Book Review — Faith Seeking Freedom: Libertarian Christian Answers to Tough Questions

BOOK REVIEW — Faith Seeking Freedom: Libertarian Christian Answers to Tough Questions

129 pages, by Dr. Norman Horn, Doug Stuart, Kerry Baldwin, and Dick Clark

FULL DISCLOSURES:

• Kerry Baldwin has been a Facebook friend for several years now.
• I don’t profess to be a Christian of any denomination or sect or whatever. Organized religion and I simply don’t do well together.

With those out of the way . . . .

Faith Seeking Freedom is easy reading, in that the authors don’t try to cram you chock-full of data and information and jargon, such that you would feel overwhelmed by it all.

When the authors cite Biblical content, they put the citation right there in the same paragraph as the point that they’re making, so you don’t have to keep flipping back and forth to the end of the chapter or the end of the book. This is probably for the best where electronic versions are concerned. Also, for those inclined to have a Bible nearby to check on the authors, it’s right there where you can compare and contrast the authors’ points against the Bible verse(s) itself.

The authors don’t attempt to take sides where the big divisions of libertarian thought occur, such as the minarchy vs. anarchy debate, or whether or not to be involved in the LP, with the exception of the abortion issue.

SPECIFIC POINTS —

[Page numbers cited here are what listed is on the particular page. The actual pages on the PDF version that I used for this review will be that number, plus 10 pages.]

Chapter 2 (The Libertarian Basics, pp. 23-34) gives the reader a decent summary of the Non-Aggression Principle and how it applies to everyday life.

p. 26, part of the answer to Question #13 (How do libertarian Christians account for people who violate the non-aggression principle (NAP)?) takes on the minarchy vs. anarchy question rather well — the authors explain both sides without explicitly favoring one side or the other. (Disclosure: I personally lean towards the anarcho-capitalist side.)

p.39, Question #25 (Do libertarians believe any and every government is illegitimate?) also tackles the minarchy vs. anarchy adroitly, explaining both sides without favoring one or the other.

pp. 67-68 give a succinct and principled response to the “What about roads?” shibboleth.

OK, enough spoilers.

Do me a favor Do yourself a favor — Go and get a copy and read it for yourself.

SUMMARY —

Faith Seeking Freedom is an easy-to-read, principled guide for Christians who are seeking to understand libertarianism, on par with Inclined to Liberty by Louis Carabini, The Law by Frederic Bastiat, or Down With Power by L. Neil Smith.

Go get a copy, read it, then tell your friends and family.

---

NOTES

1. Published at The Libertarian Enterprise [TLE] — Number 1,096: 6 December 2020
2. Reposted —
   1. Albuquerque Liberty Forum — Facebook page / Spreely page
   2. KCUF Media — Facebook page / Spreely page
   3. New Mexico Libertarians — Facebook group / Facebook page / Minds group / Spreely group / Spreely page / Wimkin group / Wimkin page
   4. The Old Drunken Old Irrvelivents — Facebook page / Spreely page

---

Copyright © 2020 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepadqq and Notepad++.

Quote of the Day for Tuesday, 24 December 2013

Current mood: blah, frustrated, sick

Government is not a necessary evil. Its a chronic delusion.

– Status update by “Jewish Libertarians”

---

Copyright © 2013 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

The Conversation

---

NOTES

1. Original article
2. Reposted –
   1. LPUSA / LPNM / LPBCNM – LPNM Blog / LPBC Blog / LPNM Official Facebook page / LPBCNM Official Facebook page / LPNM Official Google Plus page / LPNM Official Twitter page / LPNM Official Facebook group / LPBCNM Official Facebook group / New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group / [LPNM-discuss] Yahoo! group

---

[LPNM] Musings of a Libertarian Buddhist

Musings of a Libertarian Buddhist
by Ish Calleros

Recently, I was challenged by an Obama supporter friend of mine. A fellow “Buddhist” as to my views on gun control. The fact that I thought guns kept people safe from criminal and tyrannical activity apparently disqualified me from walking as did The Buddha.

This statement already illustrates the problem at hand. Coercion.

Libertarian values at their core center around the idea of non-aggression. Non-coercion. It is this idea that attracted me to the Libertarian political philosophy. Simply put, do not coerce others in any way, shape, or form. Religion, in my opinion is one of biggest forms in which people attempt to coerce people. By trade, I am a martial arts instructor. I tell my students all the time that bullying can occur physically, mentally or spiritually. I teach them to watch for signs of bullying and to never fall victim to it. Spiritual bullying can be very intense in nature. It can lead to murder, mass murder, or genocide.

That being said, what attracted me to Buddhism as a spiritual practice (read: not religion) was the idea of letting go of judgment as a way to improve the self. When you take the ideas of Siddhartha Gautama the man (The Buddha), he was very wise in leaving room for questioning his teachings. “If you find The Buddha, kill The Buddha” being one of my personal favorites, he encouraged revolutionary thought. Even if it were against his own ideas. He very carefully closed the door on any who would make a deity out of him.

Yet many did. Many do. To the point where when you mix Buddhism with modern “Democrat” beliefs, you get coercion. “You can’t believe in gun rights and The Buddha’s teachings at the same time.” I disagree. In fact, if you look at the evidence, it would appear that Buddhism as a philosophy is more geared to Libertarian thought than other forms of spiritual practices while still leaving room for others who have different spiritual inclinations. Example: The Buddha said, “no one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.” Were he a statesman saying this exact line, it might come at a time just before he gets rid of entitlement programs. In fact, that single line almost excludes Democrats from his teachings, not Libertarians. He goes on to say; “The whole secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you. Depend on no one. Only the moment you reject all help are you freed.” I can assure you, right along with my Buddhist principles, I will not be taking any handouts soon. Seems pretty downright Libertarian to me.

I am not the only one who believes the belief systems are seamlessly compatible. Robert A. Meyer calls it “The Way of the Libertarian Warrior.” His writings blend his idea of the Zen Buddhist – a peaceful warrior-with hard-hitting Libertarian edge: “When Patrick Henry said ‘give me liberty or give me death,’ he wasn’t joking. He understood an eternal truth. Government subjugation of an individual’s body, mind, and spirit amount to a living death.”

The man understands the biggest bully known to man: The Government, and he will not take it lightly. Not a man lacking in diligence. And what did The Buddha say about diligence? “To be idle is a short road to death and to be diligent is a way of life; foolish people are idle, wise people are diligent.”

Moving on to compassion, another Buddhist principle, I will give you a peek into my martial arts classroom. I tell the children as well as adults, “self-reliance is compassion in action. Loving yourself so much that you will defend yourself is actually the highest form of love. How can you love another human or be compassionate with one if you have none for yourself? Love yourself. You deserve it.” Any compassion that you are capable of giving is because you are self-reliant to have something to give. When giving of your own free will, that is true compassion. Plus, the person receiving gets to feel true gratitude. How spiritually devoid is a transaction then when coercion is involved? In fact, the spiritually inclined man in me believes that coerced giving is “evil.” You promote resentment from the giver. The person on the receiving end does not feel gratitude but entitlement. And the receiving party actually resents the giver for having more. When done in freedom, there is gratitude and compassion sprung forth into the universe. The government wants us to feel that the evil is not wanting to be forced to give. Again, I will refer back to the Buddha here: “virtue is persecuted more by the wicked than it is loved by the good.”

The more I study and feel from within, I know that no other political philosophy can actually make sense to my Buddhist principles other than the Libertarian party. So I am grateful to the person who questioned my positions on gun control and the Buddha. It inspired a deeper introspection that reaffirmed my already solid principles.

Ish Calleros is the owner and operator of Kung Fu San Soo of Albuquerque

---

NOTES

1. Libertarian Party – LPNM Blog / LPBC Blog / [LPNM-discuss] Yahoo! group

---

Copyright © 2013 Libertarian Party of New Mexico, Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County, New Mexico and Ish Calleros. All rights reserved.

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing. This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Guns aren’t the problem, and never really were

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Fwd: Guns aren’t the problem, and never really were
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:16:38
From: Mike Blessing
To: LPNM Discussion list @ Yahoo!, My Public Email Archive, The Weekly Sedition @ Yahoo!, New Mexicans for Liberty
BCC: [80 individuals]

Re: Gun Arguments Die in Latest Massacre

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Guns aren’t the problem, and never really were
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 01:51:55
From: Libertarian Party of New Mexico <lpnm.chair@gmail.com>
To: <llinthicum@abqjournal.com>, <opinion@abqjournal.com>

“And it’s time for Americans to stop talking about our individual rights and start accepting our collective responsibilities.”

With that one sentence, Ms. Linthicum disavows the one thing that separates America from the rest of the world – the United States is the only country with the notion of individual rights written into its core documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

She says “I don’t want to hear that it’s not guns that are the problem, people are.” Well, she’s going to, and not just from me, from what I see on the Journal’s website. Because it’s the truth. Inanimate objects such as guns, knives and baseball bats don’t cause violent crime, as she alleges. That’s like saying cars cause drunk driving.

Then she says she doesn’t want to hear about how an armed teacher could have prevented the tragedy. Again, she doesn’t want to hear the truth. She’s got an agenda to promote and doesn’t want anything to get in the way.

Fact is, Linthicum’s pet cause of victim disarmament legislation has been a stagnant one since the year 2000. Twenty dead kids in a public school is just what she needed to bring it back to life.

Why hasn’t she asked any questions about Adam Lanza’s psychiatric state at the time of the tragedy? Was he doped up on Ritalin, Prozac or any other anti-depressant?

And about the shootings themselves:

Why is it that not many (if any) people shoot up private schools or religious schools like this? What makes the public schools so special in this regard?

Why is it that there’s never any coverage of these sort of incidents happening with homeschooling families? After all, quite a few of those in the homeschooling movement are also supporters and exercisers of the right to own and carry weapons.

Why is it that these sorts of shootings never seem to happen at gun shows, at gun stores or at shooting ranges? After all, by Linthicum’s brand of thinking, these are the places that they should happen the most at – lots of guns present, lots of ammo present.

Anyway, Linthicum wants us to put our inalienable Constitutional, civil, God-given human rights aside for her notion of “collective responsibility.” Well, what happens when her side loses an election, and she becomes subordinate to someone else’s notion of “collective responsibility” – a version that she doesn’t particularly care for? Maybe then she’ll learn to appreciate that “outdated” notion of individual rights?

I can only hope so.

_______________________________________________________________________

Mike Blessing / Phone – 505-249-1248
State Chair, Libertarian Party of New Mexico

Who owns you? Who runs your life? Who should – you or someone else?
Freedom is the answer – what’s the question?

“If you wanna live long on your own terms
You gotta be willing to crash and burn”– Motley Crue, “Primal Scream”

---

Copyright © 2012 Libertarian Party of New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.

This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Republicans, Grow Some Vertebrae for a Change

Current mood: annoyed, bitchy, cranky

11/25/2012 9:29 AM:

> A small group of Republicans in the south of New Mexico have the right idea. They are planning to attend the State Central Committee meeting
> and start there to change things. Good for them. It’s the sort of thinking, the sort of effort we should all be doing. But most of us are not.

More than likely, they’ll get the same sort of reception that Morton Blackwell and the Ron Paul Republicans got from Reince Priebus and the RNC at the GOP’s National Convention in Tampa, Florida this past August:

“Shut up and go sit in the corner. When we need your support, you better be there for us.”

> Why is not the State Republican Party talking to us? Why are not the county RPs sending their members messages of future plans?

Why should Monty Newman and Jay McCleskey care in the slightest what the grassroots Republicans think?

After all, the grassroots turned out for Slick Willard Romney and Heather Wilson, after Wilson and Romney were handed their nominations on silver platters by the GOP-E insiders.

Face it – the GOP-E insiders absolutely love you when you’re marching to their orders, no questions asked. It’s when you start insisting that the nominees adhere to certain principles that you get the door slammed in your face.

Just ask Ron Paul, Gary Johnson or Adam Kokesh how this works – either one of them can spell it out for you in detail.

Neither Romney nor Wilson were anything resembling capitalists of the limited-government, free-market orientation. Rather, they are more the sort of false “capitalists” that both Frederic Bastiat and Karl Marx excoriated. Wilson and Romney are more properly called mercantilists as Adam Smith defined the term in 1776.

But we all knew this since February and March of this year.

If you truly want to show McCleskey, Newman and Priebus that you’re serious players and not just waiting for new marching orders, then you need to tell them exactly where in explicit terms where they can stick candidates like Romney and Wilson.

> Why are we not having town halls in major cities so that grassroots Republicans can mull over ideas, consider plans to become a strong,
> solid phalanx and attract more adherents?

A “solid phalanx” of star-spangled jellyfish is what you’ll get under the management of McCleskey, Priebus and Newman.

At least that’s what you’ve gotten in the past from the GOP-E gang.

How will continuing to kowtow to them as you’ve done in the past yield better results for you?

> Why are we not gearing up to educate the population about the virtues of capitalism?

Good question.

When did you start caring about these?

If Republicans truly cared about “the virtues of capitalism,” then why did they nominate the likes of Heather Wilson and Mitt Romney for ANY sort of public office?

If you truly cared at all, then you wouldn’t give Republicans cut from the mercantilist mold the slightest bit of slack, just because they have the magic “Big R” after their names.

What did I see in the 2012 election cycle? Did I see any of that sort of courage and fortitude?

No, I didn’t. Instead, most of what landed into my inbox was stuff like “your wasting your vote,” “Youre either with us or youre with Obama!!!” – stuff like that.

> I do not want to hear more of the same pabulum from the same elected officials that have not stood up for individual rights, limited
> governments and free markets.

What you need to do is tell the GOP-E types where they can stick the pabulum and those who push it.

As long as you continue to support them unconditionally after they give you that pabulum, they see that you’re willing to settle for it. Thus that’s all you’ll really get from them.

> Instead, I’d like to hear Marco Rubio speak and Thomas Sowells, Yaron Brook and Dan Watkins. I’d like to hear John A. Allison talk to us
> about his new book, The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure.

Start raising money – the sooner the better, as all of these potential speakers are likely to charge a pretty penny to show up here in New Mexico.

And make sure to keep the GOPNM State Committee OUT of the loop where bringing speakers in is concerned – or all you will get is more of the same.

For what it’s worth, I will observe with amusement the efforts of the “Ron Paul” and Tea Party crowds to “take over” the Republican Party. I suspect that future efforts in this vein will yield similar results to previous efforts along that line.

Rather, I predict it will be the C4L and Tea Party groups who end up getting taken over and co-opted by the GOP-E types, and thus subsumed into being obedient, servile troopies for them. In short, pawns.

So if you LIKE riding in circles on a bus for a few hours, if you LIKE the MC confirming the votes for the GOP-E candidates while ignoring the votes for your candidates, if you LIKE being told what to say and what to think – then please continue on as before.

Anyway, Republicans – PROVE ME WRONG (No one’s done it yet.)

Hey, no one ever said that living as free people was easy – if it was, then everybody would do it. Sticking to your principles and standing up for what’s right can be costly, in many ways. Sometimes you might have to lose an election rather than put a mercantilist with the magic Big R after his name into public office.

Final notes: Gary Johnson is JUST GETTING STARTED. He plans to do a 2013 college speaking tour, just like he did in the 2012 election. And at his Election Night Party at the Hotel Albuquerque, I asked him to form at least an exploratory committee for the 2014 New Mexico gubernatorial race.

_______________________________________________________________________
Mike Blessing

Who owns you? Who runs your life? Who should – you or someone else?
Freedom is the answer – what’s the question?

“If you wanna live long on your own terms
You gotta be willing to crash and burn”
– Motley Crue, “Primal Scream”

---

Copyright © 2012 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.

This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Ron Paul’s Farewell Address to the Congress

I don’t think that there’s any of the Establishment’s sacred cows that Dr. Paul didn’t skewer and make into hamburger patties.

Good for him!

---

Copyright © 2012 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.
This blog entry created with gedit and Notepad++.

A Vote for Gary Johnson Definitely Not a Waste

A Vote for Gary Johnson Definitely Not a Waste

by Tom Mahon

Kenneth Brown, an economist, attempts to make the case that Gary Johnson’s libertarian candidacy for president may peel votes away from Mitt Romney. While portraying this as a blow to limited government, he fails to explain exactly how Romney would bring limited government and economic freedom to the White House.

Instead, as seems to be the case with most Romney supporters, the only case they can make for “their guy” is that “the other guy” (Obama) is so bad that supporters of limited government should abandon their principles and support Romney. I strongly disagree. In fact, throughout this campaign, I have seen far more examples of agreement between Romney and Obama.

It is only Johnson who will, if elected, bring the ideas of limited government to Washington.

On the economy and health care in particular, there is virtually no daylight between Obama and Romney. “Obamacare,” as we all know, has many of the same characteristics as does “RomneyCare” in Massachusetts. Now, of course, Romney says he would “repeal and replace” Obamacare, but his record as governor shows that he believes that government bureaucrats, not patients and their doctors, should control health care. Johnson would repeal Obamacare and work to restore free market principles in American health care.

In terms of economic growth, the real problems with our economy today is not the tax burden, rather it is bipartisan, out-of-control spending growth in Washington. Unlike Romney, whose specific budget cuts are limited to Big Bird and a few other trivial items but who wants a massive increase in military spending, Johnson would submit a balanced budget immediately upon taking office and would put the major spending areas – the entitlements and the military – on sustainable footing while eliminating boondoggles like farm subsidies and the War on Drugs.

Continuation of the War on Drugs is yet another area of agreement between Romney and Obama with which Johnson disagrees. Federal spending on the drug war amounts to over $15 billion annually and that isn’t even the real problem with it. The real problem is that the War on Drugs costs all of us our civil liberties, destroys poor and inner-city families (predominantly minorities), and costs us far more in terms of prisons, joblessness and other social harms than what Americans know.

Speaking of privacy, Obama and Romney would do nothing to reform or eliminate the absurd Transportation Security Administration which makes regular headlines groping grandmas and generally making life miserable for travelers, all with little to no impact on our security. Johnson will eliminate TSA, saving taxpayers $40 billion annually. The private sector – airlines, airports, or private security companies – will do a much better job for far less money.

And then there is foreign policy. Nowhere is the difference between Obama / Romney and Johnson starker.

Obama and Romney have pledged to continue this needless war which has no clear objective, has seen American troops gunned down and killed by their supposed “allies,” and will waste another $120 billion this year alone. Johnson will bring the troops home immediately.

Also, while Romney and Obama seem determined to start a war with Iran, Johnson will work to resolve the conflict with Iran peacefully as Iran has never threatened the United States and does not present a military threat to this country.

The case is clear. The only vote you are “throwing away” is a vote for four more years of bipartisan spending, violations of personal liberty and tragic soldier deaths in Afghanistan.

Our former governor, Gary Johnson, is easily the best choice for president!

Original article

---

NOTES

1. Reposted –
   1. LPUSA / LPNM – LPNM Blog / [LPNM-discuss] Yahoo! group
   2. The Weekly Sedition – Yahoo!
   3. Duke City Fix / NMPolitics.org

---

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.
This blog entry created with gedit and Notepad++.

Ken Brown Is NOT a Free-Market Advocate

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Ken Brown Is NOT a Free-Market Advocate
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:40:47
From: Libertarian Party of New Mexico <lpnm.chair@gmail.com>
To: opinion@abqjournal.com

Re: Vote for Johnson May Help Obama

This isn’t the first time that Kenneth Brown has blown off free-market principles to support the Republican Party, and I suspect it won’t be the last time.

How are the individual health-insurance mandate that’s part of both Slick Willard’s Massachusetts RomneyCare and the ObamaCare that was created from it compatible with free-market economics? They aren’t, yet Brown says that Mittens is the best candidate in the race.

Another part of this comedy of errors is how Romney, Ryan and Heather Wilson are crying that ObamaCare was paid for by looting Medicare to the tune of 716,000,000,000 bucks. Let me get this straight – these “fiscally-restrained” “free marketers” are complaining that Obama’s scheme to federalize health care is being paid for by robbing Lyndon Johnson’s scheme to federalize health care?

How were George Bush’s TARP bailout and Bush’s bailout of General Motors compatible with free-market economics? They weren’t, yet “Mr. Free-Marketer” Brown insists that the same Romney who supported both bailout plans is the candidate that deserves the libertarian vote.

Yes, Mr. Brown, I’m calling you out as a phony where your “free market economics” creds are concerned. Deal with it.

For what it’s worth, I’m proud to say that I voted for Gary Johnson and Jon Barrie on Wednesday, 24 October. When Gary and Jon talk about their Tea Party values, they actually mean it. Imagine that.

______________________________________________________________________
Mike Blessing
State Chair, Libertarian Party of New Mexico
505-249-1248 / http://lpnm.us/wp

Who owns you? Who runs your life? Who should – you or someone else?
Freedom is the answer – what’s the question?

---

NOTES

1. Reposted –
   1. LPUSA / LPNM – LPNM Blog / [LPNM-discuss] Yahoo! group
   2. The Weekly Sedition – Yahoo!
   3. Duke City Fix / NMPolitics.org

---

Copyright © 2012 Libertarian Party of New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.
This blog entry created with gedit and Notepad++.

Results from the 9 October UNM Rally

For those wondering how the Gary Johnson UNM Rally for Jobs, Opportunity and Diversity on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 went, here’s some of the details:

I arrived right at about 5:25 PM, after spending about ten minutes looking for a parking lot – the “A” lot was packed. I ended up paying the ∅7.00 for a spot in the parking structure next to the square by the SUB.

Upon arriving at the ballroom, I dropped off my plastic milk crate full of brochures at the LPNM table manned by Mark Curtis, Ron Bjornstad, Elizabeth Honce, Elisheva Levin, and others.

After dropping off the supplies (it was a bit painful to carry that crate from the parking structure to the ballroom), I met Tom Mahon and Todd Myers where “Jack Gault” was parked. They had a spare Sharpie marker-pen on hand, so I signed the van on the front of the hood – dead-center, right above the edge where the latch is located.

At the same time, I made contact with the Sigma Alpha Epsilon representative and made myself available for my speaking slot.

While waiting for my speaking time, I went to the “green room” and had my picture taken with Gary Johnson.

So I presented my speech, came in at 6:20 – 1:20 longer than the 5 minutes I had planned for. While I didn’t get the standing ovations that later speakers got, several people came up to me afterwards and complimented me on my bit.

Next up for the podium was the Independent American Party’s candidate for U.S. Senate, Jon Barrie. If Jon wasn’t running, I suspect many New Mexico Libertarians would be casting blanks come their time at the ballot “box.” Jon talked for about ten minutes, mentioned that the politicians had their chance (too many chances to be forgiven come the election) to fix things, and ended with a standing ovation from the audience.

Following Jon Barrie was Paul Gessing of the Rio Grande Foundation, New Mexico’s only think-tank that supports what the Tea Party claims to support – free-market economics, public-sector fiscal restraint, individual rights and Constitutionally-limited government. Paul talked about what New Mexico needs to prosper as a state.

After Paul, Jim Villanucci of 770 KKOB-AM spoke about how much crap listeners were giving him about his not supporting Mittens. After all, it’s either “you’re for Romney or you’re for Obama,” correct? Not even close – and with that, Jim introduced Gary Johnson as the only candidate in the presidential race worthy of libertarians’ support.

Here’s the video clip on YouTube of Gary’s speech – http://youtu.be/bInmA5MhXTg

What did Gary discuss? First, he talked about his business background – he started Big J Enterprises on his own out of college, built it to 1,000 employees, then sold it in 1999 without having to fire anyone. He said that his business career is just a testament to showing up on time and doing what you say you’ll do for people, maybe a little more.

His unsolicited advice to the audience? Go into business for yourself as opposed to punching someone else’s time-clock – you’ll find it much more rewarding. This dovetails with what I’ve heard from other libertarian entrepreneurs . . . .

Here’s some of his talking points:

• With everything that you do in life, there are obstacles – you just have to keep going.
• When he first ran for office (1994), the GOP leadership blew him off as “unelectable,” but he ended up winning the general election.
• While serving as Governor of New Mexico, he vetoed 750 pieces of legislation – more than the other 49 governors in the country put together. He had thousands of line-item vetoes, taking it to a new level – only two were overriden.
• With those vetoes, he saved up a few dumptrucks-full of ∅∅∅∅∅∅∅ by cutting out unnecessary spending and blocking regulations that weren’t going to make us the slightest bit safer.
• The powers-that-be predicted imminent disaster after Johnson’s vetoes, which didn’t happen. Also, he was an equal-opportunity vetoer – he vetoed bad bills from Republicans
• Of all of the presidential candidates for the 2012 election season, he’s the only one viewed favorably in his home state – “people wave at me with all five fingers, not just one.”
• Of all the presidential candidates, he had the best record on job creation, except that he didn’t create any jobs as governor – any jobs created were created by the private sector. There was certainty in New Mexico’s regulatory environment, and that makes it easier for the private sector to create jobs.
• Out of all of the presidential candidates, he has the most “Liberty Torches” from the ACLU (21 out of 24).
• He’s the only candidate who doesn’t want to bomb or use sanctions against Iran. Iran isn’t the threat to America or anyone else that the hairspray-heads supporting the Imperial District make it out to be.
• China isn’t a threat to America due to the way the two countries trade with each other.
• Bring the troops home from Afghanistan now.
• Military interventions around the world mostly create more enemies for America.
• Marriage equality is a federal issue and constitutionally guaranteed.
• He’s the only presidential candidate who wants to end the drug wars now. Over fifty percent of Americans support legalizing marijuana. Ninety percent of the drug problem is prohibition-related, not user-related.
• If he had been president after “9/11,” hw would have vetoed the USA-PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the NDAA-2012. “Homeland Security” is incredibly redundant. Let’s leave airport security to the airports, airlines, cities, etc.
• We need to balance the federal budget now – he promises to submit a balanced budget to Congress for 2013. Otherwise, with the current out-of-control Federal Reserve, we’re looking at a monetary collapse at some point in the future. What we need is a 43 % cut in spending across the board.
• When someone complains about the idea of a 43 % cut in Medicare spending, the alternative is NO Medicare. (Same goes for the rest of the welfare state, too – tighten the belt or lose your shirt.)
• Cut military spending by 43 % too – the operative word there is “defense,” not “offense,” not “nation-building.”
• The current spending situation is the biggest threat to our national security.
• He’s the only candidate who wants to dump the income tax, corporate tax and replace them with one consumption tax – the “Fair Tax.”
• He’s the onlt candidate that would shut down the Federal Reserve.

Notes and recollections from the event:

• The estimated total attendance was around 500 people.
• Cleanup was rather easy – it mostly consisted of policing up unused campaign supplies that were left behind by attendees.
• I was expecting someone from the GOP to attempt some sort of disruption – bringing in signs for Romney or Wilson, that sort of thing. Luckily, nothing of the sort happened that I saw.
• I found some campaign cards from three Republicans running for State-level judgeships on the floor in the seating area – Miles Hanisee, David Standridge, and Samuel Winder. It was also reported to me by event staff that Judge Winder himself had been in the audience.
• Someone (ID unknown) had apparently issued invitations to both Martin Heinrich and Heather Wilson to appear on the speakers’ list. After all, it’s a non-partisan event, due to SAE being a 501-C-3 entity and all. I was told that while Heinrich declined immediately, Wilson dithered and vacillated around about it for two weeks, declining for sure on the Monday before (8 October).
• About 60 percent of the brochures that I brought with me were picked up by attendees and passerby – which helped a lot on the way back to the parking structure. (Note to self: get a hand-truck for next time!)

All in all, this was the best-attended LPNM event I’ve seen yet in my 18 years with the organization. Thanks to all who made it possible:

The UNM Chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon
Jon Barrie
Ron Bjornstad
Chris Chase
Mark Curtis
Paul Gessing
Susan Ann Holland
Elizabeth Honce
Melanie Hyland
Gary Johnson
Bruce Levin
Elisheva Levin
Tom Mahon
Sean Mallory
Todd Myers
Reviva
Kyle Ruggles
Jim Villanucci
Bob Walsh

Apologies to anyone I’ve omitted – the fault there is entirely mine.

---

Copyright © 2012 Libertarian Party of New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.

This blog entry created with Notepad++.