Monthly Archives: September, 2016

Third Party Candidates Excluded from Debates in Utah

10686885_637816496316965_5407131843195415239_n

Photo from 2014 Protest of Debate Exclusion. Now being excluded again

The Utah Debate Commission has decided to exclude the campaign for Craig Bowden, candidate for Utah’s 1st Congressional District, as well as candidates for the Gubernatorial race and Attorney General race. This measure to exclude candidates is egregious on its face, and will be challenged. For far too long, systems set up by the two major parties have worked to keep alternate voices from being able to be heard. Whether it is with debates or ballot access, the drive to maintain power has kept third party ideas out of the eye of the public.

 The Debate Commission is in direct violation of election laws, and will be held accountable for what it is doing. Under the Equal Time Rule, candidates from opposing parties are able to receive equal air time at the same rate that is offered to other candidates broadcast. Normally, this would not apply as a law, as it does exempt organizations that hold their own debates as long as it is not the broadcast station itself. Where the Utah Debate Commission violates the law, is that the news media sits on the board for the commission. They are instrumental in planning these debates, and dedicate non-regular air time to have these debates. As such, it does not fall under “on the spot news” as required to be exempt from the law. The media is helping manufacture the news under the guise of a private entity.

 As such, the campaign of Craig Bowden, will be seeking the price of 30 minutes airtime from every broadcast station, both televised and aired on radio, on the prime time slot. This lawsuit will go away if the campaign is included in the debates.

 Further, Craig Bowden’s campaign will be seeking equal damages for every third party candidate and independent who was excluded. This is in combination with any fines the Federal Communications Commission may seek to impose on the Utah Debate Commission. The monies awarded on behalf of other third party candidates will be paid to each candidate that was excluded from the debates.

Huge Opportunity 2016

Election2016The Libertarian Party is more popular than ever this year, as people across the nation are starting to realize both parties have continued to burden future generations with more debt, we continue to send men and women to wars we don’t belong in, civil liberties are attacked, and cronyism runs rampant.

However, in my observation, we are not seizing the real advantage this year. It is beyond amazing that we have our top ticket performing so well this year. I am doing my part on my outlets showcasing Gary Johnson too. The problem is that with the momentum in our favor, we continue to focus at the top ticket, instead of bringing to light the great candidates who are running down ballot.

The fact is that we need to get people associating what they are seeing with Governor Johnson with the candidates who are running locally. We need state legislators, Congressmen, Senators, Mayors, etc. to build up a base to run for higher office in the future. I fear we are hoping that this will just occur naturally, and people will just find out about those candidates. If we put all our eggs into one basket, and the basket falls, our eggs will break and we will lose out on this chance.

Evidence is already showing that we are losing our greatest chance in history.

In one such instance, Lily Williams, U.S. Senate candidate from Colorado, fell .02% short of being included in the debates in her state. Imagine if we had put the same amount of volunteer work and donations that we are putting into the Johnson campaign for Mrs. Williams? She would be on that stage for sure.

Another example is that from my last time looking at FEC reports, only two candidates have even raised more than $5,000 in their campaigns. We need to be supporting those candidates so they have a chance of winning and being heard. If you would like to see the list of federal candidates you can go to http://www.5n1plan.com and see who is running to represent you. You should also go to your state or county’s election page to find out who is running for county and state office.

We need to be out knocking on doors, making phone calls, sending donations, writing the media, etc. If everyone were to do this across the whole country in support of our amazing slate of 2016 candidates, we would start lighting liberty’s torch in a way our nation hasn’t seen in over 100 years.

The choice is yours, I cannot force you to help out candidates who are running, but I know that they need support. Do your part for everyone, not just the top ticket. There could be a future presidential candidate in that mix who will now have experience to run on. Those state legislators could run for Congress with records to run on.

Seize this opportunity and fight as if we didn’t have a top ticket doing as well as they are. Get those people into office!

Correcting the Record

LiberporcSeems that libertarianism is under full attack lately by those in the Democrat and Republican Parties, and as such, we are left to set the record straight when the attacks come. The latest that has crossed my feeds in social media come from Citizen’s Daily Journal entitled Gary Johnson is Progressive – Not Libertarian. Aside from many of the regular attacks that involve “he’s just there to steal votes from [insert candidate here], and if you don’t support [insert candidate] then [insert candidate] will win” fear mongering both parties use to maintain power in this article, I want to address the list of things this author believes are not libertarian.

It is time for people who know the history of libertarianism to stand up and defend the record so that we can make sure our message is heard, not what the two parties want people to think.  I will post why each position lines up with the Libertarian Party platform as well as also history of libertarianism as each apply.  People need to understand what we stand for from the sources that actually matter: the people in the trenches fighting for it every day.

So here is the list of things considered unlibertarian, and also where Gary Johnson fails on libertarianism according to this author.

  • Pro legalized drugs
  • Pro legalized prostitution
  • Pro amnesty for illegal aliens
  • Pro open borders
  • Pro jihad resettlement in the USA
  • Pro free trade with communist regimes
  • Pro unrestricted abortion
  • Pro affirmative action
  • Pro same-sex marriage
  • Pro separation of church and state
  • Soft on crime
  • Anti-death penalty for violent offenders
  • Anti-military
  • Anti-national security
  • Pro isolationism

So here we will post the break down, fully sourced as always, to show you the actual positions of libertarianism and when needed, the position of the Libertarian Party candidate running at the top of the ticket.

Pro legalized drugs

legalization-go-feds-09-01 (1)It is true that the Libertarian Party and Gary Johnson are pro-legalization or decriminalization. Incarcerating people for crimes where there is not a victim is no form of justice. Just because you don’t like what a person does, it is their body they are using to ingest or inject substances. Until someone, other than the user, has their life, liberty, or property harmed, there is no actual crime.

This aligns completely with the party platform.

1.1 Self-Ownership

Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.

1.7 Crime and Justice

The prescribed role of government is to protect the rights of every individual including the right to life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited in their application to violations of the rights of others through force or fraud, or to deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes. We support restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. The constitutional rights of the criminally accused, including due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must be preserved. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

Pro legalized prostitution

For the same two planks above, this falls in line with libertarianism and the party platform. It is a voluntary transaction that doesn’t have an actual victim. Now, if we were going to address the human trafficking currently occurring in the realm of illegal prostitution, you now have a victim that is being forced. However, if this were brought into the light, those who are trafficked or abused by pimps would have a way to come forward without fear of reprisal from the criminal justice system.

Pro amnesty for illegal aliens

The is where the writer actually starts lying about Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party. While we are not opposed to traveling across borders, we have made it clear through our platform where we actually stand.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

Where does Gary Johnson stand on the issue? Well here is his stance from his website:

Having served as Governor of a border state, Gary Johnson knows the complex issues associated with immigration reform first hand. Solving immigration problems is not as easy as building a wall or simply offering amnesty.

We should appreciate and respect the diversity of immigrants that come to the United States to be productive members of society. But we also need to recognize that everyone who comes here is not so well-intentioned.

Gary Johnson and Bill Weld don’t want to build an expensive and useless wall. The only thing a big wall will do is increase the size of the ladders, the depth of the tunnels, and the width of the divisions between us.

Candidates who say they want to militarize the border, build fences, and impose punitive measures on good people, ground their position in popular rhetoric, not practical solutions.

Governors Johnson and Weld believe that, instead of appealing to emotions and demonizing immigrants, we should focus on creating a more efficient system of providing work visas, conducting background checks, and incentivizing non-citizens to pay their taxes, obtain proof of employment, and otherwise assimilate with our diverse society.

Making it simpler and more efficient to enter the United States legally will provide greater security than a wall by allowing law enforcement to focus on those who threaten our country, not those who want to be a part of it.

Certainly doesn’t sound like amnesty to me. It only takes simple research to find out where actual stances exist instead of misinforming people.

Pro open borders

Are open borders a bad thing? No. Liberty actually transcends the lines we draw in the sand. In the Declaration of Independence it states that “All men are created equal…” It doesn’t say you have to be born in a certain area. Libertarian philosophy transcends borders. It fosters the belief that everyone is born free, that no man has power over another.

The root of libertarianism in the non-aggression principle. This includes blocking free movement of people.

Pro jihad resettlement in the USA

This is where the author really goes off the deep end on this bit of misinformation towardswp-1460868613314.jpg Gary Johnson. At no point does Governor Johnson state that he is “pro jihad.” This is exactly the type of scare tactic that has been being used by Republicans to cause hate.

The fact of the matter is that there are people in Syria who are facing death every day. I will not pretend to know what would be required for the vetting for entry, and while generally libertarians don’t believe in intervening, a human crisis where we might be able to help some people escape the daily horror they face would be one of the times where it would be acceptable to at least this libertarian.

Up-Arrow-Money-ChartPro free trade with communist regimes

How do you help people in poverty around the world? You do so by eliminating the barriers we erect. The people who live in these nations are not enemies to liberty. They are families with no options, and we would restrict their ability to make a difference in their lives for the better? The only harm that comes from trade embargos are for the innocent people forced to live under systems of oppression. Oppressing them further serves no purpose. The evil still thrives in those regimes, and their control is stronger because there is no mobility. Free trade includes everyone and would foster relationships with people who committed no offense against us. Truly free and open trade is 100% a libertarian position, and is within the scope f the libertarian platform as well.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

What is wrong with this position? Nothing.

Pro unrestricted abortion

The author attempts to state a position Governor Johnson does not take in his article. Further, libertarians actually fall on both sides of the spectrum of abortion. This is a debate that is difficult no matter what side you are on, but to set the record straight for Governor Johnson, as well as the official libertarian stance on the issue, evidence is provided amply throughout the internet.

An interview with David Scheff in Playboy Magazine in 2011 states this position on abortion from Governor Johnson:

Q: Where do you stand on abortion rights?

A: It should be left up to the woman. If my daughter were pregnant and she came to me and asked me what she ought to do, I would advise her to have the child. But I would not for a minute pretend that I should make that decision for her or any other woman.

Q: But you have supported legislation that requires parental consent and signed a ban on partial birth abortions.

A: I think the decision can be made at an earlier stage. That’s why I don’t support partial birth abortions. I realize it’s a fine line, but I generally come down on a woman’s right to decide.

Q: Do you disagree that parental consent is problematic for teenagers who can’t talk to their parents?

A: I believe that parents ought to know. Where that can’t occur, there needs to be a process in place, which we have in New Mexico.

There’s strike one on the lies told by this author about unrestricted access. But it continues with the governor’s record. During the GOP Primary Debate on Ma 5th, 2011, located in South Carolina, Governor Johnson had the following exchange:

Q: Most Republicans and everyone else on the stage but you identified themselves as pro-life; you have said that abortion should be legal until the fetus is viable. How do you hope to woo conservative GOP voters with that position?

JOHNSON: I support a woman’s right to choose up until viability of the fetus, as governor of New Mexico, I would have signed a bill banning late term abortion, I’ve always favored parental notification, I’ve always favored counseling and I’ve always favored the notion that public funds should not be used for abortion. So running for Governor of New Mexico in a state that was 2:1 Democrat, I really didn’t get that vote in the primary, but I’d like to think that I got all of those votes in the general election and that’s a reality here also, for those individuals that hold that as their number one issue, I’m not going to get that vote, I would hope to get that vote if I were to move on to the general election.

That makes strike two for the author. Could there have been more? As a matter of fact there is. Another interview by Tim Dickinson in Rolling Stone Magazine , Jun 15, 2011 has the following exchange:

Q: You have unorthodox takes, for a member of the GOP, on abortion.

A: I support women’s rights to choose up until viability of the fetus. I’ve supported the notion of parental notification. I’ve supported counseling and I’ve supported the notion that public funds not be used for abortions. But I don’t want for a second to pretend that I have a better idea of how a woman should choose when it comes to this situation. Fundamentally this is a choice that a woman should have.

Strike three already, so the author is out. It continues with this throughout Governor Johnson’s record on the issue. Governor Johnson also believes that insurance companies shouldn’t be mandated to provide contraceptives and that the government shouldn’t fund abortion. Each of these can easily be found.

To the point of where the Libertarian Party stands on the issue, we have the following to say:

1.5 Abortion

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

We fall on people to make informed decisions. It is a very difficult decision, and it isn’t the role of government to determine this course.

Pro affirmative action

Once again, the author chooses a stance that is false about the record for Governor Johnson. What does the Governor believe about affirmative action? Like the Libertarian Party, we believe in a meritocracy. A place where you rise or fall based on your personal performance regardless of your sexual orientation, gender, religion, or skin pigmentation. You don’t have to take my word for it, however. In the 1998 New Mexico National Political Awareness Test taken November 1, 1998, Governor Johnson answered the following:

Indicate the principles you support concerning affirmative action. Should state government agencies should take race and sex into account in the following sectors: College and university admissions?

A: No.

Q: Public employment?

A: No.

Q: State contracting?

A: No.

And the Libertarian Party agrees:

3.5 Rights and Discrimination

Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that “right.” We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts and other free-market solutions.

Pro same-sex marriage

Libertarians are less pro same-sex marriage and more in line with removing government from the equation of determining what people decide to do as consenting adults. It is none of our business. However, since people who are in same-sex relations were being denied the equal treatment of the law, we support the current status where they are now allowed to marry, while continuing to advocate for the separation of marriage and state.

Liberty is choosing your life and your pursuit of happiness.

Pro separation of church and state

The author here is attempting to convey that the governor is somehow against religion. This is not the case. As a matter of fact, once again, ample evidence shows that Governor Johnson falls on the side of choosing for yourself. America is a melting pot with more religions than imaginable. Where all libertarians stand is that you are free to worship as you choose, so long as you don’t force it on others.

Soft on crime

Most crimes are victimless. We do not advocate for throwing people’s lives away for choices that involve consent or their own bodies. I have already shared the platform planks, and feel they do not need to be repeated. We are not soft on crime. We are just only interested in prosecuting things like rape, murder, burglary, and robbery. Crimes with victims.

Anti-death penalty for violent offenders

With the error rates in convictions, estimated to be at 4.1%, we would rather not kill innocent people. It is not the job of government to take life, and as a party we have also passed a new platform position that matches this.

1.8 Death Penalty

We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state.

The government should not be the ones determining who lives and dies. Especially when 4 out of every 100 that have been determined so far, will have committed no actual crime.

Anti-military

Another lie from this author. As a matter of fact, for a claim of him being anti-military, he is polling higher than both the Republican and Democrat candidates among active duty military. 38.7% average, a full 8 points ahead of Donald trump and 24 points ahead of Hillary Clinton. Why would the military be backing him in such high percentages? I would say it is his military and veteran policies. Again, you don’t have to trust my word for it, take the words of the governor and the Libertarian Party for what they are.

Q: Libertarians are seen as isolationists. Where do you see a role for U.S. military in the world?

JOHNSON: If we are attacked, we’re going to attack back. And you can certainly argue that we have been attacked by ISIS, but let’s involve Congress also in this process. Congress has abdicated to the president and to the military–we find ourselves in these conflicts without an open debate and discussion on how we should move forward. We’re obligated to defend borders in other countries that have not been negotiated through Congress, either.

Q: But if we have been attacked by ISIS, then how can you not be involved in Syria, which is obviously a big swath of the Levant, where ISIS has its stronghold? How do you stay out of there?

JOHNSON: Well, because of our intervention, ISIS has grown as a result. I mean, you had Assad against ISIS, and now you take out–you know, we decided to go against Assad, and that’s ISIS. So, you know, is that now our new ally?

Maybe they see things like this where he is actually taking reasonable action instead of promising to send them anywhere for any reason like most presidents of the past. This page is called Marine Vet For Freedom, I’m a Marine Veteran, and I am done with wars that don’t defend our nation. I didn’t sign up to invade other countries. Lots of us feel the same way.

As for the Libertarian Party on the military?

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

Anti-national security

Anti national security, another lie from this author, as was demonstrated already with the party stance on national defense. So what does Gary Johnson say?

From his website it states this about national security:

The objective of both our foreign policy and our military should be straightforward: To protect us from harm and to allow the exercise of our freedoms.

Looking back over the past couple of decades, it is difficult to see how the wars we have waged, the interventions we have conducted, the lives sacrificed and the trillions spent on the other side of the globe have made us safer. The chaotic, reactive military and foreign policies of the past two Presidents have, if anything, created an environment that has allowed real threats to our safety to flourish.

As President, Gary Johnson will move quickly and decisively to refocus U.S. efforts and resources to attack the real threats we face in a strategic, thoughtful way. The U.S. must get serious about cutting off the millions of dollars that are flowing into the extremists’ coffers every day. Relationships with strategic allies must be repaired and reinforced.

Pro isolationism

This one is the most hilarious claim, and gladly the best was saved for last from this author. The author claims that the Governor is pro isolationism, yet has also claimed that we want open trade & borders, stated he is pro-trade with communist regimes, and wants to bring Syrian refugees into the U.S. If he were isolationist, he wouldn’t do the others. So which is it? The fact of the matter is the attacks against libertarians are going to continue from the right-left adherents because we are a threat to the powers that be.

I’m not the biggest fan of Gary Johnson, and have been critical of him on several things. However, I am not going to lie about him, nor am I going to bash someone who is clearly the best choice of the slate currently available. When the Johnson/Weld ticket cross my line fully, you’ll hear it from me, but for now they are the most liberty minded ticket available to us.

Remember that libertarianism is neither left nor right. We merely believe that people should be free to seize their own lives and do what works best for them. As long as governments exist, we will always believe their only use is to support policies that protect life, liberty, and justly acquired property. Aside from that, it honestly isn’t anyone else’s business.

In Response to The Progressive

LP_EagleflameIn an article posted on August 31st, 2016, writer Bill Lueders wrote a hit piece against the Libertarian Party titled Do Libertarian Converts Know What the Party Stands For?  To set the record straight with the truth, here is my response:

The first thing of critique is this quote:

Johnson, who garnered 1 percent of the vote when he ran for President in 2012, is the former governor of New Mexico. His running mate, William Weld, is the former governor of Massachusetts. Both are enjoying unparalleled political attention and success, with roughly 9 percent of the public now planning to vote Libertarian.

But probably many of these people are largely unaware of the party’s positions.

That’s in part because the Libertarian Party’s rising fortunes in the current presidential sweepstakes have little to do with the Libertarian Party. Rather, they reflect a greater-than usual degree of popular dissatisfaction with the candidates being offered by the Democratic and Republican parties.

First, in the top five polls being considered for inclusion in the debates, Gary Johnson currently sits with an average of 10%, but that isn’t the meat and potatoes to point out. The biggest slam is actually not against the party or candidate, but against the people currently supporting their new found home. The writer assumes that the people supporting Johnson and the Libertarian Party are “unaware” of what we stand for.

If that were truly the case, I guess that means that the surges of people looking up who Gary Johnson is and searching for Libertarian candidates on sights like Google should just be ignored. I suppose we should also ignore the record viewing being set when he is on the television. There is also the fact that for the media is actually inviting the Libertarian ticket to be interviewed far more than ever in Party history. I suppose the author believes that no one is paying attention to the news; that you are ignorant and just hating on Trump and Clinton.

The author further doesn’t mention that there are other candidates that people are paying attention to with Darrell Castle and Jill Stein. Both also polling higher than normal. Even Ed McMullin, the long shot independent candidate from Utah is getting press. In spite of this, Governor Johnson has separated from the other candidates to become a realistically viable choice.

The next quote to note, that the author didn’t fully research is in regards to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Johnson backs the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement that Trump, Clinton and Green Party candidate Jill Stein all vow to reject.

The truth is that Bill Weld, his running mate is really the one lauding the agreement. Gary Johnson, however, had this to say in an interview  with Glenn Thrush he did on June 6th, 2016 about the TPP:

Well, first of all, NAFTA. Would I have signed it or not? My skepticism says that maybe I wouldn’t have signed it, because these trade agreements are just laden with crony capitalism. Would I have signed or implemented the Trans-Pacific Partnership? I’ve got to tell you, I think it’s laden with crony capitalism. Free market really is the answer. It’s the answer to unifying the whole planet, in my opinion, and if China wants to subsidize the goods that it sells to the United States, who benefits from that? Well, we do. And at the end of the day, who pays for any sort of tariffs? We do.

So free trade, genuine free trade, that’s another one of Trump’s–you know, hey, he says “I’m all for free trade” but then, in the next sentence, he says, “I’m going to force Apple to make their iPads and their iPhones in the United States.” Hm, that sounds really free trade to me.

In another quote from a CNN interview that aired July 3rd, 2016 he talks a little wp-1460868578585.jpgoptimistically about the bill, simply based on what he has learned so far, but also remains skeptical due to cronyism that runs rampant in bills like these.

I am a real skeptic when it comes to these trade agreements that, in fact, these trade agreements can be laden with crony capitalism. But based on people that have been advising me that I hold in very high esteem, I am being told that the Trans-Pacific Partnership would, in fact, advance free trade, and so I would support that document.

The devil is in the details, though, and for the most part legislation that passes really promotes crony capitalism, promotes those that have money as opposed to a level playing field for everybody. So I am a skeptic, but based on what I know, I would sign TPP.

Moving on from the TPP, the next statement to take issue with is where the author forgets how to research for a retraction, or intentionally left out the part where Governor Johnson walked back comments on “burqa banning.”

And finally, while Libertarians purport to be all about personal liberty, there are some limits to their tolerance, as when Johnson told the Libertarian magazine Reason that he would ban the wearing of burqas in the United States. One reason he gave is that these make it harder to see when Muslim women are beaten.

While it is true that the initial comments made were in line with this, after hearing from Libertarians like Will Coley within the Muslim community, he has since become more educated on Islam, and offered this statement:

In an interview with Reason Wednesday, I was asked about a ban on women wearing burqas. The question came in a discussion of Sharia law and its incompatibility with the fundamental tenets of liberty. I answered the question in the context of the fact that, under Sharia law, women have no choice but to wear the burqa, and live under a system of law that not only allows, but condones, abuse of women. In that context, I stated that banning the full-face burqa, as was done in France, would be a reasonable step toward preventing signs of abuse from being hidden. My response was not about telling women what they can and cannot wear, but about protecting them from harm under a brutal ideology under which women have nothing resembling equal rights.

However, having had time to consider, my response was wrong. As with many well-intentioned ideas, a government-imposed ban on full-face coverings would have unintended consequences and likely result in government overreach. As governor, I vetoed many such well-intended laws, and on reflection, would in fact veto a government ban on full face burqas. While the law must provide protection for women from abuse, it is clear that banning face veils wouldn’t work, and would be impossible to enforce without infringing on basic rights.

Sharia law is incompatible with the freedoms upon which America is founded, and it must not be overlooked that, under Sharia ideology, women have no rights, and are certainly not free to dress as they wish. Imposing such a system on women under some guise of freedom of religion or expression is not acceptable under any notion of liberty. On that point I am firm. But a government ban on an item of clothing might well have the consequence of restricting, not protecting, freedom.

LiberporcThis quote was sent to the same Reason Magazine that interviewed him the first go around.

Those are the real big fallacies I found in the author’s evaluation of Gary Johnson. The real cringe worthy reporting is where things take a turn of selective pasting.

The first part he wrote on self-defense is as such:

  • Self defense: “Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.”

The Libertarian Platform, however, states this:

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights—life, liberty, and justly acquired property—against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.

This is not what the author tries to portray. He is essentially saying that we should just allow anyone to have firearms, while ignoring the part where the only legitimate use of force is in defense. This is whether you have a firearm or not. We believe that those who violate the rights of others should be prosecuted. We do not advocate any type of threats or aggression. Had the author included that, you would have known that we do not advocate violence, which is one of the most important parts of this plank.

The next part to have a gripe with is this quotation:

Energy policy: “While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.”

While he is citing the clause correctly, he is doing so out of a want of promoting green energy. What he fails to mention is the fact that we oppose all forms of subsidies, including the ones that progressives want to be rid of: those on fossil fuels. We would be natural allies if the author would look to what it really means. If big oil weren’t given such advantages in the cronyist system that currently exists, green technology would overtake it in the market. Fossil fuels are only surviving because of sweetheart deals.

The next problem the author really has is our position on unions. He cited this:

  • Union membership: “We favor repealing any requirement that one must join or pay dues to a union as a condition of government employment.”

It is meant to look like we do not support unions at all, however, the Libertarian Party platform actually has this to say:

2.5 Government Employees

We favor repealing any requirement that one must join or pay dues to a union as a condition of government employment. We advocate replacing defined-benefit pensions with defined-contribution plans, as are commonly offered in the private sector, so as not to impose debt on future generations without their consent.

Note that this is only directed at government employees, but it gets better because the Party also covers private unions in a separate plank he conveniently left out:

2.8 Labor Markets

Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union. Bargaining should be free of government interference, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

We do not oppose unions in the least. This is a private agreement between parties that the government doesn’t need to take part in. You have every right to associate as you feel, and you have the right to attempt to bargain collectively. This is a voluntary contract entered into, so we have no issues with it in the least. Many Libertarians even advocate for people to join unions and are members of unions themselves.

This next one is puzzling, and it isn’t clear what the author is trying to get at, but again, he leaves out the majority of the plank on Healthcare:

Health care: We favor a free-market health care system. . . . People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.”

The plank in its entirety actually states:

2.10 Health Care

We favor a free-market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.

The important part of this is that we advocate for freedom of choice in what a person want for their healthcare needs.

The author cherry picks a lot in his critique of the Libertarian Party, and it is something he may want to brush up on. Luckily the truth can be found quite easily. The Republicans and Democrats have been trying for years to misinform the public about libertarians. Why? Because we are the fastest growing party and political machines like to keep their power.