Free Virginia

A Teachable Moment for the Republicans

2011-12-26T22:20:00.016-05:00

Last Friday afternoon, December 23, 2011, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry were notified that they had not turned in enough valid signatures to qualify their names for Virginia's Republican primary ballot. Predictably, this has caused feathers to fly, complete with threats of lawsuits against Virginia petitioning requirements.

Gentlemen, welcome to the world where adherents of the Libertarian Party, the Greens, or the Constitution Party live: where their exhausting effort and huge expense meets bureaucracy, unending paperwork and needless legal hurdles -- before we are even allowed our place at the starting line.

Virginia’s primary petition requirements were copied from the laws originally written to keep independents and third parties off the ballot. For a century, Democrats and Republicans colluded to establish and tighten ballot-access standards so much that voter choice has become practically nonexistent. This makes it difficult for us in the alternative & independent candidate sector to feel much sympathy for the ‘major’ candidates when their own laws snare them.

One would hope that the Republicans would take this as an educational opportunity. Rick Perry, especially. In 2003, Perry vetoed Texas bill # HB 1274 (which had passed both houses of the legislature unanimously). The measure would have deleted a Texas law that required petition circulators to read a 93-word statement to every voter they approach. The statement, which is still in the Texas law, thanks to Perry’s veto, said:

“I know that the purpose of this petition is to entitle the ___________ Party to have its nominees placed on the ballot in the general election for state and county officers. I have not voted in a primary election or participated in a convention of another party during this voting year, and I understand that I become ineligible to do so by signing this petition. I understand that signing more than one petition to entitle a party to have its nominees placed on the general election ballot in the same election is prohibited.”

Forcing people who wish to petition their government to read such a long statement makes it a lot harder to obtain signatures -- which was the original intent of the requirement. It was designed to make political expression via new parties and alternative candidates harder to engage in.

Perry’s veto indicated he had no interest in fair ballot access in 2003. In the last 60 years, only one other Governor -- besides Perry -- vetoed any bill that would have improved ballot access. Maybe his failure in Virginia will improve his attitude.

Petitioning laws were originally built -- the strictest of them by majority-Democratic legislatures between 1910 and 1970 -- to shut out third parties like the Libertarian Party. The laws did the job, too -- in some states, third parties have not been allowed on the ballot for over half a century, and counting.

Petitioning requirements force new, upstart third parties to exhaust themselves asking several hundred thousand voters to help them qualify for the ballot. Unless those new parties have the money and activist backing of the wealthy and political elite already, just getting on the ballot so they can then present their ideas to voters is an expensive, time-consuming task.

Republicans should be wary of restrictive ballot access. Some states in the past century could have been regarded as one-party Democratic Party oligarchies. Think of Massachusetts, where the Democrats are so dominant that Republicans sometimes are the political ‘afterthought’. Do Republicans really wish to help set up the system that could hamstring them in the future?

Nor should the Democrats, in their glee about the Republicans' difficulties, forget how restrictive ballot laws sometimes snare them as well. For instance, Indiana Democrats were worried enough about getting Obama and Clinton onto the state primary ballot in 2008 that they felt compelled to falsify their petitions.[1]

Democrats and Republicans alike have forgotten that elections are for voters. When voters can't vote for the candidate they wish to vote for, they are being hurt and our political discussion is being disrupted.

Perhaps the Republicans who now control the state legislature should take this as a message that Virginia's restrictive ballot-access laws are overdue for some overhaul.

The Libertarian Party’s position is that primaries are essentially state subsidies for political parties. Therefore, the only real reform needed to the “primary process” is to eliminate government-run primaries altogether, and allow political party members to determine who they wish to represent them during the general election – at their own expense.

Failing that, then reform can be easily accomplished by simply reducing the petition requirement (for all candidates and parties, primary or general) to 1/10th of the current number, rounded up to the next nearest 10. This would reduce statewide petitions to 1,000 signatures for president, governor, US Senate, etc; and congress to 100 signatures; Delegate to 20 signatures.

One of the more disturbing aspects of the reaction to the Republicans’ failure to make the primary ballot is the opinion of some that a candidate doesn't “deserve” to be able to appeal to voters unless they're organized enough to get __________ volunteers to waste several of their weekends collecting signatures. This attitude plays to the power of the media to spoon-feed candidates to the American public, because the candidates the media choose to publicize are the ones who will find all the volunteers they need. So Republicans especially: Do we *really* want the media to decide not only who wins, but even who gets to compete?

I have personally collected thousands of petition signatures for dozens of candidates at different levels. Anyone who thinks requiring thousands of signatures to get on the ballot is compatible with a free society needs to research the history and justifications for these oppressive laws a bit more.

Forcing alternative candidates -- who haven't been given the chance to appear in the modern "public square" that is the media -- to utterly exhaust themselves collecting signatures is a reprehensible practice in a “free” society.

Governments should not have any ability to control ballots at all. Open ballots not printed or controlled by government [2]gave us men like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Compare them -- even with all of their faults -- to the modern crop of corruptocrats.

Making Virginia’s Ballot Laws Better

Reform of Virginia’s ballot access laws should begin with the following:

Reduce signature requirements for all offices and all candidates -- Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, or independent -- by 90 % (rounding to next 10). A statewide candidate petition (Governor, president, etc) would then require 1,000 signatures; a candidate for congress would need to collect 150, a state delegate candidate, 20.
Introduce a full-party access petition, 10,000 signatures to place a new party on the general election ballot for two statewide cycles.
Eliminate the witnessing requirement for petition signatures.
Eliminate the residency requirement for petitioners.
Eliminate petition sheets, and move to a postcard petition -- where individual voters would fill out a post card stating they wish a candidate (or party) to be placed on the ballot.
Get with the last decade and allow petitions to be ‘signed’ by voters online.

************************************************************

Marc Montoni serves as the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia and he is a resident of Rockingham County, VA.

To request more information about Libertarian ideas, call 800-ELECT-US or visit http://www.LP.org

************************************************************

[1] http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/specialreports/sbt-primary-forgery-20111008,0,3138948.special

[2] http://www.familytreemagazine.com/article/history-of-voting

Private Police The Only Way To Real Reform

2011-11-14T15:57:00.000-05:00

A Virginia citizen named Myron Rhodes recently wrote a letter to the editor of the Harrisonburg, VA Daily News-Record, criticizing "administrative forgiveness" extended to an inebriated local police official last year. He correctly equated "professional courtesy" with "corruption". I agree with that assessment.

However, there is absolutely no chance that the solution Mr. Rhodes advocated -- "make a better choice at the ballot box" -- will have any effect whatsoever on the behavior of the law enforcement bureaucracy. Policing in America cannot and will not be reformed in its current configuration.

When Average Joe is accused of a crime, long before trial the police eagerly release his identity and mug shots. This is public shaming and perhaps a stained or ruined life. In contrast, when a member of The Brotherhood perpetrates the exact same act, and the bureaucracy decides it doesn't want to prosecute, it is forever locked away as a "confidential personnel matter". There is a word for this: hypocrisy.

The sort of corruption Mr. Rhodes describes has become almost universal among government police agencies. The "blue wall of silence", treating "their own" as above the law is rapidly turning this country into a third-world laughingstock. While the individuals within the system bear full responsibility for taking advantage of it, it is the system itself that has created the conditions necessary for otherwise upstanding individuals to become corrupt.

Remember, "thou shalt not tempt".

The only real way to reform the police is to get government out of policing and thus remove the corrupting influence of taxpayer funding. Coercive funding always means fat, out-of-control ballooning budgets; and constant bailouts for law enforcement managers who refuse to properly manage their department within its budget. Coercive funding means police "services" are paid for before you receive any good or service. If you refuse - or fail - to use such service, the government takes your money anyway. Even if you are falsely arrested or assaulted by a government cop, you don't get a refund -- and usually nothing ever happens to the offending officer, either.

With all things, money means power, and American police are rapidly becoming the Sheriffs of Nottingham -- enforcing increasingly unsustainable levels of taxation. Of course, like all government employees, confiscatory taxation supports ever-higher pay and pensions for themselves -- the job itself becomes a perverse incentive. Police unions and bureaucracies are increasingly establishing themselves among the nation's largest Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying Organizations; meddling in politics to get laws implemented that their supposed "bosses" -- the taxpayers -- don't want. Witness the recent outlawing of open carry in California -- passed largely at the behest of the police unions and bureaucrats.

Real reform of the culture of corruption can only be achieved by replacing bloated, inefficient government policing with privatized police protection.

What would private policing look like? Some parts of it are already familiar to most people. Anyone who has a Yellow Pages can find private police operating now, under the heading "Security Guard & Patrol Service" or similar. As government police departments are closed, the listings in that category will only expand as competent former officers start their own companies. Locally, Massanutten has a private police force paid for by the residents.

It is a rule that those of us in the private sector must compete to win customers. Bad behavior on the part of employees in a competitive market tends to be weeded out rather quickly. A store that has an employee who frequently yells at customers will lose them to the next store down the block; similarly, if a person subscribes to "police protection company A" and one of its officers treats the subscriber like dirt, well, that subscriber can cancel his subscription and his dollars will then flow towards "police protection company B". But this moderating effect can only happen in a free market.

Private police protection could be provided at the level of individual neighborhoods, where neighbors would contribute to hire police protection that closely serves their needs. Other people might simply purchase better insurance coverage; or perhaps some would rely on neighborhood watch groups.

As long as governments operate police agencies, their monopoly, "you can't go elsewhere" outlook will prevail simply because the need to win over customers just doesn't exist. Law enforcement by bureaucracy will remain stubbornly inefficient, expensive to maintain, and difficult to reform. And "professional courtesy" -- call it "corruption" -- will continue to be an ever-bigger problem.

************

The above article was printed by the Daily News-Record on Wednesday, November 9, 2011, as an "Open Forum" article on the editoarial page.

EnviroLibertarian

2011-10-31T14:10:00.007-04:00

In the lamestream media today was a lapdog-type article about an alleged "former skeptic" named Richard Muller.

This seems to be another in a long line of breathless media front-page hyping of the warmist agenda; especially as the articles printed in most outlets didn't report on any contrarian views.

By the way, Muller is not a 'skeptic'. Having a couple of questions about the 'facts' his fellow alarmists have put forth does not make an alarmist a skeptic. He has been an alarmist for a long time, and in fact has received a not insubstantial amount lot of money from the government and alarmist NGO's.

I think the science is wholly unsettled and it will have to be studied for a long time at length with real science and accurate data, rather than politicized claims based on corrupted data with less-than-reliable measurements and falsified reporting. Climate will probably need to be studied for a good century or two -- before humans will have acquired sufficient data to be able to accurately predict climate changes due to anthro activity.

There is also the question of what to do about it if science really does eventually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that human activity causes climate change. In essence, "so now what do we do?"

Doing some simple math might help put it all in perspective.

That said, solar power is in my future and I practice recycling to a greater extent than most "greens" I know.

I think practicing enviro "harm reduction" should be done by individuals at the individual level -- rather than at the collective level:

- Have fewer children (of course, the responsible already do; the irresponsible are still having huge families and don't care what they do to the planet as a result)

- Stop buying new Toyotas and Buicks, and bike, walk, or ride the bus. "recycle" an older car by fixing it up and using it until the seats fall through the floor.

- If government is going to force people to reduce their emissions, it is government that should lead the way.

- Grow your own no-till garden, without pesticides or chemical fertilizers.

- Stop using chemicals and pesticides on your lawn. [Our neighbors -- who include a number of Democrats and at least two families who are Green Party supporters -- use them and many have perfect monculture lawns as a result. We don't. I am slowly expanding our tree, bush, and flower plantings to cover more of our yard, so I can stop mowing it. I regard mowing lawns as a very strange habit that we Americans have gotten into due to cheap oil.]

Some of this I do because I find the idea of [essentially] giving my money to 8th century racist, sexist, violently intolerant religious bigots in the Middle East utterly repugnant.

But some of it I do because I really see no point in stripping the planet to the point where it can no longer support the population we have. I recycle because I consider burying perfectly good raw materials in landfills to be a complete waste.

Label me a skeptic of global warming if you wish. But before you throw stones, you'd better clean up that glass house of yours.

If you DRIVE to an environmental rally, YOU are the problem.

If you don't recycle, YOU are the problem. Yes, even if your county or city does not offer pick-up recycling, YOU can still recycle -- even counties that don't offer curbside recycling still have recycling units at their landfill; so get yourself a bunch of large garbage bags to store recycling in until it makes sense to take them to the dropoff yourself. Heck, You don't need curbside pickup -- most Targets and Wal-Marts now have a bunch of recycling bins in the front of the store, so you can just combine recycling with shopping. Some of the recycling centers even pay you for your trash!

If you have a new or new-ish car, even if it's a Prius, YOU are the problem. Buy one of the millions of small cars from the 80's and 90's still out there, and use it until it drops dead beyond all repair.

In the meantime, I remain a skeptic.

In Praise of "Faithless" Electors And Third Parties

2011-06-15T02:01:00.002-04:00

The Libertarian Party's first presidential candidate, John Hospers, died at 93 last Sunday in Los Angeles.

Hospers was chairman of the philosophy department at the University of Southern California when he was nominated on June 18th, 1972, to be the new party's presidential candidate. The convention, held in Denver, Colorado, also nominated Theodora "Tonie" Nathan for vice president. Hospers and Nathan were on the ballot in two states and received 3,671 votes. Despite the result, several facts combined to make the campaign absolutely revolutionary:

- Although Hospers did not carry any states, the Libertarians nevertheless received an Electoral College vote. That vote came from right here in the Old Dominion, and it was cast by a man named Roger MacBride of Charlottesville.

- Hospers was the first-ever openly gay candidate for president.

- With MacBride's vote, Hospers also became the first gay presidential candidate to receive an Electoral College vote.

- His running mate, Tonie Nathan, became the first woman ever to have won an Electoral College vote - years before Geraldine Ferraro.

- Lastly, the ideology of the Libertarian Party itself simply had no parallel in any other American political party. The Libertarian platform of 1972 called for (among other things) the repeal of all laws on voluntary sexual relations, drug use, gambling, and attempted suicide; the repeal of all pornography laws; the abolition of the draft; the repeal of the National Labor Relations Act; the elimination of all legal tender laws and a return to a gold standard; the abolition of the Federal Reserve System; the abolition of all government subsidies to business, labor, education, agriculture, science, or the arts; the abolition of all tariffs and quota regulations in foreign trade; the repeal of all compulsory education laws, an end to government operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools, as well as an end to compulsory busing; the abolition of the minimum wage; an end to all corporate and individual welfare; elimination of all foreign aid, and withdrawal and de-funding of the United Nations.

Predictably, MacBride was widely vilified for his Electoral vote. He was labeled a "faithless elector", and worse. However, the Electoral College was intended to be a last check against a manipulative tyrant winning the Presidency. Delaying the one and only meeting of the College for months after the popular vote was a chance for civic-minded citizens appointed by the voters at large to watch, learn, and listen to the winner of the popular vote. If they collectively decided he would be a dangerous, infirm, or poor choice, it was understood they had every right to choose someone else.

In other words, the Electoral College was created to slow down mob rule before handing an intensely powerful position over to a tyrant. MacBride, therefore, was a hero: he was one of the rare electors who took his job seriously. Very late in Nixon's 1972 campaign, it became clear even to many of his ardent supporters that he had seriously abused his power. MacBride acted on that knowledge.

The value of new alternative parties lies in their ability to bring ideas the establishment ignores into the political marketplace. This happened with the birth of the Republican Party in the mid-1800's, with its abolitionist position on slavery. Unfortunately, once abolition was realized, Republicans contrived with Democrats to turn everyone into slaves of the state.

The Libertarian Party formed in an era when the two legacy parties refused to end the draft and the pointless war in Viet Nam, while colluding to debase the currency and strip away cherished rights. Today, Libertarians continue to push for peace and justice; and a Libertarian presidential choice is normally on most state ballots. The political party and the wider movement that Hospers helped bring into being is still a going concern today, 39 years later.

Hospers served as an inspiration for many young people in the seventies, including this author. Although he turned away from the LP and libertarianism altogether and towards interventionism and conservative ideology in his later years, he remained larger than life to many among the libertarian community.

Creative Commons License

Using the Language for Fun and Profit

2011-03-02T08:59:00.004-05:00

Sometimes, we Libertarians forget that it is often how one presents ideas that is perhaps more important than the ideas themselves. I present the below essay to illustrate a couple of mistakes we make when presenting our points of view on self-defense and private consensual behavior.

Notice I have not used neither the phrase "gun control" nor "illegal drugs". That is because, in my estimation, these phrases give legitimacy to the activities of the Control Crowd.

What do most people think of when they hear the word "control"? What are they thinking when they try to envision the opposite of control? Maybe: Out of control? Aimless? Anarchy? Violence?

Yes! Those, and a bunch of other terms that should make anyone uneasy.

What mental image comes to mind when we hear "illegal drugs" or the other phrases drug warriors use, like "crack babies", "drug addict", "pushers", "narco-terrorist", and "dope"? Do you think such images would be positive?

What I am here to suggest -- emphatically -- is for all libertarians to consider more carefully what we are really doing when we use establishment terms in support of our positions.

When discussing drugs, what term might be used to cast a negative image on drug law instead of drug users and dealers?

“Prohibition”.

The average American knows Alcohol Prohibition was a dismal failure. I don't think you'll find many Americans supportive of the idea of making alcohol illegal again.

So use that word, instead. Any time you speak of the government's war on private consensual behavior, be it recreational substances, contractual sex, private or non-state-lottery wagering, or the employment of weapons for self-defense, speak of these things in terms of Prohibition.

Tie it to Alcohol Prohibition immediately, without even mentioning the word "alcohol"!

Your audience's first reaction upon hearing the word should be visions of the mayhem caused by that law. This forces them to quickly quell their own internal argument about prohibition; then, they must then come up with arguments to defend continuing Prohibition -- instead of attacking legalization.

Never ask, "should we legalize drugs?"

Instead, ask "should Prohibition be repealed?" Or "Why should Prohibition be continued?"

Doing so immediately shifts the burden of the debate from our court to "theirs".

I am sure other terms could be used effectively, also. But in no case should we lend our opponents the advantage by using the terms they have chosen!

Purely as an example of this tactic in action, think of the abiortion debate. Do people who favor keeping abortion legal call themselves "pro-abortion", which carries the stigma of the actual abortion; or do they call themselves "pro-choice"? Isn't it harder to explain why an individual's "choices" should be taken away? Likewise, people who favor outlawing abortion call themselves Pro-Life, for similar reasons, instead of “anti-abortion”, or “anti-choice”. No one likes to be an "anti" anything, the word itself is negative. On the other hand, who can justify being against life?

Gun control is not gun control. It is "victim disarmament", or even "gun Prohibition."

Don't legitimize the language of tyrants. Use proper English and use it to your advantage.

Listen to the following sentence carefully:

"And now, since I favor allowing others to speak, I will return to my seat." Some of you might notice that sentence contains no negative sounding phrases like "in closing".

Remember: use that language FOR what you believe in, not against what they believe in!

The "Step In, Justify, and Kill" Procedure

2011-02-15T18:20:00.010-05:00

Anyone who has ever watched "Cops" will have witnessed car-chase scenes where a suspect almost hurts a police officer, with a predictable police response of immediate deadly force. The first few times a casual viewer sees one of these sequences, he would probably think the force was justified. However, after dozens upon dozens of these events, it becomes clear that the escalation to deadly force is part of a predetermined pattern:

A "perp" is trying to get away from police in a car.
He aims to escape via escape route "A".
A cop walks calmly into the line of Route "A", placing himself in "harms way" just as the car begins or already is moving.
The car, as it is already moving in his direction, and regardless of whether the perp attempts to steer around or away from the cop, is now "evidence" that the cop's life is in danger.
The cop, "justified" by his own stepping in front of an object with intertia, SHOOTS -- often emptying his clip into the "perp".
Perp dies, back-slapping all around, everyone goes home a hero.

This is what I call the "Step In, Justify, and Kill Procedure". (SIJK).

Watch a "Cops" episode -- you'll be able to pick it out sooner or later. The SIJK procedure is invoked any time a person is *perceived* as attempting to elude police. Very simply, one or more of the police officers will carefully maneuver into a position that will put him (or them) directly in the path of a suspect's already-moving vehicle. This then gives them 'cover' -- the presumption that they now are in a situation where they must act in self defense; they were "in fear of life or limb".

Once an officer is in position, the suspect is immediately shot in a hail of gunfire. It's always a hail, too -- never just a shot or two. Can't have the case go to court, after all.

After seeing this in action multiple times in multiple jurisdictions, it becomes obvious that government police bureaucracies are actively training officers how to do it and get away with it. Think about it: A generation of officers has been trained to manipulate suspects into a position where they can be given an immediate death sentence.

According to a whole bunch of non-government employed witnesses, it has apparently happened again -- with yet another young life ended prematurely and for no apparent reason. The money line:

"An officer then 'ran in front of the car, weapon drawn, and started firing within seconds...'"

Read more about this tragedy here.

UPDATE 2012-01-02: Private security guards don't kill their suspects in a hail of gunfire. They simply step away and catch the guy later. Privatizing government police forced is the only way to abolish the SIJK practice -- at least then they will be subject to the same liability as company actors in any other company.

Assassin Kills 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green, Five Others

2011-01-09T01:16:00.003-05:00

Here we go again.

So a lone nutcase shoots several individuals in Arizona, and the media -- within minutes of the shooting -- begin parroting the "it's all the fault of the Tea Party, gun nuts, Libertarians, conservatives..." line. Yadda, yadda, yadda... Haven't we heard this story before?

It's no wonder the lamestream media is losing eyeballs in droves. Increasing numbers of Americans are aware of the fraud and manipulation the government and its media lapdog engages in, which is why most people now get their news from the Internet. Of course, that can't be allowed to continue: predictably, it is the left (and the government) that wants the Internet regulated.

Think about it. The left's mantra for years has been that thousands of terrorists killing thousands of innocents in the name of Islam has nothing to do with Islam. Yet one loon -- who we know nothing about -- attempts to kill a Democrat Congresswoman, and somehow we're supposed to immediately agree the blame lies with adherents of the Tea Party?

Politically-motivated shooting rampages like this needn't happen at all. Were government small and irrelevant enough that no one really cared about politicians and other government bureaucrats, those politicians and bureaucrats would be very safe. In essence, power-hungry fat-government wannabes creat a self-fulfilling AND self sustaining prophecy: create a crisis that provokes unrest, knowing full well that some statistically insignificant remnant will regard that crisis as the "last straw" and go nuts. Then, use the results of whatever mayhem the statistically insignificant extremist has managed to do, to further your government-fattening, victim disarming, Constitution-busting, power-grabbing childish agenda.

Six people were killed. But it was interesting to note that as of 6:00 p.m. Saturday evening, January 8, 2011, out of 1,800 Google News search results for news of the shootings, almost none of the news stories mentioned the name of the little girl who was killed, much less said anything about her ended-too-soon, innocent life. Nor have the names of four of the other five citizens killed. The only dead victim named in the stories was another government employee -- a federal judge.

The victims the media forgot are:

-Gabriel Zimmerman, 30, Giffords' director of community outreach

-Dorwin Stoddard, 76, a pastor at Mountain Ave. Church of Christ.

-Christina Greene, 9, a student at Mesa Verde Elementary

-Dorthy Murray, 76

-Phyllis Scheck, 79

To the left, life is only important if that life is that of the nobles of government.

To hell with us Mundanes.

SLAVERY: Not Such a Simple Issue

2011-01-05T13:30:00.004-05:00

A recent article by EJ Dionne noted the upcoming 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War, and it urged the widespread adoption of the leftist view of that war: that it was all about slavery. Unfortunately, the article ignores the fact that, as in all things politic, "it ain't so simple".

There is no such thing as a "good war".

Ever.

The desire to go to war is all about one thing, and one thing only: Money. The slavery issue was just a way for Lincoln to make war into a “moral imperative”. In our time, “terrorism” is similarly used to justify overseas aggression.

Conquest was invented as a means for the elites to either gain or retain "tax territory". Tax territory simply translates into "wealth" -- money. Control more territory, and you control more people and the wealth they create. The more tax territory a government seizes, the more powerful an army and spoils system it can support. A powerful army makes possible further conquests of additional tax territory. Of course, if anything comes along that threatens a government's tax territory, expect a brutal response.

Which brings us back to the Civil War.

To believe the North's fight was motivated by an altruistic purpose, such as abolishing slavery, is to believe in fairy tales and Santa Claus. It, like every other fight in history, was about tax territory. The United States government didn't want to lose a large chunk of its tax territory, and so a fight was inevitable when the southern states decided they didn't want to continue being the cash cow for the Northern-dominated congress and its decades-long transfer of billions in southern wealth to the North.

Had Lincoln allowed the South to secede, slavery as an institution would have collapsed on its own. Besides the fact that it had become a huge political liability, there were pricey related expenses (enforcement, social, uprisings, mistreatment) which were rapidly overtaking any profitability. One can look at modern examples of subsidized industries that collapsed even after decades of government protection and subsidization -- steel, autos, textiles, etc.

The Fugitive Slave Act was in effect a direct subsidy to slaveowners at the expense of federal taxpayers. It worked to an extent, socializing the costs of capturing runaway slaves. But even with it, slaves still escaped. Had individual owners been required to pay their own enforcement costs for chasing down runaways, the entire institution would have collapsed before the War. Fugitive slave laws were subsidies that skewed the actual costs of the chattel slavery system, thereby helping it compete in the market against free labor.

Economic reality would have caught up with slavery in very short order under an independent south. Private slavery was subsidized by the public treasury and in that respect it functioned only as well as any other implementation of socialism: it externalized the costs of its activities on others. But eventually, all socialized industries collapse on their own.

"Two wrongs don't make a right". The principle applies to governments as much as it applies to children on a playground. While the slaves were freed from private owners as a result of the Civil War, the entire population of the country became enslaved to overbearing government bureaucracy that intruded into daily life with surveillance, subsidies, taxes, the draft, speech prohibitions, and regulation. That government has only continued to grow to the point where it now steals half of all wealth individuals create every year. Americans to this day are enslaved to the colossus that emerged from the Civil War.

Can one justify freeing slaves by enslaving free men? Can altruistic motives be ascribed to northern politicians who dragged 168,649 young men off the streets to fight for the freedom of others? Lincoln’s draft caused the death of about a fifth of them. One must not deny the fundamental injustice done to those young men. An instructive read on this subject is Jeffrey Rogers Hummel’s 'Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men'.

Can one justify freeing slaves at the price of subjecting non-slave-owning women and children to rape and murder? Unleash an army and rape and plunder will always travel with it. The Civil War was no exception. In her treatise “Rape in the American Civil War: Race, Class, and Gender in the Case of Harriet McKinley and Perry Pierson”, Maureen Stutzman found few rapes (335) prosecuted by the Union army. Most of the recorded instances were limited to 1863 and 1864 . One wonders why there were no rape prosecutions recorded earlier in the war, or in 1865. Lack of records does not equate to a lack of rapes. Southern legal records were often destroyed – so civilian reports of rapes and other crimes by invading troops are hard to come by. In addition, in an environment of subjugation of the southern citizenry, there was considerable reluctance to report rapes committed by conquering troops.

Can one justify freeing slaves at the price of slaughtering non-slaveowners? Various estimates suggest over 50,000 southern civilians were killed as ‘collateral damage’ due to the indiscriminate shelling of towns and cities – many of which were occupied mostly by women and children.

Slavery could have been ended the same way it was done within the limits of Washington, D.C., as well as in many other places in the world, and without bloodshed: simply by compensating slaveowners for the change in national rules. But apparently, that was too much to ask of the northern states, which had been transferring southern riches in a northerly direction since 1783.

Another bloodless alternative could have been simply an official declaration of an end to all enforcement of fugitive slave laws. The resulting uncontrollable exodus of slaves would also have brought collapse.

The slavery issue was a great propaganda tool for Lincoln – a white supremacist and separatist who cared little for the black race. John Wilkes Booth’ bullet elevated the man into a myth; otherwise Lincoln’s blathering about shipping blacks back to Africa would have ruined his legacy.

Lincoln, in his first year of office, rapidly implemented an unreconstructed Whig agenda of a centralized sultanate of government meddling and subsidization of the railroads, tripled protectionist tariffs, and federalization (and debasement) of the money supply.

A few years ago, liberals were criticizing George Bush for imprisoning people without charges, access to counsel, the right to confront accusers, or even a trial. Of course, now that Obama is doing the same thing, they are silent – but the point is that it was Abraham Lincoln who showed Bush & Obama that a president can get away with it.

Far from encouraging peace and compromise, Lincoln’s actions fanned embers into flames.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

The $1,000 Challenge

2010-08-04T19:56:00.016-04:00

So, you're a Libertarian Candidate, and you want a big donation from me. Sure! I have $1,000 burning a hole in my pocket. You can claim it -- all of it.

But it isn't "free". You'll need to have some ducks in a row. Here are my requirements:

********************************************

1) You must have a written campaign platform with no substantial deviations from the LP platform or with Libertarian principles. If you're in favor of any new tax, or some form of gun control, or interfering with people trying to move from one place to another, or interfering with the right of association, or more government enforcement related to this or that victimless 'crime', well, I can donate to a bunch of Democrats and Republicans if those things interested me. Libertarianism is about *abolitionism*.

2) You should have a reasonably detailed campaign plan. I will want a copy. While each campaign should have some flexibility in the specifics discussed in its submission, I would expect to see the following information:

(a) A statement specifying the personal financial commitment you will make to your campaign.

(b) A description of the manpower resources committed to the campaign. In particular, the description should included a list of key campaign personnel, along with brief descriptions of their previous campaign experience.

- (i) I am not disposed to provide resources to any campaign that does not have both a campaign manager and a treasurer who knows something about campaign finance reporting requirements.

- (ii) The candidate should serve neither as his own campaign manager nor as his own treasurer, except in unusual circumstances.

(c) A biography of the candidate.

(d) Assessment of whether there is a reasonable chance the candidate will not be able to complete the campaign. (For example, if the candidate has been informed of a possible change in job status, such as being transferred to a different state, this should be disclosed.)

(e) A description of anticipated fundraising sources and activities, along with information about pledges from prospective donors. (As in Item 3 above, information about prospective donors will be treated with discretion. To the extent that such information is included in LPVa or local party files, it may be appropriate to redact names from such reports.)

(f) A description of campaign strategy (e.g., what issues will the campaign emphasize) and a proposed timeline for campaign activities. This description should include information such as anticipated number of votes needed to win, as well as a basic analysis of the voting patterns of the district. (For example, assuming previous data exist, what percentage of voters in the district vote Democrat, vote Republican, vote Libertarian, etc.)

(e) A description of campaign goals and performance metrics. (For example, if the candidate considers winning the election to be unlikely, what are the alternative goals of the campaign? Obtaining at least X number of votes? Causing the incumbent to be defeated? Winning the candidate's home precinct?) Personally, my preference is that all candidates use their races as an opportunity to finding and recruiting the libertarians who are already out there into becoming members, supporters, and -- candidates for next year.

Be realistic. Candidates who overblow their case and generally have absolutely unrealistic expectations aren't going to get *my* money. So many times, I've listened to LP candidates who swear that theirs is a winnable campaign. The fact that they are out-funded and out-volunteered by a factor of 5, 50, or 500 to 1 doesn't seem to faze them. If you think you're going to win, you better have some solid polling results that agree with you.

3) You must have at least the basics assembled of a campaign: a) a website that gives some sort of candidate/campaign overview as well as several high-resolution, media-quality photographs ready for download by media outlets; 2) a basic campaign flyer and yard sign, both with complementary designs to project a consistent image; and items associated with the campaign plan (for instance, if you have a treasurer, you should already have a bank account in the name of the campaign.

4) You must have reasonable credit history. Repeated personal bankruptcies, well... if you can't stay within budget, you should be a Republican or Democrat.

5) You must have a clean criminal history. I may make an exception for victimless crime convictions, but expect full disclosure.

6) You must have a reasonably clean driving record. If you've had three DUI's and been at-fault in more than one or two accidents, well, cowboy, it's time to get yourself a bicycle.

7) You must have a clean civil history. If you have made your fortune like John Edwards did, by filing lawsuits against innocents, well, you're not my candidate. Conversely, if you've been sued six or seven times, sounds to me like you need to find a safer line of work.

8) There must be a disclosure statement, concerning any potentially embarrassing or controversial aspects of the your background. This statement should include all information in items 4, 5, 6, and 7 above; and you must make it available for review by the members who attend your district nominating meeting, as well as the city or county committee and the State Central Committee, PRIOR TO any approval by any of these committees. The state and local party committees will treat these disclosures with discretion; such statements should not be available for public scrutiny.

9) You must have already been certified as "on the ballot".

10) You must have been formally endorsed/nominated as the official LP candidate during a meeting of the members WHO RESIDE WITHIN YOUR ELECTION DISTRICT; *and* you must also be formally approved by the county or city Libertarian committee in which you live. No exceptions. This is how the major-party candidates are nominated, and we can do the same thing.

10) All of the required financial reports must be up-to-date. I'll want copies.

11) "Open Secrets" -- Campaign finance reports should be accessible online on your campaign website; or if it can be linked to VaPAP or the SBOE website, that's fine as long as there is a prominent, non-hidden menu link to that page on your site.

12) You must openly identify yourself as a Libertarian candidate in all campaign appearances, on your literature, on your website, in your media releases, and the like. I will not donate to anyone who has a history of being involved in the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Democratic Freedom Caucus, or who accepts the endorsement of any other political party. Call it being a partisan hack all you want, but I do not intend to give anyone money for sending a mixed message about the abolitionist basis of the libertarian philosophy and the political party that represents it.

13) You must *demonstrate* a thorough understanding of the necessity of recruiting new members into the LP; which means:

- submit all campaign contacts to the LP for followup on a timely basis -- preferably daily

- providing PROMINENT and EASY access to visitors to the campaign website to ask for more information about the LP

14) You must provide some evidence that you have done some serious fundraising already, on your own. I've been in the LP since 1980, and for all of that 30 years, I've observed LP candidates enter races that typically cost a winning winning candidates, oh, say $50,000 -- and then watched them give all sorts of reasons why the LP or LP members should give them thousands of dollars, even though he hasn't even raised a few hundred from friends and family.

It's fairly easy to raise at least a few thousand dollars just from friends and business associates. See:

http://lpva.com/Archives/Tips/s99/fr-quick.html

Additional campaign and party-building tips are available:

http://lpva.com/Archives/Tips/s99/

"Serious funds" means seriousness about winning the election. The LP candidate seeking election should work towards funding superiority. He should raise and spend as much or more than the COLLECTIVE opposition. Yes, that means if you're in a 3-way race, your fundraising must exceed the funds available to BOTH of your opponents. We're the only guys advocating freedom -- the other guys are BOTH advertising socialism. Unless you have enough dosh that you can drown *them* out, you're not going to win. Fundraising should be at the heart of any serious campaign. If you don't raise money, you can't advertise. If you don't advertise, you aren't going to get elected.

If you can't raise enough to give the majors a serious run for their money, then you're running for the wrong office. Try running for County Board of Supervisors, or Town Council, instead.

However, if you want to stay in the race you're in, and you are not going to win, then it had better be a campaign that directs all efforts to signing up more LP members to build the cadre for next year.

15) You must have demonstrated some ability to find volunteers for your campaign. This is almost as important as fundraising. The majors send their volunteers out to knock on doors for them, to manage their campaigns' "back office", and so on.

16) You must provide in a timely manner a reasonably detailed post-election report to all of your donors, to the LPVA State Central Committee, and to your local endorsing committee.

17) Not a formal requirement for my $1,000, but I'd appreciate provide copies of campaign material (e.g., signs, posters, flyers, bumperstickers, fundraising letters, etc.) and news coverage (e.g., newspaper clippings, video and audiotapes of media interviews) for LPVa archival purposes.

18) If you accept money from me, but you decide to withdraw from your race for any reason other than a medical condition or involuntary transfer by your employer, you shall refund my donation(s) first, before any loans are paid and before any other donors are reimbursed. In the event you have no campaign funds left, you must shall reimburse me and other donors using your own personal funds.

********************************************

That's my checklist. It's not short, and there are hoops to jump through. But there is $1,000 waiting at the end of the hoops. And, not a single one of my requirements is any less than a major-party candidate would be required to do for them. This is common-sense, party-building stuff.

To make your case, write me at Freedom (/at/) LPVA.com (Remove the obvious spamtrap elements).

Here are a few resources you might find useful:

Campaign Planning Manual from the Libertarian Party of Indiana

Political Resource Library, from PoliticalResources.com

Litigious Americans Eyeball Toyota Loot

2010-07-20T21:02:00.006-04:00

You know, there is only one endemic flaw to modern automotive brakes: you have to push the brake pedal down for them to work. But I digress.

Have you noticed that the reports of out-of-control Toyotas have mostly stopped? Perhaps the main reason is that the highest profile cases are all well-known now as simply pure unmitigated lies. The public has now become inured to the fact that most of these "Sudden Unintended Acceleration" stories are blown fabrications bloviated into existence by the lamestream media, rich lawyers, greedy would-be plaintiffs, "victims" who want to be absolved of their responsibility for pushing on the wrong pedal, and government bureaucrats aiming to increase their regulatory penetration of the automotive industry and to make the waters more hospitable for Government Motors (GM).

Cases in point:

- Lawsuit-lotto hopeful James Sikes of California, who went on the televised 25-mile joy ride

- Gloria Rosel, the house keeper who drove the Prius into a wall in New York

- Myrna Marseille swore she was standing on the brake pedal of her 2009 Toyota Camry when it crashed into the Sheboygan Falls YMCA on March 29

All of the above were found to be 'driver error' (although Sikes' was in reality just a hoax).

Since then, reports have tailed off and almost stopped. Was it magic that stopped the daily out-of-control Toyotas, or was it the fact that government police have -- mostly -- finally admitted the real cause (driver error) of these crashes? Did it have anything to do with the corrollary that, as a result, potential 'victims' hoping to get off scot free with a chance at a lawsuit lotto win began to understand the party was over? My guess is it wasn't magic.

Hmmmm... it is annoying to see it took government cops almost a year longer than it took skeptics to figure out the truth.

A stuck pedal does not drive you into the wall while the "victim" was 'pushing the brake pedal to the floor'. Neither does a stuck floor mat. A foot stuck on the long skinny pedal does though.

I have owned many powerful and fast cars in my lifetime, but not a single one of them can accelerate when the brakes are firmly applied. Owners of older muscle cars can attest to this: pressing on the brakes to lock up the front wheels while flooring the accelerator is a 'powerbrake'. It's how we hot rodders raise clouds of rubber-and-asphalt smoke when showing off (doing "burnouts").

The brakes on a Prius are *better* than those on those old muscle cars, and their little motors are lucky to put out about a third of the power.

Brakes against the motor? Don't make me laugh. The brakes will win every time.

And yes, it works when the cars is already at speed, also. If your accelerator really is stuck, you are in danger only until you realize it is -- a realization that should set in within three or so seconds with a *good* driver. It is a truly rare event that a stuck pedal -- like a really stuck pedal, not someone mashing the wrong pedal -- causes a crash that otherwise would not have happened. These crashes usually happen within 3 seconds of the pedal getting stuck, before a driver recognizes the problem.

The brakes will haul down that same muscle car from 80 with the gas pedal floored with little trouble.

Sudden Unintended Acceleration is a hoax now as much as it was with the Audi twenty years ago. The government agencies that are "investigating" these accidents aren't helping anyone and in fact are impeding the market's ability to "cure" itself. Abolish the NHTSA, abolish all the other federal regulatory bodies that meddle in the automotive business, move liability torts into private arbitration and mediation services, and let the market work as it should.

Sudden, Unintended Acceleration: Remember, if you heard it from the lamestream media, it's probably false.

2011-02-18 UPDATE: Another good article I discovered recently on this topic is the one by John Cook over at Gawker.com.

Repeal Drug Prohibition

2010-06-21T09:28:00.003-04:00

You know, the Libertarian positions on Drug Prohibition and immigration were the two issues that stymied me for a while; so I fully understand the hesitation some have with the libertarian position on these issues.

Over time, I realized that Drug Prohibition has been the single largest cause of the loss of liberty in general and the most serious factor undermining the protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights specifically. Alcohol Prohibition had the same effect while it was in force, too.

Drug Prohibition is unconstitutional; despite the inability of the Supreme Court to say so. We can't help it if law graduates don't know how to read. In any case, there was never any Amendment authorizing the federal government to regulate, much less prohibit, the recreational use of any substance.

Libertarians understand that there are costs to the individual, and to society, of drug use. No rational Libertarian advocates the abuse of any drug. That said, we believe Drug Prohibition is a "cure" that is far worse than the disease.

One of the many concerns about our position on Drug Prohibition, is that if Prohibition is repealed, there would be a massive spike in the number of users. I tend to agree, but my personal theory is that this effect will most likely be due to congressmen, state legislators, and cops all heading en masse to their local drug store -- with teenage pages and interns in tow -- as soon as Prohibition officially ends. Don't expect any of these people to show up for work the first couple of weeks after Repeal.

In all seriousness, if you examine the trend in prohibited markets, it is always towards harder, more potent varieties of whatever the substance is. The history of Alcohol Prohibition showed this phenom very clearly: as Prohibition started, traffickers brought in anything people wanted. Over time, however, they began to gravitate towards ever-more potent hooch and other hard liquors; and of course always there was the danger of adulterated product.

After Repeal, years of persistent education pointing out the dangers of too much alcohol has led to wine coolers, non-alcoholic beers, and otherwise less and less potent varieties of social beverages.

Likewise, with Drug Prohibition, the trend has been to ever-more potent varieties of drugs, a constant search for better "delivery devices", and again adulterated product. With repeal, besides bringing street disputes (which currently end in bloodbaths) into the court system for resolution, the trend will be towards unadulterated and increasingly safe products.

In addition, keep in mind that Repeal advocates do not suggest that drug users should be permitted to operate motor vehicles irresponsibly. Everyone, even drug users in an environment without Prohibition, should still be held 100% responsible for their actions.

The side effect of Prohibition that does the most damage is that trade in illegal drugs finances terror around the world. The enemies of the United States routinely use drug trafficking to finance operations against US soldiers, civilians, and other targets (look at the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, not to mention the narcodollars propping up communist thieves Morales & Chavez in South America. We absolutely *must* remove this funding source from these crooks' toolkit. Continuing to ratchet up the drug war will do the opposite -- it will keep them in business.

Time to Lift the Freon Ban

2010-06-15T10:06:00.001-04:00

The ban on dichlorodifluoromethane, the generic name for DuPont's "Freon", was based on junk science. DuPont funded a large fraction of the agitation against Freon in 1989-1990, because it had already developed alternatives to Freon and its original patent ont he product was approaching expiration.

DuPont has a log history of getting into bed with the government to give itself a de facto monopoly on any given market. For instance, DuPont funded the agitation to prohibit hemp products in the 30's -- an activity coincident with the company's development of rayon and other patented products in the same decade.

The media spoon-fed it to us all, just like all the other chemo-scares. Apocalypse remains in high demand -- fear-mongering sells newspapers and glues eyeballs to the screen. Here's a short list of hazards overblown by the media, way beyond the bounds of sound science: PCBs, DDT, dioxin, Alar, smoking, breast implants, irradiated foods, nuclear power, high-voltage lines, radon, acid rain, pesticides, herbicides, asbestos, ozone depletion, global warming, species extinction, deforestation and overgrazing, among others. Some were later shown to be complete lies, others remain controversial.

If you heard it from the lamestream media, it's probably false.

Abolish Licensure, Prohibition, Checkpoints and Chases

2010-04-04T01:13:00.000-04:00

I had to shake my head in sadness and anger at the front-page headline and article, "Police Chase Tragedy". Of course Darryl Harris bears primary responsibility for Mr. Taylor's death. Harris will have to live with his actions for the rest of his life.

But as a Libertarian, I cannot overlook the role government had in creating the conditions that caused Harris to run. Until Harris began endangering others with his driving, all of his actions -- from his suspended license, to the marijuana + gun possession, even to departing from the checkpoint -- were victimless crimes. Unfortunately, in our society, the *discovery* of victimless crimes result in a ruined life -- and it was fear of being discovered that made Harris run.

So let's examine the state's role in Taylor's loss.

First, there's government licensure. Harris' license was apparently suspended. That's a victimless crime.

Travel is a right, not a "privilege", as the 'authorities' continually claim. A license is a 'grant of privilege'; and thus cannot coexist with something that is a right, free and open to all, such as the right of the citizen to ride and drive over the streets of the city without charge, and without toll, provided he does so in a reasonable manner. I agree with the Supreme Court of Illinois, which, in the twenties, stated that while a government can legitimately regulate commercial activities, "no reason exists why [licensing] should apply to the owners of private vehicles used for their own individual use exclusively, in their own business, or for their own pleasure, as a means of locomotion."

Licensure would not be an issue if the government would simply get out of the business of building and owning roads. Some of our major roads in the area today, such as Brook Road, were originally developed in the 1800's by the private sector. Were our roads privately held, individuals who refuse to use them wisely would then be committing the real crime of criminal trespass.

Then there are those "stop and confess" parties that the police call "checkpoints". Checkpoints are unconstitutional and un-American. They belong in third-world dictatorships - not in a nation that thinks of itself as "the land of the free". Yes, the Supreme Court has 'deemed' checkpoints to be constitutional, but that's because we have too many lawyers who make it to the federal bench who can't read plain English. Check out the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

"Effects" simply means "property"; and your car is property. Police searches of you or your property are unconstitutional unless they have a warrant based on sworn evidence. During a police checkpoint, police routinely demand your papers, they reach into your vehicle with electronic surveillance devices hidden in their flashlights (Google the "preliminary alcohol sensory device"), among other activities. No one should be forced to comply with a checkpoint. They are clearly unconstitutional, and no matter what kind of lipstick and hair spray the Supremes put on them, they will remain unconstitutional.

In the end, however, the events that led to Taylor's death can be laid at the feet of Drug Prohibition.

Prohibition itself is a constitutional and moral abomination. It has ruined tens of millions of lives and has cost hundreds of thousands of other lives -- millions, if you count a half-century of war, terror and aggression by global narcotics-funded religious and ideological extremist movements, along with decades of drug-related violent crime. Prohibition's toxic stew includes an aggressive and arrogant drug warrior law enforcement culture that by itself has killed and maimed tens of thousands of innocents in "collateral damage". And worse, drug warriors largely don't care about the damage their war causes.

Repeal Prohibition, end the "papers, please" roadblocks, and call an immediate end to all chases except where the suspect is known to pose an immediate violent threat to others. The cost of doing otherwise is simply too high, and no spin by the Henrico PD or its 'defenders' can change that fact.

Concerned citizens across America have repeatedly warned police bureaucracies that chases are too dangerous and result in innocent deaths, to no avail. Henrico PD's statement that the chase "complied with written guidelines" is insulting and meaningless. Most people who study American policing are aware that police bureaucracies' statements that an action "followed policy" is simply code-phrasing, acknowledging "yeah, we messed up, but we're not going to do anything about it, and neither are you."

Had a private individual conducted a similar chase that ended in disaster, that person would end up facing jail time. For instance, if a security guard attempted to arrest someone at the entrance of his private, gated neighborhood, and that individual then fled with the security guard in pursuit and crashed into a park bench of children, the government police would then quickly and gleefully arrest the guard for contributing to the slaughter.

No cowboy logic justifies high-speed chases. They are stupid and dangerous in the best of conditions. They should be banned except in cases of violent individuals who present an immediate threat to additional potential victims.

***********************************

Marc Montoni is a Libertarian and a technician who resides in Henrico County. To request more information about Libertarian ideas, email or visit http://www.LP.org

***********************************

Abolish Prohibition, Checkpoints and Chases

2010-04-02T10:36:00.002-04:00

I had to shake my head in sadness and anger at the front-page headline and article, "Police: Drugs, gun in car", in which Henrico County police tried to justify the slaying of an innocent in the course of their pursuit of a man who fled a checkpoint.

Community activists across America have repeatedly warned police bureaucracies that chases are too dangerous and result in innocent deaths, to no avail. Henrico PD's statement that the chase "complied with written guidelines" is insulting and meaningless. Most people who study American policing are aware that police bureaucracies' statements that an action "followed policy" is simply code-phrasing, acknowledging "yeah, we messed up, but we're not going to do anything about it, and neither are you."

If the same series of actions had been committed by a private individual, that private individual would end up sentenced to jail. For instance, if a security guard attempted to arrest someone at the entrance of a private, gated neighborhood, and that individual then fled with the security guard in pursuit and crashed into a park bench of children, the government police would would then quickly and gleefully arrest the guard for contributing to the slaughter.

No cowboy logic justifies high-speed chases. They are stupid and dangerous in the best of conditions. They should be banned except in cases of violent individuals who present an immediate threat to additional potential victims.

It is arguable that the man never would have run at all if not for his justifiable fear of the unconstitutional and un-American checkpoint. They belong in third-world dictatorships, but not in a nation that thinks of itself as "the land of the free".

At its core, the events that led to Taylor's death can be attributed to Drug Prohibition - itself a constitutional and moral abomination. Prohibition has ruined tens of millions of lives and has cost hundreds of thousands of other lives - millions, if you count a half-century of war, terror and aggression by global narcotics-funded religious and ideological extremist movements, along with decades of drug-related violent crime.

Prohibition's toxic stew includes an aggressive and arrogant drug warrior culture that by itself has killed and maimed tens of thousands of innocents in "collateral damage" - and drug warriors simply don't care about the damage their war causes.

Repeal Prohibition, end the "papers, please" roadblocks, and call an immediate end to all chases except where the suspect is known to pose an immediate violent threat to others. The cost of doing otherwise is simply too high, and no spin by the Henrico PD or its useful 'defenders' can change that fact.

FairlyTaxin'

2010-03-07T21:28:00.004-05:00

In March of 2004, the members of the Libertarian Party of Virginia voted to endorse a national retail sales tax. Here is the language adopted in 2004:

WHEREAS taxing wages, earnings, investment, savings and, death destroys individual freedom and initiative; and
WHEREAS eliminating the Internal Revenue Service is a positive step in the right direction to restoring individual liberty; and
WHEREAS the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States should be repealed; and
WHEREAS passage of H.R. 25 would change the direction of government confiscation of private property in the favor of the citizenry; and
WHEREAS the complexity of the current tax system causes arbitrary government enforcement and denies equal protection under the law; therefore be it:
RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of Virginia (LPVA) endorses the passage of H.R. 25 as a step, and only a step, in the right direction; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED that the LPVA encourages all members to contact the Virginia delegation for their support; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED that the LPVA encourages all members to attend the first national rally to eliminate the Income Tax on May 1st in the Hampton Roads area of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

HR 25 was the "FairTax" legislation that was in congress in 2004 (I do not know if it's been reintroduced under that same number).

I have offered resolutions to overturn this endorsement at every state convention ever since. This year, 2010, was no different. At our March 6, 2010 state convention, I introduced the following resolution:

Whereas, the Libertarian Party has historically held the position that all involuntary taxation, regardless of form, function, or method of collection, is forceful and coercive in nature; and therefore represents legalized theft, and,
Whereas, the state and national governments are collecting revenue even in these depressed economic times that are double or triple what was collected just a few years before, in most cases just 7 to 8 years, and,
Whereas, this 'revenue' represents property stolen from individuals in mass quantities,
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Libertarian Party of Virginia hereby calls on all governments, to repeal the income taxes to serve as a real 'economic stimulus' for these tough economic times; and,
Further, be it resolved that at no time should repealed taxes be replaced with new taxes, regardless of source, such as "sin", corporate, trade, licensure, or sales taxes; and,
Further, be it resolved that governments should operate under balanced budgets at all times, without incurring any debt, and should reduce expenditures to reflect current real revenue.

During debate, I outlined just a bit of the many reasons I believe advocating any new tax, particularly the FairTax, is simply bad business for the LP. Fortunately, there is a great library of excellent articles about the FairTax. Here are a few:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0704d.asp

http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=5911

http://www.mises.org/story/1975

There are of course many more.

Surprisingly, at the convention this year, the question went further than it had at both of the two prior conventions -- it was only two votes shy of success in a (very) slightly amended form.

Here are a few relevant facts.

The individual income tax typically brings in about 40% of federal revenue. Last I heard, 2009 federal revenue was on-track to be about $3.2 trillion. The Individual Income Tax brought in $915 billion. Federal spending just TWO years earlier was almost that much (spending increased $500 billion in FY 2009 over 2008; $250 billion 2008 over 2007.

I don't want the tax system to be revenue-neutral. I want it to be coercion-free. When you have a $915 billion theft going on, it is simply wrong to allow that theft to continue.

I intend to keep trying, until my colleagues learn that we cannot play the FairTax game. We're not Republicans. Nor are we Democrats. We must be eternally vigilant against any stew they cook up -- and the FairTax is a thoroughly Republican stew.

I never thought I'd witness LP candidates openly advocating new taxes (some promote the FairTax, others promote carbon taxes). Yet here we are. How's that working for us? Seems like the promised land hasn't gotten any closer -- the LP is still exactly where it was a few years ago, before we started hearing Libertarians proposing any new taxes.

I do not believe promoting the FairTax gets us any closer to a free society. If I'm going to spin wheels, I'd rather spin them with a clean conscience. Advocating a new tax does not leave me with a clean conscience. The sound-good idea of the FairTax should be recognized for what it is: never-ending federal tax enslavement.

If Libertarians are afraid to walk the libertarian talk, there's not much point in working via a third party.

FREELIBERTYPAC.COM RELEASE: Virginia Budget Chicanery

2010-02-05T16:30:00.008-05:00

====================================
NEWS FROM FREELIBERTYPAC.COM
THE "LIBERTARIAN WING" OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
World Wide Web: http://www.FreeLibertyPAC.com
====================================
For release: February 5, 2010
====================================
For additional information:
Marc Montoni, Founder, FreeLibertyPAC.com
Phone: (804) 592-6066
====================================

Despite the myths government officials distribute, reports of "budget crises" are mostly hogwash. The problem is not revenue; many government bodies are collecting revenues that are only one or two percentage points off their peak, and some are collecting more this year than last -- the economy be damned.

The problem is that governments spend cash like drunken sailors. When was the last year a government budget -- in real dollars -- was smaller than the previous year?

Governments viciously suck up every spare penny they can find. Just from 2000 to 2009, Virginia's state spending has increased by 28% over the rate of inflation and population growth. From 1982 to 2007, Virginia government spending has increased at an average of about 7 per cent annually. How many wage earners have seen the same sort of increases?

Every time a federal, state, or local government declares some sort of "budget crisis", a quick fact check reveals "crisis" revenues are usually about the same as the revenue collected two or three years prior. So the question must be asked -- were government employees -- now the best-paid people in the job market -- begging on street corners those previous years?

Hardly.

Citizens and taxpayers are the ones being hit hard by economic conditions, not governments. Governments normally do their level best to increase the hardship, rather than relieve it -- their greed and avariciousness only increases during economic downturns. In their desire to steal ever more wealth from the private sector, governments raise tax rates to extract more wealth at gunpoint (try not paying and see who shows up).

Here are some budget ideas that would actually wrench Virginia's economy into rapid and sustainable growth: 1) Abolish the state income tax. 2) Initiate a hiring freeze at the state level; and initiate layoffs of employees whose functions do not directly protect the rights of individuals (we don't need the state government running ports or courier services, for example). 3) Repeal most regulations and taxes on starting businesses, such as the outdated and entrepreneurship-crushing BPOL tax. 4) Abolish zoning laws that crush the formation of garage businesses.

There are many more similar reforms that could be made. Unfortunately, however, governments never willingly give up money or power -- so we're destined to continue on the slow march to economic oblivion.

Sources:

JLARC Spending Synopsis: http://jlarc.state.va.us/inbrf/Inb392.htm

JLARC Spending increases from 1982: http://jlarc.state.va.us/fau/Data/Expend_Func.xls

**************

Marc Montoni is a network technician and a frequent columnist on the issue of individual liberty, Drug Prohibition, gun laws, and land-use regulation. He currently serves as the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia and publishes a commentary blog at FreeVirginia.blogspot.com.

------------------------------------------------------------
FreeLibertyPAC.com http://www.FreeLibertyPAC.com
PO Box 71106 voice: 804-288-2766
Richmond VA 23255-1106 fax: 804-592-6066
------------------------------------------------------------

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Content available for commercial distribution. Contact author for permission.

Who is funding Virginia's Left?

2009-08-10T23:39:00.004-04:00

Exposing the Schills

Who funds the left?

You do.

Really, it's true.

Let's take a look at just one example. A Multi-million dollar example that covers only a few months of the left's rent-seeking.

Take a look at the recent contributor reports filed by The Democratic Governors' Association (DGA), which is meddling in Virginia elections by funneling millions of dollars through "Common Sense VA", against the Republican gubernatorial candidate, Bob McDonnell:

This report covers only the loot that ONE leftist organization has taken from your wallet.

Perhaps you should ask the businesses and entitites you do business with why they are funding the left. Did you receive full disclosure from those entities that by doing business with them, you would be helping to fund a massive wealth-transfer enterprise that would get your assets seized in a RICO proceeding in other circumstances?

Let's pick out a few examples from the report. Keep in mind that about $3 million dollars has been funneled through the Democratic Governor's Association into Common Sense VA; and the main purpose of Common Sense VA is to run anti-McDonnell ads. This is money that does not show up on the Deeds campaign's finance reports; although it can easily be seen as a rather direct contribution:

1. You fund the left when you buy a plane ticket. A portion of your fee goes to pay the pilot, who is a member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. His union funnels a portion of his dues into the DGA, thence into Common Sense VA.

2. You fund the left when you pay the countless taxes, fees, and fines your federal, state, and local governments force upon you daily. A portion of your money is deducted from the bureaucrat's wages, and funneled to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which in turn gives those government worker union "dues" to DGA, which again sends the cash to Common Sense VA. AFSCME is one of DGA's fat cats - just from January 1 through June 31, this amounted to almost half a million dollars.

3. You fund the left when you pay the toll on that fancy new bridge, you're throwing money at AECOM Enterprises, which routed $5,000 of your money into DGA, and from there, DGA sent some along to Common Sense VA.

4. You fund the left when you pay your Aetna premium. Aetna paid DGA $30,000 over six months -- and DGA gave some of that money to Common Sense VA.

5. Remember the AFLAC duck? Cute, ain't he? He should be, because when you pay your life insurance premiums to American Family Life Insurance Company (AFLAC), remember that they paid $ 88,690 to the DGA.

6. Big Pharma supports socialism, too. Allergan, a seller of Botox products and other things, sent $ 100,000 of your payments to DGA.

7. Big Rail got in on the act too. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) gave DGA $ 150,000.

There are so many other companies on the list! Take a look at the report for yourself.

If you ever shop at Wal-Mart, in six months the company gave the leftists at the DGA $80,000 of your money. Be sure to tell your local Wal-Mart manager how much you appreciate the company throwing money at Democrats through front organizations like the Democratic Governors' Association and Common Sense VA. Maybe it's time to shop K-Mart for a while, instead.

Oh, and if Waste Management, Inc., picks up your trash, call them and ask why they're sending your money to the Left. Then find another refuse collection service.

You know, it wouldn't hurt if you showed up at the corporate offices of these behemoth companies to ask them to stop funding the growth of government.

Next Month: Exposing Republican Schills

**************

Marc Montoni is a network technician and a frequent columnist on the issue of individual liberty, Drug Prohibition, gun laws, and land-use regulation. He currently serves as the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia and publishes a commentary blog at FreeVirginia.blogspot.com.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Content available for commercial distribution. Contact author for permission.

Breathless Media Treatment For One; Yawn for Another

2009-07-16T21:37:00.005-04:00

OK, let's see.

Scenario 1:

A guy (with two full carloads of very large friends, as well as a BB gun that looks like a pistol and a bunch of baseball bats loaded in the cars) chases down two very small guys and one girl. One of the small guys shoots at one of the following cars, killing one of the occupants. Despite the chase, the deceased becomes an "innocent victim", and outrage and protest follow. The jurors remain awake and alert during the trial and deliver a guilty verdict for the shooter and his cousin. They are sentenced to long prison terms -- terms which don't satisfy the family and friends of the deceased.

No charges are ever leveled against any of the other individuals in the two following cars for their role in the situation. Every one of the reporters covering the trial itself mention the racial composition of the jury, as well as the race of those involved -- repeatedly.

Scenario 2:

A business man steps out of his truck one morning, is immediately accosted, shot to death, and robbed by three crackheads. The initial shooting was reduced to a footnote and hidden on inside pages of the local daily, and not reported at all by most other papers and radio/tv stations in the area.

Two years later, the police at last arrest three suspects, with what would be considered pretty solid evidence in other cases. At the trial of the first one of the three, several jury members -- all but one of whom is the same race as the defendant -- fall asleep during the trial. Eventually they return a "not guilty" verdict, and set the defendant free. Outrage and protest follow, but again not on the front page. None of the reporters covering the trial itself mention the racial composition (or the sleep habits) of the jury; that's left to the victim's wife to say.

What's the main difference between the cases?

The first story was reported almost as thoroughly and endlessly as Michael Jackson's death; with almost daily updates on the progress of the case. Every reporter managed to play the race card in every story.

The second story was almost completely ignored; with only two major articles in the regional daily during and after the first trial. The reporters leave out the race of the victims and perps; except when the reporter on the second story mentioned that the march by family and friends of the victim was "all white" -- even though a black man is clearly seen in the accompanying photo of the march.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/PBUR22_20090621-221803/275243/

So why the breathless coverage of one case, while the other, where there was a clear criminal (actually three) and an entirely innocent victim, elicits a media yawn? And speaking of yawns, what judge in his right mind fails to declare a mistrial when the jury falls asleep?

**************

Marc Montoni is a network technician and a frequent columnist on the issue of individual liberty, Drug Prohibition, gun laws, and land-use regulation. He currently serves as the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia and publishes a commentary blog at FreeVirginia.blogspot.com.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Content available for commercial distribution. Contact author for permission.

Common-Sense Solutions to Sprawl: OUTLAWED!

2009-04-07T16:31:00.007-04:00

Soaring gas prices last summer caused many people to seek out ways to drive less and work closer to home. Unfortunately, seeking was about all they could do. Over the past century of land-use planning, governments have criminalized the construction of compact, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods. The direct result of government wisdom was to make walking, biking, or even using public transport to work, school, and recreation simply impractical, if not un-economic (time has value too).

A recent Commentary columnist in the Richmond Times-Dispatch called for more restrictive zoning to "preserve" green space that she doesn't own. I think she has it backwards.

Sprawl can't be blamed on developers. Developers build because people need places to live and work. It was government that prevented the construction of any more compact, efficient grid-layout cityscapes such as people had built for generations (look at the housing in Richmond's Fan area, for instance). In 1900, a plot of a few acres could house hundreds of people. With the advent of zoning, however, city and county governments have steadily ratcheted density down. This doesn't mean that fewer people will move to a locality -- it just means that to house the same number of people, developers must seek out more and more spread-out virgin land to house them.

With zoning, the following is the normal progression: Zoning starts out by forcibly reducing the number of people allowed to occupy a given parcel of land by introducing minimum lot sizes and adding setback requirements. Then, some shrill minority [often newcomers who wish to slam the door behind them] whine about the precious farmland that is being chewed up as a result of the minimum lot sizes, and scream for passage of even larger lot size requirements. Eventually they get their wish and lot sizes increase to 25, 50, or 100 acres -- the point where only millionaires and government bureaucrats can afford them. This, of course, chews up MORE farmland, so the only 'logical' next step is to simply prohibit any growth of any kind. This progression is in play everywhere in the United States.

There were many reasons zoning codes became a popular import from the European national socialists of the 1890's. Rent-seeking politicians quickly realized that restricting land use could easily be used to exclude poor whites and racial minorities from middle and upper-class white areas; and indeed, some of the earliest zoning codes in the north included provisions for segregated neighborhoods. After the Supreme Court declared such laws un-enforceable in 1948, politicians simply replaced the objectionable provisions with new ones that accomplished essentially the same end using different language.

Other land-use restrictions have further eroded the human-to-land-surface ratio; chewing up build-able surface on every parcel. Setback requirements, for example, and minimum house sizes, such as the ones in Henrico, further restrict the housing stock and force developers to seek out virgin land in less-developed areas.

A look at Henrico County is instructive. Henrico was an early adopter of zoning law (1933) and an early adopter of exclusionary zoning: Henrico ordinances of 1960 outlawed building the small-lot, compact (600 square feet), and efficient entry-level housing such as that which was grandfathered-in around the Fairgrounds and Lakeside areas. This successfully kept blacks from buying into the county because housing prices quickly became inflated beyond the reach of many.

These days, sure, the county supposedly allows starter homes to be built -- but only where they're already standing. With blacks increasingly integrated into the social fabric of society, more and more black families can be found in Henrico neighborhoods. However, the exclusionary intent of zoning law is still there, with a changed focus. Now, it is simply classist rather than racist. The door has been slammed in the face of people with lesser means. You're simply out of luck if you want to split up a parcel into 1/8 acre lots with four or five $80,000, 600-square foot bungalows in one of the trendy West End neighborhoods. Try it and see how long it takes for zoning officials to laugh you out of the building.

Of course, a lot of small houses on compact lots makes bus service somewhat tenable. The 4,000 square foot McMansions with huge setbacks and large lots are auto-centric, and they are what politicians want because they generate more tax revenue.

It is clear that sprawl can be laid at the feet of rent-seeking politicians and the "NIMBY" activists who elect them and pressure them to slam the door on newcomers.

Anyone with common sense would understand that if you artificially restrict the supply of housing in one area, people will go elsewhere to buy their home. Leapfrog development happens when people who want homes can't find any, or find that the ones in the area that they really want have been artificially driven out of their price range. These people continue looking -- further and further away from their desired location.

Besides the severe cost to the environment in the form of sprawl, land-use regulation has relentlessly driven the cost of owning a home upwards. The covetous and loud interest groups that campaign so mightily at "evil developers" and who decry the lack of open or green space from the porch swing on their McMansion, are the people to thank for sprawl. Politicians reflect their constituents.

Zoning, once enacted, is always ratcheted ever tighter, like a noose.

In every community afflicted by the cancer of zoning, residents eventually discover they will have to go to the planning commission to do the most trifling things with their own property -- and the zoning board will see to it that a bunch of meaningless and useless conditions are placed upon them even then. "Oh, you want to put up a new mailbox? Go ahead -- but it has to be one of these approved $1,000 brands, and you have to paint it this color, and you can only put it in this spot here."

In a few decades, zoning will have created a sterile, stuffy, controlled, and boring environment. Our own children will have to leave, because they won't be allowed to build homes or work nearby.

Maybe it's time for change. Not a change in the form of moving control from rightward-tilting socialism to leftward-tilting socialism as in the recent presidential election. Rather, socialism should be dismantled altogether.

Zoning laws should be repealed as the abhorrent affronts to human liberty they are. Those who wish to control property belonging to others should do so the the honest way: buy it, or pay owners to insert restrictive covenants into their deeds. At the same time, the state should cease the practice of building free roads in virgin areas (think I-295 when it was built), and instead leave it to developers and new residents and businesses to pay for their own infrastucture in such areas. These two actions combined will help curtail the explosive sprawl we have today.

**************

Marc Montoni is a network technician and a frequent columnist on the issue of individual liberty, Drug Prohibition, gun laws, and land-use regulation. He currently serves as the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia and publishes a commentary blog at FreeVirginia.blogspot.com.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Content available for commercial distribution. Contact author for permission.

A Chrysler Tale

2008-12-22T23:26:00.002-05:00

Without a doubt, the architects of Chrysler's comeback in the 1990's were shaking their heads in disbelief at DCX's fruitcake management of the marque after the so-called 'merger' in 1997.

A bit of history: Chrysler, bought American Motors Corporation in 1987, and, a few years later in the mid-nineties, had integrated AMC's cost-effective "platform team" manufacturing model. The company had a terrific engineering department, and was very lean. While the company was not the "lowest-cost producer", it had made huge strides in that direction. In short, it was a lean, profitable operation. Chrysler had socked away something like $14 billion in cash by 1997.

Indeed, Chrysler was the most profitable automaker in the world in the mid-'90s.

Then Daimler rolled in, and everything changed.

The pile of cash disappeared into Daimler's gaping maw.

Before Daimler, Chrysler was very cautious about its updates of successful products. The company planned carefully to update styling, technology, and features -- while doing its damndest to ensure changes would not turn off repeat buyers.

Daimler, on the other hand, was haphazard and sloppy. Who was demanding the Pacifica, or the Crossfire? And the Neon? Product planning at Chrysler had originally scheduled a complete redesign for 2000 -- DCX canceled it. Predictably, sales kept falling as the line aged; and eventually the car was discontinued without any replacement model in the pipeline.

2000 represented the beginnings of product planning / long-term management choices from Stuttgart. Mistakes made two years earlier now began showing up. Chrysler posted its first loss since the 1998 merger; and losses would continue to 2004. Wolfgang Bernhard and Dieter Zetsche were sent over to manage Chrysler Group. One of their first decisions was to cut costs on materials used in interiors, to profitable levels. Then they expanded the SUV line at a time the niche was becoming saturated. As I recall it was around that time that trouble-prone DCX transmissions and suspension components started showing up in Chrysler products. Selling defective parts was helpful to Mercedes, not so helpful to Chrysler.

In 2004, the long-in-the-tooth Neon was finally canceled (its 2004 [final-year] sales were 118,476. Taking its place on the production line is the Dodge Caliber / Jeep Compass sport wagon. Essentially DCX sent a fuel-thrifty model into the dustbin and replaced it with a passionless psuedo-hatchback thing that gets worse mileage at the very time the market was turning again towards thrifty.

Also in 2004, Plymouth disappears from the automotive pantheon -- perhaps deservedly. But... Maybe a better move would have been for the return of the brand to its marketing purpose half a century ago: to sell cheap cars to thrifty people.

By 2006, Chrysler marketing was inexplicably positioned to pursue the traditional Dodge buyer. Jeep's image is becoming more confused with the Compass and other new models. The Avenger, Aspen, Sebring, and Commander are all introduced at a time when Chrysler has **neither** a subcompact nor any real C-segment vehicle (the Caliber ).

In short, DCX set up Chrysler for pure disaster. DCX harvested the profits Chrysler brought in during 1998, 1999, 2000, 2004, and 2005; as well as the billions in Chrysler's bank account in 1998.

It may be that Daimler really did intend for the Chrysler purchase to be its entrance to the American mass (ie non-premium) market; but they failed to cater to that market. There were no investments in new & competitive compact sedans or subcompacts. They continually cut costs at Chrysler in penny-wise but pound-foolish ways to boost the bottom line, turned it into "all trucks, all the time", and used it as a way to recoup their investments in different technology (such as the transmissions and suspensions in the LX platforms).

Daimler certainly isn't a victim. The marriage was an abusive one that left Chrysler bruised and lighter by several billion dollars. Daimler management got lucky with their purchase of Chrysler. Cash from their American piggy bank covered DCX's never-ending losses on the Smart and Maybach lines. They took away lessons in how the American managers before 1998 got cars from a computer screen to a production line in an industry-leading eighteen months.

There are a lot of people demanding the heads of the auto execs of the Big Three. What no one acknowledges is that the execs who killed Chrysler are named Juergen Schrempp, Dieter Zetsche und Wolfgang Bernhard. They escaped with their skins; I guess just because they live in Stuttgart, instead of Auburn Hills.

FREELIBERTYPAC.COM RELEASE: Obscene Assault on Erotica

2008-11-05T00:13:00.001-05:00

====================================
NEWS FROM FREELIBERTYPAC.COM
THE "LIBERTARIAN WING" OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
World Wide Web: http://www.FreeLibertyPAC.com
====================================
For release: November 4, 2008
====================================
For additional information:
Marc Montoni, Founder, FreeLibertyPAC.com
Phone: (804) 288-2766
====================================

Real Libertarians Urge End to the War on Porn

WASHINGTON, DC -- Hard-core Libertarians say the feds should stop fondling hard-core porn.

According to Marc Montoni, founder of the group "FreeLibertyPAC.com", a libertarian public policy group, the federal government has raped the private sector of trillions of dollars of treasure over the past several decades; and while he says most of it has been wasted paying federal bureaucrats to "surf the internet on the clock", some was used to assemble a vast, expensive arsenal of sophisticated anti-crime tools.

"But then the bureaucrats fritter it away prosecuting people for having sex," Montoni said. "It's true -- just one recent example is adult film maker Paul F. Little, a.k.a 'Max Hardcore'".

Last October, Little was sentenced to prison for 46 months on federal charges for 'distributing obscene videos through the mail and the Internet'. Little was dragged all the way from Los Angeles, where he lives and works, to trial in a conservative part of Florida, because some of his internet servers were located there. Little was also fined $7,500, the minimum fine allowable by law, while his company, Max World Entertainment, was fined $75,000, plus an additional $5,000 in "special assessments". In all, Little was charged with 10 counts of violating 18 United States Code § 1461, 1462 and 1465. His company received an additional 10 counts. US District Judge Susan G. Bucklew placed Max Hardcore's company on five years probation and has ordered Little to serve three years probation after his release from prison."

"Governments are always the slowest, dullest elements of society to undergo change," Montoni said. "Thousands of years ago, Socrates was sentenced to death for 'corrupting the youth' of Athens. Jesus was brutally killed for teaching a religion of peace and acceptance. Copernicus and Galileo were arrested for proving that Earth was not the center of the universe. How many millions of people have been jailed, beaten, tortured, and killed for doing or saying 'politically incorrect' things?"

"Real Libertarians have a novel suggestion," Montoni said. "It's 2008. It's a New Millenium. Maybe it's time for governments to drop the ancient and antiquated practice of constantly warring on their own civilians. As our own Declaration of Independence says, governments are instituted among men to secure the rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness -- it's not supposed to be about nosing around in someone's bedroom."

"Maybe instead of sending a man to a government-owned rape factory for filming people who were enjoying voluntary sex, governments could concentrate all resources on controlling violent crime. Government cops at every level -- federal, state, and local -- are generally extraordinarily well-paid and enjoy lavish public-pension and other benefits -- but at the same time, they are increasingly unable to make any progress in finding the perpetrators of violent crime," Montoni said.

The failure is spectacular. 86% of all murders were cleared in 1968, but that number has declined just about every year. In 2007, only 61% of all murders were solved. Ironically, this has happened even in the face of a plummeting murder rate (it peaked at 9.8 per 100,000 in 1991; vs. 6.3 per 100,000 in 2004).

"We Libertarians believe that governments are essentially brutish, inefficient and inept; and therefore the list of functions we hand it should be kept short and simple, so even bureaucrats can understand what they're supposed to be doing. Removing violent criminals from the streets is a legitimate part of that list," Montoni said.

FreeLibertyPAC.com calls for abolishing all federal laws regulating, restricting, or harassing the producers, performers, distributors, or consumers of erotic material -- the stuff ideologues denounce as 'porn'. The group says Real Libertarians favor full, unlimited freedom of communication.

According to the group's platform:

---------------------------------------------------

We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of individuals to dissent from government itself. We recognize that full freedom of expression is possible only as part of a system of full property rights. The freedom to use one's own voice; the freedom to hire a hall; the freedom to own a printing press, a broadcasting station, or a transmission cable; the freedom to wave or burn one's own flag; and similar property-based freedoms are precisely what constitute freedom of communication. At the same time, we recognize that freedom of communication does not extend to the use of other people's property to promote one's ideas without the voluntary consent of the owners.

We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media, including, but not limited to, laws concerning obscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders one population group or another.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FreeLibertyPAC.com http://www.FreeLibertyPAC.com
PO Box 71106 voice: 804-288-2766
Richmond VA 23255-1106 fax: 804-288-2766
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Turning the Police into Royalty Doesn't Help

2008-06-30T15:28:00.000-04:00

I have every sympathy for Charlie Green's painful loss. However, his solution of pushing for a law change to make it a felony to "cause the death of a police officer during a traffic pursuit" was not the right remedy.

Police officers are increasingly accorded special status in society -- which flies directly in the face of equal protection under the law for all individuals, regardless of race, creed, philosophy, class, or who their employer is.

No government employee is worth more than any average citizen - we don't have nobility in this country. At least we didn't at one time.

Police chases are dangerous enterprises, and for that reason, they should only ever be initiated when the individual being chased is known to have committed a serious violent crime, is armed, and has shown intent to be an immediate danger to other individuals.

Checkpoints are of dubious constitutionality. Refusing to cooperate with one is not an offense worthy of a 100 mph chase. It wasn't worth the risk to Khalil Walker, the driver of the SUV that fled the Powhatan checkpoint; it wasn't worth the risk to other motorists and pedestrians; and it definitely wasn't worth the price Robbie Green paid.

Most incidents that eventually lead to dangerous police chases begin with nothing more than intensely scared individuals who already fear getting arrested for whatever reason they are being chased. As the chase continues, the person fleeing, who has undoubtedly watched "Cops" and watches the news, realizes he also has a good chance of being beaten, Tasered, or shot to death -- which fuels his desperation.

For real reform, and to protect life, a better law change would have been to prohibit all police chases except those where a clear and present danger of immediate violence exists. In addition, checkpoints should be outlawed as the violation of individual rights they are.

Ultimately, however, the job of policing must be ended as a government enterprise. The entire industry should be turned back over to the private sector. Besides the fact that people who work in the private sector never are accorded royalty status by the government, simple exposure to liability law would tend to ensure that chases would be minimized.

In contrast, with government seizing ever more power over the lives of individuals as is the case in America today, the incentive for government-supplied police forces is exactly the opposite: chase today, create a disaster waiting to happen, whine to the legislature about how dangerous your job is when the disaster does happen, then wax poetic to the legislature about how much money chases cost the department -- and win a bigger budget next year. This is a very perverse incentive.

The Song of the LiberCop

2008-04-28T09:00:00.000-04:00

Ah, the glorious song of the Libercop. The eyes water at the thought.

DEFINITION: LiberCop (n) -- A person (assuming the word "person" is appropriate) who watches in horror any time the Libertarian Party begins to show any sign of success, and slanderizes and defames anyone who is even suspected of remotely being involved in fomenting that success.

A LiberCop oozes up out of the slime (I'd say "woodwork" but that's too clean to describe their origin) to beat up on other LP members until all forward progress is "arrested" and the enemies of the Libercop are all "locked away" -- gone from the Party. LiberCops become almost completely silent and well-behaved when the LP is in remission and its best and brightest have fled for more appreciative groups.

The average LiberCop (and they are really, really average) spends most awake hours being righteously indignant about other Libertarians who look, think, or act differently than they.

LiberCops are bigoted, indifferent to the effect their words have on others, usually sexist and racist, and often do not bathe frequently enough to wash off their trailing, fetid stench of hypocrisy and treachery. They have all of the nastiest traits of mainline Insidians (see the flyer on Insidians -- you will read about one or two people you know!).

LiberCops, even though they are sexist, racist bigots, are attracted to the LP because the old parties are too massive for them to strangle. It's much harder to poison a convention crowd of 30,000 than it is to poison one of 500.

The reward for LiberCops is "making a difference" -- which to them means to force the LP into decline and stagantion.

The most terrifying thought to a LiberCop is that they might fail in slaying the LP. Their efforts to kill it and drive away the most productive activists are usually incredibly shrill as a result.

Fortunately they are just like all other "Insidians" in that they are nuts and can be safely ignored by normals.

The best way to rip the disguise off a LiberCop is to simply allow them to vomit their illogical, vile bilge unchallenged and let the disgusting nature of their allegations, claims, pronouncements, and proclamations reveal their true nature to those who are unaware of the LiberCop's essential nastiness. Only immersion therapy -- letting someone get a full taste of this rotten sort -- has proven to be a successful vaccine against the "LiberCop Virus".

Libercops are like bird droppings. As you go through life, every so often you will find yourself the target of some foul stuff. It isn't your fault, you just happened to be in the way. LiberCops, like birds, are primitive and they know nothing else but to aim their excretory regions and let fly. Too bad for anyone in their way.

The only thing to do is make note of who and where they are, brush them off, and give them no more of your time or attention than you would a dung beetle.

Go Green: Why Should Richmond Subsidize Pollution Anyway?

2008-04-16T21:17:00.000-04:00

Many area residents have followed the story of the government workers in the city of Richmond who have been double-dipping for their official-business transportation. I don't know the details of all this -- perhaps their pay stubs don't show the transportation reimbursement as a separate component, in which case it doesn't occur to them they were getting it. I don't pay much attention to each line item on my pay stub, either.

I don't particularly care, either way, because whether or not they were double-dipping is just window dressing. The best way to prevent problems like this is simply to eliminate their jobs.

But if Richmond taxpayers simply can't live without government workers interfering in their everyday life, perhaps the next best solution is for government employees to be required to use the same transportation system for their commuting & official business as they force all taxpayers to subsidize: The Bus. Employees should be given free tokens to do so, and should have to pay an "impact fee" if they choose to drive anyway.

According to the Virginia Employment Commission, there are 10,840 employees who get a city of Richmond paycheck. Interestingly, Richmond's own budget website says there are only 8,493. Must be some secret agents in there somewhere.

Besides the fact that not a single one of these folks produces new wealth to ultimately enrich everyone, how many have cars they have to park downtown? Let's say half of all employees work downtown, or about 5,000. Including hizzoner. Few of them carpool -- spend ten minutes marveling at the aggressive driving during the commuting hour and while doing so, observe how few cars are carrying more than one person. So, let's say there are 4,500 spaces taken up by Richmond government workers' cars every day.

At the same time, many in government will happily regurgitate the garbage science of anthropomorphic climate change; hypocritically while they are collecting fat bonuses to subsidize their trifling meddling around town and unspecified activities at cheap hotels. Here's where the rubber should meet the road. If government is going to force-feed the poison of discouraging private resource use and emissions, it should be the first to "go green". It should set the good example, rather than be the poster child for "do as I say, not as I do". Government employees should all be required to use GRTC (or ride a bike, or walk) to go from their homes as well as to go to and from all official-business appointments.

Think of how this will open up downtown to productive uses. Businesses require available parking at low cost to be able to produce wealth for the government to tax. Shoppers who used to avoid downtown will find thousands of welcoming parking spaces so they can do business with a thriving commercial area, rather than thousands of government workers' cars crowding them out.

Think also of other potential benefits. One would be that increased biking or walking will improve city workers' health. Better health means lower costs to the city for health insurance. Another would be the fact that thousands of government worker's cars taken off the roads will reduce the demand for fuel. Reduced demand means downward pressure on gas prices - a good thing for everyone.

Government employees generally accomplish little but the looting of the productive private sector. For that reason, their impact on society should be minimized or eliminated wherever possible. With one little change, the city of Richmond can re-open the commercial district, support its own bus service, and eliminate several million tons of emissions its workers inject into the atmosphere every day -- and lower the tax rate due to lower costs.

Later, we can move on to eliminating 29,449 state workers' and 5,942 federal workers' cars from the streets as well.

*************************************************************

Marc Montoni lives in Henrico County with his family and serves as a member of the Libertarian Party State Committee. He is a network consultant and writer who often contributes to the city of Richmond's tax revenue by patronizing city establishments.

Those "Pothead" Libertarians

2008-02-18T22:04:00.000-05:00

One of the more constant refrains I hear from some libertarians is that Libertarians need to outgrow their "image of being potheads".

Now, I understand many of us come from the conservative side of the fence. I "did some time" as a Republican activist, myself (1978-1980). However...

I've been a Libertarian activist on the front lines for two decades, almost three, and have interacted with thousands of voters about the LP. While I prefer to wear suit and tie when committing political acts in the name of the LP, I also am decidedly not a conservative-leaning Libertarian.

Rather, I am a Libertarian-leaning Libertarian.

In watching the level of **activism** by various LP members, it is very often those who might be regarded as "potheads" who do huge amounts of the heavy lifting for our ideas. I'm not even sure their image in the minds of our conservative-leaning members is even fair -- they're not all actually potheads; they just have that image due to their demeanor, dress, etc.

In any case, the so-called potheads are by and large the ones who show up at the Virginia General Assembly -- and dare to speak. They're usually the ones who collect the bulk of our ballot-access petition signatures. They are almost always the ones who show up at protests, local events, and staff LP information booths.

And you know what? I have never heard one of our "pothead" activists say anything negative about our more conservative members. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same thing in reverse.

The Libertarian Party, and the libertarian philosophy, isn't just about conservative hot-buttons such as eminent domain reform, gun laws, and "lower" taxes.

It is about those things; but it is also about repealing drug prohibition. All of it. It's also about abolishing laws against prostitution, private gambling, and other consensual behavior.

As one who was thoroughly conservative for a time -- I voted Reagan in 1980 and even volunteered at the headquarters of the Republican Party of Virginia as well as for the Richmond For Reagan HQ -- I have to say that the "potheads" have earned not just our tolerance but our wholehearted, honest welcome and respect. If we disparage and insult them by issuing the constant refrain that "the LP must lose it's image of being a collection of dope-smoking hippies", the LP will be much poorer because of it.

Ron Paul, with his open advocacy of eliminating the Income Tax and ending drug prohibition, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that neither the libertarian movement nor the Libertarian Party need shy away from advocating an end to the drug war. He proved that no part of libertarianism need be held back from the discussion. Even though he shied away from no subject, his message of freedom appealed to a complete cross-section of the population -- students and retirees, housewives and working women, business executives and wage slaves, blacks, whites, browns, yellows, and reds.

Libertarianism -- whether it's talking about repealing the Income Tax, ending Drug Prohibition, legalizing prostitution, or private roads -- will win new friends only when presented proudly, well, and in a clear, consistent manner. Act like you fear to tread on any one part of the libertarian philosophy, and your ideological opponents will seize on your weakness and scramble all over you like wolves on a carcass.

Slashing Government

2007-02-16T20:03:00.000-05:00

Want to reduce the state budget? Here's a half-billion dollar launch pad.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone recently asked me what Commonwealth of Virginia government spending is wasteful and could be eliminated.

I had to think about that for a minute, because I frankly can't see any reason to keep much of anything except a small police force to keep an eye out for local police corruption and maybe a court system of last resort.

But I digress.

Here are a few suggestions for state agencies/activities that could be rather painlessly eliminated:

********************************************

1. Virginia Port Authority

http://dpb.state.va.us/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vTable=O&vbiennium=2006-2008&vSecretary=Trans&vAgencyCode=407

OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: "The mission of the ports relates to the state’s long-term strategic transportation plan as well as the state’s strategic economic development plan. The agency, through the Commonwealth, owns and operates marine terminals in Portsmouth, Norfolk, and Newport News. It also owns a truck and rail terminal in Front Royal. It markets these ports to ship lines and businesses worldwide through the headquarters in Norfolk, as well as through other offices across the United States and overseas. Overseas offices include locations in Brussels, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, Seoul, Sao Paulo, Singapore, Cairo, and Hong Kong. Currently, the authority’s budget is from nongeneral fund sources, primarily revenues received from the Transportation Trust Fund and from fees paid by ship lines for use of the ports. The agency does not receive any federal funds."

WHY IT CAN BE ELIMINATED -- Why is the state involved in operating a freight terminal? Overnight and hundred of other companies are already in that business, they make profits, and pay taxes.

ELIMINATION WOULD SAVE: $77,947,316 in 2007.

********************************************

2. Department of Aviation

http://dpb.state.va.us/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vTable=O&vbiennium=2006-2008&vSecretary=Trans&vAgencyCode=841

OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: "The department helps airport owners plan, construct, maintain, and operate their airports. The agency also plans the state’s aviation system and promotes aviation and air travel safety. These activities account for more than 90 percent of the agency’s budget. In addition, the department licenses aircraft and airports, and maintains the state government’s fleet of aircraft, which accounts for slightly less than 10 percent of the agency’s budget. The primary funding for the agency comes from nongeneral fund sources such as fuel taxes, and aircraft sales and use taxes. In 2001, 1.4 percent of the agency’s spending was from federal funds."

WHY IT CAN BE ELIMINATED -- For one thing, it's redundant. The FAA, insurance companies, and architects already do all of the above activities the agency does.

ELIMINATION WOULD SAVE: $31,864,188 in 2007.

********************************************

3. Human Rights Council

http://dpb.state.va.us/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vTable=O&vbiennium=2006-2008&vSecretary=Admin&vAgencyCode=173

OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: "This agency investigates unlawful discriminatory practices under federal or state statutes. As an alternative to the investigative process, the agency has implemented a mediation program in an attempt to expedite dispute resolution. The agency serves the Commonwealth’s citizens, public and private employers, and localities. In 2001, 3.1 percent of the agency’s spending was from federal funds."

WHY IT CAN BE ELIMINATED -- Redundant. Redress is available in courts; or, better yet, in the offices of arbitrators or mediators.

ELIMINATION WOULD SAVE: $461,177 in FY 2007.

********************************************

4. Charitable Gaming Commission

http://dpb.state.va.us/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vTable=O&vbiennium=2006-2008&vSecretary=Admin&vAgencyCode=173

OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: "The agency, created in 1996, is charged with the oversight of raffles, bingo, and instant bingo games permitted to raise funds for charitable purposes. The commission has the authority to issue, suspend, and revoke permits to operate these games and to certify suppliers of gaming goods and services. The agency spends about eight percent of its budget to license Virginia’s 650 charitable gaming organizations and about 30 gaming suppliers. Another 32 percent of its budget goes to inspect and audit the operations of charitable games, and just over 20 percent of the agency’s resources is allocated for activities to enforce the charitable gaming laws and regulations. The remainder of the agency’s budget is spent to conduct hearings, to educate the public and gaming organizations about charitable gaming, and to provide administrative support to the commission. The agency is fully supported by nongeneral fund sources, which consist of the license fees and audit and administration fees paid by gaming organizations and suppliers. The agency does not receive any federal funds."

WHY IT CAN BE ELIMINATED -- Redundant. Redress is available in courts; or, better yet, in the offices of arbitrators or mediators. Not only that, but reputable charities would have their accounts audited anyway by an accounting firm. If the gamer doesn't care where the money goes and chooses to play in a non-reputable charity's game, well, no harm no foul.

ELIMINATION WOULD SAVE: $2,670,827 in FY 2007.

********************************************

5. Virginia's Public Broadcasting Board

http://dpb.state.va.us/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vTable=O&vbiennium=2002-2004&vSecretary=Admin&vAgencyCode=911

OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: "The Virginia Public Broadcasting Board provides state support for public television and radio in Virginia and for instructional programming (ITV) viewed by students and teachers in Virginia’s public elementary and secondary schools. Just under 31 percent of the board’s budget is allocated for ITV programming, 33 percent goes for community service grants for public television, and just under seven percent goes for community service grants for public radio. Less than two percent of the board’s funds go for contracts with private nonprofit organizations to provide radio reading services for print-handicapped Virginians. Another 27 percent of the board’s budget goes for repayment of state support for the conversion of Virginia’s public television stations to the new digital standard mandated by the Federal Communications Commission. The board receives no federal funds."

WHY IT CAN BE ELIMINATED -- Redundant. Most Virginians have access to 50 or more channels offered by the private sector. Besides, government can never resist an opportunity to propagandize a captive student audience.

ELIMINATION WOULD SAVE: $3 million / year

********************************************

6. Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services

http://dpb.state.va.us/budget/vabud/vabud.cfm?vTable=O&vbiennium=2006-2008&vSecretary=Comme&vAgencyCode=301

Also see: http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/about/pdf/strategicplan.pdf

OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION: "More than one-third of the agency’s budget is spent to promote Virginia’s agricultural and seafood products. Another 18 percent is spent to prevent and control diseases and pests affecting crops and farm animals through research, testing, grants, technical advice, and direct services to farmers. The agency spends 13 percent of its budget to ensure food safety by inspecting grocery stores, food processing plants, dairies, food storage warehouses, and meat and poultry slaughtering and processing plants. The department also spends nearly a fifth of its budget regulating business practices and investigating consumer complaints about unsafe products and fraudulent services. Nearly 44 percent of the agency’s budget comes from nongeneral fund sources, such as federal grants, user fees, registration fees, and excise taxes. In 2001, 10.5 percent of the agency’s spending was from federal funds."

WHY IT CAN BE ELIMINATED -- Redundant. There is not one single service listed in their report which is not provided by companies in the honest sector. Indeed, many of their services are paid for with user fees -- which means they can easily be privatized.

The most interesting part is where it says 1/3 or its budget is spent promoting agricultural and seafood products. In the private sector, that might be called "advertising".

ELIMINATION WOULD SAVE: $339,490,000 (general fund expenditures only; this doesn't even touch the agency's revenue from service fees) in FY 2007.

********************************************

That's already over $400 million in reductions. Not reductions in the rate of increase, but REDUCTIONS. Outright elimination.

Those interested in finding out how Virginia's government spends money, and where it gets it to spend, may wish to bookmark these links:

I. The Virginia Department of Planning and Budget breaks down state spending into easy to read tables; and each main heading is a link that leads to more specific information:

II. I'm not a big fan of the U.S. Census as it is today (see the Libertarian Party's Census Articles, here and here), but they do some good data collection on state governments, including Virginia's.

By the way, this is not directly related to state budgets. But if you're interested in the federal Balanced Budget Amendment, take a look.

********************************************

-- end --

Copyright is Wrong!

2007-02-05T11:09:00.002-05:00

Copyrights (and patents) stifle creativity and efficient delivery of goods.

Copyrights and patents are a subsidy, nothing more -- a fact the Founders recognized. That's why they phrased the principle the way they did, and put it in the Articles as a power the government was authorized to enact. It is not a right, and never was -- otherwise it would be among the rights protected by the Bill of Rights.

It's also one of the few areas I disagree with the Founders. *NO* government subsidy should have been written into law, much less enshrined in the Constitution.

It is simply not the business of the FBI (or any other government agency) to assure that the makers of crass products like Mickey Mouse (or even Windows) get rich.

Copyright law stifles innovation and makes plagiarism of others (ie Disney characters mostly based on public-domain Grimm's Tales, most software being altered versions of existing code or ideas (such as the Windows GUI being inspired by the Mac GUI, etc) profitable.

Patents are no different. Had Benz succeeded in patenting the automobile as a whole in the late 1800's, automobiles would *still* be extremely costly and idiotically-designed to this very day.

I could care less if a person downloads files of any type. No one has any "right" to ideas (or electrons). Those who want to "protect their 'right' [sic] to their copyright" should be expected to sell their material only under contract -- and they should be expected to be ready to have courts enforce those contracts. Why do I as a landlord have to get my contracts enforced at my own expense while copyright holders expect the FBI to do their work for them?

I began experimenting with open-source software this year for all of the above reasons -- and when I can, I avoid purchasing copyrighted or patented items. I prefer not to deal with subsidized monopolists if I can help it.

Copyright holders should figure out how to deliver their product to willing consumers cheaply enough so that those consumers won't want to *bother* investing the time (installing a file browser, etc) or money (upgrades to hardware, and so on) required to "steal" them instead.

Apple, for all its faults, proved this concept can be profitable with its iPod and downloadable song services; but even so, it's certain late-adopters will continue to whine about how things "should be" rather than embracing new technology and getting with the times.

Another reason why copyright law is increasingly a failure at its intended purpose: It backfires right in the face of the publishers. As law-enforcement/legal interference grows, so does resistance and rebellion. Remember what Princess Leia said to Grand Moff Tarkin, in the first Star Wars ("A New Hope"): "The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers."

The only free-market way to protect ideas is with contractual agreements -- which should be enforced in civil courts, not with criminal courts as is copyright law -- OR to maintain physical control over the medium on which ideas are stored. Then, if I steal the medium, yes, I am guilty of theft, because I have taken something tangible. And the theft of such property should extend to the fair market value of the ideas contained within the medium, using established practices for calculating such fair market value.

And yes, even though the medium itself might be a CD worth 45 cents, courts are generally smart enough to figure out that 100 lbs of fish oil is worth less than 100 pounds of gold. Therefore, if one could subtantiate a claim that the CD stolen would have netted the owner $1 million in a sale at fair market value, the court will generally back you up.

I stand by my assertion that copyright law is just another subsidy; in this case for those who have ideas. It distorts a HUGE sector of the market, enabling SOME vendors of copyright-able products to become FABULOUSLY rich. If they were in a free-for-all market, they would have to pay more attention to effective delivery & marketing to the mass market of CHEAP products. We'd get a lot more standardization, and MANY more people would be able to purchase the product.

Isn't the main raison d'etre of a free market to assure that businesses get products to consumers in the most efficient (i.e., lowest cost possible for an identical good) way? Copyrights assure that will never happen here.

Further Reading ********************************************

Stephan Kinsella's IP Policy Wikispace

by Wendy McElroy

The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism, by Stephan Kinsella

DMV: An Agency Past Its Prime

2006-04-28T01:24:00.000-04:00

I wrote the below opinion article in the year 2000. Little has changed since then as far as the DMV "culture" is concerned.

-------------------------------

DMV: An Agency Past Its Prime
by Marc Montoni

You hear it all the time. People everywhere, in every state, always complain about their state's motor vehicle agency. In Virginia the culprit goes by the name "Division of Motor Vehicles", or "DMV".

You swear every time you walk out of the DMV that you're going to call your state legislators and let them know what you think of the slow service, the bureaucrat behind the counter that treated you like a number and had that "us against them" attitude, and other grievances. But you never do, because you know the odds are stacked very high in favor of the DMV.

Legislators like motor vehicle departments because they are cash cows. They are because they can charge you whatever they like in exchange for allowing you to drive. If you can't drive, you can't participate in this economy. Indeed, even if you do find a way to participate in the economy without driving, you still have to go to the DMV and allow them to photograph, catalog, number, and profile you so you can get an ID card so you can get a job. Other, non-state-issued forms of ID are not "permissible" as proof of citizenship so your employer can allow you on the site and pay you. By definition, this is an extortion racket.

A recent trip I made to a brand-new DMV branch office in my former hometown of Richmond was a typical experience. You wouldn't know that working conditions had improved with the new building, because the reception wasn't very different from previous trips to the rented office in a shopping center.

Walking inside the palatial new branch office, I was directed to an information desk where clerks give you the forms to do what you need to do. They give you a time-stamped number strip, and you go sit down. And wait. And wait.

I wasn't there during a rush, either. Lunchtime is their rush, when people who are out doing productive work in the private sector have to skip lunch to pay their dues to the cash cow. I have never seen a DMV plan for a lunch rush, though -- in fact, it sure seems to me that, similar to the Post Office, during the lunch rush is exactly when they send their own employees to... well, lunch. Not even a second thought to staggering their work hours.

While I waited, I looked at the number strip I'd been handed -- and discovered that the time stamp was two minutes ahead of the actual time. Funny, I had already been sitting there for fifteen minutes -- so the time stamp on the number strip was about seventeen minutes ahead of real time when it was printed. I came to the admittedly cynical conclusion that the branch managers use the times on those number strips to "prove" customer waiting times are half as long as they really are. Interesting ruse.

I was called by the computer and went to the window it told me to go to. I wanted to trade in the regular plates on my older car on the new orange "antique" plates I'd heard about. I didn't know it at the time, but the new plates weren't due out until the 1st of July, and I was five days early. So I asked the clerk for the new orange antique plates. The clerk interrupted me before I even had a chance to finish my request, and loudly stated that there was no such thing as an orange antique plate; they had the familiar black and white plates and that's what she was going to give me.

Within seconds of arriving at the window, I was made to feel small and ignorant. After my meek insistence that the new plates were indeed being offered, my surly public servant asked someone else in the office. The other employee was better informed and confirmed the new plates were coming, but I was a few days early. With no apology, my tormentor repeated that fact that they weren't available yet, in a defiant, victorious tone. Deciding to wait a few days for the orange plates I wanted, I told her to cancel any transactions she had started and I'd come back after July 1. I suggested that maybe she treat customers a bit less like dolts. I thought that might be the end of an unpleasant experience, but it wasn't.

I began walking towards the door, and as I did, I heard laughter from her direction. I turned to look, and she and her two clerk neighbors were looking at me while she laughed.

Yes, I know. The joke's on the taxpayer.

This incident made me think of what might be done to make the DMV more friendly. But then I realized it can't ever change. The "us-against-them", "customer is always wrong" attitude is part of the game. Look around -- the attitude is everywhere in government offices. The IRS ("seizure fever -- catch it" signs on employee bulletin boards); the Postal Service, the police department (the "blue wall of silence"), the school board (Goals 2000 instead of the 3 "R"'s) -- and the DMV.

As long as the "customer" is required by law to run through the state's bureaucratic hoops -- with jail or starvation the price for not doing so -- there is no way to change the culture. The nation fought a war over slavery in the last century, but now everyone is a slave to the bureaucratic machine. How did it happen?

The Libertarian idea that government services should be replaced by private sector alternatives is long overdue for a good look. There is no reason why your bank and insurance company can't take care of your car registration requirements, and even your driver's license needs (if you can't come up with insurance, they won't give you the driver's test, etc.). The access to records needed by the police for legitimate accident investigation and the like would still exist -- the data just wouldn't be collected by one archaic and unresponsive state agency.

When something proves itself inefficient, it's time to try something else. Abolishing the DMV is an idea whose time has come; the DMV's decades-long record proves it can't be reformed. It's time to replace it with a friendlier private-sector alternative.

# # # # #

Marc Montoni is a Salem resident and directs daily operations of the Libertarian Party of Virginia.

Do "Certificates of Need" Help or Hurt?

2005-01-24T22:58:00.000-05:00

Frequently, politicians come up with ideas for government policies that do the opposite of what was intended. In the 1970's, Congress decided to try to apply pressure against rising health-care costs by encouraging "Certificate Of Need" (CON) laws. This early health care regulation acted on the supply, rather than demand, side of the health-care cost equation. By 1974, the federal government required all states to have Certificate Of Need regulations in effect.

At the time, some economists argued that the regulations would actually raise health care costs because they would stifle competition and raise the cost of entering a market. As it turned out, they were correct. As evidence began mounting that the laws were driving costs up, Congress did an about-face and repealed the requirement. Several states, but not Virginia, acknowledged the new evidence and subsequently repealed their Certificate Of Need regulations.

The intent of these regulations was to drive health care costs down by requiring hospitals to first demonstrate to a government commission that a major expansion of existing facilities, or the construction of a new facility, or the purchase of big-ticket new equipment, would genuinely benefit in the community -- that is, that it was truly "needed".

In a recent article in the Richmond "Times-Dispatch", a reporter described the four-year-long legal battle Bon Secours Health System has been forced to wage in trying to win a Certificate of Need from the Virginia Department of Health, for its proposed $72 million St. Francis Medical Center facility the company wants to build in western Chesterfield County.

Bon Secours' rival in the area, HCA Inc., has used the Certificate of Need statutes to freeze its competition out of the market; sending lawyers and "experts" to testify in front of the government commissioner -- in an attempt to prove the Bon Secours facility is not "needed". Naturally, HCA wants to maintain its monopoly on health care in its markets; and the only way to do that is to use the power of government. Were the situations reversed, no doubt Bon Secours would be doing the same thing.

Therein lies the problem with giving the government the power to portion out markets to any person or business.

Bon Secours is willing to gamble $72 million that there is enough of a need for its facility that it will earn a return on the investment. That's what free enterprise is all about -- taking a risk in the hopes of earning a profit.

But when a market is distorted by government meddling, all rules change. Costs for all parties go up. The government spends millions of dollars adjudicating the case; the hospitals spend millions of dollars on lawyers to argue the case back and forth, one trying to build, the other trying to force them not to build. Consumers -- i.e., patients -- end up footing the bill, both through higher taxes and again when they need medical attention. Other factors are worth considering, as well. For instance, if the property upon which Bon Secours wishes to build has already been purchased by the company, they can't yet use it - a substantial investment of money that it is forced to leave sitting in a corner, when it could tbe used to service their customers. This will also raise the cost to the consumer.

Congress recognized the errors of its ways on this issue years ago; now, it's time for Virginia to catch up with the eighties. To lower health care costs, the state legislature should repeal the "Certificate Of Need" statutes immediately.

This will have the added benefit of reducing expenses related to administering the regulations, during a time when the Virginia state government desperately needs to shed non-essential functions. And considering how bloated the Code of Virginia is, deleting sections that are wholly unnecessary and making it a shorter document can only be a good thing.

Any time governments are asked to expand beyond their proper and limited role of protecting individuals from fraud and aggression, they dilute their ability to do anything particularly well. Governments function best when their job is kept simple.

Conversely, private companies can deliver the best service to their customers at the lowest price when they are allowed to conduct their business as they see fit, free of interference by government bureaucrats.

****************************************

Marc Montoni, a network consultant & installer, is a resident of Shenandoah County, Virginia; serves as an elected Director of the Lord Fairfax Soil & Water Conservation District; and is also the Chairman of the Shenandoah County Libertarian Party.

****************************************

Copyright © October 2002 by Marc Montoni. Permission to publish or reprint in any and all venues hereby granted.

****************************************

REFERENCES:

"Hospital's Fate Awaits Ruling", by Bob Raynard, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Saturday, September 28, 2002.

****************************************

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION:

STUDY: Beyond Health Care Reform: Reconsidering Certificate Of Need Laws In A Managed Competition System, by Patrick John Mcginley; published 1995 in the Florida State University Law Review:

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/issues/231/mcginley.html

****************************************