The Free? State Libertarian is published three times/year by the Libertarian Party of Maryland. All material is copyrighted 2002 and may be reproduced, provided credit is given as follows: "Reprinted from the Free? State Libertarian."
Email: LPMD.Newsletter*ICengineering.com (preferably)
Mail: LPMD Newsletter, PO Box 321, Owings Mills, MD 21117
Fax: 801-640-0953
Newsletter submissions are solicited.
Editor: Robert E. Glaser
Check www.MD.LP.org regularly for the current event calendar, news, email listserves, photo album, and more! Be certain to submit all of your current event information to LPMD.Event*ICengineering.com to get the information online.
The views expressed by contributors to this publication are not necessarily the views of the Libertarian Party of Maryland, its Executive Board, or the Central Committee. The Free? State Libertarian is a first amendment publication, and welcomes diverse participation from many sources.
P.O. Box 2343, Annapolis, MD 21404-2343
1-800-MLP-1776
BBS: 301-656-4714
National LP HQ: 202-333-0008
List Serves: MdLP-Announce-subscribe*YahooGroups.com
Discussion MdLP-subscribe*YahooGroups.com
News MdLP-News-subscribe*YahooGroups.com
The Free? State Libertarian is mailed to all Libertarian Party of Maryland members and paid subscribers. You may have received a gratis copy (mailing label says "Join the MD Libertarian Party") because you are registered Libertarian, are a member of the National Libertarian Party, or requested information. We appreciate you acting to: join the MdLP with the back page form (if you're a National member, it's only $5 more than National-only for both Md + National if you renew through us!); join the Central Committee; become a newsletter subscriber only (send $15 to above address); and/or register Libertarian (when we get 1% of the state registered, we can run candidates without petition signatures).
State Executive Board Officers
Hows Spear's Gubernatorial Campaign Doing?
I Pledge Allegiance to the Hype
Hypocrisy of Living Wage matched only by ignorance
Regarding the Living Wage issue
Quotations from the Shafer Commission
Prepare for a Return to Deficit Spending and a Steady Erosion of Freedoms
The MdLP Program and the Land Tax
Reynolds (kind of) Wins Speech Contest
From the Trenches ... County Chapter Notes
Regularly Scheduled Libertarian Gatherings
Chairman: Nick Sarwark 301-439-2139 NSarwark*cuc.edu
Vice Chairman: Shannon McMenamin 301-770-7358 ShannMc*yahoo.com
Secretary: Robert E. Glaser 410-363-8748 N3IC*ICengineering.com
Treasurer: Joe Miller 410-789-3899 hatsIwear*aol.com
Comm. Director: Chip Spangler 301-346-2361 Media*md.lp.org
Membership: Steven Sass 410-602-8401 Crestln*erols.com
Outreach: Glenn Howard 301-585-1793 Glenn*tidalwave.net
The executive board meets monthly. All meetings are open. Contact Nick
Sarwark for date and location.
Anne Arundel County: Michael Dobak 410-798-6550 MDobak*toad.net
Baltimore City: Susan Gaztañaga 410-325-2813 DiazVivar*aol.com
Baltimore County: Steve Boone 410-789-4249 GoobGrover*aol.com
Caroline County: Allen Thomas 410-634-1540 gts*crosslink.net
Carroll/Howard County: Kevin Wolf 410-552-0616 Wolf8495*aol.com
Cecil County: Valerie McGlothlin 410-658-3063 LPCC*dol.net
Charles County Glenn Faini
Frederick County: Mike Barnes MontyBarnes*yahoo.com
Harford County: Roy J. Meyers III 410-879-5300 RMeyers*rjcc.net
Montgomery County: Steve Wilson ltsjdad*aol.com
Prince Georges County: Chip Spangler 301-346-2361senator*corrupt.net
Somerset County: Harry Hall
Washington County: Kurt Saberg 301-241-3036
Wicomico: Graham Couzens 410-726-1733 Objreason*aol.com
Worcester: William Wolf wthwolf*yahoo.com
Columbia Union College: Derek Pomery kyberneticist*yahoo.com
Johns Hopkins University: Aaron Back Amb18*jhu.edu
Loyola College: Jude Daniel Blanchette JBlanchette1*yahoo.com
McDaniel College: Jeremy Keil Liberty*wmdc.edu
Salisbury State University: Mike Wilson Wilson2882*yahoo.com
University of Baltimore: Troy Zinderman TroyZinderman*comcast.net
U. of Md./Balto. County Rich Goldman rich1*umbc.edu
U. of Md./College Park Graham Couzens Objreason*aol.com
Last year, the Maryland Libertarian Party decided to move its annual convention from the Fall to the Spring season in order to free time up for candidates in November during election years. Since this was the transition point, it seemed like only yesterday from our last convention's date (October 27) to the 2002 convention, held on May 11 at the Timbuktu Restaurant near BWI airport. The opening speaker was Declan McCullagh, Washington Bureau Chief of Wired News; he is an award-winning journalist and founder of the www.Politechbot.com mailing list (high quality, low density). Declan called himself a libertarian-leaning journalist; his colleagues don't know what to make of him. They're not sure what the difference is between conservatives and libertarians.
He
spoke on "Reduction of Liberties in Post 9/11 America." After
9/11, we kept hearing from politicians that we need to reconsider the tradeoff
between security and civil liberties - as if it is a zero-sum gain. He
sees liberty as promoting security, through public scrutiny. We
protect freedom of speech partly because it creates channels to promote
change. Two days after 9/11, Congress passed Combating Terrorism Act legislation
to "fight terrorism." It provides looser restrictions on surveillance.
But first, they must know who to wiretap. An "Immediate threat"
does not need a court order. It calls to ban non-government backdoor encryption.
When Congress passed the USA Patriot Act (signed into law in October),
it gave law enforcement the powers it had long asked for.
Search and Seizure: The Supreme Court had held that police cannot dispense with an announcement except in very rare circumstances. Under the new act, they can go into a house, take possessions, and leave - without ever notifying the owner of the police's presence or takings. The Act applies to everybody in the USA, not just suspected terrorists. The CIA has never supposed to have been involved in law enforcement, or to act in the USA. The Act gave the CIA the power of the grand jury, without any of the protections attached to the grand jury; agents can use the grand jury information even if it is never introduced into court. Phones can be tapped and activities surveilled - but if no charges are ever brought, all of the information is kept - and the target is never informed. Biochemical attacks and computer hacking are considered terrorism. It weakens the role of the court system, relieving the government of the requirement to focus on specific areas by collecting a lot more information on people with the hope that something will turn up. The NSA is drowning in the information that it already collects. He mentioned the Magic Lantern FBI virus, which has been installed surreptitiously on a user's computer in order to store and relay keystrokes of those targeted. Declan wrapped up by saying that the end goal is to have a free and just society, not just to get terrorists.
Steve
Boone was the next speaker. As past MdLP Chair, and present campaign manager
for the Spear Lancaster for Governor effort, Steve needed no introduction
to the Maryland crowd. He talked about his campaign for Vice Chair of the
Libertarian National Committee (LNC). Maryland has a reputation for being
somewhat independent from the National Libertarian Party. We have maintained
a civil relationship with headquarters, while keeping a jaundiced eye.
National has promoted membership increase as a major goal. But the Party
membership has tanked on a national level. New members have failed to renew.
National has prepared a renewed membership campaign. Steve's opponent has
been part of the past national leadership. Steve says that a cookie cutter
approach just doesn't get the job done. A Party whose goal is decentralization
should not try to centralize the Party. This year we have the opportunity
for a change at the top. He is running as an independent, though that could
possibly change in the future. When asked what changes he would make, he
mentioned that there has been discussion about sending fieldmen in to help
local parties who need support. He would like to reduce the emphasis on
libertarians targeting right-wingers to join, and create party literature
which appeals to liberals. Steve's campaign site is www.SteveBoone.org.
Spear
Lancaster introduced Lee Havis, founder of the Maryland Public Assembly
(MPA). Spear had lunch with Lee recently, and discussed how our organizations
can come together. Lee suggests that we need to form coalitions. Government
is not our parents, God, or the church. Government is a way to collectively
solve problems that we cannot solve ourselves. Laws are agreements that
people make among themselves; but laws need to be interpreted. Our country's
founders based it on freedom. MPA is nonpartisan, but it is based on the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We rail against the government,
but we don't take responsibility for it. You just can't ignore what
government does. When he was young, Lee worked for McCarthy because he
didn't want to go to Vietnam. We can blame many people for our problems
- but we are responsible for ourselves. After an election, someone
will win office. We need to speak out and make our views known. Most people
won't know who the minor candidates are; but getting endorsements can make
a difference. He wants to get as many good people elected as possible.
MPA (www.wdn.com/trust/mpa) needs members; Lee invites us to get
involved.
Speaker
Tom Bryer was also introduced by Spear Lancaster. Spear had met Tom at
a lunch in DC, and Tom impressed Spear as a man of character. Tom is an
all partisan independent candidate for the Maryland House of Delegates,
in Charles county, and came to speak on "Building Coalitions Among
Third Parties." He is on a council for excellence in government in
DC (which promotes better management of government, and promotes e-government).
He has learned that much of what government does is wasteful. Tom wants
an all partisan coalition to serve not the politician, but the voter.
He wants open ballots, and to base decisions on effectiveness, working
hand-in-hand with citizens. To create a partnership between government
and citizens, government shouldn't direct the public. When asked
about a right-to-carry law, he said his first reaction is yes. His campaign
information can be found at www.ThomasBryer.com while his organization's
website is www.ReformAmericaInc.org.
Doug
Leard is Outreach Director for the Alliance for the Separation of School
& State, and he spoke on "Taking Back Responsibility for Education."
He founded the Montgomery County LP in Pennsylvania, and favors government
ending public education. Doug thinks that this is a vital issue for libertarians.
As he sees in LP News, there are many issues for libertarians. Why
does education stand out? Unlike healthcare, which is a mixture
of government and the free market, education is pure socialism. We spend
more for education at the federal, state, and local levels than we spend
on anything else other than Social Insecurity. But our government schools
don't work. In Baltimore, less than one third of the students qualified
for promotion. Both employers and parents share a great frustration with
the current educational system. Most parents would take their kids out
of a government school if they could afford it. Teaching is hard work,
but teachers also can coast. Teaching jobs are union-based, and as such
are based on seniority, not action. But we have the solution: what
the democrats and republicans suggest is like offering aspirin to a patient
with a brain tumor; the LP is the surgeon ready to cut the tumor out. Additionally,
government schools promote government. When he first discovered
the LP (Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord in 1992) he was so excited - he came to
believe that we will achieve freedom in our lifetimes. But Doug
has come to believe that we never will achieve that if we turn our children
over to the government from the age of five.
There are inherent contradictions: how does a government-paid teacher teach against taxation? He remembers being taught that the Great Depression was caused by a lack of government control. It has been pointed out that many of us were taught by government schools - so what's the problem? But for the 40 of us here at the MdLP convention, how about the millions sitting at home, getting their tax refunds, and thinking, "I'm doing good." The government education system was created to produce obedient citizens. It promotes lifelong learning so that each child can contribute to the community. It doesn't teach independence, but instead teaches that it is everybody's responsibility to help others not even born yet. Government has been using our children for years to expand government. It is time for us to stand up and say that their education is too vital to entrust it to the government. That is why this is a vital issue for the Libertarian Party.
Doug stated that 6.5 million parents are taking responsibility for their children's education by paying for it. 50 million don't take responsibility by using government schools. The goal is to take them out, and get them into private schools. If you don't have a child, contribute to a scholarship fund. His criterion for evaluation of an education cause is simply this: "does it take children out of government schools?" As long as government pays the bill, the problem remains. On vouchers: there will be strings attached, there will be government-approved schools. Vouchers take those independent parents, and makes them dependent upon the government. On tax credits: any scholarship fund that takes government dollars must comply with certain rules. The danger is that government extends its role into the private sector. Many programs have dangerous side effects.
Doug wants to create a groundswell of support in favor of educational freedom. You never know when the government system will collapse - how about the Berlin Wall? The freeest industry in recent times has been the software industry; and look how that industry has progressed. In the movie Pay it Forward, the boy asked that recipients pay it back to another. He wants us to do the same thing, and asked us to sign a proclamation in favor of ending government schools (available at www.SepSchool.org).
Spear
Lancaster next spoke on "Selling Libertarianism." Spear said
that when he first became involved with the Libertarian Party, he was really
taken. But he saw ten people show up for meetings when there should be
50; he asked himself, "why aren't we getting people flocking to us
in greater numbers?" In marketing, you look at the competition (for
libertarians, the competition is Republicans, Democrats, and television);
we don't have their money. He is used to looking at Features, Advantages,
and Benefits of a product. Have we miscalculated? If this is all so great,
why aren't we rich? Spear has come to the conclusion that we don't know
how to sell freedom and liberty. We need to learn how to do just that.
People risked their lives to get from East to West Germany; North Korea to South Korea; and Cuba to the US. When a teenager turns 16, what does he want? A driver's license. Why? to get freedom. People want our product, we just don't know how to sell. Spear went on to discuss the basics of selling: Product knowledge, yours and your competitor. Ask your customer; and How to prospect. We need to find out what people want, and how to get it for them. The customer is not always right, but is always the customer. Take care of him, and he'll take care of you. People want freedom and individual dignity.
We have to be willing to work. We have to go out and meet people. Customers don't just drop in and say that they have money they wish to give away. Listen to what people want, they're not interested in what you want. Show how you can give them what they want. Don't be a Johnny-One-Note. Lots of libertarians have one issue - it's boring, and can become downright insulting. We have the greatest political product there is - we must be proud of it. You can't be effective if you don't know your product.
Nick
Sarwark spoke on the "State of the State." We're in a state where
the politics are run by a single party. Now that the recession is hitting,
people are learning that you can't cut taxes and increase the outgo indefinitely.
The state is pushing into control of local jurisdictions. The MdLP is making
a transition from a social organization into a political party. We are
running candidates: for governor, 6-8 for the House of Delegates, plus
some running at the local level. Now we get to say, "Vote for so-and-so,"
not that we don't have anyone to offer when queried. Nick wants liberty
for those who have tuned out. We're giving them choices now. The
incumbents who have been able to slide by need to pay more attention to
us now. They can't get away with further encroachments on our liberties
any longer. He's excited!
The
auction followed, with Loren-zo Gaztañaga (shown at right pitching
Lady Liberty) capably and profitably handling barking duties (amidst much
heckling from the audience).
Our after-dinner speaker was Kenn Blanchard: Kenn is a self-proclaimed chief evangelist for the right to keep and bear arms, a security consultant, a speaker, and a part-time superhero. He said that after coming home from the Marines, nobody cared what he thought. He was apolitical then. He became a firearms instructor and the CEO of an African American self-protection firm. Everything he does is based on defense. As a kid, Kenn was a safety guard in school. His book, Black Man with a Gun, A Responsible Gun Ownership Manual for African Americans, is a light-hearted approach on gun usage. (Available through www.BlackManWithaGun.net).
He
notes that the libertarian plan calls for respect - that got his
attention. Everyone must go through the elementary stuff in order to master
a subject. In the Marine Corps., everybody goes through basic training.
Everything is a problem until you master it. None of us is as strong
as all of us. The most dangerous guy is the one who can get a mob
together. But simple numbers mean nothing; focus and direction are
everything (our country's founders were a small group). A small group has
power if it recognizes it. What about perception? The perception is that:
Republican = successful businessman; Democrat = soccer Mom; and Libertarian
= ??? People don't know what libertarians are.
Kenn became an advocate of the right to keep and bear arms, because
he wanted to work for himself as a security consultant. Maryland is our
home ground - the toughest fighters are always defending their home turf.
He says that the key to dating for him was conversation and communication.
He sees the same situation with regard to spreading the word about libertarianism.
Sparring mentally is the same as sparring physically; start doing the small
stuff. This party has all the makings of greatness. Where are we going
to go from here? Up. What will it take? Are you contributing to the positive
image of the party? Individualism is the coolest thing - that's what makes
us Americans. He suggests that our group work to assist the ones who need
self-improvement. Kenn advises that flanking works better than a frontal
assault; come directly at people shouting "libertarian, libertarian!"
and they'll scatter. Instead, tell your buddies, "let's play poker,
let's go fishing," etc. Then, while you're playing cards, or waiting
for a bite, mention: "are you registered? Will you sign my petition?"
You'll achieve greater success this way.
Nick
Sarwark presented Defender of Liberty awards to Shannon McMenamin
(photo), Jeremy Keil, Mike Dobak, and Ruth Andrasco, which closed out the
2002 MdLP convention.
As
I write this column, we are less than four months away from the 2002 elections.
This November will be a milestone for the Libertarian Party of Maryland.
We will be running more candidates for office than ever before, and have
a candidate on the ballot for Governor for the first time in our history.
It's an exciting time to be a Libertarian!
Our outreach efforts have reached new heights, with this year's booth at the HFStival garnering over 100 new registered Libertarians, over 500 petition signatures to get Spear Lancaster on the ballot, and gave thousands of young voters a chance to meet a real choice for Governor. All this, and we're just getting started on the summer! Some of our biggest events are yet to come.
Over the Fourth of July holiday many Maryland Libertarians will be joining me as delegates to the National Convention in Indianapolis. Our votes will help determine the next National Chair, how the platform will be revised, and who will represent us on the Libertarian National Committee. For those unable to attend this year's convention, I highly encourage you to attend in 2004. The excitement of being around over 1,000 other Libertarians does wonders for one's spirit.
The Libertarian point of view is being heard the first Sunday morning of every month (from 8:00 - 9:00 am) on Metro Talk, a public affairs radio program broadcast on 100.3 FM and 980 AM in the DC metro area. In the six months I've been appearing, I've noticed more positive responses to the Libertarian perspective from the callers on the show, and the people I meet in public. In addition, Kevin Wolf, the Howard/Carroll party chair, just recently did a panel discussion for a local TV show, and media inquiries keep coming in.
As the summer moves forward and we get nearer to the election, it is vital that we all pull together to support our candidates for office, and our state and local parties. If we all work together, we will achieve great success at the polls, and in our quest to make the Free State truly free! This cannot be accomplished with only the efforts of a few stalwart activists, but requires that everyone pitch in.
I challenge you to do something every month to promote liberty. It doesn't have to be anything extraordinary. Volunteer for a campaign. Man an outreach booth at a fair. Gather petition signatures. Send a contribution to our candidates. Sign a friend up to vote or join the party. Everything you do will help bring us success.
Yours in liberty,
-- Nicholas J. Sarwark
Trevor Reid is running for Maryland's House of Delegates
in the 42nd District. Info at www.VoteReid.org
There was a large crowd at the MdLP booth at the TowsonTowne Spring
Festival on May 4/5
Questions we get are: (1) how are you doing on signatures? (2) how are you doing on money? and (3) how can I help?
(1) How many signatures has the campaign collected, and how many do you figure you'll need? I have reviewed, counted, logged, and filed 24,221. There are, of course, others still out.
The
State has determined that we cannot submit any petition signatures
until they have decided how many we need. The logic is that if we
submit any prior to the time they divine the proper number, we're signing
a cover sheet that says we have a sufficient number to meet the requirements,
which wouldn't be factual, because they don't know what it is. They
think they'll know by July 5th.
We're planning a first turn-in of at least 30,000 on or about July 8. They'll have 20 days from that point to determine how many are valid. We'll continue to collect, however, until they tell us we have sufficient numbers, or until August 5th, when we'll do an insurance turn-in, if needed.
The latest figures show a total state registration of 2,700,121. 1% of that is 27,002 signatures. Registration drives are ongoing, but I don't expect more than 100,000 additional people to register. So I'm basing campaign projections on 28,000 sigs. We had originally said 40,000 signatures, but I think we can get by with 35,000, which is still 25% more than the projected total needed.
In 1998/99, when we submitted signatures for recognition, the validity rate was a little over 80% in all jurisdictions other than Baltimore City. We have less than 10% of the total signatures from the City this time.
(2) How are we doing on money? All campaigns can always use more, and we're no exception. If we had to buy the extra 10,000 signatures between now and August 5th, with current cash on hand, it simply wouldn't happen. Fortunately, we do have folks helping out at outreach events, and Spear is out working, but the fact is that all the volunteer efforts will still not reach it, and we're going to have to pay for more. We have petitioners that we can call on to help if we can afford them. I ask you to consider making a contribution to the campaign to assure we'll have enough to buy the signatures to get on the ballot. It all stops in August, otherwise. Thank you so much in advance! You can mail your contribution to the address in the box.
One of the first fundraising activities we're doing is sponsoring a raffle. The prize structure is: first prize, 25% of the take; second prize, 15%; and third prize, 10%. The drawing is at 5:00 pm on August 5, 2002, which just happens to be the deadline for filing petitions. If you can help sell them or just want to buy a bunch, please let us know! NOTE: according to the law, no one individual may purchase more than $50.00 of tickets in the aggregate for a single drawing. They'll be available for outreach booths.
Also in the works are at least two fundraising dinners. The first, tentatively set for Sunday afternoon, July 21st in Rockville, goes for $50.00 per plate in advance, and a little extra at the door. The program for the event is already gelling, and it should be quite an entertaining afternoon! As soon as we're set, we'll announce the details. Another fundraising dinner is planned for the Baltimore area in August, after the filing deadline.
(3) How can you help? We'll be at many county fairs and other festivals between now and August 5th - you can help us staff tables and gather signatures. Check the www.Spear2002.org website for upcoming opportunities.
Petition forms are available on both the Spear2002 and MdLP websites. Please take a note of the "petitioner pointers" on those sites. For those who have sent them in already, THANKS! You may send completed sheets to the PO Box.
Spear has done a lot of traveling all over the state to speak to various groups. Spear is wonderfully effective in these settings. If you know of a civic group that would like to have him come speak, please let us know. We'll do what we can to arrange it. If you know of a fair or festival that will draw a local crowd, we'd like to know about it. If it's feasible, we'll see about getting a table and getting Spear there.
We're also working on "meet and greets" and "coffees" in private homes, where a supporter invites neighbors or friends over, and Spear comes in and works his magic.
If you have any questions, comments, suggestions, whatever, please let me know!
Thanks so much!
-- Steve Boone
GoSpearGo02*aol.com
The
now infamous June 26th ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance has
garnered an impressive widespread allegiance itself. From major to alternative
media, Congress to the patriot community, leaders to the common person,
no one it seems - with the notable exception of the National Libertarian
Party - has anything but complete contempt for the decision supported by
two of the three judges presiding on the 9th circuit court panel.
Which may explain why no one is willing to read it.
It's apparent only a tiny fraction of people could have read this decision, evident by it taking me a full hour of internet searching just to find this source of media hype. We would expect a decision causing so much public outrage to be posted on every street corner in volumes so sufficient, people could gleefully line their bird and hamster cages with it. But not this one. Apparently that's not needed, since everyone already knows what it says. Or do they?
No one, of course, likes to see judges make stupid, unjust decisions. And while this decision may have questionable elements about it, there is plenty of myth being published everywhere as to its merits. So before we break out the ropes and form a lynch party outside the 9th circuit courthouse, let's take a look at some of the statements made by the major media and politicians, and see how they measure up to the facts.
Here's the first media claim. True or False: "The 9th circuit panel ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional."
Answer: FALSE. From the decision: "In conclusion, we hold that (1) the 1954 Act adding the words under God to the Pledge, and (2) [the school district's] policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause."
The Pledge was not ruled unconstitutional. It was the 1954 Act, together with a state government policy of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, which was declared unconstitutional. The court can no more declare the Pledge itself unconstitutional than it can the Biblical verse of John 3:16. The pledge, while apparently adopted for use by law, is not a law unto itself. The court therefore could not possibly rule it to be unconstitutional, and it never did. Once again (all together now), it was an Act of Congress combined with a local government policy, creating a requirement that the Pledge be recited which was ruled unconstitutional. That is a substantially different thing.
The next media claim. True or False: "Under this ruling, students are prohibited from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools."
Answer: FALSE. Directly quoting the ruling: "Newdow [the plaintiff] argues that [...] the daily recitation in the classroom of the Pledge of Allegiance [...] by his daughter's public school teacher are violations of the Establishment Clause."
The
suit brought by the girl's father had nothing to do with her classmates'
recitation of the Pledge, only the teacher's recitations. In fact, none
of the classmates were even named as defendants in the suit. Since the
classmates are not defendants, the ruling does not, and can not apply to
them. Therefore, under this ruling, the students are still free
to recite the Pledge on their own. What it does mean is that public
school teachers simply cannot lead them in the recitations.
Granted, few people, much less libertarians, would feel sympathy for a student that whines about having to hear the Pledge recited. But as an appeals ruling, this decision only decided an intermediary matter related to the case, deferring the question on whether the girl actually suffered harm to the lower trial court. Any condemnation the public might feel for the family's disposition is at least more properly directed to a trial judge or jury that would find in their favor.
Still, many people would take exception to what the ruling really does say, which is their prerogative. The masses may still condemn the ruling, but they should at least have the decency of giving the ruling itself a fair trial before doing so.
But independent of the ruling's merits, this fanfare creates a great strategic opportunity for the freedom movement. The conservative Christian right in particular is up in arms over this case, but the unpopular truth of the matter is they have absolutely no right to be. Why? Because this 9th circuit ruling is the byproduct of their own deeds, and they should be forced to drink this wretched potion they themselves helped brew.
The problem is not the Pledge of Allegiance under God, the teachers leading it, the 9th circuit judges, or even this ruling. The problem - the real Frankenstein monster terrorizing the Christian right - is government funded, government run, and government taught public schools. If it were not for government run schools, this never would have happened.
For anyone outraged over this ruling, I have no sympathy. The Christian right can easily have its way with school prayer, Bible classes, Pledges of Allegiance, bans on condom distribution and abortion counseling, the whole nine yards, by simply doing one thing: Pulling their children en masse out of public schools and enrolling them into private schools or home schooling associations, well out of reach of whining atheists pushing equal protection buttons. Only then will the families be completely and truly free of ridiculous government and judicial mandates. Public schools are truly a cross-breed of animal that is not constitutional, and probably the one long term program that damages freedom more than any other single thing.
Libertarians have it right, of course, and they should take this opportunity to show conservatives that their goals of Christian schooling can best be achieved by embracing the libertarian solution of discontinuing cohabitation with their unnatural, unholy creation called public schooling.
Perhaps this will get me lynched, but being perfectly honest, given what it can do for freedom in this country, the only disappointment this author has with the 9th circuit ruling is that it was a 2-1 decision instead of 3-0.
-- Neil McIver
www.cjMcIver.org
Hypocrisy
of Living Wage matched only by ignorance
The "Right" Stuff
The
Living Wage discussion has continued to be one of the most visible debates
around the Hopkins campus. During my three years at Homewood, I have seen
more rallies, been handed more leaflets and had to deal with more sit-ins
regarding this issue than any other by far. Advocates of the Living Wage
even have their own Student Labor Action Board (SLAC, funny) constantly
addressing the issue and extending its scope beyond campus.
For far too long I have remained idle regarding the Living Wage, allowing my liberal counterparts to drive the debate and effectively poison the understanding of the everyday Hopkins student. That stops today.
The lowest wage an employee makes working for Johns Hopkins is apparently $7.75 an hour. The conflict arises when this wage is compared to the minimum amount of money for a family in Baltimore to reasonably live, as calculated by the Baltimore City Living Wage Ordinance. SLAC-ers continue to lobby the Hopkins administration, trying to raise the lowest wages offered by the University in order to meet and exceed the standards suggested by the city. Advocates cite the fact that employees have families, not merely themselves, to provide for. They feel that Hopkins has an obligation to consider the needs of its employees when deciding on issues of wage rate.
As you may have guessed, I find fatal flaws in the Living Wage argument. The bottom line is that I do not believe that Johns Hopkins, a private corporation, should be responsible for raising wages that already far exceed the national minimum wage because a large portion of their employees are raising families. Whatever happened to companies paying individuals based on the difficulty and importance of their job? Is it such a dastardly notion to pay people for what they actually do for your company? What of the employees who have no children? Should the single, childless employee in his early twenties receive a lower rate for doing the same job as the mother of five, just because her needs are different? Take a moment to imagine a scenario where people are allotted resources as per their social needs. Sound inconceivable? Don't tell that to Fidel, he's doing just fine using a similar system in Cuba.
The concept of the Living Wage is so hard for me to grasp, in part, because I have personally never worked for as much $8 an hour ever in my life. Perhaps I am too ignorant to make a statement about the Living Wage because I'm from a small town in Pennsylvania where $8 an hour is no small change. Truthfully, there may be some merit to that statement. Still, I refuse to allow these individuals fighting for the Living Wage, whose concept of "hard labor" is sharpening pencils at their daddy's office in Manhattan for 20 bucks an hour and who have no concept of what it means to "earn" anything, continue their scare tactics and dramatic sit-ins unopposed. They certainly look the part of angry protesters, parading in front of the library with Birkenstocks and J. Crew dress shirts. I would suggest to these hypocrites that, if you indeed care about the Hopkins employees as much as you would have everyone believe, you put together a relief fund for the workers drawing from your own resources. What, you can pay full tuition to attend Hopkins but you can't spare a couple hundred for your noble cause?
In this day and age, liberals seem to have made "profit" a slanderous term, only uttered when one speaks of the crooked relationship between bourgeoisie and the proletariat. It's time we as a society get real about the purpose of industry, business and labor. Even our most liberal econ professors are forced to begrudgingly admit that there are no long-run winners when companies are forced to pay artificially inflated wages. Still, minimum and Living Wage continues to be an important political issue for Democrats all over the nation and will continue to be so in the upcoming fall elections. Fortunately, I believe we have enough intelligent people in power to realize increasing salaries for no apparent reason has the potential for grave economic outcomes.
-- Chris Tucker
Chris.Tucker*jhu.edu
Reprinted from the Johns Hopkins student paper, the News-Letter
In all these discussions, I haven't heard this particular angle, suggested by none other than Gov. Jesse Ventura (I-MN) in his book I Ain't Got Time to Bleed.
In a discussion on Prevailing Wage vs. Living Wage (pages 35-36), Ventura says:
A living wage, on the other hand, does nothing but make government grow and the economy suffer. With a mandated living wage, the government dictates to businesses what they have to pay their employees. Hypothetically speaking, if you get a job at five dollars an hour, and the government comes along and tells your employer to pay you seven, guess who's going to get at least seventy cents of that extra two bucks? The government! And what happens when government gets more money? It grows! If the government really and truly feels that strongly about you having more money for the work you do, why doesn't it just let you keep more of the money you pay in taxes? We have to avoid policies that blindly make government grow.
Moreover, there's evidence to show that a rise in the living wage costs jobs. I think this issue should be left up to the employee. If you don't think a job pays enough, don't take it! It's called individual choice. No one makes you take that job; no one puts a hammerlock on you and makes you accept a wage you don't think is suitable.
-- Steve Boone
GoSpearGo02*aol.com
Montgomery County Council member Phil Andrews's "living wage" bill [Close to Home, April 21] is a program based on ignorance and deception, and I choose these words carefully.
First, the bill's supporters show an ignorance of basic economics: Wages are determined by the value of a product or service that the labor produces, and that value is determined by consumer demand for the product or service. No private business could stay open long if it paid its workers more than the value of what they produce. If workers need to earn more money, it is up to them to make themselves more valuable in the workplace through training or education.
Economics also teaches us that taking money through taxes from the productive members of society and giving it to the less-productive because they "need it more" creates a disincentive to work, which makes us all poorer in the end.
Second, the living wage program deceives taxpayers by burying the cost of the law in the recesses of county contracts. If poor workers really need the county government's help, the county should establish a welfare program for that purpose with an identifiable line item in the budget so that the taxpayers know what the program is costing them.
Another deception is the amount of the living wage - $10.50 per hour. My understanding is that that figure is a computed wage for a family of four based on assumptions related to a minimum healthy diet. But nothing in the law requires workers who benefit from the living wage to be the sole support of a family of four. A teenager still living at home, a single adult or a worker in a multi-income family all will benefit from the law without regard to actual need.
A final deception in this law is the exemption of nonprofit contractors and those businesses with fewer than 10 employees. Anyone with the slightest experience with politicians recognizes that this is a ploy intended to reduce initial opposition to the living wage program in order to get it started. Once the program is on the books, "simple fairness" will require that it be extended to cover everybody. You can count on that.
And did Montgomery's taxpayers notice that the law includes an automatic escalator clause that raises the living wage along with the consumer price index? My wages aren't indexed to consumer prices, and wages in general often fall woefully behind consumer prices. But not the living wage.
Instead of spending the taxpayers' money in the most economical manner possible, the council members who voted for this bill are needlessly causing the county to pay more for the goods and services the county buys.
The idea that people should be rewarded in the workplace according to their need is part and parcel of Marxist and other collectivist ideologies. Maybe this idea had some appeal in the '30s and '40s, but in 2002 it should be obvious to all that it just doesn't work. Instead, it leads to economic disaster, such as in the failed Soviet Union. For this reason alone, if for no other, the living wage bill should be relegated to the same dustbin of history in which the Soviet Union now lies.
-- Jay R. Baker
Reprinted from the Sunday, May 12, 2002 Washington Post
The Baltimore County Libertarian Party had a booth at the annual Gay Pride Day in Baltimore City June 16th. Spear Lancaster, the LP's candidate for governor was there, and so were volunteers clad in t-shirts that said:
Spear Lancaster
Maryland Governor in 2002
During the afternoon, our Lt. Governor, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend herself, wandered through an adoring crowd. Two of Spear's volunteers, Jack Mitcham and myself, shook her hand as she moved along. Looking at the t-shirts, Ms. Townsend asked in a friendly inquisitive tone, "What is Spear Lancaster doing?"
Jack replied, not batting an eyelash, "He's running for governor."
She paused for a second, then said, "Oh! Well, I hope you'll support me in the fall."
"No, sorry. We're sticking with the Libertarians," I said, as KKT's security entourage hustled her off.
HELLO? Anybody willing to open an X-File on *this* one? Luuuucy, you got some 'splainin' to do...
-- Steve Boone
GoSpearGo02*aol.com
Troy Zinderman is webmaster for the Spear Lancaster
for Governor campaign
The
thirtieth anniversary of the Shafer Commission report occurred on March
22nd of this year. Shafer Commission is the short hand name
for the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse. In order to get
an omnibus drug act passed, its proponents had to agree to a commission
for the purpose of studying drug use. An amendment to the Public Health
Service Act created the Shafer Commission on 27 October 1970. It took its
name from its chairman: Republican ex-governor of Pennsylvania Raymond
Shafer. The panel had on it two congressmen, one from each party, and two
senators, one from each party, plus nine people appointed by Richard Nixon.
These included such persons as the dean of a law school, the head of a
mental health hospital, and a retired Chicago police captain. They issued
their report, after the most extensive and comprehensive investigation
ever done by our government concerning the subject of marijuana use, on
22 March 1972. They recommended that personal use of marijuana be decriminalized.
The Commission had on it nine people who were put there because it was
thought that they would reach a different conclusion than the one that
they did. They were not supposed to find that it should be decriminalized.
Now, why did they do that? Could it be that they were honest men and women
who saw the truth and reported it?
Page numbers come from the white covered paperback edition of the commission report, titled Signal of Misunderstanding.
p. 3: "President Nixon has frequently expressed his personal and official commitment to providing a rational and equitable public response."
p. 7: "Isolated findings and incomplete information have automatically been presented to the public, with little attempt made to place such findings in a larger perspective or to analyze their meanings."
p. 23: "An accurate statement of the effects of the drug is obviously an important consideration, but it is conclusive only if the effects are extreme one way or the other."
p. 29: "We ask the reader to set his preconceptions aside as we have tried to do, and discriminate with us between marihuana, the drug and marihuana, the problem."
p. 36: "No valid stereotype of a marihuana user or non-user can be drawn."
p. 41: "The most notable statement that can be made about the vast majority of marihuana users - experimenters and intermittent users - is that they are essentially indistinguishable from their non-marihuana using peers by any fundamental criterion other than their marihuana use."
p. 42: "Young people who choose to experiment with marihuana are fundamentally the same people, socially and psychologically, as those who use alcohol and tobacco."
p. 44: "The most common explanation for discontinuing use is loss of interest."
p. 61: "No significant physical, biochemical, or mental abnormalities could be attributed solely to their marihuana smoking."
p. 67: "That some of these original fears were unfounded and that others were exaggerated has been clear for many years. Yet, many of these early beliefs continue to affect contemporary public attitudes and concerns."
p. 73: "In sum, the weight of the evidence is that marihuana does not cause violent or aggressive behavior; if anything marihuana serves to inhibit the expression of such behavior."
p. 75: "In short marihuana is not generally viewed by participants in the criminal justice community as a major contributing influence in the commission of delinquent or criminal acts."
p. 77: "Some users commit crimes more frequently than non-users not because they use marihuana but because they happen to be the kinds of people who would be expected to have a higher crime rate."
p. 78: "Neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety."
p. 79: "The few driving simulator tests completed to date have generally revealed no significant correlation between marihuana use and driving disabilities."
p. 79: "Recent research has not yet proven that marihuana use significantly impairs driving ability or performance."
p. 84: "No reliable evidence exists indicating that marihuana causes genetic defects in man."
p. 88: "No verification is found of a causal relationship between marihuana use and subsequent heroin use."
p. 92: "Concerns about marihuana use expressed in the 1930s related primarily to a perceived inconsistency between the lifestyles and values of these individuals and the social and moral order."
p. 93: "Concerns posed by an alternate youthful lifestyle are extended to the drug itself."
p. 96: "Most users, young and old, demonstrate an average or above-average degree of social functioning, academic achievement, and job performance."
p. 102: "It is unlikely that marihuana will affect the future strength, stability, or vitality of our social and political institutions."
p. 112: "The salient feature of the present law has become the threat of arrest for indiscretion."
p. 130: "Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it."
p. 130: "We suspect that the moral contempt in which some of our citizens hold the marihuana user is related to other behavior or other attitudes assumed to be associated with the drug."
p. 151: "In general, we recommend only a decriminalization of possession of marihuana for personal use on both the state and federal levels."
p. 167: "Recognizing the extensive degree of misinformation about marihuana as a drug we have tried to demythologize it. Viewing the use of marihuana in its wider social context, we have tried to desymbolize it."
p. 167: "We would de-emphasize marihuana as a problem."
-- Keith Halderman
Keith2444*aol.com
Prepare for a Return to Deficit Spending and a Steady Erosion of Freedoms
President George W. Bush has betrayed us all by embracing deficit spending and a much bigger and intrusive government. Not only is he planning for a much bigger role for the Department of Education (for which there is no Constitutional authority) and a costly prescription benefit in Medicare, but he also wants to lavish billions of more dollars on an already incompetent and inefficient Pentagon, easily the biggest source of waste and fraud in the entire government.
The tragedies of September 11 turn out to be the biggest single boon to the Pentagon in many a year. Gone is Rumsfeld's plan to transform the military into an efficient new millennium fighting machine. Gone is all the talk about "shedding outmoded thinking" such as fighting a Cold War style two-front war and the cancellation of obsolete weapons systems. Dead is the talk of forging a quicker, smarter, and more mobile force to deal with the modern realities of 21st century warfare. Instead, he presented a budget that includes all the big weapons systems the military wanted before he came into office. The US unified military budget will also include all the new goodies needed to fight the war on terrorism, and the amount will come to a staggering $397 billion, or approximately $45.3 billion more than last year. Under Mr. Bush, the US military budget will top the combined military budgets of all our possible enemies, including Russia and China.
The war on terror does not justify this kind of military spending, especially when you consider that the bulk of the weaponry included is designed for fighting a Soviet style enemy, even though none exists. Sadly, the war on terrorism is being used to not only let the military off the hook where reform is concerned, but to also give the green light for massive increased spending. The proposed Pentagon budgets for each of the next five years show steady increases. And, of course, the Pentagon assures us that it is making wise use of our tax dollars because the war on terrorism will be a long one.
It is time for Americans to start questioning this kind of runaway spending. Why do we need to spend untold billions on our military anyway? Is this all part of establishing a far flung empire and a Pax Americana? Our President tells us that this unprecedented military buildup is part of our war against evil. He delights in telling us that we are white hats fighting those awful black hat terrorists who simply hate everything about America, including our freedom and prosperity. They despise everything that is American because we stand for the good, the true, and the beautiful. Almost nobody wants to face up to the real causes of our troubles, which is the fact that our nation has departed from the original non-interventionist principles set forth by our founding fathers.
Since the days of FDR, America has involved itself in world affairs in the role of a policeman. This is especially true since the end of WWII. The historian John Lukas has noted that "by the 1950s, there were American air and naval bases in nearly 60 countries." Ostensibly this was to contain the Soviet threat, but evidence exists which demonstrates that this threat was grossly exaggerated in order to justify such a proliferation of bases and projection of military might. The truth is that this enormous buildup was good business for the emerging military industrial complex, about which President Eisenhower had warned as he left office some 40-odd years ago.
If
American militarism was purely a response to Soviet expansion, then why
have we continued to spend more on armaments than all of our potential
enemies put together, even though the Cold War ended long ago? The answer,
of course, is that America's leaders want to police the world.
When a nation takes on such a role, and takes sides in international conflicts, it is bound to become the object of hatred and retaliation by the side it opposed. Our armaments are now so sophisticated that it is possible for us to kill our enemies and lay waste to their countries from the air with little or no risk to our own people. No nation can hope to win a conventional war against such a colossus. But as the hopelessness of retaliating against America by conventional means increases, the more desperate will be the actions of those determined to end American hegemony. Terrorism, carried out by men and women willing to die for their cause (not the cowards the President refers to), has emerged as the most effective means of striking back at the US. It is quickly developing into a sophisticated form of guerrilla warfare, and will only increase rather than diminish.
Gerald Celente, of the respected Trends Research Institute, wrote in his book Trends 2000, published some two years before the September 11 tragedies, "Until the United States gives up taking sides in foreign internal conflicts, policing the world, and using its power to 'spread democracy' and open markets and to protect special interests, the terrorism trend will continue." And, a recent study by the well known Libertarian think tank the CATO Institute also pointed out the connection between American interventionism and an increased threat of terrorism.
The Bush Administration's response to September 11 is to build an even bigger and more costly military machine. However, relying on the same policies that got us into this mess will likely turn an already serious situation into many years of tragedy. If we think that getting tough with terrorists will rid us of this scourge, we have only to look at Israel, where years of the most brutal retaliation imaginable has only made the situation worse. The Administration's policies also promise to further erode the enviable rights and freedoms that have set the United States apart from other nations. Now, in response to September 11, Americans are subject to the Patriots Act, which greatly expands the power of our government to conduct secret searches, and minimizes the role of the courts to ensure that wiretapping is done legally. So, the price of being the world's policeman continues to escalate.
By increasing our commitment to an even larger military solution, we have simply guaranteed that the war on terrorism will be a perpetual affair. The only way to diminish the threat is to adopt the non-interventionist foreign policy advocated by George Washington in his farewell address (1796), which is best described as "live and let live." His wise policy was one of peaceful neutrality, but unfortunately one that was abandoned long ago by our power-hungry leaders. So brace yourselves for more attacks against civilians and military personnel alike, and for the steady erosion of our freedoms and our privacy.
-- Steve Seater
Seater*erols.com
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, 10 men go to dinner. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day, and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Now dinner for the 10 costs $80.
The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share?
The men realize that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.
The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And
so, the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid
$5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill
of $52 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared
the sixth man pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7."
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks."
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: they were $52 short!
And that, boys and girls and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean.
via George Reynolds (not original with me)
The Libertarian State Central Committee of Maryland met at the home of Doris Gordon in Wheaton, Maryland on Sunday, 27 January 2002. The meeting was called to order at 3:40 pm by vice chairman Shannon McMenamin. Prior to the meeting, the following were distributed: the minutes of the 27 October 2001 Central Committee meeting; a meeting agenda; and the treasurer's report. Nineteen Central Committee members were in attendance.
Shannon McMenamin reported that Chip Spangler is performing media coordination duties. Nick Sarwark has been appearing on the radio, and is on call as a libertarian guest; as a result of the radio stint, we were contacted by Cardinal Gibbons high school; and Lorenzo Gaztañaga will be speaking to two government and politics classes there on February 8. The website is being redesigned with new logos, a youth outreach section, plus possibly an online membership renewal ability.
Susan Gaztañaga reported that there has been no decision as of yet on the Court of Special Appeals case; at the hearing, the judges seemed quite concerned about voters being invalidated by the Board of Elections because of not having voted recently; and why signing a petition does not immediately reinstate a voter's status with the Board. A finding is expected 2-6 months from the first week of December 2001.
Lorenzo Gaztañaga reported that since he was elected to the LNC in 2000, he has spent a great deal of effort and energy to it. He is on the Platform Committee for the next convention, and is the "champion" for the rewritten platform: he wants it to provide both direction and destination.
Steve Boone gave a speech nominating Spear Lancaster for Governor; Bill Buzzell nominated Lauren Hill for Lieutenant Governor. Spear Lancaster said a few words, and stated that one of his goals would be to eliminate 85% of the laws on the books. There were no other nominations for those offices; the vote for Governor/Lieutenant Governor was unanimous for Spear Lancaster and Lauren Hill.
Steve Boone nominated David Sten for the House of Delegates, District 36. That district encompasses several counties, only one of which has an organized county Central Committee, so the State Central Committee has the responsibility for candidate nominations in that district. The vote was unanimous for David Sten.
Doris Gordon proposed a recommended Abortion Plank change for the Libertarian National Committee. There was discussion and it was tabled to the next Central Committee meeting.
Shannon McMenamin appointed Joe Miller, Chip Spangler, and Susan Gaztañaga to the standing Finance Committee.
The Central Committee meeting adjourned at 6:26 pm.
This is a condensed version of the official minutes, which can be found at www.MD.LP.org/docs/cc/
-- Robert E. Glaser
Dave Sten, Lauren Hill, and Spear Lancaster accept nomination
at the 27 January Central Committee meeting
The Libertarian State Central Committee of Maryland met at Timbuktu's Restaurant in Hanover, Maryland on Saturday, 11 May 2002. The meeting was called to order at 12:05 pm by chairman Nick Sarwark. Prior to the meeting, the following were distributed: the minutes of the 27 January 2002 Central Committee meeting; a meeting agenda; the treasurer's report; the Proposed Libertarian Party of Maryland Program; and a proposal for an amendment to the WR&A section of the National LP Platform. Thirty-two Central Committee members were in attendance.
James Keifer offered the following:
BE IT RESOLVED,
THAT the following amendment to the "Women's Rights and Abortion" plank is affirmed and recommended for replacement of this plank's second and third paragraphs. It says:
"We oppose forced abortion and tax-funding of abortion. Since there is principled disagreement among Libertarians about whether or not abortion is consistent with libertarian philosophy, the Libertarian Party therefore takes no position concerning to what extent abortion should be regulated by law and leaves the question to each of its members and candidates for their conscientious consideration."
AND THAT the Secretary shall communicate by letter and email in a timely manner the recommendation, including the text of the proposed amendment, to the National LP Platform Committee,
AND THAT the Secretary shall request from the Platform Committee a report of the disposition of the proposal, and
AND THAT the Secretary shall report the result to the Central Committee.
The resolution passed by voice vote.
A discussion followed on the Proposed Libertarian Party of Maryland Program. It was then voted to table the discussion of the entire State Party Program to the next Central Committee meeting.
Delegates and alternates to the National Libertarian Party Convention (July 3-7) were selected.
All officer positions were open for election. The current slate was renominated without addition, and subsequently reelected.
The Central Committee meeting adjourned at 1:13 pm.
This is a condensed version of the official minutes, which have not yet been approved by the Central Committee.
-- Robert E. Glaser
The Libertarian Party of Maryland Program, which was proposed at the May Central Committee meeting and tabled for later action, presents several good ideas - among them are: more choice in education; rejection of corporate welfare; and affirmation of property rights against abuse of the power of eminent domain. There is, however, one feature of the proposed Program which is objectionable, and that is its advocacy of a land tax.
Ownership of land is an important basis for being free. A family or individual living on their own land enjoys the security and peace of mind which comes from knowing that they cannot be forced off their land, as could a tenant. Land ownership confers economic security, since land is an asset which is useful, an asset which can be sold or mortgaged to raise capital, or rented out to yield income. Land and its improvements can be a legacy left to one's children, an asset which endures and which contributes to the economic security of a family for generations.
When land is taxed, it is equivalent to the taxing authority owning a share of the land's value, and the higher the tax, the greater the extent to which the government is acting as an owner of the land - as a landlord, if you will. If the tax is not paid, the private "owner" gets kicked off the land, just as a tenant will be forced out if the rent is not paid. The difference between a contractual tenancy for rent, and the imposition of a land tax, is that a rental tenant has agreed to the rental arrangement, and has a choice of landlords, but the taxed "landowner" has not agreed, as an individual, to be taxed, and has only one "landlord" to choose from - the government. A land tax makes us all tenants, to some degree, whether or not we want to be tenants. Libertarians should staunchly support a right to own land as private property, justly acquired through voluntary trade, grant, or inheritance. A land tax is a direct threat to the private ownership of land. When the government monopolizes the supply of land by imposing a heavy tax on land, the people become serfs.
A simple but important point about taxes, one which libertarians should not neglect to hammer home at every opportunity, is that taxation puts resources under the control of government, and takes resources out of the control of free individuals. A healthy society should leave resources in the hands of individuals who are left free to trade with one another, to the greatest extent possible.
As a practical matter, a tax at a low rate, applied to the title value of real estate (land and its improvements, together) may be justifiable on the grounds that the government provides some services, such as street and sidewalk maintenance, which directly benefit the occupants of the real estate to a degree proportionate to the value of the real estate. For example, the provision of law and order and the protection provided against foreign invasion is arguably twice as valuable to the owner of $200,000 worth of real estate as to the owner of $100,000 worth, with respect to the security of their ownership. That is an argument for taxing land and its improvements together, at the same rate, and not for taxing land solely. A land tax, it is said, is impossible to evade because land cannot be hidden. That is true, but it is almost equally true that improvements are difficult to hide.
There
is a fundamental problem with taxing land separately from improvements,
and that is that separate assessments are necessarily arbitrary. If real
estate is to be taxed, a rational system for assessing its value could
rely on each owner assessing the title value of their own property, for
tax purposes, with the understanding that the owner/taxpayer is obligated
to sell the real estate at the assessed value, if someone else wishes to
pay that price and actually puts up the money. There should be an option
available whereby the owner would have the right to have the property go
to auction, where the owner would have the right to bid. Then, the winning
bidder gets the property, and if the owner is the high bidder, then he
just gets to keep the property, only paying the increased tax due on the
higher value set by the winning bid.
That system would work well for assessing real estate (land and improvements together), but not for assessing land separate from improvements. That is because land cannot be sold separately from improvements, without the land sale somehow specifying what ownership of the land means with respect to access to, and use of, the improvements. If the land is owned by one person, and the building by another, what happens if the land owner shuts off access to the building unless he is paid the full net rental value of the building? In that case, the land owner would effectively own the building. Land is sometimes sold separately from improvements, but it is almost always in connection with the land being leased back to the building owner, directly or indirectly. Sometimes, the lease is perpetual, as in the case of the "ground rents" charged on some properties in the City of Baltimore.
Another aspect of the problem of assessments on land is that a tax on land affects the market value of the land title. In the extreme, when the land tax reaches as high as the rental value of the land, the title value of the land falls to zero, since no one will pay a capital price for a title which comes with the obligation to pay a tax equal to the rental value of the asset (the land). In that case, the problem of assessment of land value becomes a problem of assessing its rental value, rather than its capitalized value. With a high land tax, the government is effectively the monopoly owner of all land, and the monopoly "rent" (tax) which the government charges could greatly exceed the rent which would be charged in a competitive free market where most land is privately owned. It's hard to imagine that the taxpayers/serfs would be happy with such a system of government land monopoly.
On the face of it, libertarians might find it appealing to end the tax on improvements, leaving only a tax on land, since the proposal involves ending a tax. Likewise, people in general might find it appealing, because it sounds like they would owe less tax, if only the land were to be taxed. To give a concrete example, a typical homeowner with a detached house in Maryland may be paying about $1500 tax on the improvements, and about $500 on the land, for a total of $2,000 per year. Obviously, $500 is less than $2,000. But the reality is that the government would seek to keep the change revenue-neutral, so the homeowner would end up paying $2000 on the land, and nothing on the building. What difference, then, does that make? With a land tax that high, we might as well say that the government owns all the taxed land in the state. Some land, e.g. church lots and other privileged non-profit holdings, as well as (of course!) government land, is not taxed. Increasing the tax on land for those who are hit with the tax would increase the unfair disparity between those who are taxed for their land, and those who are not. The lower a tax on land is set, the more secure land holders would be in their ownership.
It is sometimes said that a land tax, of all taxes, is the tax which distorts the economy the least. A heavy tax on land, imposed at a much higher rate than on improvements, is sometimes said to encourage "efficient" use of land, and to encourage the construction of improvements, as if to imply that more development is always a desirable thing. A heavy land tax artificially forces people to try to use less land than they would in a free market, and in a relative sense may promote development on some land, but that upsets the natural balance between the desire and need to develop some land, and the desire to keep other land as
wilderness, as wildlife preserve, or as farms, parks, or for other purposes which do not maximize cash income, but which do enhance the quality of life. Improvements to land which arise from demand in a free market will tend to be an appropriate response to the demand - the right improvements at the right places at the right times - "improvements" which are artificially forced into existence by land tax policy are unlikely to be economically sound, nor to best serve the values of a free people.
I recommend that the provision in the proposed Program which advocates shifting the real estate tax towards a tax on land itself, be deleted from the Program. A land tax is fundamentally at odds with the secure private ownership of land, and ownership of land lies at the root of personal sovereignty and freedom.
-- Ron Kean
RonKean*juno.com
When
I volunteered to be coordi-nator of our Speakers Bureau, I rejoined Toastmasters.
Toastmasters is an international organization dedicated to improving the
communication skills of its members. Every year they hold a worldwide speech
contest. It starts at the local club level in February and culminates in
the international competition in August, six levels in all. Winners at
the local club level compete against other club winners in their area,
etc. I entered the contest this year.
I was very fortunate in winning my club, area, and division contests. I competed in the district contest in Annapolis on May 4th. I am tempted to say that I got blown away; the competition were excellent speakers and their choices of topics were good. People told me that I put on a more than creditable show, but I did not win. The contest experience was good for me. I learned something at every step of the ladder.
Unfortunately, my speech didn't use the word "Libertarian" at all. However, it did address the issue of individual responsibility. That is, we smokers have to take responsibility for our own butts. I was also able to get a few cracks in about the attitudes of non-smokers. Speeches can be no more than seven and a half minutes, which doesn't give much room for development of ideas with which the audience may be unfamiliar.
As I recommend libertarianism to all my non-libertarian acquaintances, I also recommend Toastmasters to you. If you want to improve your public speaking ability, or even just enhance your communications skills, Toastmasters is an excellent way to go about it. It does, however, take up time, and requires commitment.
As always, I need and appreciate any referrals you can send my way of groups that might be interested in having a speaker or speakers from the Maryland Libertarian Speakers Bureau. As Spear says, we will speak on any topic including - well, perhaps I had better not complete the sentence.
Yours in liberty,
-- George Reynolds
GReyno4426*aol.com
As
I prepare to get this issue's copy to the printer, it is one day before
Independence Day. This holiday sure brings a flurry of thoughts to the
libertarian mind. We mostly seem to concentrate on the negative ones, bemoaning
our observances of lost liberties since our country's inception. I must
plead guilty to that habit myself. One ritual I have is to reread our Constitution
and Declaration of Independence every Fourth of July. And it never fails
to make my blood boil. Anyone within earshot can hear mutterings of "Well,
that isn't true any longer... No, can't do that anymore... Too bad the
court justices didn't read this clause... Doesn't anyone understand
what this says? ...this hasn't been repealed, so how can..., etc."
So I also succumb to the negativism such thoughts engender. But these expressions
can give people unfamiliar with libertarians and the Libertarian Party
a belief that all we do is grumble - and who wants to associate with those
who seem to tug a dark cloud along with them wherever they go?
I think that we need to take breaks from our (justified, of course!) grievances, get a breath of fresh air, and revel in what we do have in this great country. This is still the best nation in the world to live. We need to make our point that it is precisely because we do cherish this treasure that we fight so hard to maintain the liberties that the United States is founded upon. It is not unpatriotic to complain about our loss of freedoms, and to fight to restore and retain them - there is nothing more patriotic. We can't stomach standing idly by and watching the qualities that make the US great gradually dissipate. So we complain. And complain. And complain some more. But remember to pause every once in a while, and note the opportunities that US citizens have (especially when around outsiders) that few others worldwide possess.
As I write this, many of you MdLP'ers are en route to the national convention in Indianapolis. Please remember to send me your thoughts on what you see there for the next Free? State Libertarian issue. Do it as soon as you return, while it remains fresh in your mind. I also expect to see many of you at the Tawes Crab & Clam Bake on July 17 - Mike Linder has done a fine job organizing that event for the past few years. Most likely, this issue will arrive in your hands after that occasion - if you missed it, don't make the same mistake in 2003! And of course, put the summer MdLP picnic on your calendar, too.
This is probably the last issue prior to the November elections. Much work remains, help if you can. And remember to write me your observations on Election Day! 'Til next time,
-- Robert Glaser
Two issues ago I penned a piece about H.B. 2525, a proposal to abolish the income tax and replace it with a national salestax. The proposal is called The Fairtax.
Lauren Hill wrote a piece for the last issue, titled "No Flat Tax - No Sales Tax - No Compromise." I am sorry to say that that piece epitomizes what is wrong with the thinking of a lot of Libertarians. There is a big difference in believing in something and working for it while being realistic and practical, vs. uncompromising, stick-your-head-in-the-sand and telling people you will only play the game by your interpretation of the rules.
The IRS is here now, and no claim or demonstration by "believers" is going to make it go away. Whether the 16th amendment was legally adopted or not, it has been upheld by all courts, including the Supreme Court. Those who do not pay their taxes face the prospect of an IRS agent tossing them in jail at any time, and even for those who do pay taxes, we face IRS inquiries at any time.
A lot of thought has gone into the design of The Fairtax, and public focus groups have caused a number of features to be improved, although no one would claim it is perfect. Here are some of the best points:
(1) On passage and implementation of the bill, the IRS is defunded and all of its records and files are to be destroyed, except those relevant to current court action. Thus, although a law cannot repeal the 16th Amendment, if that amendment is not repealed in the Constitutionally specified way within five years, the Fairtax will sunset, and if the Income Tax is reestablished, it would need to start all over, because as noted, all of their records would have been destroyed.
(2) Spying and investigating income, assets, and economic activity of Americans will end, as there will no longer be a need for 140 million income tax forms per year, only approximately 14 million sales tax reports from businesses will actually be collected and processed. That processing is designed to be done by the individual states, if they wish to participate.
(3)
The major function of most lobbyists in Washington will disappear, because
there will be no special loopholes to establish and protect. This may mean
that there is less reason to restrict freedom of speech by items such as
campaign finance reform, because there will be much less value to "buying"
congressmen. (Common Cause estimates that 50%+ of all lobbying has
to do with the tax law.)
(4) The incentive to work will be dramatically enhanced, since an individual will now receive his or her gross paycheck, rather than having the federal government be a hidden "slave owner" taking 30% - 50% of a person's paycheck (when FICA is included).
(5) International trade will be enhanced, as taxes built into the cost of products produced in America (payroll taxes and business profit tax) will be ended. This will end issues of trade subsidies, and will end the desirability of firms to keep their foreign earnings overseas to avoid US corporate taxes, since there will be no corporate taxes.
(6) In a relatively short period of time, people will become more vocal in their call for the government to reduce its size, and reduce the tax burden. To me, this is a critical piece, and one that should be very important to all Libertarians. The Fairtax is designed to be revenue neutral - as much money will come to Washington under the initial program as had been coming under the income tax system. (In fact, the same amount can come to Washington, but less from the people, since the estimated $225 billion in annual compliance cost will be ended. This is a straight drain on the economy, because all that is produced is paperwork and files. Those energies can now go into productive work, whether that is good accounting to end Enron/ Worldcom shenanigans, or more cars produced, or massages given.) But, while the initial funding for government will be the same, ending the withholding and periodic payment of taxes, and establishing a system where people see the tax every time they go to the food store, eat in a restaurant, or pay a dry cleaner's bill, etc., will galvanize a lot of people. We may laugh now when we hear the Feds have funded a study of mating habits of Bulgarian frogs, but how much stronger will the public hostility be when they pay taxes many times every day?
The Fairtax is fully consistent with the Constitution, is simple, and goes a long way toward furthering Libertarian goals. I hope you recognize its value and contact me to help get this bill passed!
-- Steven Sass
P.S.: Info at www.geocities.com/cmcofer/irs-globe.html and www.Fairtax.org; I welcome questions and concerns you have, and will be happy to address them in the newsletter or directly with you.
Editor's note: The MdLP has no official position on the Fairtax.
Jay Baker's article refuting living wages appeared in the Washington Post on May 12th (reprinted on page 7).
Michael Dobak's letter on "Taxes, government" was published in the April 26th issue of the Annapolis Capital. He showed that our taxes (a timely topic just after the April 15th date) are directly related to the November elections, and made an appropriate plug for the Anne Arundel County Libertarian Party.
Gerald Schneider had his Letter to the Editor published in the April 26th issue of The Kensington Gazette titled, "Get government, politics out of schooling." In the May 10th issue, Gerald also replied to a May 3rd argument against his original letter.
Art Huseonica had his letter published in the April 27th issue of the Annapolis Capital. Titled "Idiocy and taxes," it put the word libertarian prominently out there.
Nick Sarwark continues to make monthly appearances on the Metrotalk with Jerry Phillips radio show on 100.3 FM and 980 AM (first Sunday of the month, 8:10 - 9:00 am).
Congratulations to our public advocates. Please send in reports of your successes, too!
I am honored to be the new Chair for the Central Committee of the Montgomery County Libertarian Party. I look forward to the upcoming elections with Spear Lancaster leading the way. I believe that we as a political party can, and will, make a difference.
To paraphrase Dickens: This is the best of times and the worst of times. I regret that I have to be the bearer of bad news to all of the members of the Montgomery County Party. Our previous treasurer was delinquent and more in his duties, and with the Party's checking account. We are presently in the process of resolving these past issues.
Now for the "Best of Times": Spear Lancaster, Chip Spangler, Glenn Howard, Jim McLaughlin, and I were at the Takoma Park Jazzfest on May 18th. We collected over 80 signatures on the nominating petitions, and met many new friends. The weather was cold and cloudy, but the reception was warm and friendly.
I am looking forward to the Montgomery County Agricultural Fair in August. We will be there with Spear taking the message of freedom and liberty to the thousands of visitors to the fair. If you want to volunteer to work at the booth, contact Keith Halderman, who will be coordinating the volunteers this year.
Many thanks to Chip Spangler for the new tent that we have for the many outreach events planned this year.
Please do not let what has happened discourage you. We will get through this problem and come out stronger and smarter because of it.
-- Steve Wilson
Last
September, I was given the oppor-tunity, and accepted the honor of serving
as Chairman of the Prince George's County Libertarian Central Committee.
I took this task on largely because no one else was willing to "step
up to the plate," and the county chapter would likely fold or be absorbed
into a neighboring jurisdiction if I hadn't. Despite this, I took it upon
myself to do what I felt was necessary in promoting liberty here, and simply
being a "placeholder" was something that I was not about to do.
During my term as chair, I put various ideas on the table regarding outreach, candidate recruitment, and other activities that I feel we should be involved in. Unfortunately, due to my involvement with the Spear Lancaster campaign, I am not able to devote the time I feel is necessary to be effective as Chair. Because of this, as well as the relocation of a well talented individual into the county, I feel compelled to resign.
Early this month, Chip Spangler became a Prince Georgian. I feel that he has proven himself on the state central committee, and will play a positive role on the county central committee as well. As such, he has my support.
I would like to leave with the following statements: First (for what it's worth), I feel that the College Park LDDS should continue meeting at the current location for now. It appears that the activities there on Tuesday nights are no longer being held.
Second, while I never did this during my term as chair, I advise my successor to regularly conduct county business meetings outside of LDDS. Chip Spangler has stated that if elected chair, he will do this.
Third, despite my departure, let us never lose sight of our objectives as a political party. We must keep abreast of all important community events, and make our presence known at as many of them as possible. Not only should this include festivals, but other events such as public meetings, get-togethers, meetings, marches, and rallies where we share common interests; getting ourselves involved in activities where we have a common interest with prospective groups, such as petition drives, stuffing of envelopes, creating networks with others; and so forth. Whenever possible, I will try to make myself available for certain efforts in the future. If we perform the tasks necessary, and act with goodwill, we can have a positive influence in Prince George's County.
-- Tony Spezio
Chip Spangler was elected PG county chair on June 25th.
This is a query to find out if anyone is interested in participating in an informal Libertarian card game to be held in the Rockville area. Please respond to:
-- Scott Becker
m4dmocracy*aol.com.
I wanted to let everyone know that I have filed my declaration of intent to seek the office of Maryland House of Delegates, District 32, as a Libertarian. (32 is in northern Anne Arundel County, including Linthicum, Severn, Ferndale, and Fort Meade.) To get my name placed on the November ballot, I am shooting for a goal of 1,000 raw signatures by the August 5th deadline (I need 538 valid ones). I hope to achieve more than just ballot recognition - but even if that's all I can do, I will have spoken to hundreds of local voters, and they'll know that there is in fact another choice.
My website (www.Kleinonline.us) details my goals and the positions that I think are the most important, which will include: the right to keep and bear arms; an end to the war on drugs; taxation; and true gay rights. You can be sure that my stand on these issues, and others, is thoroughly libertarian - almost to a fault, if that's possible.
Although I'm confident of getting on the ballot, I can use all the help I can get. Drop me an email or call me at 410-859-0726 if you can spare an hour or two sometime in the next five weeks or so, or if you'd just like to chat or ask a question.
Thanks for your time,
-- Mike Klein
mike*alw-info.com
I need your help to become Howard County's first Libertarian council member. Like Spear Lancaster, I must collect petition signatures to get on November's ballot. I've collected 145 so far, but I need at least 130 more. Please call me at 301-317-6529 or email me at herrdave*hotmail.com if you'd like to help. Thank you.
-- Dave Margolis
The Baltimore County LP is tossing around the idea of having bowling nights, or some other social activities. Hopefully, this would attract more people to the party, since it would be a nice break from the stereotype of a bunch of old men sitting in a circle yapping about random things. We are thinking about maybe once or twice a month at the AMF lanes in Timonium, and perhaps having some sort of fundraiser attached to it. Details will be forthcoming when we get more ideas, input, etc. Either email me back with feedback, or post it to the bclp-discuss list. Thanks.
-- Jack "Let's
go bowlin' hoin!" Mitcham
BCLP Deputy Chair JayMitch*comcast.net
I am very interested in starting to host gaming nights at my place (Curtis Bay, Baltimore City) the second Tuesday of each month, running from 6:00 - 10:00 pm. This will be an opportunity to have fun with fellow Libertarians (there may be a few others there as well, ripe for conversion). Games in progress will usually be allowed to run past 10:00. I have two areas at the very least for gaming, and can manage more than that if need be. Gamers are welcome to bring food, use our kitchen (clean up after yourselves or be placed on a Congressional committee on the saving of the spotted owl), order out, whatever. Just don't trash the place!
Most of the gaming I do is board gaming (Caton series, Axis & Allies and its many variants, all sorts), but I would have no trouble hosting a roleplaying or miniatures gaming group. At this point I'm not really looking to get involved in live action stuff, for various personal reasons. If you are interested in coming to my place for any of the rest, reply and let the games begin!
-- Colin Boxall
cboxall*bigfoot.com
$100 Full Page
$60 1/2 Page
$35 1/4 Page
$20 Business Card
Make checks payable to the Maryland Libertarian Party, and send along with copy to:
PO Box 321, Owings Mills, MD 21117.
Note: consult www.MD.LP.org/events for up-to-date info. Contact numbers for persons listed on page 3 are omitted here. Regularly scheduled events are listed separately on the back page. Please mark your calendars now!
July 18-20 (Thursday-Sunday): Kent County Fair in Tolchester. www.KentCounty.com/events/jul.htm for info. Dave Sten bailee1*crosslink.net
July 19-27 (Friday-Saturday): Cecil County Fair in Fair Hill (North of Elkton). www.CecilCountyFair.org for info. Dave Sten bailee1*crosslink.net
July 21 (Sunday): Spear Lancaster fundraising dinner in Rockville. Steve Boone GoSpearGo02*aol.com
July 25-28 (Thursday-Sunday): 10:00 am - 10:00 pm (10:00 am - 6:00 pm on Sunday). Harford County Fair. Roy J. Meyers III
July 26-28 (Friday-Sunday): Somerset County Fair. Glenn Howard
August 3 or 4 (Saturday or Sunday): MdLP picnic. Check website
August 9-17 (Friday-Saturday): Montgomery County Fair. 10:00 am - 10:00 pm. Keith Halderman, 301-926-1594, Keith2444*aol.com
August 18 (Sunday): Spear Lancaster fundraising dinner in Baltimore area. Steve Boone GoSpearGo02*aol.com
September 9-15 (Monday-Sunday): Delmarva Bike Week at the Ft. Whaley campground just outside Ocean City. Tim Osburn, osburn_tim*yahoo.com
September 15 (Sunday): 7:00 am - 7:00 pm. Essex Day. Bill Buzzell, 410-477-9173, 410-637-5058 voicemail, wabuzzell*juno.com
September 21 (Saturday): 10:00 am. Charles Street Adopt-A-Highway cleanup. Bill Buzzell (see above)
September 29 (Sunday): MdLP Central Committee meeting
October 19 (Saturday): 10:00 am. Adopt-A-Highway. See 9/21
Stay up-to-date on MdLP activities with our online calendar-of-events: visit www.MD.LP.org/events (often!). Check page 3 for contact numbers not listed here.
LDDS (Libertarian Drinking and Debating Society): Baltimore City. Suspended until further notice. Earle Pearce, 410-327-1776
LDDS (Montgomery Co.): 2nd Wednesday, 7:00 pm at Bennigan's, Rockville Pike in Federal Plaza near Twinbrook Pkwy. (behind Texaco gas station). Glenn Howard
LDDS (PG County): 4th Tuesday, 6:30 pm at the 94th Aero Squadron, 5240 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park. Chip Spangler
LDDS (Timonium): 3rd Friday, 7:00 pm in AMF Bowling Alley lounge, opposite Fairgrounds. Steve Boone
Anne Arundel County Lib's: 2nd Wednesday, 7:00 pm at Mike's Crab House on 3030 Old Riva Road, Riva. Michael Dobak
Carroll/Howard County Lib's: last Sunday, 5:00 pm at Nathan Henry's Restaurant (in the upstairs lounge) at 6228 Sykesville Road (MD Route 32), Eldersburg. Kevin Wolf.
Cecil County Lib's: 4th Wednesday, 7:00 pm at the Cecil County Public Library, Newark Road in Elkton. Valerie McGlothlin
Harford County Lib's: 4th Monday, 7:30 pm at Harford Community College, 209 Edgewood Hall. Roy J. Meyers III
Metro Talk: 1st Sunday, 8:10 - 9:00 am. Nick Sarwark on the radio, stations WBIG 100.3 FM and WTEM 980 AM.
