Munger for NC Governor--2008!!

New Blog, Same Bloggy Goodness!

2008-06-02T16:24:00.001-07:00

Dear Fans:

This is the last post on this blog.

The Munger4NCGOV Web Wizard has come up with a new, and much improved, blog at http://blog.munger4ncgov.com/

Visit often, please!

Radio Appearance on Vortex of Freedom

2008-06-02T07:47:00.000-07:00

The link for the blogtalkradio show, Vortex of Freedom. I appeared with Susan Hogarth....

A Libertarian Spirit Thrives

2008-06-02T07:46:00.000-07:00

Anonyman sends this interesting link, from the NYTimes.

Excerpt:

...[T]here is the Libertarian Party and then there is the libertarian — small-“L” — state of mind. Those who do not necessarily vote with the party but identify with some of the core libertarian philosophy — a small government with minimal reach into people’s personal lives, and minimal foreign entanglements — may be a potent, if unpredictable, group of voters.

“I think one problem the Republican Party is facing in the Mountain West is that the social, cultural and religious emphasis of Republicans in the last five, six, eight years has run against the libertarian grain,” Mr. Cook said. “When these people signed onto small government, they weren’t just talking about money. They were talking about small government, period. So when government dictates anything, whether social, cultural, religious or anything else, they take a dim view of that.”

Libertarians trace their historical roots back to the Enlightenment and views of the rights of the individual that informed the Constitution, which they say should be strictly interpreted. As might be expected from a group placing a high value on individual freedom, they are a diverse bunch, animated by different issues, whether gun rights or drug legalization or cutting taxes.

When libertarian ideas gained in popularity in the 1970s, it was in part from public discontent with big-government efforts like the Vietnam War. Lately, libertarians have focused on issues like the war in Iraq, which they oppose in common with many Democrats, and school choice, which they favor along with social conservatives.

Many view Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, with suspicion if not disdain, despite his opposition to government pork, a maverick image and roots in Arizona, home of the Republican Senator Barry Goldwater (he of “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice”). They oppose Mr. McCain’s support both of the war and campaign finance restrictions, which they see as a curb on free speech. Meanwhile, liberal Democrat though he may be, Senator Barack Obama, Mr. McCain’s likely foe, may attract libertarians not only because of his antiwar views but because, like Mr. Paul, he has had great success organizing support via the Internet, where a libertarian spirit thrives.

Bob Barr

2008-05-25T15:00:00.001-07:00

It's Bob Barr.

Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of their party.

NC Libs on Chris Matthews: Yea, Us!

2008-05-25T12:00:00.001-07:00

Air ink from Chris Matthews, on Lib Signature Drive Success in NC.

I think he's a bit premature in giving Barr the nomination, tho. We'll know in five hours, by about 6 pm Denver time.

Register....NOW!

2008-05-22T19:43:00.001-07:00

And I hope this gets something more than the tepid "and they're checking it twice!" ink we got when we turned in the signatures.

Look, North Carolina media, it is NEWS that there is a third choice now for registration. You don't get to decide if it is interesting or not to register Libertarian. The voters will do that.

Let them know, will you?

Press Release:

LIBERTARIANS BACK ON BALLOT

RALEIGH (May 22) -- The Libertarian Party is back on the ballot in
North Carolina. The State Board of Elections formally certified the
party today North Carolina voters who so choose can now register
Libertarian.

"This was our eighth ballot access drive. Without a doubt, it was the
most nerve-racking and exhausting one we've conducted," said Barbara
Howe, state chair. "We are now back on the ballot, but we are out of
funds, so we have no money to support candidates."

Nevertheless, the Libertarians will field a slate of candidates in
November, she said. At their 2008 convention in Burlington held in
April, the party nominated Dr. Michael Munger, chair of the Duke
University political science department, for governor. They also
nominated candidates for the General Assembly, U.S. Congress, and the
Guilford County Commission.

Libertarians have until July 1 to submit a complete list of candidates
to the SBOE, Howe noted. "We expect now that we are officially on the
ballot, we will have more people come forward who want to spread the
message of liberty."

North Carolina ballot laws are the most restrictive in the nation.
"They're designed by the Democrats and Republicans to keep independent
candidates and third parties off the ballot," said Dr. Munger. The
LPNC spent an estimated $134,000 and logged 2,200 volunteer hours to
collect the nearly 70,000 valid signatures needed.

"This also costs the taxpayer, stifles democracy, and, worst of all,
kills trees," Dr. Munger quipped. "County BOE clerks spend 4,000 hours
verifying the more than 108,000 signatures we submitted." That's based
on an estimate of two minutes to verify each signature. In some cases,
it takes 5 to 10 minutes, Dr. Munger said.

"And we used more than 20 reams of paper, 400 pounds," Dr. Munger
said. "And after all this time, effort and expense, we essentially
arrive at the starting line breathless."

"Since the process keeps most parties out completely, the real cost to
taxpayers is democracy." Dr. Munger said. "No choices, no new ideas,
and no competition in a system that could surely use it.

"Nearly half of the seats in the General Assembly will be unopposed
again this year because we have had to spend all our resources on this
bizarre exercise instead of recruiting candidates and campaigning."

Meanwhile, Libertarian delegates have departed/will depart for the
2008 Libertarian National Convention in Denver May 22 to 26. The
Convention will nominate a candidate for president, who will be on the
ballot in 48 states. A debate featuring the Libertarian candidates
seeking the presidential nomination will be aired live on CSPAN
Saturday, May 24 from 7 to 9 p.m. (MST).

"Unlike the Democratic and Republican national conventions, ours is
not subsidized by taxpayer money," Howe noted.

Alvarez Galloso Interview

2008-05-21T10:22:00.001-07:00

An on-line "interview," with my main man Senor Alvarez Galloso.

Keynote Speaker at LP National Convention!

2008-05-19T17:10:00.000-07:00

Dear Friends:

This is a big night for me.

Because I can announce that, really really, for sure....I am the Libertarian Keynote Speaker for the Libertarian National Convention.

I am splitting the keynote hour with Richard Viguerie, a noted conservative speaker who nearly single-handedly invented direct mail as a political tool. And we are lucky to have Richard there. It will be interesting, and I look forward to hearing him speak.

But....I get to go first!

The title of my speech, which starts at about 2 pm on Friday, is taken from one of my main concerns about Libertarian progress: "What are we for?"

Too often, outsiders perceive us as only being AGAINST things. Well, what are we FOR?

My shot at answering that question. Should be available as a podcast, at least, next week.

Also, a new campaign website. It is still being built. But it looks great, thanks to new campaign webmaster John S.

If I could meet em, I could get em!

2008-05-12T17:58:00.001-07:00

Rasmussen puts the NC Gov race as follows:
McCrory 45%
Perdue 39%
Munger 4%

The "favorables", according to the report:

McCrory is viewed favorably by 56% and unfavorably by 29%. Perdue’s ratings are 50% favorable, 41% unfavorable. Munger is less known, earning favorable ratings from 24%, unfavorable ratings from 35% and 41% who are not sure.

As Buck Owens and Dwight Yoakum put it, "They don't know me, but they don't like me..." I'll have to work to change that.

Which puts in mind the Sam Cooke song, covered by many: If I can meet I can get, but yet I haven't met 'em. That's why I'm in the state I'm in.

Wow! The BIg O plays it straight!

2008-05-11T14:47:00.000-07:00

The Charlotte Observer notes that the candidates for Governor in NC in 2008 include....a Libertarian!

That's all we ask. In an article about the race, just a standard article about the race, nothing special about the ballot...just MENTION that there is a Libertarian candidate.

Thanks for normal, fair treatment, Big O! Seriously, that's a help.

Winston-Salem Journal

2008-05-11T13:42:00.000-07:00

Props, and more than props, to the Winston-Salem Journal.

First, this story.

Then, this one, which was slightly misleading, as I pointed out in comments.

Then....wow. Nicely done. Most newspapers would not take that stance. They
are too concerned about power to worry about choices.

Wow, A Long Distance Fan....

2008-05-11T13:39:00.000-07:00

A plug for my candidacy....in India?

Thanks, Roberto!

Forget Obama Girls! Here are the Munger Girls!

2008-03-27T10:01:00.000-07:00

Obama is a punk. You have to appeal to REAL women, not some tiny little skinny child with silicone work. (Note she actually promises him "in your oval office, you'll get your head of state." Wow. And, "you can Barack me tonight.")

At the Munger campaign, we have real supporters. Real women such as....these. You go, ladies. Note the Munger bumper stickers. (Thanks to PD, at UT-K)

Video of Candidate Debate

2008-03-27T08:46:00.001-07:00

Video of the candidate forum.

Interesting contrasts.

And, major props to Bill Holman for playing this straight. I appreciate it.

TV Coverage....

2008-03-24T15:29:00.000-07:00

A tv story, uncut, unfiltered, ripped from the headlines.

Well: a tv story, anyway.

Starting to see bumper stickers....

2008-03-03T08:54:00.001-08:00

A Munger for Governor bumper sticker, seen in its native habitat: Chapel Hill! At the corner of Rosemary and Columbia.

(Photo Credit to DS)

Background on School Choice

2008-02-28T07:41:00.000-08:00

My key issue is educational choice for citizens. Any change that puts money, power, and responsibility back in the hands of private citizens is a change for the better.

Here are interesting recent papers and resources on school choice.

The effect of charter schools on traditional public school students in
Texas: Are children who stay behind left behind?

Kevin Booker, Scott Gilpatric, Timothy Gronberg & Dennis Jansen
Journal of Urban Economics, forthcoming

Abstract:
Texas has been an important player in the emergence of the charter school industry. We test for a competitive effect of charters by looking for changes in student achievement in traditional public schools following charter market penetration. We use an eight-year panel of data on individual student test scores for public schools students in Texas in order to evaluate the achievement impact of charter schools. We estimate a model that includes student/campus spell fixed effects to control for campus demographic and peer group characteristics, and to control directly for student and student family background characteristics. We find a positive and significant effect of charter school penetration on traditional public school student outcomes.

-------------------------

Does school choice increase the rate of youth entrepreneurship?

Russell Sobel & Kerry King
Economics of Education Review, forthcoming

Abstract:
Because entrepreneurial activity is a key source of economic growth, promoting youth entrepreneurship has become a priority for policymakers. School choice programs force administrators and teachers to be more entrepreneurial in their jobs by encouraging innovation and by creating competition and a more business-like environment in K-12 education. Does going to school in this climate make students more likely to become
entrepreneurs? In this paper we test whether youth entrepreneurship rates are higher in counties with school choice programs. We find that voucher programs create higher rates of youth entrepreneurship, while charter schools do not, relative to traditional public schools.

-------------------------

The political economy of school choice: Support for charter schools across states and school districts

Christiana Stoddard & Sean Corcoran
Journal of Urban Economics, July 2007, Pages 27-54

Abstract:
Public charter schools are one of the fastest growing education reforms in the US, currently serving more than a million students. Though the movement for greater school choice is widespread, its implementation has been uneven. State laws differ greatly in the degree of latitude granted charter schools, and-holding constant state support-states and localities vary widely in the availability of and enrollment in these schools. In this paper, we use a panel of demographic, financial, and school performance data to examine the support for charters at the state and local levels. Results suggest that growing population heterogeneity and income inequality-in addition to persistently low student outcomes-are associated with greater support for
charter schools. Teachers unions have been particularly effective in slowing or preventing liberal state charter legislation; however, conditional on law passage and strength, local participation in charter schools rises with the share of unionized teachers.

--------------------------

Tiebout choice and universal school vouchers

Eric Brunner & Jennifer Imazeki
Journal of Urban Economics, January 2008, Pages 253-279

Abstract:
This paper examines who is likely to gain and who is likely to lose under a universal voucher program. Following Epple and Romano [D. Epple, R.E. Romano, Competition between private and public schools, vouchers, and peer group effects, American Economic Review 88 (1998) 33-62; D. Epple, R.E. Romano, Neighborhood schools, choice, and the distribution of educational benefits, in: C.M. Hoxby (Ed.), The Economics of School Choice, The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2003, pp. 227-286], and Nechyba [T.J. Nechyba, Mobility, targeting, and private school vouchers, American Economic Review 90 (2000) 130-146; T.J. Nechyba, Introducing school choice into multidistrict public school systems, in: C.M. Hoxby (Ed.), The Economics of School Choice, The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2003, pp. 145-194], we focus on the idea that gains and losses under a universal voucher depend on two effects: changes in peer group composition and changes in housing values. We show that the direction and magnitude of each of these effects hinge critically on market structure, i.e., the amount of school choice that already exists in the public sector. In markets with little or no Tiebout choice, potential changes in peer group composition create an incentive for
high-socioeconomic (SES) households to vote for the voucher and for low-SES households to vote against voucher. In contrast, in markets with significant Tiebout choice, potential changes in housing values create an incentive for high-SES households to vote against the voucher and for low-SES households to vote for the voucher. Using data on vote outcomes from California's 2000 voucher initiative, we find evidence consistent with those predictions.

(Nod to KL)

Ballot Access Editorial in N&O

2008-02-20T04:50:00.001-08:00

Very nice, sensible editorial in the N&O.

On the ballot
In North Carolina, it's good to run for office as a Republican or a Democrat. Because then you can run.

If your party label is of another stripe -- say, Libertarian, or Green -- chances are you won't be on the ballot, because minor parties' ballot access is severely restricted here. Our state was one of only three where Ralph Nader's presidential campaign didn't make the ballot in both 2000 and 2004. The Libertarian Party has managed to gain ballot spots on occasion, but this year is still thousands of petition signatures short as it tries to get a candidate for governor on the ballot in November.

All this makes little sense. The two-party system won't be unhinged by competitors on the ballot, and if a Ralph Nader were to siphon votes from an Al Gore, as in Florida 2000, well, don't voters have the right to be "wrong"?

After an effort to liberalize the rules failed in the legislature in 2005, Libertarians and Greens sued the state, claiming that it's illegal, under the state constitution, to restrict political parties so much. A Superior Court judge recently declined to grant summary judgment to the parties or to the state. That makes a trial more likely.

But there's no need for the judicial system to reach the constitutional question. It's obvious that North Carolina is way out of the mainstream. It has, according to the plaintiffs, the third most restrictive signature requirements for political parties in the nation.

So in the interest of fairness the legislature should simply loosen the rules. Find a spot comfortably in the middle of the states, and position our law there.

Such a move looked like the solution three years ago, but after a bill that would have reduced the signature requirement by three-fourths showed strength in committee, the then co-speakers of the House, Republican Richard Morgan and Democrat Jim Black, refused to bring it to a vote. Morgan said the barriers keep "illegitimate" political parties "at bay."

With all we've learned since the days of the corruptly fashioned co-speakership, isn't that ample reason to change the rules now?

(Nod to Linda)

2008-01-01T11:22:00.000-08:00

TV Segment, on WLOS out in Asheville.

My thanks to News 13 for playing this straight, and leaving the choices
to the voters.

The Haircut, Part I

2007-12-28T12:02:00.000-08:00

My wife had cancer in 2004. Five operations of varying severity. (Up to and including "severe"). She is fine now, thanks. Or, as fine as any cancer survivor can be.

In the wake of this horror, I resolved to embark on a path that might create some small humor, but also be a symbolic homage to Donna's struggle. We saw a lot of women with no hair, as they went through chemo and radiation.

I resolved to grow my hair out, and donate it to "Locks of Love." That organization creates
hairpieces for children whose hair follicles are severely damaged by chemical
treatments for disease, or by some disease itself.

So, to all of you who have wondered about, or openly mocked, my hair....that's why I grew it out.

Anyway, it was finally long enough to harvest. I am going to post, over the next three days, installments that show the process of harvesting. Several of the photos are, I am sad to say, hilarious. But while you are laughing at me, laugh with me a little also. And let's try to find a cure for cancer in our own lifetimes, before those lifetimes are cut short. Breast cancer, in particular (and that is what my wife had) is an epidemic.

Now, let's have some fun....Installment I: The Horror

My hair had at this point been washed, and is being dried. You can get an idea of how long and curly it is.

After the drier...well, pictures are worth 1,000 words. Also worth hiding from the children.

Then I had to wait for a while. Racquel was busy. Sitting there, I made the day of several dozen women who walked by. They tried not to burst out laughing. Very few were successful. The reactions ranged from titters (most) to one rather large woman who had to lean over with her hands on her knees and whoop with laughter for several seconds. "Meat Loaf!" she wheezed. "You look just like Meat Loaf!" Thank you, ma'am, thank you.

Then, into the chair. Racquel began the ironing and straightening process. Flock of Seagulls, you got nothing on me.

UPDATE:

Installment II

Installment III

Early Polls: I'm at 2 to 4 %

2007-12-28T11:58:00.000-08:00

Check this:

The Republican field for governor might get more crowded. Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory is pondering a run and released a study to show he is a viable candidate.

McCrory circulated an e-mail to supporters recently. He touted three reasons he might run -- problems with state leadership, the current candidates being part of the status quo and his successful skills and leadership.

"Now I plan to go through a serious decision-making process and self-assessment to help me determine if I should run for governor," McCrory said in the e-mail.

State Sen. Fred Smith, former Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr and attorney Bill Graham are the three other Republican candidates for governor.

McCrory commissioned a study by Voter Consumer Research in Washington, D.C. The survey showed that "we are in the lead over the three already announced (Republican) candidates with 39 percent still undecided." The e-mail did not give a breakdown of percentages.

Potential voters were also asked if they supported McCrory against potential candidates in the general election. One question asked voters if they leaned toward McCrory, Lt. Gov. Bev Purdue, a Democrat, Michael Munger, a Libertarian, or Dennis Neilson, an independent candidate. Respondents favored McCrory 39 percent, Purdue 36 percent, Munger 2 percent and Neilson 4 percent. The poll had 18 percent undecided. With Richard Moore as the Democratic candidate, the results were Moore 37 percent, McCrory 36 percent, Munger 4 percent, Neilson 3 percent, don't know 18 percent and refused 1 percent.

"These results are outstanding since we have not initiated a state-wide campaign and it shows we can win both the primary and general election," McCrory said in the e-mail. "They also show a large number of undecideds, which means the race is wide open."...

Help the President with Law Enforcement

2007-11-29T05:31:00.000-08:00

I have a metal sign on my wall. It hung on a wall inside a barn in eastern NC for more than 80 years (it's from the 1920s, in other words). I bought it at an auction, and had it framed, because it captures the libertarian solution to a whole lot of problems, including the very real one raised in the post above.

The little metal sign says,
Help the President with Law Enforcement. Repeal the 18th Amendment. For Prosperity .

The coalition that kept Prohibition in place is referred to, in Poli Sci circles, as the "Baptists and Bootleggers" coalition. The Baptists for moral reasons, and Bootleggers for economic reasons, wanted the state to crack down on legal liquor sales. Baptists got their morality, and the bootleggers got a protected monopoly.

We have a lot of problems with "illegal aliens." We have a lot of problems with enforcing laws that make things illegal. The answer is not to get more law enforcement. The answer, just like my little signs says, is to REPEAL THE STUPID LAW!

Help the President with Law Enforcement. Make Immigration Legal, for Law-Abiding Hard-Working Foreigners. For Prosperity.

Because here's the thing: The Baptist and Bootlegger coalition has come back. Lou Dobbs and xenophobic nativist elements of our population want to pull the ladder up. "I've got mine! Screw you!" So they play the moralistic public loudmouth role.

And the Bootleggers? Well, those are the giant ag corporations, and the meatpackers, and all the other companies that depend on KEEPING immigration illegal so they can underpay, abuse, and nearly enslave immigrants. That's the economic part.

Repeal the law, and "enforcement" is a breeze.

Pat McCrory for Gov?

2007-11-28T07:56:00.000-08:00

Pat McCrory, Charlotte mayor, might throw his headgear into the octagon for NC Governor.

The BIG O says so.

State Government Radio Interview

2007-11-26T06:18:00.000-08:00

Interview on State Government Radio.

Don Curtis does a very softball-question interview with me,
on the campaign and other matters.

Republican Jacobins?

2007-10-29T07:24:00.000-07:00

From the NYTimes:

Among the Jacobins’ greatest triumphs was their ability to appropriate the rhetoric of patriotism — Le Patriote Français was the title of Brissot’s newspaper — and to promote their political program through a tightly coordinated network of newspapers, political hacks, pamphleteers and political clubs.

Even the Jacobins’ dress distinguished “true patriots”: those who wore badges of patriotism like the liberty cap on their heads, or the cocarde tricolore (a red, white and blue rosette) on their hats or even on their lapels.

Insisting that their partisan views were identical to the national will, believing that only they could save France from apocalyptic destruction, Jacobins could not conceive of legitimate dissent. Political opponents were treasonous, stabbing France and the Revolution in the back.

To defend the nation from its enemies, Jacobins expanded the government’s police powers at the expense of civil liberties, endowing the state with the power to detain, interrogate and imprison suspects without due process. Policies like the mass warrantless searches undertaken in 1792 — “domicilary visits,” they were called — were justified, according to Georges Danton, the Jacobin leader, “when the homeland is in danger.”

I actually think they have this right. But the mistake is restricting this criticism to the Republicans. This Jacobin repression is in the fact the essence of government action, not a perversion of it. Any truly activist government is going to fall into this trap.

Once again, I am not so much worshipful of markets as distrustful of expanding government powers.

(Nod to KL)

"Paultards"?

2007-10-28T17:14:00.001-07:00

A very nice offer from the jack-booted thugs at RedState:

So over the last few days, we've been inundated (or is it infested?) with calls to allow Ron Paul supporters to participate here at RedState. We've had others misread Leon's post (with really impressive obtuseness) as a hatred of all lovers of liberty.

But at the same time, no one recognizes more than we do the raw passion that folks have for Ron Paul. The creativity to spot a Zionist conspiracy around every corner has to be worth something, too.

So we decided that yes, new Ron Paul-supporting comments do have a place here at RedState. So starting now - the floodgates are open. Sort of. You may shill for Ron Paul, with one condition: you must do it using the form of Japanese poetry known as Haiku. Failure to comply makes it easy to delete the comments and diaries - so have at it.

Elsewhere on RedState, we learn:

Congressional Democrats have been discovering, after 12 years out of power, that actually governing is a lot harder and less fun than griping from the cheap seats; but as long as George W. Bush is in the White House, they retain a convenient scapegoat for the gap between their rhetoric and reality.

Is it really not a problem for these folks that the 12 years that the Dems were out of power is the same 12 years that the Repubs were IN power? And that in those 12 years the Repubs repudiated every conceivable principle of conservatism?

(Nod to BR, who can write Haikus even WITHOUT Red Bull)

Ed Cone's article

2007-10-28T11:09:00.000-07:00

Article by Ed Cone, in today's News and Record.

It raises a number of interesting questions.

Should libertarians advocate "libertopian" policies, as campaign platforms?

I think the answer is no, but reasonable people could certainly disagree.

Harry Browne used to say that the only real libertarian educational policy is the immediate elimination of all taxes. That may be true.

But I am an incrementalist. Any policy that improves choice, and puts more power and responsibility in the hands of the citizens should be supported. How much more choice? How much of a change should we press for? As much as we can get, politically.

I happen to think that a voucher program, one that is funded by the lottery, is our best bet. Keep current spending at its present level, and INCREASE spending with the voucher program.

It's true that government is still involved. I don't see any politically feasible alternative. If I'm wrong, and we can get more, let's go for it. But I expect that we will fall short even of a voucher program, or raising the ceiling on the number of charters.

I got a couple of emails about agreeing that the subsidy to the airline in Greensboro makes sense. Look: the airport in Greensboro is operated by a government authority. It is losing money, fast. First best: sell the airport! Get the government out of that business, let a private company run it if they can.

Not gonna happen, though. So....what? You have two choices: waste even more taxpayer funds on losses, or spend a little on subsidies to reduce the losses. Having the airline move in makes business sense. Having the government run the airport may NOT make business sense, but changing that is not on the table.

Why is this different from Google, or Goodyear? Both of those are private firms, and the government is NOT operating the business. All that is being bought is jobs. In the case of the airport, the government IS running the business. It has to act like a business, and give discounts to some customers.

I really appreciate the ink Ed spends on ballot access. We need to get those signatures, and then (a) get 2 %, and (b) change the law, so we never have to do that again!

Suing the State Over Google

2007-08-10T14:13:00.001-07:00

A suit brought by the very professional, and also good looking (especially DW) NCICL.

But I get to be one of the plaintiffs. Interesting. Background.

Check here, and here.

Vintage Whacking

2007-08-10T14:12:00.001-07:00

A clear and focused post by Tex, in Oz. Good whacking.

Running Garbage Through the Dishwasher

2007-07-02T05:32:00.000-07:00

On, among other things, running garbage through the dishwasher.

An essay, and a podcast, from Econlib at Liberty Fund.

An excerpt:

A generation of American has been indoctrinated into a "save resources, recycle at all costs" mindset. "Recycle!" is used as a moral bludgeon. This is different from "Don't Litter!" Littering is a collective action problem, a genuine social dilemma: cheaper for me to throw that cup out the window. But I myself would prefer a world where no one throws cups out of windows over a world where everyone does. "Don't litter" is an attempt to solve a real problem.

"Recycle, regardless of cost!" doesn't solve a problem; it creates one. Laws requiring recycling harm me, the environment, and everyone else. We have to take prices into account, because prices are telling us that we can't save resources by wasting resources.

Why Can't We All Get a Smaller Government?

2007-06-25T13:10:00.001-07:00

DoF asks some good questions, and shares some very useful insights.

My two favorite "kill!" arguments from non-libertarians:

1. You just hate people!

2. You just don't want to pay taxes!

Gosh, those are devestating. I have no answer to those profound insights.

Why Can't We All Just Bike Along?

2007-06-22T18:42:00.001-07:00

A story of a guy who was tased, and beaten, for riding his bike.

Now, I bet he is one strange guy.

But you can't mess with people like that.

Not just the fault of the police, either. We criminalize things that are no one else's business. As one of my favorite groups, the Corporate Avenger, point out:

"I don't fault the police....'cause the people that run 'em, got 'em on a short leash." (And thanks to Large Guns Man for that!)

MADD Money

2007-05-26T10:13:00.000-07:00

Wow.

Just got a mailing from Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

They want us to sign a petition. Ignition interlocks, in all our cars.

Some points:

1. Drunk driving is already illegal.
2. Driving without a license is illegal.
3. Interlock systems are expensive and cumbersome.
4. On the other hand, interlock systems are easy to defeat.

Do you really think that the sort of person who drives with a suspended license, on probation, and stone drunk is going to obey THIS law?

It would just impose huge costs on the rest of us.

From the mailing:

"Right now there is legislation pending in 30 states to require alcohol ignition interlocks on the vehicles of either repeat or first-time DWI offenders!"

Really? First time offenders? So if I am considering driving drunk the first time, a nice policeman will come install an interlock system?

Presumably, they meant possible SECOND time offenders, or people who have been convicted once.

But this is just a short jump to the full, "interlock for all cars" system.

Why do I have to pay, and be inconvenienced, for the tiny proportion of people who can't control themselves?

All we would need to do to solve the drunk driving problem is have real civil penalties, large fines and compensation laws. And people who can't pay can work off the debt in prison. No parole, no privileges.

Instead, we fill our prisons with folks whose only crime is to use harmless drugs in the privacy of their own homes! The prisons are full of people who have hurt no one, so we cut loose the drunken killers who endanger us all.

My answer? Simple.

1. Legalize, or at a minimum decriminalize, possession of all substances, so long as they don't harm anyone else.
2. Punish, and fine, anyone whose use of a substance, or need to purchase a substance, results in damage to someone else.

Incredible that you can go to jail for LONGER for possessing marijuana inside your house than for killing someone with your car while you are driving drunk.

Punish HARM, and the use of FORCE, not violations of some made up moral code.

MADD should be focusing on real jail terms, and real solutions, not some techy thing that will just make money for corporations and bureaucrats.

Brad and Britt Show

2007-05-04T05:11:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Ed Cone for making the intro, and also for getting the shout out beforehand.

Had a great time on the show. They do a good job at WZTK, just working with a couple of staff and the outsized personalities of the hosts. A real pleasure to get to talk to some radio pros.

State Convention....

2007-05-04T05:08:00.000-07:00

I got to introduce Bob Barr at the State LP Convention in Hickory.

He gave a very fine speech, I thought. Some may question whether he is a "real"
libertarian.

I guess my own thought is that we need to take strong allies where we can find them, and not worry so much about checking passports.

On the other hand, as I said in my speech at convention, the people in the party who have worked for years, and whose commitment built the organization, do have the right to ask questions. New people (including me!) who come in and start giving orders....Well, we need to recognize the commitment and sacrifice of those who have worked for a decade or more.

Stop Municipal Aggression!!!

2007-03-30T16:31:00.000-07:00

Abraham Lincoln said it, in his "Lyceum" address, in 1838:

At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? — Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! — All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Our suicide seems to be coming at the hands of out of control city governments.

In the latest installment of "Dialing for (Your) Dollars!", the city of Carrboro "needs" more taxes, do they? Remarkable. A total lack of accountability, and a total lack of understanding that annexation is simply theft, except the thief is government and they happen to have better weapons.

Including lawyers.

An excerpt:

Carrboro's newest residents want out
'De-annexation' bill submitted

Meiling Arounnarath, Staff Writer
CARRBORO - A neighborhood still angry at being annexed last year has found a new ally.

State Rep. Bill Faison has submitted a bill to "de-annex" The Highlands subdivision after 70 percent of its 90 households signed a petition asking to be removed from Carrboro's town limits.

In 2005, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen voted 5-2 to annex six northeastern neighborhoods -- The Highlands, Camden, Highlands North, Highland Meadows, Fox Meadow and Meadow Run -- and some outlying parcels on the west side of Rogers Road.

The annexation took effect Jan. 31, 2006. With it came town taxes paid to Carrboro, along with police and fire protection and garbage collection.

Many of the annexed areas' approximately 850 people revolted. They accused the aldermen of timing the annexation so they couldn't vote in the 2005 election, and of annexing them just for their tax money.

Alderman Dan Coleman responded to Faison's bill Tuesday on local blog OrangePolitics.org. Faison filed the bill last week, but the aldermen found out Tuesday when Town Attorney Mike Brough told them about it.

In an interview, Coleman said Faison could have contacted the town's New Horizons Task Force, which was meant to be a bridge between the aldermen and the annexed residents.

"Or certainly he would've contacted Mayor [Mark] Chilton or possibly the town manager to let them know -- to run this idea by them and have a conversation," Coleman said.

David Lawrence, a professor specializing in local government in UNC-Chapel Hill's School of Government, said legislators usually submit de-annexation bills when the local governing board and the affected residents both agree on it.

And, he said, it's usually one or two properties requesting de-annexation, not an entire neighborhood.

"As a practical matter, unless all of the people who represent Orange County in the General Assembly agree on a bill like that, it's not very likely to pass," Lawrence said. "If Sen. [Ellie] Kinnaird is to oppose it, then it's very unlikely to pass, and if the [House] Speaker's against it, that doesn't help it either."

Both Kinnaird and House Speaker Joe Hackney represent Carrboro.

No, they don't! They don't represent the people of Carrboro.

They "represent" the interests of a rapacious and willful state apparatus of repression, theft, and social domination. What good is freedom of speech, when all you can do is talk to other prisoners? North Carolina is in many ways a model state government, at least compared to some other state governments. But our laws on municipal aggression leave EVERYTHING to be desired. Such as accountability to citizen desires, basic due process rights, and rule of law.

Leave us the hell alone, you darned municipal gangsters!

If I EVER have to go to a meeting with something called "The New Horizons Task Force," I might...Well, I probably just wouldn't go. I don't know that my attitude would be constructive or helpful in such a setting.

Kudos to Rep. Faison, whatever else he has done lately. At least he is taking a principled stand here. Thanks!

(nod to Donna Martinez, here)

Chartering a New Course, and "Lost Revenue"

2007-03-03T08:39:00.001-08:00

This gem of statist reasoning, from the Raleigh NEWS AND OBSERVER, got me thinking about school choice:

Some excerpts from the story by Samiha Khanna, Staff Writer for N&O, with my most insightful comments in caps:

DURHAM - ...The opening of Durham's eighth charter will expand a $6 million dent in the school system's budget.

Though charter schools are public schools, they operate independently from the local school district. They receive money from the state, and for each student from the Durham school district who enrolls in a charter, a certain per-student allowance follows him. (BUT...BUT...BUT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ALSO DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVIDE A SEAT FOR THAT STUDENT, OR SCHOOL BUS SERVICES! AT A TIME WHEN SCHOOLS ARE OVERCROWDED, HOW CAN THIS BE A COST? UNLESS...UNLESS YOU JUST THINK THE LOSS OF CONTROL OVER CITIZEN CHOICE IS A COST, RIGHT?)

This will make difficult several projects coming up for Durham Public Schools, including the opening of a new middle school and three small high schools in the fall. (AGAIN, THEY ONLY NEED TO DO THAT IF THEY ARE OVERCROWDED. AND SENDING KIDS TO CHARTERS RELIEVES OVERCROWDING. FURTHER, CHARTERS SAVE THE STATE MONEY, BECAUSE THEY DON'T PROVIDE LUNCH, OR BUS SERVICE, AND GET MUCH LESS PER STUDENT THAN THE STATE-RUN SCHOOLS.)

"We're trying to do a lot of things that require revenue," said Hank Hurd, associate superintendent of administrative services for Durham Public Schools. "Charters are depleting some of the resources that we need to address the student population at large." (STOP DOING THOSE THINGS! THAT'S NOT "REVENUE!" THAT'S MONEY TAKEN AT GUNPOINT FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE DESPERATE TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO BETTER SCHOOLS!)

When it opens in the fall, Voyager will serve about 320 students in grades four through seven. Its home will be the 40,000-square-foot former Little River Elementary School in the northern Durham town of Bahama. (NO NEW BUILDING, AND NO STATE COSTS, EXCEPT THE RENTAL. LESS THAN HALF AS EXPENSIVE FOR TAXPAYERS, AND HIGHER QUALITY EDUCATION.)

The school will expand to eighth grade the following year, and eventually cap growth at 500 students, according to a plan the school's board of directors submitted to the state.

As of this week, the school received about 400 letters of interest from parents in Durham and as far away as Hillsborough and Roxboro....(GOSH, SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE THE DURHAM SCHOOLS AREN'T REALLY DOING THEIR JOB. AND THEIR PROPOSED SOLUTION IS...PREVENT PARENTS FROM HAVING ANY CHOICES? IT IS TRUE THAT WITHOUT CHOICES, THE DURHAM SCHOOLS WOULD HAVE MORE STUDENTS. WHY NOT PURSUE THAT A LITTLE FURTHER? IF WE CRIMINALIZE READING, WE CAN JUST USE THE PRISONS FOR SCHOOLS, AND THEN WE CAN REALLY MAKE SOME REVENUE! USE THE SCHOOLS MONEY TO BUILD NEW PRISONS!)

...At Voyager, the emphasis will be on hands-on projects and other interactive activities, said Christy Whiteside, a contractor who worked with the school's board to create its education plan.

Teachers also will focus on character education and public speaking. Directors are still trying to solidify a partnership with the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University, Forsyth said.

Parents and students won't know until March 31 who will attend Voyager. If the school gets more applications than there are spaces available, it will choose by lottery. (I'M GUESSING THEY ARE GOING TO NEED A LOTTERY. SOUNDS LIKE A PRETTY GOOD EXPERIMENT IN EDUCATION, AND IT WILL CUT COSTS TO TAXPAYERS.)

Most of Voyager's students are likely to come from Durham, so administrators with the school system can expect to send at least an additional $800,000 to the new school in per-student allowances, plus state resources allotted based on enrollment, Hurd said. (AAARGH! WHERE DO YOU START HERE? IT IS NOT DURHAM'S MONEY TO LOSE! THAT IS TAXPAYER MONEY. CHARTER SCHOOLS JUST LET PARENTS MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES WITH THEIR OWN MONEY! HOW DARE DURHAM BUREAUCRATS TALK ABOUT "LOSING" MONEY? THEY HAVE LOST THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO SERVE THE PUBLIC, THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE LOST!)

....Durham administrators tried to drive home the point last fall, when enrollment in traditional public schools in Durham increased less than 1 percent and charter enrollment soared by almost 22 percent.

And, remember, charter enrollment is capped by capacity. That's not the number of people who WANT to send their kids to charters. That is the actual number of seats filled by parents who are going crazy with worry about how their kids are treated in the schools runs by teachers' unions and indifferent, revenue-maximzing bureaucrats.

Anything that improves choice, improves education. Charters, and vouchers, are a good start. Let's get started!

Playing with Fire

2007-03-02T11:42:00.000-08:00

Had a nice visit with two of LPNC's excellent interns today.

Leigh and Christian came over from Raleigh to meet, have some lunch, and talk some libertarian philosophy. Lots of fun, very smart young ladies.

In the car coming back from lunch, we got to talking about the "is government evil?" question. I said I had always thought of government as being more dangerous than evil. Like electricity or fire: if uncontrolled, or put in the hands of people who don't understand the dangers: POOF!

Leigh came up with a great metaphor, one I intend to use often in my campaign. She said, "Just think of all the times you have been at a bonfire. You stand around, and you may talk but you can't help yourself: You just stare at the fire. Government is the same way. Even if it is scary, it is so fascinating you just stare at it. We are drawn to government, and we can't take our eyes off of it. Politicians are the same way. We know we will get burned, but we just have to try to get close."

Wow. Very cook, Leigh.

And Christian gave a very spirited defense of the "No National ID" position. She isn't very big, but I'd hate to fight her. (The cook staff at the Armadillo put cheese on her burrito. Christian is a vegan, so that is a no-no. She went back and got them straightened out in no time. I would do what she told me, also. No nonsense for Christian). I agree that the National ID push is pretty scary, but we are almost there now, having to use driver's licenses or passports or something else to travel almost anywhere. Still, Christian was hard core. You go, girl!

Mike Munger
(Campaign Website)

Loser-tarians?

2007-01-31T10:09:00.000-08:00

Michael Medved does the best he can to make a logical argument. But then, his best is none too good.

When Reagan won the Presidency in 1980, crushing the incumbent Jimmy Carter 51% to 41%, he not only overcame a third party vanity race by a former Republican Congressman named John Anderson (his “Independent” Party drew 6.6% of the vote), but he also triumphed over by far the strongest Libertarian Party candidate in Presidential history.
Amazingly enough, Ed Clark, the Libertarian standard bearer, won almost a million votes (921,188) for 1.06% of the total.
To rational observers, a national campaign that wins only 1% of the vote looks pointless and pathetic, but by Libertarian standards the Clark campaign represented a veritable juggernaut, and the party’s breathtaking summit of achievement. Clark’s performance more than doubled all subsequent Libertarian nominees, even though some of them (like two time loser Harry Browne) raised and spent far more money for their sad little races. In terms of their percentage of the popular vote, Libertarian presidential candidates since the high-water mark of 1980 have drawn between 0.24% (David Bergland in 1984) and 0.5 (Harry Browne in his first race of 1996). Most recently, that burning hunk of unstoppable charisma Michael Bednarik earned a paltry 0.3% of the popular vote – less than one-third the showing that Ed Clark managed 24 years earlier.
The point isn’t merely that the Loser-tarian Party has moved decisively in the wrong direction (you don’t build majorities by losing two-thirds of your voters), it’s that they happened to succeed best against the finest conservative candidate in recent history.
In other words, the Libertarians lie or at least delude themselves when they claim that they will win votes by drawing people who are disillusioned with both big government Democrats and me-too Republicans. They drew more votes when running against the unequivocally conservative Ronald Reagan than they did against the likes of Bob Dole, either President Bush, or Gerald Ford for that matter.
Thus, the argument that they are pushing the Republican Party in a more conservative direction by taking away votes of die-hard conservatives is, like so much else about the Libertarian Party, a complete fraud.

Three facts the inexplicable Medved might want to consider:

1. Reagan had for years taken a strong "Government isn't the solution, government is the PROBLEM" line. He was not unequivocally conservative. I myself worked in the Reagan administration, for the Federal Trade Commission, precisely because he had strong libertarian sentiments in regulation and tax policy. These came to little, I agree, but Reagan was more complex than GW Bush, who is "unequivocally conservative," all right. And you can HAVE Mr. Bush; I don't want him anymore.

2. Reagan was running against JIMMY CARTER. This was Carter after the rabbit attack, after the flaccid reaction to the storming of our embassy in Tehran and the taking of hostages. That's not exactly the Dems' first team. And the Carter monetary policy and regulatory policy (Remember Michael Pertschuk?) had a big role in expanding the Libertarian vote. So, the reasons Clark did well were (1) He was a pretty good candidate, and (2) he was running against Carter, a "Let's Mate with the State!" guy from way back. Carter sent folks running to Reagan if they were gullible, and to Clark if they saw things clearly. That there are more gullible people than clear-thinking ones is not exactly front-page news.

3. In a dozen ways, "Loser-tarians" have already won. The CATO Institute, REASON mag, and a lot of other libertarian perspective are given respect and credence in DC policy debates and in the state houses.

Our candidates, perhaps, have not been competitive in national races, but that is just Duverger's Law in action. It's not as if any OTHER third party has made any inroads, either. The state-sponsored parties don't make it very easy. Imagine that Coke and Pepsi go to write their own antitrust laws; there wouldn't be any 7-Up on the shelves. "Shelf crowding, confuses the customers!"

And it may be true that Libertarians wouldn't be very good in office if we got there. But if we can reduce the power, scope, and intrusiveness of government by making persuasive arguments, who cares if we actually serve in office? The law, and lots of regulations, have come a long way toward what libertarians advocate in the last 25 years.

Tax, Spend, and Elect

2007-01-11T05:38:00.000-08:00

Wow. About Henry M. Paulson...

"As Bush's third secretary of the Treasury, he has engaged in secret
bipartisan talks discussing an increase in the current $97,500 limit on
personal income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. That would spike
up the top marginal tax rate, demolishing supply-side tax principles that
Republican administrations have purportedly followed for 26 years...One
well-placed House Republican, asking that his name not be used, expressed
alarm that a financier who sold $485 million worth of Goldman Sachs stock in
order to be confirmed at the Treasury cannot appreciate how the payroll tax
ravages self-employed businessmen and farmers." -- Robert Novak

ATSRTWT

Walter Williams: Windfall Profits Make the World Go Round

2007-01-09T06:44:00.000-08:00

The hokey pokey is NOT what it is "all about."

But windfall profits are. Walter Williams shares the truth.

Podcast: In Which I Sing

2007-01-08T17:52:00.000-08:00

A special bonus: I actually sing in this podcast.

A way of making money. If you don't pay....I'LL SING AGAIN!

The Unacoder Comes Out

2007-01-08T09:41:00.000-08:00

An endorsement, of sorts, from the Unacoder, a fine American.

And, also from Unacoder, an extension of Kelo I had not seen coming.

Okay, I lied. You could see this coming. But Unacoder found it. Nicely done.

(For those for whom Kelo is a mystery....)

Price-gouging: Yes!

2007-01-05T12:05:00.000-08:00

This won't actually go live on EconLib until Monday.

BUT, in a semi-exclusive for readers here at M4NCGOV, you can read it NOW!

Medical Marijuana

2007-01-05T11:19:00.000-08:00

Interesting post (five days ago, but interesting!) from S.T. at PoliBlogger.

HAYWARD, CALIF. — Until federal drug agents arrested him last month, Shon Squier was one of Hayward's most successful and generous young businessmen.

Customers lined up outside his downtown storefront, particularly on Mondays, when he offered free samples to the first 50 visitors. Business was so good that Squier, a former construction worker, was able to donate more than $100,000 to local charities.

But Squier's success as a dynamic medical marijuana entrepreneur was also his downfall. Federal drug agents raided his home and business, arresting Squier and his store manager, freezing bank accounts containing $1.5 million and confiscating several expensive cars, motorcycles and $200,000 in cash.

Medical marijuana advocates claim the raid constitutes unfair, selective enforcement by the Drug Enforcement Administration of the estimated 170 medical marijuana dispensaries in the state, including 85 in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Just down the street, another medical marijuana dispensary, not as big or as flashy as Squier's, was left untouched by the DEA agents in the Dec. 11 raid.

The federal drug agency, which does not recognize California laws legalizing the sale of marijuana to patients with doctor's prescriptions, contends the amount of money involved proves that the medical marijuana trade is nothing more than high-stakes drug dealing, complete with the same high-rolling lifestyles.

"These people will tell you they are just interested in the terminally ill," said Gordon Taylor, DEA special agent in charge of the California eastern federal district, "but what they are really interested in is lining their pockets with illegal drug money. When you pull the mask off, you see that they are nothing more than common dope dealers."

California's two medical marijuana laws, Proposition 215, approved by voters in 1996, and Senate Bill 420, passed in 2003, are not clear about how much money proprietors can take out of their businesses. One section of SB 420 states that medical marijuana caregivers should be allowed "reasonable compensation" for their services. Another section states that distribution should be done on a nonprofit basis.

"The legislation is about as clear as mud the way that they wrote it," said Joe Elford, lawyer for Americans for Safe Access, a pro-medical marijuana group. "The dispensaries are legal under state law because they are cooperatives and collectives. It is my best guess in terms of what the Legislature intended is that they shouldn't be operating to make a profit."

It always used to be fun to make Soviet Union comparisons, back when they were the "Evil Empire" and not the "Limp Willie" they were for a while. But now the old Russia is back, with selective enforcement. If some businessperson gets too successful, you take him/her down. Don't want those darned free enterprisers to get too uppity, would we?

Some Radley Love

2007-01-05T11:06:00.000-08:00

Our man at REASON, Radley Balko, has a set of 2007 projections with a twist.

And no one is more twisted than Radley.

A sampling:

--In yet another case of government bureaucracy gone mad, some local health agency will insist that the churches and private homes where volunteers prepare food for homeless people pass rigorous, restaurant-standard health inspections or shut down operations.

The silly policy will be justified in the name of protecting the homeless when, in reality, it will really only lead to fewer homeless people getting fed.

--In a scenario straight out of George Orwell's "1984," several local governments will begin to encourage children to turn in their parents when the parents fail to abide by building and property code violations, such as mowing the grass, properly sorting recyclables, and similar mundanities.

--In an aptly striking display of the drug war's misplaced priorities, federal narcotics police will sit idly by while a government informant takes part in several drug-related murders. The reason for their inaction? It was more important to get information from the informant on drug dealing than preventing the killings.

--In other drug war news, when asked to explain how today's drug prohibition differs from the nation's failed attempt at alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, the nation's top drug cop will actually make the argument that alcohol prohibition was a success.

--A radio host in the nation's capital will play a hoax on his listeners, jokingly suggesting that all Muslims in America be identified with an armband or a tattoo. He will then express shock when a solid majority of callers to his show will express their agreement with the proposition.

(you will need to go to the original to get the links, here)

Setting the bar...

2007-01-02T11:39:00.000-08:00

Several people sent emails asking if I wasn't being a bit unfair to the L party on our candidates.

Maybe I was....but there have been some highly publicized incidents. Check this one:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/746954/posts

LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE SPITS IN FACE OF TALK SHOW HOST ON THE AIR
DFU listening to KABC in Los Angeles | 9-8-02 | Doug from Upland

The evening started innocently enough for Brian Whitman, Sunday evening talk show host on KABC in Los Angeles.

He had on his show four minor candidates running for governor of California. Three were on the phone and the fourth, Libertarian candidate Gary Copeland, was in studio.

The conversation eventually turned to illegal immigration. Copeland did not like Whitman's position and called him a racist. Although Whitman kept trying to answer, Copeland kept talking over him and would not let him speak.

Just as Whitman puts callers in "timeout" on his show when they won't let him have his say, he told the engineer to cut off Copeland's microphone. Copeland became incensed and started packing his things to leave the studio.

Then, in great FReeper tradition, Whitman told Copeland not to let the door hit his ass on the way out. He also called Copeland a lunatic.

Then the rain came. Copeland walked over to Whitman and spit in his face. Whitman couldn't believe it. Two others on the KABC staff couldn't believe it.

Whitman had the station call the police and is considering filing assault charges.

Poor Copeland. He may no longer be the Libertarian candidate for governor. An official high ranking representative of the party called in to Whitman and told him that Copeland would be receiving no more backing and they were going to see what they could do to take him off the ballot.

Now that was classic talk radio. The unbelievable happened. A candidate for governor actually showed himself to be a bigger jackass than Gray Davis. Davis has spit on the law but never on Whitman, at least not yet. Brian, get him in studio.

If It Ain't Barak, Don't....

2007-01-02T11:32:00.000-08:00

Interesting point from Ed C....

So, should I begin to rip prospective opponents, as an entry deterrent?

Reminds of a conversation with a reporter the other day....

R: So, will there be opposition for the Libertarian nomination? Will there be a primary?

MM: No primary, because the state-sponsored parties denied us "party" status. We have to have a convention, like any other "new" party.

R: Oh....Well, will someone else run?

MM: I hope so, because otherwise none of the state-sponsored media, like you, will cover us.

R: (fairly long silence). Actually, that's right. I hadn't thought of that.

Does Cross-linking Produce Infinite Hits?

2007-01-02T11:20:00.000-08:00

Let's see if cross-linking produces an infinite hit loop.

Thanks for the link from Blue-NC, and Anglico.

It is interesting that so many on the left have a number of strong libertarian sentiments. But I have to admit that even the most sympathetic worry about electability and ability to govern.

And until and unless we Libertarians dispel at least the second of those fears, we have an uphill battle.

A question that even a lot of REGISTERED libertarians would have trouble with: Would you really want our candidates to be elected? Michael Badnarik would have been an interesting member of Congress. But PRESIDENT?

I know...you can make a "He'd be better than W" claim. But you know what I mean.

Problem with law-breakers....

2007-01-02T09:09:00.000-08:00

...may be knowing if you are breaking the law!

I have a piece coming out on price-gouging law in NC. Sent the URL around to a few people for comments....(will post it here when embargo ends)

A friend from high school writes:

Another argument to explore would be that of the convenience store owner that has plenty of ice but refuses to sell it until he determines the maximum price the government will allow him to sell it for. Ah to have a libertarian convenience store owner that would shut down in a crisis and request the attorney general to come over and determine and price his inventory for him. Would it be illegal to refuse to sell your inventory in a crisis?

One of my assignments took me to Guam where we had a few typhoons, one of which had 180 mph winds. The island was smacked very hard, we lost power island-wide for nine days (and up to 40 in some areas), and the main fuel storage tanks on the island caught fire consuming all available gas that was not already in gas station tanks. Many people had back up generators at home, myself included, but it was interesting to see al the dynamics of the situation in action.

Dumb Criminal, and Some More Stuff....

2006-12-31T11:50:00.000-08:00

A video about an attempted bank robbery in England (legit? I can't tell....)

1. Is this a good idea? Won't the guy just take hostages, if there is ANYONE else in the bank? Won't they have to pull the shield down, if he starts killing hostages?

2. Then...the COMMENTS on the post. What the heck? What is wrong with those commenters? I think we may need regulation here.

Campaign Finance

2006-12-31T08:09:00.000-08:00

The Captain Nails It: I have little to add.

Similar to the argument I made in my Senate testimony, against McCain-Feingold. Fat lof of good it did....

Still, an exerpt:

If our campaign finance system should be "reformed," it should be in the direction of making it easier, not harder, for parties to attract "soft" money and other resources required to strengthen national organizations and nurture grass roots participation. Parties are the only alternative to government dominated by special interests and narrowly focused influence groups.

The idea that there is a third alternative, with voters choosing among isolated candidates offering disparate, uncoordinated, and incomplete policy proposals was a conceit of the Progressive reformers. It has shown remarkable vitality as an idea, but it is a wrong idea, a dangerous idea. Politics abhors a vacuum. Only if strong parties are able to articulate coherent, and competitive visions of governance, and be held accountable for the performance of those visions, can democracy in the U.S. survive.

Finally, public financing combines most of the worst features of all the other proposals. It denies equality of opportunity to challengers, and to third parties. Ultimately, voters and citizens must rely on parties to provide a counterbalance to the power of entrenched interests in government. If parties have to rely on the public purse for their funding, how can we rely on those same parties to serve their function of providing effective countervailing power?

I Guess I Am Wrong to Believe....

2006-12-31T07:41:00.000-08:00

Interesting dust-up over a Liberty Fund conference.

I should note that I attend quite a few Liberty Fund gigs, and believe very much in the format and discussion. So I am hardly objective.

But:

I am struck -- you may think it is absurd for me to be suddenly struck by this -- but I am struck by how deeply and seriously libertarians and conservatives believe in their ideas. I'm used to the way lefties and liberals take themselves seriously and how deeply they believe. Me, I find true believers strange and -- if they have power -- frightening. And my first reaction is to doubt that they really do truly believe.

One of the reasons 9/11 had such a big impact on me is that it was such a profound demonstration of the fact that these people are serious. They really believe.

"These people"? Does she mean Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or George Bush? Does she think there is any difference?

I think the divine Ms. A wants to rethink the wording, and I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Surely being serious about the fact we are skeptical of the government to enforce any one point of view is different from being serious about the exclusivity of any one view. George Bush is not a Libertarian. The Taliban are not Libertarians. Whether George Bush is an American, Protestant Taliban...a question for another time, perhaps.

It is interesting that one of the core beliefs of squishy American liberalism seems to be that anyone who has any core beliefs at all is suspect. But surely the hallmark of liberalism, the good kind of liberalism, is a belief in a transcendant norm of forebearance. I have to accept, and respect the fact that, your beliefs are different from mine. I can't pretend to do that, and then go back to my little bunker in Madison, WI and snipe out of the rifle slits. Liberals even have to accept the fact that some people believe in things.

ATSRTWT

Also, do see Virginia P's entry. Remarkable.

I don't know Ms. Althouse, and I do believe that you get to try out arguments on your blog, at a different level than other kinds of writing. But what was A.A. going for here? This was the intellectual equivalent of flashing your shaved girl parts at photographers as you get out of a limo. Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, meet your new friend, Annie.

We Straight!

2006-12-30T16:47:00.000-08:00

"By my back-of-the-envelope calculations, since 2001 we've offered $2 in tax
cuts for every $1 we have spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And
conservatives wonder why we have deficits? At least the libertarians, who
are against both high taxes and an interventionist foreign policy, have
their philosophical story (and their numbers) straight."
[EJ Dionne, Jr. WaPo]

(nod to KL, who notes that the anti-tax-cut, interventionists are ALSO straight. KL thinks too much)

Gary Robertson

2006-12-30T16:00:00.000-08:00

Gary Robertson, a reporter for AP here in NC, did an article that was picked up by Myrtle Beach Online.

I reproduce it, in case it goes down in MB:

Posted on Sat, Dec. 30, 2006

Minimum wage increase, income tax reduction lead N.C.'s new year laws

GARY D. ROBERTSON
Associated Press

RALEIGH, N.C. - The new year will arrive with new rules for lobbyists, recreational fishermen and cable television system operators, as well as a little something extra in the paychecks of North Carolinians on both ends of the tax bracket.

On the same day an estimated 139,000 workers earning minimum wage will see their hourly pay rise to $6.15 per hour, individuals and small business owners with six-digit incomes will see the state's highest tax bracket fall from 8.25 percent to 8 percent. Both changes are among the more than 30 state laws taking effect Jan. 1.

"I think we need to help everybody who needs help," said Rep. Alma Adams, D-Guilford, the minimum wage bill's chief sponsor, who also voted for a state budget bill that contained the income tax reduction. "As we look at the poorest people in our state, we have just not paid attention to them ... it just appears that they're always left out."

Adams and others worked for nearly a decade to raise North Carolina's minimum wage, which had been at the federal level of $5.15 since 1997.

The increase finally cleared the Legislature last summer as Gov. Mike Easley added his support and proponents overcame the complaints of small business officials who argued the rise will lead to shorter hours or layoffs for workers.

The new Democratic-led Congress could seek to raise the federal minimum wage when lawmakers reconvene in January, and North Carolina workers would receive whichever rate is higher.

The reduction of the highest individual tax bracket applies to income earned starting Jan. 1. The new rate applies to individual fliers making more than $120,000 and married couples filing jointly who make more than $200,000.

The lower rate is the first step in a planned two-year phase-out of the state's highest tax bracket, which was created in 2001 to help narrow a budget shortfall. The tax will drop back to the original 7.75 percent on Jan. 1, 2008, although lawmakers have twice previously extended the deadline.

Also Monday, sport anglers 16 and older will need a fishing license before dropping a line into coastal waters. Previously, only freshwater anglers and commercial fishermen needed permits. The new law also removes a longtime license exemption for freshwater fishermen using natural bait in their home county.

Anglers will be able to obtain licenses Monday at hundreds of sporting goods, bait shops and other locations, online at http://www.ncwildlife.org or by phone, where N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission representatives in Raleigh will be working on the holiday.

"We're making every effort to make it as convenient as possible," said Lisa Hocutt, the commission's customer service manager.

The driver's license renewal period will be extended from five years to eight years for motorists between 18 and 53. Young drivers' licenses will expire on their 21st birthday, while older drivers will have to renew every five years.

Deregulation of the cable television industry in North Carolina begins Jan. 1, a move traditional phone companies say will make it easier for them to enter markets. Supporters of the change argue it will lead to increased competition and lower TV bills.

Franchise agreements between TV providers and local governments are being phased out. Companies seeking to start offering pay television service through cable, phone lines or broadband Internet will register with the Secretary of State's Office.

And while there are several exceptions, lobbyists will face new rules that will bar them from giving gifts or paying for private dinners with Senate and House members and executive branch leaders.

The change is part of the largest overhaul of the state ethics laws in more than 30 years, designed to reduce the impression that legislators and top agency leaders can be bought with fancy meals and other benefits paid for by corporations and other groups.

"Our hope is that it could change the culture somewhat, where the free-spending days without any accountability are over," said Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause North Carolina.

New election and campaign laws also will take effect Monday, including tighter controls on cash donations to candidates and a ban on contributions by check or money order with blank payee lines.

That issue gained notice when the State Board of Elections ordered House Speaker Jim Black and his campaign to forfeit $6,800 in donations received from optometrists for the 2002 election. Evidence indicated the donors left the payee lines blank and that other people filled them in later.

Another law provides a concession to Libertarians and other smaller political parties. A political party whose candidate receives 2 percent of the total vote in a gubernatorial or presidential race will be able to stay on the statewide ballot in the following election cycle. The threshold has been 10 percent.

The number of signatures required to initially get on the ballot - currently about 69,000 - remains among the toughest initial thresholds in the nation. But Mike Munger, a Libertarian candidate for governor in 2008, says the 2 percent retention requirement is doable.

"If we don't achieve this, it's hard to say we're a legitimate party anyway," said Munger, who is also a political science professor at Duke University.

Legislative Reform

2006-12-26T08:07:00.000-08:00

Interesting....I have been a political scientist for 20 year, and have lived in NC for 16 years of that.

But there are two practices of the NC legislature that I had never heard of...and which are APPALLING abuses of power.

They are:

1. "Floaters." These are a kind of strategic reserve for the speaker or the chamber leadership. Floaters are, first and foremost, loyal to the incumbent speaker, and can be counted on to cast votes as the speaker instructs them. If just a few seats on each committee are reserved for "floaters," the speaker can nearly always get his way. And since floaters don't actually serve on the committee, but just show up for the vote, the whole idea of committee deliberation is thrown into a cocked hat. This COULD be more defensible in a parliamentary system, where at least the legislative leader is responsible to the entire government. But in our system the speaker need only win his/her own district to stay in office. Why should someone who wins a majority of some nonrepresentative district somewhere in the state get to decide ALL committee policy votes in the legislature? The practice of appointing floaters, and reserving seats on key committees for same, should be abolished at once.

2. Budget Mess. Consider these common practices on budget legislation in NC in recent years:
a. Blank bills: An empty, or blank bill, with no content, passed at the end of a session, with the understanding that the actual content (the LAW itself) will be written in later, at the discretion of the speaker or a small number of cronies.
b. Omnibus or aggregate spending labels, without itemized spending broken out by line-item.
c. Last-minute "budgets" which are in fact nothing more than stacks of paper that no one has had a chance to read, and which in fact are not available to members to read.
d. Use of amendments and "technical corrections" bills to pass substantive, and sometimes controversial, legislation without the knowledge or consent of the legislature.

The NC Coalition for Lobbying and Government Reform sent these suggestions, and quite a few others, to House Speaker candidates. I would work with the Speaker, after inauguration in 2009, to make these changes permanent, and try to reform other parts of the budget and revenue legislation process as well. But kudos to the NCCLR! And thanks to D. Kane and B. Barrett for their short N&O piece on the list....

Thanks to Philip Rhodes

2006-12-25T14:07:00.000-08:00

Thanks for the encouragement.

All the more reason to get those signatures!

Star-News Piece

2006-12-25T13:18:00.000-08:00

A piece in the Wilmington Star-News (my FAVORITE newspaper in the world, because when I am reading it I am at the beach!) on the governor's race.

Nice of the fellow (Mark Schreiner) to mention the Libertarians. I appreciate the fairness. You don't have to spend a lot of time, just say we exist.

Blue NC Thread

2006-12-25T11:05:00.000-08:00

From Anglico's Blog at Blue NC, a shot at Locke, and FAN. It appears that FAN is not a favorite group of our guy Anglico. In discussing the "faculty" (their quote marks), BNC claims:

...One of the Dukies, Mr. Michael Munger, is mounting a run for governor in the Libertarian Party in 2008.

I first learned about Munger at Ed Cone a while ago, and since then I've spent a fair amount of time on his website. He's obviously a bright-but-misguided guy who cherry picks the best of Libertarian philosophy and packages it up into creative sound-bites reminiscent of George Bush gushing about all the happy people in Iraq.

Basically a fair presentation, I'd say. Anglico lists several of my issue claims, and mocks them, but he is at least focusing on stuff I really did say. And since some of the mocking is actually funny, I have to give him credit: good on ya, man!

I have to take issue with one of the comments (which are otherwise also generally quite clever, and funny. The one about "The Greatest American Hero", with picture, is particularly good).

The one comment I would take issue with is:

You forgot one thing about brother Mike. He is a Pope neo-con type of libertarian and jumps with the strings. Those Dookiee stick together. Brother Pope is a Duke law Grad..... When Brother Mike says to get the hell out of Iraq now and loads up the C-130s for instant exit. Than we might take him for real......After all, politics is a contact sport and when the other side says how nice you are and the mainstream media does not knock you, than you know it is simply a academic excise outside of the classroom. Socrates had this same problem until some Greek farmer said if you don't like it, run for Mayor of Athens and we academics know how that ended up in the name of Democracy.

Well, now, pumpkin, I'll try to use short words. The war is a F*E*D*E*R*A*L issue. (Sorry, a big word, but I spelled it slowly). That is the sort of thing the President, and the Congress, and all those really smart men and women we send to WASHINGTON work on. As Governor, I really wouldn't have much to do with that. Governors are in charge of S*T*A*T*E*S.

But, if it matters, here you go: Fly in the C-130s, and bring the troops home. Now. All of them. That has been my position for more than a year, and I have expressed it in a number of public forums and rallies. You are welcome to mock my real positions, but why attribute to me the OPPOSITE of my real views? You should try working a little bit; it can be VERY rewarding. You are just certain you disagree with me, and you don't even NEED to bother to find out. You say you are an academic; I assume you are in a "humanities" department, where the whole idea of truth is a little fuzzier.

You can say I was wrong, and came to this position too late. And you'd be right! But that is not what you said. Your claim was: When Brother Mike says to get the hell out of Iraq now and loads up the C-130s for instant exit. Than we might take him for real...... I have done what you asked, a year ago, and pretty much coninuously since. I assume you will now change your story, and come up with some OTHER reason why you shouldn't take me seriously. And that's fine. But try to focus on things I actually believe....

Here's the photo that another commenter linked, comparing hairstyles. Pretty funny.

However, let me say again, as I have blogged several times before. (1) My wife had breast cancer. Five operations. I saw lots of people without hair. (2) I decided to grow my hair out, and donate it to "Locks of Love." (3) The harvest is in January, and I will go back to having "normal hair."

Thanks to Anglico, though, for the ink, and the link to the petition drive. Perfectly fair to say "I would never vote for you, but you should be on the ballot," even if the reasons are politically instrumental.

ATSRTWT

NC Gov Race: Two Clear Front-Runners for Dem Nomination

2006-12-25T10:41:00.000-08:00

News and Obs article by Rob Christensen.

Doea a nice job of highlighting aspects of the race for Dem nomination for 2008 Governor election.

Exerpt:

The calendar may read 2006, but Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue and state Treasurer Richard Moore are behaving as if it were 2008.
That's when both hope to become the Democratic nominee to be North Carolina's next governor.

In recent days, Perdue and Moore have traded elbows over who first pushed for various environmental initiatives and for tax breaks for the working poor. Both have been building political organizations for a primary contest still 17 months away -- from lining up supporters to bringing in hired political guns. Both are already raising money.

Neither Moore nor Perdue, both rising stars in the Democratic Party, has announced his or her candidacy to succeed Gov. Mike Easley, who is not eligible to seek a third term in 2008.

But neither is being coy; both of them clearly would like to lead the nation's 10th largest state. And both say their extensive background in political office in Raleigh has seasoned them for the top job.

"My work in the General Assembly and as lieutenant governor shows that I know how to get things done," Perdue said in an interview this month.

To which Moore counters, "I have something that no one else who is actively considering being governor now has. I have 11 years of executive branch, managerial experience at a very high level."

Many expect a Perdue-Moore primary race to be tough, expensive and potentially divisive. The winner will face one of several Republicans, including state Sen. Fred Smith of Clayton and Salisbury attorney Bill Graham, who are looking to end the 16-year run of Democratic governors in North Carolina.

And, of course, the "winner" will ALSO face a Libertarian candidate, if we get enough signatures to get on the ballot (and we could use your help, on that!). I hope to be that candidate, as I have said, but there may well be other contenders for the LPNC nomination, and that will be up to the party to decide.

(I do have to give Rob Christensen, who is a stand-up guy, credit: He has mentioned my candidacy in another N&O article, and he hardly has to mention it every time, PARTICULARLY unless and until we get enough signatures to get on the ballot. Still, if I may whine: when you say who the Dem candidates "may face," I hope to get to the point where my name, or whoever is the LPNC candidate, is listed in at least "and also" status.)

Libertaroin

2006-12-20T11:16:00.000-08:00

My heartfelt thanks to Percy Walker, for his kind endorsement.

His description of "libertaroin" may, indeed, be my drug of choice.

And I'm certain that none of the (probably libelous) claims about Mr. Walker have any truth to them.

But I will have to give some thought to his "affirmative action" plank, in his own campaign....

Bruce Bartlett

2006-12-20T09:08:00.000-08:00

Interesting piece by Bruce Bartlett on "Real Clear Politics" site.

For many years, those who consider themselves to be libertarians have been fairly reliable members of the Republican coalition. Although no libertarian would consider himself or herself to be entirely in agreement with either major party, they have historically sided with the GOP. But the relationship today seems more deeply strained than any time in the last 30 years, and a divorce may be forthcoming.

Basically, libertarians are allied with the right on economic issues and the left on everything else. They believe in the free market and freedom of choice in areas such as drugs, and favor a noninterventionist foreign policy. Consequently, someone who is a libertarian could prefer to ally with the right or the left, depending on what set of issues is most important to him or her.

I first became aware of the libertarian philosophy in 1969, when there was a big split in a college-based group called Young Americans for Freedom, which was supposed to be the right-wing alternative to the left's Students for a Democratic Society. The libertarians broke with those who considered themselves traditionalists -- conservatives in the mold of Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk.

...In the 1970s, the left was clueless about how to fix the economy. They had no idea what was causing inflation and insisted on dealing instead with its symptoms through wage and price controls. The left at that time was also highly sympathetic to socialism and often favored nationalization of businesses like the Penn Central Railroad when bankruptcy threatened.

The right at least understood that excessive money growth by the Federal Reserve caused inflation, and that socialism and nationalization were crazy. So most libertarians moved into the Republican Party, which then had leaders like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, who spoke their language and had libertarian sympathies.

With the passing of the older generation of Republican leaders who were at least sympathetic to the libertarian message, a new generation of Puritans have taken over the party. They seem to want nothing more than to impose Draconian new laws against drugs, gambling, pornography and other alleged vices. The new Republican Puritans don't trust people or believe that they have the right to do as they please as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. They want the government to impose itself on peoples' lives and deny them freedom of choice.

At the same time, the Iraq War has aroused the isolationist impulse among libertarians. Only a tiny number of them supported the war in the first place, and they have all now recanted. Moreover, Republicans have lost whatever credibility they once had on economics by indulging in an orgy spending and corruption, and by becoming very unreliable allies on issues such as free trade and government regulation of the economy.

Consequently, many libertarians are drifting back once again to the left, where they find more compatible allies on some of the key issues of the day. And a few on the left are reaching out to libertarians, or at least trying to open a dialogue where there really hasn't been one for a long time.

Libertarians probably don't represent more than 10 percent of the electorate at most and are easy for political consultants to ignore. But they are represented in much larger percentages among opinion leaders and thus have influence disproportionate to their numbers. Republicans will miss them if they leave the party en masse.

I'm not sure I have an answer. The Republicans are definitely NOT interested in someone of my views, and I disagree with nearly all of the economic and tax policies of the Democrats. Still, I suppose I could run for office with one of the state-sponsored parties, and see what happens.

In the meantime, though, I'm learning a lot as a Libertarian. And the fact is that I really do deeply believe in the party and its goals.

ATSRTWT

Lacrosse....

2006-12-20T05:58:00.000-08:00

A friend wrote an email, asking why I had not taken a position on the "Duke Lacrosse / Nifong is Satan" business.

I thought, "That's not true! I've written several times on that." But a GOOGLE search didn't turn up anything (though I swear I have, maybe just in emails, tho).

Have to admit, I'm a bit sick of it. Wherever I go, on trips or professional conferences, people ask. So I certainly TALK about it a lot.

Anyway, my views, for what they are worth.

1. Duke, and Duke's President Richard Brodhead, reacted badly in the first 48 hours after the incident. The season should have been suspended immediately, and the coach and the athletic director fired. That party, and a number of other events leading up to it, revealed a breakdown in accountability and control. That sort of thing would NEVER have happened on Duke's basketball team, for example. The coach is responsible, in my view, for the behavior of student-athletes. And student-athletes have to be held to a higher standard than other students, because they represent the university. Just given what we KNOW, for a fact, to be true about that party (I mean the organized underage drinking, the strippers, and racial epithets), the team needed to be suspended, and responsible adults (coach and athletic director) fired.

2. The President should have treated the incident for what it was: a racial incident. The quick, decisive action described in #1 would have calmed the community. Instead, the administration circled the wagons and went silent for two weeks, AND THEN SUSPENDED THE SEASON AND FIRED THE COACH. It looked like the Prez caved in to pressure, and in fact he did. Either take action, or don't, right away. And decry the racial nature of the confrontation, and abuse.

3. Now, at this point, my sympathies switch entirely, from "punish the team" to "help the three falsely accused players." The team, the coach, and the university have paid for the racially motivated harassment of the dancers, and for breaking the (stupid) drinking age law, when the season was suspended and the coach fired, even if belatedly. So the vendetta of the (as my friend CL calls him) "Righteous Townie DA" Nifong against the players charged with the flimsiest conceivable case of rape is reprehensible. The three players charged with rape may not be choir boys (though no one knows that, except for the whole D.C. assault conviction thing). I'll not reprise the evidence against the three young men, or rather the evidence of prosecutorial misconduct by RTDA Nifong. The charges should be dropped, immediately. Nifong should be removed from office and disbarred.

4. The famed "Duke 88" were out of line. I don't deny their, or anyone else's, right in expressing their views. I find their judgment questionable, however. Their statement was, even in the most charitable reading, full of opportunities for what signers later called "misrepresentations", though it appears to me that the critiques of the statement are based on the plain meaning of the words in the statement. Let me be clear: the 88 were not out of line for expressing a view. They were out of line for (a) a rush to judgment, and (b) presuming to speak, or appearing to be presuming to speak, for Duke and Duke's faculty as a whole. Finally, I do have to ask, as many others have asked: If the Group of 88 was so concerned that people react to THEIR WORDS, not to what rumor claimed about the statement, why was the statement removed from the Duke servers? (Again, you can find a transcription here. Two disclaimers: (a) I can't tell if this transcription is accurate, since the Group of 88 is too ashamed of its words to allow them to be seen in public. (b) I do not endorse the invective at the top of the this article, but I am reduced to linking this source because the Group of 88 is too ashamed to...(ditto))

5. But that means that the relative silence of the President (though he was on 60 Minutes, for heaven's sake!) is also appropriate. What is going on now is a criminal proceeding. For Duke to use its public relations apparatus to try to influence the case would mean that we have sunk to Nifong's level, or close to it. (To sink to Nifong's level, we would have to be hiding important evidence, also). Either the three young men did, or did not, commit a rape. If they did, it was on private property. They should be punished, if they committed a rape. But the evidence now appears overwhelming (actually, it was overwhelming three months ago; now it is outrageously overwhelming) that the prosecution is conducting a politically motivated and cynical witch hunt. The system is broken, and Nifong has to go. I would go so far as to say that the city of Durham should have to pay most, or all, of the legal costs of the three young men.

6. Finally, I have heard from a number of people (Radley Balko, for one) that this protest against abuse by prosecutors is a bit too little, too late. Poor people, black people, and those who have inadequate representation are often railroaded by a legal system dominated by overzealous D.A.s. The only reason, the argument goes, that people are upset now is that the routine abuse has crossed race and class lines, and some rich white boys are involved! Where were you when the poor and the black and the brown were being abused? You didn't protest then!

Well, there are two answers. First, if the prosecutor can go after wealthy people, with good lawyers, and still cause so much misery, that is proof the system is broken and needs fixed.

Second, and more important, critics are missing the point: these young men are not charged with rape in SPITE of their race and class. They are being charged precisely BECAUSE of it. The whole point, for Nifong and for some (I don't know how many) of his supporters is that this is a chance to get back at the elite. Nifong's side appears to want to argue this way: If these particular white boys didn't commit the rape, well they have done other bad things we don't know about. And the very fact of their wealth and privilege is an outrage, and someone needs to be held accountable.

It is difficult for me even to type these last words, because it makes me so angry. And, I may be caricaturing the view, though I think I am guilty only of terseness, not misrepresentation.

So, to summarize lest I be misunderstood:

-- Ending the season, and firing the coach, was appropriate (and sufficient) punishment of the team for the racial and drinking incidents at the party. AD should have been fired also, and it should have been done in first two days, not two weeks.

-- All charges against the players should be dropped immediately, and their lawyers' fees paid by the County of Durham.

-- Nifong is criminally negligent, at least, and should be removed from the case and disbarred.

-- Duke University should continue its policy of cooperation with authorities, but should not make public statements that either support or criticize any of the parties in the pending criminal trial. It is wrong when Nifong tries to try the students in public, and it would be just as wrong for Duke to do so.

UPDATE: Dec 25, 3 pm: I should note that the initial recognition that the statement of the Group of 88 had been deleted from its Duke site came from DiW. I found the Johnsville reference through KCJ's site, and should have said so. I regret the omission.

Immigration: A State Issue....

2006-12-14T08:16:00.000-08:00

When folks ask me about my views on immigration, I usually try to beg off, saying it is not a state issue. Plus, I think the answer is long and complex, and I am suspicious of any quick fix.

But, now it appears that our man Mitt believes I am wrong on both counts. That is, it IS a state issue, and there IS a quick fix!

Check this!

BOSTON (AP) - Gov. Mitt Romney, who is weighing a White House bid, signed an agreement Wednesday that allows Massachusetts State Police troopers to detain illegal aliens they encounter over the course of their normal duties.

Under the terms of the agreement, made with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, an initial group of 30 troopers will receive five weeks of specialized training next year, paid by the federal government.

The troopers will be drawn from the Violent Fugitive Apprehension Squad, the Criminal Investigation Section, the Anti-Gang Unit, the Drug Enforcement Unit and the Community Action Team.

"The scope of our nations illegal immigration problem requires us to pursue and implement new solutions wherever possible," Romney said in a statement. "State troopers are highly trained professionals who are prepared to assist the federal government in apprehending immigration violators without disrupting their normal law enforcement routines."

(nod to KH, with thanks)

I used to be a Republican

2006-12-14T06:26:00.000-08:00

I am a recovering Republican. One never quite gets over an experience that horrifying.

But I was reminded why I used to have hope. Here is an excerpt from a speech by Mitt Romney, in his 1994 Senate campaign:

"If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and
lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent [Ted Kennedy] cannot do this. I
can and will...I think the gay community needs more support from the
Republican party..."

Yep, that's right, Mitt! Whatever happened to ya, man?

(nod to KL)

Mark Steckbeck

2006-12-14T06:15:00.000-08:00

Just got a note from Mark Steckbeck, Hillsdale College prof. He says he is moving back to North Carolina.

Great to have you, Mark!

And, here is a link to his very nice libertarian blog, "A Liberal Order."

Durham Herald Article

2006-12-13T05:08:00.000-08:00

A nice article from the Herald, on the campaign:

Munger needs 67,000 signatures, that is, 2 percent of the turnout in the most recent governor's race, to get the Libertarian Party on the ballot in 2008.

If he does that -- and wins the Libertarian nomination -- then he would have the right to officially compete with Democrat and Republican nominees to replace Mike Easley, the Democrat first elected in 2000 who must step down because of state term limits.

Munger said that while Easley, 56, is in many ways an admirable person, he believes Easley has been too hands-off, particularly in dealing with the Legislature. "I think it's got to be infuriating to the Democratic leadership to have someone that's just useless," Munger said.

State Democratic spokesman Schorr Johnson quickly countered by saying that Easley is doing "a great job" and pointing out that the party gained larger majorities in the House and Senate in the Nov. 7 general election.

Johnson also said Democrats would have a strong nominee in 2008 "and be on track to winning the governorship again."

Unfortunate that the article makes it sound like *I* am running the signature campaign, when in fact it is the state leadership of the party, most particularly our terrific LPNC Ballot Access Director, Bob Ritchie. I'll have to be clearer from now on.....

Anyway, here is Bob Ritchie's picture; if you click on the pic, you'll get his email. Contact him about the signature drive; we NEED your help!

Ric Flair: Bring It ON, Man!

2006-12-12T05:31:00.000-08:00

So....it WILL be a race among giants, after all!

Ric Flair, onetime "Nature Boy" and of course now a promoter and fan of hockey in Raleigh, has announced his intention to run for gov of NC in 2008.

"Ric Flair, a professional wrestler...officially announced in the premiere issue of WWE Mag that he will run [for NC governor] in 2008, saying 'My platform will be education, crime, healthcare for the elderly, and highway tolls'."

The Tale of the Tape:

Rick Flair, Republican
Ring name(s) Ric Flair, Rick Flair, Black Scorpion, Nature Boy
Billed height 6 ft 1 in
Billed weight 243 lb

Mike Munger, Libertarian
Ring name(s) Killer Grease, Mungowitz
Billed height 6 ft 1 in
Billed weight 248 lb

Think Pink!

2006-11-06T06:02:00.000-08:00

The Sisko Foundation's 6th Annual Auction and Dinner-Dance was held this past weekend, and I was there with my wife. Donna, as you may know, had a pretty bad bout with breast cancer, and required five operations. She seems to be in remission now, but it was very hard for her.

Still, it is always fun to dress up:

And, to meet new friends. Here, we have two gentlemen with similar fashion sense, but very different barbers:

Speech at JBS National Dinner

2006-10-31T07:43:00.000-08:00

I was privileged to give a talk in the afternoon at the JBS annual meeting. Nice folks, and interesting comments afterward.

Report from the front: Universities

I have been a conservative for all my life. Just what that means, we could talk about if you want. It is possible we disagree about what it means.

My work experience:

Federal Trade Commission
Dartmouth College
University of Texas
UNC-Chapel (MPA)
Duke, Chair now for six years

I am cautiously optimistic, even openly optimistic, about the state of higher education in the U.S. today.

This is a consumer-driven business, and people are paying enormous amounts of money for what amounts to a political indoctrination questioning and criticizing American values. For years, universities have taught bad economics and collectivist politics.

As a consequence, lots of parents, and even students, have started looking for alternative sources of education, other ways of learning what they need to know.

Duke hasn’t really seen a drop-off in applications, much less in enrollments. We still have an extraordinary number, and diversity, of remarkable students. I teach at least one overload class every semester, just to spend time with the students. When I first got to Duke, it took me two years to begin to get good teaching evaluations. The students wanted more readings, more challenging material, and harder tests. And they said so, in the evaluations.

Some universities, including Brown (through the excellent work of John Tomasi): rent a conservative. 200 students, 9 pm on a Friday. Want to hear a professor say something they disagreed with. “I have NO IDEA why you are wrong.”

Conservative students complain they are oppressed. I have little patience for that. It’s true that there are some instances of active, malicious oppression. But mostly faculty are just expressing a liberal view, and students don’t like it.

I’ll tell you who should be upset: Liberal students! Liberal students ought to sue the faculty of their university for breach of contract. Conservative students get to play against the first team, many of America’s best liberal minds. Conservative students learn to argue, to defend themselves without becoming angry, to understand and dissect the opposite view.

What do liberal students get? They get patted on the head, and told, “Good little liberal! Here’s a biscuit!” I was in a meeting of faculty department chairs where one chair, apparently believing she was among friends, openly said, “I don’t feel like I have to talk to the liberal students much. They already have it right. So I spend my time on the conservative students, educating them about the truth. But there are so many of them! Sometimes in my classes I have 3 or 4!”

So, in my mind there is a paradox working here, but it is working on the side of good. It is the liberal students, recognizing that they are being denied the (pardon the pun) “faculties” of critical reasoning that are starting to drive a backlash against leftist hegemony in the academy.

At its base, an understanding of something fundamental, something that good citizens figure out on their own: in a republic, there are two principles, tied together tightly. The first is liberty; the second is responsibility.

It is not enough to memorize the “correct” positions. A good teacher, at any level, teaches the student to think, and reach his own conclusions. We have to have enough confidence in the idea of America, and the principles on which it was founded and on which it has prospered, to believe that students will understand.

The bad news is the left hasn’t done this. They teach students that America is a failure, a racist institution without hope of fairness or justice. But they don’t teach reasons.

So, the good news is that the left hasn’t given persuasive reasons. I personally believe it is because they don’t have any, but I don’t need to argue that.

Garrison Keilor: At his confirmation, taught to recite from memory the answers to questions that have plagued philosophers for thousands of years.

John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty”: There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.

He goes on, later:

There is a class of persons (happily not quite so numerous as formerly) who think it enough if a person assents undoubtingly to what they think true, though he has no knowledge whatever of the grounds of the opinion, and could not make a tenable defence of it against the most superficial objections. Such persons, if they can once get their creed taught from authority, naturally think that no good, and some harm, comes of its being allowed to be questioned.

…

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. …. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them

The task, the proper task, of the university is to educate a republican citizenry, one that is self-reliant and at the same time committed to its responsibilities for the defense and preservation of the nation.

What the universities have taken as their object instead, is a perversion of this mission. We are by and large teaching students to be citizens in a democracy, to spurn responsibility, to shun self-reliance, and to question their own natural rights to liberty and property.
What is the difference between the nation and the state?

Frederic Bastiat describes the state as follows:

The State is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. (The State, 1848, same year as Comm Manif)

In a democracy, we all decide for each. The fight over the border is lost. What border? The border between what is mine and what is ours.

The first step in solving any problem is, “What should we do?” What should we do about homelessness? We should take money from those who have, and give it to those who have it not.

In a constitutional republic, we first take the step of writing down a set of things that the government cannot do. These are explicitly, consciously designed to thwart democracy, to run majority rule aground on the shoals of the law of liberty. There are many, many things I can do, without interference from the we.

In addition, in a republic I am responsible for my own choices. There is no conjuring the genie of the state, a Santa Claus figure who magically creates resources with the help of civil service elves. When we say, “The state should pay for that” it is nothing but a satisfying, even seductive way of justifying theft.

There is another difference. In a republic, the citizen is armed. Not because the police force will fail to protect us, though it will. A republican citizen is armed because he takes responsibility for the defense and protection of his property, his neighborhood, and his nation. Saying that the genie, “the state”, will protect us is no different from saying that the state should provide us with food and shelter.

I am not saying there should be no army, no police, no fire protection. We don’t live totally independently. But in a republic we are ultimately responsible, both for how we conduct ourselves and for how our government conducts itself.

In a democracy, the will of the people is the expression of the ballot box. No matter that craven demogogues distort issues, and that most people would prefer to watch “Survivor: Rocky Mount!” instead of study issues.

In a republic, the will of the people is embodied in the founding agreement, the Constitution. It “constitutes” the nation, in the most fundamental way. The actions of the legislature, which rarely or never reflect the will of the people, are at least constrained by the will of the people. The Constitution puts boundaries, builds walls of protection, not around what government can do for us, but against what government can do TO us.

So, in a republic, our liberties are the foundation, and our responsibilities as citizens are the reason we have a voice in choosing a government. Our membership in a nation means we are part of an organic body of tradition and shared values that commands our obedience out of loyalty.

A democracy is a collection of citizens who perceive themselves as having no responsibilities, only claim on the collective. Belonging to a state means that the citizen has pledged his property, and his earning power, to the collective welfare of all, and the consent of all is required before he can keep any of it. The state commands our obedience through force: anyone who resists the will of the people will be crushed.

The U.S. was founded as a nation. The responsibilities of citizens were clear, their loyalties paramount. Our liberties were carefully spelled out, and enumerated against encroachment by an expanding state.

At some point, it is hard to say just when, we lost sight of the centrality of our liberties, of the necessity of shouldering our responsibilites.

The idea that we should take care of each other, out of a sense of responsibility and shared national destiny, is at the core of what it means to be a republic.

The idea that we must take care of each other, out of sense of awe of the power of the state, and a right of entitlement to collective property, is at the core of what it means to be a democracy.

And, as was pointed out in John MacManus’s DVD lecture, Overview of America, when a democracy falls it does not fall up, back toward a republican form. It falls down, to dictatorship. American universities must begin to arrest that fall, and to restore the idea of America, a republic of America. I thank you for this chance to report a bit on my own assessment of how we are doing in that restoration.

AP Wire Story on election

2006-10-31T07:40:00.000-08:00

Here is a published version of an interesting AP wire story on the election. Andrew Taylor and I are the local talent....

Article published Oct 30, 2006
Democratic surge might hit N.C. delegation

Marshall | Emma Jean Radford almost always votes an anti-abortion ballot, which means she almost always votes Republican - even when she doesn't like the GOP candidate.
But this year, the high school teacher is thinking about voting for a Democrat. And that doesn't bode well for veteran Rep. Charles Taylor and his party, which could lose control of the House if Taylor and others fall victim to a potential Democratic surge driven by the war in Iraq and dissatisfaction with President Bush.
"I do not like Taylor, but I do know that Taylor has voted pro-life," Radford said. "I have two teenage boys, and I do feel like we need a change. We need to know where we're going."
For Democrats hoping to take control of both houses of Congress for the first time since the Republican sweep of 1994, picking off one or two Republicans in reliably red-state North Carolina could be key.
Five of the state's seven GOP incumbents - Virginia Foxx, Patrick McHenry, Howard Coble, Walter Jones and Sue Myrick - are generally considered safe. Robin Hayes, a four-term incumbent who represents a majority-Democratic district in south-central North Carolina, is thought by some to be potentially vulnerable to a Democratic surge that could push opponent Larry Kissell into office.
"I do think North Carolina is feeling the national tide," North Carolina State political scientist Andrew Taylor said. "That's the reason Taylor's in trouble and perhaps Hayes is, too."
Since last spring, polls and analysts have anticipated Heath Shuler, a moderate Democrat who opposes abortion and supports gun rights, would give Taylor his toughest race in more than a decade. Shuler has the name recognition that comes from winning three state titles as a quarterback at Swain County High School and later playing in the National Football League.
Shuler's moderate stances play well in a district that stretches from Asheville to the state's western tip, and is filled with swing Democrats who take faith and social issues seriously.
Radford was among those who heard Shuler speak recently to a group of teachers at Madison County High School.
"I really would like to look at his Web site," she said afterward. "When I really, really get a feel for what Mr. Shuler is saying, then I can make my decision. The TV (advertising) is so negative. This is the first time I've heard how he feels about any of the issues."
Kissell has won ardent liberal support by attacking Hayes for his vote in favor of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, as well as his determination to run a grass-roots campaign - his campaign recently bragged about having less than $90. The well-funded Hayes has attacked Kissell, a high school social studies teacher from rural Biscoe, for his positions on Iraq and his criticism of the new Medicare prescription drug plan.
Representing a district in which registrations favor Democrats by about 191,000 to 118,000, Hayes captured 56 percent of the vote in winning a fourth term in 2004.
Of course, that same year, George W. Bush carried North Carolina with 56 percent of the vote. Two years later, more North Carolinians disapprove of Bush's job performance than approve, by a margin of 48 percent to 45 percent, according to a recent Elon University poll.
Duke University political scientist Mike Munger believes Democrats such as Kissell could benefit from anger in the Christian right over the scandal involving GOP Rep. Mark Foley's inappropriate communications with male pages. The notion that the House GOP leadership failed to take effective action against Foley, despite years of warnings about his behavior, could keep some traditionally Republican voters home on Election Day.
"In any election, there is a moment, perhaps a trivial one, that focuses things in voters' minds. It can either make them choose a candidate, or make them lose enthusiasm for a candidate or party and stay home," Munger said in an e-mail. "The question in North Carolina is this: Is the Mark Foley affair going to be that moment?"
If so, Munger said, Hayes could lose, Taylor's 16-year House career will likely come to an end, and even Foxx could be in danger. Hayes, Taylor and Foxx, who represents a district that runs from Winston-Salem into the state's northwestern corner, were the only GOP representatives to win with less than 60 percent of the vote in 2004.
The most spirited challenge to a Democratic incumbent is being mounted in the north-central district represented by Brad Miller. There, Republican Vernon Robinson has campaigned with a series of blunt anti-immigration and anti-gay advertisements on radio, the Internet and television. In one, Robinson claims that "if Miller had his way, America would be nothing but one big fiesta for illegal aliens and homosexuals."
Few analysts expect Robinson to oust Miller, who has represented the district since it was created when North Carolina gained a House seat following the 2000 census.
Robinson's focus on national issues, such as immigration, bucks the trend this year in North Carolina, where the lack of a Senate or presidential race at the top of the ticket has kept local issues at the forefront. Kissell, for example, has used Hayes' CAFTA vote to question whether the incumbent has done enough to attract and keep jobs in the mostly rural district, which has lost thousands of manufacturing jobs to foreign competition in recent years.
In the mountains, Shuler has attacked Taylor on ethics issues and for failing to represent "mountain values." Taylor has highlighted his efforts to improve education and Internet access in the region, emphasizing his powerful position on the House Appropriations Committee that enables him to bring federal money back to the district.
It was telling that when President Bush visited North Carolina earlier this month, he didn't make campaign appearances with either Hayes or Taylor.
"Obviously, Republicans don't want North Carolina voters focusing on Washington at the moment," said Andrew Taylor, the N.C. State political scientist.

Charlotte Observer Article

2006-10-31T07:35:00.000-08:00

Here is an article written by David Ingram, which appeared in the big O.

Duke professor is running for governor
Libertarian candidate's 1st step, though, is to get name on 2008 ballot
DAVID INGRAM dingram@charlotteobserver.com

RALEIGH - There are a few things you should know right away about Mike Munger.

First, as Election Day 2006 approaches, he's the only person so far to announce he's running for N.C. governor in 2008.

Second, Munger's campaign is likely to be, by any objective standard, the most interesting of what will be several 2008 gubernatorial campaigns. Just check out his resumé or his positions -- or his hair.

Third, at this moment, his campaign is not legally eligible.

"The paradox is, I'm the only announced candidate for a party that has been outlawed by the state," Munger said.

Munger is affiliated with the Libertarian Party, North Carolina's third most-popular political party and the one that gets kicked off state rolls every four years for failing to get 10 percent of the gubernatorial or presidential votes in 2004, as required by state law.

While Libertarians work to get on the 2008 ballot, Munger is trying to win support and potential future votes by drawing on a diverse background. He's a Davidson College alum, Duke University political scientist, former Republican and Reagan administration official and former orange picker.

And Munger, 48, is a first-time candidate. He's written books about elections, but he's never tried to win an election. "It struck me I knew very little about the nuts and bolts of campaign finance and elections," he said.

So the experiences he's having now are unusual for a gubernatorial candidate. He's trying to visit all 100 N.C. counties. On his campaign Web site, he describes a July 18 visit to McDowell County:

"Visited the Hardees on NC 226," he writes. "A spirited discussion about third parties with an elderly gentleman. He is apparently the honorary mayor of that Hardees, comes in to drink coffee and conduct the discussion of the day. A great guy, though he thinks that third parties are the work of the devil."

He still has 92 counties to go.

Government is not `evil'

Other N.C. academics have tried politics. Fellow Duke political scientist David Price, a Democrat from Chapel Hill, is a congressman. Former N.C. Gov. Jim Martin, a Republican from Lake Norman, was once a chemist at Davidson College.Alex Rosenberg, a Duke philosophy professor who gave $100 to Munger's campaign, said Munger's academic background doesn't deter voters.

"Do they think he's a pointed-headed intellectual? I don't think so. He looks more like an aging rock star," he said.

Rosenberg calls Munger a "campus leader," and in fact Munger chairs a politics department that's considered among the best in the country.

As with many Libertarians, Munger's philosophy straddles the platforms of the two major parties. He is likely to anger Democrats by favoring school vouchers and anti-annexation policies, and Republicans by favoring same-sex civil unions and lighter sentences for drug possession and prostitution.

"A lot of Libertarians think government is evil," Munger said. "I think that government often fails, but it's because we ask the government to do things that are impossible.

"Anything we think should be done but don't know how to do, we ask government to do, and then we blame government when it fails."

69,000 signatures all he needs

Still, no one can vote for a Libertarian in 2008 unless the party qualifies for the ballot by collecting 69,000 valid signatures on petitions. The party would then nominate a candidate.

Others exploring runs for governor are State Treasurer Richard Moore and Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue, both Democrats, and lawyer Bill Graham and state Sen. Fred Smith, both Republicans.

Munger said he would be satisfied if he's allowed in the debates, which in the past have been controlled by interest groups or by TV stations. "

Mike Munger

Running for: N.C. governor in 2008.

Current job: Duke political scientist and department chair.

Hometown: Orange farm in Gotha, Fla., near Orlando.

Residence: Raleigh.

Family: Wife, two children.

School: Bachelor's degree from Davidson College, 1980; master's and doctorate from Washington University in St. Louis, 1982 and 1984

How to hear him: Occasional morning guest on AM 1110 WBT.

How to read him: munger4ncgov.com or mungowitzend.blog spot.com

On going to school near Charlotte: "We would go in and see `The Rocky Horror Picture Show' all the time. Sometimes I went Friday and Saturday."

(Photo Credit: Jon Gardner, of the Observer)

News and Observer Op-Ed

2006-10-31T07:30:00.000-08:00

here is a piece I wrote for the N&O....

An excerpt:

WHAT IF THE DEMOCRATS WIN?
Michael Munger
DURHAM - Six months ago, the idea of a Democratic House seemed far-fetched, and taking the Senate looked impossible. How things have changed! The odds of a House takeover are 60-40. Winning the Senate would require only that the Democrats: 1) hold on to leads against GOP incumbents in Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island (nearly certain); 2) turn out their base in Maryland, Missouri and New Jersey (very possible); and 3) get lucky in either Tennessee or Virginia (could happen).
What will happen if the Democrats win back control of Congress? Three things:

It's raining subpoenas. Committee hearings and subpoenas will be the No. 1 non-legislative priority of a Democrat-controlled House. And if the Democrats take the Senate, given its star power and prestige, we will have a new reality TV show -- "Survivor: Oversight!" -- with lots of Republican officials immediately voted off the island.

The Democrats argue, with cause, that Congress has failed to monitor thousands of administration activities. Expect hearings on administrative rule-making, wire-tapping, detainees, health care for veterans, too much corruption and not enough armor in Iraq -- the list goes on. If you are an attorney with Democratic connections, dust off your resume. Hundreds of lawyers will be needed right away.

It's the Congress, stupid. The center of power and focus for the Democrats moves even more to the Congress. Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will raise $50 million during the 2008 election cycle; Charles Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee are likely to raise more than $100 million before Election Day. That is partly because both organizations work hard. But much of the reason is the grating ineptitude of National Committee Chair Howard Dean, and the apparent belief that "presidential timber" means candidates made of wood. Except for the anomaly of Bill Clinton, the last Democratic presidential nominee with leadership ability was John Kennedy. Congress is where the Democrats feel comfortable ruling.

A Local Raleigh Activity, for the Outrage-Deficient

2006-10-27T11:48:00.000-07:00

This is not the end of the world. But it is time somebody stood up to bureaucratic foolishness. And it is a good cause. The rest of this post is taken from an email written by my friend Susan Hogarth.

The City of Raleigh is harassing a local retail business (Hughie & Louie's, a costume shop), using very odd and selective enforcement of it's sign ordinance to suppress commercial free speech. Libertarianism supports a right to of all forms of free speech, whether political or commercial, unless there is fraud or some physical threat involved (certainly not the case, here). As members of the Libertarian Party, you can help a local business fight this government harassment.

There are two protests planned, both endorsed by the LP.

One is to be downtown at the city offices located at the corner of Hargett and McDowell streets, at noon this Monday (10/30/06). It is being organized by local cable access journalist Todd Mormon, who wants to bring pressure directly on city government.

The second protest, sponsored independently by the Wake Co. LP, is to be held tomorrow, from 3pm to 5pm, Saturday (10/28/06), directly in front of the business being harassed, at the Oak Park shopping center on Glenwood Avenue, just North of Crabtree Mall. We apologize for the short notice.

At last night's WakeLP meeting, some members volunteered to attend these protests. Hopefully some of you now reading about this for the first time will join us.

Here's the background:

According to the sign ordinance of the City of Raleigh, a business is not normally allowed any "special" signs. Typically for a business, a "special" sign would be a banner or other sign designed to stand in for the narrowly defined not-"special" business sign (a permanently mounted, more expensive one, which is typically put on the front of the site of a given business). In the lifetime of any business in Raleigh, the business is only allowed two "special use" permits. And these are only good for 30 days each.

Taking advantage of this are "temporary" stores, which occupy a space for only two months, then move to another location, or reopen at the same location at a later date. Even though these "temporary" businesses have the same name, the same phone number and the same stock each time they open, they are allowed fresh "special use" permits any time they change location, according to the sign ordinance enforcement officials of the City of Raleigh.

By contrast, a business which consistently stays open at one location - employing workers, providing a service to the community and paying taxes - such a business is given only two opportunities for "special use" promotions. This disadvantage is enforced simply because these, the majority of businesses, choose to maintain a stable location. And in one specific case, which has drawn the full enforcement power of the City of Raleigh's sign enforcement bureaucracy, it is questionable whether or not there would even be a "sign" violating the "sign ordinance".

The ordinance itself does not refer to clothing, nor to uniforms, nor to costumes. Having read the ordinance, the management of Houie & Louie's decided to use costumes as a way to promote itself. To advertise itself during the Halloween season, Houie & Louie's dressed some family members and friends as Santa and Mrs. Clause and two elves and had them stand in front of the store, next to the road waving to passers by. They were not holding signs, nor was there any writing on their clothing.

But according to the officials of the City of Raleigh, this was a violation of the "sign ordinance". The reasoning given was that the shop sold costumes, and was thus displaying it's product. So any costume on display to the public in front of the store was going to be called a "sign", by the sign ordinance enforcement officials, who would then demand a "special use" permit, or impose a penalty.

There were no complaints from any citizens about the people in costumes. The sign ordinance enforcement officials of the City of Raleigh, we may speculate, had chosen to give special attention to this situation (and in doing so stretch their jurisdiction), merely because the business had drawn attention to itself, by an earlier complaint about the discrimination in favor of businesses which move frequently (described above).

Ideally, Houie & Louie's would like to use costumed employees with signs promoting their business every Halloween - their busiest time. But the City of Raleigh has warned Houie & Louie's that wearing their merchandise on the street in front of their shop, even without a sign, is punishable by a fine of $500 a day. Meanwhile car dealers who display cars in front of their businesses, clothing store employees who wear clothes in front of their businesses, etc. are being left alone.

Unfortunately, in the City of Raleigh, and in most of the USA, the notion of Freedom of Speech does not automatically extend to commercial speech. If someone were to do exactly what Houie and Louie's wants to do, but do it for reasons of political protest, it would be "protected" expression.

I talked with one of the owners of Houie & Louie's and asked if they would mind if the Libertarian Party of Wake County did exactly that. Not surprisingly, this small business would welcome such political free speech. And as a political group, we can bring signs which express our concerns. Mine will read "the Libertarian Party protests discrimination by the City of Raleigh against HUGHIE & LOUIE'S COSTUME SHOP".

Those capital letters might be in a larger font.

Clip for FAN event on Wednesday

2006-10-27T11:37:00.000-07:00

The John Locke Foundation sponsored a Faculty Affiliate Network event here at Duke on Wednesday, October 25.

Here is a clip of all four speakers.

It was pretty fun. Thanks to JLF, and to Karen Palasek in particular, for all the hard work setting up everything.

New Podcast

2006-10-03T08:38:00.000-07:00

For podcast fans, I have a new one at EconTalk. Pretty darned fun. I got to talk about the "Tullock airbag." You'll love it....

And for fans of old-fashioned reading, a similar subject, but with a discussion of "Glock Airlines."

Interesting Conversations

2006-10-03T08:23:00.000-07:00

Spent most of yesterday at the "Dixie Classic Fair" in Winston Salem.

Very fun, got to talk to lots of people. I mostly want to acknowledge four
people who work all the time on stuff like this, but don't always get acknowledged.

1. Susan ("If you touch the display, I'll kill you!") Hogarth, Wake County. Organizer of nearly everything.
2. Rob Sinnott, Guilford County
3. Paul Elledge, Guilford County
4. Jack Wyatt, citizen of the world

To say that their constant efforts on behalf of the LP in NC are unsung is an understatement. They work on things all the time. I showed up for one long day, and really enjoyed. What is important is to acknowledge the people that work for the cause of liberty day after day. Thanks to all!

We gave out a lot of literature and material on LP, and we heard a lot from the citizens of NC. Very interesting, and very useful.

My favorite line (after Susan's death threat, and if you think she was kidding you are crazy) was from an elderly gent who stopped by the booth. He suggested a slogan which I like very much. I'm going to use it whenever someone asks me why I am running, because it is accurate:

I'm tired of leaders telling the people what they want to hear. As Governor, I want to tell the people what they need to know.

And we talked a fair amount, in several of the shifts, about Bastiat's famous definition of the state:

"The State is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

Constitution Day Speech

2006-09-17T17:36:00.000-07:00

Eric Smith, running for Rockingham County School Board in '06, invited a bunch of people to a "Constitution Day" gathering at his house.

I got to give a speech, standing (literally) on a stump. I'll put the speech up on the web site, soon.

The highlights, for me anyway:

1. I get in the dunk tank. A young woman who missed with the softballs sneaks up and hits the target with a stick. Since I wasn't expecting it, I fell hard. General hilarity.

2. After my speech, a TV reporter puts the camera in my face, and says, "Aren't the Libertarians just the weird party?" That was his question. I have to work on my answer to that one.

Otherwise, Democracy Might Break Out!

2006-08-25T08:57:00.001-07:00

From the Phil Inquirer:

The Green Party's efforts to get on the November ballots once again suffered a setback when a federal judge ruled yesterday that the party needs more than 67,000 valid signatures to get on the ballot.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia upheld a state election law yesterday that requires Green Party and other minority party candidates to collect a certain number of valid signatures equal to 2 percent of the "vote total of the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes for state-wide office in the previous election."

The 2004 presidential election resulted in the biggest voter turnout in Pennsylvania history. The biggest statewide vote-getter was Treasurer Bob Casey Jr., and 2 percent of his total yielded this year's 67,070 threshold for third-party candidates.

While the Green Party turned in more than 90,000 signatures by the Aug. 1 deadline, state Democrats have contested their validity. Democrats claim they found fake names, unregistered voters and illegible signatures among the petitions of the Green Party's U.S. Senate candidate, Carl J. Romanelli.

A hearing is set for next week in Harrisburg, Pa., to challenge the vailidy of the signatures. Last week, state Green Party gubernatorial candidate Marakay Rogers and running mate Christina Valente withdrew their nominating papers because of the expense of defending their petitions against the Democrats' challenges (Joseph A. Slobodzian, Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug. 24). -- EB

Illegible SIGNATURES? Yikes! I have collected a lot of signatures for the Libertarian Party, but all I have checked for legibility was the names. The SIGNATURES? Wow.

(Nod to anonyman)

A Logo...

2006-08-08T11:42:00.000-07:00

Hey, if anyone is looking: I came up with a quick penguin logo for the campaign. I can work on it later, but for now it is good enough if it is small.

What do you think?

Interesting Argument about Property

2006-07-28T06:05:00.000-07:00

Scott over at Catallarchy has an interesting post on property rights. Obviously, fundamental rights, including (especially?) those involving property are very close the cornerstone of libertarian claims about the good society.

There are two sorts of arguments, as Scott notes. One is the purely moral claim, that rights are natural, or have some other basis that means that they must be respected. The second is consequentialist.

The more hardened members of the American left, perhaps represented best by the members of the Critical Legal Studies movement, have developed a variety of surprisingly powerful arguments against libertarianism and classical liberalism proper. Whereas their forebears, such as Robert Hale and other legal realists, attacked the the philosophy of classical liberalism on more moral grounds, the critical legal scholars have aimed their attacks at a new defensive libertarian mantra, the consequentialist argument, often given voice by practitioners of Posnerian Law and Economics.

I have always had some mishmash of these two beliefs (except when I was an idiot Maoist, of course).

What do you think of Scott's argument? ATSRTWT

On the issues

2006-06-06T15:32:00.000-07:00

My platform for Governor, or at least the first draft of it.

Control Municipal Aggression
1. End External Aggression: Forced Annexation
2. Prevent Internal Takings: Limit Eminent Domain

3. Moratorium on Capital Punishment: Get the state out of the Killing business!

4. End Corporate Welfare: Cut out pork barrel boondoggles like the Dell plant or the Global Transpark

5. Implement Statewide Education Vouchers: More Public School Spending with More Choice. Funded by Lottery receipts, to make sure those education dollars with in education, rather than feathering the nests of politicians and their cronies.

6. Marriage is Commitment: Allow Contracts Between One Person and Any Other Consenting Person

7. Lower Drinking Age for 3.2 Beer and Wine

8. End Jail Time for Victimless “Crimes”, focus on rehabilitation and creative sentencing.

9. Electoral Reform: Unlimited Private Access “YES,” Unrestricted Public Control “NO.”

10. Reduce Entry Barriers in the Professions (including teaching licenses), Improve and Rationalize Reciprocal Licensing Arrangements With Other States.

Courtesy of Susan Hogarth, Libertarian Angel of Wake County

2006-06-02T19:36:00.000-07:00

Starting with thanks to Rep Paul Miller of Durham and co-sponsors Paul Luebke of Durham, John M. Rayfield of Gaston, Paul Stam and Jennifer Weiss of Wake. Well done. We may not agree on some things, but you clearly believe in democracy. Good on ya!

From an email from Susan Hogarth:

You know that the Libertarian Party of NC is fighting the battle for ballot access on three fronts: the NC General Assembly, the NC courts, and petitioning for renewed ballot status for the LP in NC. Today we need your help with the struggle in the General Assembly.

H88 - The Electoral Fairness Act

H88 was filed last session by Rep Paul Miller of Durham and co-sponsors Paul Luebke of Durham, John M. Rayfield of Gaston, Paul Stam of Wake, and Jennifer Weiss of Wake. As written, H88 would have reduced North Carolina's signature requirement (to gain ballot access) by three-fourths and the vote threshold (to retain ballot access) by four-fifths, easing the ballot access burden while still leaving North Carolina in the top twenty most restrictive states.

H88 passed out of two committees intact last year but was amended on the floor of the House to leave the state's signature requirement unchanged (69,734 verified signatures) and to shorten the signature deadline by four months, changes that would make ballot access even more difficult in North Carolina. Fortunately, this amended version never got to the Senate.

During this year's 'short session', H88 started off in the Senate's Judiciary I (JI) committee. The committee chair, Sen. Clodfelter, is sympathetic to the original version and has indicated that he intends to make sure the bill is taken up by the committee and restored to its original form. If H88 passes this session, the Libertarian Party (and other political parties in NC) will have a much easier time getting and staying on the ballot.

HERE IS WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP PASS THE ELECTORAL FAIRNESS ACT:

* Write the Senate JI Committee!
Please take a moment now to email one or more of the JI committee members (names and addresses below) to ask them to vote YES to a restored H88 when it comes up in committee. Sen Clodfelter (JI chair) has already received lots of letters and emails and has indicated his support, so please concentrate on the others members of JI. If your Senator is on the committee, that makes it especially important to contact that Senator, but any member of the state Senate can be lobbied on this issue now. If you have the time to follow up your email with a written letter or a FAX, please do so. If you send an email, please consider BCCing me ( hogarth@gmail.com) so we can have an idea of what is getting sent.

Points you may want to include in your email:

- With no third parties certified in North Carolina, more than half of all state legislative races will have only one candidate on the ballot in November, 2006. This may be one of the reasons why less than half of eligible adults in North Carolina vote.

- North Carolina has the third most restrictive signature requirements for political parties in the nation (69,734 verified signatures). Because roughly one-third of all signatures cannot be validated, a political party in North Carolina must raise more than 104,601 signatures to be sure of getting ballot access. That's one signature for every 73 people in the state.

- Our tax money pays county board-of-elections officials to verify every one of those petition signatures.

- The Libertarian Party has been the ONLY 'third party' in North Carolina to consistently achieve ballot access, and it has come at such a huge cost (in money and volunteer effort) to the LP that candidate support and campaigning have suffered merely to be able to retain (or regain) a ballot slot.

- After each four-year election cycle, if a third party does not receive ten percent of the vote for governor or president, the party is de-certified and has to start all over again. The Libertarian Party has been certified and de-certified eight times.

- More than two-thirds of U.S. states require 10,000 or fewer signatures for independent ballot access. Twenty-one states, including South Carolina and Maryland, require 10,000 or fewer signatures for political parties. Nine states require 5,000 or fewer signatures for both parties and independents.

- The Electoral Fairness Act of 2005 would have reduced North Carolina's signature requirement by three-fourths and the vote threshold by four-fifths, easing the ballot access burden while still leaving North Carolina in the top twenty most restrictive states.

- The Electoral Fairness Act passed out of two committees intact but was amended on the floor of the House to leave the state's signature requirement unchanged (69,734 verified signatures) and to shorten the signature deadline by four months, changes that would make ballot access even more difficult in North Carolina.

- North Carolina needs the Electoral Fairness Act - in its original, unamended form - to allow greater ballot access to third parties and independent candidates and to allow NC voters more choice at the ballot box.

Remember (tips for emailing):
- You don't need to hit every point; it's better to leave out some information and use your own language than to cut and paste all the points above.
- It's better if you send individual emails rather than CCing all the members on one email (cut-and-paste is your friend here:)
- Please be creative and polite and remember, a short note is better than no note at all!
- THANK YOU!

Members of JI committee:
Vice Chairman Sen. Philip E. Berger philbe@ncleg.net
Vice Chairman Sen. Julia Boseman Juliab@ncleg.net
Vice Chairman Sen. R. C. Soles, Jr. Rcsoles@ncleg.net
Sen. Charles W. Albertson Charliea@ncleg.net
Sen. Andrew C. Brock Andrewb@ncleg.net
Sen. Harry Brown Harryb@ncleg.net
Sen. Janet Cowell Janetc@ncleg.net
Sen. David W. Hoyle Davidh@ncleg.net
Sen. Clark Jenkins Clarkj@ncleg.net
Sen. Jeanne H. Lucas Jeannel@ncleg.net
Sen. Vernon Malone Vernonm@ncleg.net
Sen. Martin L. Nesbitt, Jr. martinn@ncleg.net
Sen. Keith Presnell Keithp@ncleg.net
Sen. Tony Rand Tonyr@ncleg.net
Sen. Richard Stevens Richards@ncleg.net
Sen. Jerry W. Tillman Jerryt@ncleg.net

Thank you for writing, and if you'd like to follow up with a letter, FAX, or phone call, I can provide you with that information (or you can look them up at the NCGA website).

And, finally, a very simple task to help show your support for the Electoral Fairness Act and get your friends involved:

* Please sign the H88 petition
The NC Open Elections Coalition, a group of organizations which are committed to broader ballot access in North Carolina, has prepared an online petition for you to sign and share with your friends. It will only take a moment, and this is a great way for you to get your non-Libertarian friends to help us in this struggle - please go to the website, sign, and then send your friends there to sign!!:

http://www.petitiononline.com/ncopec/petition.html

Thank you again for contributing to the ballot access struggle! Please email me at hogarth@gmail.com if you have question or concerns.

Thanks to Susan!

Microsoft: Evil, or Incompetent

2006-05-27T08:36:00.000-07:00

I have been going nuts trying to create a web site that will look more or less the same in both IExplorer and Firefox.

Tried using WORD for just a quick and dirty page, and it wasn't surprising that that didn't work. Looked okay in IE, but no graphics and scrambled positions of text in Firefox. But WORD is not really an HTML editor...

So, I switched to FRONTPAGE. Considered DREAMWEAVER, but it was 4 times as expensive, even with an education discount. FRONTPAGE should work, right? It is at least a real HTML editor/web page program.

WELL....not so much. The page looks okay in IE, but still none of the graphics show up in Firefox. So I just simplified it.

Suggestions? Similar experiences?

Cato Policy Report

2006-05-27T08:16:00.000-07:00

Here is a link to a very interesting conference put on by Cato Institute, particularly John Samples and Michael McDonald.

Bradley Smith, one of my favorite people, was there. Good to talk to him. I really think that campaign finance, at both the federal and state levels, is going to be one of the most difficult and important policy problems we all face in the next decade. If people don't trust elections, they start to think of government as simply a means of exercising power.

Libertarians hardly trust government, but a government that muddles through with mediocre policy inititatives is better than a government that tries to solidify power for the majority, and for organized interests. The key to understanding good campaign finance law is to recognize that we require an INDEPENDENT source of power. Private contributions, from private citizens, control government excess. Public financing, or other protection for the state-sponsored parties, is a recipe for tyranny. I made some of these arguments in my Senate testimony on McCain-Feingold, and it is something I will talk about now and again in the future.

Thanks to SGR

2006-05-26T05:56:00.000-07:00

My thanks to the good folks at State Government Radio, in Raleigh.

Special thanks to Rick and Donna Martinez, for putting on an interesting and lively show.

The show was broadcast on May 18, and they did a very nice job with it.

PEOPLE AND POLITICS - Heard at 8 a.m., 11 a.m., 3, 7 and 11 p.m.
THE RACE IS ON: Libertarian gubernatorial candidate and Duke political science chair Mike Munger talks politics and provides insight into campus life in the wake of the lacrosse scandal. Rick and Donna Martinez report. Listen at 8 and 11 a.m. and at 3, 7 and 11 p.m.

Rick recently became an "out" ex-Republican. He's wavering on the full declaration of Libertarian Love, but I'm working on him.

Hall of Fame

2006-05-23T04:26:00.000-07:00

I have written (and talked!) about the ballot access problem.

Let me acknowledge some good people who have taken it upon themselves to do the work of democracy, not just signing the petitions themselves but actually working to persuade others to do so.

Betsy Newmark, Raleigh
Alex Rosenberg, Chapel Hill
Kathy Schultz, Raleigh

Let me be clear: these folks may, or may not, "be" libertarians. They may not vote libertarian, in fact. But they think that other voices should be heard, and aren't afraid that someone might be confused by having a real choice, rather than just an echo.

Thanks, and good on ya! I now have more than 50 brand new signatures to send out to headquarters.

An Important Appeal

2006-05-22T18:31:00.000-07:00

An important appeal, from Jennifer Schulz.

I just contributed $500 to the legal fund. But that's a drop in the bucket. We need LOTS of people to make contributions.

And let's solve the ballot access problem once and for all, so that someone besides the state-sponsored parties has a voice.

Financial Reporting

2006-05-22T16:20:00.000-07:00

Wow! The financial reporting requirements for running for office are pretty daunting. I have some background reading law, and regulations, but the number and variety of reporting categories, and the paperwork for setting up officers (especially a Treasurer), and a campaign organization take a long time. Eight separate forms so far, and I'm not finished.

And this is just so you can start to run for office! Just so you can get permission from the state either to spend money, or receive contributions.

Check out this tome. They did publish this guide, and it has pretty good instructions, but it doesn't tell you enough about the web sites to go to. Once you figure it out, I have to admit the state has done a pretty thorough job of documentation.

But there are some pretty threatening claims there. And, as I have argued elsewhere, the problem is "controlling legal authority."

World's Smallest Political Quiz

2006-05-21T04:41:00.000-07:00

Raleigh's News and Observer did a nice job on the "conservative and liberal" question in their Q section today. (This link will go away; I'll get something more permanent).

Even posted "The World's Smallest Political Quiz." Well done, N&O. They are giving Libertarians a place at the table. If we don't take advantage, that's our own fault.

News and Observer Article

2006-05-21T04:34:00.000-07:00

My piece in the Raleigh News and Observer, on "Why 'Liberal' Has Become a Dirty Word"

Liberal a bad word?
In the French sense, it became so

I did a Google search on "liberal" and "dirty word." They occur together more than 220,000 times.

So is liberalism a politically viable viewpoint in the United States today?

Origins tell us something. The oldest sense is "liberal arts," intellectual pursuits without practical purpose, suited for free citizens with free minds. The first uses of "liberal" in English described someone who was generous in bestowing wealth or gifts. Nothing dirty so far, right?

It was with the twin revolutions at the end of the 18th century in America and France that the word developed two senses, and they were often in tension.

In Britain and America, to be liberal meant to be tolerant of other points of view, to be free from prejudice. The clearest exponent of this view, still a hero of the libertarian right, was John Stuart Mill.

The French liberal, however, implied not forbearance but action. For proponents, liberal simply meant an advocate for freedom and democracy, including economic equality. But to many American conservatives, liberal meant a pursuit of lawlessness, a French-inspired disrespect for tradition and a desire for radical leveling of wealth and status.

By the end of the 19th century in the United States, the meanings of liberal and liberal had been absorbed by a powerful political force: progressivism. Progressives believed in the evolution of human affairs. They advocated women's suffrage, the temperance movement, anti-trust regulation and the creation of a professional Civil Service.

But embracing these progressive ideas got liberals into trouble and changed what they stood for.

The turning point in ideas about government was the onset of the Great Depression in 1929. It changed our character, it ended for many people the sense of optimistic self-sufficiency they had been brought up with and it turned us back from progressivism toward liberalism. Liberalism came to mean that concern for the poor is not just a sentiment, but a motivation for policy. Liberals fought for reforms that built a wall of government resources around those who were least well-off, a dam holding back a tide of poverty, ignorance, starvation and disease.

And it worked, as politics. Regardless of what you think of the New Deal, the Great Society programs of the '60s and the scores of other programs focused on social ills, they were wildly popular. The Democrats controlled the House of Representatives for decades and from 1933 to 1969 held the presidency for seven out of nine terms.

More recently, however, liberalism has stopped working. Many of the core beliefs of liberals are still present in American thought and culture, but for a politician to call herself a "liberal" is suicide in most jurisdictions. The reason is that the French sense won the war of meaning, and Americans rejected that view of political life. Doctrinaire ideologues, insisting on a particular conception of equality at the expense of liberty and on a narrow secular interpretation of the rhetorical space of public discourse, hijacked liberalism.

It was a Pyrrhic victory: In winning control of the Democratic party, they lost the confidence of voters. Liberalism was reduced to an interest group code phrase: "Vote for me, and I'll give you other people's money."

It doesn't have to be that way. Thousands of Americans are struggling to return liberal ideas to our public discourse. These views may seem rusty and in need of some oil. But their essential power is unchanged, and their appeal is timeless. A celebration of individual liberties, a tolerance for all points of view, an openness to change and a fundamental belief in the promise of human cooperation live still at the core of American liberalism.

Michael Munger is chairman of the Political Science Department at Duke University. His own political philosophy is libertarian.

SOURCE

Campaign Trail

2006-05-09T15:00:00.000-07:00

A photo taken during my speech in Burlington.

(nod to Susan Hogarth, who needs to switch to more decaff)

Public Choice Outreach

2006-05-07T17:14:00.000-07:00

I will be returning to the "Public Choice Outreach" conference at George Mason this July. A photo from last year's very interesting discussion....

Setting up shop....

2006-05-07T14:08:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I was the luncheon speaker at the Libertarian State Convention for North Carolina. (Link to speech here....)

Today I am officially announcing my candidacy for the Governorship of the State of North Carolina. This blog will focus on campaign activities leading up to the 2008 election.

One of the most important things I will be following is the efforts of the Libertarain Party to gain ballot access!

More soon....please check back often!