Travis Hallman, August 17, 2017

Physically damaging property that isn’t owned by oneself is aggression. Taxing citizens to maintain property is also aggression. Aggression is immoral, impractical, and (above all) not necessary. If you perceive taxing and damaging other’s property as wrong then you may be a libertarian.

This libertarian does not personally support glorifying monuments that represent any form of aggression (such as the Robert E. Lee statue representing slavery, the Vladimir Lenin statue representing communism, the Nathan Bedford Forrest Monument representing the original grand wizard of the KKK, the El Mesteño blue demon horse of death in Denver, and more). Furthermore, I believe Libertarians would have fought the war within the United States to abolish slavery without the intentions to draft slaves into a military (like Abraham Lincoln did).

How do we abolish immoral monuments without using force?

Simple answer, free markets.

What is a free market?

A free market consists of economic freedom such that anybody can open a business without having to pay the government for permission (permits, licenses, etc). A free market has no taxes, eliminating reasons for corporations to partner with politicians for tax breaks. A free market does not allow bailouts, letting businesses have setbacks, avoiding the creation of artificial monopolies. A free market does not allow patents. These economic freedoms enable new competition to compete more efficiently. Click here to see how free markets empower green markets!

How does a free market abolish immoral monuments?

Allowing monuments to be maintained by private owners would allow the owners to require a pay-per-view for the monuments, in museums for example. The immoral monuments that have a lacking of demand for viewing could be abolished by the private owners if they’re not profitable. The immoral monuments that have a demand for viewing would continue to have a supply. There is no reason to abolish immoral monuments with high enough of a demand to continue the pay-per-view business because it’s still deemed to have historical value by the consumer. However, you could collect funds to (consensually) purchase this property and abolish it. That choice may not be pragmatic because profits are attainable.

When will the immoral monuments be abolished?

History creates itself daily with new stories and new monuments. Eventually all (current) monuments will lose their appeal and be replaced with new monuments. Even if they aren’t, I don’t agree with the practices of the ancient Mayans or Egyptians but that doesn’t mean I feel the temples and pyramids should be demolished.

How do we establish a free market?

The libertarian party is the largest political party that consistently supports free markets.


“Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.”

Voting libertarian in upcoming local, state, and national elections expresses you care about the methods which monuments are allowed to exist or be abolished.

Ask A Libertarian Facebook page encourages you to message us with your questions!

In liberty,

-Travis Hallman


Battle of the Laws


Kristopher Morgan, August 14th

One of the hardest aspects of being a libertarian is being portrayed as someone who does not want any of the goods and services provided by the state.  For example,  when libertarians express the notion that government should not be involved in something like education, our opponents sometimes assume we don’t want an educated population.  Sometimes they’re just creating a strawman, but just as often they are sincere in their belief.  Why do people automatically assume if you don’t want the government to provide a service, it means you don’t want the service to exist at all?  It occurred  to me that the misunderstanding is due to competing philosophies of law.  The libertarian conclusion that natural law is just and moral, while positivism is not, is what separates us from the rest of society, and the consequences of that finding run much deeper than we realize.


Positivism dominates society in terms of what constitutes a legit approach to law.  According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Legal positivism is the thesis that the existence and content of law depends on social facts and not on its merits…  positivism is the view that law is a social construction.” In essence, in positivism law is seen as artificial, and as such, the approach isn’t limited by concerns for natural rights.  It’s no wonder there are so many laws in the US the average citizen commits three felonies every day.  Society wants legislation passed and rulers push to make it happen.  A good example is the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the bill gets voted on, approved, and signed into law by our politicians.  There is clearly demand for more affordable healthcare, so the political system proposed legislation to solve the problem, and it eventually became law.  Furthermore, the biggest supporters of the ACA paint anyone wanting it repealed as monsters who want to see tens of millions of people dying in the street.  But what if that’s not really the case?  What if the so-called monsters don’t see government as the only acting body within society?  What if we also happen to have an entirely different philosophy of law; one that is incompatible with positivism?

Natural Law

Allaboutphilosophy describes natural law as law that “finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.” Basically, people who subscribe to natural law believe that concepts of right and wrong are what matter.  In natural law, rules are discovered, not legislated.  Law is not seen an artificial construct, rather we develop our understanding of right and wrong and the human condition is what determines what law ought to be.  Governments are artificial.  They don’t sprout up on their own, people have to form them.  Since they’re made of people, they are held to the same moral standards as everyone else in society.  So when a libertarian says they oppose a bill, such as the ACA, they do so because they perceive violations of natural law.  Private citizens could never get away with using an armed force to regulate local insurance companies and hospitals the way the government does.  Most of us would look at citizens behaving in such a manner and label them criminals.  Natural law does not make a distinction between governing body and private people.  Standards of behavior are universal, not dependent on artificial classes (in this case of rulers and subjects).

Which Is More Just?

Despite what goes on in politics, in private life most people are already followers of natural law.  We don’t hurt each other, we don’t steal from each other, etc. because deep down we identify those actions as flat out wrong.  In fact, if a policeman were caught observing a theft and not confronting the suspect, people would be outraged.  Nobody sits around reading gigantic books on law; but we do assume that we will not be harassed too much if we don’t harm anyone and drive safely.  Because of positivism, we have a superstructure in society that possesses the power to take money from other people through force, to ensure compliance with society’s artificial laws.  So why do we bother making theft a crime?  Why do we get so concerned if a thief knocks over a 7/11 and makes off with a few measly hundred dollars, when all children born last year already ‘owe’ the government $42,000?  While it may be true that security services are paid for through taxation, using taxation as a means removes the universality feature of justice.  Having one law that says you get to take through force, yet another that says nobody else can, is clearly meant to create privileges for those in power.

Positivism empowers political forces at the expense of everyone.  Artificial laws always come from politicians, regardless of what form of government.  But in natural law, we are all free to hold each other accountable to universal standards of behavior rooted in the human condition.  We all have the right to defend ourselves and what is rightfully ours.  For physical survival, the one thing everyone has to have to satisfy their needs for food, water, and shelter is property.  Property is nothing more than having control over resources.  It follows logically that interference with the property of another undermines their attempts to satisfy their needs, and so our guide for determining if natural law is violated is whether property is violated.

Society has to choose between these two philosophies.  Either legal positivism is just, in which case law has no real meaning and justice is really just about power and pandering to it; Or natural law is correct, in which case we have to start looking at government as an agency that has no right to initiate force to make its ends meet.  Justice is based on universal standards that flow consistently from the human condition which nobody has the right to take away.  The choice is ours.

*Follow us on Facebook at

Individualism vs. Collectivism: A False Dichotomy


Kristopher Morgan, July 19, 2017

In political philosophy, individualism and collectivism are treated as two opposing forces that duke it out in an attempt to find justice.  For collectivists, to quote Mr. Spock, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” In politics, this idea leads to governments who willingly encroach on rights for the benefit of society.  Individualists see this as the barbaric tyranny of the majority.  The people have no power to violate the rights of others so neither should the state.  While these ideas seem different, in practice they are actually two sides of the same coin.


In a brief article on collectivism, Armstrong Economics describes collectivism as a “term used to denote a political or economic system in which the means of production and the distribution of goods and services are controlled by the people as a group.” This usually occurs through the state.  In socialism it means the state takes control through direct ownership.  In interventionism, ownership may remain in private hands, but the state exercises control through heavy regulations and taxation.  


Boundless explained individualism as incompatible with collectivism.  “Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses the moral worth of the individual. Individualists promote the exercise of one’s goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance while opposing external interference upon one’s own interests by society or institutions such as the government.” The economic corollary of individualism is capitalism, where ownership of property and control of it rests with the individual, and taxation and regulations are relatively low.

Sounds simple enough, right?  Collectivists support state power to carry out the will of society when it conflicts with individual motives.  Individualists think it completely immoral for governments to disrespect rights.  How can these two possibly be one-in-the-same?

Collectivism In Practice

The stated goal of collectivism is to put decision-making power into the hands of the many over the few, or the one, through government power.  Using the state as a means to accomplish this goal is entirely counter-productive.  Governments are always a minority of the population.  In the United States, the Federal Government is made up of 535 members of Congress, nine Supreme Court Justices, and one President.  Even when local governments are taken into account, the legislators and executives are vastly outnumbered by the general population.  This means when laws are passed and enforced, a minority is forcing their will upon the majority.  While the idea of a minority representing the will of the majority of voters seems reasonable, there is simply no possible way they can know nor understand the values of so many people.  Claiming to represent the general public is one thing, actually doing it is quite another.  Not only do politicians lack the knowledge they need, but by codifying decisions in formal law, it becomes difficult for us to change our minds.  For example, those voters who first supported the war in Iraq in 2003 are not in a position to stop funding it now.  Is it not a little bizarre that we look at countries that are run by dictators, a single will forced upon an entire population, and call it a collective?  

Individualism In Practice

Individualism, where decision making lies with private property owners, appears as though a minority of people are in charge.  There are fewer rich people who own businesses than there are laborers, but the profit motive keeps this control in check.  To gain profits, capitalists and entrepreneurs have to sell goods to consumers.  Consumers reward those who satisfy their preferences by frequenting their establishments.  The little acknowledged truth in these relationships is that everyone is a consumer.  Everyone at minimum needs food and water to survive.  Entrepreneurs who fail to satisfy consumers are put out of business by those who do.  Since consumers drive production, and everyone is a consumer, the collective finds its power within the individualist framework.  When we are free to make choices and live our lives as we see fit, with nobody using law to suppress our will, the outcome is a society that embraces diversity by respecting individual rights.  Diversity is far stronger than pure conformity, as there are multiple approaches to solving complex problems.

Effects on Political Discourse

When a minority of politicians make laws that affect the majority of people, we can safely say the collective loses its influence.  This is most visible in corporate welfare.  Are there really citizens who would consider giving their hard earned money to enormous, multinational, corporations for nothing in return?  If consumers preferred to give their money to said corporations, they would not need the welfare in the first place. Everywhere law is used, collective choice is diluted.  This is a bold hypothesis, but luckily there is a way to test it.

The test for determining if a law truly reflects collective will is to repeal the law in question.  A perfect example is the marketplace plans created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  At, one is free to shop various plans created by the ACA.  Being created by a matter of law, if this marketplace does not reflect true consumer preferences, it is a fine example of power weakening our collective choices.  By repealing at least the marketplace portion of the bill, we can put it to the test.  If it satisfies demand, it will stand on its own without the power of law supporting it.  Entrepreneurs will declare it an efficient use of resources and maintain the business model.  Consumers will frequent the marketplace and make their purchases.  If it collapses, it will disappear and its resources can be put to better use.  


I am a libertarian, but I also believe in the collective.  At first I considered collectivist societies similar to The Borg in Star Trek.  The borg are a cybernetic race linked to a single consciousness, all members sharing a single will.  Though their actions are all directed towards the same goals, their personalities are completely replaced.  An entire species is subjected to the will of a single member, in their case, The Borg Queen.  How can it be called a collectivist society if the entire species is directed by the mind of one?  They don’t celebrate differences in preference or diversity in thinking. All signs of autonomy are eradicated from the collective.  To be truly collectivist, all members of a species must be able to make their own decisions and express themselves free from subjugation and coercion.  By taking the allocation of resources away from consumer control, politicians create an environment where power trumps collective will.  To be strong, we have to band together against centralized control.  Those who use the word collective in conjunction with the idea of a society dominated through law actually want the wills of those around them replaced, similar to The Borg. Such a person may be described as despotic or tyrannical, but hardly collectivist.  Power is the rejection of those around you. It is the need to dominate others instead of allowing society to absorb their individuality.  

Individualism and collectivism are not opposing forces.  The collective only has power if its members have control of their own lives.  A government that has the power to encroach on any individual’s rights has actually seized power over the entire collective, as we are all subject to law.  It’s no wonder the so-called collectivist societies in the 20th century butchered so many of their own people.  How can society thrive if our individual wills are undermined?  It is a contradiction.  Perhaps the best illustration of this point was made by Martin Niemoller when he said:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”


*Follow us on Facebook at


Decreasing the homicide rate in Chicago


Cameron Williams, July 19, 2017

What I usually hear from the people of Chicago who want to decrease the homicide rate there is “Take the guns away and there will be no homicides.” In theory they’re right. If no guns are present in Chicago, or anywhere for that matter, gun-related homicides would then disappear. However, is it really necessary to take guns from legal and responsible gun owners? Is it legal or illegal gun owners committing crimes at high rates?

This topic is tricky. There are multiple solutions. One solution would be to allow responsible gun ownership and defensive training in areas of high crime. This skilled and armed community would act as a deterrent for would-be criminals. Last year, Chicago had well over 700+ homicides. What communities suffered the most? Black communities. Under gun laws that heavily favor the restriction of gun ownership, the people of Chicago were still unable to protect their families and communities.

I support Maj Toure’s “Black Guns Matter” (BGM) movement of pro-second amendment rights and gun safety. BGM is a pro-second amendment movement aimed at educating urban communities on their second amendment rights and responsibilities. The BGM movement has given attention to a much misunderstood topic. Join me and the Libertarian Party of Chicago as we move forward in making Chicago citizens safer and more knowledgeable through gun ownership.


If you liked this quick post follow me at wordpress/free2choose
Follow us on Facebook at

A Libertarian Perspective on Trump’s Travel Ban


M. J. July 13, 2017

Supporters of Trump’s Travel Ban may find themselves justifiably filled with satisfaction that our President has taken a bold step to countering, what for many Americans, is a pressing issue of national security. The federal government of recent memory has been enmeshed in an endless cycle of flaccid chattering, far removed from concrete solutions and novel approaches to solving the myriad issues facing the contemporary United States. When people look to a government for action and receive only glib drivel, a leader willing to take action is a welcome change. However, I caution that adoration of this Travel Ban is perhaps premature, and misplaced. Trump’s Travel Ban is a brute force approach to solving a complex and nuanced issue, and may diminish the United States’s global standing while emboldening our enemies. What follows in this writing is a Libertarian analysis of the Travel Ban, potential consequences, and what is perhaps a more useful approach to reforming our immigration and visa policy.

For the liberty minded individual, a ban on anything is likely to evoke a strong sensation of revulsion. This writing seeks to examine Trump’s Travel Ban, through the lens of Libertarian mores. A national origin based Travel Ban is likely to offend two themes central to Libertarian philosophy. First, one residing in a country where travel to the United States is banned, is consigned to an existence in which he or she is likely prohibited from exercising his or her personal agency because of the tyranny and repression, that is likely present in such a state. Secondly, by fanning the flames of discord in the majority Muslim countries in which travel from is banned or severely curtailed, the United States’ position in the world is diminished. This assumes that a nation is more likely to participate in cordial relations with other nations if that nation does not purposefully create rifts and feuds with entire national populations. This Libertarian’s position on foreign policy is that we avoid complex entanglements, often the product of alliances, and lessen the likelihood of global conflict by maintaining a state of cordial cooperation with all nations of the world.

Free exercise of one’s personal agency is a central tenet of Libertarianism, and if a state or social structure exists in which one is not freely able to exercise his or her personal agency, personal liberty is but a distant dream. Providing a substrate that facilitates the growth and exercise of free will, as long as such exercise does not purposefully cause harm to another or impede his or her own exercise of personal agency, is perhaps the highest goal of Libertarianism, regarding how Libertarianism pertains to the individual actor. However, it is important to consider, if a free society is flooded with those who seek to do it harm or impose their restrictive beliefs on others, the ability of those already residing in the country to exercise their agency is severely diminished. Due care must be taken when permitting foreign nationals access to the United States. We should strive to establish an immigration system that accurately assesses the intentions of all those who seek to enter the United States. In short, one who can demonstrate he or she would be an asset to this nation by way of his or her personal merit or an exuberance for western ideals, and an affinity with classical liberalism should always be permitted access to visit or reside in the United States. Those who seek to do this nation harm, defile its liberty, or repress its people should never be granted access. A blanket travel ban is purely an infantile approach to tackling a complex issue, and is perhaps likely to do far more harm than good.

Individuals currently residing in repressive states are likely to suffer because of this travel ban, however, this nation may bear the brunt of the deleterious consequences. If our enemies can point to our actions as a recruiting tool, the consequences of our bad actions are only amplified. Certainly, we want to coexist in a world in which fewer rather than greater numbers of foreign nationals hate us, and alienating entire national populations does not seemingly present as an effective strategy regarding the realization of this goal. Furthermore, it is likely that bad actors exist in the countries impacted by the travel ban, however it is equally likely that similar bad actors currently reside in all nations on earth. I suggest that most of the people caught in the snare of Trump’s Travel Ban, are no less likely to pose a threat to the United States than the average United States Citizen. However, one who held warm feelings for the United States before then ban, may now possess a cold reserve to do it harm. This is the danger of blanket bans based on national origin. Banning the free movement of one solely based, on his or her national origin, is antithetical to the essence of Libertarian ideals.
Follow us at

“What does Libertarianism mean to me?”


Jake Harper July 6, 2017

Liberty: The idea that you or I could pursue our dreams free from compulsion, the foundation on which America was formed. In the years since, we have strayed from the principles of liberty. Libertarianism is the rebirth of that noble idea. Unlike other political ideas or parties, everyone can live as they please so long as they don’t hurt others. Republicans and Democrats demand all of society follow their morals, whether you share them or not. Libertarianism holds the belief that everyone is free to pursue their dreams, so long as they do not harm others; peace is a core principle. As peace flourishes, so too does the human spirit and all of the beauty and prosperity that comes from it. The prosperity I speak of is not only monetary, but spiritual, cultural, and intellectual. Everyone can live precisely how they desire whether they are fundamental Christians or Communists. You can even form communities that function as such, so long as nobody is forced to stay or join. This prosperity also allows us to be charitable and help anyone in need. We are already some of the most charitable people. Imagine if we kept more of what we made. So much of what we make is taken from us; income tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, local taxes and countless others. Equipped with more of our own money and the freedom to use it, the numerous charities that would arise to help our neighbors would be limitless.


It is the promise of prosperity and opportunity, and an absence of force that  drew me to the Libertarian Party. If the ideas of peace, tolerance, individualism, limited government, and free markets sound like your principles, or simply a good way to organize a government, I implore you to find a political philosophy with the promise, and proven track record, of creating a bright future for everyone; Libertarianism.

Follow us at

In Support of the 2nd


Andrew Deemer, June 13, 2017

Hello. My name is Andrew Deemer, I am going to discuss the 2nd amendment, why I support said amendment, why some people want to add more restrictions to said amendment, and why these restrictions are ineffective. I will also discuss why I prefer the AR 15 over a shotgun for home defense, AR15 facts, and more.

To understand why it is that I choose to support the second amendment, you must look at my past. I grew up in Ohio in a family that had weapons. My parents taught me about the weapons in the house. They made sure that, even though they taught me, those weapons were never within my reach. They taught me to respect the weapon at all times and to handle it as if it were loaded. I also have a military background. It was here I learned how to use an M16. I fell in love with the format of the weapon which is the main reason I prefer this weapon for home defense. It is a platform that I am well trained and am very confident. Fixing jams is second nature. I could take it apart blindfolded. A shotgun is longer than most AR15’s. I can sweep corners and clear my house easier with an AR15 than a shotgun because of the overall length of my shotguns. The AR15 is also faster to bring up than a shotgun. The sights are easy to adjust to what makes you comfortable. The recoil of the AR15 is easier to control in close quarters.

Now when it comes to supporting the second amendment, I truly believe it is one of the most important to defend. When this amendment was ratified in the year 1791, our fathers wrote this amendment because they were afraid of a one free-standing army. It was put in place to protect the American people from a government that had become too powerful.

The individuals that want to put more restrictions on the 2nd amendment truly believe that they are helping to stop mass shootings. Sadly, this is as far from reality as Star Wars. If you want physical proof, let’s take a look at Chicago. This city is controlled by the democratic party, which is the same party that believes in very strict gun laws. In the 8 months since the year 2016 had begun, Chicago has seen more murders than the whole year of 2015. Within those 8 months 474 people were murdered. The whole year of 2015, in Chicago, there were 468 murders. This number is staggering. Throughout 2015, out of 2,327 shootings, 2,843 people were either killed or wounded. As of Friday Sept 2, 2016, there were 2,318 shootings, and out of those, 2,848 people were killed, or wounded. This number was still on the rise, with four more months in the year. Now you might ask, “Well how is this relevant?” These are numbers from one of the most, if not the most, gun restricted places in the country. This is why gun control does not work as intended. Imagine, if you will, if more people in Chicago concealed carried? How low would those numbers be?

The AR15 is one of the most popular platforms being sold today, considered to be today’s modern sporting rifle. But sadly the AR15 has been given a bad reputation by gun grabbers. Thankfully, there are people out there that will stand up for this weapon, myself included. So let me lay down some facts. First and foremost, the AR in AR15 does not stand for “assault rifle,” nor does it stand for automatic rifle. AR stands for ArmaLite (which is a brand). An assault rifle is fully automatic which means the AR15 does not fit into this category. If you would like to see a real assault rifle, look up the M249 S.A.W. Though the AR15 looks like your standard issue M16, this is not the case. The M16, depending on the model M16 A1, A2, A3, A4, and the M4, has two firing positions, semi-auto and full-auto, as well as safe mode. The AR15 has safe and fire. It is reliable, accurate, versatile, great for target shooting and hunting.

We all want the American people to be safer. The current government programs go about it all wrong. The LA buy-back program, for example, not only has people turning in their weapons, they are only given $100 for weapons that cost at minimum of $300. When LA does these programs they are televised. Anybody can see who no longer has weapons in their home, making them an easy target. What is even worse is that these people are willing to put their family in harm’s way. The average response time for emergency services to reach your house is 6 minutes. What are you going to do if the person breaking into your home isn’t a burglar? What if this individual is a murderer? Now I understand that this is a hypothetical, but the fact that some are willing to risk it being a burglar vs a murder is just insane. This is not a risk I would be willing to take. So, with that said, this is why I chose to be a libertarian. I believe in the doctrine of free will.

If you would like more 2nd amendment content from me, make sure to check out my Facebook page: vets4the2nd Twitter: vets4the2nd


Follow us at

The Ask A Libertarian Drinking Game


By The Ask a Libertarian Team

You will need:
At least 3 people
Clear cups

There are three types of players: one Regulator, at least one Tax Collector, and peasants.

The Regulator decides what everyone is drinking, and may at any time command everyone to finish their drinks. The regulator may also make up to two additional rules of his/her choosing at any point throughout the game. The regulator is not subject to any other rules of the game, including his own drink choices. The regulator is voted on by all players before the game begins.

Peasants have no power. They must do as commanded and take all penalties. All peasants will have their cups marked approximately ⅓ of the way up from the bottom. This portion is their tax. No peasant is allowed to drink the bottom third of their cup. They can, however, tattle on the other players if they do not follow the rules.

Tax collectors contribute no booze to the party. Instead, they are entitled to the remaining third of each player’s drink every round.

If the tax collector does not want the remainder of the peasant’s beverage, the peasant must dump it into the nearest toilet.


Anyone caught breaking the regulator’s rules is subject to a penalty decided on by a majority vote from all players before the game begins.

Anyone caught drinking the bottom third of their drink, and anyone forced to dump their drink in the toilet, receives the following penalty:

Since taxes have been wasted, all of the other players will harass the offending peasant, screaming some variation of the phrase, “but what about the roads?!” This will continue until the offending player takes a “muh roads”/hot asphalt shot: equal parts Jagermeister, Fireball, and strong hot coffee.


Follow us at

Law vs Morality



Donnie Davis, June 15, 2017

Laws do not prevent actions, morality does. Laws are there to set in stone what will happen if certain actions are taken against someone or their property. They are not meant to scare you into following someone else’s moral code to avoid punishment. Or at least, that is how our society is supposed to work. Government is not the parent of the people, nor can it dictate their morality. It can only hold them accountable for their actions transgressed against another person.

You cannot rape yourself. You cannot violate yourself. You cannot steal from yourself.  These are actions committed against someone else, and it is correct to punish the perpetrator of those actions.

The idea that you cannot put x, y, or z into your own body by your own choice because it’s bad for you is the same as saying that drinking anything but water and eating anything except fruits and vegetables is now illegal because it’s bad for you.

Saying that it is illegal to prevent anyone from doing REAL crime is like saying having large amounts of money is illegal to keep you from purchasing illegal items. It’s like saying owning a firearm is illegal because all they are used for is killing, or that owning a straightened coat hanger is illegal because it’s used to break into cars….

Do you see where this is going? Once you go down that road, there is no coming back from it without violence.

We, as Libertarians, are trying to stop that pattern of thinking before it’s too late. 

Our slogan is that we are “The Party of Principle”, because we stand firmly on our principles….

  • We seek to substantially reduce the size and intrusiveness of government and cut and eliminate taxes at every opportunity.
  • We believe that peaceful, honest people should be able to offer their goods and services to willing consumers without inappropriate interference from government.
  • We believe that peaceful, honest people should decide for themselves how to live their lives, without fear of criminal or civil penalties.
  • We believe that government’s only responsibility, if any, should be protecting people from force and fraud.”

“Libertarian Pledge, which all must agree to in order to join the Libertarian Party, declares, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

Libertarians strongly oppose any government interference into their personal, family, and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.

People that want the government to tend to their every whim, because they couldn’t be bothered to protect themselves from harm, want us to give up our freedoms so they feel “safe.” That has never been enough to stop anyone from doing harm, to themselves or otherwise.


Follow us at

Thinking Beyond Pro-Choice & Pro-Life


Travis Hallman, June 6, 2017

First and foremost, thanks for opening this article. Your engagement proves your willingness to be open to new ideas.

Before diving right into the subject of abortion clinics, I want to preface by saying that these ideas represent my own view, and not necessarily those of every libertarian nor even all members of the Ask A Libertarian team. There are many pro-choice, pro-life, and pro-privatize libertarians running for offices on your voting ballot. However, I identify as the last option because my end goal is to have ZERO demand for abortion clinics. I believe privatizing abortion clinics and empowering moral agents will achieve this goal more effectively than other means. Here’s why:

Libertarian Party Platform,

1.5 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

To me, one statement stands out among all other statements within that platform: “We believe that government should be kept out of the matter.”

Government should not be allowed to create, fund or even prohibit abortion clinics from operating. Giving them power to prevent abortion clinics from opening because you don’t like them will enable them to use that same power to block your ability to open your business (of any kind) tomorrow, because someone else doesn’t like it. The best way for me to protect MY freedom of choice is to protect YOUR freedom of choice.

QUESTION: Can you think of any examples when government uses one power to restrict another freedom?

In addition to being allowed to operate, abortion services must also stand independent of any government funding or involvement. Realizing government doesn’t (yet) own abortion clinics, offering government funds to them still creates incentives to earn more funds by doing more abortions.  And as long as abortion providers are receiving funding or any other special treatment from the government, it is against their own interests for the government to allow moral agents to easily impact potential clients. By allowing government involvement in this sector, they can now appeal to it to take action in many forms against those moral agents. This may include, but is not limited to, lobbying for laws requiring standards such as licenses for pro-family or anti-abortion groups to open, increasing their taxes, or denying the same bailouts and incentives to those moral or private agencies.

Additionally, the government has to use your tax dollars to pay the employees responsible for counting your money and rationing it to abortion clinics. This is irresponsible spending at best and absolutely evil at worst. Never will 100% of taxpayers be satisfied with how the taxes are being spent (that applies in all aspects for all government run agencies). Allowing abortion clinics to exist solely in the private sector, removing taxes (to remove incentive for crony partnership with politicians), and ending bailouts (to avoid the creation of a monopoly) will allow for each individual to choose a business that 100% satisfies their needs.

“But abortion is murder!”

Then let’s expose abortion clinics to the free market so that demand can dictate the survival of the murder clinic (not the force of the government keeping them open). Then let’s empower churches and other moral agents to empower individuals not to demand the murder clinics. This would, in part, require better sex education and other related services.

I realize there are already many churches and moral agents making strides in sex education. However, establishing complete privatization without licensing, taxation, and bailouts would greater empower these organizations and allow for more of them to open and run effectively.

I’m offering a moral solution instead of using force, coercion, extortion, or incarceration to END ABORTIONS.

QUESTION: Is there another way to stop abortions (without using force, coercion, extortion, or incarceration)?

“[The] Simplest way to stop abortions is to teach our children about celibacy & hold them to it.”
-Joy Waymire (candidate for president in 2016)


Follow us at