The Elites Will Run You Over, and Not Lose Any Sleep Over It

A couple of years ago, Karen Kwiatkowski  was out campaigning at the Rockingham County Fair.  I had been acquainted with her and considered her to be a friend, so of course when my family and I spotted her, we all stopped to talk a bit.

As I was speaking to her, a bureaucratocade (motorcade) drove into the exhibition area we were in.  The kids were fascinated.

I watched them come in, inwardly chuckling at the arrogance of the elites.

But then the two lead motorcycles with two very over-sized cops turned straight towards my children.  I was expecting them to hard right behind the pavilion, but then they cut diagonally across the grass without really slowing down.  I grabbed my child and pulled him behind me, as we were out of room behind us; we could not back up any further.  The elitists of the state missed me and my 5-year-old old by inches.  I was backed all the way up and holding him behind and beside me.

Couldn't have the governor walking more than a few feet to the big top, now, could we?

It was Bob McDonnell, the state's top Republican.

Besides the kingly driving, I was flabbergasted by the waste of it all.  There were at least twenty cops around the pavilion, and the motorcade disgorged a half-dozen more on motorcycles with disco lights flashing and a few more the big ol' full-size SUV the Guv was riding in.  There were maybe fifty people milling about to meet elected officials, including McDonnell.

You'd think Republicans supposedly interested in smaller government would order the police escort to go fight crime instead of showboating the self-importance of the political class -- and drive himself to the Fair himself in a second-hand, gas-sipping, 41 mpg city Ford Fusion hybrid.

Or maybe even an old, paid-for 1990 Ford Escort or Chevy Cavalier.

Regional or Local?

Should We Organize a Regional LP Affiliate That Covers Several Counties/Cities, or a Single-Jurisdiction Group?

By Marc Montoni

Over many years of organizing Libertarian Party affiliates in Virginia, it has become crystal clear to me that certain styles of organization are conducive to growing the Libertarian Party and recruiting candidates who actually get elected -- and other styles are not.

There are many deleterious problems with organizing a regional group that covers more than one jurisdiction.  Here are some brief descriptions of a few of these issues:

1)  I have heard many Libertarians claim that their intent is to split up into single jurisdiction groups later on, after there has been some growth.  However, in my experience, once a regional affiliate has been set up the members *never* bother to start up individual affiliates, regardless of how large the group becomes.

2)  Regional groups are the Kiss of Death as far as real local activity is concerned.  The members generally come to viewing the group's purpose as continuing to meet -- rather than participating in local electoral politics.  In other words, the group's purpose becomes perpetuating the group itself.

3)  The entire purpose of having a Libertarian Party is to organize for elections.  If Libertarians are never going to act like they mean to challenge offices at the local level, there's utterly no point in having any local committees at all.

4)  There is the issue of personalities.  If a large, multijurisdictional group claims to have exclusive control over Libertarian events over the entire area, and some fraction of their constituency doesn't get along with them, those people have no option other than to a) wrest control of the group away from those they disagree with, b) stay inactive, or c) travel to some other area far beyond their local city or county to be active with others.  To me, this invites only two real outcomes: a) infighting; or b) inactivity by the group on the "outside".

Frankly, we do not have the time to waste.

A larger group that controls a large area limits the ability of people who may not like the larger group to become active in an alternative the next city over.  For example, consider Virginia Beach, Norfolk, and Chesapeake.  These three cities are the first, second, and third-largest cities in Virginia; each > a quarter of a million people.  Each city is plenty large enough to where it could support a local affiliate that draws 25 to 50 people to each meeting.

So why we do not have a local affiliate in Chesapeake, for example?

Because we have one regional affiliate that claims to control all three of those cities, plus Portsmouth.  Because of this, people in Chesapeake think they have to have something to say in the TLP, or they will have no other outlet for their energy and enthusiasm.  Ergo, they focus their efforts at TLP instead.

Another problem we run into with Regionals is their membership begins to believe the group can annex neighboring communities at will.  And indeed, this happened with the TLP many years ago.  The TLP was originally chartered as the Virginia Beach LP back in 2001.  However, without seeking approval from the LPVA, the TLP now claims jurisdiction over an enormous geopolitical area -- all without following any of the procedures listed in the LPVA Bylaws for such affiliation; without any poll of the LP members within the areas they were annexing as to whether they wanted the TLP to cover them, and without circulating a new petition to that effect.

It has become clear to me that having recognized regional affiliates is not just inefficient.  It's also injurious.

Now, there *is* a place for regional libertarian groups.  They just should act as social groups that don't need to be officially affiliated with the Libertarian Party.  Essentially, that's how the TLP behaves.  The Rocktown Libertarians, the Richmond Metro Libertarians, and other regional groups all operate this way.  None of these groups really need any officers, bylaws, or official recongnition.

In addition, we already have eleven regional affiliates established by the LPVA Constitution: the congressional district committees.  Do we really need any more?

Single-jurisdiction local parties do many things better than regionals:

1)  They tend to recruit more candidates for local office -- the level at which LP candidates can actually win.

2)  They tend to commit political acts, such as attending local Board of Supervisors or City Council meetings as a group.

3)  They allow members to have a choice of local events to participate in.

4)  Personalities are less of an issue, if you can ride ten minutes down the road and see other libertarians who get along with you better.

5)  Even though locals are kept as separate entities, there is ample opportunity for cross-pollination.  When I started the Chesterfield County Libertarian Committee in 2007, I didn't live there.  I still supported them with my time and money.  I just didn't ask them to make me a voting member; their choices belonged to those who lived in the county.

So there are things to think carefully about when it comes to the regional vs single-jurisdiction local question.  I have started both kinds of affiliates over the past twenty years -- about 15 of them.  And my experience tells me that once you try to cover more than one city or county, the group will rapidly lose focus on committing real political acts.

After twenty years of seeing that in action, I hope I can persuade you to take the other road.

Thank you for reading!

Why I Hate Flying

Why do I hate flying?

One of course is the gate rape one gets from the TSA.

The TSA is a massive government jobs program designed to combat the *last* terrorist attack.  Actually, that's not accurate.  It isn't designed to combat *any* terrorist attack,  All the TSA is is garden-variety, boring security theatre.  A pointless and expensive show, it is.

As far as people getting on board a plane to commit a terrorist act, well, that simply won't happen again, regardless of the $100 billion security state apparatus we pay for every year.

When the passengers on that flight that crashed into the field in Pennsylvania heard what had happened in New York, they took matters into their own hands.  Those passengers changed the paradigm, hopefully forever.  People will no longer assume if they don't resist, they will likely remain unharmed and released after a while.

After 9/11, passengers will all assume death is imminent.  People will now assume they will be flown into a building unless they take action themselves.

Listless government employees did nothing to stop the attacks on 9/11.  Individuals did.  The ability of terrorists to take over a plane -- at least without substantial and determined resistance -- largely ended on 9/11/2001.

Yet in response to its complete, total, and abject failure to prevent the attacks on 9/11, the government was given huge new powers and a huge new budget and a huge new agency -- all of which promptly failed to prevent the shoe bomber from getting on board yet another plane.  Once again, passengers stopped the attack, without any help from their government.

So I absolutely reject the authority of my government to force me to assume the "surrender" posture at the gate, before they allow me to exercise my right to travel as I choose and where I choose.  Security theatre is nothing more than an idiotic joke to me.

The other reason I hate to fly is... well, flying.

I remember watching the news back in the 80's or 90's when an airliner lost its wing and fell to the ground.  Yes, I completely understand that flying, as modes of travel go, is one of the safest.  Nevertheless, if I die in a crash, if it's in a car at least they might have enough of me left to bury.

While taking off and landing during some vacation flying in 2013, I found myself holding onto my little 7 year old's arm, thinking silently that if we did begin to have a crash, I wanted him to know I'm right there with him.

Yeah, I know it's irrational, but so be it.

Short Answers to the “Can You Win” Question

Edited by Marc Montoni
Libertarians for Practical Politics, Dammit!

[Gleaned from various sources]

Most of the thousands of Libertarians who have run for office since 1972 have faced the inevitable question from reporters (and voters as well, but especially reporters), “do you think you can win?”

The question itself reveals the intellectually lazy view of politics as a horse race. There's no room in that religion for ideology, belief, passion, or anything else of any substance. There's nothing in a horse race that really means anything.

Essentially, reporters asking it have reduced politics to a simple race of nothing vs. nothing.

How to get around it? How do you lead someone with such a short attention span back to real issues?

Libertarians have come up with many ways to steer the reporter back to their reason for running. We share them with you below so you will have them ready in your verbal arsenal.

Here is how a candidate who was professionally coached answered the question: Ed Clark, when asked if he would win, and how many votes he would get, had probably the best answer I've heard:

"I'm trying as hard as I can to win. We have a serious message, we want to address serious problems"....

Clark's answer avoided both self-marginalization on the one hand, and overblown expectations that any moron, much less a reporter, could see right through on the other.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The following essay appeared in the old Usenet discussion group, "libernet" in the early nineties, but I did not record who wrote it.]


In 1982, Ed Clark put together an audio tape of fifty questions and answers, and on this particular matter, the conversation went like this:


Question: "Do you really expect to win?"

Answer: "I'm trying just as hard as I can to win. Libertarians have the right solutions for today's problems, they have the ethics of individual liberty--the only correct ethics for politics--and we have been gaining strength and we are going to get a lot of votes this time".

Question: "How many votes are you going to get?"

Answer: "We are going to get a lot of votes in 1982. More than we have had before and enough to show the public that Libertarians are a very strong alternative in American politics".

Mr. Clark then went on to say:

"If you note the way I have answered the last two questions, these are perhaps the only two in the whole set of questions where you do not give a direct answer, because if you ever answer a question "Do you really expect to win" with a "yes", in many cases people will discard you as somebody who is obviously not realistic in your answer. If you answer that question with a "no" you eliminate one of the principal reasons that people are going to follow your candidacy and there is the possibility that you might win. So these questions call for strong affirmative answers, but not to answer the question precisely".

You are, of course, never under any obligation to give a direct answer to any question, and indeed few politicians do, often preferring to give an answer that they think will put them in the best possible light, whether it relates to the subject at hand or not.

There are sound reasons for reconsidering your answers. You do not know for sure that you are not going to win, even if you think you might not.

Let me take a little more of your time by relating an event which occurred here in British Columbia within the last three months. The term of our governing Social Credit (conservative) Party was drawing to a close following a five year term which had been plagued by scandal and corruption, including the resignation of the Premier under allegations of conflict of interest.

They and the New Democratic (socialist) Party both ran a full slate of candidates. The provincial Liberal (wishy-washy) Party had been pretty well defunct for the last twenty years until recent times when a very energetic fellow started making really strenuous efforts to revive it ready for this last election. The net result of his efforts was that he persuaded enough people to run as candidates so as to give them a full slate. This then gave him sufficient leverage to persuade the powers that be to include him in a Party Leader's debate on local television. This proved to be the turning point from which they never looked back.

The final result was New Democrats 51 seats, Liberals 17 seats, and the once ruling Social Credit 6 seats.

Knowledgeable commentators forecast that at best the Liberals might take a handful of seats. Instead, they are now the official opposition.

-- end of Libernet essay --

Here are some additional sound bite-ish answers, which I've used occasionally:

"If I wanted chaos, I could sit on my couch and vote for Democrats and Republicans. But I want liberty. I want freedom. I want government to protect my rights, and get out of my wallet and my bedroom. I can't get any of those things voting for Democrats or Republicans, so here I am."

"I am running because I want liberty. Voting for Democrats and Republicans is a lost cause; because both of them work to expand government and restrict liberty."

"Doing the same thing over and over - in this case, voting for Democrats and Republicans - and each time, expecting the results to be different, is insanity. These guys refuse to protect individual rights, they are taxing the middle class into bankruptcy; they've saddled us with hundreds of thousands of laws no single person can be expected to know; they take our homes and give them over to developers; they've lied us into '100 years of war', and have made our money just about worthless. Why give them a pat on the back and return them to office yet again? I'm running because I refuse to give them that pat on the back."

You can also make it a point to say that you're also running because Virginia doesn't have registration by party, and this is the only way we have to discover new Libertarians so we have a larger support base for the next election. Along these lines, you might say:

"Given the difficulties third-party candidates face in winning office, I'll personally count my race as a 'win' if I can find new libertarians and get them ready to support our candidates next year. We Libertarians believe we're in a marathon, not a one-year sprint."

It is important for every Libertarian to remember the following: You’re not going to get fiscal conservatives to vote for you; at least not en masse. Neither will liberals, en masse.

For that matter, winning is out of the question without a campaign war chest equal to the sum of both of your opponents. Your campaign should pursue the swing voters who aren't married to either camp; and it should specifically target those who are already libertarian.

Below I provide you with several more snippets from some other people on how to address “The Question”. Enjoy! And above all, good luck and have fun with your race!

Donny Ferguson:

I would respond with:

1) There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of elected Libertarian officials.

2) There have always been independent and third party members of Congress, and they all beat Republicans and Democrats to get there. Right now we have two independent U.S. Senators.

3) Any candidate can win as long as you vote for him.

James R. Stevenson:

Start off by saying that right now you have a 33% chance of winning. If you can get your message out and people realize they are in agreement, then you can certainly win.

I would avoid using the word 'conservative' in any incarnation. Say you are trying to appeal to those people who believe in personal liberty and fiscal responsibility. This way you can appeal to any disaffected constituent, Democrat, Republican, or independent. If you use the word 'conservative' you automatically lose all Democratic tribalists. Similarly, if you use the word 'liberal', you automatically lose the Republican tribalists.

It is unfortunate that Bob Barr is already campaigning as a 'true conservative'. He has already marginalized his campaign, just as Ron Paul did. Quite stoopid if not downright idiotic.

Probably the most important thing you can say is "If the media responsibly reports on your positions, then you have a great chance to win. If the media censors your candidacy, you will have little chance of winning".

Steve Damerell:

One of the best answers is to say "I'm running to win, because people don't run in elections to lose." Then immediately delve into WHY you're running.

That lead-in sentence is neither defeatist nor delusional, and from there, you can bring the question back around to the issues, your strong point.

Rick Sincere:

The classic response in this genre was, of course, William F. Buckley, Jr., running as a Conservative Party candidate for Mayor of New York in 1965. Asked, "what's the first thing you'll do if you're elected?," Buckley replied: "Demand a recount."

I'm not saying you should copy Buckley, but you should be prepared with something similarly pithy and funny -- something quotable that will get you noticed.

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

Remember, have fun!  And good luck!

... And What Is The Consistent Libertarian Position on Abortion?

Libertarians are as divided on the issue of abortion as are every other group.

The main reason we are divided is that we have accepted the government's terms for the debate, in other words the debate has been framed to be between those who are "pro-life" vs those who are "pro-choice".

A consistent Libertarian, however, doesn't have to choose between one or the other position, however.  Doing so does not make one more or less of a libertarian.  It is true the LP has been pro-choice since it was formed.  As long as I am involved it will remain that way; however, some alterations to our platform are in order.  For one thing, the rights of men have never been addressed within any of the LP's platform positions on abortion.

Everyone wants there to be fewer abortions.  Everyone.  Everyone recognizes that abortion is at best a tradeoff of negatives.

But only freedom will get us all what we want, which is fewer abortions.

The only way to address abortion is to make it look less like a necessary option, and to reduce the incentives that push people towards it.  Reducing barriers to adoption, making sure minors have access to sex education materials or counseling, voluntarily supporting efforts to provide free or low-cost contraception, and more economic opportunity will all tend to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Economic growth tends to suppress the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies.  In a truly free-market economy, there would be so much wealth available to earn, more young people would put off childbearing in order to get in on the economic action.

Libertarians also understand that human behavior responds to incentives.  Get rid of the incentives for abortion or against it, and human behavior will tend to migrate towards the widely-accepted moral end we all want.

For instance, reducing the legal and financial penalties for getting someone pregnant will change behavior towards reducing the number of abortions. A man should have the right to invoke the paper equivalent of an abortion: During the pregnancy or within a defined time frame of being informed he has fathered a child, he should be able to -- essentially "give up the child for adoption by the mother" (or someone else), and be released from all parental responsibility and entitlements (getting to participate in birthdays, custody, etc).

Men shouldn't be forced into situations any more than women are.  They bear the financial and psychological costs of unwanted pregnancies as much as women.  And they deserve the same right to opt out of parenthood as women.

If women understood their partner could opt-out without any financial penalties, that would tend to discourage unwanted pregnancies to begin with.

If men knew that, they would be far less likely to pressure their partner to abort.

But more importantly: Knowing they could opt-out without financial penalty would lessen the likelihood of intimate partner violence (IPV) during pregnancy.  Some researchers pretend they do not understand why some men end up killing their genetic offspring in the womb.  They wonder how there could have been any genetic advantage to doing so.  That just shows that a college degree doesn't impart any common sense.

There are no evolutionary incentives to kill an intimate partner (except it's easy to imagine that in ancient times, a time of famine would have driven parents or partners to kill in order to survive).  But normally, there would be no evolutionary incentive.

In contrast, modern society has -- perhaps inadvertently -- constructed numerous financial and legal incentives.  Watch this episode of Forensic Files and listen to what the police said was this young man's motive for murder.  This true story is not an isolated incident, either.  IPV murders account for almost a thousand murders every decade.


As is the rule with poorly thought-out laws everywhere, the current paradigm that shoves everyone into a one-size-fits-all straightjacket introduces unintended consequences.

The solution is freedom.


As with everything else, only freedom brings about the result everyone wants: fewer abortions (and fewer deaths in general).

Harry Browne rejected the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice".  We Libertarians should follow his example.  He said:  "Whatever we believe abortion is, we know one thing: government doesn't work, and it is as incapable of eliminating abortions as it is of eliminating poverty or drugs."

This should be obvious to anyone today:  The cat's out of the bag.  There is already a market for smuggled drugs that induce abortion.  Everyone knows about RU-486, and the "morning-after" pill.  No one in favor of banning abortion  can possibly be ignorant of these things.  If government bans abortion, as Browne says above, it will be every bit as incompetent at the job as it is with any of its other prohibitions.

Dr. Walter Block, professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, provides an alternative to the standard choice between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" which he terms "evictionism". According to this moral theory, the act of abortion must be conceptually separated into the acts of (a) eviction of the fetus from the womb; and (b) killing the fetus. Building on the libertarian stand against trespass and murder, Block supports a right to the first act, but, except in certain circumstances, not the second act. He believes the woman may legally abort if (a) the fetus is not viable outside the womb; or (b) the woman has announced to the world her abandonment of the right to custody of the fetus, and (c) no one else has "homesteaded" that right by offering to care for the fetus.

But perhaps more to the point: Why shouldn't government ban abortion?  Well, be careful what you wish for.

Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party's 2004 presidential candidate, said: "I oppose government control over the abortion issue. I believe that giving the government control of this issue could lead to more abortions rather than less, because the left-right pendulum of power swings back and forth. This shift could place the power to set policy in the hands of those who demand strict population control. The government that can ban abortion can just as easily mandate abortion, as is currently the case in China."

Paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson: "The government powerful enough to give you what you want is powerful enough to take everything you have."

Let's all keep that in mind before we advocate banning abortion.

Only freedom will get us what we all want.

Just What *IS* The Consistent Libertarian Position on Marriage, Gay or Otherwise?

Last week (August 12 - August 17, 2013) I spent the week manning the Libertarian Party table at the Rockingham County Fair.  Our candidate for governor, Rob Sarvis, was on hand on Friday (8/16) and spoke to many voters about his campaign.

One man who spoke to Rob at some length asked him what his position was on gay marriage.  Rob gave what is now a rather common libertarian answer -- that we were in favor of gay marriage.  The man promptly said "well, you lost me right there."

More recently, a local activist in Harrisonburg resigned from the newly-established city committee, apparently due to his perception that the new group was in favor of recognition of gay marriage.

These two incidents underscore what I think is a tactical error on the part of LP activists in recent years: the practice of saying we are in favor of gay marriage.

Several LP media releases have said essentially the same thing, including one earlier this year from the Virginia LP.

Here is the text of the Libertarian Party's platform position on same-sex marriage:

"1.3 Personal Relationships - Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships."

So let's put it this way:  In a libertarian society marriage and incorporation would be two distinctly different institutions.

Marriage would be a religious institution where two people come together to bind their immortal souls in the presence of their creator.  Government would have zero involvement in such an institution.

Incorporation, on the other hand, would be a legal union or contract between consenting adults in the eyes of the State. Adults, whether there are 2, 3, or 10 of them could share their lives, homes, bank accounts, etc. and live in communes (forming a type of voluntary communism) if they so choose.

A much different world that would be.

So is the Libertarian Party in favor of gay marriage?

Libertarians actually take NO position on marriage, except for the idea that everyone has the absolute right to arrange their affairs and relationships as they wish -- without interference by any government authority.

In other words, Libertarians don't "favor" any kind of marriage, gay or otherwise -- we just want the government out of it.

When the above media release from LPVA went out, as an anarcho-cap, I would have greatly preferred that it spoke of the actual libertarian solution to the gay marriage issue:

- repealing all government laws meddling in marriage -- this would include repealing all subsidies, special rights, grants of privilege, restrictions, government-required blood tests; and,

- abolishing marriage licensure.

Democrats and Republicans have had ample opportunity -- for years -- to wipe the entire debate off the table by doing exactly the above.

But as usual, they have accomplished nothing.

"Conservatives" have a majority in the Virginia state house and a Republican is governor. Yet not a single Republican has even bothered to *introduce* a measure to eliminate marriage licenses (much less get it to a vote on the floor of the legislature). Not a single Republican has bothered to introduce a measure to reform "marriage law" by simply repealing them all and pushing marriage back into the voluntary sector; and henceforth treating marriage arrangements as we would any other contract.

Democrats and Republicans colluded to put marriage into the realm of the state in the first place.   First it was reactionary Democrats setting up marriage licenses to prevent blacks from marrying whites; now it's reactionary Republicans attempting to use the same licensing law to keep others from arranging their marriage affairs as they see fit.

Conservatives and liberals alike can't have it both ways. If you are happy with government definition of marriage, then don't blame others for trying to capture that definition for themselves.

Remember: The government powerful enough to give you what you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.

Think about it.  If Christians set up the machinery to set in law their version of morality, one day atheists, gays, Democrats, Bhuddists, polyamorists, Islamists, or others will grab the steering wheel and use that same machinery to run over you.

Take power away from the state, and you can safely ignore everyone who does it differently than you would prefer.

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

In some ways this is kind of a non-issue for me because I think everyone -- gay, straight, bi, lesbian -- should boycott state marriages and return marriage to the private sector (common-law contract, churches, synagogues, etc).  Common-law marriage (which Virginia abolished many years ago) is nevertheless still recognized in Virginia if the marriage was entered into in a common-law state (full faith and credit, etc).

The state has NO business endorsing, or not endorsing, marriage.

Here's an important reason: Regarding marriage, there are two widely divergent groups of people who cannot and will not agree to a compromise -- yet both groups are forced to pay taxes.  For conservatives, it is galling that their tax money would be used to pay for endorsing/enforcing a marriage type that they are opposed to.  For the gay & lesbian community, their tax money pays for endorsing/enforcing a marriage type that they are left out of.  That is an inherent, permanent conflict.

No one should be forced to pay for things they don't agree with.

In some ways, the GLBT community of the 1990's made a gigantic strategic error calling for government licensure (and thus approval) of same-sex marriages.  Doing so energized the religio-statists and got them out to vote.  Twenty years later, and the two groups are still locked in mortal combat.

A better path would have been to calmly push to eliminate marriage licensure altogether (why should the state be in your bedroom, anyway?), and to train judges, arbitrators, and mediators to fairly adjudicate marriage or partnership contract disputes.

Had this been the chosen path, the alternative lifestyle lobby might have found its interests aligned with the hardline religious sector, which would probably endorse getting government out of permitting what to the religious is a sacred union that should be a matter for the couple involved, and their god.

Here is a summary review of the Libertarian position on marriage:

Libertarians favor ending all government interference in the marriage market.  For the same reason we favor repealing all restrictions on the individual ownership of firearms, we also favor the abolition of blood tests, marriage licenses, government definitions of marriage, and the repeal of all laws restricting the right of individuals to agree to agree between themselves to marry -- no matter what sex, race, religion, creed, or number are involved.

At the same time, Libertarians want to eliminate the individual income tax, replace social security and medicare with private insurance, and get government out of the business of dictating who one chooses to associate or not associate with.  There are tax benefits to being married -- because there are income and estate taxes. Eliminating the special treatment eliminates the desire for special interest legislation.

UPDATE 2/29/2014: Andrew Akers wrote a fairly succinct summary of the difficulty Libertarians have in persuading both sides of the marriage debate to give up a little:

I submit that the real issue (for people who take issue with this) has nothing to do with whether marriage is a legal contract unique from other contracts.

Based on my observations, the important thing for most people is how the term "marriage" is applied. Those opposed to "gay marriage" are often accepting of "civil unions" for same-sex couples, whereas same-sex couples insist that the term "marriage" be applied indiscriminately.

As with many other issues, the Libertarian position here is relatively foreign to those on both sides of the debate.

Hence what we say about "marriage" will be interpreted in the context of the actual debate, which is primarily about the application of a term. Libertarian "opposition to gay marriage" takes on a different meaning in this sense.

It gives the impression that we side with religious conservatives in "preserving the sanctity" of two-person heterosexual unions as superior to other kinds.

 I tend to agree.  However, we have to start somewhere.  If Libertarians are too scared to speak in favor of the actual fair and free solution to the debate, who else will?

SECESSION: Millions Like It -- Let's Go Find Them!

In the thirty years I've been involved in the LP, I have heard literally hundreds of "Libertarians" swear that there was "no constituency" for our "more radical" positions, and that we should never broach any of those subjects lest we alienate voters.

The only problem is, by the time these nervous nellies got finished listing all the things we shouldn't talk about, there would be nothing left for us to say at all.

At one time or another, I've heard people who describe themselves as Libertarians say we should never, ever discuss:

• Abolishing public schools (or even school choice as an interim measure!)
• Abolishing the Income Tax
• Privatizing all public roads & other transportation infrastructure
• Repealing drug prohibition
• Repealing the prohibition on prostitution
• Abolishing marriage licensure

... and on an on.

Some Libertarians seem to be utterly terrified of anyone finding out about real libertarian solutions.

But why are we so afraid of our own shadow?  What about being in politics makes us so hysterically worried that the general public will discover what we really want?

In many ways, the public is already light-years ahead of where we think they are.  Carla Howell and Michael Cloud proved that a few years ago with the 2002 ballot initiative to repeal the Massachusetts state income tax.

Despite being out-spent and out-volunteered by a factor of hundreds to one -- the main opposition consisted of government employees terrified the measure meant the cooking of their stolen golden goose -- the initiative won 45% of the vote.

Forty-five percent!

Forty-five percent despite the fact that the campaign was hobbled by the fact that a large fraction of the half-million million government employees (250,000 local government, another 250,000 state government) actively campaigned against it, often while on taxpayer time (teachers, for instance, plastered public schools with posters urging a "no" vote; and sent children home every week with anti-repeal flyers).

Despite the Herculean efforts of the tax-funded opposition, 45% of Massachusetts voters pulled the "Yes" lever.

Had there been an equal amount of money & volunteers available to the repeal effort, there is very little doubt that the measure would have passed.

Another issue some Libertarians have screamed for their colleagues to avoid mentioning is repealing drug prohibition.  I know of people who were sitting officers of the LP, or already-endorsed candidates for public office, who were loudly and rudely dressed-down in front of *LIBERTARIAN* audiences for mentioning the repeal of marijuana prohibition.  JUST marijuana -- they mentioned no other drugs.

Yet here it is 2012, and a bunch of cracks in the wall of prohibition have suddenly appeared in Colorado and Washington.  Certainly Libertarians were involved in the process -- except for the nay-sayers in the back of the room at local LP meetings, screeching about how we should not talk about this issue because will promote the continuation of our image as "the Party of dope".

Yes, I have directly heard a half-dozen Libertarians use exactly that phrase and admonition within the last five years.  I can probably find a few emails in my email archive with that phrase in it.

Now let's talk about one of those unspeakables in our idea set: Secession.

There were so many "Libertarians" who wet their pants over that long-standing libertarian principle being in our platform, that in 2008 it was removed and replaced by a nebulous, "self determination" plank that doesn't mention the right to secede.

But is secession one of those third rails we should never talk about?

Hardly.

In an article on LewRockwell.com, Kirkpatrick Sale reviews some recent polling data by Public Policy Polling, of Raleigh, NC.

Among the more interesting finds: Secession is viewed positively/sympathetically by major fractions of various demographic groups.  Here are a few examples:

By race: 46% (14 million) of Hispanics; 31% (49 million) of whites.

By ideology: 50% of conservatives (41 million); 19% (14 million) of liberals.

By sex: 35% of women and only 29% of men.

As Kirkpatrick Sale's correspondent, Bill Regnery, said: "We should discard the notion that women cannot be recruited."

By age: 50% of 18-29 year olds.

The point is this: Secession is not an idea that only "extremist outliers" like libertarians have entertained.  As the above survey results show, there is a substantial cohort of Americans out there who not only feel secession is appropriate in some cases, but who are right now in favor of it.

Do we jump out in front of this parade, or tiptoe into the line behind everyone else *after* it becomes popular, as some "Libertarians" would prefer?

Whenever there is a market for an idea we long since staked out as our own, we don't need to hide from it and worry about whether Americans will find the idea palatable.  All we have to do is speak to them like they are adults and like we believe they are capable of discussing "radical" ideas with a level head.

No, not everyone will agree with us right away.  But some will, and they will bring their friends along eventually.

But we can't speak to *anyone* if we're cowering behind others in the parade.

Let's speak loudly and clearly about the kind of free society we seek.  In doing so, we will find these people.  Once we find them, they can be invited to join our coalition!

There is NO limit to how large the Libertarian movement (and Party) can grow.  As shown above, on just one issue, there are 50 to 60 million people who are receptive to the "extremist" idea of secession.  There are millions more (with some amount of overlap) on every other issue in our toolbox.

Don't be afraid to seek them out!

Thank you for reading!

UPDATE: Interesting article about all of the historical secession movements from Mansfield University geography professor Andrew Shears.

Selling Your Old Car: Be Real!

I am frequently offered old AMC & Rambler automobiles, often in response to some ads I have suggesting I may be an interested buyer.

I cannot count how many times I have been offered a car "that just needs a tuneup and some new carpet", with the seller assuring me it will then be something I can then turn around and flip for a "big profit".

Trouble is, no one is paying "big bucks" for AMC's of any sort.  Yes, of course, there are a few outliers, like Rebel Machines and SC/Ramblers -- but these have almost nothing to do with the value of the bread-and-butter AMC's.

Everyone likes to think they have a gold mine sitting under the tarp.  But that's truly a rare thing.

EBay, with their "completed listings", provides the best summary of prices that people are actually willing to pay.

Every car usually has three price levels:

1)  Highest: What the owner thinks it's worth -- usually several multiples of item 3, below.

2)  Medium: What NADA, Old Cars Price Guide, etc suggest it might be worth, usually based on sometimes very old live auction prices, sold at high-dollar fast-money venues like Barrett-Jackson, which only sell high-dollar restorations or perfect originals

3)  What it is actually worth (ie what it will really sell for right now)

One example is a 1971 Ambassador 4 door sedan that was on eBay six times.  It started out its first auction at $3500.

It looked okay, and the seller claimed it ran well.  On the first auction, I went to go look at it as it was only two hours away from me.  It was a solid, but obviously-worn, family sedan.  Everything was functional, but it was just a well-used car.  I offered $700 for it.


He laughed at me.


Six months and five more relistings -- each with a lowered reserve -- later, the car finally sold when the auction met his reserve of $600.  It sold for $660.  This was consistent with all of the highest bids in each auction listing, too -- the highest bid in any of the listings was mine, in the first listing ($700).


In 2008, a car dealer in Minnesota picked up a 1969 Ambassador 2 dr hardtop, with 343 4v and all the toys.  I discussed the car with him, but he wouldn't budge from his reserve of $15,000.  I offered him $11,200.

It didn't sell.

He relisted the car eight times as I recall, and eventually did sell it, four months later -- for $11,200.
 
In January 2010, a local fellow offered me a 1976 Gremlin 3-speed for $6500.  He gave the old song and dance about it just needing "a couple of things" and then it would be worth "five figures".  I went to look, but walked away so angry that "I should sue you for wasting my time and gas" slipped from my lips before I knew it.

As I was about to get in my car, he had this shocked look on his face and asked me what I thought it was worth. I told him "about a tenth of your asking price", and slammed my door and left.

I kept seeing ads for the car in the local trading paper, every so often, the price dropped by $1,000 or so.  A couple of months ago, a friend of mine called me and told me he bought the car -- for $500.

I don't understand the la-la-land fantasies that some have about their car's worth.

If you actually want to sell your car, then set a price that's realistic.  Don't fantasize -- study.  Look at the completed listings on eBay (and make note of the fact that *most* ebay listings for older cars are no-sales).  Look in Old Cars Price Guide.  Better yet, ask one or more of the AMC clubs for an opinion.

AMC Rambler Club

American Motors Owners Association

Then come to me, and tell me your realistic price for your vehicle -- and I will consider it.

Best wishes to you!

Libertarians: Stop Relying on Email!

Just because you assemble your life around your email inbox doesn't mean everyone else does.

In fact, these days email has become almost ineffective as a marketing method.  It was at one time a fair way to reach your prospects -- until everyone caught on, making it increasingly difficult to break through the noise.  Now, the trash bin and the spam filter are very likely to be the final resting places of your email messages to your members.

We Libertarians tend to rely too much on email.  Way too much.  Especially our leadership.

One of the (many) things I have repeatedly tried to convince Libertarians of is that email is a woefully bad way to get real warm-body participation. They’re great for reminders, or for an occasional nudge, but they are NOT a recruiting mechanism. They *can* be used for recruiting and fundraising, but the fact is that real letters — not to mention ringing a doorbell and shaking a hand — work at a MUCH higher rate.

Establish a project for which you need X dollars. Pick out a list of 100 LP members in your area.  Send:

• 34 of them email fundraising messages
• 33 of them hard-copy letters mailed via USPS
• And go visit the last 33.

I would be happy to wager that the donation *rate* (the largest number of donors) will come from the last group.  I'll also wager that the hard-copy letters will be the next most productive.  The email method, however, will be dead last in terms of how many people respond.

The only advantage email has is it is cheap.

But remember -- you get what you pay for. Yes, email is cheap.  But because we all know it's cheap, many people will get the subtle hint that we don’t really care about them if $0 is all we’re willing to invest.

Far too many libertarian “leaders” rely almost exclusively on email for communicating with their fellow members. If we’re serious about building the movement, or the party, we have to actually knock on doors and meet our fellows, or call, or write them a professional-looking letter and include a couple of quizzes and your business card.

Just because you see some email addresses on the database that the national LP sends your state, before you make a habit of using them for all your LP needs, remember two things:

1)  The LP does not have current email addresses for 100% of our members (not everyone chooses to provide one).  In my home state of Virginia, typically there are about 60% of members (never mind former members and inquiries!) who both have an email listed and for whom that address is actually current.

2)  It's a proven fact of life for nonprofits: Web-based and email *never* generates anywhere near the results as paper mail, regardless of whether one is speaking of fundraising, volunteer recruitment, activity notices, and the like.

It's well and good to communicate with those of us like myself who "live on email", but 95% of people do not, even if they have email and use it regularly.

Again -- with email, 1) it's too easy to delete it and forget about it; and 2) there's so much email flooding inboxes these days that it's easy to get lost in the noise.

Back in the 1999-2001 & 2003-2007 years when I was editing the Virginia LP newsletter, I made a substantial effort to suppress paper newsletters from going to those who had asked to receive them by email.  We tried it two ways: 1) Sending the pdf via email directly; and 2) sending just a link to the pdf via email so they could download it at their leisure.

It was fairly clear that the paper edition was actually getting read, because in conversation at LPVA conventions, issues that had been discussed in the newsletter were often the topic of discussion in-person at those conventions, too.

It was also fairly clear the web/email versions were not being read.  I realize email "read" receipts are not universally returned, but most are, and they are indicative of "open" rates.  Again to test which version was getting read, I placed email receipts on the emails with the links as well as the ones with the pdf attachment.  The response rate to these emails was dismal.

Anecdotally, the state chair in the y2k period received his newsletter via email -- and more than once asked me to print something I'd already printed recently, and I had to point him towards the newsletter link with the issue that had already covered the subject.

At one point I got pretty frustrated with this, as his frequent requests were the primary reason I'd gone to the trouble of making the newsletter available online in the first place.


Don't get me wrong.  Let me reiterate that email does have a role to play with communicating with our base.  But if you are in any way engaged in organizing LP activity, be real and don't use it as your first-choice method of speaking to your colleagues.  Pick up the phone, go visit, or send a real letter.  Just remember -- face to face with one person, making a friend is worth 10,000 spambox bound emails.

If you are a candidate, then door knocking is the TOP way to engage voters and volunteers.  That’s why unions invest millions in their canvassing programs and why the RNC makes it the focus of their 72 Hour Plan.

Direct mail and live phone calling (NOT robocalls) should also be emphasized.

Candidates should not spend a dime on anything until door-to-door program is fully staffed and funded. Then most of the rest gets spent on direct mail to back it up.

The Democrats and Republicans don't rely on email, and neither should we.


Further Reading

Is Direct Mail Fundraising Really Headed for the Exit? by Chuck Pruitt

Helping New Inquiries Become Members and Supporters by Marc Montoni

Is Online Fundraising Cheaper Than Direct Mail? from Mal Warwick Associates

$1000 Challenge / 2012

Revised for 2012...

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)  My offer is available to two types of campaigns: a) winnable races; or 2) recruitment campaigns.

If you think you have a realistic shot at winning, and want my $1,000, then provide some evidence that you have already raised serious money on your own. I've been in the LP since 1980, and for all of that 30 years, I've been sent hundreds of letters from Libertarian candidates who claimed they were in a race they could win, providing various reasons why the LP or LP members should give them thousands of dollars.  Most of those candidates, however, hadn't even bothered raising a few hundred from friends and family.  The results were typically poor.

"Serious money" means enough to have a real shot at 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.

And if you can't generate monetary support, you won't be able to recruit the volunteers you will need, either.

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.

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/

Let's put it this way:  If the office you're running for typically costs the winning candidate $100,000 and requires the help of several dozen volunteers, and you can't or won't raise more than that and field a larger team of volunteers, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO WIN.
However, if you want to stay in the race you're in, and you are not going to win, there is still a way to make it a productive campaign: use your campaign towards signing up more LP members to build the cadre for next year.

I am NOT opposed to "educational" campaigns.

All LP candidates should remember one thing: IT AIN'T ABOUT YOU.

It's about building a libertarian society, where you are left free to live your own life without meddling by government.

Again, unless you have a real shot at winning, your campaign should have as its main aim recruiting new libertarians so your support base is larger in the next election (and so we have a larger pool of members from which we can nominate a larger number of candidates).

If you're running in a race you don't have the resources to win, I may well still donate, and donate substantially, if you show me that you're good at getting new libertarians recruited into the Party.  (And you won't be able to do that if you propose mild, "tinkering around the edges" reforms like "reducing" taxes instead of abolishing them.)

Yes, even if you know you won't win your race Mayor of ___________, if instead you can sign up 50 new Libertarians, I'll donate $1,000 to your campaign -- absolutely!

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 agree to 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 agree to reimburse me and other donors using your own personal funds.

19)  All monies left after campaign obligations have been settled shall be donated to LPVA.

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

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

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

NY: Subways Stolen!

The subject of the NY subway system is a fascinating read that shows the true greed and hypocrisy of government-run operations.

The private NY mass transit operators were driven out of business in the 20s to 40's by government edict.

The tools used were regulatory -- denials of permits for infrastructure maintenance, denial of permits for expansion to new areas, a cap on fares of 5 cents, and other tactics.

The federal government prints money -- and as it prints more and more of it to cover deficit spending, the cash becomes worth less and less. This phenomenon was happening with federal money in the 1930's, just as it is today. With their nickel fares being eroded in value by federal inflation and the refusal of the city government to permit the companies to raise fares or do just about anything else, the handwriting was on the wall.

How long could **you** run a business if you could only charge one price for your product or service?  For the 42 years since the first subway opened in 1904 the fare had remained a nickel -- by law.

It is by no means a rare occurrence for governments to slaughter the golden goose in this way. For example, Vladimir Putin stole an oil empire from the private sector using the state's monopoly on force and handed the empire over to close political cronies at fire-sale prices.

Something very similar happened in New Jersey just a few years ago (late nineties), in the insurance business: wildly unpredictable, out of line liability awards made insurance in several industries impossible to write. The state government limited premiums on the front end, and allowed outlandish awards on the other. When insurance companies began to lose their shirts, and some began closing their NJ operations, the NJ government quickly stepped in with a law prohibiting the insurers from leaving the state -- so many went bankrupt instead.

Another similar tactic was used by the New York bureaucracy with regard to the subway system.

Check out the sanitized version of the story on the Metropolian Transit Authority's website.  Example: "Around the time the Independent was first conceived, in 1920, there was severe overcrowding on the subways. They were victims of their own success. The word "unification" was very politically correct during this time. The idea behind unification was to have the City of New York buy out the privately owned Interborough Rapid Transit (IRT) Company and the Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit (BMT) Corporation. On April 25th, 1921, the New York Transit Commission was formed to develop a plan to resolve the overcrowding and delays on the current lines in any manner it saw fit, including "recapturing" existing lines from the privately owned rapid transit subway and elevated lines."


[NOTE: Links in the above paragraph were added by this author.]

"Recapturing" is bureaucratese for "stealing".

Notice the sleight-of-hand there?  The bureaucrats assume everything belongs to The State, and you only get title to it by the good graces of ... bureaucrats.  Because if you're not in their good graces, they get to "recapture" whatever they "loaned" to you.

There is a fairly good Wikipedia article about the shady history of the government takeover of the private transit system.

The "progressive" pols of New York from the twenties to the forties followed a well-worn path to seize the private subway and elevated train operators.  And other forms of mass transit.

One of the politicians, Mayor Hylan (also see this), a Democrat, involved in bankrupting the transit companies had earlier been fired from one of the subway companies. Once in a position to do so, he wrought his revenge - big time.

If the subways were crowded, then they were profitable! Thus, the city could have allowed the PRIVATE companies to build more lines. Instead, they put up the Independent (IND) lines in direct competition - right UNDER them - the 6th Avenue subway was put right under the 6th Avenue El and the Fulton Street subway in Brooklyn was put right UNDER the Fulton Street El.

Now, if there was a need for more subway & elevated lines, why not build them in other places not yet covered (for example, 5th Avenue or 10th Avenue?).  In fact, on the East Side of Manhattan, there were 3 IRT owned lines : Lexington, 3rd Av, and 2nd Av - back in 1921.  Now, under GOVERNMENT ownership to "relieve overcrowding", there is just the Lexington!  Transportation bond issues to raise money for another 2nd Av line came about in 1946, 1967, the 1970;s, etc. and were passed - but no subway line was built.  What the government was very good at was TEARING DOWN existing lines (and selling the scrap to our ally Japan who used it on Pearl Harbor).

After tearing down lines, the city then used the Maintenance budget as a slush fund.  The politicians became tools of the unions and paid ridiculous contracts.  "Chic" politicians like John Vliet Lindsay and his ilk encouraged graffiti "artistes" for a while.  As a "public accomodation", they were not allowed to remove winos, bums, beggars, etc. who slept and stunk up the subways.  After hitting rock bottom about 1980, there has been a little bit of a resurgence but more and more people take cars into Manhattan.

One of the few lines built by the City in the last 50 years was a tunnel from 63rd Street Manhattan into Queens that dead ends in Queens with no connections - not even to Queens Plaza a mile away - something like $2,000,000,000 for a tunnel to nowhere!


Mass transit was evolving naturally before government got involved.   The death of it was largely coincident with government interference.  its rebirth as a socialist government enterprise is fraught with waste and delay.  Any student of economics should study the history of mass transit in America -- especially with regard to subways -- if he wants a good picture of the corrupting hand of government.


For additional reading on the topic, here are a few links:


1.  "Subway Hijinks", by Gregory Bresiger, on Mises.org.

2.  "Subway Tax in the Rancid Apple ",  by Gregory Bresiger, on Mises.org.

Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying Organization Loses One!

I was floored to read of the first crack in the stranglehold the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO) has on county-state politics.  Kudos to Goochland County.  I don't know how the Board of Supervisors came to the conclusion they did, but it is a pleasing development.

For a long time, I wondered how public debate always seemed to be so well-funded in favor of fatter government and getting more financial lard slathered all over its teeming bureaucrats.  Then I served a term on the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water District, and discovered that a good portion of the money we were given to fund operations was given to an organization called the Virginia Association of Soil & Water Conservation Districts (VASWCD).  Looking into it further, I discovered that VASWCD was essentially a "Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying Organization", or a "TFLO".  A large portion of the annual dues the Lord Fairfax district sent to them were used to fund lobbying efforts at the local, state, and even federal level.  I also learned that even the small bureaucracy that was the Lord Fairfax SWCD wasn't just funding VASWCD, but was also funneling cash to additional TFLO-type groups such as the Shenandoah Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D) Council.

Being a Libertarian, I objected to the District's membership in these organizations every year, because I think it is absolutely wrong for government to lobby government.  Legislators should adjust policy according to the wishes of the citizens, rather than doing so at the behest of highly-paid lobbyists who represent the 1% elite bureaucrats and politicians who presume to know what's best for the rest of us!

Unfortunately, I was the minority on the Board, and as a result the District continues to throw cash at lobbying front groups.

What VASWCD was to the Soil & Water District, the VACO is to county governments.  There are many other similar NGO's for every type of government under the sun.  The Virginia Municipal League, the Virginia Court Clerks Association, etc all have some lobbying component, and all of them are one way or another funded by taxpayers.

So VACO is the definition of a Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying Organization.  The reason that it and similar organizations should be of serious concern to every taxpayer is this:  the things they lobby for are almost always beneficial to governments and bureaucrats, and almost always detrimental to taxpayers.

County bureaucrats cannot lobby the government while on taxpayer time.  But they can do the same thing by setting up a front organization, call it an NGO, throw some taxpayer cash at it, and perform an ethical skirt-and-dodge.

Political hacks and bureaucrats should not be allowed to grab cash from the government trough, and shovel it at "non-government organizations" ("NGO's") so the NGO can then hire legions of paid lobbyists to work against the wishes of the taxpayer; government should never be given any opportunity to influence itself!

There are literally thousands of NGO's similar to VACO in the United States, and they all exist for one purpose: to get more taxpayer loot (or power) shoveled into their gaping maw.

The legislature should eliminate the ability of local and state bureaucrats or government bodies to lobby any other government body.  Membership in any NGO that lobbies (directly or indirectly) for anything that would favor the individual or originating government should be absolutely forbidden.

Republicrat Governor Squashes Third Parties

Many people are aware of how difficult it is for third parties -- such as the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, or the Green Party -- to get on the ballot. 

This year, it was even more difficult because of redistricting.  Virginia law requires third parties to submit petitions signed by 10,000 registered voters -- and actually closer to 15,000 because many signatures are thrown out by the State Board of Elections.

But worse, due to the legislature wrangling so long over redistricting, and then additional delays caused by waiting for the Justice Department to approve the new districts, the smaller parties lost precious time to collect those 10,000 (15,000) signatures.

The reason the district were relevant to the petition was that Virginia requires presidential petitions to include the candidates for the candidate's slate of electors. Virginia also mandates that the petition carry the name of one candidate for elector from each U.S. House district.

No one knew what the new district boundaries would be until March 14, when the U.S. Justice Department approved the new boundaries, so the minor party presidential electors were chosen based on the old districts. The State Board of Elections had been telling candidates to use the old boundaries.

Of course, petitioning for U.S. House candidates was also threatened by the uncertainty of the law.

It is not known if there were (or are) any independent or minor party candidates for U.S. Senate this year, but if there were (or are), and they started petitioning based on the old districts, they were injured also. U.S. Senate petitions, like presidential petitions, have a distribution requirement: 400 signatures per U.S. House district.

In March 2012, the Virginia General Assembly attempted to adjust petitioning requirements for the third parties and independent candidates for the time lost by making some alterations to the petitioning process, via HB 1151.  The bill said that if new U.S. House district boundaries aren't in place by the start of the even-numbered election year, petitions are valid that year whether they use the old U.S. House district boundaries or the new boundaries. The bill had an urgency clause and would have taken effect immediately upon passage.  It passed on March 2.

When Virginia Governors receive a bill from the legislature, they may sign the bill, veto the bill, or send it back to the legislature with suggested changes. When the Governor sends back a bill with suggestions, the legislature has one day to decide whether to accept the recommendation or not. If the legislature takes no action, the bill is enacted anyway; it is not vetoed.

When HB 1151 reached his desk, however, Republicrat Governor McDonnell sent the bill back to the legislature on April 9 -- at the very last minute -- and asked for changes, among them to make it effective in 2013, not immediately.  This made it utterly meaningless for third parties.

McDonnell didn't stop there -- he proposed changes so it would specifically NOT apply to any petition to place minor party or independent presidential candidates on the ballot, now or in the future.  Unfortunately, in a one-day session on April 18, the legislature agreed to the Governor's recommendation.

The changes McDonnell demanded to HB 1151 were shockingly unfair.  The Libertarian and Green Parties had already started circulating their presidential petitions based on what they were hearing from the General Assembly and the State Board of Elections.

Even though neither party had selected their presidential nominees, Virginia allows stand-in presidential and vice-presidential candidates ("substitution").  The right of substitution was established by El-Amin v Virginia State Board of Elections, a reported US District Court decision from 1989 that says the US Constitution requires Virginia to let unqualified parties, and even committees supporting an independent candidate, engage in substitution.

Under Virginia law, the window for circulating petitions is supposed to open for third parties on January 1 of a presidential election year.

So to begin with, redistricting cheated third parties out of their petitioning time from January 1 through the end of the redistricting process on March 14; then McDonnell cheated them out of additional petitioning time until April 18, when the General Assembly finalized it actions on HB 1151.

Without McDonnell's changes, HB 1151 would have compensated third parties for the nearly four months they were forced by law to sit and wait.  McDonnell's changes denied the parties the compensation they were due; and ruined any petitioning work done until that point.

Third parties have often brought new ideas into the marketplace of ideas -- oftentimes ideas that the major parties don't wish to address.  Why make it difficult for them to participate in the political process?

I was under the impression that we were all agreed that the will of the voters must be obeyed, and what you did was to throw out the will of thousands of voters who had signed their names to get the Greens and Libertarians on the ballot.

My question is why?

McDonnell's hostile action was intrinsically hurtful, and it was also hurtful for him to wait until the very last day to send in a recommendation. The action was not posted on the legislature’s web page until the afternoon of April 10.

This author spoke with Governor McDonnell twice to encourage him to sign HB 1151 as the General Assembly originally passed it; obviously to no avail.

McDonnell changed the legislation to interfere with the third parties ballot drives and to financially injure them - an act that is stupid in a third-world backwater dictatorship, but utterly insane and anti-freedom in a first-world country that prides itself on a supposed history of treating all political viewpoints as equal under the law.

As a result of McDonnell's changes, the State Board of Elections invalidated 2,000 signatures on LPVA presidential nominating petitions.  The Green Party of Virginia estimated that 1,000 of its signatures were likewise invalidated. In addition GPVA estimates that an additional 1,000 signatures obtained by another minor party, the Virginia Independent Greens, on behalf of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein were invalidated -- through no fault of their own.

The third parties in Virginia are interested in filing a suit to overturn the recently enacted statute.  In April, the Libertarian Party of Virginia authorized its participation in such a lawsuit; the party has been seeking a suitable local counsel to file it.