Given the substantial electoral barriers incumbent political parties have erected to protect their power and privilege, libertarians are rediscovering how to promote virtue through "social change."
]]>As Americans celebrate the Declaration of Independence of John Hancock et al in 1776 from King George III's Great Britain, and the Revolutionary War fought to replace British rule, it's worth exploring how liberty has been and can be achieved without resorting to the initiation of force.
Voluntaryists are members of the libertarian movement who seek to achieve a free society without resorting to electoral politics. Nonviolent resistance, perhaps most famously associated with Ghandi's ultimately successful bid to end British rule in India, involves many strategies libertarians can use to triumph over tyranny.
Given the substantial electoral barriers incumbent political parties have erected to protect their power and privilege, libertarians are rediscovering how to promote virtue through "social change."
The International Center on Nonviolent Conflict has developed a computer game -- A Force More Powerful - the Game of Nonviolent Strategy -- and related educational materials to teach the techniques of nonviolent action.
Bureaucrash is one organization that employs the techniques of nonviolent action to effect social change in a libertarian direction.
Statists generally march in formation. The asymmetric advantages available to those members of civil society who advance liberty through the study and application of decentralized nonviolent action and strategies offer ample reason for optimism.
---
Several Utahns have asked me what local Libertarians are doing with respect to the presidential campaign of Ron Paul, a current member of the U.S. Congress from Texas and a former Libertarian presidential candidate.
I think Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative Wes Benedict has provided a helpful perspective on Rep. Paul's candidacy. I encourage liberty-minded individuals to read it, and then act as both their conscience dictates and in a way that continues the liberty movement's growth beyond the Paul campaign.
---
As of this writing, the petition drive to re-establish the ballot status of the Libertarian Party of Utah is 60 percent of the way toward the goal of 2,500 signatures. The Independence Day holiday and weekend farmers markets are great opportunities to gather signatures. Please lend a hand to complete the petition!
Yours in liberty,
Rob Latham, Chairman
Libertarian Party of Utah
--Ryan Sager, columnist and blogger for the New York Post and RealClearPolitics.com
In the American political theory classic, Federalist 10, author James Madison proposed controls on the effects of factions:
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote.
...
Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.
Unfortunately, the bipartisan scheme of oppression most Americans live under today arose as the result of the single-member district plurality voting systems that underlie almost all elections in the United States, which has yielded two dominant political factions. Combined with the advent of "log rolling" -- a technique through which legislators poorly monitored by voters behave in ways that are costly to citizens -- the two-party system has managed to defeat the U.S. Constitution's checks and balances against "the interested combinations of the majority."
A modern example of the majoritarian erosion of constitutional barriers is the receipt of "significant income" from government programs by more than half of all Americans. In other words, the tax eaters -- both from the political left and political right -- outnumber the taxpayers.
How might those who champion the cause of liberty restore the free America envisioned by its founders; an American society as described in Federalist 51 "broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority"?
In the The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations, authors Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom cite examples of decentralized organizations prevailing over institutions based on the command-and-control model.
Brafman and Beckstrom also claim that normally decentralized organizations can be attacked by centralizing them. Similarly, political observer Ryan Sager suggests that libertarians were persuaded to "fuse" or "centralize" with conservatives through promises, false or not, that reducing government is one of their central tasks.
Well, as morally uninhibited (MP3 file) as most elected Democrats have proven to be, when it comes to reducing government the tenure of George W. Bush has shown that most elected Republicans are worse.
In Utah, most registered voters are not affiliated with either branch of the bipartisan political cartel. Libertarians and independents can deny political power, legitimacy, and relevance to the Party of Lincoln and the Party of Jackson by voting for candidates nominated by other parties, or not voting at all.
And liberty lovers in Utah, and elsewhere, can help decentralize political power -- from the federal level down to local school districts -- by advocating more competitive and representative electoral systems that break up the two-party duopoly into a multi-party, democratic, constitutional republic.
Modern electoral systems can more fairly and fully reflect the diversity of Utah residents, as compared to the distorted, fun-house mirror effect seen in the current membership of the State of Utah's Legislature.
Decentralizing democracy would not, in and of itself, deny all power to the members of the self-dealing, political class.
But to paraphrase America's founders, along with economist Tyler Cowen, the main purpose of democracy is not to produce so-called "public goods," but to "prevent very bad ideas and very bad leaders."
Yours in liberty,
Rob Latham, Chairman
Libertarian Party of Utah
And because election-rigging Republicans and Democrats continue to cheat all Americans out of more competitive and representative means to choose lawmakers, randomly-selected jurors are among the few individuals who can stop the enforcement of an unjust law.
The Fully Informed Jury Association is one organization working to raise awareness of a juror's powers.
But what if a juror is unaware of his or her power to evaluate the law?
As the handiwork of the 2007 General Session of the State of Utah's Legislature comes online, Utahns have until April 29th to find the exits, or prepare for the next assault upon civil society by the political class.
One tool used by the members of civil society to protect against institutionalized aggression is the jury, an assembly of citizens selected randomly to resolve disputes.
Is it time for juries to make a comeback in the defense of individual liberty?
Random acts of liberty
The classic film "12 Angry Men" dramatizes how one juror can save the citizen accused from being wrongfully convicted.
And because election-rigging Republicans and Democrats continue to cheat all Americans out of more competitive and representative means to choose lawmakers, randomly-selected jurors are among the few individuals who can stop the enforcement of an unjust law.
The Fully Informed Jury Association is one organization working to raise awareness of a juror's powers.
But what if a juror is unaware of his or her power to evaluate the law?
Statists who favor increasing limits on civil society's ability to question authority have worked diligently to create juries staffed by blinded obedients.
For example, in Utah in 2004 Reichsmarschall Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Doug Wright -- KSL Newsradio's "Sultan of Sanctimony" -- encouraged the Utah affiliate of the Party of Lincoln to amend its platform concerning the jury like so:
JURY
The jury is a fundamental institution of liberty, because it is the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. The jury has the right and the authority to acquit if jurors feel justice will be served, or the law itself is unjust in a particular case. Instructions to the jury should reflect this fact.
Their effort succeeded, and marked a significant shift away from a policy promoting limited government, and the sponsorship of fully-informed jury legislation by one Republican Utah legislator in 1996.
In response, the Libertarian Party of Utah adapted the language stricken by local Lincolnites, and added the following plank to its party platform:
Some Libertarian candidates even carried the message of jury powers during the 2006 campaign season.
Now that you're empowered with the knowledge of what a juror can do, what say you to your fellow women and men, potential future members of a jury?
---
It's that time of year ... again.
As you begin to prepare your Utah income tax return for 2006, please remember to write an "L" in section 3 of Form TC-40 (PDF file). This does not change your refund or the amount of tax due. The Libertarian Party of Utah receives two dollars for every "L" entered, and these contributions are a major source of our funding.
---
Call for petitions!
The weather is warming up. If you're gathering signatures, please turn in your petitions by April 26, 2007 so we can evaluate the progress of our petition drive.
You can download the PDF of the petition (click here), print it out, collect signatures from registered voters, and then return the petition forms to the offices listed below, or mail them to the organizing committee's post office box.
Libertarian Organizing Committee
P.O. Box 526025
Salt Lake City, Utah 84152-6025
W. Andrew McCullough, Esq.
6885 South State Street, Suite 200
Midvale, Utah 84047
(801) 565-0894
Rob Latham, Esq.
Cramer & Cramer, L.L.C.
845 South Main Street, Suite 23
Bountiful, Utah 84010
(801) 299-9999
Aric Cramer, Esq.
Cramer & Cramer, L.L.C.
90 East 100 South, Suite 201
St. George, Utah 84770
(435) 627-1565
We'll also have petitions for registered Utah voters to sign at the office locations listed above.
In the Files section of the LPUtahPetition Yahoo! group, you will also find the PDF file of the petition the Libertarian Organizing Committee is using for its reorganization.
URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LPUtahPetition/
For more information about the petitioning process, see Utah Code Annotated 20A-8-103.
Per the new policy of the State Elections Office, it will not accept petitions from us until the Libertarian Organizing Committee believes it has sufficient signatures.
Based on an anticipated invalidation rate of 20%, we have set a goal of collecting 2,500 signatures to meet the 2,000 signature threshold set by state law.
Please do not fill in the "Total," "Page," or "F.O. Signature" blanks at the bottom of the petition.
Bragging rights, and perhaps more, to the person who collects the most signatures. Thank you for your help to continue the campaign for liberty in Utah.
Yours in liberty,
Rob Latham, Chairman
Libertarian Party of Utah
What are some of the myths perpetuated by the political class that empowered Lincoln, empowers Miller, and will empower future crony capitalists until they are widely debunked by a free people?
]]>As the Party of Lincoln's Utah affiliates gather this month to pay tribute to their murdered -- and murderous -- namesake, local corporate statists will genuflect before one of their own who employed political means to enrich himself, Larry H. Miller.
Propagandists reinforce illusions that keep the powerful in power with monuments, holidays, official proclamations, and the "party line."
What are some of the myths perpetuated by the political class that empowered Lincoln, empowers Miller, and will empower future crony capitalists until they are widely debunked by a free people?
Chief among these myths is the Republican Party's alleged support for free enterprise.
As Lincoln revisionist historian Thomas DiLorenzo writes:
The myths don't end with the one about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation either, which -- because it didn't apply to any states under Union control at the time -- didn't free a single slave.
Professor DiLorenzo has further summarized the legacy of the U.S. president called the "American Stalin" and "King Lincoln" thusly:
Given their abandonment of small government policies it makes all too much sense why Red State Fascists are not ashamed of their namesake, but continue to exalt Lincoln, who rightly deserves credit as the father of Big Government in America.
The libertarian movement rejects aggression, opposes slavery in all its forms, and embraces a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
But Lincoln's assassination serves as a reminder that political practitioners operating in a seeming culture of impunity can realize their comeuppance outside of campaigns, courts, and committees.
You know this guy ... has made millions off of corporate welfare.
Speaking of economic collectivism, in his recent book, The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money, investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney carries on Gabriel Kolko's work in The Triumph of Conservatism. Both authors are among many who have closely examined how big business and big government collude to cheat the consumer, the entrepreneur, and the taxpayer.
Which brings me to Larry H. Miller.
Despite his reputation as a bully, Miller can't be all bad. His businesses sell many products and services that consumers want. And he gives millions to charitable organizations, although some gifts may be self-serving. For example, will Miller's latest public-private/government-business partnership help groom his own militia?
But just because he buys enough advertising from Utah's mainstream print and electronic media to discourage critical analysis of his business dealings by its news reporters, doesn't mean the rest of us must stop asking questions or close our eyes:
Indeed, many who have taken stock of his legacy have organized a boycott of Miller's businesses.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a national organization with local affiliates that -- through its generations of support for crony capitalism -- has stood for a perverted notion of individual opportunity and free enterprise.
The Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce's lavish feting of Miller on February 7, 2007 will be a good opportunity to reflect on the institutions and myths that separate those attending the festivities from those of us who won't.
Yours in liberty,
Rob Latham, Chairman
Libertarian Organizing Committee
"Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."
--H.L. Mencken, Minority Report: H.L. Mencken's Notebooks
The Utah Legislature's 45-day general session runs from January 15th to February 28th.
Special interests -- which contributed 95.7 percent of all campaign donations made to incoming state legislators -- will be lobbying for a healthy return on their investments in the form of the kind of privileges that can be conferred only by the State of Utah.
The late Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman observed that the true level of taxation is the amount of government spending.
Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. has proposed a record $10.7 billion state budget.
The State of Utah is also reporting a record tax surplus -- defined as its annual tax collections in excess of annual budgets -- in excess of $1 billion.
Don't let promises from state legislators to cut taxes by a few hundred million dollars distract you from the billions of dollars in legalized plunder annually removed from Utah's market economy by the State of Utah.
The forced redistribution of that amount of wealth from Utah's civil society to the State of Utah's political class is obscene.
---
Blinded by the BCS
Several local commentators and editorial writers have complained about the unfairness of the Bowl Championship Series for college football teams.
From Salt Lake Tribune columnist Gordon Monson:
It's as though the BCS blows the legs off non-BCS leagues by way of its uneven stipulations and rewards, and, then, when non-BCS teams lose to BCS teams, they are blamed for bleeding rather than being able to dance at the same tempo.
--Gordon Monson, "Boise's victory a wake-up call for BCS," Salt Lake Tribune, January 3, 2007
And from Deseret Morning News columnist Doug Robinson:
In America, we tend to go to great lengths to be fair.
...
In America, nothing galls us more than the exclusion of people or groups of people because of something not related to ability.
That's why college football and the Bowl Championship Series drives us insane. It's wrongheaded, nonsensical and un-American.
--Doug Robinson, "Elitist BCS is an insult to good teams," Deseret Morning News, January 9, 2007
Although Robinson cites several unfortunate examples of special interest-spawned government coercion in support of his thesis, the sentiment of fair competition is not only one I share, but why I have been promoting a level playing field in the political arena for several years.
Fellas, devoting one-tenth of your BCS scrutiny to the rules governing the processes used by election-rigging Republicans and Democrats to maintain their hold on political power would be most appreciated.
P.S.: Check out our effort to "Mock the Vote" for the 2007 Salt Lake City mayoral race to demonstrate how more and more American cities are improving how those who hold elected office are selected, and our second annual "Fair Representation Challenge" to Utah's Colleges and Universities.
---
The Sutherland Institute's State worship
In case you missed its "Natural Family Resolution," the Sutherland Institute's first salvo (PDF file) -- which apparently no one wants to claim authorship of -- in its "Defining Conservatism Series" reminds readers why its "freedom through obedience" brand of conservatism is not libertarianism.
In a statement that many members of the faith community would find a blasphemous marriage of the worldly and the divine, the Sutherland Institute's essay approvingly quotes Russell Kirk's decree that "the conservative finds that the state is ordained of God."
Rejecting the consensus view among those participating in a recent panel discussion hosted by the conservative and libertarian Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies that government is incompetent as a cultural authority (MP3 file), the Sutherland Institute claims that members of the political class comprise an omnipotent State and promote order as they aggress against those they deem unvirtuous.
Despite libertarianism's long pedigree in the conservative movement, I agree that confusing and conflating the terms "conservative" and "libertarian" clouds understanding, which is why I try to distinguish one from the other.
If, however, you're looking for the brands of conservatism that are compatible with libertarianism, I recommend checking out the magazine The American Conservative.
---
The Gadsden Flag symbolizes the American tradition of being left alone to pursue happiness. Unfortunately, the machinations and predations of organizations such as the Utah Legislature and the Sutherland Institute remind us that there are those who refuse to leave peaceful and honest people alone.
For those seeking a political voice among those who believe that "cultural scold" is neither the proper, nor achievable, nor moral role of government, welcome to the Libertarian Party.
Please join us by signing and sending in our petition so our candidates may continue to champion the spontaneous order that arises from recognizing and respecting the inherent dignity and sovereignty of every individual.
---
As you begin to prepare your Utah income tax return for 2006, please remember to write an "L" in section 3 of Form TC-40 (PDF file). This does not change your refund or the amount of tax due. The Libertarian Party of Utah receives two dollars for every "L" entered, and these contributions are a major source of our funding.
Even if you are sympathetic to some of our like-minded friends in the Personal Choice Party, every dollar intentionally or mistakenly directed to the election campaign fund of that party is kept by the State of Utah -- the very entity working to take away your personal choices.
Therefore, if you genuinely want to support individual liberty for Utahns, please direct your contribution to the election campaign fund on your Utah Individual Income Tax Return to the Libertarian Party of Utah.
With sincere appreciation, I am
Yours in liberty,
Rob Latham, Chairman
Libertarian Organizing Committee
"Nothing restrains a central government like sound money."
-- Thomas DiLorenzo
News Item: U.S Mint bans melting pennies, nickels
The motivation for the melting and export ban of U.S. pennies and nickels is the reality that the market value for the coins' metal exceeds the faith-based denomination value stamped into them by the federal government. "In God We Trust," indeed.
Why is the federal government in the money business?
Many may remember American history lessons mentioning William Jennings Bryan's famous "Cross of Gold" speech in 1896.
But famous does not mean economically correct, and Bryan (who also led efforts to ban the teaching of evolution and served as the prosecutor in the Scopes "Monkey" trial) advocated policies -- the forcible redistribution of wealth through the income tax and inflating U.S. currency -- that have been devastating to the individual liberties of generations of Americans.
And just because the federal government granted itself the power to coin money, among other self-authorizations, doesn't mean that the federal government ought to coin money, or produce any medium for exchanging goods and services.
As economist Murray Rothbard noted in his essay "What Has Government Done to Our Money?" (audio here) private mints have demonstrated their ability to guarantee the fineness and weight of both bullion and coins they issue.
By exempting itself with legal tender laws from the common law rule against imitating something with superior value that would apply to any normal counterfeiter, the federal government has a free hand to inflate the money supply. (Of course, leave it to the federal government to imitate something with inferior value through pennies and nickels.)
And by inflating the money supply, or by devaluing coins, the federal government robs most Americans of their wealth.
To take one example of inflationary effects, real estate in America is not so much going up in value as U.S. currency is going down in value.
Hence, the desire of some entrepreneurs to convert pennies and nickels to higher-valued uses.
Land and metal have real value. Because U.S. currency is not backed by any tangible thing with real value, it must rely instead on coercion and fraud (for example, the "full faith and credit of the United States") to be useful.
Mises Institute president Lew Rockwell recently summed up why a government would inflate its currency (audio here):
The power to inflate is absolutely crucial to the agenda of everyone who believes in using the government to manage the economy and society. As [Ludwig von] Mises says, they need the power to inflate in order to finance their policy of reckless spending, lavish subsidies, and bribing voters. They also need it for financing their wars, bailouts, and space shuttle trips, and for building their ever-larger palaces to keep comfortable the millions of bureaucrats they employ to make our lives miserable.
Moreover, the political class benefits from the creation of fiat currencies and monetary expansion because of temporary increases in employment and temporary decreases in interest rates. Financing "good times" on a hidden credit card leaves voters more inclined to re-elect incumbents.
Those good feelings could sour if the integrity of U.S. monetary policy is called into question by more and more people, both in America and abroad, and creditors begin calling on their debtors to pay up.
David Walker, Comptroller of the U.S. government's General Accountability Office has been on a "Fiscal Wake-Up Tour" around the country to speak to anyone who will listen about how precarious the federal government's financial position has become because of entitlement spending.
But in an economy built on debt, with the U.S. government the biggest debtor of all, don't expect the federal government and its beneficiaries to correct the problem anytime soon.
The late Libertarian film producer Aaron Russo has made some concepts related to monetary policy more accessible through his documentary America: Freedom to Fascism.
As I've read one reviewer write, it's an important if imperfect film. (For example, Stalin never said that thing about counting the votes, but Russo's movie attributes the quote to him.) At a minimum, America: Freedom to Fascism helps the viewer gain a better understanding of the nature of the Federal Reserve and monetary policy. (The movie also covers other policies, which I'll leave the reader to explore elsewhere.)
You can watch the one-hour and fifty-minute movie online by clicking on the "Play" button below.
You can also familiarize yourself with some of these terms and their implications:
By educating ourselves and acting in ways that reflect our knowledge, friends of liberty can greatly restrict the power of the State if we stop playing the fool to the federal government's alternatives to gold.
Yours in liberty,
Rob Latham, Chairman
Libertarian Organizing Committee
but he never forgets to bring me a nice present;
Should I say something?
Signed, America.
--Tony Hoagland, "Hard Rain"
Unless you count yourself among those who own stock in or are employed by the companies that federal, state, and local governments pay to fight the War on Drugs, -- in places such as Afghanistan -- you're a loser in that war.
"The war on drugs is really a war on people -- on anyone who uses or grows or makes or sells a forbidden drug."
--Ethan A. Nadelman, Drug Policy Alliance
What has the rest of America lost, aside from the tens of billions spent at all levels of government to fight the Drug War?
This is just a partial list of the rights that we Americans have lost as a result of the War on Drugs, because there are many more.
It's a fact of life that highly-functioning citizens use illegal drugs without becoming abusers or addicts.
[T]he black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking that has long dominated discussions of illegal drug use should give way to a wiser, subtler approach with deep roots in Western culture. That approach, exemplified by the tradition of moderate drinking, rejects the idea that there is something
inherently wrong with using chemicals to alter one's mood or mind. Instead it emphasizes the context in which drug use occurs: how, why, when, and where intoxicants are consumed. These factors determine how likely drug use is to cause harm, the crucial consideration in making moral judgments about it.
--Jacob Sullum, Saying Yes
But as the aforementioned list of what we collaterally damaged Americans have lost shows, you don't need to be a drug user to oppose the Drug War.
There are many organizations in addition to the Libertarian Party that champion your cognitive liberty and personal dignity. Here's a good list of some of those organizations.
Despite significant setbacks to our individual liberties caused by the War on Drugs (PDF file), I believe the tide is turning.
For example, more and more judges are speaking out against the drug war.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition has produced a 12-minute video featuring commentary by law enforcement officers explaining why the drug war has failed and who support alternative approaches to treating drug abuse and addiction. You can view the video by clicking on the image below.
Pass it on.
In the meantime, state and local Libertarian candidates across Utah who favor drug
policy reform need your support and your vote between now and Election Day on November 7th.
Yours in liberty,
Rob Latham, Chairman
Libertarian Party of Utah
]]>The eight-minute video has now been posted to YouTube. It deserves your thoughtful consideration this election season.
Yours in liberty,
Rob Latham, Chairman
Libertarian Party of Utah
]]>Those who defend the ability of the political class to peek into the most private affairs of ordinary Americans routinely invoke the mantra, "I have nothing to hide."
Of the few problems with this standard, one is that the political class regularly enlarges the list of outlawed conduct beyond common law injuries to persons or property. Armed with such a list, nosy neighbors can lead to busybody law enforcement and petty prosecutions.
More importantly, by what authority does the political class claim the right to intrude into your life to investigate wrongdoing? And who watches the watchers?
Quoting Privacilla.org, privacy is important for at least two reasons. First, "privacy helps individuals maintain their autonomy and individuality" and "define themselves by exercising power over information about themselves and a free country does not ask people to answer for the choices they make about what information is shared and what is held close" (emphasis added).
Second, privacy carries with it many benefits, such as "safety and peace of mind."
Article I, Section 14 of the Utah Constitution provides that "[t]he 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 warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized."
And before a judge may issue a warrant to law enforcement officers to search or confiscate you or your property, the person requesting permission to search or confiscate must present evidence of alleged illegal conduct to that judge.
(NOTE: Warranted and warrantless searches and seizures are a complex area of the law. My limited discussion here is not intended to be legal advice. Consult an attorney for advice on the application of the law to your particular situation.)
Utahns rejected the State of Utah's participation in the MATRIX database program. But a substitute -- called the Utah Criminal Justice Information System (UCJIS) -- has already replaced MATRIX. And according to the State of Utah's Bureau of Criminal Identification, in 2004 three-to-four complaints each week of UCJIS database misuse (PDF file) were received.
The financial motivations of database profiteers notwithstanding, the abuse of government databases ranges from attempts to silence political opponents to stalking women.
In his book Identity Crisis: How Identification is Overused and Misunderstood, author Jim Harper concludes that "[i]dentification should be a risk-reducing strategy in a social system, not a rivet used for pegging humans onto governmental or economic machinery." Harper also proposes a "competitive, responsive identification and credentialing industry" as an alternative to government-issued IDs.
How do liberty lovers protect our privacy and work to be left alone by an increasingly intrusive political class that won't leave us alone?
Get informed.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse are two organizations at the forefront of the privacy debate, and are also excellent information resources.
Two books I found amateurish, politically-incorrect, out-of-date, and almost worthless as "how to" guides -- but valuable in terms of teaching broader life lessons about privacy -- are How to Be Invisible, by J.J. Luna, and Hide Your Assets and Disappear, by Edmund J. Pankau.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center is another helpful public interest organization championing civil liberties in the information age, and it offers an extensive list of online privacy tools.
See you later ... or not. ;-)
Yours in liberty,
Rob Latham, Chairman
Libertarian Party of Utah
]]>--Utah Code section 53A-13-109
"We don't need no education. We don't need no thought control."
--Pink Floyd, "Another Brick In The Wall"
As a libertarian, there's much to like about some of the content contained in the State of Utah's "Civic and Character Education" law.
But as a libertarian, even if I were to entertain the belief that gun-run schools were competent to inculcate values such as "respect for and an understanding of the Declaration of Independence," I refuse to impose values I approve of upon others.
Ultimately, that why I support organizations like the Alliance for the Separation of School & State, and efforts to get government out of the education business.
But there are practical reasons to work for educational independence.
The recently reaired ABC News program "Stupid in America: How Lack of Choice Cheats Our Kids Out of a Good Education" reminds us that public government schools continue to fail the children they purport to educate.
Among the more damnable nonsense this election season is the campaign by a government teacher union urging Utahns to "invest in public schools."
Despite the State of Utah's constitution's claim that "public elementary and secondary shall be free" of cost to the education consumer, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Taxpayers, including both those taxpayers who don't consume government-provided educational services and those who do, are forced to fund government schools.
To reframe taxation as "investment" misleads individuals into thinking that they have some type of ownership interest in government schools. We don't.
And if you want to check whether you have an ownership interest in government schools (or any government-owned asset, for that matter), try selling your ownership interest to someone else. Or see how much influence you have, as an "owner," in determining the curriculum of a government school. Or, as part of your due diligence, explore how much freedom a government school affords its "investors" to tour its facilities and evaluate its services.
If you want to make a genuine investment in education, one you can sell if its value decreases or buy more of if its value increases, consider looking at the many publicly-traded companies that offer education and training services.
The government needs three things to thrive and grow:
1. Obedient citizens who will not upset the status quo.
2. Money, which requires citizens who believe the government deserves their money and will utilize it in better ways than they themselves will, or at the very least, citizens who are afraid not to hand their money over.
3. Power: citizens who will willingly subdue fellow citizens who refuse to submit; citizens who will fight wars; citizens who will turn on one another when ordered or asked to do so but will not turn on the government. Without force, the government is powerless. Unless people are willing to act unquestioningly on behalf of the government to enforce its edicts, the government has no power.
--Alliance for the Separation of School & State, The Case for Separation
Today's government schools are fostering this "culture of obedience."
And if you're not concerned about the role of government schools in the ongoing threat to your liberty, you should be.
To advance the cause of liberty, libertarians encourage freedom-lovers to pull their children out of the government schools, and join with others to wrest control of educational services from the political class and return educational responsibilities to civil society.
Yours in liberty,
Rob Latham, Chairman
Libertarian Party of Utah
]]>My last post mentioned the late Barry Goldwater, and now an interview portrays prominent Democrats speaking favorably about the former liberty-minded U.S. senator and presidential candidate.
So perhaps Democrats are following through with the strategy of courting libertarian voters, while neoconservatives -- who "despise libertarians" -- attempt to "fear and smear" their way into the dark hearts of authoritarian voters.
Indeed, earlier this year such a Democrat contacted me. He incorrectly took my comments during a radio program (MP3 file) (at about 0:40 to 3:28) explaining the LPUtah's spoiler strategy to mean that I was "urging Libertarians in swing districts to vote for Democrats."
I replied to Justin "Always be sincere, even if you don't mean it" Banks that I am not
encouraging Libertarians in swing districts to vote for Democrats, but I am encouraging center-right voters -- especially "South Park Republicans" -- in swing districts to express their opposition to Big Government Republicans by voting Libertarian, thereby expressing a preference for smaller government.
Confirming my suspicions about the naivite or intellectual dishonesty I've experienced from many self-identified Democrats, Justin hasn't shared my reply with his fellows thus far.
Across the country, I do see the effort by some Democrats to cozy up to the freedom philosophy as a good thing.
But in Utah, neither Democrats nor Republicans have done nearly enough to deserve libertarian votes.
Libertarians prefer to champion liberty, not simply change the name of the party and the persons responsible for looting us and placing more restrictions on our freedom.
And insofar as swing races in the 2006 election are concerned, I want Libertarian voters to stay home and I want libertarians betrayed by Republicans to come home, either by voting for Libertarian candidates or not voting at all.
But if you want to be left alone by a government that refuses to leave you alone, consider mailing in your ballot or going to the polls to vote Libertarian.
Because Libertarian candidates offer voters a clear choice for smaller government, fewer taxes, and more freedom; not a bipartisan echo of business as usual.
Yours in liberty,
Rob Latham, Chairman
Libertarian Party of Utah
P.S.: Last week the audio version of the concluding chapter of For a New Liberty, by libertarian economist Murray Rothbard, was posted online. (MP3 file)
Over the past few months, I've enjoyed listening to an old acquaintance Jeff Riggenbach narrate Rothbard's classic. You can download the entire book, in chapters, here.
And you can thank the Ludwig von Mises Institute for making such content available with your support, here.
]]>Dean draws heavily on psychology professor Bob Altemeyer's study of "right-wing authoritarianism."
Altemeyer disclaims using the term "right-wing" in the political sense of left-liberal versus right-conservative or economic sense of socialism versus capitalism, but rather
in "a psychological sense of submitting to the perceived authorities in one's life" (Altemeyer, 1996, p. 10).
Indeed, if one looks at the origin of the left-right political/economic/psychological designation, it began in the national legislature of pre-revolutionary France, where the nobles professing allegiance to the monarch sat to his right, and those who challenged the monarch's authority (including libertarian Frederic Bastiat) sat to his left.
Today, although there are many definitions and uses of the term "left-right spectrum," the political science academy's use of the term has almost the exact opposite meaning. For example, according to the last text I used to teach political science, the further "left" one is on the political spectrum, the more one favors government intervention in the economy; the further "right" one is on the political spectrum, the more one opposes government intervention in the economy.
Altemeyer's work, which is not without its critics, was also used in a branding survey conducted by the national Libertarian Party to identify libertarians and so-called "RWAs" in the general American population.
LNC Communications Director Stephen Gordon summarized the survey's findings thusly:
[P]resent resistance to libertarian political thought in America derives not so much from considered and well-reasoned anti-libertarian opinion as from a basic psychological tendency of many people to oppose any political orientation which they perceive as being counter to that supported by the "legitimate authorities." Americans who are strongly counter-libertarian will continue to oppose the Libertarian agenda so long as they see it as not being sanctioned by their existing political authorities. We now know that it would be fruitless to target the seriously authoritarian groups, but fortunately they are a minority.
Unfortunately, RWAs currently wield the political power of the United States government, and are recruiting more to join the government's ranks.
What's encouraging to freedom-lovers is that Americans are increasingly unhappy with the nation's direction and the current neoconservative administration.
Furthermore, more and more young Americans are choosing to join civil society's entrepreneurs and producers, instead of the coercers and sinecurists of the political class.
At the conclusion of Altemeyer's book, The Authoritarian Specter, he says to those troubled by the findings from his research: "When you understand, you know better how to produce change." (1996, p. 303)
Recognizing that counter-libertarians who favor the status quo will work to resist change [using some of the techniques identified in brackets], I have adapted (by removing their coercive features) Altemeyer's ten recommendations for combatting authoritarianism.
1. Identify and confront RWAs about their views, because 80 percent of those Altemeyer identified as RWAs were surprised and upset when they learned about it, and wanted to change. [Hence, RWA exclusion of and opposition to ideas and influences which threaten group member compliance and obedience.]
2. Bring RWAs into contact, as equals, with people they would otherwise avoid. Once a RWA gets to know individuals outside the RWA's ingroup, e.g., homosexuals, prejudice decreases. [Hence, the enforcement of loyalty among ingroup members.]
3. Encourage secular educational instruction (although not necessarily government schools, which are institutionally-oriented to inculcate obedience) to expose students to more diverse people and opinions. [Hence, opposition to curricula containing "worldly" ideas.]
4. Encourage journalism that reports crime and violence in perspective ... it's not as common as many might think from watching televised news programs (PDF file). Scare-mongering and hyping fear promotes authoritarianism, which is why dictatorships routinely control media outlets. [Hence, Fox News.]
5. Discourage ethnocentrism, authoritarianism, and self-righteousness in communities of faith, yours and others. [Contra promotion of "traditional" families and values.]
6. Refrain from violence when protesting. "Wild cards" and agents provocateurs produce visuals of chaotic demonstrations, swelling the ranks of authoritarians (note comments and responses). [Hence, false flag and other provocative acts by authoritarians.]
7. Moderates on any side of a conflict can look past the authoritarians on the polarized, front lines to find common ground with other moderates. [Hence, Republican and Democratic marginalization of less authoritarian party members.]
8. Debunk myths with facts; counter messages of hate with messages of tolerance. [Hence, Straussian justification for the "Big Lie," and arguments against tolerance.]
9. Don't give authoritarians the power they seek with your vote. [They may attempt to buy your vote or soften their hard edges just before the election.]
10. Recognize your own capacity to enable authoritarians. "Good Germans" democratically elected the Third Reich.
U.S. soldiers are gradually returning home from overseas campaigns. Will they return to their former professions and an economy that is healthy, decentralized, and not militarized beyond return? Or will economic circumstances encourage them to sign up with Noriega-style "Dignity Battalions," administered by the Department of Homeland Security and funded by the energy-military-security industrial congressional complex to suppress dissent and terrorize Americans with opposing views?
Our response to the authoritarians among us will determine the answer.
Yours in liberty,
Rob Latham, Chairman
Libertarian Party of Utah
]]>A comparison of the pre- and post-convention immigration planks follows.
Pre-Portland
Post-Portland
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall" which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government's policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
The Issue: Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers.
The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.
Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Once effective immigration policies are in place, general amnesties will no longer be necessary.
Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.
Transitional Action: Ensure immigration requirements include only appropriate documentation, screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. Simplifying the immigration process and redeployment of surveillance technology to focus on the borders will encourage the use of regular and monitored entry points, thus preventing trespass and saving lives. End federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally. Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers. Repeal all immigration quotas.
Witnessing the new platform language take shape was somehat like observing the legislative process, which has been compared to watching sausage being made.
(Although as Harry Browne has said, at least no one is forced to eat sausage, but we're all forced to obey the law.)
No one is forced to follow the Libertarian Party's platform either, which is a good thing in my view because the new language tolerates too much federal meddling for my taste.
To understand my objection, use the language from ">the revised immigration plank and envision a federal "Bureau of Compliance with Certain Requirements and Appropriate Documentation" under the Department of Homeland Security. It's an invitation to create regulatory bottlenecks similar to those that contribute to current immigration problems.
That said, I am comfortable enough with the new immigration plank and would trust Libertarians to rewrite the United States Code addressing immigration before turning the task over to the same bipartisan bunch responsible for the present mess.
As the Utah History Encyclopedia notes, "Everyone who has migrated to Utah from another area is, in a sense, an immigrant."
In other words we, or our ancestors, likely exercised the very American and very libertarian right of freedom of movement to get here.
And given the dim view Illinois political leaders had of Mormons during the mid-1800s, one can imagine what might have happened if the pioneers led by Brigham Young had to wait for permission from that state's government officials before immigrating to the Salt Lake Valley.
Yours in liberty,
Rob Latham, Chairman
Libertarian Party of Utah
]]>Let's talk about sex.
Independence Day 2006 marked the launch of Calling Out, a novel with a Utah twist; the main character works at an escort agency in Salt Lake City. Author Rae Meadows is also a University of Utah graduate.
Calling Out is the latest in a growing genre of literature -- which includes Real Live Nude Girl: Chronicles of Sex-Positive Culture and Live Sex Acts: Women Performing Erotic Labor -- that examine the good and the bad of the erotica industry, the people who labor in it, and the people who consume what the industry produces. [Disclosure: I am honored to have worked with fellow Libertarian Andrew McCullough to provide legal representation to people who work in this industry.]
As the following examples show, however, the people who work in the erotica industry often risk criminal prosecution and other restrictions on the right to make a living.
"Prostitution is a combination of sex and free enterprise. Which one are you against?"
--Michael Cloud
People who use their erotic labor to earn a living should enjoy the same rights that all Americans do.
A common argument for outlawing or restricting erotic services and erotic media is that they negatively impact married couples and families (PDF file).
As I mentioned in a previous post, evolutionary psychology drives women and men to use sexual strategies, including legislation, to restrict sexual competition.
Similarly, cultural and economic concerns encourage efforts to restrict the "low-cost substitutes" (PDF file) offered by the erotica industry that can undermine the value of sexual intimacy offered only in the context of marriage.
Such concerns deserve to be taken seriously, but excessive taxes, monetary inflation, and wars of aggression pose a far greater threat to marriages and families.
In Stanley v. Georgia, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court of the United States that “if the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch.”
However, some on the Left and others on the Right believe it should be the State’s business to censor erotic media.
For example, earlier this year a representative from the Legacy Law Foundation appeared on KUTV's Sunday morning public affairs program "Take Two" to argue for a controversial proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
During the discussion with constitutional law professor Ed Firmage and host Rod Decker, LLF's representative claimed that "live and let live doesn't work."
In other words, LLF echoes the view of some social conservatives that State intervention is required to maintain a virtuous society, which seems to run counter to the main message of the center-right's Leave Us Alone Coalition.
And restricting the accessibility of erotic media through the internet would interfere with the surfing preferences of many Salt Lake City residents.
Here's a thought experiment: If keeping marriages intact is the goal of sexual censors, why not propose laws restricting the possession or viewing of erotica by married individuals?
After all, bachelor/ette parties operate under the assumption that the betrothed will soon commit to marital exclusivity and fidelity.
People with a driver license agree to restrictions on driving imposed by the State, such as having no measurable controlled substance in their body while driving. If erotica is so harmful to the institution of marriage, impose restrictions on access to erotica to people who have a marriage license.
Of course, with such restrictions in place, couples who have successfully used erotica to strengthen the bonds of their marriage would be out of luck.
”But it’s for the children!”
Fellow Utah Libertarian and accomplished mother Joye Henrie wrote the following in a letter to the editor published in the May 19, 2006 edition of The Salt Lake Tribune:
After reading about the hopes to cover up racy magazine covers in Provo and the campaign to remove The Joy of Sex from the library in Nampa, Idaho, I can't help but think of how twisted our society's views of sexuality are! To be offended and appalled by the human body shows a level of mental instability, as well as insecurity and immaturity.
You say it's for the kids? You're teaching them your own warped views of sexuality and body image! Kids can be taught to understand the difference between sexist pornography and more artistic portrayals of the human body, yet all types tend to be shunned by our society.
When you make such a big deal about a woman in a bikini, you're sending your child a message that the body is dirty and shameful. Is your reaction to violence and crime as vocally charged as your reaction to the body? Ask your children. They'll give you a clear critique. But will you listen?
Stop raising children in the greenhouse of sexual dysfunction! Doing so is creating a breeding ground for sexual deviance.
And as writer Heather Wokusch has observed:
Numerous studies have documented that "no sex" societies are often plagued by acts of rage. A cross-cultural investigation by American psychologist J.M. Prescott, for example, found that societies which punished premarital sex tended to have higher rates of crime and violence. Prescott also linked sexual repression to aggression, insensitivity, criminal behavior, and a greater likelihood of killing and torturing enemies.
To avoid this awful state of affairs, the Libertarian Party’s national platform advocates the following:
From the Statement of Principles:
"the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form"
From the Freedom and Responsibility section:
The Issue: Personal responsibility is discouraged by government denying individuals the opportunity to exercise it. In fact, the denial of freedom fosters irresponsibility.
The Principle: Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. We must accept the right of others to choose for themselves if we are to have the same right. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. We believe people must accept personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Solutions: Libertarian policies will promote a society where people are free to make and learn from their own decisions.
Transitional Action: Repeal all laws that presume government knows better than the individual how to run that person’s life. Encourage private sector dissemination of information to help consumers make informed decisions on products and services. Enforce laws against fraud and misrepresentation.
From the Freedom of Communication section:
The Issue: 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:
a) 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 women;
...
The Principle: 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 host and publish information on the Internet; 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.
From the Sexuality and Gender section:
The Issue: Politicians use popular fears and taboos to legally impose a particular code of moral and social values. Government regularly denies rights and privileges on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Principle: Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships. Sexuality or gender should have no impact on the rights of individuals.
Solutions: Culture wars, social friction and prejudice will fade when marriage and other personal relationships are treated as private contracts, solely defined by the individuals involved, and government discrimination is not allowed.
And from the Crime and Victimless Crime section:
The Issue: Violent crime and fraud threaten the lives, happiness and belongings of Americans. Government's ability to protect the rights and property of individuals from crimes of violence and fraud is compromised because resources are focused on vice rather than on real crimes. Laws that codify "victimless crimes" turn those who simply conduct voluntary transactions and exercise free choice into criminals. This results in the United States having one of the highest percentages of the population in prison of any country in the world; yet real crime remains prevalent in many parts of the country.
Principle: Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves in the exercise of free choice.
Parents rightfully want to raise their children in a sexually healthy way. But what is a sexually healthy way to raise one’s child varies from family to family.
South Park Republicans who reject state-enforced Puritanism, and Democrats who aren’t pandering erotophobes, are invited to join the Libertarian Party and support our candidates.
Although many claim that the family is the fundamental unit of society, the individual is the foundation of a free and virtuous society.
And in a free and virtuous society, you decide.
Yours in liberty,
Rob Latham, Chairman
Libertarian Party of Utah
]]>In the past month or so I've been impressed by some of the commentary posted on LewRockwell.com attempting to answer this question.
To answer it for yourself, I invite you to read the essays linked below.
It's a short post on an important topic. I offer my observations at the end.
--Jack Dennon, "No U-Turns"
--Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty, Chapter 3, The State (MP3 file)
--Butler Shaffer, "The Death of the American State"
"Clever idea, the Constitution. Too bad it didn’t work."
--Joseph Sobran, "President Disastro"
The most common argument goes like this: "We would be better off if we returned to the Constitution." Fair enough. We would be, but that's not because the Constitution equals freedom. That statement is only true now because we are living in an era of unbridled sociofascism and thus we would enjoy more liberty if the Federal government were reduced. But that argument, however, cannot ever be used to advance the cause of liberty. It is at best a piece of historical data. Libertarianism aims to be universally valid; it must apply anywhere and any time. Thus, would today's libertarians favor the Constitutional Convention? Would they favor replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution? Surely not, unless the Articles were to be replaced with a Giant Nothing. If the Constitution gave more power to the central government than it had under the Articles – and it did – then libertarians should have opposed it then (and some did) as they should today.
--Manuel Lora, "Constitution Worship Undermines the Cause of Freedom"
In my view, constitutionalists and libertarians have many goals and values in common. One of my favorite articles spelling out these goals and values is "Reclaiming the Constitution" by Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute and director of its Center for Constitutional Studies.
But there are important differences among those who self-identify as constitutionalists and libertarians.
If the goal is liberty, I'm persuaded by my experience and reason that faith in the U.S. Constitution's ability to protect liberty may be aspirational and romantic, but is ultimately destined to fail.
When James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights to the First U.S. Congress, he noted the weakness of "paper barriers against the power of the community."
We're now seeing what happens when a U.S. president views the U.S. Constitution as just a piece of paper.
If you haven't already, consider what steps you could take now to protect your liberties before more people come to share the president's view, and usher in a post-constitutional America.
You may find the exercise surprisingly liberating.
Yours in liberty,
Rob Latham, Chair
Libertarian Party of Utah
]]>