The Libertarian Party's Federal House and Senate Candidates Pledge to Shrink Government

Some of the policies you can get if you vote Libertarian, from localizing education to downsizing the military.

As reported here yesterday, the Libertarian Party (L.P.) tries to keep political discipline on its candidates, and is unafraid to censure even one of its very few sitting state legislators. They did so this week to Nevada Assemblyman John Moore over his vote for a stadium subsidy.

Libertarian Party

Creating a meaningful distinction between their candidates and those of the Republicans and Democrats is important to the L.P. The Party thus created a series of pledges setting forth the Party's political vision. Many of their candidates for federal House and Senate sign those pledges, in most cases dozens of signees.

Highlights, with excerpted explanations (the actual page has detailed explanations of the hows and the whys for each pledge, not all of which are excerpted below)

• END CRONY CAPITALISM

"If elected, I will sponsor and work diligently to pass legislation to end government bailouts, grants, loans, loan guarantees, and other handouts to private businesses…."

• ELIMINATE FEDERAL INCOME TAX

"If elected, I will sponsor and work diligently to pass legislation to eliminate the federal income tax, cut federal spending to the level it was during Bill Clinton's presidency, balance the budget, and get the IRS off the backs of taxpayers."

• SHUT DOWN NSA, TSA, AND END MASS SURVEILLANCE

"If elected, I will sponsor and work diligently to pass legislation to reduce and consolidate our 18 spy agencies, abolish the NSA and the TSA, grant clemency and full whistleblower protection to Edward Snowden, repeal all laws that violate the Fourth Amendment right to privacy, and cut taxes by the amount saved."

• END FAILED DRUG WAR AND PROHIBITION

"If elected, I will sponsor and work diligently to pass legislation to immediately end the insane War on Drugs; pardon, release from prison, and expunge the records of all non-violent drug 'offenders'; end arrests and SWAT raids on suspected drug 'offenders,' abolish the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and cut taxes by the amount saved."

• DOWNSIZE THE MILITARY

"If elected, I will sponsor and work diligently to pass legislation to cut military spending by 60 percent or more and and cut taxes by the amount saved; close all foreign U.S. military bases; withdraw completely from the Middle East; and bring our troops home."

• LOCALIZE EDUCATION

"If elected, I will sponsor and work diligently to pass legislation to quickly end all federal mandates on state and local schools, discontinue Common Core and all other Department of Education programs, close the DOE, and cut taxes by the amount saved."

• FULLY RESTORE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE

"If elected, I will sponsor and work diligently to pass legislation to repeal all federal laws that abridge an individual's right of self-defense, including the 'Gun-Free' Schools Act, and thereby remove this obstacle to citizens who can prevent or stop mass shootings."

• OPT OUT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

"If elected, I will sponsor and work diligently to pass legislation that allows wage earners to opt out of Social Security. Lost revenue needed for existing and future retirees will be derived from selling tens of trillions of dollars worth of unneeded federal assets."

• EXPAND HEALTH FREEDOM - MAKE IT AFFORDABLE, SAFE, AND EFFECTIVE

"If elected, I will sponsor and work diligently to pass legislation to get the federal government out of the health care business so that it can be dramatically more effective, safer, easily affordable, and far more responsive to individual needs. Specifically:

• End all federal mandates on individuals and businesses to buy medical insurance, including those contained in Obamacare. End associated tax penalties.

• End all coverage mandates and restrictions on health insurance that prevent companies from selling policies that customers want to buy. Enable purchase of medical insurance plans across state lines. Existing policies may be honored until the free market is restored.

• End government guarantees, subsidies and bailouts of insurance companies, including 'risk corridors.'….

• REPLACE GOVERNMENT MEDDLING IN MONEY WITH MARKETPLACE DISCIPLINE

"If elected, I will sponsor and work diligently to pass legislation to end the Federal Reserve System (the Fed); prohibit more government debt; prohibit printing of dollars not backed by physical commodities; remove restrictions on alternative currencies, e.g., Bitcoin, gold, silver; and allow the free market to set interest rates."

• NEVER EXPAND BIG GOVERNMENT

"If elected, I will vote "no" and work against any measure that expands government authority in any way or that increases total government spending from today's astronomically high levels. If an essential, constitutional government function is needed, I will vote to reduce spending elsewhere to pay for it, rather than raise taxes or add to the nation's debt."

• REQUIRE GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY

"Government should be at least as transparent as anyone it regulates, including citizens subject to an IRS audit, businesses harassed by government regulators, and political campaigns subject to FEC regulations. Therefore, if elected, I will sponsor and work diligently to pass legislation to put the government's checkbook online. Each government transaction must cite as much detail as the IRS demands of citizens. Government agencies that refuse to fully and promptly disclose their finances will lose their funding, and taxes will be cut by the amount saved."

See the Party's pledge page for more, and more detailed explanations for why those pledges are a good idea.

Comments

[The Fusionist]

Well, that's nice.

Maybe the LP can issue some sort of document laying out the principles its candidates will strive to implement if elected.

If a candidate objects to particular parts of the platform, (s)he should inform the Party as early as possible. Then the LP leadership would have the option of accepting or rejecting the candidate's reservations.

If the LP refuses to accept the candidate's reservations, it can then disavow the candidate and work for the election of someone else.

If the LP accepts the reservations, then it should add a note to the platform saying that "candidate such-and-such is not bound by the following platform planks: [listing them]."

A candidate who consents to run on the LP label without explicitly disavowing any part of the platform will be considered bound by the entire platform.

How's that sound?

[The Fusionist]

Come to think of it, this might be a good idea for other parties, too.

[PaigeWyatt]

My best friend's ex-wife makes $95/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over $15000 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
Read more on this site... http://www.Trends88.com

[PaigeWyatt]

My best friend's ex-wife makes $95/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over $15000 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
Read more on this site... http://www.Trends88.com

[PaigeWyatt]

My best friend's ex-wife makes $95/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over $15000 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
Read more on this site... http://www.Trends88.com

[Tom Bombadil]

Sounds very unlibertarian. I like it!

[The Fusionist]

A political party, as a private association, should be free to decide which candidates to associate its brand with.

[The Fusionist]

And if a political party chooses to issue a statement of its supposed fundamental principles, then it owes it to the public to say which of its candidates aren't on board with those principles.

Otherwise the public will think they're being played for suckers.

[The Fusionist]

No, it's worse than that - the writing of platforms is, in the major parties, fobbed off on powerless activists to give them the illusion of importance, but only naive people expect the candidates to follow the platform unless convenient.

If the LP is going to go down that road, let's know at once.

[Tom Bombadil]

Which Top Men will write the platform every couple of years?

[The Fusionist]

They could just say - "we won't issue any more platforms because our candidates don't abide by them anyway - we just call on the voters to follow the candidate's personal positions and not depend on statements by our party."

[John]

DOWNSIZE THE MILITARY

I would be nice if Libertarians would ever understand how self defeating this is. Wanting to kill the military doesn't attract any votes of leftists who support doing that and just turns off people on the right who would otherwise be inclined to support them. Moreover, it distracts from the appeal of Libertarians' pledges to end foreign intervention. A good number of people on the right are tired of foreign intervention and are disposed to support a candidate who wants to end them, but not if it comes at the price of drastically reducing the nation's military. Yeah, Libertarians think no military is necessary or virtually none, but a lot of people disagree with them on that but do agree with them on ending foreign interventions. So why run those people off to appeal to leftists who would never vote Libertarian no matter what?

Lastly, Libertarians need to understand that freedom is much more appealing to people who feel secure. Freedom necessarily involves risk and uncertainty. So the more secure people feel, the more disposed they will be to support freedom. Having a big military makes people feel secure about the nation and less inclined to believe scare tactics about threats to the country being an excuse to give up their freedom.

[SIV]

Trump seems to have struck a chord with calling for increasing the military while reducing our foreign presence and commitments.

[jester]

How about: Cut waste from the military budget? Somehow I don't even think that would fly.
And the left loves the military for two reasons: it's a jobs program and it's why they feel they can tell you you don't need guns.
I agree, it's a non starter. So focus on the huge budgets of the Dept of Education and the National Endowment for the Arts.

[John]

Sure do that. But that is not what this is saying. It is saying cut the military by 60% because a small army is somehow required by Libertarian principles and utterly nonnegotiable no matter what the circumstances.

[The Hyperbole ((Very Tall))]

Our military cut by 60% would still be large.

[John]

Again, whether that is large enough is up for debate. We can go back and forth about that issue as long as we like and likely won't convince each other. My point is that there is in Libertarian principles that dictates how large the military must be. So what is the point of alienating people who might be inclined to support Libertarians by staking a claim about how large the military is? How about just pledging to end foreign interventions and be willing to compromise on the size of the military?

[jester]

'Go back and forth about that'
Okay, let's I have three days off work. How about 58.6%?

[Tom Bombadil]

Libertarian position on the military:

The military needs to be as big as it needs to be to accomplish its mission.
If that is a 50% reduction, so be it.
If that is a 300% increase, so be it.

The libertarian question regarding the military is the same as the libertarian question regarding all government: "What is the proper function of the government?'

Libertarians want to reduce the size of government, not because they hate taxes, but because government has vastly overflowed its proper functions.

[John]

The military needs to be as big as it needs to be to accomplish its mission.
If that is a 50% reduction, so be it.
If that is a 300% increase, so be it.

I completely agree. Understand, however, what is a question of opinion and what is a question of principle. The principle part is what is the mission. That is something that you can't compromise on. The opinion part is what it takes to accomplish the mission. That is something that should be up for debate and compromise.

I understand you don't want a big military. But compromising on that and having a big military is not a violation of your principles as long as the mission of the military remains consistent with Libertarian principles. Should you compromise on the size of the military? Maybe or maybe not. But it is something you should be open to and willing to do if doing so results in the support of people you wouldn't normally have or accomplishing something you value more.

My point is I think it is counter productive of the LP to draw a line in the sand about cutting the military. It is not required by Libertarian principles and it probably loses them votes. So, instead they should draw a line in the sand about interventions and be more flexible about the spending.

[Tom Bombadil]

John,
Has it ever occurred to you that libertarians want to reduce the size of the government because they've already answered the first "principle" question.

For me it goes like this:
Step 1.(philosophy) What is the function of the US military
Step 2. (observation) What is the US military really doing?
Step 3 (analysis). The US military is active way beyond its core function.
Step 4 (conclusion). US military activity can/should be greatly diminished, significant reduction in size possible/desirable.... details at 11.

[Tom Bombadil]

That should read:

"Has it ever occurred to you that libertarians want to reduce the size of the MILITARY because..."

[Francisco d'Anconia]

The libertarian question regarding the military is the same as the libertarian question regarding all government: "What is the proper function of the government?'

AMEN!

And, behold, libertarian principle provides an answer. If one believes that governments should abide by the NAP (taxes aside for a moment), then the ONLY legitimate role of the military is to counter aggression perpetrated against those who pay for that protection.

IOW, the proper size of the military is one large powerful enough to repel attacks on our borders and a minimal expeditionary force, capable of being ramped up quickly, to ensure offenders will not repeat offend.

What we have now is a force structure that's no longer threat based and a military that is sized to be used preemptively to force our will upon other nations. We could easily manage with half of what we have, IF the above policy was adopted and adhered to.

Libertarian principle DOES drive the appropriate size.

[John]

IOW, the proper size of the military is one large powerful enough to repel attacks on our borders and a minimal expeditionary force, capable of being ramped up quickly, to ensure offenders will not repeat offend.

Again, you seem to think that your answer to that question is somehow beyond debate. And it is not. What is "powerful enough to repel attacks on our borders"? I don't know and neither do you. We both have an opinion on that and there is no way to say for certain who is right.

You are trying to take the libertarian dictate about the mission of the military and make it apply to the size of the military. And it doesn't work that way. Saying that the military should have a limited mission is not the same as saying it should be small. Perhaps it takes a large military to meet that limited mission or perhaps the person taking the position supports that limited mission but wants to leave no doubt that it can accomplish it in all foreseeable circumstances and thus wants a large military to ensure that. That may be wrong in your opinion but it is not against Libertarian principle.

I have about zero faith in your understanding that because you seem utterly incapable of understanding fine rational distinctions like this. But, damn it I am going to dream and think maybe this once i will finally get a point through to you.

[Tom Bombadil]

"You are trying to take the libertarian dictate about the mission of the military and make it apply to the size of the military."

John, if you can get people to come around to the libertarian position on the mission of the military, figuring out the size of it isn't going to be that hard.

Our military isn't huge because Congress is arguing over the size needed to meet libertarian principles.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

We may, in fact, quibble about whether the correct number is $300B or $310B to achieve the above policy.

What you may not quibble over is the fact that the current military is funded way beyond that required to achieve the above policy at $580B/yr.

You may also not quibble over the fact that we spend as much as the next 8 top military spenders combined, which include both of our primary rivals, Russia and China. The highest of which is China @ $129B. If Russia is getting by with $70B and isn't getting attacked, I think it's safe to say that cutting our spending by 50%ish is completely doable, if not an entire order of magnitude.

But starting with the premise that:

Yeah, Libertarians think no military is necessary or virtually none

And then claiming that libertarian principle can't dictate the right size because we'll still debate over single billions rather than hundreds of billions...

Again, whether that is large enough is up for debate... My point is that there is in Libertarian principles that dictates how large the military must be.

Well, mendacious cunts gonna mendacious cunt.

[Ted S.]

The oversized military has had a deleterious effect on our society in other ways.

Probably most obvious is the policy of sending used military stuff to police departments, so said police can violate our property with more impunity.

A more subtle one that I've only noticed recently is the use of "military-grade" in advertisements, with the apparent expectation that of course the prospective customer is supposed to find this a good selling point. (Well, I suppose this is really part of the broader hagiolatry of government-backed force that's been going on since 9/11.)

[Rufus The Monocled]

They have to justify all these expensive toys for sure.

FdA brings up a good point about Russia. They exist in a much more hostile geography with several countries on its huge Eurasia border and they make do. I don't know maybe all those countries are too small, poor or whatever to attack but still, all it takes it's one. China borders Russia; Canada and Mexico border the USA. Pas la meme chose.

If one country can justify cutting back on its military it's the USA since the likelihood of Mexico ever attacking is next to zero and below zero for Canada.

Fucking Canada. We can't even pretend to be a threat.

[The Last American Hero]

Which is why Johnson is doing so poorly with the military vote. Oh, wait...

[John]

Johnson is doing well because he is pushing non intervention. I don't think many in the military think he could ever obtain the cuts he wants and thus those who support him don't care.

[jester]

The funny thing is that even NOT growing the military is considered a cut. That' would be a good point to start on.

[Jayburd]

Most in the Service KNOW how much it wastes.

[Grand Moff Serious Man]

Yeah, Libertarians think no military is necessary or virtually none

Citation need. I've never heard any big L libertarian claim that we don't need a military. And every small l libertarian who isn't an anarchist acknowledges defense is a legitimate function of government.

In any case, we cannot seriously tackle the spending problem this country has if we don't reduce military spending along with reforming entitlements. The military could easily downsize and still be invincible, especially since it isn't going to be spread out thin across the globe.

[John]

In any case, we cannot seriously tackle the spending problem this country has if we don't reduce military spending

Yes we can. The military is less than a 1/4th of the federal budget. And it is not programmed to grow exponentially the way entitlements are. Libertarians seem to often believe the leftist idea that most of the federal government goes towards defense and wars rather than entitlements.

[jester]

Entitlements are the biggest problem. But everyone I talk to insists that they *paid* into it, so it's just an entitlement for other people. Of course, I tell them they invested in a Ponzi scheme, but like Madoff's *investors*, they still think they should get it, even if it isn't there.

[John]

The bottom line is that we spend around 4% of GNP on defense. So claiming that defense spending is what is bankrupting us is absurd. How can an expense that is 4% of our total wealth be the cause of the country going broke?

[Tom Bombadil]

Because we don't tax our GDP at 100%, so 4% of GDP is meaningless. All government spending contributes to the deficit which contributes to the debt which might be called "going broke".

Military should be 50+% of the budget. Not because Military spending needs to increase, but because the entire budget needs to decrease. Military spending is one of the few proper functions of the Federal Government.

[John]

Because we don't tax our GDP at 100%, so 4% of GDP is meaningless. All government spending contributes to the deficit which contributes to the debt which might be called "going broke".

No. We are only "broke" if there is no way we could ever tax enough to pay for it. The maximum tax rate seems to be around 19% of GNP. No matter how high we raise taxes, the amount taken in never exceeds 19%.

Our tax rate, whatever it is, can be anything from 0% to 19%. Given that we could tax anything up to 19%, the country is not going to ever be unable to pay an expense that represents 5% of its GNP. It is really that simple. Entitlements in contrast are growing exponentially and will exceed 19% if they have not already. That is what will bankrupt the country.

Again, you assume that Libertarian principles demand whatever you want. They don't. You want a small defense budge. I understand that. Maybe it is a great idea. But please understand it is just that "something you like and think is a great idea" and not something demanded by Libertarian principles. Everything seems to think their "principles" are always going to give them their pony. Sorry, it doesn't work that way, at least not if you have actual principles rather than rationalizations for what you want.

[Tom Bombadil]

I already explained.
I don't want a "small" defense budget.
I want a defense budget that is exactly big enough for the military that we need.

If we are rich but don't need a large military, then I want to cut it.
If we are poor but need a bigger military, then I want to expand it.

Defense of the nation is one of the Big 2 or 3 or 4 proper functions of the federal government.

[John]

I already explained.
I don't want a "small" defense budget.
I want a defense budget that is exactly big enough for the military that we need.

If we are rich but don't need a large military, then I want to cut it.

I understand that. But you have to understand that those decisions are driven by your assessment of the situation not some answer provided by libertarian principles. So when someone disagrees with you and says "yes we do need a large army given the threat", you can say they are wrong but you cannot say that libertarian principles dictate they are wrong. You could take both positions consistent with libertarian principles.

[Tom Bombadil]

"We are only "broke" if there is no way we could ever tax enough to pay for it."

Wow. Don't worry, we're not broke, we can always enslave the entire country.
Which Atlas Shrugged character do you most identify with?

[Tom Bombadil]

Last 10 years, average deficit around 800billion/year.
Last 10 years, average spending around 3.5 trillion.

That means we are running 22% over budget every year.
That is a big number.

Your 19% tax rate isn't keeping up.

[Jayburd]

"Yes we can. The military is less than a 1/4th of the federal budget. And it is not programmed to grow exponentially the way entitlements are".
Look up the price tag of a B1, B2, And the new B21.

[DenverJ]

Sure, because who needs principles, when all you really want is power.
Oh, and as Eisenhower tried to warn us about the military-industrial complex, the military is a huge part of the cronyism problem in our government. Also, see the TSA and body scanners.

[John]

Since when do Libertarian principles say anything about the size of the national defense budget? You seem to think Libertarian principles are just things that support whatever it is you want rather than a set of objective principles that speak to a set of values and in no way support or guarantee or even concern every preference you have for government policy.

[Tom Bombadil]

Libertarian principles speak to the proper function/mission of the military.
That proper function/mission is directly related to the resources needed to accomplish that mission.

Therefore, libertarian principles speak directly to the size of the national defense budget.

Now, you can stop repeating that same bullshit. 10 times is enough.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

His entire argument, which is nothing more than a ploy to shill for Team Red, is based on two false premises.

He's simply pathetic.

You only lose when engaging John, as it only encourages him. I shouldn't have done it.

[Tom Bombadil]

Respectfully I disagree.
John disappeared for a blissfully long time.
I can't help but think he needed to recover from repeated ass kickings.
John is not really stupid (just dogmatic), but he is sensitive.

[Rufus The Monocled]

While I do see your point this may not be politically advantageous, but not sure about "Libertarians think no military is necessary or virtually none". I haven't seen or heard this; unless I'm mistaken. They're not Quakers.

Maybe I'm contrasting this with up here where (among the left, who else?) the incredibly infantile, insipid and naive, 'we don't need a military anymore because peace time' rang all the way to the top of our halls of power (not once acknowledging by thinking this way you've unwittingly - or not- offloaded your national security interests and load onto the United States). I don't see this with American libertarians.

JT could speak more to this but it's what I remember and observed.

[John]

Libertarians think no military is necessary or virtually none". I haven't seen or heard this; unless I'm mistaken.

Look above you where DenverJ says that demanding drastic cuts in the defense budget is required by Libertarian principles. A lot of Libertarians seem to have this idea that Libertarian principles have anything to say about the size of the defense budget. No, they speak to how the army can be used not how big it is.

[Jickerson]

I don't see the issue with drastic cuts. Even with drastic cuts, we'd still have the largest military in the world. Cutting the military does not mean getting rid of it or making it virtually nonexistent, and pointing out that entitlements are worse doesn't change the fact that we spend too much on the military as well.

A lot of Libertarians seem to have this idea that Libertarian principles have anything to say about the size of the defense budget.

Well, the government does steal money to get that funding.

[John]

Well, the government does steal money to get that funding.

If they are anarchists sure. But last I looked Libertarians at least claimed to be something other than anarchists and embraced limited government not no government. You can't say on the one hand that government is legitimate and then on the other say taxes are theft. Taxes are necessary for government to exist and if they are theft than no government is legitimate.

So before we talk about how big the military should be, you ought to first decide whether you are a Libertarian or an anarchist.

[Adans smith]

John,your being dishonest. No one here wants to eliminate the military. Removing troops from wealthy nations in Europe and Asia,ending useless wars and interventions and eliminating useless spending on things like the F-35 and more M-1 tanks would be a good start. Let's let these counties defend themselves. BTW,China and Russia's armed forces are vastly over rated by the Pentagon and hawks.

[John]

ohn,your being dishonest. No one here wants to eliminate the military. Removing troops from wealthy nations in Europe and Asia,ending useless wars and interventions and eliminating useless spending on things like the F-35 and more M-1 tanks would be a good start.

No, you are being dishonest and missing the point. Whether F 35s or M1 tanks are needed for the national defense is a question of policy. You think they are not, other people disagree. Whatever the right answer to that question is, it has nothing to do with Libertarian principles. Libertarian principles don't tell you how many F 35s the country should have, they only speak to how they should and should not be used. So compromising with the people who think we need a lot of them is not violating any Libertarian principles. Libertarians refuse to do that because they have like Denver J above and perhaps you convinced themselves that Libertarian principles demand a military of whatever size they prefer.

[jester]

The folks that manufacture them for sure. Crony capitalism is perhaps the biggest parasite of an enlarged military and a bigger host (unintended pun) means more blood to suck.

[AlmightyJB]

"Libertarian principles don't tell you how many F 35s the country should have, they only speak to how they should and should not be used"

I would disagree. We need the size of the military to be that which can easily defeat and deter any threat to the United States and no more. That is a limited government position. We do not need the military to be so big as to police the entire world. I'm not sure where you would get the idea that libertarians wouldn't or shouldn't have any limit on military spending?

[John]

I would disagree. We need the size of the military to be that which can easily defeat and deter any threat to the United States and no more. That is a limited government positi

Sure that is true. But, just exactly how big a military it takes to do that is debatable. Yeah, you think it is a pretty small one. Other people disagree. You can say they are wrong about that but I don't see how you can say they are not being Libertarian.

You want your libertarian principles to answer a question that they don't answer. You can frame the question however you like but unless you just say "libertarian principles preclude any military" or "demand a small military no matter what the circumstances", you can't claim they require what you want.

[Tom Bombadil]

"You can say they are wrong about that but I don't see how you can say they are not being Libertarian."

It's easy to say they are not being libertarian if they define the military's role outside of libertarian principles. There is a libertarian position on what the military's proper function is. For you to pull the "it's all relative" card is weak sauce.

[John]

It's easy to say they are not being libertarian if they define the military's role outside of libertarian principles.

Yes, but the military's role is not the same thing as its size. What you plan to use it for may affect how you evaluate its size but it is not the same thing. You can agree about its role but disagree about how big it needs to be to accomplish that role and both of you still agree about the Libertarian principles that dictate the role.

[AlmightyJB]

Certanly there is some subjectivity that puts a decent range between min and max amounts but when you spend more than the next 7 countries combibed and almost 3 times the number 2 country (China), I would say that's a pretty good indicator even to a layman that you're well above your max. There may be some areas in the military that actually need an increase but overall spending certainly can be reduced without creating a threat to the country. In fact I would say that our deficit creates more of a threat than a reduced military.

[AlmightyJB]

Also, put thise numbers in context that we border Canada and Mexico and China borders Russia.

[AlmightyJB]

And we have enough nukes to obliterate all life on the planet multiple times.

[Tom Bombadil]

"Yes, but the military's role is not the same thing as its size"

An analogy simple enough for you, John:

A contractor is told to build a playhouse big enough to seat 100 people
A contractor is told to build a playhouse big enough to seat 10,000 people

Two different mission statements.

Do you feel you can make a guess which one might cost more?

[Ted S.]

I'm gonna tear your playhouse down

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

You want your libertarian principles to answer a question that they don't answer. You can frame the question however you like but unless you just say "libertarian principles preclude any military" or "demand a small military no matter what the circumstances", you can't claim they require what you want.

I think you can make connections between size of the military and scope of its intended purpose. We do it all the time with welfare programs. For example, Social Security clearly isn't a program only for the indigent. You can tell that simply by the amount of money being handled by the program. Similarly, the size of the US military clearly indicates that it isn't around to simply to protect the homeland. Hell, we have a separate department for "homeland security."

[Tom Bombadil]

John has long ago decided you can never have too much military.

Now, his only job is to run around throwing dust in the air.

[John]

No. It is called logic. I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying you are going to have to win the arguments on its merits and explain you want a small military and not blindly appeal to principle and that compromising on the issue is not compromising your principles.

It is really pretty simple. You just refuse to admit it because you don't want to make the substantive argument and would rather rely on the lazy appeal to principles. Sorry, but I don't let people off that easy. Find an easier mark if you want to pull that.

[JFree]

The problem with 'downsize the military' and some of these other pithy slogans is not the intent but the rigidity of them. There are so many ways to achieve a goal - or agree on getting 90% of the goal. But the rigidity of all these pledges just seems to confirm that Libertarians are incapable of governing or thinking for themselves or representing their actual constituents - and that it is unnecessary to even elect them personally since all these rigid ideas come from national thinktanks and the candidates/LP are mere puppets. And those thinktanks have proven themselves more than willing to sell out LP anyway and deal with the D/R's directly.

I really don't understand why lockstep rigidity is necessary to be both an effective political party AND a principled political party. This is just narrow litmus test crap. And unlike the D/R litmus test crap, the L's aren't building it AFTER they've proven successful at winning/accomplishing anything. They are doing it to preclude being successful.

[JFree]

Just looking at this from my personal opinion. I don't want to 'eliminate all income taxes' (while eliminating all mention of any other taxes). I'm not an anarcho and I think 'income tax' is a legitimate (though coercive like all taxes) element of federal revenue. So am I the enemy if I think a 12% marginal cap with a $20,000 or so exemption is about right? Am I the enemy if I want to eliminate the death/estate tax (avoided by the truly wealthy) and replace it with an annual (much tougher to avoid if you want govt to protect your property) 0.5% wealth tax instead?

Because the L candidates who take these pledges are basically saying 'we can't even discuss these issues unless we talk with our policy masters and get their OK first'. So why elect a puppet?

[IceTrey]

You can't call yourself a libertarian and be for coercive anything.

[JFree]

There's a difference between being FOR coercive anything - and trying to reduce it. Self-defense involves coercion if someone else wants you dead/harmed.

Sounds like the true libertarian cannot exist in the real world. Because like it or not, anarcho can't exist with human nature as it actually is.

[IceTrey]

You are FOR it, "I think 'income tax' is a legitimate (though coercive like all taxes) element of federal revenue."

[DesigNate]

I'm not an anarchist because human nature, but there is no universe where a tax on my supporting my family (income) is legitimate.

Necessary perhaps, but not legitimate.

[IceTrey]

Just tell the people that while you're reducing the size of the ground forces you're keeping the nukes.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Who's going to pay for my college degree? Pass.

[DOOMco]

You will, fist. If you pass or fail.

[SIV]

END FAILED DRUG WAR AND PROHIBITION

"If elected, I will sponsor and work diligently to pass legislation to immediately end the insane War on Drugs; pardon, release from prison, and expunge the records of all non-violent drug 'offenders'; end arrests and SWAT raids on suspected drug 'offenders,' abolish the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and cut taxes by the amount saved."

The Libertarian Party's presidential candidate opposes this plank. GayJay is for legalized marijuana ONLY.

[John]

Beyond that, it is also a simple minded position that in no way squares with their position on the constitution. Under a proper reading of the Constitution and one which these guys would no doubt claim to support, the federal government doesn't have general police power and cannot tell the states how they can use such. So, the federal government can only end the federal drug war. The states could still ban the possession and use of drugs.

[DesigNate]

That depends heavily on how the individual state constitutions are worded.

[The Last American Hero]

OT from today's Seattle Times: A delegate from WA (which HRC will likely win by 20 points) has said he will not cast his electoral vote for HRC.

[The Fusionist]

link

[The Fusionist]

"Satiacum, 56, is one of 12 people picked as Democratic electors at Washington's Democratic Party convention earlier this year in Tacoma ? a gathering dominated by supporters of Sanders, who won the state's caucuses in March."

Just in case you're thinking he's Betraying The Party - it was Hillary skeptics who nominted the electors.

[The Fusionist]

I mean, he's betraying the party, or I should say betraying it back after they betrayed him.

[Stormy Dragon]

prohibit printing of dollars not backed by physical commodities; remove restrictions on alternative currencies

Don't these two points directly contradict each other?

[Stormy Dragon]

Setting aside the magical thinking involved in believing that the market value of some things (e.g. gold) is somehow more "real" than the market value of some other things (e.g. reserve dollars).

[DenverJ]

Except that you can't print more gold whenever you feel like it.

[The Fusionist]

The 16th century Spanish empire begs to differ.

So do the alchemists.

[jester]

But there's 3-D printing now!

[SIV]

Don't these two points directly contradict each other?

How so?

[Tom Bombadil]

"Don't these two points directly contradict each other?"

No

Point 1 addresses STATE CURRENCY
Point 2 addresses alternate currencies (private)

[IceTrey]

No the alternative currencies would have to be backed by commodities also.

[Rufus The Monocled]

Shrink government? You mean, like, with a shrink gun?

Coooool.

[DOOMco]

Honey, I shrunk the federal government!

[Rufus The Monocled]

Now that's a rebel B-movie ready to be made!

[DOOMco]

Call the kochs, lets do this.

[Ken Shultz]

You don't kick visitors out of church for sinning. You welcome them with open arms if they say they want to join. That's the way we make friends and influence people.

If a voter wants to call himself libertarian and wants more freedom, then he's libertarian enough for me. The standard for politicians should be lower than it is for voters.

Winning elections is about winning votes. That is fundamentally different from winning an intellectual argument. Elections are often decided by the bottom 12% of the people on the IQ spectrum.

If we're able to sustain our newfound popularity and transform it into power, we'll have transformed the Libertarian Party into an organization that from top to bottom is meant to win votes--rather than arguments.

You know what the honest to God libertarian truth is? The truth is that the biggest problem the American people face is . . . the American people. The voters are the cause of their own problems. You want to fix America's problems? Look in the mirror and fix yourself!

If the Libertarian Party isn't telling people that, they're the ones misrepresenting the truth. But how could a libertarian politician win an election with a truth like that? Winning an election isn't like winning an intellectual argument.

[The Fusionist]

Right, but that being so, don't issue an official Platform full of principles and promises and then chide voters for naivete if they take the platform seriously.

Either skip the platform or issue a disclaimer that "some candidates may not fully accept this platform - please check the candidate for details."

[The Fusionist]

I mean, if voters are as dumb as you say, they may actually try to find out a candidate's positions by looking up his party's platform, unless you take careful safeguards against such a misunderstanding.

[Ken Shultz]

The Democrats and Republicans have platforms, too. They just don't take every single position so seriously.

They're selective.

Before Donald Trump, anyway, you weren't going to win the Republican nomination unless you were against abortion and pro-Second Amendment.

Apart from that, they'll let you slide on most issues. For a while there, you had to be in favor of the Iraq War.

The Democrats are the same way.

I doubt you can win the Democrat nomination without being pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.

Everything else?

Party ideologues will always be ideological, but even they're more pragmatic in the two major parties. Barack Obama campaigned on the slogan "Marriage is between a man and a woman". All the gay rights organizations kept raising money for him and volunteering for his campaign anyway--and they were smart to do so.

How many of us went after Johnson for making a political calculation on association rights? If he was pulling more support away from Hillary rather than Trump, his stand on association rights may have made that support possible. Those are the kinds of calculations that are necessary to win elections. We can only sell what the voter market will buy.

[Ken Shultz]

There are two cross purposes here, and the more popular we get, the more they'll conflict with each other. As Doherty has said (paraphrasing), the true purpose of libertarianism has always been to make more libertarians. Outside of the LP, that is still our purpose--to convince the voter market to accept more and more libertarian ideas.

But as we become more popular, the purpose of the LP stops being about spreading the libertarian gospel and starts being about maximizing votes. The purpose of a contending political party is to contend for votes--not to change people's hearts and minds. Changing people's hearts and minds and my job, your job, and Reason's job. The more successful we are, the less the LP will have to compromise in order to win votes.

[The Fusionist]

For present purposes, all I said - and this applies to all political parties - is that they should make clear what their candidates are promising and what they're not promising.

To avoid confusion, any position papers issued by the parties should have disclaimers of the sort I discussed above.

Or a party could always take the route of the Constitutional Union Party in 1860 and adopt a platform against platforms:

"Whereas, Experience has demonstrated that Platforms adopted by the partisan Conventions of the country have had the effect to mislead and deceive the people, and at the same time to widen the political divisions of the country, by the creation and encouragement of geographical and sectional parties; therefore

"Resolved, that it is both the part of patriotism and of duty to recognize no political principle other than THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COUNTRY, THE UNION OF THE STATES, AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS..."

That went over very well with the voters!

[The Fusionist]

And Johnson's views against freedom of association and freedom of religion aren't pragmatic - he seems to sincerely and passionately believe in denying these freedoms.

So actually, Johnson is being *idealisic* on these issues.

If he were pragmatic, he would have de-emphasized that stuff and accepted the belief of many discontented voters that Christian business owners can decide whether to cater gay weddings or not.

[Ken Shultz]

"They should make clear what their candidates are promising and what they're not promising."

I'm happy when people vote for libertarian candidates for good reasons, bad reasons, or because they're confused.

Remember that time Stormfront gave the Ron Paul campaign a bunch of money, and Paul refused to return it? If the idiots at Stormfront for stupid reasons that we don't represent, that's fine.

They're votes count for just as much as everyone else's, and if they were voting for us, they might be voting for a racist or something.

The party should not be ideological.

We should think of the Libertarian Party the same way we think of the Republican Party. Sometimes the Republicans run people I disagree with, but they aren't there to persuade anybody of any ideology. They're there to amalgamate various sometimes conflicting ideologies into one cohesive voting block for pragmatic reasons--specifically to win a majority of the votes in single member districts.

All my fellow libertarian ideologues should know about Duverger's Law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

This is the political reality within which political parties compete. This is the equation by which the laws of our universe determines winners and losers. Duverger's Law, that's F=MA in classical physics terms. You gotta start with that.

[Ken Shultz]

And libertarianism is not a set of agreed upon principles--beyond a few. We believe that people should be free to make choices for themselves, but beyond that, there isn't much in the way of legitimate agreement. I wouldn't say there is no libertarian position on abortion; I'd say there are multiple legitimately libertarian positions on abortion. Same thing with foreign policy, etc.

And our libertarian constituency reflects that. We're made up of Objectivists, small state libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, free staters, sea steaders, paleoconservatives, civil libertarians, anti-war people, neoconservatives, transhumanists, rugged individualists, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Trying to impose a common platform on this group of people has always been an exercise in futility.

There are a few things we all tend to agree on.

We think people should be free to make choices for themselves.

We support the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth, the Fifth, the Eighth, etc.

We might universally support the President getting a declaration of war from Congress.

We want to see the end of the drug war.

We favor markets over central planning and capitalism over socialism.

I think that's about as detailed and exclusive as we ever need to get.

[Ken Shultz]

Getting more detailed and more exclusive than that certainly isn't going to make our tent bigger, and to get real power, our tent needs to be big enough to encompass 150 million people.

[The Fusionist]

I was speaking of political parties generally - they don't have to have platforms, and if they do they should make clear which of their candidates are on board with which parts of the platform.

I'm sure that a party can pick up votes by pretending to be different things to different constituencies, but it's still not something *any* party (LP, Demopubs, Constitution, Socialist Workers) should be doing.

And, of course, if the strategy is "successful" it just means that you've traded in one set of crooks for another. If the crooks spout "libertarian" rhetoric, so what - Republicans can do that stuff.

[Rufus The Monocled]

Weld looks like the guy in the room who eloquently argues all is lost and that the only way to go is to talk up the opposing candidate.

Wait a minute.

[Adans smith]

One thing I do not like is a national sales tax. It will not eliminate the IRS. Every business will collect all the ferderal taxes and there will be a department that will be in charge of compliance digging into every business and self employed person. I favor a flat tax,12% with the first 20,000 exempt.

[Adans smith]

Ok,I miss spelled federal,want to fight about it? And I forgot,no capital gains or corp. tax. If the feds can't live on that,to fucking bad. Get rid of the department of energy,education,homeland,DEA,commerce,AG,HHS for starters. Eliminate the VA and issue a medical card to wounded soldiers to be used at the provider of their choice.

[Rufus The Monocled]

I actually prefer Ferderal. It has a nice ring to it. Ferderal.

[The Hyperbole ((Very Tall))]

Seconded Ferderal it shall henceforth be.

[Adans smith]

My job is done here.

[Adans smith]

You mean like feral,like a wild dog? I'll go with that from now on.The Feral government.

[Tom Bombadil]

With 2 signatures, I could form a Feral Party, right now.

Our first candidate will be that boomerang kid from the Road Warrior movie.

[To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]]

I think there are 2 benefits to the sales tax over the income tax. 1) The citizen is exposed to it on a daily basis. 2) It is more easily avoidable than the income tax.

[AlmightyJB]

And everyone will pay at least something. I would exempt food, shelter, medication and utilities. I know in Ohio they don't tax unprepared food, not aure what else is exempt.

[DOOMco]

Sounds good.

[Tom Bombadil]

Florida is like that.
"Raw" food and medicine is exempt I believe.

[Adans smith]

I'm a barber,one person shop. Your saying I should collect taxes for all my clients and do all the paper work and deal with the ferderals ][ my new word,thanks Swiss ] ? Believe me,I will raise my pries to cover the expense. There is no free lunch.If I have to report to the bastards ,so should you.

[AlmightyJB]

You don't have state or local sales tax where you are at now? Because most cities and states do.

[Adans smith]

Whoops,meant Rufus,,and yes there are state and city .You are shifting the compliance burden to other and the expense.I'm not your daddy. Get rid on with holding and write your own damn checks like I do.

[AlmightyJB]

So sales tax compliance would be more difficult than income tax compliance? Either way you have to track receipts. I'm not saying it wouldn't be, just that on its face it's seems like it would be simpler for you.

[AlmightyJB]

And I would assume those comliance cost would be baked into your prices just as it would for your competitors. Plus your margin.

[Ted S.]

And I would assume those comliance cost would be baked into your prices just as it would for your competitors.

I think it depends on whether it's a US-style sales tax, where the tax is added at the register, or one of those horrid Euro-style "value added" taxes, which are baked into the prices.

[AlmightyJB]

Yeah, it should only be when actual transactions take place.

[DOOMco]

Labor isn't taxed

[Tom Bombadil]

"'I'm a barber,one person shop"

Charge $20/haircut.
Example: Tax is 10% or $2/haircut.
Customer pays $22/haircut.
Cut 2000 heads per year.
Send the IRS $4000.

wow, the bookkeeping sounds brutal.

[DiegoF]

Avoidable how? By buying less? Or by defrauding the government? If the latter: (1) This is exactly why sales taxes switch to a VAT regime once they pass 11%; Puerto Rico recently did so, the first in the USA. (2) If you are arguing that this is an advantage, you are probably arguing from a different set of premises from most libertarians who argue about which tax regime they advocate.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

2) It is more easily avoidable than the income tax.

I agree. While the only true libertarian tax would be some sort of voluntary system, a sales tax, at least, allows a modicum of control over the amount stolen.

[Ken Shultz]

Sales taxes are in every way superior to income taxes. I went over the finer points in three posts yesterday starting here: I won't repeat it in this thread . . .

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11.....nt_6521277

. . . but i will respond to this:

"Every business will collect all the ferderal taxes and there will be a department that will be in charge of compliance digging into every business and self employed person."

How could that not be a vast improvement to what we have now?

As a self-employed person, we're already tracking every penny we make and everything we buy.

Exempting hundreds of millions of Americans from having to file income tax forms at all would be outrageously better than what we have now. There isn't anything more invasive about abolishing the income tax.

[Crusty Juggler]

OT: Just in case you thought The New Republic was a serious publication.

[Crusty Juggler]

Ugh. That's from two years ago. Even us great ones get it wrong on occasion.

[John]

What we will all be allowed to happily forget is that there are plenty of real stories of rape: of violent rape, frat house rape, gang rape, date rape; that most rape accusers do not lie and that in fact it's quite likely, statistically, that Jackie herself did not lie. But the most serious thing that we'll be allowed to forget is the very point of Erdely's story, whatever its strengths or flaws may be determined to be: The system does not work.

That strictly speaking might be true. I seriously doubt it but it might be true. If it is, however, it doesn't make Ederly's account of this event any more accurate or more defensible. This is basically a version of the defense that was offered for Dan Rather for publishing the fake Bush National Guard Memo; the narrative was right, he just got the facts wrong.

The left has long since rejected the idea of there even being an objective truth much less any obligation to tell it. The New Republic doesn't care that the Rolling Stone Story was a lie. All that matters is that it furthered a narrative that their politics demands be furthered. That is what they are saying here; that it doesn't matter what the actual truth is as long as what is being said furthers leftist politics and enhances leftist political power.

I don't know if I would say they are not series. I would definitely say, however, they are fucking evil.

[DiegoF]

I'm a loathe to label anyone an apostate from a church as wonderfully diverse as libertarianism. But that asshole in Nevada is an utter fucking disgrace. Compare him and Bill Weld, who of course is not going to even win anything, to folks like Justin Amash, and it's hard to see how libertarianism is being better represented inside the LP than outside it.

[Drew Thompson]

Asshole in Nevada?

[AlmightyJB]

Ok, do I get unicorn or not?

[The Fusionist]

Sure, but you'll have to find out after the election *where* you get the unicorn, and which part of the unicorn it will be that you get.

[DOOMco]

"Won't you have to raise taxes for that?"
"No, they're free ponies."

[AlmightyJB]

If the government would just print a million dollars for everyone in the world, then we could all be rich. It's so simple.

[(((Renegade)))]

I would argue that for federal Senate and Congress, the strategic libertarian vote should be Republican. The logic: Hillary will be the next president. The best we can realistically hope for is total gridlock, partisan bickering, ongoing investigations, and anything which prevents the government for Doing Something. If it looked like Trump were going to win, I'd argue voting Democrat. Remember how well the country did when congress and the president were tied in knots during the latter days of Clinton I?

So my voting is GJ for president, straight Republican down ballot.

[John]

Even Nate Silver is saying as of yesterday Trump has a 35% chance of winning. Considering the direction of the polls, it is a pretty good bet that percentage is going to increase and certainly not decrease between now and Tuesday. So, I think you might want to reconsider your logic, because the assumption might be flawed.

Also, we have had a divided government since 2015 or 2011 depending on how you define it. It hasn't worked out nearly as well as it did in the 1990s. The President is more powerful now than them. So the real effect of gridlock is a lot less. What matters is who fills the executive branch. And the Republicans confirmed every single Obama appointment and can be relied upon to do the same for Hillary. Turning down Presidential appointments is what Democratic Senates do, not Republican ones.

Lastly, the Democrats are even less willing to hold their own President accountable than they were in the 1990s. If Hillary wins, there will be nothing the Republicans can do except have a debating society about how lousy Hillary is. Make no mistake, they are going to be happy with that. It alleviates them from taking any responsibility for anything and it is not like Hillary running amok will in any way effect them. It just sets them up to win more seats in 2018 and continue to do nothing about it and tell the country "we are just one Republican victory a way from stopping all of this" while really not caring to actually stop any of it.

[(((Renegade)))]

Trump winning? Sorry, I haven't had my morning crack yet.

Yeah, those Republicans sure rolled over for Billy C. Expect complete paralysis IF they retain control over both houses.

[John]

So is Nate Silver on crack? I am not a big fan of his but I recall everyone who claims that Trump couldn't win being a big fan of his when he was saying that.

I have a reason to say he can win; someone who claims to do this for a living and who a lot of people seem to believe and was claiming he has no chance is now claiming he has a very good chance.

If you don't find that compelling, fine. But you might want to at least try and give a reason why it isn't. Otherwise you just look like a religious nut. Sorry but your desire for something to be true and vehemence and claiming it is, has no effect on reality.

[(((Renegade)))]

So is Nate Silver on crack?

I don't have inside information on his AM intoxicants. Nor his IQ or sanity.

claims to do this for a living and who a lot of people seem to believe

You could say the same thing about John Edward, Sylvia Browne, or Uri Geller. Not a valid argument for veracity.

[John]

Sure, but the guy has been right in the past. So, do me a favor and stop begging the question. Why should I not believe Silver? You really don't have a reason other than a religious faith that he must be wrong. Sorry but I don't think faith really has much to do with the issue. If you have something to add beyond faith, then please add it. Otherwise, you are just wasting everyone's time.

[(((Renegade)))]

Sure, but the guy has been right in the past.

And wrong as well.

Why should I not believe Silver?

If he's saying Trump will win, he's crazy. Believe him if you like. Believe the funny-smelling guy on the street corner screaming about the CIA and mind control lasers if you like. I can't disabuse fantasy in a mind whose way of functioning I can't comprehend.

[John]

Yes, you have nothing beyond blind faith. Again, why are you wasting people's time when you don't know anything, couldn't argue with it if you did and have no interest in learning?

[Tom Bombadil]

What's so hard about waiting a couple of days and then knowing for certain?

[John]

Lastly, even if your religious convictions about Hillary or true, that doesn't make your claims about the virtues of a divided government any more valid. It is sadly no longer the 1990s.

[(((Renegade)))]

Realistically, divided government is the best we can do. I wish that weren't so, but in my crack-free morning vision, it clearly is.

[John]

No. It might be the worst we can do. A government controlled by either party would at least make one party accountable for the results. A divided government just allows both sides to avoid accountability and thanks to the explosion of the power of the President over the last 15 years does nothing to control the Presidency.

[(((Renegade)))]

It might be the worst we can do.

I might say the same thing if I were a government functionary, whose livelihood and career path depend on activist government. What was that Mark Twain quote again? Oh yeah, "You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is."

But I'm not one, I'm not on crack, and I well remember what's happened when we've had single party rule several times in my life.

[John]

might say the same thing if I were a government functionary, whose livelihood and career path depend on activist government.

You might I don't know. But whatever you say, it won't be the result of any actual thinking. You are totally incapable of having a rational or substantive argument. If you really are a scientist, you are proof that logic and reason are not necessary to the field of science as it currently stands.

[DesigNate]

John is right here. This isn't the 90's and the Republicans have no backbone to actually stand up to Obama, much less Clinton. Shit, it's not like them having control of the House and Senate has actually produced any meaningful gridlock.

[Ken Shultz]

I want to believe.

[Rockabilly]

Man, dig this groovy thing man...

Big government is the new West Coast craze

http://tinyurl.com/zpx6334

[AlmightyJB]

And then everyone smelled their own farts and were pleased.

[Jayburd]

Dave Chappelle gets it- "They should not be having that conversation in front of black people. You go ahead and feel something about your rights. But if you're putting sexism and homophobia and transphobia in front of racism, you should be ashamed of yourself."

[vendythomas85]

I'm making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I'm my own boss. This is what I do,...

-------------------- http://www.jobnet70.com

[ammythomas63]

until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that...my... brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac .......

........ http://www.jobprofit9.com

[Drew Thompson]

In June, all 10 LP candidates for Congress in Indiana signed the "Compact for Liberty", a pledge to support a platform. The preamble and its plans are alluded to in the article. Reason never once reported on the event nor the Compact for Liberty.

We had a very strong slate of candidates and yet we were completely ignored by the media. The Compact had an impact. Donna Dunn, pulled 18% in her 1st District race. Pepper Snyder polled 7% in the 3rd, Lucy Brenton nearly 6% in the Senate race, and all of our candidates polled over 4% - better than the national ticket, or how the LP fared in the vast majority of races around the nation

Indiana's LP candidates were a shining beacon in an otherwise disheartening election for Libertarians. Our local candidates fought the good fight as best we could, without media attention.

If the libertarian ideals of less government and the non-aggression principle are to take root politically - we must elect candidates to Congress who will push them forward. Until some of the national media (Reason perhaps?) gives LP candidates a voice, we will not advance our agenda.

In 2018, there will be no Presidential race. In states like Indiana, Congressional races will be at the top of the ticket. The opportunity presents itself to feature Libertarian races in the national media, and if we are to have any hope of moving our ideas forward, it will need media outlets to pay attention. I urge you to shine much light on these races in 2018.