Archive for the ‘Libertarian’ Category

Father of the Free State Project sees good news despite losing … – The Boston Globe

I dont want less regulation. I dont want more regulation. I want smarter regulation, he told voters during a candidates forum.

Get N.H. Morning Report

A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox.

Sorens captured 1,110 votes on March 28, but it wasnt nearly enough. The two incumbents, Arnie Rosenblatt and Thomas Quinn, sailed to reelection with 1,954 votes and 2,283 votes respectively.

Some have celebrated Sorens defeat as a sign that voters are paying attention and rejecting a brand of hardcore libertarianism that has led many in New Hampshire to view Free Staters with a sense of weary wariness. That may be true. But theres another layer to this story thats easy to overlook.

Sorens didnt campaign on a radical agenda to scrap Amhersts zoning rules, nor did he conceal his identity or his libertarian views. Rather, he made a meticulous case for his candidacy, publicly explained his rationale for supporting certain measures and opposing others, and built a notably broad coalition along the way.

Planning and zoning issues cut across ideological divides, Sorens told the Globe. In my housing work, Ive spoken to receptive audiences from all over the political map.

Reforming land-use regulation at the local level may help alleviate New Hampshires critical housing shortage, but over the past few years, Amherst has grown more restrictive toward new development, Sorens said. Thats what spurred him to get involved, to show the planning board that the townspeople arent on board with a dont-build-anything approach.

Our town doesnt need to squelch housing further; if anything, we need a broader range of housing options for young people, retirees, and essential workers or were going to strangle ourselves, he said.

His website touted support from past colleagues and a variety of locals, including former Amherst Planning Board member Marilyn Eisenberg Peterman, who said she concluded the Free Stater issue would be irrelevant to this office.

I believe that Jason will bring some sanity back to planning and zoning, she wrote.

Sorens found common cause with conservatives and progressives alike by campaigning against what he sees as a form of NIMBY-ism stifling his communitys potential. It earned him a resounding endorsement from Cornerstone, a conservative Christian advocacy group that praised his pro-family approach.

Im not surprised that Sorens is getting support from across the political spectrum, Cornerstone executive director Shannon McGinley told the Globe. When it comes to housing policy, the division between pro-family and anti-family does not exactly map on to the traditional left-right political divide. There are a few Democrats who do want to make New Hampshire an attractive place to raise children, and there are certainly some Republicans who dont want any families with children living in their town.

When it comes to housing policy, the division between pro-family and anti-family does not exactly map on to the traditional left-right political divide.

Kathleen Cavalaro, a progressive Democrat from Rochester, is no fan of the Free State Projects current leadership or the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire in its current form. But she has urged Democrats to consider collaborating with principled old party libertarians on shared priorities. To that end, she called on Democrats in Amherst to help Sorens win.

In my opinion, Democrats need to be working with anyone who is good on housing policy, but we have the Free State blinders in our eyes, Cavalaro told the Globe.

But the alarm bells kept blaring for voters like Jack Child, an recently retired Amherst resident who stood by the entrance of Souhegan High School on March 28 to hold a sign in support of reelecting Rosenblatt and Quinn. Child, a veteran who co-founded Veterans Service Brands after retiring as an airline captain, said it was his first time electioneering outside a polling place. He was motivated, he said, by his town being targeted by the Free State Project.

Without delving into the policy weeds, Child hinted at the stakes: I chose Amherst because of its rural character, he said. Id like for us to try to preserve that.

His sentiment is shared widely in the town of nearly 12,000 people, where 82 percent of residents listed rural character as among their high priorities in a 2021 survey about what the town should consider in updating its master plan. The survey also found that 71 percent of residents listed limit residential density as a high priority.

Sorens faulted the current planning board majority for seemingly arbitrary decisions that resulted in the town losing three court cases in less than two years.

Rosenblatt, who has been on the board for about 25 years and who has served as its chairman, said the board is committed to an even-handed application of the law.

Theres going to be development in Amherst, and legally were going to be consistent with whatever regulatory and statutory structure we have, he said.

Rosenblatt said the board is doing its job when it scrutinizes applications for new development in town and weighs competing interests. Its not accurate to suggest the board members are a bunch of NIMBYs who aim to thwart development, he said.

On the one hand, I love Amherst the way it is. On the other hand, I fully recognize that theres a need for housing. I recognize that people have rights as landowners. And we need to reconcile the two. And its not always that easy, he said. But its also not right to make it simplistic and say that someone is just dismissing something out of hand.

Rosenblatt said he views Sorens as a nice guy, but he appears to be more sympathetic towards more intensive development than I probably am comfortable with.

Given the widespread support for preserving the towns rural character, perhaps it should come as no surprise that the March 28 ballot included several warrant articles that supporters said would guard against unchecked growth, minimize the burden on schools and public safety systems, and ease impacts on wildlife habitats and water resources.

One of the proposed zoning ordinance changes, Article 52, sought to prevent unsightly development by tightening restrictions for building on lots along Amhersts scenic roads. The minimum frontage for a lot along such roads would increase from 200 feet to 300 feet.

That change would threaten to upend the retirement plans of Richard Rick OLoughlin and Deborah Rock, who live in a nearly 3,300-square-foot home on one of Amhersts scenic roads.

OLoughlin and Rock said they bought 2.3 acres of land adjacent to their current property. Their plan is to build a single-story, senior-friendly house on the new lot, so they can downsize, sell their current place, and settle into retirement. But the new lot has only about 260 feet of frontage. So they worry Article 52 could render their land undevelopable, potentially reducing its value by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The town is taking away our land rights, and we have to continue to pay taxes on them, so other people can drive by and say, Oh, isnt that pretty, OLoughlin said. Its unfair. Its unjust.

Despite their disagreement on other matters, both Rosenblatt and Sorens expressed opposition to Article 52. But a narrow majority of voters cast their ballots in favor of the proposal anyway.

Ordinarily, that simple majority would be enough to enact the change; however, its fate remains undetermined because of a provision of state law that allows landowners to protest proposed changes to local zoning ordinances.

A protest petition against Article 52 was filed with the town prior to the March 28 vote. If it succeeds, then the approval threshold would rise from a simple majority of votes cast to a two-thirds majority. That would defeat the proposal.

The whole protest petition process is so technical that town administrator Dean Shankle said Amherst had to get help from an expert in geographic information systems to determine whether the petition has enough signatures from the right landowners. That process is ongoing.

Shankle said he has worked in town government in New Hampshire for 35 years, and this is the first time hes encountered a protest petition. As if that werent complicated enough, the petition against Article 52 is one of five protest petitions that Amherst is dealing with, he said.

Its unclear how long it will take for Amherst officials to determine conclusively whether the contested warrant articles passed or failed, but Sorens signaled optimism that the protest petitions would prevail.

The good news, Sorens wrote in a tweet after acknowledging his loss, is that if all protest petitions are certified, every single exclusionary measure on the ballot will have been defeated!

Sorens said he wasnt personally involved in collecting signatures for the protest petitions. A local group hes been working with wasnt involved either, though members may have acted individually to support the protest petitions, he said.

His post-election message was consistent with what he said prior to the votes being tallied. While he stood outside the polls and chatted with voters about the intricacies of Amhersts zoning proposals, Sorens told the Globe that he saw multiple paths to success: he could perform well as a candidate, or voters could defeat the ill-conceived proposals. Either way, that would send a message, he said, that the town needs to take a more reasonable approach to planning and growth.

This article has been updated with additional information about an Amherst resident at the polling location.

Steven Porter can be reached at steven.porter@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @reporterporter.

Continued here:
Father of the Free State Project sees good news despite losing ... - The Boston Globe

Indictment a gift and a lift | News, Sports, Jobs – Williamsport Sun-Gazette

I would personally like to thank Alvin Bragg, the George Soros-funded New York County District Attorney, for his ill-advised decision to pursue charging Donald Trump.

This tactic straight out of the Communist Manifesto playbook will quickly and severely boomerang on him and the Democratic Party by now awakening a group of sleeping Republican, Independent, Libertarian and possibly Democratic voters to what is really taking place not only in New York City but across our country.

It is comical to me that the leftist complicit media continues reporting this as a hush money case, as though paying hush money were a crime. It is not a crime. People and companies frequently pay others to not speak openly or to not file suit over a matter. It is better known as a non-disclosure agreement or a settlement. It is not an admission of guilt. It is typically a matter of practicality where it becomes cheaper to pay someone than fight it out in court or deal with the embarrassment of their allegation, whether true or not. Regardless of what spin Politico or fact checkers try to put on it, Bill Clintons payment of $850,000 to Paula Jones to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit was the identical type of scenario. The leftists claim that Clintons payment wasnt hush money because Clintons philandering with Jones was already made widely known is irrelevant because again, paying hush money isnt a crime. Clinton never admitted guilt, but paid Jones to go away, be quiet and not pursue her lawsuit.

In any case, while hush money itself is not illegal, payments made so that people do not report a crime or testify of a crime, payments that violate campaign finance laws, and lying under oath about such things are crimes. The alleged $130,000 payment by Donald Trump has already been investigated as a possible criminal act on two occasions by two separate governmental law enforcement agencies. Both investigations determined the matter lacked the elements and merits needed to constitute a crime and therefore to prosecute. So now Mr. Bragg, and ultimately George Soros and their elite globalist friends, will pay a very high price over these baseless charges just to gain their momentary MAGA-hating orgy of a Donald Trump perp walk or fingerprinting or mug shot or possibly, the coup de grace, a handcuffing photo op!

Even if Bragg is betting a New York City jury might convict Donald Trump, he will ultimately be exonerated on appeal to the first legitimate court his case reaches. And when the exoneration of Donald Trump comes, whether early or late in the process, it will be the exact catapult he and the Republican Party have been waiting for. Thank you Alvin Bragg for busying yourself, your staff and your precious NYC resources with this case instead of focusing upon the skyrocketing rate of violent crime in your once lovely, now-turned-cesspool city. Please receive this as a high-five from all Republicans for being the political wind beneath our wings! Its just the gift and the lift our party needed!

Donald Peters currently serves as the Chairman of the Lycoming County Republican Committee, a group of 80 elected and appointed volunteers from various communities throughout Lycoming County. Peters has been a Lycoming County resident for 27 years.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

View original post here:
Indictment a gift and a lift | News, Sports, Jobs - Williamsport Sun-Gazette

David Seymour: What free speech really is – New Zealand Herald

Shaneel Lal counter-protesting at Posie Parker's event in Albert Park on March 25. Photo / Dean Purcell

OPINION:

Shaneel Lals column provides a wonderful chance to talk about what free speech is and isnt.

There is the high school libertarian version - you can say anything to anyone at any time, and anyone who disagrees is a cry baby. But thats not a realistic model that any serious person believes in 2023.

In the world we live today, there are a web of rules that even hardcore free-speech advocates like me respect. What they have in common is that they can be fairly applied to all, in accordance with the rule of law.

The Crimes Act has several prohibitions on free speech. You cant directly incite another person to commit a crime. You can say the rich have had it too good too long. You cannot say to an excited mob go and burn down that big house to teach the rich a lesson. Nor can you threaten a person with a crime. You cannot blackmail someone, nor can you be a criminal nuisance (the classic yelling fire in a crowded theatre).

Those restrictions bind us all, but there are others you can voluntarily enter. If you work for a high-tech firm, you have probably signed a non-disclosure agreement, promising you wont tell anyone the firms secrets. If you are sworn into Parliament, you agree to a set of rules called the Standing Orders that govern what you can and cant say in certain circumstances.

If you become a Cabinet Minister youre bound by the Cabinet Manual which includes things like exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional.

So why did ACT and many others spend years successfully fighting against so-called hate speech laws, if we accept all the above restrictions? Why did Labour ultimately decide not to introduce more restrictions on speech, after being gung ho?

In a word, subjectivity. All the above restrictions are matters of fact, or private contract. You can tell if youve done wrong by reading the law, and it applies to all equally.

Hate speech laws abandoned by Labour would have made it a crime to intentionally incite/stir up, maintain or normalise hatred through threatening, abusive or insulting communications, including inciting violence. How could a person accused defend themselves? How do you prove that you didnt intend to stir up hatred using insulting language?

As the Royal Commission on the Christchurch mosque attacks said, The difference between legally criminalised hate speech and the vigorous exercise of the right to express opinions is not easy to capture in legislative language.

When challenged to define hate speech on television, then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said you know it when you see it. Not really the kind of legal precision youd want when defending yourself against jail time.

Usually the point of the law is you know what actions would break it and can defend yourself if accused. As historian Paul Moon has said, hate speech laws are so subjective the accused wont know if theyre guilty until the point of conviction.

ACT opposed hate speech laws because they are subjective. They are inconsistent with the rule of law in a way that other restrictions are not. They would be applied more often against the politically unpopular, meaning law enforcement became opinion enforcement.

Lal says I, hypocritically, only object to free speech when my feelings are hurt, or I disagree. All the examples they cite are of legitimate restrictions on speech that Ive always supported.

Rawiri Waititi should apologise for threatening to poison me (threats). I blocked Golriz Gharamans attempt to speak in Parliament after she repeatedly interrupted mine. If you want the privilege of speaking in Parliament, you must grant it to others (standing orders).

Tusiata Avia performed a poem where she suggested Captain Cook, and white men like him should be hunted down and stabbed with pig knives (incitement).

The Prime Minster should sack Marama Davidson for breaching the Cabinet Manual she signed up to and for being an ineffective minister as Ive said (Cabinet Manual).

Far from having my feelings hurt by Jacinda calling me an arrogant prick, I accepted her apology and proposed we auction the Hansard, raising $100,100 for the Prostate Cancer Foundation, supporting pricks everywhere!

As a matter of fact Ardern texted her apology after I raised a point of order. But my raising it also meant it would be written down in Hansard and later auctioned (standing orders again)!

I could go on but, suffice to say, free speech matters, it is the foundation of a free society, alongside the rule of law it depends on. If you believe in free speech, understanding its lawful limits is as important as defending it against unlawful erosion.

See the original post:
David Seymour: What free speech really is - New Zealand Herald

New Zealand’s central bank hikes key interest rate to 5.25% – ABC News

New Zealands central bank surprised economists on Wednesday by imposing an aggressive half-point rate rise to bring its benchmark interest rate to 5.25%

By

NICK PERRY Associated Press

April 4, 2023, 11:43 PM ET

3 min read

WELLINGTON, New Zealand -- New Zealand's central bank surprised economists on Wednesday by imposing an aggressive half-point rate rise to bring its benchmark interest rate to 5.25%.

It was the Reserve Bank of New Zealand's 11th straight rate hike as it tries to cool inflation, which is running at 7.2%, far above the bank's target level of around 2%.

It brings the key rate to its highest level since the Global Financial Crisis in 2008.

New Zealand's benchmark rate is now among the highest in the developed world, and the bank's aggressive action stood in contrast to Australia's central bank, which on Tuesday decided to pause its round of rate hikes and leave its benchmark rate at 3.6%.

Most economists had expected the Reserve Bank of New Zealand to impose a more modest quarter-point rise after the nation's economy contracted in the December quarter and a destructive cyclone hit in February, killing 11 people and causing billions of dollars in damage to homes and infrastructure.

The currency rose on the announcement, with 1 New Zealand dollar trading at about U.S.$0.64.

The increase can raise the borrowing costs for consumers on everything from credit cards to mortgages.

The Reserve Bank's Monetary Policy Committee said in a statement that inflation remained too high and too persistent while employment was beyond its maximum sustainable level, with the unemployment rate at a low 3.4%.

The committee acknowledged that economic activity in the December quarter was lower than it anticipated.

However, demand continues to significantly outpace the economys supply capacity, thereby maintaining pressure on annual inflation," it said.

The committee said the recent severe weather had led to higher prices for some goods and services, increasing the risk that inflation expectations would remain too high.

It said that over the medium term, it expects economic activity to get a boost from the Cyclone Gabrielle rebuild.

New Zealands economic growth is expected to slow through 2023, given the slowing global economy, reduced residential building activity, and the ongoing effects of the monetary policy tightening to date, the committee said. This slowdown in spending growth is necessary to return inflation to target over the medium-term.

The rate rise caused concern among lawmakers across the political spectrum.

Mortgages are just one aspect of the economic pain that is coming," said David Seymour, leader of the libertarian ACT Party. Something has to break if the Reserve Bank continues with these hikes and the next thing will be job losses.

View original post here:
New Zealand's central bank hikes key interest rate to 5.25% - ABC News

Former governor candidate gets 4 years in prison for threatening … – Shaw Local

A man who ran for Illinois governor in 2018 was sentenced to four years in prison on charges stemming from threatening two Lake County judges.

Grayson K. Jackson, also known as Kash Jackson and Benjamin Winderweedle, 44, threatened to kill the two judges who presided over an ongoing civil case Jackson was party to during a call in October 2021 to the Lake County Sheriffs Court Security Office, officials said.

Grayson Jackson (Daily Herald Media Group)

The case was prosecuted in DuPage County at the request of Lake County officials to avoid a conflict of interest.

On Thursday afternoon, a DuPage County judge accepted a plea deal negotiated between Jacksons attorney and DuPage prosecutors. The deal called for Jackson to plead guilty to two counts of threatening a public official, a class 3 felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Both sides agreed for Jackson to serve two 4-year terms in prison, one for each count, according to Paul Darrah, a spokesman for the DuPage County States Attorneys Office.

Both sentences will be served concurrently. If Jackson exhibits good behavior while in prison, he will be eligible to serve 50% of his sentence. Jackson also will receive credit for the 479 days he served in Lake County jail while the case was pending, Darrah said.

Four counts of intimidation were dropped, according to court records.

Jackson was taken into custody at his home in Arkansas days after he made the threats and was extradited to Lake County jail.

Jackson, a retired U.S. Navy officer then living in Antioch, ran for governor on the Libertarian Party ticket in 2018 and lost in the general election.

Former governor candidate gets 4 years in prison for threatening Lake County judges

Continued here:
Former governor candidate gets 4 years in prison for threatening ... - Shaw Local