Live Traffic Feed


Muslim rights



In the early morning hours of January 28th, a fire broke out in the Victoria Islamic Center in Victoria, TX. It quickly destroyed the whole building. The cause has not officially been determined.


Two weeks ago, another mosque, the Islamic Center of Lake Travis, in Austin, TX, burned. Again, the cause of the fire has not been officially determined.


Both mosques have previously been vandalized. And the mosque in Victoria was burglarized last week.


Regardless of the causes of these fires, the Libertarian Party extends sympathy to the Muslim communities in these towns and across America.


As one member of the mosque in Austin, TX, said, “We are all just praying it wasn’t a hate crime.”


Indeed. The Libertarian Party hopes that these fires were caused by some innocent accident. But the fact that our Muslim brothers and sisters even have to worry about hate crimes perpetrated against them or their buildings of worship is a sad statement on current affairs in America.


New executive orders have barred entry of people from 7 countries that are mostly Muslim. We’ve heard talk of registries for Muslim Americans.

And we’ve heard a lot of nasty rhetoric from the President and others.

Muslim Americans have every reason to feel uncomfortable. And, their concern should be the concern of every American.


America was founded on freedom, including and perhaps especially freedom of religion. It is central to who we are as Americans and it is values such as this that make our country great. When we lose sight of these values, our country ceases to be great.


There are two real threats here: One is the infringement on people’s rights to live and worship as they see fit. The other is the complacency that some Americans have about it.


The Libertarian Party calls on all Americans not to be complacent when the rights of one group, any group, are infringed. When we allow one group’s rights to be degraded, we are degrading the human rights of all of us, and degrading our country.


Today and everyday, the Libertarian Party stands for the rights of all people, all the time.


Today and everyday, the Libertarian Party says to our Muslim brothers and sisters, we are with you. We have your back. We’ll do our best to speak out and amplify your voice. We hope and pray that a registry is never created. But if one is, we will oppose it vigorously and you can rest assured that many of our members will register themselves in protest.


We will speak out against travel and immigration bans. We will speak out loudly against any and all acts of violence or destruction that may be committed against you.


When your rights and humanity are infringed upon, we stand with you.

Nicholas Sarwark
Chair, Libertarian National Committee


Paid for by the LIBERTARIAN
National Committee, Inc. (LNC)
1444 Duke St.,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Content not authorized by any
candidate or candidate committee.

Libertarians cautiously hopeful Trump will reduce regulatory burden

For immediate release
February 1, 2017

Libertarians cautiously hopeful Trump will reduce regulatory burden

Ellen Wheeler Wilcox
Ellen Wheeler Wilcox, author and poet

Today Libertarians praised President Donald Trump’s goal of reducing federal government regulations by 75 percent and expressed hope that his plan to counter any new regulation with the elimination of two existing regulations serves to reduce the massive regulatory burden that Americans suffer under today.

Libertarians caution that some regulations impose 100 times the burden that others do. So a two-for-one deal won’t necessarily result in a net reduction in red tape, bureaucratic obstruction, or needless government meddling in people’s lives.

“Progress requires that any new regulation be less onerous than that which it replaces,” said Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee.

The damaging effect of government over-regulation is widespread:

  • Government regulations diminish human freedom.
  • Government regulations prevent businesses from forming or expanding, killing millions of American jobs.
  • Government regulations hamper Americans’ ability to compete in world markets.
  • Government regulations constrain human prosperity, leaving many Americans financially insecure.
  • Federal government regulations cost hundreds of billions of dollars to administer and force Americans to spend $1.9 trillion for compliance every year. State and local government regulations add to this burden.
  • Government regulations typically do more harm than good. As one example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) alone kills many thousands of Americans every year by making drugs unaffordable and by making it financially infeasible for drug researchers to develop needed drugs such as antibiotics and cures for rare diseases.

Removing unneeded regulations will have the opposite effect: More freedom, better health, more prosperity, and a thriving economy.

“The American economy rose to unprecedented heights and became the envy of the world before today’s regulatory regime took hold,” said Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. “If we’re going to create jobs and make America great, it must include a massive reduction in government meddling in businesses and in the lives of Americans.”

It is easy to tell the toiler
how best he can carry his pack.
But no one can rate a burden’s weight
until it has been on his back
– Ella Wheeler Wilcox




Paid for by the
Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (LNC)
1444 Duke St., Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

TAKE ACTION Stop picking winners and losers and wasting taxpayer money-Support HB 9 & HB 7005



HB 9 and HB 7005 will be heard in the House Rules and Policy Committee on Monday March 6th, 2017 at 3:00 PM.

HB 9 deals with VISIT FLORIDA, the state’s official tourism marketing organization, meaning taxpayer dollars are used to supposedly lure tourist to Florida. This spending of our money is based on the idea that if we don’t do it, the tourist will not come to Florida. That is insane. Private enterprises like Disney World, other theme parks and resorts will spend their own money to bring tourist to Florida, Why, do we have to pay for it?

People around the United States, and around the world know that Florida is a great place to visit. Their smart phones are full of apps to show them the best places in Florida. Visit Florida is antiquated marketing that might have been have been useful in the 1970′s.

HB 9 reforms VISIT FLORIDA to require much more transparency and legislative oversight over this quasi-government agency. VISIT FLORIDA would have to post every contract on a state website, have the governor approve all out-of-state and foreign travel, give every contract worth $750,000 or more to the Legislature for consultation, such as the controversial $1 million deal with Pitbull or $2.8 million advertising deal with a racing car team.

VISIT FLORIDA would have to submit its operating budget to the Legislature every year and have the Senate confirm its CEO. Compensation of VISIT FLORIDA employees will be limited, benefits frozen at current levels and bonuses prohibited.” Employees and board members will be prohibited from receiving food, beverages, lodging, entertainment or gifts from the agency or from any local tourism or economic development agency.

HB 7005 will eliminate the state’s economic incentive programs, such as Enterprise Florida. Enterprise Florida is the public-private partnership that works under a contract with the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity to implement so-called economic incentives.

The term “economic incentives” is misleading, economists refer to “economic incentive programs” as “corporate welfare”. Corporate Welfare is the policy of granting special privileges to selected hand-picked companies, which gives them an advantage over their competitors and creates an uneven playing field.

Benefiting from this system, of course, are those businesses with the most lobbyist and campaign contributions, along with the politicians claiming they are “creating jobs” as they dispense their political favors.

What is worse, many of these subsidized businesses never create the jobs they promised and many have gone bankrupt. State economist say 70 percent of Florida’s incentive programs are losing money.

The Florida legislature instead should look to minimize government influence in the marketplace, by reducing regulatory, business and professional fees and permits, as well as lowering taxes for all businesses, not just the well-connected companies with an army of lobbyist.


HB 9 & HB 7005 will be heard in the House Rules and Policy Committee on Monday March 6, 2017 at 3:00 PM.

Call and e-mail the members of the House Rules and Policy Committee and tell them to support HB 9 to rein in the waste of VISIT Florida and HB 7005 to eliminate Enterprise Florida and to stop using taxpayer’s money for failed corporate welfare programs.


Rules & Policy Committee

Jose Oliva


Shawn Harrison


Lori Berman


Michael Bileca


Jim Boyd


Jason Brodeur


Matt Caldwell


Travis Cummings


Jose Diaz


Manny Diaz


Evan Jenne


Jeanette Nunez


Sharon Pritchett


David Richardson


Ray Rodrigues


Chris Sprowls


Cynthia Stafford


Barbara Watson




Liberty First Network · 9851 State Road 54, New Port Richey, FL 34655, United States


Ayn Rand’s Ghost Does Not Haunt The Trump Administration

Dec 18, 2016 @ 10:00 AM

“Who is Donald Trump?”

To paraphrase the opening line of Atlas Shrugged, the mainstream media remains on its manic quest to define the incoming president. It once again goes off the rails.

The Washington Post recently featured a long article by James Hohmann trying and failing to make the case that Ayn Rand-acolyte Donald Trump stacks his cabinet with fellow objectivists. The usually incisive Jonathan Chait, at New York Magazine, tells us How Ayn Rand’s Theories Destroyed ‘Never Trump’ Conservatism.

Ayn Rand wrote two really gripping pulp novels and has long been an object of enduring fascination to a small number of enthusiasts. Rand is vaguely associated, in popular imagination more than reality, with the libertarian movement. Rand’s worldview, which she called Objectivism, was not libertarian. Libertarians have a fraught relationship with Ayn Rand.

Libertarians sometimes ally with the right in the cause of a smaller, less intrusive, government. Libertarians reject many of the other tenets of the right and are, in turn, rather marginalized … as Gary Johnson’s ~3% vote haul demonstrates.

Conservatives have long abjured Ayn Rand.

The left finds this intramural politics confusing. Progressives tend to collapse many key distinctions within the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.  These distinctions are much clearer from inside the conservative coalition. Let’s help them out.

The Washington Post‘s James Hohmann recently devoted many column inches to trying, and failing, to paint the Trump administration as somehow Randian. His headline notwithstanding there’s virtually no evidence that Donald Trump is an Ayn Rand “acolyte.”


Hohmann reported, yet oddly dismissed as a mere “interesting wrinkle.” incoming White House chief strategist Steve Bannon’s anti-Rand stand (original emphasis):

Stephen Bannon, who will be Trump’s chief strategist in the White House, has been sharply critical of Rand. He outlined his world view in a 2014 speech delivered by Skype to a conference held inside the Vatican. In it, he said that there are two strands of capitalism which he finds very disturbing.

“One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that’s the capitalism you see in China and Russia,” he said, according to a transcript posted by BuzzFeed last month. “The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I’m a big believer in a lot of libertarianism. I have many, many friends that are a very big part of the conservative movement … However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it (compared) to what I call the ‘enlightened capitalism’ of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost.”


I read Atlas Shrugged as a college freshman.  A year or so later I read The Fountainhead. Atlas Shrugged kept me up all night devouring it. Rand possessed what literary advisor and Master Wizard Shawn Coyne might call genre conventions down cold. She wrote pulp fiction. Great pulp fiction!

Rand’s “philosophy,” which she called “Objectivism,” did not stick with me. It stuck with few libertarians. Her influence on conservatives wilted after National Review’s Whittaker Chambers shrugged. Follow along.


Rand’s use of pulp fiction to provide a counternarrative was contrarian and interesting. It raised her to cult status.

As Brian Doherty recently wrote, also addressing the imputation of Randism to Trump, in Reason Magazine:

Rand was not at all a supporter of the rich and successful as such against the worker; she made the case for the heroism and necessity of anyone who produced, who made the world better through their creative and/or physical effort and made their fortune via free trade, not via political pull.

One thus can understand the innocent appreciation expressed by Trump, Tillerson, Puzder, Pompeo and Allison for the writings of Ayn Rand. It would be a mistake to make too much of their praise.

The key thought leaders of what became the libertarian movement had, at best, volatile relations with Rand.  The conservative movement anathematized her. Whittaker Chambers, in the near-canonical National Review, wrote a long and influential review  panning Atlas Shrugged shortly after its publication:


[A] materialism of the Right and a materialism of the Left first surprisingly resemble, then, in action, tend to blend each with each, because, while differing at the top in avowed purpose, and possibly in conflict there, at bottom they are much the same thing.

For those who wish to dig deeper into the parallel universe birthed by Ayn Rand, Adam Weiner, writing at Politico, provides an invaluable contribution with The Most Dangerous Political Book You’ve Never Heard Of Weiner resurrects the deep taproot from which Rand, he argues, drew. He reminds us of the writings of a (once sensational, now forgotten) Russian novelist.

Weiner, too, greatly exaggerates the impact of Rand’s thought on American politics.


As the great H.L. Mencken once wrote in his In Defense of Women, as I have have often quoted but it bears repeating, “the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” Most of the populace has grown bored with the “alt-right” imaginary hobgoblin.

Solution? Concoct a new “producer vs worker class war” hobgoblin! The kind words for Ayn Rand’s novels spoken by the president-elect and a very few of his associates represent very few clams from which to make a chowder implying that the Trump administration is inflected by a contempt for workers.

Meanwhile, the media continue to bury the lede. The lede — the most important aspect of this story, not merely an “interesting wrinkle” — is that White House strategist Steve Bannon, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and authoritative conservatism anathematize Ayn Rand.

Steve Bannon: “However, that [Randian] form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it (compared) to what I call the ‘enlightened capitalism’ of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people….” Paul Ryan: “[Objectivism] reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview.” Whittaker Chambers: “[A] materialism of the Right and a materialism of the Left … are much the same thing.”

Inauguration day is fast approaching. Hysteria, masked as journalism, wears thin. Time for fair-minded journalists to get off it, end their giddy detour, and begin a real assessment of the incoming Trump administration.

Such an assessment might well begin with a simple question:

“Who is Donald Trump?”

To read the full column, click here.

American Spectator – Confirmation Crack-Up: Congress Craters


The American Spectator Logo

Confirmation Crack-up

Confirmation Crack-Up: Congress Craters




There is a better way to streamline the confirmation process.

It has long been evident that the process of confirming legions of appointees — which takes place even as countless legislative matters are considered — has overwhelmed the resources of Congress to expeditiously process them. Administrations find that many positions are unfilled even as Congress recesses for the summer — some 200 days into the tenure of a new administration. READ MORE


Obamacare Repeal

Obamacare Repeal Is a Jobs Program


Among much else, Republicans will need to repeal the “Cadillac tax.”

On Saturday, Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders called for nationwide protests to stop Republicans from repealing the Affordable Care Act.
The trigger event was Friday’s confirmation of Dr. Tom Price as President Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services. Price is charged with making good on Trump’s promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. READ MORE 


The Media's Jihad

The Media’s Jihad Against the Trump White House Staff


An old liberal media game once played with Reagan’s staff.

The problem in the Trump White House is:

A. Reince Priebus
B. Kellyanne Conway
C. Stephen Bannon
D. Stephen Miller
E. Jared Kushner
F. Sean Spicer
G. Michael Flynn

Pick one, any one. READ MORE 

More of Today’s Headlines:

The Spectacle Blog:



Read More

2017 Session: Week 7

2017 Session: Week 7

Week 7 of the NH Legislative Session is in the books, and Liberty Lobby LLC was, once again, at the statehouse and Legislative Office Building (LOB) testifying for pro-freedom legislation and against anti-freedom legislation. Though most of the week was spent observing the Executive Sessions in which committee recommendations are made

On Tuesday (Feb 21), CEO Darryl W. Perry testified on:

CACR9 Relating to terms of office for state officers. Providing that terms shall be for 4 years. oppose
HB642 Relative to eligibility to vote and relative to student identification cards. oppose
HB394 Relative to public employees testifying before legislative committees; requiring public employees to have the permission of their superiors prior to testifying before a legislative committee. support (written testimony)

On Wednesday (Feb 22), CEO Darryl W. Perry provided written testimony on:

HB432 Relative to enforcement of parking prohibitions. oppose (written testimony)

There are no new videos for the Liberty Lobby LLC YouTube channel this week; however we did acquire a new audio recorder (that I’ve not yet fully learned to operate) which will make it easier for us to at least obtain audio of testimony. We are also tracking the committee recommendations of bills on which we have provided testimony. You can find those updates here.

The final week of February will not have any hearings in the Senate, and will mostly only have Executive Sessions in the House. All bills in the House must have a committee recommendation by March 2 (unless the bill is being referred to a 2nd committee), and all bills must be acted upon by the full chamber (House or Senate) by March 30. This means there will likely not be any further testimony until the first full week of March, however Liberty Lobby LLC will still be working with legislators in an attempt to advance liberty and stop tyranny.

If you appreciate our efforts, please consider starting or increasing a monthly pledge via PayPal or Bitcoin.

– OR –

Please demonstrate your confidence in our efforts by investing a one-time contribution via PayPal, Bitcoin, or Dash.

In Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
CEO, Liberty Lobby LLC

The mission of Liberty Lobby LLC is to advocate for minimal government and maximum human freedom by weighing all legislation against the litmus of our principles and responding accordingly by testifying in legislative hearings, holding court with individual legislators, and crafting liberty-minded legislation.

Our goal is to acquire a mere $5,000 per year in contributions from people like you to help pay for travel and administrative expenses. If you are interested in helping fund Liberty Lobby LLC, you can start with a recurring contribution of as little as $5 a month. Every contribution helps bring us that much closer to achieving our goals and ensuring liberty in our lifetime.

Liberty Lobby LLC is not for hire to the highest bidder, and will advocate for 100% freedom on every issue, every time. Liberty Lobby LLC specializes in Election Law (specifically ballot access reform and voter rights), Freedom of Information / Government Transparency, Freedom of Speech & Municipal and County Government.

LIFETIME memberships!


Thank you for your support of the Libertarian Party.


Devoted Libertarians such as you are critical for the growth of our party and we are grateful for you.


Have you considered joining as a Lifetime Member?


As a Lifetime Member, you’ll be a member for life. No need to renew.


You’ll receive a lifetime subscription to LP News, be listed on our website, and receive our prestigious Lifetime Membership pin.


As you know, over the course of 2016, the Libertarian Party rolled out

our new logo on various pieces ranging from bumperstickers and brochures on up to shirts, websites, and other pieces.


And today we unveil our new Lifetime Membership pin!




Many of our Lifetime Members take great pride in wearing their Lifetime Membership pin at party functions.


Lifetime Memberships are currently $1,500. These donations go straight towards growing our party and laying the foundation for 2018 elections and beyond.


If you have any questions about Lifetime Membership please email Head of Development, Lauren Daugherty, at


As always, thank you for your generous support of the Libertarian Party!




Wes Benedict

Executive Director


Paid for by the
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
1444 Duke St.,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Content not authorized by any
candidate or candidate committee.

Why the Radical Left Never Learns



Many everyday citizens are perplexed as to why the Radical Left is resorting to violence to protest the outcome of a democratically held election. And I’m perplexed as to why anyone would not understand why the Radical Left is resorting to violence to protest the outcome of a democratically held election.

It’s not really all that complicated. Plain and simple, violence is a trademark of the Radical Left. Its members resort to violence whenever they’re challenged — or, worse, when a majority legitimately rejects their ideas. This is a result of their being extraordinarily disciplined in staying focused on their two main objectives — implementation of their radical agenda and complete domination over all those who oppose it.

Before going any further, I should point out that not all those on the Radical Left are cut from the same cloth. There are three main groups that comprise this dangerous, anti-liberty segment of the human race.

Elitists. These are the leaders of revolutions, men like Vladimir Lenin, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Mao Zedung, and Ho Chi Minh. It’s probably true that most Radical Left leaders sincerely believe, at least at the start of their climb to power, that they are acting nobly in an effort to improve the lives of the oppressed masses. But it’s equally true that all of them have one thing in common: While they claim to believe in equality, they simultaneously believe in the cognitive-dissonant proposition that some animals are more equal than others (credit George Orwell, Animal Farm).

Translation: Unlike the unwashed masses, revolutionary leaders live like royalty while their duped followers live in misery and poverty.

Low-information losers. These are the college kids, welfare professionals, and those who, for any one of a number of reasons, are angry about life in general. Whether crying in a “safe space” at Princeton or stealing cigarillos from a convenience store, they are the losers of society who can be paid, if necessary, to vent their anger for any cause drummed up by the Radical Left elites.

Rank-and-file true believers. These are everyday people who may or may not work for a living, but what they all have in common is a belief that a majority of the world’s population (or at least a majority of the Western world’s population) consists of ruthless and “greedy” people who must be restrained by morally superior folks like themselves. They can be counted on to go to the wall for their leaders whenever a call to action is put out to them.

Now, to understand the violence that the Radical Left is currently engaging in to protest Donald Trump’s victory over the Face of Evil, the first thing you should do is disregard the low-information losers. They are irrelevant because their lack of knowledge relegates them to nothing more than attack dogs who obediently obey the commands of the elites.

The rank-and-file true believers and elitists, however, have one very important thing in common: cunning. Whenever the Radical Left achieves power, its mouthpieces make it clear to all those who disagree with them that they have no interest in compromising and that they intend to implement their agenda one way or another — through legal or illegal means. And, if necessary, through the use of force.

However, when they are out of power, as they are about to be, they cunningly talk about the need for both sides to “come together,” unite, be nonpartisan, and compromise. Because they can be counted on to buy into this age-old, Radical Left tactic, people like the Bushes, John McCain, Mitt Romney, John Kasich, Paul Ryan, and the rest of their ilk are useful idiots every bit as much as are the low-information losers of the Radical Left.

To those on the Radical Left, it’s all about getting their foot in the door. Then, once in, they boldly put down a place marker and use that as the new starting point for future negotiations. It’s a very clever strategy that has paid huge dividends for the Radical Left over the past fifty years. Giving credit where credit is due, Barack Obama has been an absolute master at implementing this strategy during his two terms in office.

A lot of people also seem surprised that since the humiliating repudiation of both Hillary Clinton and, more specifically, Barack Obama’s policies by the voting public, the Radical Left has not let up on its smear and violence tactics. This should not come as a surprise to anyone, because the Radical Left has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not learn anything through experience. That’s because it has no interest in learning. Its interest is focused on achieving and maintaining power.

The Radical Left aligns with George Orwell’s character O’Brien in another of his classics, 1984, who said: “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. … We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. … The object of power is power.”

That being the case, you can count on the Radical Left to double and triple down on its past mistakes. Notwithstanding their feigned introspection on what went wrong on the way to Hillary’s second planned coronation, the same old radical leaders will use the same old tired identity politics to drum up the same old hatred and division among voters.

Their leading lights — villainous people like Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, and Barack Obama will continue to drive the party’s already far-left agenda further leftward. They not only don’t care what the “forgotten man” outside New York and California thinks, they loathe him and rather enjoying seeing him endure ever more pain.

Thus, it’s not surprising that the Dirty Dems are now talking about making Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison leader of the Democratic National Committee. There’s nothing wrong with Ellison’s being both a black man and a Muslim. The problem is that he’s a Radical Left black man and a Radica Left Muslim. Just the fact that the Dirty Dems are considering him for the role of head of their party is a way of saying to the 60 million forgotten-man voters: “In your face.”

This while they act outraged that Trump has tabbed Steve Bannon as his chief strategist, insisting that he’s too “extreme.” Their hypocrisy takes chutzpah to a new level.

Keeping all this in mind, if you’re still celebrating Donald Trump’s big upset, I feel obliged to sober you up by reminding you yet again that 60+ million people — nearly half of all voters! — voted for a Radical Left career criminal in the most recent election. Do you really believe they are going to have a change of heart and be more civil to their opponents anytime soon?

The uncomfortable reality is that the Radical Left has no intention of backing down. America is irreversibly entrenched in a civil war that is guaranteed to become increasingly violent, and the most dangerous thing the Trump administration can do is bend over backwards to be “inclusive.” Always remember that the Dirty Dems use the inclusiveness trick to get their foot back inside the door with an eye toward regaining power.

As I said in my last article, be careful, Donald … be very, very careful. Just do a little reading on the Internet if you have any doubts about whether the Radical Left is prepared to undertake a violent civil war. Which is why I’ve said for years that the solution to the Radical Left problem is not to work with them, but to try to defeat them.

Sure, total defeat is an unrealistic expectation, but continuously working toward it is not. Harsh containment is a realistic goal, but it takes a steel resolve and an unbudgeable, no-compromise attitude to accomplish it.


This article originally appeared here:


How U.S. politicians helped create the Soviet Union


Did U.S. policies play a role in creating the communist threat? Retweet

By Perry Willis

I’ve been writing a series of articles reviewing U.S. wars and interventions….

Now comes…

Did U.S. intervention in WW1 help create the Soviet Union?

The answer is yes. To understand why, you must appreciate something that most people don’t understand…

There were TWO Russian revolutions, NOT just one!

Both revolutions happened because of WW1.

  • The Kerensky revolution deposed the Czar because the war was going badly.
  • The Bolshevik revolution succeeded because the Kerensky government continued the war past the point where the people supported it. Only the Bolsheviks were proposing peace, so they triumphed.Soviet Founders

This view of what happened is uncontroversial. Kerensky himself thought that continuing the war was the crucial mistake. He said as much during an interview with British newspaper publisher Lord Beaverbrook…

Beaverbrook: What would have happened if you had made peace with Germany?
Kerensky: Of course we’d be in Moscow now (not in exile).

In other words, there would’ve been no Soviet Union if Kerensky had made peace with Germany (see page 316 of Comrades by Brian Moynahan). Historians like Edward Crankshaw agree. He wrote in the “The Atlantic” (October, 1954)…

“The Provisional (Kerensky) Government, if it had immediately sued for peace with Germany…could have remained in power, leading Russia into some kind of democratic system. But because it held to the war…because it knew it would depend in future on the favors of the Entente (Britain, France, and the U.S.)…it could not begin to alleviate the misery of the people, greatly aggravated by the war. It was this misery which Lenin deliberately set himself out to exploit.”

So what role did U.S. politicians play in these matters?

U.S. intervention extended the war, providing time for the Bolshevik revolution to happen. Remember the points made in my previous article…

  • Nearly 1,000 days passed between the start of WW1 and U.S.entry on April 6, 1917
  • Neither side had gained any advantage. “Breakthroughs” were measured in yards or miles, and quickly reversed
  • Between April 16 and mid-May, 1917 nearly half the French army mutinied
  • Similar things were happening on the Russian front in 1917

The war was clearly winding down. It appeared likely to end in a draw. So why didn’t it end? What gave The Great War nearly two more years of life, providing time for Lenin to create the Soviet Union? The answer is chilling…

U.S. involvement made new dreams of victory possible for Britain, France, and Russia fueled by U.S. dollars and lives.

But Germany had a reaction too. Please notice something…

Germany sent Lenin to Russia in a sealed train a mere ten days after the U.S. declaration of war. Consider the logic of that…

  • The Germans had just gained the United States as a new enemy
  • Perhaps they could compensate by losing an old enemy — Russia
  • Lenin pledged to take Russia out of the war, so the Germans gave him money and sent him back for that purpose

The Germans probably would have done this anyway. It made strategic sense given the Russian revolution that had begun in February. But it became even more urgent after the U.S. entered the war. There are obvious connections between…

  • The U.S. entry into the war
  • The Germans use of Lenin as a tool
  • Kerensky’s continuation of the war
  • The ultimate triumph of the Bolshevik revolution

Please recall what Edward Crankshaw said in the quote above…

  • The Kerensky government continued the war because it expected future support from its allies, including its wealthy new friend, the United States of America
  • Lenin exploited the war to gain power

But U.S. politicians aided the formation of the Soviet Union in one other way. Recall that…

Britain and France were dependent on U.S. supplies and money to continue fighting. U.S. politicians could have stopped the war simply by prohibiting trade and loans for Britain and France. Which is worse? Ending trade that was enabling the commission of a crime, or sending innocent young Americans to die by participating directly in that crime?

U.S. politicians chose the worst option.

It’s a simple fact — U.S. politicians could have forced a peace settlement long before the Germans sent Lenin back to Russia. Think of the consequences! Think how much better the world would have been had the Soviet Union never been born. That likely would have meant…

Hundreds of millions of lives might have been saved, and untold poverty and misery might have been avoided, if only the U.S. had not intervened in WW1. Alas, the harm caused by that intervention does not end there. In the next article, we’ll examine how U.S. politicians helped co-found Nazi Germany.

Thank you for being an ACTIVE DC Downsizer.

Perry Willis
Co-founder, Downsize DC
Co-creator, Zero Aggression Project

P.S. Previous articles in this series include…

PPS: Here’s a list of books I’ve consulted in this series. If you buy these books using the links below, Downsize DC will get credit we can use to expand our research library. Thank you for your interest and support.

The Russian Revolution

World War 1

The Spanish-American War, the conquest of the Philippines, and Teddy Roosevelt’s betrayal of Korea…

The Mexican War



Copyright © 2016, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:

872 Mark Drive

Akron, OH 44313

Add us to your address book

Classic Christmas Movies Declare Taxation Is Theft

Watch a Unicorn Solve Our Public Transit Problems

by FEE

One of the most creative articles you will ever read on government is Mike Munger’s “Unicorn Governance.” He explains that by dreaming of the power of unicorns, there is not social problem that cannot be solved. But there is one slight hitch: they do not exist. The analogy to public policy should be obvious but it often is not.


The LAPD Is Doing the Taxi Cartel’s Dirty Work

by Brittany Hunter

The LAPD recently allocated $850,000 to continue sting operations on ridesharing drivers. That money comes primarily from the local taxi cartel, which imposed a 20-cent increase in fares to finance the corrupt attempt to stomp out competition.


Which Fosters the Spirit of Giving: Free Markets or Socialism?

by Robert Higgs

Before one can be generous, one must have something to be generous with. Socialism neither builds the character nor provides the wealth necessary for such generosity.


Bureaucracies Are Authoritarian Too

by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Let’s get it straight. Authoritarianism means to intensify government control over the lives and property of the people. Deregulation and privatization mean the exact opposite.


5 Ways Consumer “Protection” Makes Us Poorer

by Iain Murray

Like most government programs, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is accomplishing the opposite of what its name implies. We’d be better off without these bureaucrats constantly meddling in our lives.


Why Batman is a Lousy Utilitarian

by Bryan Caplan

“If we believe there’s even a one percent chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty … and we have to destroy him.” Well, maybe not.


The Deadly Incompetence of the FDA

by Daniel J. Mitchell

The FDA’s spectacular incompetence has already killed thousands of people. If it’s not recognized for the disaster that it is soon, the death count could eventually rival that of Communist China.


Classic Christmas Movies Declare Taxation Is Theft

by Tom Mullen

Whatever your religious beliefs, even if you have none at all, you can’t go wrong watching these classic Christmas specials with your children. Not only will they learn the true meaning of Christmas, but they will be exposed at a young age to the founding American principle that government is evil.


Libertarians react to Trump speech

Libertarian Party banner with torch logo, slogan "Shrinking Big Government - Advancing Liberty," and address 1444 Duke St. Alexandria, VA 22314, phone 1-800-elect-us, web address (graphic image)


For immediate release
March 1, 2017

Libertarians react to Trump speech

Say he misses mark on key policy

President Donald Trump at lectern in U.S. Congress, giving speech on Feb 28 2017 (color photo)
Pres. Donald Trump speaking to the U.S. Congress (Feb. 28, 2017)

Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee, released the following statement in response to President Donald Trump’s address to congress last night:

In his speech before congress, President Donald Trump offered a mix of vague promises, bad policy proposals, and some good ones.

In the “good” category, Trump:

  • proposed cutting the regulatory might of the FDA so as to cut the development time for drugs and to drive down prices. This will save lives, reduce human suffering, and save many billions of American dollars;
  • implied he would end the Obamacare mandate to buy insurance (although he did not explicitly promise to do so). This would remove a huge burden from businesses and individuals who don’t want or can’t afford today’s vastly overpriced plans;
  • implied he would reduce insurance regulations so plans can be much lower priced and can be more tailored to the needs of consumers. This will restore important health freedoms and save trillions of dollars.
  • proposed allowing the purchase of medical insurance plans across state lines. This will further reduce premiums and cut away at egregious state insurance regulations that drive up costs;
  • suggested his plan to force the F35 fighter jet to compete with a Boeing F18 will cut spending, which it likely would. The F35 is the perhaps the  military’s most overpriced and ineffective equipment purchase in its wasteful history;
  • ordered a hiring freeze on certain fedecalral government employees;
  • proposed cutting the corporate income tax, which would create jobs and reduce consumer prices.

In the “bad proposals” category, Trump proposed a number of new or expanded Big Government programs, including:

  • more retaliatory tariffs on imports, which will drive up prices for American consumers and kill American jobs. He erroneously believes that “trade deficits” are a problem. They actually represent a deficit of dollars in exchange for a surplus of goods–which balance each other out. This is why it’s called “trade”;
  • the largest increase in military spending ever—a department that’s already full of waste and so poorly managed that it is incapable of being audited. It needs to be dramatically downsized;
  • elimination of the military sequester aimed at slowing the increase in spending. It hasn’t proved very useful, but any constraint on military spending should be retained;
  • $1 trillion in new spending on “infrastructure”—a redux of Obama’s wasteful TARP program. Highways should be funded locally. Federal interference drives up the cost and creates tremendous waste;
  • new spending on: a women’s entrepreneurship program, drug treatment, women’s healthcare, and child care. These programs drive up taxes and kill jobs. They should be left to the productive, low-cost private sector;
  • forcing employers to fund paid family leave. This will kill jobs and harm small businesses;
  • VOICE program aimed at painting immigrants as criminals, when in fact they are at least as peaceful as the average citizen;
  • stepped-up border patrols, which will block productive workers from providing needed labor at a low cost to American individuals and businesses;
  • building a wall along the border with Mexico, which will waste money and harm relations with our neighbor, while failing to stop entry by those who impose a threat;
  • “demolishing ISIS,” suggesting he will sustain U.S. meddling in the Middle East. This will help ISIS recruit terrorists worldwide and destroy more property and human life.

Areas where Trump did not make his proposals clear enough to surmise whether he aims to expand or reduce government include:

  • Medicaid block grants. If this reduces red tape and total spending, it will be a move in the right direction;
  • Eliminating two regulations for every new one created. This can be easily manipulated since some regulations have a far greater impact than others;
  • Funding school choice for disadvantaged children. Choice is good. More taxpayer funding is bad;
  • Creating a task force to propose a plan to reduce violent crime and dismantle drug cartels. This can only be successful if lawmakers end or reduce the federal government’s War on Drugs. Trump has suggested he will escalate this war.

Trump talks big about small cuts in government spending to distract from his proposed massive increase in overall spending.  We need the opposite: to dramatically downsize major federal programs as well as programs across the board, to balance the budget, and to reduce total taxation. So long as lawmakers refuse to cut the overall size of government, they will continue to kill American jobs, create dangerous levels of government debt, inflate the dollar, deplete American wealth, and leave millions of people financially insecure.

Libertarians call on President Trump and congress to focus on cutting the overall size, scope, and authority of government so that the economy flourishes and Americans are gainfully employed, healthy, safe, and financially secure.

With respect to Trump’s specific proposals, Libertarians wish him every success in implementing his better ones, and every failure in implementing his bad ones.


Visit to share this release.


Paid for by the
Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (LNC)
1444 Duke St., Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

White House out of touch with the rest of the country in regards to cannabis



White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer recently said the Department of Justice may increase enforcement of federal marijuana laws in states that have voted to legalize its recreational use. Spicer said, “there’s a big difference between the medical use which Congress has… made very clear what their intent was in terms of how the [DOJ] would handle that issue.” That intent was a requirement in an “appropriations bill saying the [DOJ] wouldn’t be funded to go after [medical cannabis].” Spicer added, “That’s very different than the recreational use, which is something the [DOJ] I think will be further looking into.” Adding, “I do believe that you’ll see greater enforcement of it.”

Spicer then attempted to clarify “I would refer you to the Department of Justice — I think the Department of Justice is the lead on that… but I believe that they are going to continue to enforce the laws on the books with respect to recreational marijuana.”

These comments from Spicer were made the same day a Quinnipiac Poll was published showing that 71% of respondents oppose “the government enforcing federal laws against marijuana in states that have already legalized medical or recreational marijuana.”

As for Spicer’s claim that there’s a difference between medical & recreational use of cannabis, the polling numbers seem to reflect this perception with only 59% responding they believe “the use of marijuana should be made legal in the United States” compared to a whopping 93% who support “allowing adults to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if their doctor prescribes it.”

On the one hand it’s a good thing that laws are not made based on popular opinion, as some horrible things have previously been popularly supported. However when popular opinion reflects a desire for government officials to stop enforcing unjust laws, government officials are the last people to want a change. Not to mention the hypocrisy of the Trump Administration pointed out by Mason Tvert, the communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project, who said, “This administration is claiming that it values states’ rights, so we hope they will respect the rights of states to determine their own marijuana policies.”

It should further be mentioned that the War on Drugs is costly, having cost taxpayers over $1 trillion since 1971. And the feds are projected to spend $31 billion in 2017 enforcing the War on Drugs, not including any spending at the state level.

Spicer’s comments should serve to convey that the Trump Administration is out of touch with the American people, and that the War on Drugs will likely continue until state officials tell the feds, “You’re not allowed here.”

Darryl W. Perry

Darryl has spent most of his adult life as an advocate & activist for peace and liberty. Darryl is an award winning author, publisher & radio/TV host. He is a regular contributor to several weekly and monthly newspapers. He hosts the daily newscast FPPradioNews, the podcast Peace, Love, Liberty Radio, the weekly news podcast FPP Freedom Minute, and is a regular host of Free Talk Live.
Darryl is the Owner/Managing Editor of Free Press Publications, and the CEO of Liberty Lobby LLC.
Darryl is the Chair of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to or call 202 709 4377

New LP video, final 2016 ​LP ​vote totals, 2017 state conventions, and more

Libertarian Party letterhead with torch eagle logo: slogan "Shrinking Big Government - Advancing Liberty"; address 1444 Duke St. Alexandria, VA 22314; 1-800-ELECT-US;


News from the Libertarian Party:

New Libertarian Party video: Choose Freedom

Still image from video, of Nicholas Sarwark in suit, seated & talking to off-camera interviewer, from video
LNC Chair Nicholas Sarwark being interviewed in the “Choose Freedom” video

Watch the new video featuring Libertarian Party leaders, produced by Link Liberty Media Group


LNC vice chair: Not protesting Trump—yet

Arvin Vohra in suit & tie, standing, giving a talk (color photo)
Arvin Vohra, LNC vice chair

Commentary from Arvin Vohra, vice chair of the LNC, on Jan. 20, 2017, the day of the presidential inauguration:

This Saturday, I will not be attending the protest march on Washington, although I live only a few minutes away from that location. This march suggests that Donald J. Trump’s inappropriateness is somehow worse than the government abuses under Barack Obama and George W. Bush. I won’t support that kind of value reversal. I will not engage in the fantasy that idiotic locker room humor is worse than bombing civilians, or hypocritically refusing to pardon people for marijuana use after admitting to marijuana use. I will not pretend that Trump’s election antics are worse than warrantless wiretapping, or the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, or the Wall Street bailout.

Read more here.

U.S. spy chief presents third-party debates as proof RT is anti-U.S.


As reported by on Jan. 6, the latest report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on the alleged ‘election hacking’ by Russia includes a substantial section focused around the idea that Russian government-funded channel RT is overtly anti-American. This is a common enough accusation, but when set out in a multi-page report format, a lot of the charges fall remarkable short.

Nowhere was this more apparent, however, than on the first page of the Annex on RT, which presented the fact that RT America hosted U.S. presidential debates which included third-party candidates.

Read the full story here.

LNC chair interviewed on Lions of Liberty podcast

Image with headshot of Nicholas Sarwark in suit & tie juxtaposed with logo from Lions of Liberty Podcast, stylized drawing of lion, agape, at a microphone (color graphic image)

Libertarian National Committee chair Nicholas Sarwark was interviewed on the Lions of Liberty podcast on Dec. 28.

In the podcast Nicholas discusses the state of the Libertarian Party after the November election, the Johnson–Weld 2016 presidential campaign, and political messaging.

Listen to the podcast.

Final November 2016 Libertarian vote totals

Delegates applauding & smiling at LNC convention 2016 (color photo)

Click here to see the final Libertarian vote totals for the November 2016 election.

2017 State LP Conventions

To see the dates of currently scheduled state LP conventions, click here.

December ‘LP News’ now online

Image of front cover of LP News, Dec. 2016 issue (color image).

The December issue of LP News is now posted online here.

National LP headquarters office has extra copies of the print edition for LP affiliates and activists to hand out at events. If you’re interested in having between 100 and 500 copies shipped to you free of charge, send an e-mail message with your name and address and the number of copies you’re requesting to Casey Hansen, member services manager, at: Casey (at) LP (dot) org.





Paid for by the
Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (LNC)
1444 Duke St., Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

Two Gun Bills to be heard in Senate Judiciary Committee next Tuesday!



Two Gun Bills to be heard in Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday March 7th, 2017 at 4:00 PM!

SB 616 would allow concealed weapons permit-holders to carry guns in to courthouses and temporarily surrender and store the gun at a security checkpoint.

SB 646 Would protect concealed weapons permit-holders from arrest or criminal charges if they “temporarily and openly display” their gun. Also authorizes each member of the Florida Cabinet to carry a concealed weapon or firearm if he or she is licensed to carry a concealed weapon or firearm and does not have full-time security provided by the Department of Law Enforcement.


SB 616 and SB 646 will be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday March 7th, 2017 at 4:00 PM.

Call and e-mail the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and tell them to support SB 616 and SB 646.







Greg Steube


Lizbeth Benacquisto


Randolph Bracy


Anitere Flores


Rene Garcia


Audrey Gibson


Debbie Mayfield


Bobby Powell


Perry Thurston


Liberty First Network · 9851 State Road 54, New Port Richey, FL 34655, United States

Judge Napolitano Healthcare is a Good, not a Right!

Should Palm Beach County be broken down into two counties?

Should Palm Beach County be broken down into two counties?

Monday, March 6th, Warren Redlich will speak in Boca Raton to the idea of splitting Palm Beach County in two. The new county would be more freedom-based.

Our speaker Warren Redlich, founder of West Boca News, will prompt a discussion on splitting off from Palm Beach County, creating a 68th county in Florida. He posed the question in a recent article found here:

We will be in the restaurant’s private room. Although the talk is free, the restaurant is kind enough to give us the room for free, so if you are so inclined, please order food and/or drink.

Please RSVP on Facebook here if you plan to attend:

Lastly, please consider donating to the Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County today.


Copyright © 2017 Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:

Libertarian Party of Palm Beach County

P.O. Box 541934

Greenacres, FL 33454

Add us to your address book

Fill FEC vacancy with a Libertarian

Libertarian Party banner with torch logo, slogan "Shrinking Big Government - Advancing Liberty," and address 1444 Duke St. Alexandria, VA 22314, phone 1-800-elect-us, web address (graphic image)


For immediate release
February 28, 2017

Fill the Federal Election Commission vacancy with a Libertarian

The unexpected resignation of Ann Ravel from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) offers an ideal opportunity for President Trump to “drain the swamp” by appointing a Libertarian commissioner. And because he is considering filling the entire commission with new blood, he could appoint a Libertarian to any of its six seats.

The law requires that no more than three members of the commission come from the same political party. Presidents typically appoint members who are either Democratic or Republican, or closely aligned with one of those two old parties.

But the country consists of much more than just Republicans and Democrats. There are many millions of independent voters, and November’s election saw 4.5 million voters casting their ballots for Libertarian candidate Gov. Gary Johnson. These voters also deserve representation on the FEC.

The Libertarian Party is the nation’s third-largest political party. Through its strength and popular support, it was able to overcome significant hurdles and place its presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.  It would be entirely reasonable and consistent with the law for President Trump to appoint a Libertarian.

Speculation has already begun as to which Libertarians could make President Trump’s short list of prospective replacements. One obvious possibility is Richard Winger, the long-time publisher and editor of Ballot Access News, and nationally recognized expert on independent and alternative-party election issues.  Winger would certainly bring a fresh and much-needed perspective to the FEC.

A more diverse FEC would likely curb the self-serving behavior of the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), which was brought to light this month when a U.S. district court judge ordered the FEC to adequately respond to a complaint that presented mounds of evidence of CPD’s bias in setting criteria for inclusion in presidential debates.

Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans want alternative candidates included in the debates. Yet the FEC has allowed the CPD to exclude them in violation of the FEC’s own regulations.

Adding a Libertarian to the FEC would begin the process of giving American voters real choice at the polls, so that they—rather than political insiders—will control the federal government’s agenda.


Paid for by the
Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (LNC)
1444 Duke St., Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Content not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

Member Notice: 2017 Convention Agenda

Notice: Convention Agenda (Draft) is Online

Our Secretary, Suzanne Gilmore, has completed the first draft of the convention agenda and it has been published to the web at this link:

Additionally, you may find the 2016 Convention Minutes at this link:

Register for Convention

Early Bird Meal Package Available Until March 15th

Early bird meal packages continue to be on sale at $200 a ticket. The package includes:

  • Friday Reception Hors d’oeuvres w/ Cash Bar
  • Saturday Breakfast
  • Saturday Lunch
  • Saturday Dinner
  • Sunday Brunch

Remember: Registering as a delegate is FREE, however, you must be a registered Libertarian voter in the state of Florida, and an LPF Member. Each registrant will be credentialed by the Secretary, Suzanne Gilmore.

Note: You do not need to be a delegate to attend the keynote meal events.

Register for Convention

Saturday: THE ULTIMATE IN ASSET PROTECTION – Recap and Review Your Entire Circle of Protection!


Public Service Announcement:
THIS Saturday CALL

Learn to make your Dinars to Dollars
Exchange 100% TAX NEUTRAL through
The MOST EFFECTIVE Trust Arrangement.
Join us every Saturday at 9:00pm EST to learn how.


…     Read more…

The Phone Numbers and Pins are published at behind the Free Tele-Conference tab. Enter with your User Name and Password. If you don’t have one, click on “New? REGISTER HERE” and create your unique User Name and Password. Information is available only to registered members. Click on Free Tele-Conference Calls and you will see the correct information.
So, if you want to learn how you can accomplish this Offensive Posture for yourself, listen to and participate in the Free Tele-Conference Calls most every evening of the week. See the ‘Free Tele-Conferences’ TAB at, AND THE NEW CALENDAR TAB. There are also the Archives to view two years of historical conference calls!

Best regards,


Click one of the links below to learn more about our self-help courses, or to order your copy today:
The Leader in Step-by-Step Lawsuit Self-Help . . . On the Web Since 1997
Case-Winning Lawsuit Procedure for Non-Lawyers … Learn How-to-Win In Just 24 Hours !

I also encourage you to purchase the 24 hour JurisDictionary Course found at the products and services page at This course is the absolute minimum entry level for anyone who is anticipating having to deal with a lawful issue. It will be the best 24 hours you have ever spent! I have heard it said this course, when completely understood by you, could put you on par with 85% of the lawyers you may come across.

DISCLAIMER: Legal Information is NOT the same as Legal Advice This site provides entertainment/educational information about law designed to help users safely cope with their own legal needs. But legal educational information is not the same as legal advice. The application of law varies with an individual’s specific circumstances. The laws of every state are in constant change, and although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it is appropriate to your particular situation.

‘Clinton Beats Trump’ Is The Real ‘Fake News’ Scandal

Dec 12, 2016 @ 10:00 PM

Ralph Benko

The left has been hysterically pushing a new meme, “fake news.” While ostensibly neutral in practice it is subliminally weaponized as another lame vector — along with attacks on the electoral college and so forth — to undermine the legitimacy of the election of Donald Trump. Love Trump or hate him, he won.The real “fake news” scandal, of course, lies in the mass hallucination by the mainstream media that Hillary Clinton had a near lock on the general election. The overconfident reports of this reportedly led the Clinton campaign to make some unforced errors which just might (or might not) have cost her the election

What’s really happening?

First let’s note in passing that the cry of “fake news” carries sinister overtones of a yearning to impose some censorship taking refuge in the very nice euphemism “curation.” Sometimes this is fantasized as a government agency thing, sometimes via anointment of a paragovernment institution such as The Washington Post as arbiter.

Efforts at censorship are desultory. They are obviously lame even to its proponents. That relic, the First Amendment, and that whole annoying “freedom of the press” thing, presents as something of an obstacle. (Although if the pesky guarantee of free exercise of religion can be interpreted out of all recognition, as was under way, they can dream.) Let us give the Thought Police credit for persistence.


But the real story of how “fake news” made a spectacle lies with the mainstream media’s succumbing to, and perpetrating, the narrative that Hillary Clinton would almost certainly win. That was our era’s “Dewey Beats Truman.”

There were, by my count, three wise men who publicly challenged this narrative before the election and two wise men behind the scenes — one on the Trump campaign and one on the Clinton campaign who knew better. (Michael Moore’s contrarian prediction is an artifact of his predilection for provocation, not wisdom.)

The first Clinton Victory Denier I encountered was Paul Erickson. Erickson had participated in every GOP presidential primary campaign since 1980 and was Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign manager in 1992. He is a sort of “secret master of the political universe” known almost exclusively to the cognoscenti. He sat out the early primary battles of this cycle. The outcome, a Trump nomination and victory, became clear to him by January 2016. He summed up his reasoning: “The election result will be determined by the tides, not the winds.” Meaning that the structural political dynamics — jobs and no third term for the incumbent party — not the flashy ephemeral forces on which the media inevitably fixates, would determine the outcome.

The next prophet was Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert and (like me) a professionally trained hypnotist. Adams early and throughout went on record in various interviews and on his blog. For example:


If I had to put a number on my prediction, I would say a 98% chance of Trump winning the whole thing. That is the direct opposite of Silver’s prediction.


That said, Silver’s predictions are necessarily based on past patterns. My predictions are based on my unique view into Trump’s toolbox of persuasion. I believe those tools are invisible to almost everyone but trained hypnotists and people that study the science of persuasion.

Next up, Allan Lichtman, a distinguished professor of history at American University, who according to the Washington Post:

has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in every presidential election since 1984…. >snip<

Lichtman told the Washington Post on October 28th:

Based on the 13 keys, it would predict a Donald Trump victory. Remember, six keys and you’re out, and right now the Democrats are out — for sure — five keys.


One inside the Clinton campaign and one inside Trump’s also called it. The Daily Caller’s Blake Neff recently featured Glenn Thrush’s post-election scoop from inside the Clinton High Command:


“Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s policy director—a brainy and nervous former State Department aide who took on an increasingly important political role as the campaign ground on—was the only one in Clinton’s inner circle who kept saying she would likely lose, despite the sanguine polling,” Thrush says, citing Sullivan’s friends. “He was also the only one of the dozen aides who dialed in for Clinton’s daily scheduling call who kept on asking if it wasn’t a good idea for her to spend more time in the Midwestern swing states in the closing days of the campaign.”

Inside the Trump command center the campaign’s CEO, now White House strategist, Steve Bannon, gave the Hollywood Reporter an exclusive.

Indeed, during the worst days of the campaign, even down to the last day when most in Trumpland thought only a miracle would save them, “I knew that she couldn’t close. They outspent us 10 to one, had 10 times more people and had all the media with them, but I kept saying it doesn’t matter, they got it all wrong, we’ve got this locked.”

There are three takeaways from this meditation on “fake news” and how the mainstream media turned out to be the gullible ones.

The first is a delicious irony. It is those inside what Bannon aptly calls the “metrosexual bubble” who pushed the media away from plain old gumshoe reporting of “who what when where why” toward Narrative, something which easily can devolve into “fake news.” As I previously have here pointed out, Trump “out-narratived” his opponents, and masterfully.


The left is hoist on its own petard.

The second takeaway? I’ve been watching presidential elections for several decades. The Democrats have an unseemly tendency to go all Lord of the Flies when their presidential nominee loses, scapegoating their standard bearer rather than reflecting on the platform they handed her to run on. Making Hillary a scapegoat, currently in process, is beyond unseemly. It’s shameful.

Hillary Clinton was a sterling nominee. Clinton displayed fortitude, competence, and dignity, well represented her party’s values and capably championed its signature policies. My opposition to her was based entirely on policy grounds. I was not alone.


Finally, rank-and-file Democrats and America deserve better than what they found in the 2016 Democratic platform. Steve Bannon has declared that the Trump White House intends to give it to them:

“I’m not a white nationalist, I’m a nationalist. I’m an economic nationalist…. The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f—ed over. If we deliver … we’ll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we’ll govern for 50 years. That’s what the Democrats missed. They were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It’s not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about.”

If the Trump administration delivers — not a given but the transition shows Team Trump formidable both strategically and tactically — do not be shocked if the GOP gets 51%, not 40%, of the black and Hispanic vote.

So let’s lose the fake news. This election result was “determined by the tides, not the winds.” So too will the next one be.

To read the full column, click here.

2017 Session: Week 6


2017 Session: Week 6


Week 6 of the NH Legislative Session is in the books, and Liberty Lobby LLC was at the statehouse and Legislative Office Building (LOB) testifying for pro-freedom legislation and against anti-freedom legislation.

On Tuesday (Feb 14), CEO Darryl W. Perry testified on:

SB194 Authorizing online voter registration. support
SB107 Establishing an independent redistricting commission. oppose
HB616 Relative to persons executing election affidavits. Requiring persons executing election affidavits to provide proof of qualifications within 10 days of the election. oppose
HB348 Relative to registering to vote; authorizing the division of motor vehicles to receive voter registration forms with driver’s license applications. support

There are no new videos for the Liberty Lobby LLC YouTube channel this week; however we did acquire a new audio recorder which will make it easier for us to at least obtain audio of testimony. We are also tracking the committee recommendations of bills on which we have provided testimony. You can find those updates here.

If you appreciate our efforts, please consider starting or increasing a monthly pledge via PayPal or Bitcoin.

– OR –

Please demonstrate your confidence in our efforts by investing a one-time contribution via PayPal, Bitcoin, or Dash.

In Liberty,
Darryl W. Perry
CEO, Liberty Lobby LLC

The mission of Liberty Lobby LLC is to advocate for minimal government and maximum human freedom by weighing all legislation against the litmus of our principles and responding accordingly by testifying in legislative hearings, holding court with individual legislators, and crafting liberty-minded legislation.

Our goal is to acquire a mere $5,000 per year in contributions from people like you to help pay for travel and administrative expenses. If you are interested in helping fund Liberty Lobby LLC, you can start with a recurring contribution of as little as $5 a month. Every contribution helps bring us that much closer to achieving our goals and ensuring liberty in our lifetime.

Liberty Lobby LLC is not for hire to the highest bidder, and will advocate for 100% freedom on every issue, every time. Liberty Lobby LLC specializes in Election Law (specifically ballot access reform and voter rights), Freedom of Information / Government Transparency, Freedom of Speech & Municipal and County Government.



Thoughts on Free Trade and Protectionism



Traditionalism and Free Trade: 
An Exercise in Libertarian Outreach

By Sean Gabb (2013)

Of the issues that divide libertarians and traditionalists, free trade may be the most important. It is central to nearly all our debates. Do we tend to a contractual or an organic view of human relationships? Do we embrace or do we fear a technological and economic progress that is carrying us into a world we cannot predict? Do we regard mankind as a single race, capable, despite its present separations, of a single future history? Or do we regard these present separations as inevitable, and perhaps worth maintaining? Where do we stand in the debate over England that took place between about 1830 and 1850? In all these and more, how we view free trade will usually correlate with, and may determine, the side that we take.

Since the end of the Cold War, libertarians and traditionalists have been drawn increasingly together. We face a ruling class that is equally at war with liberty and with tradition. On many practical issues – our endless wars, the police state, the shift of power to unaccountable global institutions – we are in agreement. Therefore, while some of us continue the old disputes and mutual condemnations, others have chosen to set aside the condemnations, and to explore in what degree the disputes can be reconciled.

For the past eight years, I have been attending the meetings in Turkey of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Property and Freedom Society. These bring leading libertarians and traditionalists together on neutral ground. More recently, and largely by accident, the Libertarian Alliance, of which I am the Director, has entered into a close dialogue with the Traditional Britain Group. It would be absurd to hope for a full reconciliation. We enter our various dialogues from different sets of assumptions and with different visions of the good society. But, so far as we now face a common enemy, and so far as it is our interest and our duty to cooperate against that enemy, it is useful to see how far apart we really are on the main issues. This will be a brief essay. But I hope it will be seen on both sides as an honest attempt to find common ground on free trade.

The basic libertarian case is that consenting adults have – or should have – the right to associate in any peaceful manner of their choosing. Freedom to exchange goods and services comes within this right, and it makes no difference whether the exchange takes place within a single country or across a border. So long as they anticipate rightly, free association increases both the happiness and the wealth of individuals, and often of mankind at large.

The Law of Comparative advantage is no more than a demonstration of how the increase occurs when exchanges take place across a border. It is, nevertheless, a useful demonstration. It clears aside various misconceptions that would otherwise allow cross-border exchanges to be seen in themselves as harmful. Without going into the sort of arithmetical example that can be found in any textbook of Economics, I will say that free trade enables each participating nation to specialise in those branches of commerce in which it has an advantage. This increases output generally, and therefore wealth. It checks many local tendencies to monopoly. The resulting integration of national economies reduces the chance of war, by raising its costs in terms of economic dislocation.

There are traditionalists who deny the logic of comparative advantage. But these are people who are ignorant of Economics, or who claim access to a higher wisdom than comes from ordinary reasoning. I will, if for different reasons, ignore both these kinds of objection. I will instead discuss the claim that the benefits of free trade are more than offset by the circumstances of the world as it is.

Briefly stated, this claim is that, since about 1970, shifts in comparative advantage have brought about a swift and fundamental deindustrialisation of Britain; and that this has impoverished millions of working class people.

There is the separate claim that the globalisation of which free trade has been made a part has subjected us to a New World Order that is openly working for our destruction as a free people, or as any people at all. However, since I and many other libertarians accept this claim in full, there is no point in discussing it. I will only add that free trade has existed without a supranational government, and that opposition to the latter has no bearing on the desirability of the former. Free trade is the uncontrolled movement of goods and services across borders. It does not need treaties to harmonise the sale of Vitamin C, or armies of bureaucrats to enforce the treaties. I will move, then, to the primary claim, which is mostly in dispute – though for which there is an arguable case.

Until the 1970s, almost every manufactured good sold in this country was made in this country. In terms of price and quality, these goods were often inferior to those made abroad, and had a market only because of the trade barriers that had grown up since the 1930s. On the other hand, British manufacturing firms gave jobs, directly or indirectly, to millions. These jobs were reasonably well-paid and reasonably secure. They gave those holding them the confidence to speak their minds, and to combine in defence of their collective interests as they perceived them. No doubt, these perceived collective interests were often false, and often defended with an absence of forethought. If there was also bad management, strikes and restrictive practices had their part in the ruin of British manufacturing. But I am old enough to remember when doctors and architects did not earn incomparably more than working class people, and when it was common to believe that we were all part of one nation.

Freer trade since the late 1970s has given us manufactured goods about as good and cheap as they can presently be. Most of these are made abroad. If the extent of British deindustrialisation can be overstated – we remain one of the main manufacturing countries; and some of our manufacturing exports have no competition – mass-employment in manufacturing is a thing of the past. Unless they have the skills to make it as sole traders, working class people nowadays have three options. In the private sector, they can take jobs in which the main qualities required seem to be obedience and a pretence of enthusiasm for employers whose own sense of obligation is limited to the contractual. They can become petty functionaries in state and quasi-state bureaucracies that should not exist. They can sink into an underclass that is kept alive by a combination of welfare handouts and crime.

The progress of the past forty years has been so great, that everyone benefits to some extent. Holidays in the sun can be had for the price of a thousand cigarettes, as can 50 inch television sets. Property, though, is increasingly difficult to buy; and rents can take up half the average income after tax. Working class people are insecure in their jobs. They are usually in debt. They are easily tyrannised over. They know they cannot speak freely on a range of subjects they think important. Unless on welfare, they have fewer children than their grandparents had. They are credulous. They are superstitious. They are feared by those above them, but easily managed, and therefore despised.

The main beneficiaries of what has happened since the 1970s are those in the professions or the senior reaches of an expanded financial sector. Our incomes have risen most impressively. And far above us floats the new elite of the super rich. Men like Richard Branson and the Mittal Brothers and the hedge fund managers, and the Russian billionaires who have settled here, have been raised up by the growing importance of London as a financial centre. Whether or not they share our nationality, they live among us, but are in no sense with us. The policies they are able to buy from our rulers will have only an accidental congruence with our interests. They find Britain convenient as a trading platform and shopping centre. Unlike the rest of us, who may have little else, these rich have no country.

In part, these changes are an effect of mass-immigration. You need to be a ruling class intellectual to deny the laws of demand and supply in labour markets. But the main cause has been a shift in the pattern of comparative advantage. Even without the twenty or thirty million immigrants of the past half century, mass-employment in manufacturing would have declined. Without the newcomers, the fall in working class living standards would have been greatly moderated. But there would still be no cotton mills in Lancashire, and no computer factories to take their place. The centre of London would still be packed with rich aliens of every nationality, including our own. Free trade necessarily expands output. It does not necessarily produce benefits that are equally shared.

The depression of our working classes is a legitimate concern. These are our people. Any libertarian who rolls his eyes at the phrase “our people” is a fool. Any who starts parroting the self-righteous cant of our rulers is a villain. All else aside, free institutions are unworkable in a society where large numbers of people are going visibly down the toilet. Does this mean that free trade is no longer in our national interest? Does it mean that, if still undeniable as an abstract proposition, the Law of Comparative Advantage no longer applies in the interests of our nation as a whole?

The answer to the question may be yes. If so, I as a libertarian must choose to stand up as a wooden ideologue or as a man of sense. I have always tried to be the latter. I believe in a world where everyone has the right to do with himself and his own as he pleases – a right bounded only by the equal right of everyone else to do the same. I look forward to a world without governments, and therefore without national borders and border controls. This does not mean, however, that I believe in the immediate and unordered throwing off of the present restraints. I see no value in arguing for specific freedoms, the exercise of which would undermine the existence of liberty in general. A sensible libertarian should argue for the present enjoyment only of those liberties that can be sustained.

I give the example of a restraint that I have already gone out of my way to support. There are good reasons for letting people settle anywhere on this planet where they can, by free bargaining, find jobs and accommodation. And there are better reasons why most people should not be allowed to settle in Britain. To be blunt, I accept the need for strict immigration control, and for even stricter controls on citizenship and its resulting membership of the political nation. I am not impressed by any of the apologetics by which some libertarians claim that this acceptance is other than it is. It is a clear breach of the non-aggression principle, and should be seen as such. But not to breach it in this case strikes me as lunacy. Unlimited immigration would lead to the erasure of one of the few nations and political orders in which the non-aggression principle has been even partially accepted.

This being so, free trade cannot be immune from reconsideration. It suited us very well in the nineteenth century. We emerged as the first industrial nation in a world where we controlled the seas and much territory outside Europe. Despite claims that it did not, it continued to suit us down to the Great War; and it would have continued to suit us right into the 1980s. But times may now have altered. If they have, we must consider some form of protection. I repeat that I am not rejecting the Law of Comparative Advantage. Protection always involves costs. Even assuming better management and less obstructive trade unions, prices of manufactured good would be higher – sometimes much higher. The compensation must be higher median living standards in both the material and the immaterial sense.

Nevertheless, before throwing up the case for free trade, there are three further considerations to discuss. The first is a harder look at the costs of protection. For as long as I have known him, Robert Henderson has been arguing for a “judicious” home preference. The assumption behind this is a belief that trade policy can easily be set in the national interest. But politics is at best a dirty business. Politicians and officials are always for sale; and the acceptance of trade protection would bring a cataract of bribes from every manufacturing company with money to spend. Robert believes that protection should cover things like steel and aeroplanes and electronics – things in which we have no present comparative advantage, but which are otherwise suited to our national abilities. The reality might be the equivalent of growing grapes in Scotland. Protection might give us a trade policy not in any national interest, but in the interest of a cartel of skilled bribe-givers and experts in public relations. We may differ in regarding Imperial Germany with admiration or distaste. But the men who built up those great cartels in steel and machinery and chemicals before 1914 were broadly pro-German. In present circumstances, and for the foreseeable future, protection would add to the number of the powerful and unaccountable interest groups that are busily enslaving us.

Nor in a protected economy need there be the same incentives as under free trade to innovation and product development and the control of costs. Whatever we think of their industrial achievement, the Germans did lose the Great War; and they lost in part because their industry was less responsive and less innovative than our own. Or, for the main current example of what can happen under protection, there is India before the liberalisations of the 1990s. There is also our own example. British manufacturing suffered from the opening of trade in the late 1970s compelled by the EEC and the GATT treaties. One of the reasons it was so damaged was that it had enjoyed nearly half a century of protection in its home markets, and this had enabled the growth of bad management and bad union practices. Before it could be nearly destroyed, British manufacturing was already nearly ruined. Can we really be sure that the same would not happen again? Do we want to go to all the trouble of uncoupling ourselves from a system that brings some benefits to some people, and end up with a repeat of the British Leyland fiasco?

The second consideration is that comparative advantage is not something beyond our control. It is not like the climate, which heats and cools in time with changes inside the Sun, or with variations in our orbit about it. I have mentioned the unions and the quality of management. Luckier in both, the Germans have kept more of their manufacturing despite broad similarities of trading environment. Traditionalists and libertarians usually agree that business in this country is both over-taxed and over-regulated. Well, the health and safety laws alone may have cost us half a million jobs. Our environmental laws and energy policy may have done the same. When it was introduced in the 1960s, capital gains tax is said to have ended most non-institutional investment – that is, much investment into small manufacturing. The overall burden of tax, plus inflation, has diverted most saving and investment into the City casino banks.

Looking at opposite tendencies, comparatively free prospecting for oil and gas in the United States has brought down energy prices there; and this is bringing back manufacturing industry previously lost to China. If we were to cut taxes and regulations at least to American levels, we might have more factories and jobs in the north of England. We could do this without losing the benefits of free trade. It might mean breaking a few treaties, but would not require a siege economy.

The third consideration follows from the second, but takes a more radical path. I have argued so far on the assumption that the economic structure of this country as it emerged a couple of centuries ago is worth defending or restoring. I do not share the view taken by many traditionalists that this structure was an abusive breach with immemorial and better ways of life. The enclosures had already worked a destructive revolution in the countryside. Most people there, by about 1815, had been reduced to a rural proletariat. Industrial society, as it emerged during the nineteenth century, enabled a quadrupling of population by 1914 with a strong upward movement in living standards. But, though better than most of the alternatives, I do not think our country, as it came into the twentieth century, was living in the best of possible worlds. I believe that we, and every other country that has followed our path, took a wrong approach to the Industrial Revolution.


In every industrial country, there has been a tendency for large organisations to outcompete smaller on price, and for goods to emerge at competitive prices from supply chains that may begin on the far side of the world. For example, I live in Kent, which is one of the main apple growing areas in England. My local Sainsbury sells apples from China for less than the local farm shops can sell their own apples. Is this a triumph of free market capitalism, for libertarians to celebrate and traditionalists to deplore? Or is it the outcome of a thoroughly interventionist order, from which the big and the distant gain illegitimate advantages over the small and local?

I think the latter is the case. There are still many libertarians – and these determine how the movement as a whole is seen – for whom utopia is Tesco minus the State. They believe that doing away with taxes and regulations and privilege for the well-connected would bring into being a world recognisably similar to our own. It would be richer and more peaceful and more just. But it would have much the same structures of centralised production and widespread distribution, and of wage labour. There are other libertarians – Kevin Carson, for example – who take a fundamentally different view of what might emerge in the absence of distortions by the State. And, for all they denounce traditionalism, and see themselves as on the “left,” they are elaborating a version of libertarianism that few traditionalists might see as hostile to their own concerns.

During the past few hundred years, the British State, among others, has been subsidising road and rail and, more recently, air transport. These subsidies take the form of direct building, or of financial underwriting or other assistance, or of compulsory purchase and incorporation laws that externalise many of the private costs of construction and use and maintenance. Without subsidy, roads and railways would still have been built. But there would have been fewer of them, and full-cost charging for use would have directed a higher proportion of investment into local networks.

The subsidised infrastructure that we have is biased towards transport over long distances. It raises the maximum scale of production. Internal economies of scale in a factory are worthless if distribution costs make the price of output uncompetitive in all but very local markets. Centralised production for a national market may be worthwhile in a country where distribution costs must be reflected in price. It will be far more worthwhile in a country where distribution costs are partly met by the taxpayers.

What is true of national distribution networks is also true at the level of international trade. British and then American control of the seas has made shipping safe from piracy. British and American control of the Middle East has externalised many of the costs of oil drilling and movement. British and American armed interventions stabilised less powerful countries for the sale of our industrial output, and then for the development of manufacturing industry in places where the local ruling classes could be bribed and assisted into making labour both cheap and docile.

These facts go far to explaining why Chinese apples undercut Kentish apples in Kent, and why it is worth concentrating the manufacture of virtually all electronic goods in a few coastal regions of China, and why most of the clothes we buy are put together in Turkish and Bangladeshi sweatshops. It goes far to explaining why, when I drive home every summer from the family trip to Slovakia, I share fabulously expensive motorways with lorries that pay a pittance per mile, and burn diesel at prices – even allowing for taxes – far below the real cost of extraction and transport, and that are carrying goods to places like Manchester and Leeds where once whole armies were employed in their manufacture.

In short, the manufacturing side of the globalisation that traditionalists denounce proceeds from a pattern of comparative advantage that makes sense only on the basis of systematic externalisations of cost. This is not a natural order. It is not free market capitalism. It is instead a global mercantilism in which a cartel of ruling classes has decided that certain regions should specialise in certain activities. If notebook computers are not made in Basingstoke, it may be less because firms in Canton are better at making them than because their final prices all over the world do not take fully into account their costs of manufacture and distribution.

It may be that these interventions lead to positive externalities that outweigh the externalised costs. But this is to put a faith in the wisdom of politicians and bureaucrats that is not supported by our everyday experience. More likely, costs are not merely shifted from those incurring them, but also magnified before they are dispersed, if in ways that none of us can fully understand.

Let us try to imagine the shape of a world in which these interventions had not begun. It might now be a place of largely independent communities, with much production of food and energy and manufactured goods close to market. There would have been an industrial revolution. But it would have taken a different path. There would be advanced technology. But it would be different in its objects. There would be some centralised production, but only where its full distribution costs were reflected in price. There would be some international specialisation and trade on the basis of comparative advantage. But this would not be so omnipresent, nor so able to produce vast and sudden dislocations. There would be neither corrupt, free-floating elites nor an alienated proletariat. But there would be much freedom and much regard for tradition.

In the world as it is, the British working classes have been smashed not by free trade, but by systematic state interventions so longstanding that we are liable to take them as inevitable. The answer is not to call for the State to make up sliding scale tariffs or to set quotas on South Korean washing machines. Rather, it is for the initial interventions to be swept away. Two centuries of the world as it is cannot be undone at once. But we can hope that a root and branch attack on the enabler of that world will allow something more natural to take its place.

I have said that there are differences between libertarians and traditionalists over what constitutes the substance of the good society. Rightly considered, I increasingly wonder where the real differences need to be about the form of that society, and over how to get there.


Recent Posts


Copyright © 2017 The Libertarian Alliance, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:

The Libertarian Alliance

Suite 35
2 Lansdowne Row

London, London W1J 6HL

United Kingdom

Add us to your address book

Affiliate Support Fund


Dear Libertarian,


Helping our state and county parties grow and expand is critical for the recruitment and success of our future candidates.


Did you know that the national Libertarian Party has a staffer whose job is focused completely on supporting state and local parties?


His name is Andy Burns.


Andy helps Libertarian leaders and activists across the country, all day, every day.


Here are a few rave reviews that help illustrate Andy’s work:


“[Andy] has been instrumental in the improvement of our website and establishment of our database. His expertise has saved us several thousand dollars that we don’t have to spend on this.  I can’t say enough about his vision, persistence and patience.” - Zack Banks, Vice Chair, Libertarian Party of Washington


“Thanks for all your help with the website. You got me a million miles down the road and I was totally not expecting this much support. Big relief.” - Tony Mangnall, Chair, Libertarian Party of North Dakota


“On behalf of the Libertarian Party of Colorado, I send this letter of thanks and commendation regarding Affiliate Support Representative Andy Burns. We needed assistance in setting up a new and modern website through NationBuilder which was beyond the skills of our volunteers, and Andy stepped in and went above and beyond the call of duty. Thanks to Andy, the LPCO will have a beautiful website to reach Colorado residents. He truly is a resource to the Party and a hard worker for Liberty.” - Jay North, Chair, Libertarian Party of Colorado


“As an elected Libertarian, I know the importance of having a professional, polished and organized state party behind me. This was important on the campaign trail, and it remains important while serving in office. Andy Burns is great at guiding affiliates to this level. With his help, the Libertarian Party of Connecticut updated its website, putting forth a face we are proud to show, overhauled our database and data management systems – enabling us to bring in dozens of new volunteers and thousands of extra fundraising dollars, and built the type of structure that can fully support our candidates and elected officials. I cannot recommend highly enough that every affiliate work with Andy as much as possible.” - Joshua Katz, former Chair, Libertarian Party of Connecticut


The national party provides a lot of benefits for state and local parties but Andy is one of our most visible resources.


Other needs vary with the election cycle. Right now, we want to help promote the upcoming Libertarian state conventions.


If you’d like to help support the national party’s work to support state and local parties, please consider donating to the Affiliate Support Fund.


Again, helping our state and county parties grow and expand is critical for the recruitment and success of our future candidates.


I hope you’ll consider donating towards this important work.



As always, thank you for your support of the Libertarian Party.




Wes Benedict

Executive Director


Paid for by the
Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (LNC)
1444 Duke St.,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Content not authorized by any
candidate or candidate committee.

Why criminal law enforcement does not violate the Zero Aggression Principle



An initiative of the Downsize DC Foundation

Is sending a murderer to prison aggression? Retweet

By Perry Willis 

The Zero Aggression Principle (the ZAP) is the key libertarian idea. It says…

“Don’t aggress against others, personally or politically.”

In other words, force should only be used for defensive purposes, including by institutions of governance, such as police and courts. But…

Some libertarians claim the ZAP is flawed.

They say that criminal law enforcement is inherently aggressive, so…

  • Either the ZAP is invalid, or…
  • The ZAP disallows police, courts, and prisons

Please understand, these critics are not condemning the enforcement of aggressive statutes, such as those that impose alcohol, drug, gun, or people prohibition (immigration controls). All libertarians agree that such dictates are aggressive and invalid under the ZAP. Rather…

The critics are asserting that law enforcement against crimes such as assault, murder, and burglary also violate the ZAP. These critics believe that…

  • Cops are committing aggression when they arrest someone for murder
  • Courts are committing aggression when they send a convicted murderer to prison

These claims are wrong. Criminal law enforcement, or criminal due process, is defensive in nature, at every step of the way. And I can demonstrate that by examining…

A crime

Someone breaks into your house. You get your gun, find the intruder, and do one of two things…

  • Shoot him
  • Arrest him (citizen’s arrest)

Either action is clearly defensive. You know this because you have the following evidence of aggression…

  • You didn’t know the intruder
  • You didn’t invite him into your home
  • It’s late at night — strong evidence of ill intent and grave risk

Now reconsider how a shooting would appear if the facts were slightly different. What if…

  • You knew the person
  • You had invited him to visit your home
  • It was early in the evening

Then things would be in doubt. You might be the aggressor. The cops would need to look for evidence by which to judge your action — was it defensive or aggressive?

Key pointEvidence is what allows us to tell the difference between aggression and defense.

This is just as true for a homeowner encountering an intruder as it is for the cops responding to the shooting of an alleged burglar.

  • You need evidence of aggression before you can use violence to defend yourself
  • The police and courts likewise need evidence that you were the aggressor before they can take action against you

In this case, the cops will ask the following questions…

  • Who is the intruder?
  • Did you know him?
  • Did you invite him into your home?
  • When did the altercation happen?

Then they’ll check with your friends to test your claim that you didn’t know the intruder. And they’ll conduct an autopsy to determine the time of death. Did it really happen in the middle of the night, or earlier? If they learn that…

  • You knew the person you shot
  • The time of death was earlier than you claimed, then new questions will follow.

The cops will ask you and your friends…

  • Did you have a motive for murder?
  • Why did you lie about knowing the person and the time of the shooting?

Perhaps the cops will find people who overheard…

  • Loud arguments between you and the alleged intruder
  • A death threat
  • An invitation to visit your home to continue the dispute, or for some other purpose

This evidence of lying, motive, and prearranged opportunity justifies retaliatory action by the police. Remember…

  • Individuals can use moderate and proportional violence to defend themselves or others when there is evidence of aggression
  • The police can also do these things

But the police are legally required to tread carefully…

  • They must test their evidence of aggression in a preliminary hearing before a judge to see if it’s worthy of further action
  • The accused is not held beyond the time of the hearing or is given the opportunity to post a bond to secure his release
  • The evidence is then further tested in a trial where a unanimous verdict from 12 people is required to convict
  • And the evidence is often further challenged during a lengthy appeals process

Please notice…

The use of violence is moderate and proportional to the evidence at every step of the way.

But you may ask, what about when a jury renders…

  • A verdict of not guilty, or…
  • A guilty verdict that turns out to be wrong

Hasn’t law enforcement committed an act of aggression against the falsely accused in those cases? The answer is probably, in which case the person so-injured should be compensated. A libertarian system would create mechanisms for doing exactly that, though the current statist system does not. But please notice something else…

You’re in exactly the same situation as the law enforcement system when you confront an intruder in your home. You assume that the intruder is being aggressive, but it could just be a drunk who wandered into the wrong house, or your wife’s crazy Uncle Joe making a surprise visit. These kinds of things do happen! The implication is profound…

If marginal prosecution errors can invalidate all of criminal law enforcement, then all acts of individual self-defense are likewise invalid.

Thus, the person who seeks to refute or limit the Zero Aggression Principle by claiming that criminal law enforcement is inherently aggressive is actually striking an unwanted blow against the morality of defensive force itself. The ZAP’s critics are wrong.

  • Moderate and proportional violence can be used for self-defense, or the defense of others, if there’s sufficient evidence of aggression
  • This applies to law enforcement agencies just as much as it does to individuals
  • The Zero Aggression Principle is correct.


This article, by Perry Willis, may be an excellent piece to share with a libertarian friend.

And if you’re the friend who just received this article, please come to the Zero Aggression Project, look for the gold box (it’s on most of the pages), and fill-in the subscription form so you can get all of our new content, as it’s released. Note: We will send you a confirmation message to complete your subscription. 

Our Copyright Policy

Our mailing address is:

Zero Aggression Project

872 Mark Drive

Akron, OH 44313

Add us to your address book

The Cost-Benefit Analysis of Boycotts & Strikes



From a boycott of Starbucks because their cups aren’t sufficiently Christmas-y enough, to boycotts of Star Wars movies, a #deleteUber campaign, Nordstrom, Budweiser, Target, and the States of Utah & North Carolina for various reasons; it seems there is always a boycott of some sort. Which leads to the question: Do boycotts work?

The short answer is: sometimes. One can find examples of boycotts leading to their desired outcome, the Montgomery Bus Boycotts, for example led to the end of segregation on city buses. One can also look at the boycott of Chick-fil-A over the company CFO’s opposition to same-sex marriage legalization, which led to a buycott, that is the act of a person or group “deliberately purchasing a company’s or a country’s products in support of their policies, or to counter a boycott.”

Ivo Welch, professor of economics and finance at the Anderson School at UCLA, says, “Boycotts almost surely will never work.” Welch points to South Africa as an example, adding, “In the early 1980s and before then, it was a very large movement to divest all sorts of holdings and break all sorts of business and sports ties with South Africa. South Africa, at the time, had an apartheid regime that was institutionalized racism and about as abominable as it gets… There were all sorts of coordinated actions that were not just in the United States, but all over the world, all designed to bring the South African regime to its knees.”

However, Stephen J. Dubner reports, Welch found that despite a coordinated global effort by activists and institutions, South African firms were essentially unharmed by the boycott.

Even if boycotts don’t always have the intended impact on the target, participation in one generally does not impair the daily life of the participant. The same can not be said of strikes as a form of protest.

There was recently a strike by workers and students called “A Day Without Immigrants.” NPR reports the “movement is a response to President Trump’s immigration agenda, which includes a pledge to seal the U.S. border with Mexico and a travel ban on citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries (which is now on hold).”

The day after the protest, headlines began reporting: “Workers fired after participating in ‘A Day Without Immigrants’ strike.” While the details of the stories varied, the recurring theme remained the same: someone refused to go to work, and the employer terminated the relationship. The attorney for one company in Tennessee released a statement reading: “Because of the time-sensitive nature of the jobs these employees were assigned to, all employees were told that they would need to show up for work or they would be terminated.”

Whether you agree or disagree with the reasons behind the strike, I hope you can at least recognize that harming yourself (i.e. refusing to work, not getting paid, and potentially losing your job) does not send the desired message to the target of your protest. Even though the evidence shows that strikes and boycotts are largely ineffective, I’m not saying that one should never participate in a strike or boycott; I am saying that one should thoroughly weigh the potential costs to themselves before participating in one.

Darryl W. Perry

Darryl has spent most of his adult life as an advocate & activist for peace and liberty. Darryl is an award winning author, publisher & radio/TV host. He is a regular contributor to several weekly and monthly newspapers. He hosts the daily newscast FPPradioNews, the podcast Peace, Love, Liberty Radio, the weekly news podcast FPP Freedom Minute, and is a regular host of Free Talk Live.
Darryl is the Owner/Managing Editor of Free Press Publications, and the CEO of Liberty Lobby LLC.
Darryl is also the Chair of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire.

To schedule an interview with Darryl please send an email to or call 202 709 4377