Posts Tagged ‘Libertarian’

My Choice for President (The Sequel)

June 22, 2012

June 22, 2012

In February, I endorsed libertarian-Republican Ron Paul.  My confidence that, if elected, he would be the best president in generations is unshaken.  Naturally, I voted for him in Michigan’s presidential primary.  Unfortunately, by Dr. Paul’s own admission, his nomination at the Republican Convention in Tampa is extremely unlikely.  In fact nothing short of Romney’s exit from the contest would make it possible.

I don’t wish to discourage Ron Paul delegates.  They have an unprecedented opportunity to give the Republican Party a more libertarian national platform, and they have the numbers to do it; delegates are committed to a candidate on the first ballot, but no such restraints apply to matters of policy.

So where do we go from here? There will be a number of choices on the ballot.  The typical approach for supporters of a Republican candidate is for those people to rally around their party’s nominee, but Ron Paul supporters are not motivated by a love of politics as usual.  Rather, they are motivated by a message of maximum liberty in the context of a constitutionally limited republic, and a desire to elect a president who feels as they do.

Gary Johnson and Scotty Boman

Gary Johnson and Scotty Boman at Libby Fest.

The good news is that they still have an opportunity to elect such a president! The Libertarian Party has nominated New Mexico’s former two-term Governor Gary Johnson as their presidential candidate.  Governor Johnson has been the most libertarian governor in United States history:

  • He vetoed 750  of the bills that were passed by the New Mexico legislature; more than all other governors combined.
  • He cut over 1,200 government jobs without firing anyone.
  • He got government out of the way thereby allowing for the private creation of 20,000 more jobs.
  • He left New Mexico with a budget surplus.
  • He cut taxes 14 times while never raising them.

…the list goes on.  Throughout the early Republican campaign for the nomination he repeatedly advocated libertarian solutions for national problems, and as a two-term governor he enters the race with stronger political credentials then any other Libertarian nominee, and he has more executive experience then Barack Obama and Mitt Romney combined.

Furthermore, a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for the party of principal.  The Libertarian Party has been the choice for advocates of individual liberty and limited government for 40 years.  Many of it’s founders were Goldwater Republicans who were disgusted with Nixonian statism.  In 1988 Ron Paul was the Party’s nominee President.  At the 2012 convention, delegates nominated Judge Jim Gray as Gary Johnson’s running mate.  Judge Gray is an outspoken critic of the war on drugs.

For these reasons, I wholeheartedly endorse the Libertarian candidate, Governor Gary Johnson, as my choice for President of these United States.

Advertisements

Left & Right Torch Liberty

April 18, 2009

This week President Obama met with Mexican President Filipe Calderon.  Last month Secretary of State Clinton also met with Mexican officials.  In both cases, Mexican officials blamed our gun rights for drug cartel related violence near our shared border.

 

The Mexican government considers our liberties a threat, and our own administration seems inclined to concur (Though Obama has backed off, thanks to the political vigilance of patriots).  So, for now, his solution is to expand the enforcement of substance prohibition.

 

Conservatives are sure to complain that Obama has not been standing up for gun rights and improved boarder security, but they will also applaud his efforts to escalate the drug war.  In this way conservatives are as wrong-headed as Calderon, Obama, and Clinton; conservatives will trade in their right to keep and bare arms just to stop their neighbors from getting high.  Put another way, they are willing to let the liberals burn the second amendment, before they will allow their neighbor to burn a fatty.

 

Libertarians have no desire to control the personal behavior of others, so long as it does not threaten the rights of others.  Put another way, we believe in locking people up because we fear them, not because we are mad at them.

Drug prohibition is the cause of drug violence.  The profits made by the cartels, and the thousands of bodies left in their wake, are the result of US laws, but not the second amendment.  This is just one example of how the two sides of the statist coin fuel tyranny.

 

Unfortunately, the mainstream media likes it that way, so as the conservatives cry about us losing our second amendment rights, the gun grabbers will point out the growing death toll in Mexico.  As conservatives say, “build a fence,” the drug smugglers and criminal gangs will find more innovative ways to bypass it, or even exploit it.

 

But for the few who care to look a little deeper…
I say freedom is the answer.  Don’t let a foreign leader talk us into surrendering our rights.  End the unconstitutional and intrusive drug laws that caused this crisis.  Then we will have a border that is much more manageable, and lives will be saved.

 

This isn’t the first time a foreign leader objected to American guns.   Many people will be celebrating Patriots Day.  This would be an excellent time to remind our neighbors what led up to the “shot heard around the world” and what those before us had to give up, to manifest the vision of liberty that so many Americans have taken for granted or forgotten.

Vultures Hatched by Conservative Inconsistency Have Come Home to Roost

November 16, 2008

 

While I have frequently identified with conservatives and conservative causes, I am not a conservative.  I am a libertarian.  I use the small case “l” to distinguish my party from my philosophy.  There are many libertarian-Republicans, for instance, who have no affiliation with the Libertarian Party.  True conservatives are much more libertarian than what is commonly referred to as neo-conservatives, but there are still some critical differences.

 

Ideological conservatives place a great deal of emphasis on principals such as individual liberty, personal responsibility, private property, and limited government.  These are also libertarian principals.  The difference involves the scope of application.  Libertarians are inclined to apply this to as many issues as possible; conservatives apply theses ideas to a limited range of issues.  This has been a source of confusion for people who have been programmed to think in terms of a one-dimensional left-right spectrum.  If you are among them, I suggest looking over a Nolan chart or taking the smallest political quiz.

 

Libertarians have frequently come under fire for supporting peoples right to act offensively or amorally so long as the behavior did not violate the natural rights of others. This recognition of a person’s rights has often been misconstrued to be acceptance or approval.  This is not the case.  Libertarians have long argued that we must tolerate individual differences, if we expect to be tolerated.  Stated another way, a threat to one person’s rights is a threat to all rights.  The reason for this linkage is the power of philosophical consistency.

 

Giving in to the idea that the government could censor radio content was like letting the camel’s nose in the tent.  The right of broadcasters to control the content of their programming is thereby forfeited. What remains is an illusion of liberty granted at the whims of those in control.  So it is with all sacrifices of principal.  The specifics that were derived from the forfeited principal are only vestigial remnants.  Bending to whims may be expedient and gain one favor in the short run, but consistency wins in the long run.  No social movement has been able to grow and prevail, if it discarded its integrity for short-term gain.  Conversely, worldviews that offer clear-cut answers and absolute principals survive.

 

The human mind requires some semblance of consistency to work, so it is that luke-warm conservatism is on the decline, but even conservatism is luke warm when it comes to liberty.  Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand saw this in April of 1964 when she wrote:

 

It was the so-called “conservatives” — including some of the pioneers, some of the broadcasting industry’s executives who, today, are complaining and protesting — who ran to the government for regulations and controls, who cheered the notion of “public property” and service to the “public interest,” and thus planted the seeds of which Mr. Minow and Mr. Henry are merely the logical, consistent flowers. The broadcasting industry was enslaved with the sanction of the victims — but they were not fully innocent victims.

 

So it is that today’s conservative radio pundits are not fully innocent either.  They have conceded the need to have government control over the content of radio broadcasts, by either approving censorship, or mocking liberals who disapproved.  The fact of the matter is that Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer made an insightful point when he told a Fox news reporter:

 

The very same people who don’t want the fairness doctrine, want the FCC to limit pornography on the air.  I am for that; I think pornography should be limited.  But you can’t say ‘Government hands off!’ in one commercial enterprise but the government intervenes in another.  That’s not consistent.

 

He’s right:  It isn’t consistent. 

 

Ironically, his so-called “Fairness Doctrine” would only call for fairness between inconsistent “liberal” and “conservative” speech.  Even if it included equal time for libertarians, it would still be just as wrong, and I would oppose it.  The first amendment made no exceptions.

 

For those who fear hard-core porn on prime-time TV, consider the content of basic cable programming.  It is immune to the restrictions placed on broadcast TV.  Sure “adult programming” is there for those who subscribe to it, but commercial standards for family viewing exceed the standards set by the FCC.  If this isn’t good enough, parents can fire the TV from baby-sitting duty (mine did).  The market works if we let it.*  This is another mantra recited by self-described conservatives.  The difference is that libertarians actually believe it.

 

When a person goes against one’s principal, he or she gets a funny feeling.  It’s called “guilt.”  Those who fail to form principals are confused.  People who look to government or the collective to solve their problems are called “statists” those who trust individuals over governments are libertarians.

 

I’m not guilty, statist, or confused; I trust you to run your life.

 

 

 

 

* Here I am referring to a free market in which peoples rights are protected.  Marketing in abuse is not a free market principal.  That would be a contradiction.  Individual rights cannot include the right to enslave.

Congratulations Senator Carl Levin

November 5, 2008

Honorable Senator Carl Levin:

 

I Congratulate you on your re-election to the United States Senate.  

 

As an opposition candidate turned constituent, I hope your future votes in the United States Senate make me happy you won.

 

Sincerely,

 

Scotty Boman

2008 Libertarian Candidate for United States Senate

313-247-2052

http://boman08.com

Thank you Ron!

September 13, 2008

 

Dear Ron Paul:

 

I hope this message reaches you.  I know what it is like to get more mail than one has time to read.  Clearly you are blessed with an even larger volume of mail than I.

 

As a candidate and an activist in a third party, I wish to express my deepest gratitude for your September 10th press conference.  I was especially impressed with the respectful manner in which you handled unexpected surprises.

 

By resisting the demands of the Republican Leadership and giving a forum to their opposition, you have put your own re-election to Congress at risk.  We are blessed to have such a courageous person in Congress.

 

In Michigan, I had the fortune of being the Libertarian representative at the first meeting of the Michigan Third Parties Coalition (MTPC).  One thing I learned through this experience, is the value of respecting people who hold to beliefs that conflict with my own.  The formation of the MTPC was initiated in a letter sent out by a socialist, Matt Erard.  He understood the need to form a group that was non-ideological. 

 

Ideology is more than symbolic for people in the freedom movement, but there is a need for Detente in cases where people with irreconcilable differences face a common threat.  Clearly you get that.  I only wish everyone in our movement were so enlightened, but I have no right to apologize for the short-comings of others.

 

Without honest elections, the hope for peacefully bringing about a free society is dashed.  Those who honestly believe in the correctness of their beliefs have nothing to fear from an unfettered candid discussion of the transcendental challenges of our time.

 

When the debate process and other parts of our broken election system are remedied, it will be much easier to bring about liberty in our time and resuscitate our constitutionally limited republic. 

 

Thank you for bringing us one step closer to that day.  Libertarians everywhere owe you a great debt of gratitude.

 

Scotty Boman

Libertarian for United States Senate

Why Vote for Me?

June 18, 2008

It’s about the economy

We are on the verge of a major depression if the current policies continue: Deficit spending, paying off debt by printing money, exporting our industrial base, imprisoning large portions of the population, and wasting our resources and lives on unprovoked military crusades.

The Republican President and Democratic Congress have continues on the same course like a canoe team riding the rapids to Niagara Falls.

Bad economic times, like these, call for a more comprehensive plan. Libertarians, with their support for free market reforms such as eliminating the Income Tax and reducing burdensome regulations, suggest even more ways to increase opportunities and improve the economy.

The only way to end the income tax and pay off the dept is to change policy and cut spending. The first cuts should be in areas where the Government is doing the most harm, while leaving programs people have grown dependent on (like social security) intact. Then phase them out gradually. The younger generation should be able to opt out of social security.