Archive for the ‘Libertarian’ Category

Know the Candidates: August 2 Primary Election – KRSL

Local

Written By: David Elliott Published Date: 07-25-2022

There are three locally contested races in the August 2 Primary Election in Russell County.

Incumbent Republican Troy Waymaster will face Republican Noah Erichsen for the Kansas House of Representatives District 109 seat, which includes Russell County. There is no Democrat in the race, but Libertarian Peter Solie is running in the November General Election.

Republican Aaron Steinert will face Republican Crystal Miner for District Magistrate Judge District 20 Position 3. The position is currently held by Democrat Andrea Cross. She is running for reelection and unopposed in the Primary.

And incumbent Republican Steve Reinhardt will face Republican Dean Haselhorst for Russell County Commissioner District 1. There is no Democrat running, so the winner of the Primary will be unopposed in November's General Election.

KRSL News reached out to each of the candidates in these contested races and requested they each fill out a questionnaire with responses to basic questions about them, why they're running and their goals if elected.

Read their responses below:

Kansas House of Representatives District 109:

District Magistrate Judge District 20 Position 3:

Russell County Commissioner District 1:

Go here to see the original:
Know the Candidates: August 2 Primary Election - KRSL

Opinion: Why One OMP Resident Will Be Voting No on the PDR Renewal – Old Mission Gazette

(Editors Note: Lou Santucci says he will not be voting for the renewal of the PDR program on the August 2 ballot. Read on for his reasons why, and click here for a primer on the program what it is, how it works, how it began, and its impact on OMP farmers and residents. -jb)

The PDR program is up for renewal, and I will vote not to renew it.

The first reason is I am against any new tax on my property. The PDR program will assess every property owner at two dollars per thousand dollars of valuation. Thanks to the Michigan limit on increases in real estate values from year to year, my property valuation is currently under $200,000. I have calculated that I would pay about an additional $250 a year until 2041 if the program is adopted. Thats $5000 in additional taxes.

Everyone should take out their tax bill and calculate what additional taxes you will pay each year until 2041.Some of the yes vote material is misleading in that it talks about only a few dollars a month in additional taxes. You need to know that is over what you were paying under the old program. Its more than a few dollars.

I would hazard a guess that you will be surprised when you calculate it, especially if you bought a house in the last couple of years. That is on top of what you have paid over the years. For those who support this program, I suggest that the program should be voluntary and if you want to contribute to it, fine, do so. But I do not like the idea that other people will vote to tax me. It goes against my libertarian political nature.

Another reason I am against it is because it contains a slush fund provision, and frankly, I do not trust the Township officials with a slush fund. Will they use it for defending other lawsuits? Will they use it to vote themselves raises like they recently did? Who knows its there to play with.

Currently the PDR ordinance allows a person selling their development rights to then sell the property for agricultural uses. Will that always be the case? Who knows? Will the Township put further restrictions on what they consider agricultural uses? If not, why didnt they put a provision in there to say no further restrictions will be enacted during the life of the program?

Also, there has been talk of allowing public access to your land if you sell your development rights. Again, why wasnt a provision added to ensure that never happens?

Plenty of land has already been protected using our money to do so. Do we need more? I would like to see some modest expansion of available commercial space out here and allowance for multi-family and low- to middle-income housing. Why shouldnt we have a diversified housing base out here? Why shouldnt our fire personnel and other workers have affordable housing offerings here?

The PDR program takes away such possibilities. Must we perpetuate a community of mostly well off wealthy people? Lets open those invisible gates to others.

Vote No on the upcoming PDR renewal vote.

Also Read

Old Mission Gazette is a reader-supported newspaper, and we need your ongoing support to keep delivering OMP news, history, photos, events and more. Owners Tim and Jane Boursaw are devoted to the Old Mission Peninsula community, and every contribution, big or small, is valuable. Click HERE to support Old Mission Gazette. Thank you!

Originally posted here:
Opinion: Why One OMP Resident Will Be Voting No on the PDR Renewal - Old Mission Gazette

What is a Libertarian? Beliefs & Examples | Study.com

Libertarian Theory

Libertarians believe in the governing and economic concepts of individualism, spontaneous order, rule of law, and limited government.

Most Libertarians tend to believe in conservativism on economic issues. They believe strongly in free-market capitalism, deregulation of business through laissez-faire practices, and any other liberty that a business enterprise can enjoy. Libertarians are against the current progressive income-tax system and support a revamp of the entire system. They will also more closely align with conservatives when it comes to limited government involvement, not just in business but also in state or local matters.

Libertarians base their economic leanings on the spontaneous order concept. They argue that society will experience the most efficient economic model through self-interest and self-preservation. Businesses and individuals overtime will naturally find the most useful ways to combine resources to be both profitable and efficient.

When it comes to enforcing laws and the legal system, Libertarians want the government restricted to its proper place as defined in the Constitution. Libertarians continue to stress limited government but with a strong sense of rule of law, which means no person or entity is above the law. Libertarians believe that rule of law, under the guidance of the Constitution, is the supreme law of the land in the United States and all else falls inferior to that.

On the left-leaning side of the spectrum, Libertarians are against almost all forms of government involvement in private or family matters. They strongly believe and will advocate for individual rights. Libertarian social stances include decriminalizing marijuana, having no authority or regulation on abortions, and promoting a strong defense of individualism. This usually means that a person has strong authority over themselves and is not centrally controlled by another entity like a government. They also agree with more liberal policies for a clear separation of church and state.

On foreign policy and military matters, Libertarians are typically more conservative. They believe the military should be only used to secure national borders or defend against domestic threats. Libertarians usually oppose most wars and the foreign relations the U.S. has been involved in.

Regardless of the political spectrum, which the Libertarian Party will argue they do not belong on either the left or the right side, their main principles are:

The Libertarian Party is most well known for its specific pro-business or business-friendly policies. Libertarians believe that businesses owners best operate in a mostly free enterprise economic system. Libertarians often take the position that the more freedom businesses are able to enjoy, the more beneficial they can be towards society creating goods and services.

The party pushes for deregulation of business through laissez-faire practices and any other liberty that a business enterprise can enjoy. Libertarian proponents will argue that if the government stays in its constitutional sphere of influence and does not interfere with business operations through regulation or taxes, the economy will prosper.

In economic terms, this makes the whole of the laissez-faire argument align with supply-side economic policy. This means that the government would be cutting taxes, deregulating businesses as well as making financing easier to come by so that business can increase their production.

Though the modern Libertarian Party was founded in the early 1970s, its roots trace back to key political figures in Europe and the US founding fathers. In the 18th century, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke constructed "libertarian" ideals in Europe through their works. Thomas Hobbes wrote the Social Contract Theory which directly represents the base of the Libertarian "Spontaneous Order" belief. John Locke wrote the Treatise of Government that primarily discussed that the whole purpose of government is to protect the natural rights of its citizens, which is the foundation of the Libertarian movement. People like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Thomas Paine all wrote and debated the purpose of government and how a limited government that protects the rights of its citizens would be the best foundation of the new nation of the United States.

The Libertarian Party was founded and became official in 1971 and had its first national convention in 1972. The party quickly became the 3rd most popular political party in the U.S. because of the growing neo-libertarian movement brought on by the resentment of government in the post-Vietnam timeline, as well as the district of government following the Nixon Administration era. By 1980, they were able to place a candidate on the ballots in all 50 states.

Today, the Libertarian Party has representation in all 50 states and supports candidates in elections ranging from local officials all the way to candidates for Presidential Office. The party is also heavily involved in high school and college campuses nationwide. There are multiple private organizations that are associated with the Libertarian Party that help with fundraising, election or poll working, membership, and advertising.

Some of these organizations include:

The official symbol of the Libertarian Party is the Statue of Liberty however a lot of organizations associated with the party utilize the hedgehog as the unofficial mascot symbol. The hedgehog animal is a defensive animal that does not bother anyone but will act in an aggressive way when provoked.

Although no Libertarian candidate has won the Presidential election or a Governorship, they have seen some limited success in local and other state-wide elections. Some candidates have made switches to other parties for better exposure and success. Most Libertarians have switched to the Republican party, but a few have changed over to the Democratic Party when they needed more national or state recognition.

Libertarian Presidential Candidates have never earned an electoral college vote (270 total electoral votes to win Presidency) but they have secured hundreds of thousands to millions of the popular vote across the U.S. This has greatly impacted close elections on the national stage.

With the growing partisanship in modern-day politics, third parties like Libertarians have been gaining a sizeable following and influence in national politics. Several members from other political parties even show tendencies to align more with Libertarians to gain their support in elections or on important pieces of policy.

Some of the more well known "Libertarian Friendly" politicians are:

President Donald Trump (R) was able to gain a following from some Libertarian voters during the 2016 and 2020 campaigns by appealing to "hands-off Government" policies that Libertarians support.

In recent state-wide campaigns, discontented Democratic and Republican voters are starting to show more support for independent third-parties and will start to vote or align themselves more with Libertarian causes.

With more and more American citizens discouraged by the two-party system, many are looking to find a "new home" with the Libertarian cause. The Libertarian Party has seen more involvement with their movement and is seen at the forefront of some of these key national hot topics in the U.S. :

Examples of Libertarian stances on more conservative, or right-leaning, economic issues:

Examples of Libertarian stances on more liberal, or left-leaning, social issues:

Libertarians face constant criticism from the general population but also from Democrat and Republican officials. Since the platform is strongly opinionated on hot-topic issues, they often receive many negative comments towards their officials or policies.

For example, critics would argue that the belief in a deregulated economy, markets, and businesses free of government involvement, could abuse the nation's resources or does not necessarily create efficient economic opportunities for all citizens.

Opponents against the Libertarian Party have even cited that there are no historical or modern examples of a nation being successfully lead by majority libertarian policies. Opposition towards the platform also debates that the concept of Libertarianism is borderline neo-anarchism where, if there is not enough government involvement, it could lead to a collapse of a nation.

The U.S. political system is still dominated by the two major parties, Republican and Democrat, but independent third parties like Liberatairians play a key role in local, state, and national elections and policy influence.

The modern Libertarian Party was founded in the 1970s but has historical influence from European politicians like John Locke and Adam Smith. Founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Thomas Paine all played an important role in establishing a base of beliefs for the modern Libertarian movement.

Multiple organizations support and associate themselves with the Libertarian Party from various sectors like education advocates, business groups, religious organizations, other political parties, and more. The party and movement have gained small success in local, state, and national elections.

Libertarians usually align themselves with conservatives when it comes to economic or financial issues. They usually support more liberal stances when it comes to individual liberties, civil rights, family, or private matters. When it comes to foreign policy, the platform takes more of a pacifist isolation stance.

Modern politicians, even if they are not Libertarian party members, try to appeal more to Libertarians because of the growing popularity in the party's platform.

Libertarians have faced strong criticism, mostly concerning their stance on the lack of government regulation. Critics argue this would only encourage anarchism and a failed government would lead to a dissolved nation and a collapsed society.

Because of their strong beliefs about personal freedoms, Libertarian platforms tend to focus heavily on business and free trade. For example, in the United States, business and economic trade is heavily monitored and regulated by the government to ensure that it's fair and safe. Libertarians might claim that this governmental involvement restricts a person's right to make a living however they choose and would advocate for no governmental restrictions.

Rather than support the government's role in economic trade and commerce, Libertarians tend to encourage an open and unregulated system in which people are free to conduct their business as they see fit. This type of economic system is what is known as laissez-faire capitalism.

Unlike other political belief systems, like Republican and Democratic, it can be difficult to pinpoint where Libertarianism started and how it evolved. This is because Libertarianism isn't really a political affiliation; it's more of a personal philosophy that strongly influences a person's political views.

For example, Libertarian thought can be traced back to 18th century Europe, during a time in which many people began to advocate for smaller governments and increased personal freedoms. These 'free thinkers,' as they're known, placed considerable importance on personal autonomy, which emphasized an individual's right to make decisions for themselves and act on their own behalf.

In the United States, Libertarianism grew out of the Neoliberal movement during the 1970s. Like Libertarians, Neoliberals wanted a more open and unrestricted form of commerce and society that was free from governmental interference.

The Libertarians became an official U.S. political party in 1971, in an effort to challenge American policies on issues like the Vietnam War and economic depression. For more than 40 years, the Libertarian party has run in elections on a platform that opposes foreign intervention, advocates free trade, and encourages limiting governmental powers.

As you might imagine, such strong opinions and beliefs about politics and society are not without their critics. The most common criticism of Libertarianism is its focus on the individual. The right to do whatever you want, whenever you want may sound good in theory, but nations are made up of different people who need to compromise in order to make it work. In light of this, there are no examples of a Libertarian nation anywhere in the world.

Another common criticism of Libertarianism is their perspective on substantially reduced government. Once again, in theory, getting rid of restrictions and governmental involvement may sound like a good thing, but it has substantial downsides. For example, imagine what would happen if the government eliminated the Department of Education. This would save federal money and reduce governmental involvement in private life, but it would dramatically affect the number of people that could go to college in the United States by eliminating federally subsidized student loans.

Though some critics will admit that Libertarian beliefs and perspectives are not entirely invalid, it's widely believed that these theories don't work in the context of a functioning society, and would likely lead to much larger earning gaps, social inequality, and so on.

In theory, the perspectives and beliefs of Libertarianism may sound reasonable, or even enticing. After all, personal freedom, autonomy, and the right live your life the way that you see fit are admirable goals. From the critics' perspective, however, limiting the government and engaging in laissez-faire capitalism would have a harmful effect on society, and perhaps even worsen the problems that Libertarianism hopes to solve.

See original here:
What is a Libertarian? Beliefs & Examples | Study.com

5 things the Libertarian Party stands for | The Hill

Billionaire reality TV star Mark Cuban was asked last Sunday if he would run for president as a Libertarian. And like a majority of Americans, he admitted he didnt really know where the party stands on issues.

Thanks to how unpopular the likely Democratic and Republican nominees are, top Libertarians hope that the increased focus on their party as an alternative will help shed light on the Libertarian message.

{mosads}But many Americans remain in the darka 2014 Pew Research survey also showed that 44 percent of Americans didnt know the correct definition of the party. So the challenge the party faces as it holds its national convention this weekend is familiarizing Americans with its platform.

Here are five major pieces of the Libertarian Party platform, as well as some issues its platform committee on Saturday is looking to change for this year:

Individual freedom

The idea of individual freedom defines the libertarian movementits the party of limited government, in all forms.

We are the only political party that stands for your right to pursue happiness in any way you choose as long as you dont hurt anyone else and as long as you dont take their stuff, party chairman Nicholas Sarwark told The Hill.

This year, the partys platform committee is looking to highlight how that differs with the two main parties with a new addition to the platform preamble: Our aim is to keep the Republicans out of your bedroom and the Democrats out of your pockets, so that you can make your own choices and live your life as you choose.

That push for individual freedom colors the views of the party on just about every issueincluding drug legalization, free trade, and free-market health care, as well as the elimination of campaign finance and gun control laws.

Social liberals

The push for individual freedom puts libertarians toward the left side of the political spectrum on many of the major social issues.

The 2014 platform argues that government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships, adding that consenting adults should have freedom to chose what makes them happy.

The same goes for drug legalizationthe party considers drug use and possession as victimless crimes that should be fair game unless the user hurts someone else in the process.

The platform does not currently address the death penalty, but the platform committee has proposed an indefinite suspension of the practice, noting the number of exonerations since 1973 and the disproportional use of the death penalty based on race.

Economic conservatives

Libertarians have faith in the free market and believe that theres little the government can do to pressure businesses or individuals that would be better than the power of the Invisible Hand.

That means unrestricted competition among financial institutions as well as the elimination of the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security and income taxes.

The main argument is that social pressure and the free market will convince individuals and companies to donate to charity to help the less fortunate replacing the need for the government-run social safety-net or make business decisions to protect the environment in the hopes of being rewarded by the market for those efforts.

And in the free market, companies live and die without the help of the government, so no bailouts.

But that doesnt mean taking the government entirely out of the equationthe platform committee has proposed clarifying that victims of a companys disregard for the environment should be given restitution when damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law.

Abortion

Despite the socially liberal bent, this is an issue where libertarians disagree.

The 2014 platform echoed an effectively pro-abortion rights position, arguing government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

But this year, a potentially contentious change recommended by the partys platform committee includes a complete retool of that platform, shifting the rhetoric back toward the center.

If adopted, the plank will declare that Libertarians believe that taxpayers should not forced to pay for other peoples abortions. Thats a dramatic shift from the previous assertion that the issue should be left solely to the individual.

A proposal would add to that new wording that Libertarians respectfully disagree on abortion and where life begins, while another proposal would simply note that Libertarians along the spectrum present logical arguments in support of their principled positions on abortion.

A fourth proposal by the platform committee calls to eliminate regulations on over-the-counter contraceptives to help prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Non-interventionist foreign policy

Libertarians want America to abandon its attempts to act as a policeman for a world, and its platform on defense reads like a criticism of Americas foreign policy direction. The partys goal is to maintain a military devoted only to national defense, while shutting down foreign military and economic aid.

Along with that de-emphasis on the offensive, the platform repudiates the tradeoff between liberty and security by declaring that national defense must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens.

That means vigilant oversight on national security programs to ensure no rights are infringed upon as well as getting rid of any security classification that could keep information out of the hands of the public.

See the original post:
5 things the Libertarian Party stands for | The Hill

The Positive Externalities of the American Revolution – Econlib

I used to line up an article every month for Econlib, from 2008 to 2019. My favorite was one by Jeff Hummel in 2018. Its titled Benefits of the American Revolution: An Exploration of Positive Externalities.

Here are the opening two paragraphs:

It has become de rigueur, even among libertarians and classical liberals, to denigrate the benefits of the American Revolution. Thus, libertarian Bryan Caplan writes: Can anyone tell me why American independence was worth fighting for? [W]hen you ask aboutspecificlibertarian policy changes that came about because of the Revolution, its hard to get a decent answer. In fact, with 20/20 hindsight, independence had two massive anti-libertarian consequences: It removed the last real check onAmerican aggression against the Indians, and allowed American slavery to avoid earlierand peacefulabolition. One can also find such challenges reflected in recent mainstream writing, both popular and scholarly.

In fact, the American Revolution, despite all its obvious costs and excesses, brought about enormous net benefits not just for citizens of the newly independent United States but also, over the long run, for people across the globe. Speculations that, without the American Revolution, the treatment of the indigenous population would have been more just or that slavery would have been abolished earlier display extreme historical naivety. Indeed, a far stronger case can be made that without the American Revolution, the condition of Native Americans would have been no better, the emancipation of slaves in the British West Indies would have been significantly delayed, and the condition of European colonists throughout the British empire, not just those in what became the United States, would have been worse than otherwise.

Another excerpt:

[Historian Gordon] Wood concludes that Americans had become, almost overnight, the most liberal, the most democratic, the most commercially minded, and the most modern people in the world. The Revolution not only radically changed the personal and social relations of people but also destroyed aristocracy as it had been understood in the Western world for at least two millennia. The Revolution brought respectability and even dominance to ordinary people long held in contempt and gave dignity to their menial labor in a manner unprecedented in history and to a degree not equaled elsewhere in the world. The Revolution did not just eliminate monarchy and create republics; it actually reconstituted what Americans meant by public or state power.

Heres a comment Jeff made in 2018 in response to some commenters:

Even after military conflict broke out in April 1775, a majority of the Continental Congress did not favor independence until February 1776, and it was a slim majority. The first colony to actually instruct its delegates to vote for independence was North Carolina the following April. Thus we have nearly a year of hard fighting during which a majority of Patriots favored and expected to achieve reconciliationwithinthe British Empire. It was Thomas Paines Common Sense, published in January 1776, that ultimately tipped the scales in favor of secession.

Also the difference between the French and American Revolutions can be overdrawn. The American Revolution admittedly had no reign of terror, but the treatment of Loyalists could be quite appalling, with disturbing instances of brutality and killing. Given that many Loyalists fought for the British, some historians have started referring to the Revolution as a civil war, a term neither of you [the two people hes responding to] consider. At the end of the War for Independence, an estimated 50,000 Loyalists left the United States, out of total population of 2.5 million. The French Revolution generated as many as 130,000 migrs and deportees, out of a total population of 25 million. Thus the American Revolution produced refugees at almost four times the rate of the French Revolution. And while many migrs eventually returned to France, very few Loyalists returned to the U.S.

I still maintain that the American Revolution brought momentous benefits, but let us not overlook its costs and excesses.

The picture above is of me with my Betsy Ross flag in front our house. I will be carrying it in the July 4 parade in Monterey later today.

Happy, happy July 4.

Read the original here:
The Positive Externalities of the American Revolution - Econlib