RichmondLiberty.org

by Robert Russo

It occurred to me this month that someone visiting this site for intellectual stimulation or research might look at the high number of gun-related posts and draw the wrong conclusions, not that gun rights aren’t a key issue and gun shows a good promotional, but ask questions like "Do all Libertarians like firearms?", "Is that what this party is about?". So I will add this long-heated topic to my lexicon. Libertarianism is a non-combative, comfortable philosophy and meeting place for political intellectuals and individualists. There is no “gun owners’ party”, it is an issue catered to by Republicans and Democrats as much as we. There are many of us who find guns uncomfortable or unnecessary but this does not predesignate our opinions on constitutional rights or exempt us as voters. I would say that people who dislike cigarettes can still aggressively defend the rights of smokers, but even that is not a true analogy because even those who vote Libertarian specifically to ensure their right to bear arms don’t necessarily oppose gun control or how it should be done.

Although I personally do not hunt I share many of the same outdoor activities as hunters, and so the laws that affect them affect me. (I would support additional legislation to protect hunters like the bill debated in the 2001 election which some people considered redundant, because hunting grounds are some of the most pristine ecological areas in the state.*) Likewise I don’t prefer a gun for self-defense but that doesn’t mean I care nothing about laws that say what we can do in the home.

All political groups, religious ones even more so, can be misjudged by our concepts of association. I can guess what most people I know would think of a website, but then many of them don’t know or care that I’m a Libertarian, and I think most libs are in the same boat. The opinion of most people close to me is that of Aaron Sorkin’s "The American President", in which part of what makes the president and his administration the good guys in the eyes of the viewer is his position on gun control ("For reasons passing understanding people do not relate guns to gun-related crime.") and return to those ideals ("You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and handguns.")** The thing is, these are the same people who watch westerns, in which the hero’s ability to ensure justice is in his own hands, and science fiction which isn’t apart from reality because of the subject matter but because the characters have the freedom for adventure and discovery that real society wouldn’t permit. So although many of my friends are people who love peace and see weapons as something harmful that we are better off without, conversation with these same masses often contains the smalltalk that is offensive to Libertarians, because the things they claim to believe in only serve as their entertainment.

The American western is a good guide to how the Libertarian sees the world, for the benefit of a society that has forgotten the personal responsibility required to survive from before the Constitution was written to the advent of modern simplicity. A man can’t guarantee the integrity of anyone but himself, so the concept of government is insufficient in helping him with any real part of his life. He knows whether protection is needed because when the time comes he’s the one who will be using it, or lose the things he cares about. In a society where everyone has the right to bear arms he trusts his character and discretion to prevail or those values have no meaning. What makes this right relevant today is that this land is still lawless to a degree, the ability to survive on one’s own still has value, as does personal discretion on which peace depends.

Now the view of those who oppose the second amendment is that the days before gun control were pretty bad, not an idyllic fantasy where good intentions always succeed, and no such faith in human behavior can be applied realistically to our demoralized society. A vast majority of people are unfit to wield firearms without hurting themselves or others, and a great many problems in the world would be solved if they simply didn’t exist (or were only in the hands of professionals), and therefore it’s nice that we don’t have to see them in public places to remind us of this and give people ideas. The trouble with maintaining appearances is that our children play with plastic guns all the time, in more realistic shooting scenarios than ever (as a child I wanted a Han Solo pistol). The burden of trying to make life easier so that everyone can get along is it leads one to see people as objects, lessening our expectations of them to the lowest common denominator. It’s certainly true that law enforcement needs to be prepared for anyone or anything, which leaves it up to the individual to say "I am better than a criminal and should be treated as such".

Someone who carries a weapon that can’t be seen is certainly not making any political statement (except perhaps to himself), and is only looking to his own safety. But even if he does carry a handgun just to exercise his rights, a person doesn’t necessarily think everyone should do the same, nor automatically dismisses crime prevention by the restriction of firearms. Addressing gun-related crime by investigating and restricting gun ownership is an idea, much like defensive measures are an idea, not a dead-set political affiliation. Anyone can find themselves in a situation where they will ask these questions, whether a thief breaks into the home or something to safeguard against this is horribly misused. The purpose of libertarianism is to support that personal call and our right to make it. If anyone can use an issue for political characterization they should take a look at abortion. For some good reading material on the right to bear arms go to www.guncite.com, or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics.

*http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=9957&pid=779
**http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112346/quotes

If you have opinions you'd like to add to this thread please send them to henrico@richmondliberty.org and they will be posted. We are particularly interested in thoughts from both sides of this issue.

Posted by Robert Russo at 10:14 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

by Robert Russo

On November 19th the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, declared on "Face the Nation" his intent to reinstitute the draft, one of innumerable plans to do so that have come and gone in failure whenever there is a political shakeup. His case is that it will help the War in Iraq and help to avoid future wars, but this logic seems as shifty as the idea of a draft itself imposing on our personal freedoms.
Rangel says "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq… …if indeed we had a draft, and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way.".* So basically the forced enlistment of thousands of unwilling civilians is to be used as a political tool to sway the President and congress. If I were a congressman I would feel insulted that this suggests they don’t care about their soldiers already, or they care less than if there were twice as many. It also assumes the President and congress would not go to war which they might well be encouraged to do with a larger force. The idea of recruiting new soldiers and training them so they won’t be used is not only absurd, it is a waste of their time and training.
On the other hand he also says "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then… …to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft.".* This leads one to ask which side is he on? In 2003 Rangel proposed a draft for ages 18-26, then earlier this year expanded this to mandate military service up to age 42.*
Futile endeavors like this are always the brainchild of a brooding individual who was indoctrinated by a private brotherhood, warped by a mental regime not of his choosing, and now has to live with himself in a world that doesn’t know it’s a cure-all solution and not an infringement on any rights people may have. It is deeper in his mind than any political affiliation, separating him from 21st Century society where personal freedom is sacred. The real purpose of this is revealed in the words "…having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, ‘young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals,’ with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.".* In other words he is promoting his way of life, as we all do, in the belief that it will make them better countrymen and agree with him politically (and the compensation costs nothing, anyone can write out a thousand "promises"). People living the same code as him can be trusted, he doesn’t have to worry about them standing in the way of progress.
Fortunately a Democratic majority is not any more inclined to vote on this than Republicans. There is no Pro-Draft Party. The public is against it on a subconscious level because the very thought is uncomfortable. (Much like people don’t openly oppose the health media but they still ignore what it says.) Even military leaders support an all-volunteer militia, because changing that would bring all manner of problems on them and dilute their elitist philosophy and ability.
There is a way to augment our forces with new blood but I’ve never seen it proposed, the founding of a new non-military branch of the armed forces, or the conversion of the civil service into a full branch. The problem with finding a military solution is every other field (education, industry, the sciences) has a choice of competing providers to ensure balance, except defense. It is the perfect monopoly, the provider is the service. You can’t defend this country unless you prescribe to one institution’s philosophy. A civilian corps would likely be difficult and disorganized, but it would allow non-military citizens to serve and in turn the armed forces would receive more specialists. Then as it grows, the country will one day be able to choose which credo they want defending them.
Thankfully none of us have to care about what one congressman says (especially when he is opposed throughout his own party), but when someone says they want me to be forcibly enlisted so they can achieve their political goals I find it offensive. Though I live and work close to Ft. Lee and have friends who work there, I have the pleasure of living a life in which the military has no presence. The sight of soldiers is strange to me, and likewise people are apprehensive in approaching someone in combat fatigues or requesting military action knowing their way of life, their questionable recruitment methods. Some people trained to be human weapons are easier to befriend than others. Rangel wants this military-embracing society, but in the words of Donald Rumsfeld, "there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back.".* For the full text of this story go to http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/19/rangel.draft.ap/index.html.

*http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/19/rangel.draft.ap/index.html

Question of the Week: Are Libertarians naturally anti-military because that institution brainwashes its members, or is it somehow exempt? If so, what exempts it? Send your opinions to henrico@richmondliberty.org.
If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!

Posted by Robert Russo at 04:39 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

From MPP,

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOVEMBER 16, 2006

Marijuana Reform Loses Staunch Ally: Milton Friedman

CONTACT: Bruce Mirken, MPP director of communications, 415-668-6403
or 202-215-4205
Dan Bernath, MPP assistant director of
communications, 202-462-5747 ex. 115

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- With the death of Nobel Prize-winning economist
Milton Friedman, America has lost one of its strongest voices for
sane, sensible marijuana policies, officials of the Marijuana Policy
Project (MPP) in Washington, D.C., said today.

"Dr. Friedman was a lifetime dues-paying member of MPP and a
strong advocate for ending marijuana prohibition," Rob Kampia, MPP
executive director, said. "He understood that the government's war on
marijuana users is an assault on basic conservative values of freedom
and small government. We will miss him greatly."

Friedman was one of 500 economists to endorse the landmark
MPP-commissioned report by Harvard's Jeffrey R. Miron, "The Budgetary
Implications of Marijuana Prohibition," which estimated ending
prohibition would save taxpayers $7.7 billion a year while generating
$6.2 billion in tax revenue, and to call for a system in which
marijuana is regulated and taxed similarly to alcoholic beverages.
Miron's report and the letter signed by Dr. Friedman are available at
www.prohibitioncosts.org.

"There is no logical basis for the prohibition of marijuana,"
Friedman said, referring to the study. "Our failure to successfully
enforce these laws is responsible for the deaths of thousands of
people in Colombia. I haven't even included the harm to young people.
It's absolutely disgraceful to think of picking up a 22-year-old for
smoking pot. More disgraceful is the denial of marijuana for medical
purposes."

Before his death, Friedman taped video footage for MPP in which
he discussed drug policy reform and the need for a different approach
to marijuana. MPP is now working to make this footage available. For
details, contact Dan Bernath, MPP assistant director of
communications, at 202-462-5747 ex. 115 or dbernath@mpp.org.

With more than 21,000 members and 100,000 e-mail subscribers
nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana
policy reform organization in the United States. MPP works to
minimize the harm associated with marijuana-both the consumption of
marijuana and the laws that are intended to prohibit such use. MPP
believes that the greatest harm associated with marijuana is
imprisonment. For more information, see www.MarijuanaPolicy.org.
####

Posted by Leonard Harris at 06:09 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I just read your article on school board elections-First I was very
opposed in this election-not unopposed. Second i was talking about
making the system do something for poeple. A point you might have
caught had you read everything that I
said as opposed to picking out one Sentence to make your point. I'm
not sure that your journallism is any better than the Times Dispatch.

Thank you for your response, I have corrected the typo where I said you were unopposed. For everyone's information, candidate Art Burton of 6th District ran against Chandra Smith who won by a majority of about 350 votes. In response to my quoting you out of context, this was the longest article I have yet posted and I attempted to maximize the amount of direct quotes and minimize my responses so the candidates' words could speak for themselves.
I did read your entire profile and there was lots of material I wanted to use, like "we know the results of having undereducated people who are hopeless and in despair.".* As a student I was penalized for being smarter than the other kids and as a result I have fewer points in the job market today than many who are less educated than me, so who is undereducated? Perhaps you should have said "we know the results of anyone who opposes the school system who are hopeless and in despair".
I believe from your profile that you are probably honest, hard-working and well-intentioned in your fight against the industrialists and city planners. I don't think anyone disagrees that poverty and run-down facilities are a problem. Speaking as a patron of a different institution however I hope you will understand that you definitely belong on my blacklist with your fellow academicians, and the words in your profile definitely show that affinity in force. The biggest problem with public schools is that they are "perceived" as education when they are actually not, so the perception of the school system you described is completely accurate in my opinion and the people have said so. Perception is going to be hard for your institution to maintain in the 21st Century, because as homeschooling grows public schools will discover they are only one competitor among many, and do not have the monopoly on education that obligates any child to attend or passes the responsibility of poverty and other civic issues into your hands.
For our readers, a majority of the candidates I rated against were elected to office. The one victor among those I praised was Keith West of 7th District who won by 15 votes. (Although I spoke well of incumbent Betsy Carr she had both positive and negative aspects to her platform from a Libertarian viewpoint.) It should be noted that several of the candidates I rated poorly were unopposed, and several of the challengers ran against each other. Candidate Doug Goodwein of 8th District whom I mentioned favorably also wrote to us with his opinions. For full election results go to http://originmedia.gatewayva.com/rtd/multimedia/Election06/Results/.

*http://www.richmond.com/election/output.aspx?Article_ID=4392816&Vertical_ID=127&tier=1&position=2

If you have opinions you'd like to add to this thread please send them to henrico@richmondliberty.org and they will be posted!

Posted by Robert Russo at 11:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

by Robert Russo

            We all use the internet as a vehicle for promoting or researching Libertarianism, but to date I have never seen our way of life (or any social guidelines for that matter) applied toward the online community itself.  Millions of users are connected every second of the day and yet there is no defense of their liberties against totalitarianism.  I am not speaking of censorship of the material we see online, for that was an issue of people first discovering this realm to research or check email that doesn’t require them to interact with other online citizens.  I mean the time one spends in social situations (chat rooms, message boards, private messaging) in the company of fellow users.  This realm is one of those social voids in our society which is constantly used but never acknowledged.  When one gets up from the desk it ceases to be.  I hear continuously the opinion of the part-time user who connects once a day to do research or send his email, saying that what happens online is not to be taken seriously. For some time I have wanted to write the opposite, the deterioration of the internet from the perspective of a fulltime user, for a general audience.

A decade ago when many of us logged in for the first time, competing ISP's offered a complete online experience to those who had never had one before. Chat rooms, message forums, downloads, one didn't even have to use the Web to enjoy themselves. AOL was at the head of this small pack. Then when Netscape and Internet Explorer debuted, they became AOL's biggest competitors not by offering similar services, but advertising lower rates and better connectivity without mentioning they had nothing AOL has, just a web browser with email. In most areas of business a competitor does not succeed by targeting people who don't want the full product or don't know it exists. But AOL is still so addictive it has become a monopoly (not necessarily of its own accord), offering AIM and connection services to non-members because their own ISP's won't provide it. It has no peers as an online business provider.

In the early days of chatting there was no limit to how many people could fit in a room. It was like the Wild West where the defense of oneself and others against jerks and predators was in one's own hands. Users could say what they pleased and download software to punt people offline they didn't like (much like the Second Amendment allows us to protect ourselves in the real world). This gave patrons of a forum a degree of control over staying on topic and challenging the detractor. (In a world of only words, character and determination have value.) Now on AOL there are no visible moderators, no tolerance for any language that could be considered hurtful, and the patrons of a room are at the mercy of whoever comes in next. Conversation is an eavesdropped farce where the last person standing is the one who rats on everyone else.

Most non-AOL chatters use webchat, a far more complex program. Each website is a private enterprise so there is no way to judge them all. In one of the most successful long-standing webchats, I have observed this same "code of civility" maintained by a mafia-like staff of moderators 24/7. Honest bickering and defense of one's neighbor are forbidden, instead the chatters demand a setting that is free of issues or dissent at any cost. The result is a favored clique of chatters who can have anyone of their choosing removed because they are trusted, even when they are shouting obscenities. A host enters, identifies the disruption (the minority) and boots them. In this way the hosts are puppets and don't abide by the rules that come with being a moderator (a moderator does not take sides, a moderator does not use their authority to enforce their personal opinion). If there is griping about the website or its staff the participants in this discussion lose their accounts. This is a preview of how our society in the real world might someday be.

People complain ad nauseum but the response from the webmaster or ISP is always the same, "it's just chat". The national media now respects bloggers, and yet people refuse to acknowledge there is a society here and it has the same problems and solutions of a society. I am not advocating a lifestyle where people sit in front of a screen all day as the only source of their comradery and attention, but if they are going to be online they should be able to do so without the headaches and helplessness of having no rights. The answer is not dictatorship or gang-warfare, it is the promotion of a better online citizen. To do this one must take their time and their words seriously, even on the computer, as they would in any aspect of their life where attention is needed to work and play unhindered.

Question of the Week: Were your rights of free speech online ever denied or taken down? If so do you believe this problem is better addressed online or offline? Please send your experiences to henrico@richmondliberty.org.

If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!

Posted by Robert Russo at 11:10 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The next C&E Gunshow is Dec 2-3. As usual the LP will have an Info table. We need volunteers to work the table.

Show Hours:
Sat. 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Sun. 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Standard shifts are
9:00-1:00 and 1:00-5:00 on Saturday
10:00-1:30 and 1:30-5:00 on Sunday

Partial shifts are ok too.

The gunshow is held at the Showplace on Mechanicsville Turnpike. in Richmond, VA.

Directions: I-64 to Exit 192...go East on 360 (Mechanicsville Turnpike) ...go 3/4 mile and The Showplace is on the left.

The address is 3000 Mechanicsville Turnpike.

Parking is free. Anyone who works a whole shift gets into the show for free!

To volunteer contact Leonard Harris at gunshow@richmondliberty.org

Posted by Leonard Harris at 09:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Delegate Bill Janis will address the Patrick Henry Supper Club on Dec 5, 2006. Del. Janis will cover upcoming issues in the General Assembly and answer questions.

Full Bio on Del Janis can be found at: http://www.billjanis.com/biography.asp

As usual the PHSC meets at:
Eastern Buffet
7586 W. Broad St.
Richmond, VA 23294
(in Merchants Walk Shopping Center)

6:00pm Dinner 7:00pm main event.

Posted by Leonard Harris at 08:43 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Virginia Citizens Defense League will have a meeting on Wed. Nov 22. The meeting starts at 7 PM, but fellowship begins at 6:30. Afterwards the group will adjourn to a local restaurant for continued fellowship.
The meeting is going to be held at the new Tuckhoe Library Henrico

Tuckahoe Area Library
1901 Starling Drive
Richmond VA 23229
Ph: (804) 270-9578

Complete Details about the meeting can be found at: http://www2.vcdl.org/cgi-bin/wspd_cgi.sh/vcdl/vadetail.html?RECID=994464

Posted by Leonard Harris at 08:36 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The next Henrico county LP meeting will be Wednesday, Nov 15 th at the Dumbarton Library (6800 Staples Mill Rd) from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM. LPHC Members are welcome to observe the meeting.

Posted by Leonard Harris at 08:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

From Jonathan Giuffrida:

A UK-based Privacy International organization just released a report on surveillance societies around the globe, and the U.S. is, of course, near the bottom. The rankings were based on scores in such categories as privacy enforcement, visual surveillance, law enforcement access, and democratic safeguards. The U.S. received a raw score of 2.0 out of 5, placing it below every single country in the European Union except the United Kingdom. The highest-ranking countries were Germany and Canada. The report says that America is especially prone to workplace monitoring and an apathetic leadership.

The chart and map are here: http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-545269

The report is here: http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2005/aboutphrtable.pdf

Posted by Leonard Harris at 06:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Just before the election Dick Armey wrote in the Washington Post

Where did the [Republican] revolution go astray? How did
we go from the big ideas and vision of 1994 to the cheap political
point-scoring on meaningless wedge issues of today -- from passing
welfare reform and limited government to banning horsemeat and
same-sex marriage?

Good Question. As someone who watched excitedly as Newt Gingrich
became the first Republican speaker in four decades, I partly agree
with Armey when he says: Republican lawmakers forgot the
party's principles, became enamored with power and position, and began
putting politics over policy.

Yes the Republicans clearly forgot their principles between 1994 and
now. They delivered only small tax cuts. Then broke their promises to
cut from the budget entire cabinet departments. Instead they've gone
on the costliest spending binge of all time. Non-defense spending has
increased more during the Bush years than any other President. They
fortunately let the Clinton gun ban expire, but that required no
action on their part. There has been no significant attempt to roll
back gun control since the Republicans took control of Congress.

However Republicans principles are not exactly Libertarian principles.
Republicans are generally pretty bad on most civil rights, instead
preferring "law and order." The PATRIOT ACT was certainly not
unexpected. However what they have done recently regarding torture,
habeas corpus, and Posse Comitatus is extreme even for them.

Of course the biggest issue is the War. Republicans again break with
Libertarians and seem to like to wage war (except when it is one of
Clinton's wars). We all know the Iraq War is fast becoming a complete
and total disaster. Most Libertarians realized this would be the
case. Unfortunately Republicans don't seem to be figuring it out.

So the Republicans betrayed their principles of lower taxes, less
spending, and restoring our 2nd amendment rights. However they
delivered on their promises of less freedom and fewer civil rights.
In fact they over delivered here. Finally they got us involved in a
costly and increasingly unpopular war. For a nation that loves peace,
prosperity, and freedom, it is no wonder the Republicans lost this
election.

So what do the Democrats promise us? Of course they will get us out
of the War. They will restore our civil rights. Finally they'll
increase taxes, increase the minimum wage, and "reform" healthcare.

But what is their track record?

Clinton certainly gave us enough small wars and we still have troops
in Bosnia and Kosovo. I seriously doubt they'll take the necessary
action (i.e. deny money for the war) to force Bush to withdraw from
Iraq.

How about the restoration of our civil rights? Most of the current
Democrats voted for the PATRIOT ACT and did little to fix it when it
came up for renewal earlier this year. They had enough votes in the
Senate to filibuster all of the other revocation of our civil rights,
but did not do it. Finally Democrats all too often fall for the trap
that it is government that grants you rights and that there are no
natural rights. It is this thinking kind of thinking that is most
scary to anyone who loves freedom. At best I think we'll see some
moderate "reforms" to restore some of our rights but it won't
significantly undo what the Republicans have done. [Update: I just
saw the next Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, on CNN's
Situation Room. The betrayal has already begun. Pelosi says
impeachment is off the table. Also off the table is cutting funding of
the Iraq war. That was quick! Ok yes impeachment is a bit extreme,
but ending the Iraq war was the whole point.]

So finally we're left with the Democrat's big government agenda.
Increase taxes, increase the minimum wage, and "reform" healthcare.
Since most of the Bush tax cuts were temporary, I'm fairly certain the
Democrats will let them expire (it requires no action on their part so
it is fairly certain to happen).

I think they will succeed in increasing the minimum wage. Most places
pay a lot more than the current minimum wage so it will end up being
mainly a feel-good measure that has little effect. Yes it will force
some companies out of business and make it more difficult for young or
unskilled workers to get jobs, but fortunately this is not an
extremely large segment of the population.

Finally healthcare "reform." Hillarycare will be back along with
several proposals to move us at varying speeds towards fullblown
socialized medicine. This was where the Democrats overreached the
last time they were in power. I have a feeling they will do it again.

In a few more years, people will realize that the Democrats didn't get
us out of the war fast enough, won't restore our civil rights, and
have gone out of control with their "liberal" big government programs.
We'll have another election this time with the Republicans winning
big. Of course they'll once again become corrupted by the political
power and in a few more years the Democrats will have a big electoral
victory who will also once again become corrupted and lead to a big
Republican victory, and so forth and so on ad nauseum.

There is only one solution to this vicious cycle of the two parties
promising freedom, prosperity, and peace, while delivering oppression,
expensive bloated government programs, and war. That solution is the
Libertarian Party. Only by rejecting big government's so-called
solutions, can we ever start returning to traditional American
Constitutional government. Voting for a party that supports some
economic freedoms but supports oppressive government in other areas or
a party that supports some civil rights but supports big government in
economics will end up getting us nothing but more big government
oppression. Only the Libertarian party supports all of your rights
all of the time. Voting for such party is the only way we'll ever fix
the current disaster.

Of course for voters to be able to vote Libertarian, the party needs
to have candidate. If you are a Libertarian or anyone who wants to
see change, you need to run or otherwise get involved. There was only
one Libertarian candidate this year. That was Bill Wood up in 10th
Congressional District (about as far away from Richmond as you can
get). That needs to change for next year, when the entire General
Assembly and a number of Board of Supervisors (Henrico is one of them)
and City Councils are up for election. To run, please contact your
local Libertarian Party.

Posted by Leonard Harris at 07:35 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

According to
http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/06/11/06/2132216.shtml

HBO's Hacking Democracy Special Report is Online on Google Video.

I haven't seen it, but apparently it is a scathing expose on electronic voting machines.

Posted by Leonard Harris at 08:42 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

by Robert Russo

This weekend’s domestic headlines were dominated by the scandal of a top evangelist who resigned over sex and drugs. With such a regularity of church-related indignities these days one must wonder why people allow an institution where a person has influence over the most core lifestyle of countless others, then admits he is "a deceiver and a liar" once he is caught expecting forgiveness.* It seems no different from mainstream politics except that public office doesn’t normally come with redemption.
It is not a question of what offenses occurred because job approval and standards are a part of everyday life, without unnecessary widespread social repercussions. Human shortcomings and disagreements are universal. It is the fact that this individual was placed in such an influential situation that is the problem. God can be trusted, individuals can be trusted, but an institution cannot be trusted because the boardroom and a long tier of safeguards prevent the decisions, insight or control of one person. It acts with its own mind. It can’t be reasoned with and it can’t be stopped by any one voter.
This condemnation of the individual, viewing him as the source of corruption in a spirit of fairness toward ensuring the common goal stems from our traditional American fear of dictatorship, and a long history of human error being the most newsworthy setbacks to any device or pragmatic goal. To ensure that no individual is a threat to that goal takes from us the rest of our humanity and keeping what was initially one man’s pragmatism from governing itself, uncontrollable. Since all ideas spring from the individual human mind, all modern institutions are merely the evolution of one tycoon’s dream, every science a furthering of one man’s theory. It is almost communist now in its implications, teaching people they have no real say.
In making life easier and more profitable everyone seeks a monopoly, making government the ultimate monopoly. We must evict this delegation and procrastination of our needs, choices and actions. Churchgoers will be better off seeking God directly or through small parishes with no bureaucracy; employees would be more empowered to complete their tasks without someone looking over their shoulder; political groups and even volunteer organizations would be truer to their goals without a national office; and citizens would be better served in totality by local representation, unless that body relinquishes control and serves only as a connection and meeting place to pursue greater causes. If a Democrat or Republican sees no chance of being a major contributor to their party because it has become too big and too cemented in its ways, what good is their being a member?

*http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/05/haggard.allegations/index.html

Send your opinions to henrico@richmondliberty.org.
If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!

Posted by Robert Russo at 04:17 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I'd like to encourage people to vote for the children on Tuesday.

Two of my close friends have been together for fourteen years, and they have two children, twelve and seven years old. They're delightful, and both of their mothers love them very much.

Their birth mother stays at home, minds the house, and home-schools the children. Their other mother works at her profession, pays the mortgage and other bills, and helps with the house and the kids.

Since the parents realize that sometimes bad things can happen, they've taken the precaution of making a contract (something that would not have been necessary if they had been allowed to marry). The breadwinner has acknowledged that the children are hers, and that she assumes full responsibility for their care and education. Should they break up, or if their birth mother should die, the children are provided for. Also, the birth mother and the children have been covered for years under the other mother's insurance policy at work.

That is, they are provided for right now. If the so-called marriage amendment is passed, both the insurance and the contract will be explicitly nullified, since they are intended to provide the "rights, benefits, [and] obligations" of marriage. That means that if the birth mother or either of the children should have a serious illness, the insurance that they've been paying for will not be allowed to cover it, and the family will go bankrupt. It also means that if the birth mother should die, their other mother will no longer have an obligation, nor even any right, to care for them. The Commonwealth would have to take the children and place them in an orphanage or in foster homes.

Please, vote for the children, and defeat the so-called marriage amendment.

-- Roy B. Scherer
-- Richmond

Posted by Leonard Harris at 12:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

David Lively writes:

> Torture is legal, Habeas Corpus is gone, and now Posse Comitatus is in trouble...
>
> What's left?
>
> Here's an article about it http://sf.indymedia.org/print.php?id=1732834

[Editor's Note: Whatever is left, don't tell them or they'll try to take that too]

Posted by Leonard Harris at 06:51 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

by Robert Russo

            This election day nineteen candidates will vie for seats on the Richmond School Board, including five competitors for the 5th District seat alone (vacated by Chairman Stephen Johnson last April over possession of marijuana at Richmond airport).*   And yet once again, looking at this myriad of choices most of them seem to be cut from the same political cloth, leading one to wonder if they’ll all be spending election night at a restaurant together rather than separate camps.  Here is a short review of the contenders from the perspective of a Libertarian antiacademic.

            The format for the profiles submitted by each candidate visible on Richmond.com begins with the heading of Family (which is meaningless in gauging a job candidate), then Place of Employment, Educational Background and Civic Involvement (all of questionable relevance).  Twelve of the candidates list where their children are enrolled or will be enrolled (to ensure the age factor does not preclude their enduring loyalty to this institution).  Among their qualifiers two candidates list heredity, three list loyalty to the school system, and four consider being a parent qualification to hold public office.

            Seven of the candidates name poverty as their primary platform.  Now poverty is certainly one of Richmond’s most immediate problems and if one wants to battle it they should either roll up their sleeves and help people directly or run for government office in which neighborhood conditions fall under their jurisdiction, but what does being on the school board have to do with this?  Several attempts to explain this connection are made, the most common being the idea that public schools are a person’s only vehicle to getting a better job and therefore get out of poverty.  This simplistic view is like helping a stranded motorist by telling him to get a better insurance policy.  It assumes that public schools are the only source of knowledge for the workplace, and that jobs are a reliable way to get out of social situations.  If I were on the school board I would not be trying to manipulate society, but pass on education for education’s sake. Others suggest that poverty is merely a crime against the school system by distracting students from program, with words like "When students with issues enroll in school, they bring those problems with them into the classroom, thus taking away much needed instructional time and misuse of talented teachers."** Out of curiosity, what wouldn't be a misuse of teachers?

Candidate Gregory Day of 5th District names truancy as his first platform, writing "Everyone should watch out for children not in school, it is a coordination and responsibility of churches, community organization, police, libraries, area businesses, etc., to be vigilant and to be of service to determine and correct the problems for their not being in school.".** He rounds out his argument with the rather idiotic "I view the solutions to RPS concerns in S-T-E-P-S which means safety, truancy, education, and parental involvement which equals success."** Carol Wolf who runs unopposed in 3rd District believes in "assisting those citizens outside of the school by eliminating one of the possible reasons that a child would be 'legitimately' not in school."*** Hopefully the anticipated homeschooling boom, if not the election itself, will disrupt the plans of a single business trying to recruit the entire city to round up its non-customers. Donald Coleman of 7th District plainly states "Reality stares at us declaring: 'You can't educate a child that is not in school!'"**** We can and we are.

Asking the candidates to identify the biggest problem schools face is like pulling teeth. Three candidates name "perception" as a major concern. Art Burton of 6th District is fighting "the perception that the school system is unfit for our children, that our leadership does not listen to our community and does not care about the hardships of the disadvantaged".***** How about actually making it care about those things and let people judge for themselves? Coleman says flat-out "Community perception can be changed by a positive marketing campaign to tell the story of what is good about RPS. Developing quality slogans and brand identity would be a part of this campaign.".****

Loyalist agendas such as these seem like competition for positions the board itself is appointing, not the variety of approaches and directions the electoral process is supposed to offer. Kim Bridges who is unopposed in 1st District with a background that includes the RPC Attendance Zone Task Force writes "we can leverage community and family involvement to overcome the obstacles to academic success."****** Really, leveraging the community to service the school system. Lisa Dawson who is unopposed in 2nd District when asked what is the most pressing issue replies "we are continuing to determine the appropriate qualitative and quantitative level of ongoing assessments, as well as supporting the programs which make that school so well loved by its stakeholders."******* What does that mean? George Braxton of 4th District cites an interesting problem, "Lack of consistency in the leadership of our school system. This is a problem that plagues many urban school districts. There is often a constant turnover of elected school boards due to the political aspiration of the candidates and the dissatisfaction of the residents. Too often, fledgling politicians and rudderless activists seeking elected office and public notoriety gravitate to a job that should involve minimal politics and activism. This leads to turnover of Superintendents and the constant change of educational strategy in the system.".******** So it is the democratic process itself that is objected to; too impractical. As Dawson puts it, "The bottom line is that we all want the same things and as long as we focus on that we should be able to handle how to get there."******* If this is true why bother having debates?

There do appear to be some exceptions however. The 5th District incumbent Betsy Carr who was appointed, not elected to that seat, admits "Choice of academic and other opportunities are essential for our children. ...Magnet schools for math and science, the arts, leadership development, Montessori learning, and vocational training deserve full consideration. Regardless of where children live, they should have access to the programs that best suite their unique interests and needs."** To the question School board members must not only work with one another and with the superintendent, but also with Richmond City Council and Mayor Wilder. How would you balance all of these relationships? challenger Raymond Gargiulo responds with "I would be guided only by the essential welfare of the students as expressed by their parents and citizens of the Fifth District. These are the issues I would first fight for. Issues that promote the comfort, convenience, and business advantage of mayor, superintendent, city council, and school board; I will fight against."** Keith West of 7th District tackles it succinctly as well with "Balance implies harmony. I'm not sure balancing these relationships is the goal. The school board's first duty is to the students by way of the voters. It needs to be a strong advocate for the children in our schools."****

Ronald Bond of 7th District advises "more patience and a more effective way to teach. Thus, giving the child an opportunity to learn not at a pace, but rather the way he or she may learn best."**** West states a refreshing "These reports outline a failed organization. Any time an organization is failing, the problem rests with the leadership. What needs to be done is not rocket science."**** Alfred Goodwein of 8th District hits the nail squarely with "Good district representation beyond 'hobby representation' where a school board representative supports the aims of education and not the self-serving interest of the school administration."********* ('Hobby representation' is synonymous with 'parental representation' in my view.) West makes a rather startling admission, "I had no choice but to attend public schools. Seven of my school years were spent in inner city schools of poor quality. Having experienced the feeling of injustice at being trapped in under-performing schools, it's not an experience I would wish on anyone."****. One would think this would lead someone to be antiacademic, but every one of these candidates still has one foot in the academic pool. Poor facilities and closing schools top the biggest concerns. Hopefully each voter can derive the glimmers of awareness of the greater educational spectrum that trickle through and not allow the usual monopoly of academicians to hold every seat. For details on all the candidates go to http://www.richmond.com/education/output.aspx?Article_ID=4385941&Vertical_ID=11&tier=3&position=8.
 
*http://www.richmondtimesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149191426341&path=%21news&s=1045855934842
**http://www.richmond.com/education/output.aspx?Article_ID=4385941&Vertical_ID=11&tier=3&position=8.
***http://www.richmond.com/election/output.aspx?Article_ID=4369718&Vertical_ID=175&tier=2&position=1
****http://www.richmond.com/election/output.aspx?Article_ID=4395934&Vertical_ID=127&tier=1&position=1
*****http://www.richmond.com/election/output.aspx?Article_ID=4392816&Vertical_ID=127&tier=1&position=2
******http://www.richmond.com/election/output.aspx?Article_ID=4350838&Vertical_ID=175&tier=2&position=1
*******http://www.richmond.com/election/output.aspx?Article_ID=4360436&Vertical_ID=175&tier=2&position=1
********http://www.richmond.com/election/output.aspx?Article_ID=4377825&Vertical_ID=175&tier=2&position=1
*********http://www.richmond.com/education/output.aspx?Article_ID=4409527&Vertical_ID=131&tier=1&position=2

Question of the Week: If the Libertarian Party were to run a successful district takeover, what changes in the school system would you like to see? Send your opinions to henrico@richmondliberty.org.

If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input.
 

Posted by Robert Russo at 10:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Who to vote for in Nov?

I have pondered this a lot more than any other election. Here is my conclusion.

There are three people on the ballot for US Senate.

Posted by Leonard Harris at 02:07 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)