Great Quotes from Maryland Libertarians

"The undeclared, unconstitutional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are bankrupting us. The missions keep changing to justify our going in and staying in. We went into Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein, who supposedly was developing weapons of mass destruction. When WMD's were not found, the mission changed to removing a bad man who was oppressing his people. Well, there are many tyrants doing that around the world. How many countries are we going to invade? It can't be done. We went into Afghanistan to get Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda for what they did on 9/11. Now the story is that we're fighting the Taliban and nation building. This is policy shape shifting."  

Lorenzo Gaztañaga

Libertarian Candidate for Congress

District 2, Maryland

Great Quotes from Maryland Libertarians - Josh Crandall

"One of the biggest obstacles to lowering taxes is that by lowering taxes we have to reduce government spending, thereby reducing government handouts. I guess what people don't understand is that when you have more of your own money because you're paying less taxes, you don't need the government to provide so much for you. I support lower taxes, more freedom, and a smaller government."

Josh Crandall
Libertarian Candidate for Maryland House of Delegates
District 31

Great Quotes from Maryland Libertarians - Bryan Walker

I am an avid student of Austrian Economics. No government in the history of mankind has ever spent their way to prosperity. I believe in balanced budgets, small government, and the free market. We have not had a free market in this country in the last 100 years. I believe that social and economic freedom are one in the same.



Bryan Walker
Candidate for Maryland House of Delegates
District 21

Great Quotes from Maryland Libertarians

"We should not have to sacrifice one Marylander’s income in favor of another’s. We all work hard for our money, and we all deserve to enjoy it."

Justin Kinsey

Libertarian Candidate for Maryland House of Delegates

District 5b

WMDT 47 Article -- Dr. Davis Preparing For 1st District --

Latest News
by - Amber Watson
09/29/2010
  HURLOCK, Md. - The Congressional race in Maryland's First District is heating up.
While many in the race are focusing on job creation, Libertarian candidate Dr. Richard Davis says he is more concerned about cutting government spending and stabilizing the dollar.

Dr. Davis has lived in Hurlock for about 28 years and says he is in touch with several of the concerns of Eastern Shore residents. He believes the job crisis will end, once government gets a handle on spending and reduces the debt. "I think part of the reason there's a problem with jobs is because it's so hard to hire people with all the regulations, all the taxes and insurances and fees that are mandated. It just discourages people from hiring," said Dr. Davis. He says he would also like to extend some existing tax cuts to help businesses.

Read the rest at WMDT

Great Quotes from Maryland Libertarians

"As an edu­ca­tor, I have seen the ben­e­fits of choice and inno­va­tion in edu­ca­tion. As an econ­o­mist and actu­ary, I see the mas­sive eco­nomic growth that school choice can give Mary­land. A school-choice voucher pro­gram would help our stu­dents sur­pass their inter­na­tional com­pe­ti­tion, reduce costs, and build our economy."

Arvin Vohra
Libertarian Candidate for Maryland House of Delegates
District 15

Great Quotes from Maryland Libertarians

"It's time to take a good, hard look at what the Federal Reserve does, and at what it has done to both to the economy, and to the US dollar.

If, after careful examination, it is determined that this is an institution that has done more harm than good (a position stated in Ron Paul's End the Fed, and in Murray Rothbard's The Case Against the Fed), then it should be abolished."

Scott Spencer

Libertarian Candidate for Congress

District 7, Maryland

Great Quotes from Maryland Libertarians

"Our country is bankrupt. Our representatives in Congress and the Senate don't want to talk about it, but it's true. This is a greater threat to our national security than any terrorist organization, and it's a threat we have created ourselves. Acknowledging the fact that we're bankrupt will allow us to start fixing it. We need the right person in Congress -- me."

Lorenzo Gaztañaga
Libertarian Candidate for Congress 
District 2, Maryland

A Citizen's Guide to Federal Firearms Laws

National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action

A summary of federal restrictions on the purchase, sale, possession, and transportation of firearms and ammunition.
Caution: Firearm laws are subject to frequent change and court interpretation. This summary is not intended as legal advice or restatement of law. This summary does not include state or local laws, ordinances, or regulations. For any particular situation, a licensed local attorney must be consulted for an accurate interpretation.

Under federal law supported by the National Rifle Association, the use of a firearm in a violent or drug-trafficking crime is punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of up to 20 years. A second conviction, if the firearm is a machine gun or is equipped with a silencer, brings life imprisonment without release. Violating firearms laws should lead to very real punishment for violent criminals, but the laws first must be enforced.

Ineligible Persons
The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:

• Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
• Fugitives from justice.
• Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
  
• Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
• Illegal aliens.
• Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
• Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
• Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
• Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
• Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
• Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

 

Great Quotes from Reagan

“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
– Ronald Reagan, 1975

Great Quotes from Maryland Libertarians - Lorenzo Gaztañaga

"The "war on drugs" has cost billions of dollars, ruined lives, and made all Americans less free, while doing nothing to help the addicted. It's alcohol prohibition redux, and we bleed the billions. The facts are there, and I'm willing to discuss it with anybody."

Lorenzo Gaztañaga
Libertarian Candidate for Congress
District 2, Maryland

Administration's Thuggery Threatens Free Speech...

by Nat Hentoff

On September 9, autocratic Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services secretary, wrote a threatening letter to the national office of America's Health Insurance Plans. Charging these insurance companies with "scare tactics" and "misinformation" about the president's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Sebelius is incensed at their "falsely blam(ing) premium increases for 2011" on this Obamacare.

She warns these miscreants that "there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases." Missing from her edict is where she finds in the Constitution the authority of the executive branch to punish free-speaking critics of the implementation of a law.

And punish she will. There will be an enemies list: "We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014."
Bottom line: Shut up or we'll make you pay.

Read the rest at CATO

How many politicians does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Libertarians say Republicans owe apology, not pledge, to America

WASHINGTON - In response to the recent Republican "Pledge to America," Libertarian Party executive director Wes Benedict released the following statement:

Instead of a "Pledge to America," the Republicans should have written an "Apology to America." It should have gone something like this:
"We're sorry, America. Sorry we grew the federal government budget from $1.7 trillion to over $3 trillion. Sorry we added $5 trillion to the federal debt. Sorry we doubled the size of the Department of Education. Sorry we started two incredibly costly foreign wars. Sorry we supported the absurd and costly TARP bailouts. Sorry we created a huge and costly new Medicare entitlement. Sorry we did nothing to end the costly and destructive War on Drugs. Sorry we did nothing to reform the federal government's near-prohibition on immigration. But hey, at least we helped you by shifting a lot of your tax burden onto your children and grandchildren."
There are so many lies, distortions, hypocrisies, and idiocy in this document that it's hard to know where to start.
It is deeply insulting to see the Republicans refer to "America's founding values" on their cover. The Republican Party has no understanding whatsoever of America's founding values. They have proven and re-proven that for decades.
The document talks a lot about "tax cuts." Unfortunately, the Republican "tax cut" proposals would really do nothing to cut taxes. All their proposals achieve is to defer taxes, pushing the burden onto our children and grandchildren. The only real way to cut taxes is to cut government spending, and the Republican document does almost nothing in that regard.
The Republicans say they want to "roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels." In other words, to re-create the situation near the end of the Bush administration, after Republicans had massively increased federal spending on almost everything.
Republicans must love it when Democrats expand government, because it gives them the opportunity to propose small "cuts," while still ending up with huge government.
One shocking aspect of the document is that it actually includes subtle Republican proposals to increase government spending.
The Republicans offer no plan whatsoever to reduce military spending, America's foreign wars and nation building, or our military defense of rich foriegn nations. On the contrary, the Republicans apparently want to increase military spending, promising to "provide the resources, authority, and support our deployed military requires, fully fund missile defense, and enforce sanctions against Iran."

Big Government, a la carte

by Mark Grannis - Libertarian for Congress MD - 8th District
Even die-hard fans of Big Government usually admit that a wide range of federal programs are pointless or worse. But often I meet people who are so attached to some particular program that they cannot bring themselves to accept any political philosophy that might lead to less money for their favorite. Almost everyone, including me, can find something in a $3.8 trillion budget that is personally appealing even though it can’t be justified on libertarian principles like the non-aggression principle. Whether it’s environmental regulations or high-speed rail or NASA or foreign aid, these people essentially ask: Can’t we embrace the benefits of small government generally but make an exception for my pet program?

This sounds theoretically possible, but I think our experience justifies us in saying it is not.  Big Government seems not to be available a la carte.  We have to take the bad with the good.  And that means that if the choice between private action and government program is at all close, we ought to have a very strong bias for the private option.  Because the pet programs we can’t justify as protections of our persons and property are almost never so great as to be worth the high social cost of a government that acts without strong limits.

It sounds pragmatic to make case-by-case determinations about federal programs instead of sticking to a strong limiting principle like the non-aggression principle. But the problem with ad hoc picking and choosing is that it makes members of Congress practically incapable of saying no to any significant constituency. It’s very hard to bail out banks and then say no to automakers or local governments. It’s very hard to explain why Congress should let the free market work in any sector unless Congress lets the free market work in every sector.  And it's very hard to blow money on any program as idiotic as “cash for clunkers” and then say no to equally idiotic proposals like "cash for caulkers" or "cash for can-openers."  The slope gets very slippery very fast, and we know that for a fact because we’re currently sliding down it at breakneck speed.

Natasha Pettigrew, 1980-2010

I write this in tears. In case you haven't yet heard the dreadful news, Natasha Pettigrew, Green candidate for US Senate died today after being hit by a Cadillac Escalade while riding her bicycle early Sunday morning.

I met her several times on the campaign trail, and she was simply one of the nicest, loveliest young women you could ever hope to meet. Just now, for the first time, I visited her website. Rather than being ideological and shrill, it's full of positivity and wholesomeness. She writes about making herself accessible to her constituents, and making Maryland live up to the words of Lincoln's Gettysburg address: Government of, by and for the people. She mentions her love of running, biking and swimming, and the joy her eight year old, three legged dog Bill gives her.

The first time I met Natasha was at a candidate forum in Westminster. Her mother Kennis was with her as an informal campaign manager and chief supporter. I cannot imagine how devastated she must be to lose her beautiful daughter.

To a certain extent, all of us candidates who represent the Libertarian, Green and Constitution Parties feel that we are on the same side, because we are fighting a common enemy - the Demopublican/Republicrat duopoly. Lorenzo and I had intended to vote for Natasha Pettigrew for US Senate.

Natasha, you are sorely missed.

Susan Gaztañaga
Libertarian candidate for Governor of Maryland

Libertarianism and the Poor

Date: 

Mon, 09/20/2010

Author: 

Mark Grannis

We know free markets produce more prosperity, and we know government spending is often ineffective or worse.  But many are nonetheless reluctant to embrace libertarian ideas because of their commitment to social justice.  Without the welfare state, how would Libertarians take care of the poor?

The short answer is:  Voluntarily.  Libertarians know as well as anyone that many people in our society sometimes find themselves in difficult circumstances through no fault of their own.  We are as likely to believe that looking out for least fortunate among us is not only compassionate but essential to a healthy community.  And many of us, including this writer, come from religious traditions that leave no room for doubt about the obligation to help the poor. For most of us, then, the question is not whether to help the poor, but how.  And our historical experience strongly suggests that government programs just don't improve the welfare of the poor as well as voluntary assistance does.

The first problem with government aid is that it is easily misdirected.  Government anti-poverty programs may be intended as boons for the poor, but they tend to become boondoggles for the powerful.  This shouldn’t surprise us, because when we make charity part of a government budget we inevitably place it in competition with other budgetary priorities.  In a politically driven process, if it’s the nameless needy versus failed Wall Street banks, the needy don’t stand a chance.  The working poor would have a much better chance of getting ahead if they were simply permitted to keep more of what they produce.

Establishment is to blame for country's problems -- consider voting Libertarian

Many years ago, one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, provided us with this warning:

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds ... (we will) have no time to think, no means of calling our mis-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers. ... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for (another) ... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery. ... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

 The greatest threat to our national security and our sovereignty is our national debt. It is not terrorism, Iran or North Korea, but the financial crisis that is bearing down upon us.
Who is to blame for this? The same people we continue to elect to the same seats in every election from the same political parties.
Establishment candidates have prevailed in the primaries in Maryland. There are Libertarian choices on Election Day: Susan Gaztañaga for governor, Dr. Richard Davis for Congress and Mike Calpino for Wicomico County Council District 2.

Don't we need a strong government to protect us from business?

by Mark Grannis- Libertarian Candidate for Congress in Maryland's 8th District

Yesterday we looked at how liberty creates prosperity, and how government interference with our economic liberty distorts investment decisions and makes us worse off. But some people think we need a strong government to protect us from powerful economic interests. That theory sounds reasonable—if you don’t know what it’s like to run a business and you don’t pay any attention to how government works in practice.
But in practice, even large businesses don’t have anything like the power screenwriters give them in the movies. As the late Harry Browne used to say, “No matter how big a business is, you don’t have to deal with it; there’s always an alternative—including not buying at all.” Show me a business that treats its customers the way the Post Office and the Motor Vehicle Administration do, and I’ll show you a stock you should short.

And in practice, career politicians and industry regulators almost always use government to advance the interests of the largest and most politically connected businesses rather than their smaller competitors or their customers. Indeed, when I ask people to give me an example of a business from which they need to be protected, most reach for government-sponsored monopolies, like the old AT&T. Occasionally someone mentions a firm that figured prominently in the credit meltdown of late 2008, but those firms would no longer exist if it weren’t for their political clout. As a purely economic matter, the free market was all set to discipline those firms with bankruptcy until the government stepped in.

LP Monday Message: Candidates, Campaigns, Polls, Fundraising

Dear Friend of Liberty,

We have a great slate of over 800 Libertarian candidates for the upcoming November elections. Many of them are looking for more coverage on our website, in our emails, and in LP News. They want publicity, donations and help. That's a good thing.

Unfortunately, there's just too much information about our candidates for us to convey directly. And even though there are probably a hundred candidates around the country who would be happy to email all Libertarians nationwide each week, we know that you might not appreciate getting that much unsolicited email.

We have to rely on our state and local affiliates to provide announcements about the campaigns. I also encourage you to seek out candidates you might be interested in, and get more information. You can visit all 800 candidates listed here. Some of them have websites with email announcements you can sign up for.

Even though it's impossible to give you a picture of what's going on with all our candidates, I would like to pass along some notes about a few of this year's campaigns. (The selection of campaigns is arbitrary, but hopefully interesting, even if you live in a different state.)