization. For example, in a world where regressive leftists showcase their poor understanding of economics, their abysmal critical thinking skills, and their hatred of the freedom of speech on social media (ironic, right?), its simply absurd to say that libertarians are the worst. All sides of the political spectrum have their cringeworthy members; libertarians arent unique in that regard.

In my opinion, Charless points were undoubtedly sloppy and this is not just because his articles are typically a poor read, both structurally and contextually. His article proves that he simply had an ax to grind, and instead of coming up with 10 compelling reasons not to make your friends libertarian, he just compiled a list of things he doesnt like about some libertarians.

So, heres a different list of 10 ways not to make your friends libertarian.

In America, liberals may have stolen the term for our political ideology, but that doesnt mean we are what they are; this is why I refer to leftists as such rather than liberals, and also because most leftists arent liberal they dont believe in things like the freedom of speech like they used to.

I dont want to focus too much on Charles and look like I myself have an ax to grind, since this isnt the time or place, but his content proves exactly my point on this particular issue.

Wanting to save social security, attack possible opportunities for secession, partner with a radical and violent leftist group like Black Lives Matter, support government paying off student loan debt rather than simply repudiating said debt, and advocate for universal healthcare are all ideas that swing left to varying degrees.

Moving away from the author at hand, there are plenty of other people that have done the same, from Gary Johnsons I agree with Bernie 73% of the time comments, to other liberty advocates pushing leftist ideals.

Lets stop making libertarianism about leftism. Theyre not compatible. As long as universal healthcare, universal basic income, and maintaining social security and the rest of the welfare state are on the table, libertarianism loses.

Part of the problem I have with the liberty movement these days is that many people have abandoned principle over party in favor of party over principle.

Sure, political strategy often simply revolves around winning. But attacking the wrong people is the worst idea for an up-and-coming party. I see libertarians within the Libertarian Party attacking Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie simply for being Republicans, without realizing that most of us would vote for these people if they were on our ticket in a heartbeat.

These people may be Republicans, but theyre an ally to liberty and libertarianism. Lets not forget that the Libertarian Party isnt the only mechanism for advancing liberty.

I could write an entire book revolved around the idea that libertarians shouldnt hate veterans just because they also hate that the government funds the military through taxation.

Whether or not you think our country should have such an expansive nanny state as it does, or whether you think the country should exist at all, military people havent done anything to you.

Attacking these people, who likely will be the easiest to pitch libertarianism, is a poor choice to make. These people have seen the disastrous effects of interventionist foreign policy, these people have seen why an expansive military doesnt need to exist.

These people also are just people, and theyre not baby killers. Theyre ordinary people, and most of them are reservists who never see combat deployment. Generalizing all the people who have served our country as killers, savages, and awful humans who want to steal your tax money to fund failed wars is not only an awfully poor and incorrect generalization, but also not a way to expand the libertarian base.

Anarcho-capitalists are the purists of the libertarian ideology. This one should go without saying: attacking the most devoted liberty minds doesnt do libertarianism any good. Theyre an important part of the ideology, and whether or not you agree with them, they have a lot of good things to say, if youll just listen.

If youre worried about the public image of libertarianism, and believe that people will generalize libertarianism as anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, then simply make it your mission to explain how thats not the case when youre pitching someone.

Life, liberty, and property; its clich, I know.

But that, in short, is libertarianism. The right to life, absolute liberty, and property, so long as you dont harm anyone else. The Johnson campaign was guilty of this, as well as many other libertarians. Property rights are integral to what libertarianism is as an ideology; if we abandon this integral plank, our ideology will fail.

We cant make our friends into libertarians if we dont have a philosophy. We also cant do it if we dont have a solid philosophy to pitch. Property rights are important, lets not forget that.

The abortion debate has always been murky when it comes to libertarianism, with both sides debating which provides more liberty. I tend to fall on the pro-life side, except when rape results in pregnancy since there was no consent and it is essentially self-defense by the mother. I stand firm that life begins at the first heartbeat, which is around six weeks. The debate, in my opinion, should be whether life begins at conception or not. I havent personally heard an argument that convinced me life begins at conception.

Whether we even need to have this debate anymore has recently been taken into question, but since we will for the foreseeable future, it makes its way onto this list.

Pro-life libertarians see the unborn life as exactly what it is a life. They argue that the mother and father had consensual sexual intercourse whilst understanding the possible consequences, and that the termination of said pregnancy is murder because it is the taking of a life; just because the life resides in a womans womb doesnt make it her property, rather she consented to the possibility of pregnancy by taking an action thats meant to begin a pregnancy.

Whether or not you agree with this, pro-life libertarians make good points. Not only can they attract a sizable right-wing electorate that tends to agree with libertarians otherwise, but these pro-life libertarians themselves are key to our cause.

Disagreements on abortion arent worth dividing the house over.

Some people cant get out and be real-world activists for liberty, and thats understandable they work full-time jobs that fill their days, have children, and so on. Not everyone can dedicate time out of their lives to get out and fight for liberty.

I had to turn down the chance to fly across the country and participate in a grassroots activism campaign this summer because I have to work my day job in order to save enough money before I transfer to an out-of-state college in the fall. I dedicate my time to being the news editor here at Being Libertarian, writing opinion pieces when I can, and using social media to spread the ideology. Once I have the ability to be a real-world activist, I will, but we shouldnt punish people who cant get out and be activists. Theyre doing what they can just because its not the medium you prefer doesnt make it bad or ineffective.

Even if someone has the time but doesnt want to be a real-world activist doesnt mean theyre not contributing by posting to social media. If you couldnt tell, social media is alive and well, and its an apt place to be a liberty advocate.

The only way to achieve everything in one fell swoop whether it be minarchism or anarcho-capitalism is to have some sort of civil war or revolutionary war. Thats a pretty drastic situation, and not one thats popular, for obvious reasons.

Anything other than that takes time. Even secession takes time; at least all 50 states would have to secede, and theres absolutely no way that happens all in one shot. Secessionism is one of the quickest ways to get what we want, assuming secession doesnt result in another powerful government, with the only change being territorial size.

Besides those two, we have to realize that as much as we may want it to not everything is going to happen all at once. We cant get everything we want right away, so we should push for every victory we can achieve.

By participating and contributing to a gradual move towards libertarian ideals, we allow our ideas to have exposure on a grander stage.

Its a win-win scenario we shrink government gradually (while not shutting ourselves off to other options to accelerate said shrinkage), and we give libertarianism more exposure.

To be honest, I think its pretty ridiculous that I have to even make this point.

Antifa are not anti-fascist, they are fascist. They are against free-speech and the freedom of association, and use violence to suppress speech and ideas. Libertarians, especially those within the party, have supported or sympathized with these people. Whether its to spite President Trump, or its based on pure ignorance, libertarians that side with Antifa are siding against everything they believe in.

Just because these people are anarchists (actually, theyre anarcho-communists), doesnt mean we should side with them. If anything, thats just going to reinforce the publics growing notion that these people are libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, which is absolutely not the case.

This final, most important point takes a direct shot at Charless point that we shouldnt remind people that taxation is theft, or discuss the non-aggression principle (NAP).

These are both key principles, like property rights, that make libertarianism what it is.

Sure, if all you ever say is taxation is theft, youre going to push people to click that ever-so-enticing unfollow button. However, we shouldnt just throw these slogans to the curb.

Make America Great Again and America First were key slogans that captured the attention of an otherwise silent and forgotten demographic. They were clich on the surface, and were great for a bumper sticker. But everyone knew what these things meant: they were essentially shorthand for some of the policies Trump advocated for. If we want to pitch our ideas to people, we can do the same with our slogans. As long as we dont say taxation is theft without expanding upon why its an issue and why we should fix it, these are things we can utilize to expand the libertarian base.

We dont advocate libertarianism for fun, we advocate it because we want to free ourselves from coercion, and seek the most amount of liberty attainable. Remember, we can win this fight. Liberty can win, and it will, as long as we dont forget our mission.

This post was written by Nicholas Amato.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Nicholas Amato is the News Editor at Being Libertarian. Hes an undergraduate student at San Jose State University, majoring in political science and minoring in journalism.

Like Loading...

Read the original post:
Response to 10 Ways Not to Make Your Friends Libertarian - Being Libertarian

Just-Flipped-to-Libertarian State Representative Brandon Phinney

The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire held another press conference today announcing the awesome news that now a THIRD sitting state representative has flipped parties to the LPNH! The LPNH has already made two previous historic announcements earlier this year with state representatives Caleb Dyerof Pelham and Joseph Stallcop of Keene changing from republican and democrat respectively to the Libertarian Party of NH and then forming a Libertarian caucusin the state house for the first time in twenty years.

Representative Brandon Phinney, who was elected in 2016 as a republican, said during his official announcement at todays press conference, that the republican party leadership has been chastising their legislators for not following the leaderships demands. Phinney said in his speech that he was stifled by party leadership and that he and the other liberty minded reps were labeled terrorists! He said, What I found was that both parties were seeking to manipulate the potential legislation and the legislative process for political gainI was not elected to do the bidding of a political party at the expense of my principles. He finished his speech by saying, Integrity and a clear conscience is desperately needed in the New Hampshire house and together with representatives Dyer and Stallcop, I believe that our cause will ignite a shift in political affiliation in this state.

Phinney was joined in speaking by the chairman of the national Libertarian Party, Nicholas Sarwark, who came up from their offices in DC to help commemorate the occasion. In his speech, Sarwark delivered an invitation to legislators, politicians, and others saying, if youre tired of living a lie, if youre tired of standing up for things you dont believe in, come out of the closet. Become a libertarian. Come home. It was Sarwarks first time visiting the Live Free or Die state. Heres the full press conference from this morning in Concord:

So, now the LPNH has three sitting state representatives in the NH state house, and this has all transpired within six months! Thats three more Libertarian state reps than the rest of the 49 states have, combined! If it seems like all this success came out of nowhere, youre right. Until September of last year, the LPNH was basically a dead organization until a couple of guys who moved to NH as part of the ongoing NH Freedom Migration, Darryl W Perry and Rodger Paxton got elected to chair and vice chair of the party and proceeded to breath new life into the organization.

Can the party maintain this amazing pace? How many more reps will flip before the next election in 2018? Thanks to the diligent research of hate group Granite State Progress we know there are approximately fifteen current sitting state reps who are Free State Project participants or friends, so there are many other potential Libertarian Party of NH converts still out there in the state house.

The national Libertarian Party has NEVER had the level of success in its over four decades in existence as the NH Freedom Migration has has in about a decade. We continue to prove that concentrating activism in one geographic area is a successful strategy, and todays announcement is yet another feather in our cap. Liberty is winning here, and we can have bigger and more impactful successes if you come join us. Here are 101 reasons why you should start planning your move to New Hampshire ASAP.

Read more:
Third Sitting New Hampshire State Rep Flips to Libertarian Party! - Free Keene

The full Libertarian Party UK 2017 Manifesto content can be read below, or download the PDF version (975kb) by clicking the front cover.

INTRODUCTION

This General Election is allegedly being fought on the interests of giving a clear majority to carry through Brexit. We believe that it is in fact a panic measure with the Conservatives facing a damaging rerun of up to 21 seats following Police Investigations into alleged electoral fraud in the 2015 General Election leading to a loss of the Conservative majority in Westminster.

From 1945 to 2006 there have been only been six petitions to overturn elections, in 2017 alone there could be five times that amount. This is not in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom. It shows a broken system that does not deliver Representative Parliamentary Democracy.

Labour is fighting on the basis of public sector privilege in the NHS and Trade Union power over our lives. It has very little else it can credibly fight a campaign on, especially having Jeremy Corbyn as its Leader.

The Liberal Democrats have cynically painted themselves as the only pro EU, Anti-Brexit Party. Thus showing they are neither Liberal nor Democratic in relation to the result of the Brexit referendum.

The Libertarian Party believes that the main issue that is not being addressed is that of the Constitution, we still need to have a Constitutional Convention and accept that the United Kingdom is rapidly heading for a de facto Federal Kingdom. People are grown up, they want more of a say, and referenda Swiss style should be the norm on both national and local issues, not the exception.

This included membership of the European Union, the final vote showing the political classes were completely out of touch with public sentiment. The Libertarian Party supported and campaigned for Brexit. As a Party we are confident that a new European settlement will be reached for Free Trade without the need for ever closer union.

It is time we moved from a Representative Democracy to a Direct Democracy where every vote matters. First past the post (FPTP) is no longer just or sane. All schools of political thought should be heard in Parliament.

Finally the D word has to be addressed our national debt of 1.4 Trillion has to be paid down, either through a specific Tax the Gordon Brown Tax or by a much reduced State.

Switzerland and other countries have in their Constitutions a prohibition on the State borrowing above a certain limit. We need to enshrine this into our Constitution and have it codified.

Adam Brown LPUK Party Leader

+++++

BALANCING THE STATE

The Libertarian Party is aware that for many people the State is an unfeeling, unresponsive animal. When things go wrong, its first instinct is to cover up. The NHS, HMRC and others are state institutions where state employees enjoy a virtually entrenched immunity from prosecution other than by the very rich. This has led to declining standards of civic behaviour.

The Libertarian Party is committed to:

Making Misconduct in Public Office a statutory criminal offence.

Compensation for those injured by the State.

Ensuring the State makes compensation to the individual by implementing the Law Commission Report 322 on Administrative Redress: Public Bodies and the Citizen.

Restoring the impeachment process for public servants that abuse their position including Ministers of State.

A recall system for MPs whose standard of behaviour brings Parliament into disrepute, by local referendum.

The Libertarian Party will establish local tribunals or Ombudsmen made up of lay citizens elected to the position, with a legal advisor to assist to ensure that complaints about public servants and public bodies are heard quickly. Each complaint is to be heard within six weeks before referring to a Judge to decide whether the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will be directed to prosecute on the citizens behalf.

The Libertarian Party is committed to a written Constitution that protects the individual against the State and to have the Magna Carta and other documents codified into a single Constitution. The rights sought from Magna Carta down to the 1951 European Declaration of Human Rights have been continually usurped.

The party takes as its model the Swiss Constitution of 1999.

A Constitutional Court would be established.

The Monarch under law would be the head of State, but subject to the Constitution.

Switzerland is a stable country with a devolution of power to its diverse cantons with different languages, religions and Cantonal Tax rates as our preferred model. England, alone out of the United Kingdom is disenfranchised amongst the home Nations, not having a Parliament of its own. The Libertarian Party is committed to an English Parliament not based in London.

There would be a Federal Parliament for the United Kingdom in that we would adopt either the traditional counties with multi seat constituencies with proportional voting as being the only rational way for the country to have representative government. Alternatively, the return of the 1,000 year old seven English Saxon kingdoms as the basis of public administration together with Ulster, Wales, Scotland and Kernow, emulating the German Lander or Swiss Cantons. Each would determine and have its own tax raising powers that will be devolved from Whitehall.

The House of Commons would be by popular election. The Libertarian Party would terminate the House of Lords as an anachronism that allows hereditary and unelected members along with the Clergy to influence public policy.

The Libertarian Party would immediately abolish the requirement for paying any deposit to the State to stand for any elected office. Democracy should be on the basis of ideas not cash.

Westminster would only deal with Defence and Foreign affairs. The House of Commons would be reduced to two hundred members and shall only sit from September to December each year, on the basis that the less time Parliament is sitting, the less interference in the life of the individual citizen. Exceptions would be made in a time of national emergency.

The Military and Police would swear allegiance to the Constitution.

No clergyman from whatever faith shall have the right to a seat unless elected. There will be a complete separation of Church and State.

All public honours and decorations other than proven military service shall be set aside. No public servant shall receive an honour as a matter of course for doing a job that they are already paid to do. The honours system has become a degraded and corrosive form of patronage.

The Libertarian Party would establish Commercial Tribunals with experienced business people sitting alongside specialist Commercial Judges to hear commercial disputes in the interest of speed of resolution and competence.

Disbarment from holding commercial Directorships will be removed from the Civil Service to such Tribunals.

DEFENCE THE ONLY LEGITIMATE ROLE OF THE STATE

The Libertarian Party follows the Jeffersonian line of Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

Following the Crimean War disaster in 1856, the British Army was overhauled by Edward Cardwell Secretary of State for War in 1868, determined on a programme of reform to overcome the incompetence and maladministration of our armed forces.

At a time when we have more admirals than ships and aircraft carriers with no supply of aircraft to land on them, together with there being more civil servants working in the MOD than full time soldiers there is a requirement for a Cardwell 2.

Our aim is to ensure a strong, independent, sovereign nation. This requires a well funded, trained and equipped professional Armed Forces (both full time and Reservist), geared for the defence of our nation and shipping, a policy to be called Armed Neutrality.

National Defence is one of the few legitimate reasons for the State to exist. This is different to mounting wars in support of other nations and invading other sovereign nations on the command of the Prime Minster exercising the Royal Prerogative.

Our Armed Forces need to be able to make an enemy think twice, so must have the ability to project force rapidly, globally and flexibly in focused ways, e.g. submarines, amphibious assault, Marines and Special Forces.

To protect supply lines and commercial shipping and fisheries from piracy and other interference will require a suitably sized fleet of corvettes, frigates and associated support craft.

Reformation of Volunteer Yeomanry on a county basis for 18 to 25 year olds wishing to enlist as part time soldiers with no requirement to serve overseas and to be paid. This based on the Swiss Militia system.

Maintain membership of NATO while in the National Interest.

Maintain strong ties with non-aggressive Commonwealth countries.

Any nuclear deterrent to be made truly independent, retained, maintained and eventually replaced in the foreseeable future.

The establishment of a separate military pension over and above the State pension for those that have served in the armed forces.

The establishment of separate military hospitals for those servicemen and ex-servicemen and their families.

The establishment of a living wage for the armed forces.

A programme of demolition of old housing and building of modern accommodation using the disposal of MOD assets.

This is to establish real substance to the Military Covenant which should be on the Statute Book.

Military Pensions by the State should be seen not as entitlements but as rewards for actual service, and to benefit dependants of those killed on active service.

IMMIGRATION

Our immigration policy will be points based whilst the State provided Welfare System exists. The core tenet is that there should be free movement of peoples. Anybody arriving in the country should have no expectation of being supported by the State, subsidised housing or any benefits of any kind.

The state will not issue any National Insurance (NI) numbers to anybody not born in this country, or has made not less than five years contribution in payments to an NI approved scheme.

Anybody granted a residency permit will be obliged to demonstrate that they have adequate medical insurance.

In parallel, we will establish bilateral agreements with countries to enable free flows of people.

Longer term, and in conjunction with the shrinking of our unsustainable current Welfare System, we are committed to pursuing an open borders policy towards those who would wish to come to the United Kingdom in order to contribute to our economy and share our values.

Totally free movement of people into the UK is not practical whilst we have a large welfare state and other countries are themselves not broadly Libertarian in nature.

A free flow notwithstanding, any Libertarian government will reserve the right to eject or refuse entry to foreign nationals convicted in a court of law as part of the Governments prime role in protecting the population and maintaining Rule of Law.

The UK shall have full control over its immigration policy, with any right of final appeal remaining within the UK jurisdiction.

Asylum Seekers must present at a UK border or at the British Embassy of a neighbouring country to their own, otherwise their claim shall not be accepted.

Those refusing to declare originating country and accept that the failure of their application will result in their return shall be denied entry, and any right to seek asylum will be refused outright without appeal.

Asylum seekers to be held air side while their case is heard as swiftly as possible, meaning weeks, not months or years. This shall not apply to children under the age of 15.

End automatic access to education and resources for any child who presents itself to the authorities, i.e. vouchers will not be available.

We believe any concept of a mass amnesty, actual or de facto forgiveness for illegal immigration undermines the Rule of Law and as such will not be entertained.

The policies above are strict but are drawn up in regard to those who approach the process lawfully and follow the rules, not those who try and bend the rules or bootstrap their way in.

Acceptance into the armed forces will be dealt with by the Ministry of Defence.

The Libertarian Party fully supports the CANZUK proposal, for a free trade zone including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom having shared legal and cultural heritage.

THE RULE OF LAW

Freedoms won for us by the blood of our ancestors have been seriously eroded over the decades, and this erosion is gaining speed and must be halted and reversed. It is a core responsibility of the State to enable the citizens to go safely about their lawful business without let or hindrance.

A central tenet of Libertarianism is that we are all equal before the Law from the mightiest to the poorest. This is the Rule of Law. The failure to hold former Prime Minister Tony Blair to account before a Court of Law undermines Law and accountability.

We have car insurance, we have life assurance, yet so few of us carry Legal insurance. Going to Law to protect an interest or to defend yourself is frustrating and seriously injurious to your wealth.

The Libertarian Party will advocate an insurance scheme to balance out the individual against the State or the wealthy abusing the legal system.

County prosecutors elected at the same time as MPs will defend the individual or prosecute the powerful and the State on behalf of the individual, paid for by this insurance scheme.

Unenforceable Law is bad Law, the Libertarian Party will advocate that after thirty years each Law on the statute book is reviewed and has a sunset on its provisions.

Law that is clearly not understood by the Layman is bad law. It should not need a thousand pages of Civil Procedure Rules to enable any citizen to obtain both Justice and redress.

The Libertarian Party wants less Law and regulation, replacing it with enforceable Laws. This is on the basis that which is not proscribed is free to do, rather than the State giving freedom or licence to carry out an activity.

The Libertarian Party will reaffirm the Nine Peelian Principles:

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.

3. Police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observation of the Law.

4. The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force.

5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.

7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Police Chief Constables to be locally elected, and given a greater amount of autonomy.

Drastically simplify and reform Police/CPS targets, now the remit of the Chief Constable, and to remove the desire to prosecute innocent parties.

A reduction in paperwork to enable more beat officers to remain on patrol for as long as possible.

We will undertake a review of the Police Community Support Officers (PCSO) concept, with the potential to recruit those capable in to the main police force, and to disband the remainder.

Limit retention of DNA only in the event of a conviction, and to discard after that conviction is spent.

Futhermore:

Disorder to be handled via the courts, not on-the-spot fines, which we believe are unconstitutional as laid out in the 1689 Bill of Rights.

Original post:
Manifesto 2017 | Libertarian Party UK