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.

 

voluntarymerced
Advertisements

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.

right and left

As respect for property rights is fundamental to maintaining a free and prosperous society, it follows that the freedom to contract to obtain, retain, profit from, manage, or dispose of one’s property must also be upheld. Libertarians would free property owners from government restrictions on their rights to control and enjoy their property, as long as their choices do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, governmental limits on profits, governmental production mandates, and governmental controls on prices of goods and services (including wages, rents, and interest) are abridgements of such fundamental rights. For voluntary dealings among private entities, parties should be free to choose with whom they trade and set whatever trade terms are mutually agreeable.

church tax

Voting Libertarian

 

votinglibertarianoverduopoly

Franc Turner  11/3/2018

Voting for political leaders to rule over you is the equivalent of lab rats pulling levers to receive doses of heroine; as, in both situations, the conditions of your own bondage and what you get to “choose” are set up by those who are using you to further and fulfill their own objectives. But if you’re going to vote in a few days, consider voting for LIBERTARIAN candidates as opposed to members of the two-party-duopoly of Demopublicans and Republicrats.

Libertarianism is the only current political philosophy which enables human beings to live their lives the way they want. If a person wants to be a staunch free market capitalist, they are free to do so. If people want to pool their resources for the benefit of others in a more collective approach between consenting human beings, they are free to do that as well. The difference is that it’s all based on voluntary exchange and human interactions, not government mandates dictating that you “must” live this way and you “must” pay us (the government) to have the “privilege” of living this way. You own yourself and no one gets to exert force over the decisions you make for your life.

Mandatory extortion of the American citizenry only leads to all the things members of both major parties complain about, but never actually do anything to fix. As in, they wait generation after generation for political parasites to, hopefully one day, legislate into existence how they envision life should be for everyone else, regardless of what anyone else thinks.

History hath shown that putting trust into a handful of power-hungry sociopaths inevitably leads to police states and imperialistic bloodshed. I would argue that this country’s government reached that point long ago. They just hide behind the public relations banner of “combating terrorism” and “spreading democracy.” Don’t fall for it again.

“The limits of debate in this country are established before the debate even begins.” -George Carlin

 

For more content from askalibertarian, follow us on the following platforms:

 

 

 

 

Do you have a libertarian oriented message you want to get out? Consider contacting Ask A Libertarian via messenger at https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/askalibertarian to find out how you can become a volunteer in our Journalism Department.

The author’s views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the entire Ask A Libertarian Team or its followers.

My Candidate Isn’t Going To Win The Midterm Election, And That’s Ok

nowastedvote

By: Jacob Chesky  10/25/2018

I’ll be casting my ballot in the midterm election soon here in Wisconsin, and I’ll be voting for Phil Anderson, the Libertarian candidate for governor.

In many polls, Anderson is not shown at all. On the polls in which he is represented, he’s a distant third to the two establishment parties—as of this writing, the latest poll places him at just 5%. So why spend my vote on someone who, from the looks of things, is just not a winning candidate?

Sure, I may not like Scott Walker’s (R) corruption and cronyist deals (which have cost some residents their homes due to eminent domain abuse). I also may not like his determination to continue waging the drug war nor his lack of concern for Wisconsin’s mass incarceration of nonviolent citizens. But what if Walker, despite his clear record of flaws and corruption, is the lesser of two evils? At least he stands a good chance of winning.

Or what about the other guy? This is a close race, after all, and either establishment candidate could win it. I may not like Tony Evers’ (D) philosophy of government intervention in healthcare, (including using tax dollars to fund Planned Parenthood), his plan to raise the minimum wage to $15, or his skepticism of gun rights, but at least he doesn’t (yet) have the obvious record of corruption that Scott Walker has, right? Maybe this guy will be different.

Should I try to decide which of the two possible winners would be worse, hold my nose, and vote for the one that might not prove to be quite as bad?

No, I shouldn’t. And here’s why:

#1 My Vote Doesn’t Belong to Any Candidate or Party

I owe my vote to no one. I have no obligation to any party; and by voting according to my principles, I’m not helping either Walker or Evers. As Phil Anderson said when critics accused him of stealing votes from Walker, thereby helping Evers win:

“As of the last Marist poll, I’m pulling more from Evers than Walker. In the 2016 race I pulled evenly from Johnson and Feingold. If Walker wants my votes, he should get a little more conservative on guns, less stupid on cannabis, and less corrupt on Foxconn. And if he’s losing to that bland career politician Evers, that’s on him.”

Ultimately, the results of the election aren’t on me. They’re on the candidates and the messages they send to voters, both through their words and actions.

#2 We Can’t Change Our Government Without Changing Culture

I’m not interested in supporting the state and its increasingly evil and authoritarian ways. In order to change it, there has to be a point at which I, my friends, neighbors, state, and country realize that if we continue to vote for the lesser of two evils and remain apathetic about the wrongs committed by our chosen party, it will only enable our bloated, corrupt government and toxic political climate to worsen.

So what can we do instead? It’s possible there will never be more than two dominant political parties in America. An eternal duopoly of power in the US doesn’t sound ideal to me, but the Libertarian Party, despite the handful of elections it does win, may never become as prominent as the Democratic or Republican ones.

If that’s the case, what good does it do me to support non-establishment candidates who better represent my beliefs, but are unlikely to win? The answer is that I’m looking beyond this election. I’m playing the long game.

Libertarian Party candidates win some elections, but not many. I’d love for them to win more, and it will be great if they do in the future, but my hope for US politics is not limited to an increase in the number of LP members in office. My ultimate hope is that culture changes to more greatly value freedom.

The success of such congressman as Justin Amash (R), Thomas Massie (R), and Jared Polis (D) might be a sign of libertarian ideas influencing voters to support candidates who promote freedom and individuality. This might not be a win for the Libertarian Party, per se, but it’s a win for American culture as a whole. Libertarians are more than just the Libertarian Party, and many of them consider the party to simply be a tool for spreading the message of freedom to those who are concerned about the direction of our country.

So if I vote for Anderson and he doesn’t beat Walker and Evers, have I thrown away my vote? No. As much as I would love to see Anderson win and shake up established government in Wisconsin, I know that’s a long shot. My true goal is to send a message to culture, the media, and the political establishment. I’m voting against state control and corruption. I’m voting to change our culture for liberty.

 

For more content from askalibertarian, follow us on the following platforms:

 

 

 

 

Do you have a libertarian oriented message you want to get out? Consider contacting Ask A Libertarian via messenger at https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/askalibertarian to find out how you can become a volunteer in our Journalism Department.

The author’s views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the entire Ask A Libertarian Team or its followers.

Facebook And The First Amendment

facebookspeech

Kris Morgan 10/16/18

Earlier this month Facebook underwent a massive purge. According to westernjournal.com, a total of 209 pages were unpublished as of this date. Many of these pages were libertarian, conservative, and/or merely anti-liberal. Among those deleted were: Police The Police, Voluntaryist Veterans, Liberty Belle, Silence Is Consent, and more. Since Facebook is not a government entity, nor did Congress pass a law to make it happen, making a first amendment complaint seem hyperbolic. However, Facebook is not quite off the hook. We already made the cultural arguments for uncensored speech on private platforms; Here we will explore the constitutional.

From FY2000 to present the social media outlet has received $332.3 million in subsidies ($274,477 from the federal government). This changes the game. Where our money goes is a direct expression of preference. Additionally, in 2002 while ruling on the issue of corporate donations to political campaigns, the Supreme Court noted “corporations should enjoy a First Amendment right to spend money and advocate political and policy positions during election seasons just as individuals can.”

So since the court ruled money going to a campaign constituted free speech, I submit that taking money from taxpayers and giving it another party who actively censors speech is a violation. If it is unconstitutional to block monetary donations from individuals during an election season, then surely it is equally evil to force a person to fund an enterprise deleting political pages they agree with, or promoting ones they do not. On top of that, it just so happens that said purge occurred with the midterms just around the corner, or ‘during an election season’ as the SCOTUS put it.

Ron Paul once stated that “we don’t have freedom of speech so we can talk about the weather.” In fact, political speech warrants more protection than any other form. Classroom.com communicated this fact perfectly when they wrote “the First Amendment broadly prohibits the government from making laws that restrict freedom of speech. Political speech includes not just speech by the government or candidates for office, but also any discussion of social issues.”

All things being equal, private parties should always retain their ability to determine who is allowed to speak about what on their property. However, when public funds are involved, things are not equal. While the tax code itself may not have been written for the purposes of infringing on free speech, that is the effect of what is happening. Government at all levels has taken our money and given it to a private business which is controlling political discourse. The pages lost had a combined 61 million followers; it is fair to say some of those people involuntarily paid for the subsidies Facebook received, only to see political speech they are at least willing to entertain vanish.

Given the information above, there is no question our free speech rights have been violated. The chief culprit is our government, through the act of providing public money to a third party engaged in censorship. The money in question very well could have been given to political candidates and the promotion of messages we actually do support. Whether or not the people at Facebook collaborated with politicians is a matter for the courts to determine. If they did, then they too should be held responsible for subverting American elections and undermining our constitution. If not, then the least we should be willing to accept is for private peoples to choose between accepting subsidies and controlling their political content.

Libertarians favor both the ending of subsidies and the promotion of speech. However, the sight of a company receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds AND screening the political messages the people themselves create should set off a red flag in all our minds. After all, with hundreds of millions in subsidies, how much of Facebook is really private?

 

For more content from askalibertarian, follow us on the following platforms:

 

 

 

 

Do you have a libertarian oriented message you want to get out? Consider contacting Ask A Libertarian via messenger at https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/askalibertarian to find out how you can become a volunteer in our Journalism Department.

The author’s views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the entire Ask A Libertarian Team or its followers.

Not A Joke: How An Academic Hoax Revealed A Scandal In Our Universities

badstudies

A Guest Article by: Roy Meredith  10/16/2018

In our supercharged media environment, events that happened only three weeks ago feel like old news. There’s one story, however, that you shouldn’t let slip past your radar. You may have heard of the major hoax three liberal academics played on multiple widely-respected journals in the humanities and social sciences. The trio – Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose – spent a year authoring and submitting twenty fake academic papers to test the rigor of controversial disciplines such as gender studies, race studies, and women’s studies. All their conclusions were purposefully outlandish, flagrantly immoral, or both.  

One of the papers they submitted rewrote passages from Mein Kampf using the terminology of intersectional feminism. Affilia, a social work journal, accepted it. Another suggested that dog humping in public parks was evidence of rape culture, and that men could be trained out of rape just like dogs. Not only did the feminist geography journal Gender, Place & Culture publish it, the reviewers honored the article as an outstanding contribution.  

By far, the most hilarious submission was “Moon Meetings and the Meaning of Sisterhood: A Poetic Portrayal of Lived Feminist Spirituality,” an autoethnography from the perspective of a bitter, recently divorced feminist scholar. Sandwiched between the meandering tangents about menstruation, capitalism, and the potential connections between witchcraft and beer were poems generated by an internet bot. The slapdash prose should have been a dead giveaway, including gems such as, “We aren’t nice women. We’re fierce and free. We’re the witches of brewsters past.” The phony paper took less than six hours to write, but you can probably guess what happened next: The Journal of Poetry Therapy published it without suggesting any revisions.

By the time the Wall Street Journal exposed their project on October 2nd, the trio already managed to have seven of their papers accepted for publication. Seven more were still under consideration. Just six had been rejected.  For context, only two or three peer-reviewed articles over the course of one’s career are necessary to get tenure in many regional universities. That’s a breathtaking success rate for people with no professional background in those fields, and yes, it should worry you.

Lindsay has freely admitted that he and the others reasoned backwards from absurd conclusions, scouring academic literature for work that would buttress their claims while coddling the reviewers’ left-of-fringe political sensibilities. This is the opposite of what we expect from careful scholarship. Within several fields, however, a fashionable idea has taken hold that asperses scientific objectivity as a tool of social oppression.  Don’t just take my word for it. Back in May, the Journal for Cultural Anthropology’s official account tweeted, “good morning. All research is political. Have a great day everyone!” Curricula infused with these ideas are dangerous social experiments, and not the least because a common faith in objective reality enables us to hold those in power accountable.  

As a graduate student of social work, I find this troubling for another reason. Clinical social workers, for example, often partner with clients who suffer from mental illnesses that require evidence-based interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy. Others work as policy analysts and wield considerable authority in designing welfare programs. Who seriously believes monthly meetings in designated “womb rooms” and praying to Norse goddesses are effective interventions for women in dysfunctional relationships? Poorly-vetted material in our curricula undermines our ability to troubleshoot effectively with our clients and consider the full range of options they have for improving their lives.

I commonly encounter such misinformation at my school. Microaggression theory, for instance, is especially pernicious in its current iteration, because it encourages people to become hypersensitive to perceived slights and read them as signs of unconscious hostility. This behavior, known in clinical literature as mind reading, is widely recognized as a cognitive distortion. Why, then, is it being promoted in social work school? On some campuses, university administrators have even established bias response teams to intimidate the unfortunate faculty members who have the guile to teach engagement with opposing viewpoints.

Liberals of all stripes – especially libertarians – should recognize that such “theories” function primarily as ammunition for stigmatizing dissent. Unfortunately, many have leaked from academia into everyday parlance; it is now impossible to openly discuss topics such as potential links between cultural norms and poverty without giving offense, even though the people who suffer the brunt of these underdiscussed problems are among the most marginalized in society.  

I urge my fellow university students to take notice. Don’t just sit silently in class when you hear unjust or far-fetched ideas among your peers to avoid social ostracization. Remember, too, that as students at American universities, we already enjoy many unique socioeconomic privileges. The most consequential among them is proximity to scholarship that changes lives.  The impulse to protect our own reputations by taking the path of least resistance is understandable, but it is not a moral course of action. The time to speak up is now.

 

For more content from askalibertarian, follow us on the following platforms:

 

 

 

 

Do you have a libertarian oriented message you want to get out? Consider contacting Ask A Libertarian via messenger at https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/askalibertarian to find out how you can become a volunteer in our Journalism Department.

The author’s views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the entire Ask A Libertarian Team or its followers.

The Why Not Of Democratic Socialism

democraticsocialismno

Kris Morgan 9/6/2018

Democratic Socialism is a phrase that has been popularized by Vermont Senator and former Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders. The word ‘socialism’ sets off red flags in the minds of Libertarians and Conservatives alike. This is understandable given the body count of the 20th century that traces back to socialist countries. Nevertheless, supporters of the ideology claim that those opposed are merely associating their form of socialism with that of totalitarian dictatorships. Whether we agree with this statement or not, one thing is for certain; Democratic Socialism is gaining in popularity and if we are going to successfully push back against that tide, we should not engage in hyperbole. The Democratic Socialists of America webpage has two major tasks for the visitor to explore. It behooves us to listen to their message and highlight where we disagree and offer alternatives.

Number one on the to-do list is providing medicare for all. The text reads “In the capitalist system, you have to pay to get care or go without, and under a democratic socialist system, we would collectively provide care as a society.” It would be great to reach a point where everyone has access to quality healthcare. However, there are two major points worthy of examination.

First, the present medicare program is due to go bankrupt by 2026, despite the fact that it does not cover all citizens. A piece in the LA Times noted “The report from program trustees says Medicare will become insolvent in 2026 — three years earlier than previously forecast. Its giant trust fund for inpatient care won’t be able to fully cover projected medical bills starting at that point.” The Democratic Socialists would likely develop a financial plan designed to resolve this issue. However, we must keep in mind that no government program is ever presented as if it will be poorly managed and leave us bankrupt. Yet here we are, over $21tril in debt; not because of a single party or even a single office, but because of the system as a whole.

Second, though libertarians recognize and sympathize with the current state of medical services, we identify the problem as being government interventionism in the first place. Mises.org has a great piece showing step-by-step how the United States has empowered and enriched private entities at the expense of the people, resulting in higher costs and fewer services. Our solution is to end the practices that lead to the current state of affairs to begin with. We want to trust communities and markets with the ability to solve problems. Contrary to the popular belief that we have a do-nothing answer, we would remove artificial barriers so individuals can make investments and increase efficiency of current services. Models that don’t result in greater output than input end in bankruptcy, whereas political failures continue until change is advantageous for those in power, regardless of the damage they cause.

Next on their list of objectives is stronger unions. Notwithstanding the lack in details, their ideas still warrant attention. Not surprising, capitalism itself is made the target.

“Capitalism pits us against each other and workplaces are fundamentally authoritarian unless workers can self-organize and build collective power. This is why people build unions, and why employers undermine them. It is also why the capitalists as a class constantly work to undermine unions and promote narratives about unions that frame them as unnecessary, undemocratic or ineffective. We are forming a national project to fight back and build power in the economy, since outside of Wall Street, workplaces are the place where the owning class extract resources from the working class.”

Yes, under capitalism there is competition. The nature of this competition is largely peaceful, with workers determined to prove themselves more valuable than each other, and entrepreneurs working on meeting demand most efficiently. While it can be argued this is less than perfect, it is much more preferable than competing for power over each other. In free markets the goal is to trade one’s economic efforts for material gain. In socialism, the goal is to pander to, or seize, power and force everyone to do what we want. Talk about pitting us against each other!

Libertarians are not anti-union per se. Our objections only arise where force is being used. Rules which make it illegal for an employer to end associations with those wanting to form unions go against individual liberty. Freedom in these decisions would make it possible for workers and employers to weigh their options and do what is in their best interest. If a skill is valuable and rare enough, those who have it have a bargaining chip. Industry leaders would understand that negotiating is in their best interest under those circumstances. Economic problems persist where skills are not scarce, but law restricts entrepreneurs from opting out of negotiations. Demand for such labor diminishes under artificially higher costs, and lower-level employees assume added responsibilities, or technology fills in the gap. Opportunities for unskilled workers to gain experience, skills, and knowledge fade.

These Democratic Socialist stepping stones are just a launching pad to encompass key aspects of life. In their view, eventually everything would be transformed from spontaneous order to a centrally-planned, democratic decision making process. In their words, “Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.”

Trade by itself is here to meet public needs. In markets, our highest order needs and wants are expressed in the pricing system. Consumers willing to buy products at high prices signal producers to direct more resources towards said goods, and the result is lower prices and a supply and demand reaching as close to equilibrium as conditions would allow.

Who determines if the public’s needs are being met in Democratic Socialism? Or, in the existential sense, how do we determine what exactly the public needs to begin with? Life is infinitely complex and peoples’ wants and needs are in a constant state of change. Running everything in a democratic manner would never allow for the flexibility needed to match these conditions, not to mention whatever the politics involved would look like. The only way to adapt to is to untie our hands and let us react to changes. A handful of us cannot possibly know what all of us need, and if they did, the bureaucratic process of democracy is far too slow to adjust.

Whatever the intentions are of democratic socialists, the course of action they have chosen will not make the world a better place. Our economy is already riddled with trade cycles, endless deficits, regulations, wars, etc, we don’t need more. The move to provide medicare for everyone is a step in the wrong direction. In bad times, just as in good times, the real solution is increased capital investment to make labor more productive and directed to meet real demand. This only occurs under conditions of freedom. The government’s job is simple; get out of the way and deal with people who infringe on private property rights. Stop running deficits, eliminate tariffs, allow interest rates to reflect economic realities, and stop inflating bubbles.

The task of taking purposeful economic action is on the people. For example, if more medical services are really what we want, then new models should be constructed and invested in privately, so that in the event the planners are wrong, they fail as they should. Under conditions where entrepreneurs hit their mark, they have a solvent system in play and get to remain. In spite of popular opinion, no form of socialism is synonymous with sharing, it’s about institutionalized theft. Scarce resources are not something we should want politicized under any circumstances. Political decision-making is precisely what got us to where we are today, and we should not be entertaining the notion of expanding it.

 

For more content from askalibertarian, follow us on the following platforms:

 

 

 

 

Do you have a libertarian oriented message you want to get out? Consider contacting Ask A Libertarian via messenger at https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/askalibertarian to find out how you can become a volunteer in our Journalism Department.

The author’s views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the entire Ask A Libertarian Team or its followers.

What The Comment Section Is Teaching Us

disagree

Kris Morgan 7/8/2018

It seems like everyone on social media has been part of a thread that has gone off the deep end. Political discussions there are flooded with name-calling, condescending attitudes, and all-to-often the mention of Adolf Hitler. In fact, the Nazis have been mentioned so frequently that we now have ‘Godwin’s Law’, which states that “if you mention Adolf Hitler or Nazis within a discussion thread, you’ve automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in.” None of this is to say that there is no truth being shared, but it is regularly drowned by deflections, personal attacks, misinformation, cognitive dissonance, and other barriers. It is very tempting to conclude that there’s not a lot we can learn on a discussion thread, but that’s not quite true.

Veterans of social media will instantly agree with two basic conclusions drawn from the comment section. First, everyone thinks they are right. No matter how well or how poorly informed a person may be, when a position is taken, it is taken definitively. The individual, aware of the never-ending feed of fake news, conspiracy theories, and other seemingly-less-intelligent people on the web is very unlikely to change. To us, our beliefs and the reasons behind them are clear, so what kind of person disagrees? A wrong one.

Secondly, the politically active among us must realize that we are not all going to agree, probably ever. While we have general groups of conservatives, liberals, libertarians, etc., each of us is also unique in life experience and knowledge. The idea of two people agreeing on every foreseeable situation in human affairs is unimaginable. Though it may not seem it, there is a foundation from which we can move forward. If we acknowledge our disagreements, rather than preach our own version of the gospel, there is no reason we cannot move past them together, as there is a third truth we have to keep in mind.

Deep down, kept away from comment sections, or “in places you don’t talk about at parties,” we know that we don’t know everything. We are fallible, have biases, dissonance, and are even aware of the sway in the media we consume. So we share this world, full of different people, each believing themself to be right, and yet none is omniscient. What do we do when we all think we are right, our opinions rarely change, and none of us even has all the necessary information?

The only sane position is freedom. Freedom from coercion brought upon us from political and private entities. This means limiting government to the defense of individual liberty and private property rights. Only in this framework will we all be able to try what we believe is right and determine for ourselves if we are satisfied with the results.

Just because a group of people want a welfare state doesn’t make it the job of the politicians to threaten anyone who doesn’t participate with fines or jail. Just because someone thinks the Middle East should be invaded and occupied doesn’t mean soldiers who swore an oath to defend the United States should face a Courts Martial for not taking part in it. Just because some among us think the risk is too great to use new drugs before they’ve had the chance to be properly tested by the FDA doesn’t mean anyone should be banned from making a different decision for themselves.

The common belief is that there is strength in numbers. This is difficult to dispute on a battlefield, however, civil society is not a war zone. Our disagreements make us strong. Who among us hasn’t been forced through debate to find new ways to articulate their positions or address concerns they have never considered?

Private charity is a great example of how differences in opinion can help us cover our bases. Some believe it enables people, while others focus on helping the less fortunate. This has the effect of sending two important messages simultaneously. First, it tells people that there are those among us who are willing to help in times of need. Missions, food trucks, and other charitable services feed the homeless daily. At the same time, charity can be pulled at any time. If people get the sense they are being taken advantage of, they will likely pull their resources. This fact is a deterrent to people who are capable of doing more, but would be happy to live off charity.

We may want numbers, but what we need more than anything is a willingness to debate. Rather than trying to stamp out opposing views through law, we should welcome them. When the goal is to expand our horizons, and make our ideas, and ourselves, as good as possible, disagreement is extremely beneficial. Besides, it’s not as though we are going to wake up one day and find we all share the exact same beliefs.

Solidarity works out for the squad of soldiers on the battlefield only because the intellectual labor has already been done. Behind the scenes, where Generals and Admirals regularly meet with top government officials, disagreement refines the strategy. Let’s be the best version of ourselves we can, by supporting each other’s freedom to act on our own opinions. Ironically, taking power out of the picture could lead to more willingness to listen on all our parts.

 

For more content from askalibertarian, follow us on the following platforms:

 

 

 

 

Do you have a libertarian oriented message you want to get out? Consider contacting Ask A Libertarian via messenger at https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/askalibertarian to find out how you can become a volunteer in our Journalism Department.

The author’s views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the entire Ask A Libertarian Team or its followers.

 

Viability Of The Libertarian Party

viability

Travis Hallman  September 5th

Many voters assume 3rd party candidates can’t win, so they resort to voting for the lesser-of-two-evils presented by the two major parties. This is becoming less of a problem because the Libertarian Party is growing daily. The purpose of this article is to present a few facts supporting the viability of the Libertarian Party.

FACT #1:

“The number of U.S. voters registered as Libertarian has surged by 92 percent since 2008, reports Ballot Access News in its March 2018 edition. That increase has come at the expense of both Democrats, who are down by 8 percent over the same time period, and Republicans, who are down by 5 percent. The number of voters registered as independent or with other parties has increased by 19 percent.”

FACT #2:

“The Libertarian Party is the third-largest political party in the United States after the Republican and Democratic parties.”

FACT #3:

“The recently concluded Libertarian National Convention, held in New Orleans, set attendance and fundraising records. Preliminary figures indicate that this year’s convention may have surpassed the 2016 presidential nominating convention in both attendance and fundraising.”

FACT #4:

“Nationwide, there are 174 Libertarians holding elected offices: 55 partisan offices, and 119 nonpartisan offices.”

FACT #5:

Gary Johnson was the Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 2016. He was on the ballot in all fifty states plus D.C., but was only listed as a Libertarian on the ballot in forty-seven of those states plus D.C. Nationwide, he received approximately 3.24% of the vote. He received between 1.19% and 9.34% in each of the fifty states plus D. C.

Because presidential candidate election results affect ballot access [in most states], Johnson’s run was able to secure ballot access for the Libertarian Party for at least one election cycle in twenty-two states. In eighteen of those states, Libertarian Party ballot access is secured for all offices. In two of those states, Johnson only secured ballot access for the 2020 Libertarian Party presidential nominee. In Georgia, Johnson only secured ballot access in 2018 to Libertarian candidates running for statewide offices, while in Pennsylvania, Johnson was only able to secure Libertarian Party ballot access in special elections in 2017 and 2018.”

This means the candidates nominated by the Libertarian Party in these states can redirect resources (typically spent on gaining ballot access) to marketing and campaigning.

FACT #5 continued:

“As of July 2018, we have 2018 ballot access in 44 states.”

Unfortunately, because of a variety of factors, we are unable to pursue statewide access in Alabama, Tennessee, or Rhode Island this year. But we are pushing forward aggressively in the other 3 states.”

“It is likely that the Libertarian Party [LP] will have at least one nominee for a federal or state office on the ballot in all 50 states in November 2018, for the first time in a midterm year.”

FACT #6:

“December 28, 2017, Washington, DC — Attorneys with the Our America Initiative, a nonprofit advocacy organization, have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari asking the Justices to reinstate an antitrust suit brought against the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) by former presidential candidate Gary Johnson and others challenging the Commission’s boycott of third party and independent candidates from nationally televised debates.”

FACT #7:

Libertarian candidates like Craig Bowden, Larry Sharpe, Laura Ebke, Bill Gelineau, Honor “Mimi” Robson, Autumn Browne, Gail Lightfoot, Derrick Michael Reid, and many others are breaking old records with their campaigns.

In conclusion, the Libertarian Party is becoming very much more viable every day. However, viability should not determine the way we vote. The founding fathers created a representative republic so we could vote for the candidates we want to win (as opposed to voting for who we think may win). Voting for who we think can win will always give us a less desirable government. We should only be casting support for the projected winners during sport matches, not political campaigns.

In liberty,

-Travis Hallman

 

For more content from askalibertarian, follow us on the following platforms:

 

 

 

 

Do you have a libertarian oriented message you want to get out? Consider contacting Ask A Libertarian via messenger at https://www.facebook.com/messages/t/askalibertarian to find out how you can become a volunteer in our Journalism Department.

The author’s views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the entire Ask A Libertarian Team or its followers.