by: Anonymous

A Joyful Hope

Although I cannot find the original quote, it might have been Mark Twain late in life who said, “In our day and country, the poor are unique. They do not see themselves as bitterly impoverished which they ought, but instead have a joyful hope that they are in the embarrassing predicament of simply not yet being rich.” Whereas I once loved this quote for capturing the good news of free markets creating upward mobility, I am starting to see a darker side to the quote’s meaning. For those who contemplate poverty the way Mark Twain did, the good news of liberty does not suffice.

As the 20th century advanced, gradually, the poor did indeed begin to lose their joyful hope and adopt the bitterness Mr. Twain spoke of. Like Mark Twain before them, they eventually experienced the greater wealth upward mobility afforded them, but this gave them a fear of losing what they had adjusted their lifestyle to, and made them notice the depth of contrast between living poor and living wealthier. It is tragic, then, that their newfound fear drove them to vote against the very same freedom policies that created their “rags to riches” family story in favor of centralized government and FDR’s New Deal. The tragedy was that this only extended their poverty in the 1930s and 40s, yet they chose to continue to view poverty with enough loathing to remain stubborn.

I wish I could say that the under-appreciation for liberty that some in Ayn Rand’s generation fought against eventually subsided, but sadly, it did not. Even in the 1980s at the time Ayn Rand died and despite the formation of the Libertarian Party, America treated liberty like an afterthought, and they still do. Our battle to bring back that joyful hope continues, but we need to ask ourselves why we have continued to lose this fight despite being in-the-know.

Reputation: Our Relationship with the Private Sector

We Libertarians have a large reputation problem. Although this is in part because our enemies throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks, some critiques have effectively made us seem at a distance like weirdos and simpletons to keep away from. Despite how despicable it was in 2016 when they belittled us for not knowing the city of Aleppo, or this past year when they implied we were pedophiles for taking an interest in age-related laws, I find that most of their critiques offer a valuable clue into our real reputation.

One critique in particular has especially piqued my interest: our “flawed” relationship with the private sector. A common, popular depiction of Libertarians I see could be described like the quote from earlier but with a twist: not only do they accuse us of being diluted into thinking poverty is a short stop on the way to riches, they accuse us of putting our undying trust in corporations to do the heavy lifting of assisting us with our dream to become rich. What’s more is that they often imply we dream of a world in which the corporations have boots on the necks of common folks as if we are blind to it being no better than government tyranny. Sometimes this is a diversionary tactic to get people to shut up about the boots which are already on the necks of the common folk, but sometimes this comes from those same common folk who are sick and tired of boots being on their neck and have the fear that we won’t sufficiently lift all boots. They are bitterly and hopelessly of the opinion that the boots are here to stay.

There is some truth to their skepticism of us. A post surfaced on X in Summer of 2024 by an extreme Anarchy-Capitalist who glowingly touted no government is necessary and implied many other people besides himself want a future in which the court system and police are entirely privatized such that you will need to pay for the enforcement of your rights and your justice, outlining how such a system would work using a picture book formatting. Well, that post went viral, more viral than most things Libertarians laboriously said all throughout the entire election year, and you better believe the enormous number of eyes on that post poisoned tens of thousands of voters into laughingly rejecting the lot of us. Voters are constantly looking for proof to reject a foreign political philosophy and prefer confirmation bias because it saves them from the hardship of thinking. It only takes a small dose of elixir to poison an entire well.

The voters are made uncomfortable by the possibility that we, no matter how much in the minority, are correct. Siding with us means descending into a minority, and there is nothing fun about joining an uphill battle. Indeed, not all of us seek a world which permits boots on anyone’s neck. We believe in the NAP and therefore a justification for a limited government that has few responsibilities beyond doing its best to enforce the rights and justice of people within the jurisdiction. What makes us a big tent is our tolerance for disagreements on how many rights humankind has, what constitutes injustice, how decentralized should government be, and numerating the additional responsibilities of government. Seen through that lens, it is clear we oppose (or should oppose) tyranny of all forms!

What the voters don’t seem to understand is that industries have a corrupt relationship with the present elected politicians from both of the Major Parties. The NC Department of Commerce, for example, exists primarily to make corrupt, unfair deals with an arbitrary selection of entities within various industries to obtain the coveted title of “best state for business.” All-the-while, they sweep under the rug that such a title cannot coexist with being the “best state for employees” or “best state to live in.” So dedicated are they that they will use eminent domain to take your neighborhood and your local church land to bulldoze and convert into an automotive factory so as to seem like the kind of politicians who get things done and potentially get money put into their back pocket from the grateful automotive business.

I worry that when Libertarians ascend to power on a State-level, we’ll be tempted by the same corrupting force, for a different reason. Republicans and Democrats simply want the popularity and the fortune that comes with bowing down to businesses, but Libertarians have such a bias in favor of the private sector that perhaps a colleague or two will sell out and want less in return. You and I might be correct to have fond feelings for companies like Amazon, which have undoubtedly achieved many good outcomes for our state, but always remember that this is no excuse for wielding power to boost their success further. I believe Libertarians who hate the Left are especially at risk of falling into the contrarian attitude of overly siding with businesspersons whenever the Left scapegoats them. This is the difference between being “pro-business” and being “pro-people.”

In the US, Canada, the UK, and elsewhere, political parties stress policies for working individuals. In January, a far-left party in Canada nearly surpassed polling popularity of Canada’s left-of-center party with their rallying cry being opposition to “the binding arbitration [which ended] a work stoppage at Canada's largest railways.” In a further contrast, they wanted to give all workers universal dental care, a whole step beyond universal “free” healthcare, which Canada already has. For those there who wish their job came with more benefits and the freedom to go on strike if the cause is good, they felt heard. The NDP’s momentum collapsed when a foreign threat to their international trade and sovereignty upended priorities, but that did not suddenly stop them from caring about workers, instead this is par for the course in a first-past-the-post voting system.

This might be among our greatest missed opportunities as a party. Although it is true that our candidates have a healthy understanding of bird’s-eye-view macroeconomics, we rarely share the same thinking as the voters who look at it all from a personal, ground-level view. Workers frequently feel unheard, especially when times are good overall but not for them or their family or friends. To hear their grumbles about “neoliberalism,” you realize they see themselves as living in a new Gilded Age which looks fine on the surface but quietly rots inside. On any day that libertarians celebrate and identify our influence on the success of the stock market and our GDP, somewhere in North Carolina is a family man who just lost his job, tearfully festering on all the little things that are horribly wrong with the business climate in our country. On that same day in the Tar Heel State, someone is toiling away at a job and feels hopelessly stuck, disrespected, and resentful of company leadership.

Indeed, because times are good here and have been almost without exception since World War Two, companies and rich businesspeople have been able to get away with right violations of workers, white-collar crimes, and corrupt deals with government. Our success likewise explains why companies have been able to absorb unfair attacks from publicity-seeking politicians yet survive. But between the former and the latter, I only hear libertarians decry the latter. If, however, the good times ever end, suddenly that bitter family man between jobs and hopeless worker will no longer be in the minority, thus it will be too late to address their demands. Whether the gilded outer layer ever cracks to reveal an ugly inside is not a question of if but when.

Polls often ask the question, “Does politician X or political party Y care about the problems I go through?” and I have read the Republicans have caught up to the Democrats on this matter. The pollsters never bother to ask this question about Libertarians, and that is good because it might have been damning negative publicity for us. For as much as I criticize both sides of our dreaded Uniparty, I must admit that we could learn something from how they have tapped into popular resentment. Republicans exaggerate the death of manufacturing jobs in America and fearmonger about the very real competition for jobs against talented immigrants. Democrats tap into our jealousy of rich-beyond-necessity CEOs, want to make it easier for minorities and women to get a job, and force benefits on businesses, such as more time off for pregnant couples. Although Libertarians want to lower income taxes, so do the Republicans; that really steals our thunder and leaves us without much to point to for the purpose of winning workers over. Often, we rant till the cows come home that tariffs by tyrants and the very existence of the minimum wage choke our economy, yet listeners ultimately fail to piece together how either affects them.

The point, of course, is not to adapt their tactics of lying and bribing residents with their own money but to see how much it means to voters to feel understood. Feeling understood might be so rare and valuable that it explains the Socialists and core of MAGA voters cling endlessly to a sinking ship like members of a cult; in a flawed world, hope is like a drug. Therefore, we Libertarians need to champion policies that resonate with the workers of our state. I admit to not having all the answers, but I have suggestions for where we can start.

Steps Towards Becoming Pro-People

Foremost, we need to openly reject a kind of pure Anarchy that treats freedom as a game of chance instead of a guarantee; the wealth in your possession is not purely skill-acquired and is therefore insufficient for ensuring justice. Any Anarchist who does not believe government has a right to exist by means of consent and voluntary funding is so thoroughly iconoclastic as to be unworthy of membership in the Libertarian Party. Not only is this necessary, it would be a publicity win for us much the same way it was pivotal for Obama in the 2008 election when he loudly distanced himself from his pastor, who was a more radical Leftist than himself, thereby convincing the voters that Obama was not an unreasonable extremist.

The working-age population in America is a powerful voting bloc; winning an election runs through their approval. People who work jobs are only a little more likely than the retired population to want radical change, and radical voters overall are more-or-less eclipsed by people who prefer greater moderation. In early 2021, Gallup found that 37% of most voters averaged together wanted their preferred party to become more radical. This past February, that percentage has fluctuated to become even smaller, sitting at 28.5%. Conversely, 29% of those voters in 2021 wanted their preferred party to move towards moderation, and now that percentage is 39.5%. Thus, the push for a move towards the center of the political spectrum has now gotten even louder among self-identifying moderates. Our Party is in a good position to seize this opportunity to pull them, but we are only going to win voters if our public rhetoric meets them at least halfway.

Do remember that there is a difference between what we announce and believe, and what we plan to do tomorrow versus what we plan to do after that if they like what we do tomorrow. Crucially, the voters and even the vocal Libertarians often fail to outline the differences between these, and this is especially important when the voters cannot look back at past NC Libertarians to get a general idea of how much change we will attempt in a term. I have even heard some voters assume everything we talk about is what we are bragging we will accomplish in a single term no matter the circumstance. If multiple people are getting the impression we think Rome can be built in a day, the voters must be confused by our lack of boundaries. We need to outline our short-term goals every so often. Although candidates will complain about wanting immense freedom to campaign on anything and everything, some amount of coordination and boundaries (or at least a state-level plan) is needed to create order.

For similar reasons, we need to elect at least two people to civil service, no matter how small and insignificant, so that we can spotlight those people’s activities and brag about both their accomplishments and the ways they are just like the average voter: hard working, not especially poor or wealthy, level-headed, and concerned with kitchen-table issues. And if we cannot get elected, we should take matters into our own hands by engaging in community service openly as Libertarians, much like when the Cape Fear Libertarian Party affiliate adopted a highway to clean up its litter. This is a step I believe should never be skipped, and yet I fear if you ask Libertarians what they would rather do next, they would prefer to run for office as a Congressperson and lose for the third election cycle in a row rather than get their hands dirty with litter pickup!

We need to advocate a crackdown against white-collar crime and look for ways to offer hard-working masses something through liberty. I spoke about the beauty of free market’s giving anyone upward mobility and an ideal economy. I think that is something we need to revisit and stress, while clarifying that even in a free market, economic downturns are inevitable and short-lived. We could explain how the constant printing of money perpetually weakens their wages because if money is constantly being inflated, their wage are constantly a little behind the times. We could explain that the prosperity and competition of the whole industry lead to better conditions and bargaining power for its workers! We could adamantly defend their right to a jury of their peers, their right to sue companies, and other such things that employers get workers to waive away with the help of scheming lawyers.

In equal measure, perhaps we should spend a little less time getting enraged that the wealthiest people on earth have to pay a different and higher tax rate when they already have enough steady income regardless to have greater freedom than the rest of us by orders of magnitude! Federal and State income taxes, after all, are not so high that a decrease to the tax brackets is going to reduce government debt, as the Laffer Curve shows. Moving our country further towards bankruptcy is scarier to the average worker than hearing that their wealthy-beyond-belief boss will have to endure a small tax increase or the lack of any change to their taxes. Even among Libertarian voters, if you ask them who they have in mind when they shout “taxation is theft,” it’s unlikely they will name their company’s CEO unless they happen to be self-employed, a small demographic.

Dare To Imagine

I agree it is good that we champion everyone’s freedom and rights out of an all-encompassing, principled respect for the dignity of humanity. However, if we choose to be contrarians who openly fret often about tiny minorities, moral scoundrels, and the business-owning richest gentry, we risk alienating the larger demographics by giving them the impression we are as much in a bubble as the extremists of the rival parties. In trying to make a narrow case for Populism, I only seek to remind you that we should dare to imagine a world in which we don’t have to compromise our beliefs long-term yet find a way to win the enthusiasm of the masses through crafting a short-term plan that piques their interest. Once we earn their trust, then we can attempt the controversial things we dream of. I believe this is possible, and I desire for us to take that mission seriously.

by: Phil Jacobson, LPNC Messaging Committee and Judiciary Board

LPNC supports the right of all law-abiding citizens to possess and to openly carry firearms for the purpose of defending persons and property. Additionally, we believe that a citizen who openly carries a firearm and who also agrees to follow well formulated regulations should be granted an extra degree of credibility in a court of law. In most jurisdictions, a government-designated police officer is usually granted this presumption. LPNC supports extending this presumption to all citizens who follow safe handling and usage procedures for firearms, and use them in a defensive or protective manner. 

We believe that no citizen should be compelled to join with others for common defense. But we also believe that individual citizens have a right to join with others to form voluntary self-defense organizations. These organizations may authorize armed patrols of specific real estate.  They may provide firearms safety education. They may coordinate protective services for persons and property. On occasion, they may provide defense against other organizations, foreign or domestic. It may even come to pass that their very existence can provide citizens with a counter to neglect or abuse by government agencies. But a great deal of organized defense will occur at a very local level. A neighborhood watch is an example of a voluntary self-defense organization. Commercial security firms, given their relationships with customers, also constitute a form of non-government voluntary organized defense.  

All of the above armed defense organizations (including government police) rely on the right of their individual members to keep and bear arms. To best serve the interests of their members and the community at large, LPNC strongly encourages all armed defense organizations to have strong rules of engagement both for training and for active patrols. These rules should be comprehensive, discourage aggression, and be clearly articulated and repeated =It is generally recognized that government police and military personnel SHOULD have such internal regulations, though we recognize that this is not always the practice. LPNC views private voluntary defense organizations the same way.  

LPNC views even non-government organizations as a form of militia which should be regulated via voluntary agreements between members. The concept of a militia should extend beyond units organized by the various states of the federal union. In earlier times, it was common for isolated communities to be self-sufficient with regard to armed self defense, and to function as an organized militia. We see units such as (but not limited to) modern neighborhood watch organizations as being in this same tradition. We see them, if they endorse armed defense by their members, as a form of militia. We strongly encourage them to be well regulated militias. Again, courts of law tend to give credibility to well regulated government police, and we believe that the same credibility should be accorded to members of any well regulated militia.   

Consider two publicly prominent stories where this was NOT the case: those of George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse. 

George Zimmerman was a member of a neighborhood watch. As part of this membership, George carried a loaded pistol during patrols of the neighborhood. One evening while on patrol George observed an individual, Trevon Martin, walking in the neighborhood. Zimmerman did not recognize Martin as a local resident, and suspected Martin of having criminal intentions. At one point Zimmerman phoned the local government police to report his suspicions. The police asked Zimmerman not to engage the suspect physically. Zimmerman felt that this advice could be ignored, and pursued Martin. The result was a physical struggle between Zimmerman and Martin, during which Zimmerman’s weapon discharged, resulting in Martin’s death.   

Zimmerman’s account of the event was that he had feared for his life, claiming that Martin had attacked him, unprovoked. Martin was later confirmed to have been living legally in one of the neighborhood residences, with every right to walk where Zimmerman had seen him. Since no evidence beyond Zimmerman’s word was available to challenge the story, Zimmerman’s true guilt or innocence was impossible to prove. 

Had Zimmerman been required to obey instructions by the government police, Martin would likely have survived the evening’s events. But Zimmerman’s authority to patrol the neighborhood did not require him to follow such instructions. Had Zimmerman been wearing a working and active video body camera, doubts about his description of the encounter would likely have been confirmed or refuted. But no part of Zimmerman’s authority to conduct an armed patrol required him to provide such evidence of his honesty. 

Kyle Rittenhouse joined a group of individuals who volunteered to serve as armed guards for a piece of commercial real estate, in response to the perceived threat of looting during a major protest event. Kyle decided, apparently on his own, to bring both a semi-automatic rifle and a first aid kit to the event. His stated intent was to provide both armed defense and medical assistance, as might be required. At one point Kyle witnessed what he thought was an injured member of the protest group, some distance beyond the perimeter he was guarding. Again, on his own initiative, it would appear, Kyle decided to leave the defense perimeter and go into the area occupied by these protesters so he could offer first aid. Kyle was not wearing an armband or other symbol to identify himself as a medic. Kyle retained his loaded rifle, and to all around him would have appeared as an infantry soldier, not as a medical technician. He would have looked like any other member of the armed group he had been standing with earlier. Thus, he was quickly misidentified by some of the protesters as an armed threat, rather than as someone offering medical assistance. Certain protesters, who were also armed, responded to Kyle as if he presented a violent threat to their group. A violent conflict ensued which has received significant coverage by news organizations. 

It appears that the armed group which Kyle joined that night was seen by Kyle as a functioning militia. Even so, it did not function as a well regulated militia. It did not provide Kyle with some important guidance. When armed government units deploy during times of civil disturbance, there is no mixture of identity between armed officers and medical personnel covering the same event. Each wears a distinct uniform. The medics don’t carry rifles. 

Kyle’s militia should have had similar concerns. The other militia members should, as a standard procedure, have required Kyle to leave his rifle at the defense perimeter when he chose to offer medical assistance to someone outside the defense perimeter. Should it have been deemed too dangerous to go out unarmed, Kyle’s militia should have instructed Kyle to stay within the militia’s defense perimeter. Ideally, every member of Kyle’s militia should have accepted and learned to follow these and other rules as standard tactical procedures. When someone unfamiliar with these procedures, such as Kyle, wanted to join the militia, they should have been supervised and instructed by a militia member who was familiar with the procedures. Had such provisions been in place, had Kyle joined a well regulated militia, it would have been far less likely that any gun violence would have occurred. 

Kyle was fortunate in one respect. Much of his behavior that night was recorded in videos taken with personal cell phones. Even so, had Kyle himself been wearing a body camera his story might have been more complete. Kyle’s own camera would also have provided a form of insurance, providing him with supporting evidence in a courtroom, even if other videos had not been available. 

Among other job regulations many jurisdictions require police to accept a responsibility to wear and operate body cameras. LPNC supports giving government police this and other responsibilities in exchange for being granted a presumption of good intent. We also encourage any private citizen, when exercising their right to openly carry a firearm, to wear a body camera. We support giving citizens who do so a similar presumption of good intent to that given government police. 

Additionally, we support the right of all citizens to use video cameras in public places. It should be unremarkable that an (apparently) unarmed citizen is wearing the same kind of body camera that police use. We believe that in many situations the deterrent power of a camera can be at least as useful as a firearm, if not more so. A militia which skillfully employed a combination of cameras and firearms would often have an advantage, both in the field and in a courtroom, over a force whose actions were less well documented. Even a citizen militia composed entirely of unarmed individuals operating cameras in coordination would be quite impactful at times. 

A complete list of well formulated regulations is beyond the scope of this essay, but LPNC encourages juries and officers of the court to look with favor on government police, militia members and unaffiliated individual citizens who adopt and follow well formulated regulations. Ultimately this is about more than the law. It is about community perceptions. We do not believe that a community can be at its safest when firearms are a government monopoly. But we also believe that citizens will neither feel safe nor be safe if those who do carry firearms are not expected to respect this carry as a serious responsibility. We believe that this sense of responsibility must be cultivated as a community value, where individuals are held to account by the free flow of information and an honest system of dispute resolution. A critical part of such a system would be the widely held belief in a well regulated militia.

by: Larry Johnson, LPNC Digital Marketing Coordinator

#JusticeForKemari

The state urgently declared Ms. Briuana Morgan an unfit mother, took her children and claimed it was in the children’s best interest. Young Kemari didn’t survive while in foster care. Zariyah, Kemari’s older sister, is still in the custody of the same foster parents.

Members of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina (LPNC) including Rob Yates, Thomas Hill, Sean Haugh and myself, attended the Person County Board of Commissioners meeting in Roxboro, North Carolina on June 2, 2025 to show support for Briuana Morgan, demand answers for the death of her one-year old son while in foster care, and demand that Ms. Morgan’s other child Zariyah be returned to the family and removed from the same foster care where Kemari was found lifeless.

My confusion with this meeting was the lack of liberty and justice given to Ms. Morgan, her family, and their community as the board meeting started with bowing their heads in prayer followed by standing and facing the flag to pledge allegiance to it. Liberty and justice is what they prayed for and pledged to. Yet, they provided no answers, no explanations, and no plan. And they didn’t offer the same urgency as when they took her children to begin with. You can watch the live stream here.

Where’s the state’s urgency when a child dies while in the care of foster parents? Why is Zariyah still with these foster parents? Why don’t we know what happened to Kemari? Why won’t the board provide any answers?

I know the pain of burying my child. We’re going on the 4th year without our son, Chase. The grief & suffering never goes away. My heart completely breaks for Ms. Morgan, her children and her family.

To the board, I request not to pledge allegiance to the flag, but to pledge allegiance to love. To liberty and justice for all. You are accountable to the people you serve. When your actions cause irreversible harm, you must not only commit to justice, you must act upon it with life and death urgency. When you choose love, you never choose wrong.

Please share Kemari’s story, send your condolences, support, and donations to Ms. Morgan today. She needs all of our help.

#JusticeForKemari

by: Rob Yates, Communications Director

Last month, LPNC Chair Ryan Brown and I took a trip to Waccamaw Hunting Services in Hemingway, South Carolina. We didn’t come home with a trophy this time, but the experience left an indelible mark on me—not because of the game we pursued, but because of the man behind the operation, Rick Grubbs, and the glimpse he offered into a quietly thriving part of America that feels increasingly rare in contemporary spotlight. In a world of corporate homogenization and fleeting digital connections, Rick and his family-run business embody the enduring spirit of the real America: hard work, honesty, dedication, and a deep respect for tradition.

The first thing that struck me was the simplicity of the Lodge. No ostentatious signs or over-the-top amenities—just a functional, welcoming setup that felt like stepping into a friend’s home. Rick is a third-generation hunting guide whose dedication to his craft is baked into everything he does. Over three days, I watched him pour an extraordinary amount of time and research into every detail of our hunt. Before we even set foot in the field, he took us through all the details we needed to know about, and explained why each mattered.

“I’ve been tracking the patterns of these hogs forever,” he explained, “I rotate hunters through different stands so we don’t overpressure any one spot. That’s how you keep the game quality high.” He chose blinds based on wind direction, temperature, and feedback from a network of game cameras he was constantly monitoring. He drops hunters off early, and demands near-complete silence getting out of the car and walking to the blind, leaving as little trace of human presence as possible.

Rick isn’t just meticulous, he holds honesty as one of his highest values, and means it when he says he wants every guest to have a great experience. Rick’s integrity has earned him a loyal following, as evidenced by the repeat customers who book with him year after year, as well as awards he has won for service and quality of the experience.

Rick’s not without his quirks, but as the trip went on, I realized these idiosyncrasies are part of what makes the experience so extraordinary. If you ever book a trip at Rick’s, I advise you turn off the lights when you leave the room. You can ask him why it matters – you might not agree, but his explanation makes a lot of sense. In fact, every rule has a purpose, rooted in his decades of experience and his desire to give us the best chance at success.

Rick is not just running the business, he is preparing his next generation to take over, should they choose. This reminded me that the real America is still alive and thriving in places like Hemingway, South Carolina. Rick Grubbs is a living testament to the values that built this country: hard work, honesty, and a deep connection to the land. He’s doing what he loves, the way his father taught him, and passing that love on to his son and his guests, and he’s making a living doing it. To me, that is as quintessential American as it gets.

Reprinted with permission from the January 31, 2008 edition of the E3 Gazette, written by blogger "The Monster"

Before you cast your vote for someone who promises to 'help' the downtrodden by fixing the prices of things, you ought to understand some basic economics.

Methodology note:Although it's said that a picture is worth a thousand words, I make every effort to avoid using pictures unless they are absolutely necessary. This is one of those necessary cases. I'll be using the kind of pictures you can see in most macroeconomic texts, only with the P and Q axes reversed, because it makes more sense to my math/science background: Quantity is a function of price, so the P axis is horizontal.

Fundamentally, a sale takes place when both parties to the transaction believe it benefits them. The buyer values the good/service more than the money he's spending, and the seller values the money he gets more than the good/service. Economists like to split this up and look at the motivations of both parties:

The Law of Supply

People sometimes have trouble grasping this simple concept:

When the price of something goes up, more of it will be produced.

It may seem backwards, especially to those familiar with 'volume pricing' arrangements, where suppliers will offer incentives to purchase large quantities, or 'sale' pricing designed to help liquidate inventory, or to keep contstruction workers productive during the slow season, etc. Those are actually responses to the interaction of the LoS and the Law of Demand as we'll see later. One factor that's important here is there are short- and long-term effects of the LoS: Potential producers make long-term decisions based on that they expect the price they can charge for their goods/services will be, that affect their capacity to produce the actual goods/services. Then they make short-term decisions based on fluctuating market conditions.

• If farmers think the price they can get for wheat will be higher next year, they may plant more wheat and less soybeans, or spend more money on fertilizer and pest control to increase yield per acre.

• If the price of oil is expected to go up, it justifies drilling deeper, or other more expensive techniques for getting to it.

• If the net income that can be earned by doctors (after paying for such things as malpractice insurance) looks like it's going down, fewer people will practice medicine. Perhaps some of them will work for insurance companies, medical schools, or malpractice law firms.

The exact amount that the quantity of the good/service produced goes up or down with the expected price thereof varies. Economists call this 'elasticity of supply'. The more elastic the supply curve is, the more the quantity will respond to increasing or decreasing prices. Economists also talk about short-term elasticity vs. long-term (it takes a long time from planting to harvest), but the general idea remains - in a few cases increasing prices will not increase the quantity produced, at least in the short to medium term (there are only so many seats in a stadium for a sporting event, but other/larger stadiums can eventually be built), but will never decrease.

The Law of Demand

This one's a lot easier to understand:

When the price of something goes up, less of it will be consumed.

There are a handful of situations where a low price affects the perception of the quality of the good/service, but that's contrary to the 'all other things being equal' clause that's implicit, if not explicit, in all economic discussions. How much quantity responds to price, once again, is 'elasticity'. The more elastic demand is, the more the quantity demanded will fluctuate with the price. Once again, long-term expectations drive long-term decisions. The more the price of gasoline is expected to rise over the life of your next vehicle, the more likely you are to buy one with good fuel economy, and thus you will use less gasoline. Even short-term changes in price will produce effects such as carpooling, riding public transportation, and cutting back pleasure travel in response to a sudden gas price hike.

Equilibrium

Since the supply curve slopes upward and the demand curve slopes downward, there must be a certain point at which they cross:

At the equilibrium price, exactly the same amount is produced as consumed.

It isn't hard to understand why.

• When prices go above equilibrium, the producers want to sell more than consumers want (and can afford) to buy. After producers have already made the investment to produce a good, or build the capacity to provide a service, they naturally want to maximize the return on that investment. Parking lots full of cars that aren't selling don't make an auto manufacturer any money, so the price will have to come down to move the merchandise.

• When prices go below equilibrium, the producers know that even if they raise prices, they'll still sell the same quantity, and make more money in the process, so they do.

Whichever direction prices drift from equilibrium, they are pulled back to it...

Interference with Equilibrium

Well, they are when market forces are allowed to work.

Here's where the Compassionate come in. The market can seem cruel and harsh, so they want to help protect people from it. All sorts of government policies have been enacted to manipulate markets by force.

Artificial Maximum Price

Sometimes, a government decides that the price of something is getting out of hand, and the best solution is to set a legal maximum that can be charged for it.

If that maximum is higher than equilibrium, then it doesn't do much other than make people feel good about having Done Something to fix it. It may actually have the perverse effect of reducing the expectation of future price increases, and therefore discouraging people from investing in the capacity to provide that good/service. The long-term effect of that may be best described as a flattening of the supply curve; the reduction in capacity shifts the point of equilibrium beyond the maximum price...

When equilibrium is above the maximum price allowed by law, we have locked in place the situation that would ordinarily only obtain temporarily without the price control: People are willing, and have sufficient funds to be able, to purchase more of the good/service than others are willing and able to sell to them.

If a maximum price law has any effect on price, it creates shortages.

Artificial Minimum Price

Sometimes, a government decides that it's unfair that the people who produce some good or service get so little for it, and try to set a minimum price. There are two ways to do this:

1. Have the government guarantee a minimum price that it will pay to producers, so they can always get that minimum price.

2. Make it illegal for anyone to pay them less than the minimum.

Either way (if the minimum is actually above equilibrium) the result is that people are willing and able to produce more of the good/service than people are willing to buy at that price, the price cannot drop to correct the imbalance. If a minimum price law has any effect on price, it creates surpluses.

Here's where the two ways to set a minimum price diverge. In the first case, such as for farmers, the government has committed to actually purchase the surplus commodities that no one wants to buy, at least in the short term. Typically, those commodities eventually are distributed ("government cheese") at a later date, absorbing some of the demand that would otherwise exist at that time, or they're simply destroyed. But in the second case, such as minimum- or prevailing-wage laws, it has made it illegal for the labor to be sold for less than the specified price.

A minimum wage law that has any effect on wages creates surplus workers, also known as unemployment.

It's really obvious when you think about it. The law doesn't guarantee that anyone who wants a job at $x/hr will get one, it only says that it's illegal to make anything less. If you believe that someone is better off unemployed than making anything less than some magic amount per hour, then this may make sense to you.

Minimum-wage laws disproportionately affect lower-income, inner-city people with little education and no work experience in a particular skill (important voting blocs for the politicians who insist on increasing the minimum wage from time to time). They don't get many chances to work those low-skill/pay jobs and gain experience that makes them more attractive to employers who are willing to invest in training them to be even more productive (and therefore pay more to retain those productive workers).

These wage laws are the economic equivalent to the secure fire escape on the side of a building, where the ladder from the 2nd floor to ground level is retracted to prevent burglars from climbing it. People who lack formal education or training can't get on the ladder and begin to pull themselves up to higher rungs. The true beneficiaries of minimum- and prevailing-wage laws are the leaders of organized labor, who can win higher wages from which to extract union dues, and the leaders of minority ethnic advocacy groups, who benefit from having a societal ill to organize against.

Because the workers they represent are better skilled, and therefore more productive, the labor leaders can demand a multiple of the minimum wage for those workers. Suppose there is a job that can be done in an hour by a union worker with years of experience, or in three hours by an unskilled worker. If the minimum wage is set to $7/hr, so long as the union scale is under $21, it's actually cheaper to hire union labor at nominally higher rates. So the employer agrees to a contract at $19-20/hr. it's a good deal for both sides. The union is using the law to forbid competition. It would be an anti-trust violation if it weren't being done by the government itself, or on behalf of a union. (Anti-trust laws specifically exempt labor unions.)

The very people that the law pretends to help are the ones hurt the most.

Let It Be Evergreen

by: Matthew Kordon, LPNC House Candidate

The title quotes an environmental song written by The Turtles because Environmentalism has been on my mind since I attended a town hall in Dix Park, Raleigh, nearby to me. I was even inspired after to rewatch Illumination’s The Lorax, about an unheeded spirit who spoke in defense of “the trees.” Fittingly, I even wrote this first draft on the first day of Spring.

By now, you might be rolling your eyes. I get it: Environmentalism stinks with the whiff of Big-Government spending and regulations. God knows the Greens and Democrats have turned Environmentalism into a subject of suspicion among Libertarians and Republicans; the result is that even George H. W. Bush seemed more eco-conscious than our current administration, which eyes park land to sell for housing development.

Winter has a way of making me miss nature, so with encouragement from our friend Brad Hessel, I attended that town hall to add a libertarian perspective: "Raleigh Planning Presents Branching Out: Trees and Urban Ecosystems."

If I was hoping to break from national politics by attending the city park event, it backfired. Prior to it starting, I joined a discussion led by our table’s event handler, a Wake County employee. She revealed —with what I perceived to be hysteria and disgust— that racial DEI initiatives at her job were halted. She stated with shock and horror that this meant her team may no longer prioritize minorities. She then proclaimed her plan to circumvent the new rule and continue racially motivated actions, off the record. Part of her momentary hysteria came from her fear that she might lose her job as a consequence.

I cannot say I feel sympathy for her, even if I lack the conviction to report her to her employer and instead listened quietly while she spoke. Understand that this woman was not elected by the people and instead intends to subvert the voice of the voters. Critically, she seeks to violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subverts due process which is heinous, but I digress.

Anyway, at the town hall, they gave out free food, drinks, flower seeds, pronoun button pins, and pamphlets once we walked inside. It seemed to me superfluous, a subtle microcosm of governmental waste. Even at the local level, governments will spend money on a wide range of things from that-which-is-easy-to-justify all the way to extremely-controversial-and-unnecessary. I might sound like a curmudgeon talking about free handouts, so consider this: they damaged the data they sought to collect by putting us in a better mood; we were bribed with our own money! If Raleigh is serious about collecting feedback, that was counterproductive.

Nevertheless, the bribe of hospitality is not a big issue. All the same, it adds to my suspicion that the city doesn't particularly want your feedback and instead holds town halls like this to appease concerned residents and make it seem like they listen. This is merely a hunch. My point is that government workers are human, and humans given power tend to exhibit hubris. Indeed, they only allowed enough time to answer two questions off a stack of about fifteen, as if they did not care about our feedback!

Much was said at the town hall by the three Raleigh-employed presenters that I found informative. Trees indeed have many positives, and some of their positives are things we take for granted, sure. Of note, Raleigh measured and discussed tree coverage as a ratio of trees among whites versus minorities and spoke about the need for “tree equity,” doggedly upset that people of color would choose to live in a place with fewer trees while White individuals showed an opposite preference. I would greatly prefer they stop stressing over the complete equalization of tree density because of the way it takes away a freedom to choose and to make trade-offs.

Consider this, if certain people want or need to live in Raleigh but are too poor to afford a nice area with lush greenery, then the city’s meddling is likely to inspire their landlord to raise the cost of rent afterwards. That in turn forces the poor sap to vacate the city in favor of a humbler place. If that poor sap owned a house, well, he could likewise expect the city to raise property taxes which often goes hand and hand with public improvements in my experience, and this too might force people out.

One of the three presenters works in zoning. He discussed policies, some reasonable and some unreasonable, regarding the delicate balance between citizen interests and environmental protection, which I actually was impressed by. When I recall that local governments are near-always better run than the Federal Government, it makes sense that Raleigh would surpass my low expectations. The Pew Research Center found in 2023 that 61 percent of citizens approve of local government whereas only 22 percent like our shared federal one. Those who understand this can better understand the appeal of decentralizing power; accountability makes a difference!

Although their recent efforts seem semi-successful among what was discussed, one fact stood out to me as a major failure: 28 percent of trees under the care of Raleigh are not "fair or better" condition. It was brave of the city to admit this to the public because that's over a quarter! Nevertheless, I really do not know what was meant by this arbitrary statistic as I rarely see a tree that looks sickly or hideous in Raleigh.

Towards the end, they reminded us of important reasons to care for nature: Raleigh is home to rare species of flora and fauna. Invasive species need to be combated. Controlled fires are needed to rejuvenate the forests. True, but what was implied is that it is their rightful job to do all of that. I actually largely agree, but I find the question of, "what exactly counts as an invasive species," to be perplexing. They regulate our gardens to exclude marijuana and have decided certain plant life off limits from government property. Central planning is absurd, and this is no exception.

It was by this point that I realized Climate Change went unmentioned. I have to wonder why. The closest they came to addressing the worrisome phenomenon was by pointing out that trees absorb CO2. I was disappointed they did not drive the point home that over 99 percent of people who have studied the science agree CO2 contributes to our ongoing rise in temperatures, gradually baking the Earth and everything on it.

Just before it was time for me to leave, an older gentleman told me he was deeply impressed by my analysis of how decentralized planning is seemingly used by Cary to boost environmental enthusiasm. I thanked his for his comment. As the meeting adjourned, we discussed the exciting future of electric bicycles. He then suggested that I work for government! Little did he know I ran for office only just a few months ago. If only more citizens had his faith in me.

I was glad to help Raleigh navigate the balance between plants, animals, and people. This is indeed our home, third from the Sun.

MAGA has become the perfect case study in everything he warned about.

by: Dylan Allman

This article was reprinted with permission and has been edited slightly from its original post for style. 

This former Soviet defector turned KGB whistleblower, laid out a terrifyingly simple blueprint for ideological subversion—how a nation could be destabilized from within, not by external invasion, but by manipulating its own people. The goal? To create a population so demoralized, so incapable of recognizing truth, that they would actively participate in their own subjugation.

Watch Yuri Bezmenov explain the destabilization roadmap.

Stage One: Demoralization

Bezmenov described demoralization as the systematic breakdown of a society’s ability to distinguish fact from fiction. A demoralized population doesn’t just accept lies—it needs them to function. We are living in a time where people do not just disagree; they do not even acknowledge the same fundamental reality. There is no shared frame of reference, no mutual set of facts from which discourse can begin. The political landscape has been so fractured, so meticulously warped, that truth itself has become irrelevant.

MAGA has become a perfect example of this. The contradictions are glaring:

• Trump is the ultimate warrior against the Deep State—yet he filled his cabinet with Bush-era neoconservatives, Wall Street elites, and military-industrial complex operatives.
• He fights the globalists—yet handed the reins of the economy to Goldman Sachs executives and enriched multinational corporations.
• He opposes the surveillance state—yet expanded FISA, renewed the Patriot Act, and increased funding for agencies like the FBI, NSA, and CIA.
• He’s anti-war—yet armed Saudi Arabia, escalated drone strikes, assassinated foreign leaders, and bragged about military spending.
• He fights censorship—yet called for banning flag-burning, persecuting whistleblowers like Julian Assange, and increasing surveillance under the guise of fighting “domestic extremism.”
• He champions free markets—yet imposed tariffs, corporate bailouts, and state interventions that his supporters would have called socialism if a Democrat had proposed them.

And yet—none of this seems to matter. Because demoralization is not just about lying to a population. It’s about making them dependent on those lies. People have not simply been misled—they have been conditioned into a state of ideological blindness. A cultivated resistance to contradiction. A mind so thoroughly welded to its chosen narrative that it will discard, alter, or fabricate whatever it must to maintain coherence.

MAGA has been programmed to reconcile every betrayal, every contradiction, through faith alone.

• When Trump betrays his promises? It was 5D chess.
• When he appoints establishment operatives? He had no choice.
• When he expands the very government power his movement was built to fight? It’s fine, because he’s the one in control.

This is not ignorance. This is something worse. A person can be shown, in real time, the unraveling of their worldview, and they will patch over the holes with fantasy rather than face the abyss of doubt. It is not an inability to see reality—it is a refusal to see it. And it’s not just the outliers, not just the extremists—this is systemic.

Politics has turned knowledge itself into a partisan weapon. The expectation is no longer to seek truth, but to defend your team at all costs. Everyone is obligated to have an opinion, to be informed at all times, to adopt the correct stance, even though it is impossible to be fully informed on everything.

And so, they improvise. They adopt prefabricated opinions handed down by their faction. They fill in the gaps with instinctive loyalty rather than independent thought. The game is rigged, and they know it. Two parties, two choices, two sides that everyone is herded into, and neither is worth the loyalty demanded of them. But to acknowledge this would be to admit powerlessness, to admit that they are trapped in an illusion of choice.

So, they cope. They retroactively justify their allegiance by turning their side into something righteous, infallible, and necessary. The alternative is too terrifying. The thought that they’ve wasted years fighting for something fraudulent, that they’ve dedicated their identity to a con, is unthinkable.

So, they double down. This is a coping mechanism turned mass psychosis. And it is escalating. When reality itself is dictated by allegiance, when loyalty outranks reason, when every fact must be bent into submission to fit the tribe’s chosen narrative, the outcome is inevitable: war.

When two factions exist in separate realities, they cannot coexist. They cannot negotiate, they cannot reason, they cannot even comprehend the other side as anything but a threat.

This is irreconcilable. We cannot function like this. A society cannot sustain itself when its people are no longer individuals but ideological husks, possessed by abstractions, fighting battles for masters who do not even know their names.

You are not your faction. You are not your party. You are not an extension of a collective mind. The moment you outsource your thinking, the moment you allow yourself to believe that your side must be right because the alternative is unbearable, you have ceased to be an individual. You have become another interchangeable pawn in a game that does not need you to think, only to obey.

Stage Two: Destabilization

The next step in Bezmenov’s playbook is destabilization—pushing a country into a permanent state of crisis, making it impossible for the population to focus on real, structural issues.

MAGA, once a movement built on skepticism of power, has been trapped in a perpetual crisis cycle, its energy constantly redirected toward manufactured outrage, never toward structural change. Every week, a new villain is introduced, each one carefully selected to keep the base locked in reactionary panic:

• Migrants
• Trans people
• Globalists
• "Communists" (which now includes libertarians, dissidents, and even fellow right-wingers who dare to question Trump’s narrative)
• The Deep State (which somehow never includes people like Jared Kushner, Bill Barr, or John Bolton—people Trump personally elevated)

The actual mechanisms of control—corporate consolidation, mass surveillance, government overreach—remain untouched, quietly expanding as people exhaust themselves chasing cultural boogeymen.

One of the most insidious forms of destabilization is the promotion of false hope operations—narratives designed to keep people passive, waiting, convinced that a hidden force is fighting for them.

The most famous example? "Trust the plan." MAGA was told again and again that justice was right around the corner:

• "The Deep State is about to be exposed."
• "Trump is playing 5D chess."
• "Mass arrests are coming."
• "The storm is coming."

The function of these narratives is obvious—to keep people waiting instead of acting. When real opportunities to resist tyranny presented themselves—whether it was government overreach during COVID, the expansion of the surveillance state, or Trump signing away civil liberties—the movement did nothing. They were too busy believing that some hidden force was fighting for them, that justice would be delivered without them lifting a finger.

This is the art of pacification. MAGA, for all its energy, for all its outrage, for all its supposed rebellion, has spent years in an induced coma, kept in check by carefully managed narratives that ensure their fight never leaves the realm of talking about fighting. If you think this is just a right-wing phenomenon, think again. The exact same tactics were used to neutralize left-wing populism.

• In 2011, Occupy Wall Street emerged as a direct threat to the financial elite, uniting people across political lines against corporate corruption. It was rapidly infiltrated, rebranded as a progressive culture war movement, and defanged into irrelevance.
• In 2016 and 2020, the Bernie Sanders movement tapped into widespread discontent over corporate influence, imperialism, and wealth inequality. It was co-opted—Sanders himself bowed to the establishment, his supporters folded back into the Democratic Party, and the entire movement was redirected toward culture war distractions rather than policy change.
• Black Lives Matter, originally a protest against police brutality, was absorbed by corporate interests, rebranded into a fundraising arm for the Democratic Party, and weaponized to push mass compliance narratives.

The playbook is always the same—redirect populist anger away from systemic reform and into dead-end culture wars. MAGA is not unique in its manipulation. It is merely the most recent case study in how movements that could pose a real threat to power are steered into irrelevance.

A destabilized population doesn’t organize. It doesn’t demand structural change. It doesn’t build anything. It reacts. It flails. It exhausts itself chasing ghosts while the real tyrants tighten their grip.

MAGA is kept in a permanent state of reaction—forever playing defense, forever distracted, never advancing toward its supposed goals. The wheels keep spinning, the outrage keeps flowing, and the machine rolls on, stronger than ever. This is destabilization in action.

The crisis stage, according to Bezmenov, is when a destabilized society, exhausted by chaos, demands order—and the system offers them a “savior.” But the trick is this: The savior does not dismantle the corrupt system. He reinforces it.

For MAGA, that savior is Trump. From the beginning, Trump was a pressure-release valve—a figure who could absorb and redirect right-wing populist energy back into the very system it sought to destroy. MAGA believed they were backing a leader who would:

• Dismantle the Deep State
• Drain the Swamp
• End the forever wars
• Challenge corporate corruption
• Restore liberties lost to the surveillance state

But in reality, none of this happened. Under Trump, there was no rollback of government power, no dismantling of the elite networks controlling the country. The structure remained exactly the same. In fact, in many ways, it expanded:

• The Deep State remained untouched – Trump’s DOJ and FBI aggressively pursued whistleblowers like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden while protecting the institutions he claimed to oppose.
• The war machine never stopped – Trump increased military spending and escalated drone strikes while claiming to be anti-war.
• The Swamp was never drained – His administration was stuffed with neoconservatives, Wall Street operatives, and Big Pharma insiders.
• Surveillance state powers expanded – FISA courts, the Patriot Act, and domestic spying operations continued without pause.
• The deficit skyrocketed – He printed more money than any president in U.S. history, accelerating the economic collapse he claimed to be fighting.
• The COVID response consolidated power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats – Operation Warp Speed was a gift to Big Pharma, enriching the very corporate elites MAGA claimed to despise.

MAGA was led to believe they were fighting the system, when in reality they were being led deeper into its grasp. Their anger was redirected. Their energy was contained. The machine remained intact. And after four years of empty promises, what was the result?

This strategy is not new. Throughout history, elites have used charismatic strongmen to pacify dissent, absorbing revolutionary energy while keeping real power untouched. Trump follows the same historical pattern. A system on the verge of collapse needs a figure like Trump—someone who can rally the people, absorb their frustration, and ultimately bring them back into submission.

Here’s the most dangerous shift of all: MAGA is no longer interested in dismantling government overreach. It simply wants its own people in charge of it.

They no longer oppose mass surveillance—they just want it directed at “the right people.” They no longer oppose authoritarian crackdowns—they just want to be the ones wielding the power. They no longer care about civil liberties—they just want their enemies silenced. The movement that once claimed to stand for liberty, decentralization, and individual rights has morphed into a full embrace of authoritarianism—so long as it wears the right colors.

This is the ultimate crisis stage victory for the system. The opposition has been co-opted.

Stage Four: Normalization

The final step is normalization—when the population, exhausted by years of instability, accepts the new order as inevitable. This is the endgame of ideological subversion. The process does not require the complete destruction of a movement—only its transformation into something unrecognizable.

MAGA was once resembled something rebellious. Today, it is an institution. It no longer even questions the levers of power—it merely seeks to wield them. The people who once stood for liberty now advocate for:

• Censorship—as long as it’s their enemies being silenced.
• Mass surveillance—as long as it’s their political opponents being tracked.
• Government intervention—as long as it benefits their side.
• Authoritarian retribution—as long as they’re the ones holding the whip.
• Endless war—as long as it's their guy waging it.
• Reckless spending—as long as their guy promises to reduce it later on.

The system wins, regardless of who is in charge. The wars continue. The surveillance expands. The corruption deepens. And the people—distracted, exhausted, pacified—keep cheering for their own subjugation.

MAGA was never about reclaiming America. It was about keeping a disenfranchised population distracted, enraged, and ultimately pacified. Every outrage, every betrayal, every contradiction—none of it matters. Because the demoralized mind does not seek truth; it seeks comfort. And nothing is more comforting than the illusion that you are fighting back while marching straight into the hands of those you swore to resist.

Yuri Bezmenov was right. The Soviet playbook didn’t just work—it worked so well that the people who scream loudest about communism have become its greatest case study. The government is larger than ever. The surveillance state is more powerful than ever. The corporate oligarchy is richer than ever. The war machine is more profitable than ever.

MAGA, the so-called “opposition,” has been completely absorbed. It has no demands. It has no principles. It has no vision beyond putting its own people in charge of the same machine it once wanted to dismantle.

And that is the final victory of ideological subversion. A population so exhausted, so demoralized, so consumed by tribal warfare that they no longer fight for real change. Instead, they simply ask: “When do we get to be the ones in control?”

That is not resistance. That is submission. And the machine rolls on. If you are truly against the establishment, you must be willing to question the movements that claim to fight it. If you are truly against tyranny, you must resist it no matter who wields it. If you are truly free, you will not let yourself be used. Because the final trick of ideological subversion is this: By the time you realize you’ve been played, you’re already too deep to admit it.

Think for yourself.

Endangered red wolves became a symbol of federal overreach—and a target for local ire—in eastern North Carolina.

by: Tate Watkins, Reason Magazine

This article is reprinted with permission from the April 2025 issue of Reason Magazine.

In October 1990, Richard Mann shot a red wolf that he feared was threatening his cattle. The wolf was a member of an "experimental population" the federal Fish and Wildlife Service had introduced to eastern North Carolina a few years earlier in an effort to save the most endangered canine on the planet. When the federal government introduces endangered species like wolves, it often seeks local buy-in by allowing activities that would otherwise be prohibited. In this case, it permitted private landowners to kill a red wolf if it was "in the act of killing livestock or pets, provided that freshly wounded or killed livestock or pets are evident."

Fortunately for Mann, the red wolf on his property hadn't yet attacked his livestock. Unfortunately for Mann, that meant he was prosecuted under the Endangered Species Act for preemptively killing the canine. He pled guilty, was fined $2,000, and was ordered to perform community service building "wolfhouses" and feeding red wolves.

Since the late 1980s, federal biologists have been trying to keep a tiny population of endangered red wolves alive in and around two wildlife refuges on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula, just inland from a string of barrier beaches in northeastern North Carolina. They have spent a lot of time, energy, and resources—in the face of concentrated but consistent local opposition—with relatively little to show for it.

Over the decades, more than 100 red wolves raised in captivity have been released into the area, with dozens more pups placed in wild dens to be fostered. The population peaked at about 120 wolves in 2012, before falling rapidly due to human-caused fatalities of two types: gunshots and traffic collisions. The species has also been interbreeding with the increasingly prolific coyote, which could eventually cause "dilution, degradation and ultimate disappearance of the red wolf as a distinct taxonomic entity," as a 2023 government-commissioned analysis put it. As of September 2024, the wild population of red wolves was fewer than 20.

The red wolf has now become a symbol of federal overreach in the area, and local opposition to it seems to have become as much about resisting the feeling of being trampled by the government as about the canine itself. The animal also provides a salient target for ire over more fundamental issues, as traditional ways of life in a rural area become less tenable.

After Mann's prosecution, local opposition to the introduction grew. The Fish and Wildlife Service maintained that most of the public continued to support the endeavor, and it struck agreements with some landowners to allow red wolves onto their property. But the case increased tensions, particularly with locals concerned that a federally regulated carnivore brought to their doorstep would eventually trigger prohibitions on how they could use their land in an area heavy on farming and hunting.

Rather than rewarding people for helping recover rare wildlife, the Endangered Species Act imposes punitive regulations in the name of protecting listed species and their habitats. It can feel like a punch in the gut when a rare snake or woodpecker shows up on your property bringing government regulation in tow. Imagine the blow, then, when a rare species wasn't simply found on your land by happenstance: Federal biologists brought it to your neighborhood without asking. Oh, and it's a wolf—a carnivore that sits at the top of the food chain and, from your perspective, poses a threat not only to your chickens, pets, or cattle but to any toddlers wandering too far from the porch. It's little wonder that the federal approach turns endangered species into liabilities to avoid rather than assets to help conserve.

In the years following Mann's case, two of the five counties within the red wolf program area passed resolutions opposing the effort. Eventually, the state wildlife commission asked the federal government to terminate the program altogether. The introduction effort, and ill will over it, has ebbed and flowed ever since.

Admirable Aims Unrealized

"The passion of those who began this program to restore a species to the wild was admirable," Jett Ferebee told The Fayetteville Observer in 2014. "But it has become an effort to destroy the rights of private landowners." Ferebee is a real estate developer from nearby Greenville, North Carolina, who owns land in the red wolf recovery area. He has been described as one of the leading opponents of the introduction.

A year earlier, he had detailed various critiques in correspondence to a Fish and Wildlife Service employee, which he posted to an online forum. "I do not need to be told by [the Fish and Wildlife Service], any more, that red wolves are the next best thing since sliced bread. I have been told this for years by your program directors and biologists," it read in part. "I am intimately familiar with your program and how it has morphed into something totally different than what was promised [to] the citizens of NC….I resent that my friends and family no longer want to go to our farm and spend time hunting and enjoying the outdoors. I resent that not only our deer population but also our rabbit population has been decimated. The turkeys are likely next."

Ferebee added that he resented not taking some locals' advice to "just 'shoot 'em in the gut and let 'em walk off.'…I resent that my obeying the law…has left me defenseless to protect my property rights."

The message board runs to nearly 200 pages produced over a decade. It includes protests that genetic records show the red wolf is a hybrid rather than a "true" species and that fossil records contain no evidence red wolves ever inhabited North Carolina. While it contains the hysterics and general tone of many online forums, it presents many reasonable objections that locals have expressed over the years: farmer concerns over wolves preying on livestock, hunter concerns over wolves preying on deer and small game, and landowner concerns over regulations restricting how they can manage their land where wolves roam and den.

The red wolf once roamed throughout much of the southern and eastern U.S., but the population was dramatically reduced by predator-control programs, many of which were boosted by bounties from federal and state governments. It became one of the original endangered species protected by Congress in 1967, under the precursor to the Endangered Species Act. By the 1970s, only a small remnant population straddling the border of Texas and Louisiana persisted in the wild. The Fish and Wildlife Service began trapping the canines to start a captive breeding program with zoos to keep the species alive.

By the late 1980s, the Fish and Wildlife Service identified potential areas to introduce the captive wolves in an effort to reestablish the species. It believed the wolf would thrive in dense bottomland vegetation in Southeastern states. "Ideally," it noted, "such areas would also be isolated, have a low human encroachment potential, and be secured in either State or Federal ownership." It concluded that the "apparently ideal habitat for this species" was found in North Carolina at the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, which contained 120,000 acres of "the finest wetland ecosystems found in the Mid-Atlantic region." Moreover, an adjacent military bombing range was expected to act as a buffer between the wolf habitat in the refuge and private lands. Releases of red wolves into the refuge began in 1987. Incredibly, in retrospect, the service wrote at the time: "No private entities will be affected by this action."

Initially, the wolves were released into an area covering a couple hundred thousand acres of federal land in two counties, Dare and Tyrrell. But as the wolf population grew, its range inevitably expanded, and the official recovery area also ballooned—eventually to roughly 1.7 million acres covering parts of five counties, including a second federal wildlife refuge and swaths of private property. By 2014, an estimated 60 percent of the roughly 100-strong red wolf population occupied private lands.

'Nearly Catastrophic'

In September 2024, a red wolf was killed by a vehicle on U.S. Highway 64, which bisects the Alligator River Wildlife Refuge on the way east to the beaches of the Outer Banks. Soon after, five pups that the wolf had sired with a 2-year-old female also died. One collision had effectively wiped out six red wolves, highlighting how difficult species recovery can be.

While biologists may see the red wolf as a missing part of Southeastern ecosystems, landowners and hunters see it much like early settlers saw large carnivores: as a nuisance and a menace. More than 80 red wolves died from gunshots during the program's first 25 years. Some were no doubt poached, but others were likely mistaken for coyotes, which can be killed any time of year and are subject to no bag limit. About the time the experimental population of red wolves was gaining a foothold in the late 1990s, coyotes began multiplying in the region, as they have done from Atlanta to New York City. Red wolves and coyotes don't simply look very similar (especially from a distance or at night), they actually share about three-quarters of their genetic ancestry—hence protests from some that the red wolf is "merely" a "coywolf" and not worthy of protection.

A flash point in the red wolf conflict was a 2010s pendulum of state hunting regulations. In 2012, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission permitted night hunting of coyotes (as well as feral hogs, another prolific nuisance animal) on private land. In the months that followed, at least seven red wolves were shot. Environmentalists sued and in 2014 a federal court blocked the nighttime hunts in the five-county red wolf recovery zone. The North Carolina Coastal Federation notes that the cost to the program was "nearly catastrophic," reporting that "landowners adjacent to the refuge, who had been cooperative or indifferent to the management plan, suddenly no longer permitted access to their property."

In 2015, the state wildlife commission formally asked the federal government to end the red wolf recovery program altogether and remove the existing population. Supporting resolutions were passed by state legislators. A year later, Sen. Thom Tillis (R–N.C.) also called for eliminating the red wolf recovery program, claiming that more than 500 landowners and farmers submitted requests to the service that red wolves not be allowed on their land. "I think it makes the most sense," Tillis said at the time, "to shut the program down to figure out how to do it right and build some credibility with the landowners."

Since the mid-2010s, the recovery program has puttered along in fits and starts. The Fish and Wildlife Service, seemingly responding to landowner sentiments, tried to shrink the recovery area and number of wolves in the wild but manage the remaining ones more intensively; environmentalists sued and blocked the move. The feds again proposed to reduce the recovery area and the number of red wolves being managed, and to relax restrictions that forbid landowners from killing wolves on their property; environmentalists sued and successfully stopped the plan. The service stopped actively releasing red wolves into the recovery area for several years; environmentalists sued and compelled the releases to begin again.

All the while, red wolves have continued to die by gunshot, sporadically but regularly, even as five-figure rewards are offered for information on the illegal kills.

Infringing on a Way of Life

"We were concerned as landowners that something has been put on our property we didn't ask for, we didn't want," Wilson Daughtry, a farmer and landowner in the red wolf recovery area, told The Guardian in 2019. "For me," he added, "it is more about infringement on private property rights. I'm really irritated about that. Coming out here and stuffing those wolves down our throats, you're not gonna get any support like that."

That sentiment echoes one Colorado rancher's description of a 2020 referendum that mandated a reintroduction of the red wolf's larger and more familiar cousin, the gray wolf. The rancher described the state ballot measure as "people on the Front Range—a bunch of city dudes" trying to "cram it down our throats." Residents of Denver, Colorado Springs, and various ski towns largely supported the reintroduction, while nearly all rural counties opposed it.

The red wolf recovery program served as an early model to restore gray wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in the 1990s. While the "wolf wars" in Western states have certainly brought and continue to bring their fair share of conflict, those reintroductions in the Rocky Mountain West at least acknowledged the costs that a large carnivore would bring to local communities and made efforts to mitigate the impacts. Conservationist Hank Fischer, who was instrumental in early efforts, helped establish a program to compensate ranchers for livestock lost to the carnivores, funded by proceeds of wolf artwork sold to back the cause. It paid out nearly $200,000 in the first few years. Then, as Fischer described it, suddenly "the wolf/livestock conflict was no longer an issue dominating the newspapers."

Even though the red wolf program is cited as a model for western gray wolf restoration, the idea of compensating locals who would bear the costs of living with wolves was never at the forefront. In 2020, the North Carolina Wildlife Federation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service launched a "Prey for the Pack" initiative to partner with landowners interested in promoting wolf recovery. It offers a cost share of up to 80 percent for participants who make habitat improvements to their property and allow for monitoring of red wolves, and the program has paid out $350,000 to date.

It seems like a step in the right direction if you want to get locals on board with conserving an apex predator. Yet it took more than three decades to launch.

In the meantime, a lot of water flowed under the bridges of the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula, as Francine Madden has documented. The Fish and Wildlife Service hired Madden in 2022 as a third-party mediator to assess the long-running conflict. Her job, essentially, is to try to help people fighting over wildlife make peace. Madden spoke to more than 150 people over the course of 18 months in compiling her findings about the red wolf. Her report noted that some landowners declined to participate in Prey for the Pack because they feared being "paid to create problems for their neighbors, which they were not willing to do."

"Many felt that at the heart of the conflict," Madden added, was a perceived threat to "landowners' sense of control over the things that are important to them, such as their land, identity and way of life." She cited residents describing community challenges unrelated to the wolf, too, such as "churches closing, the quality of public schools, and the lack of grocery stores, among other problems." Other interviewees detailed additional hardships "in terms of gainful employment (given there is no real industry outside of government, fishing, and agriculture) and the threat of hurricanes and saltwater intrusion." Three of the five counties in the red wolf recovery area have seen declines in real gross domestic product over the past 20 years. Moreover, the number of resident humans in the area has followed a similar trajectory to that of the red wolves: All but one of the five counties (Dare) has declined in population since 2010.

Alienate or Collaborate

The Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula isn't the only place where red wolf introduction has been tried. In 1991, the Fish and Wildlife Service also introduced wolves to Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Seven years later, it terminated the effort, citing "extremely low pup survival and the inability of the red wolves to establish home ranges within the Park." That history prompts a question: Why did the government end the red wolf experiment in the Smokies, yet persist with it decades later 500 miles eastward?

Another line from the service's decision to end the Smokies program underscores the wider implications of the ongoing experiment in eastern North Carolina: "Our goal for the recovery of this species includes establishing at least three self-sustaining wild populations that total a minimum of 220 animals." The 2023 federal recovery plan for the species similarly calls for establishing additional populations, to provide "redundancy and resiliency." Its authors expect the wolf's status to "improve such that we can achieve delisting criteria around 2072, in approximately 50 years," and estimate the total costs of the plan at $328 million.

With plans like those, federal officials need to find better ways to cooperate with locals, and not only when it concerns the red wolf. Colorado is currently managing its aforementioned introduction of gray wolves under federal oversight. The Fish and Wildlife Service has decided to restore endangered grizzly bears to the North Cascades in Washington, and it's considering bringing federally listed sea otters back to the coast of Oregon and Northern California. To succeed, it will have to find ways to avoid alienating local landowners and constituencies, like the fishing interests wary of ravenous otters decimating their catch.

While the red wolf may provide a blueprint for how not to introduce an endangered species, Madden, the independent mediator, notes that the situation has improved since its most heated times. In her investigation, she noted, various parties occasionally voiced "cautious optimism about what it could mean to really hear one another…and to establish a starting place to come together and work through the many challenges in this conflict." A sign of that optimism perhaps blossoming came in December when the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission rescinded its years-old resolutions regarding red wolves and adopted a new one committing to work toward recovering the species.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has gotten a lot wrong with the red wolf. But its fundamental mistake has been trying to do conservation to local communities rather than with them. The people who have to live alongside introduced species have the most to provide for them in terms of potential habitat, as well as potential collaboration as eyes and ears on the ground.

If the red wolf recovery effort has shown anything, it's that it's hard to make headway in recovering a species if the people most affected by it feel like they're having wolves stuffed down their throats.

Tate Watkins is a research fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), a nonprofit dedicated to improving environmental quality through property rights and markets.

2025 LPNC State Convention

Friday, May 16 - Sunday, May 18, 2025 

Join us in Clemmons, NC for the 2025 LPNC Convention! Everyone wants to live their own lives their own way, for their own needs, and according to their own values. Join the Libertarian Party of North Carolina, the only political party that leaves your life choices where they belong... with you!

We'll be meeting at the Village Inn Hotel and Event Center for a weekend of business, enlightening speakers, and fun activities such as a New Silent Auction and a Photo Booth! Tickets include all convention activities, plus a catered Gala on Saturday. We will also have a Friday evening reception from 7pm-10pm.

Register Today!

---

---

At Liberty International, we believe that true freedom starts in the mind. To build a freer world, we must first free ourselves from subconscious conditioning that shapes our decisions, behaviors, and beliefs.

That’s why we created the Emotional Freedom Online Course—a transformative experience designed to help you break free from limiting patterns and become a more effective advocate for liberty.

🌟 Led by Dr. Mary Ruwart, this course combines her invaluable insights with hands-on activities to help you gain deeper self-awareness, regulate emotions, and unlock your true potential.

📅 Course Schedule

🕛 12 PM - 2 PM EST | 11 AM - 1 PM Central

• Monday, March 31 – Dr. Mary Ruwart: What is Mental & Emotional Freedom, and How Can We Achieve It?
• Tuesday, April 8 – Jeff Crawford: Discover Beliefs Around Money That Might Prevent You From Prospering
• Friday, April 11 – Thomas Hill: How Facing Your Dark Side (We All Have One) Helps You Control It
• Monday, April 14 – Agnieszka Plonka: How to Regulate Your Emotions and Deal with Difficult People
• Monday, April 21 – Wrap-Up Session & Integration

💰 Price & Scholarships: Only $30 for the full program!

Scholarships are available—just email [email protected] to apply!

🔗 Sign up today and take the first step toward emotional freedom and a freer world!

A Libertarian Blueprint for Freedom, Veterans, and Prosperity

by: Shannon W. Bray, Libertarian Candidate for U.S. Senate, North Carolina

Introduction: Liberty under Fire

In the rolling hills and bustling cities of North Carolina, a battle for freedom is brewing. House Bill 413, a bold proposal to legalize recreational marijuana, has sparked fierce debate in the General Assembly. On March 19, a vocal critic took to X, waving a red flag of doom: legalization, they warned, would unleash "a tidal wave of social decay," drowning taxpayers in rising costs—28 percent more marijuana use, 17 percent higher substance abuse rates, a 35 percent surge in chronic homelessness, and a 13 percent spike in arrests for violent and property crimes. Citing a Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City report, they dubbed it a "Trojan horse hiding devastation within," dismissing modest economic gains—3 percent income growth and 6 percent house price hikes—as a fool’s gold mirage for late adopters like us Tar Heels. "Say no," they pleaded, "to protect our people, our economy, and our future."

As a Libertarian running for U.S. Senate in North Carolina, I see a different vision—one rooted in individual Liberty, not state-sponsored fear. I'm a Navy veteran who's watched government overreach strangle personal choice, and I'm here to cut through the noise with facts, principles, and a fierce defense of freedom. Legalizing marijuana isn't a descent into chaos—it’s a lifeline for our 730,000 veterans, a boost for our economy, and a middle finger to the nanny state. Let's dismantle the scare tactics and build a case for Liberty that stands tall.

The Critic's Case: Shadows of Doubt

The critic's ammo comes from Economic Benefits and Social Costs of Legalizing Recreational Marijuana, a 2023 study by Jason P. Brown, Elior D. Cohen, and Alison Felix of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Their data, drawn from early adopters like Colorado and Washington, paints a mixed picture: a 28 percent jump in marijuana use, a 17 percent rise in substance use disorders, a 35 percent increase in chronic homelessness (though statistically shaky), and a 13 percent uptick in arrests for certain crimes. Economic perks? A 3 percent bump in per capita income—mostly from small business owners—and a 6 percent rise in housing prices near dispensaries. The critic clutches these stats like a lifeline, warning North Carolina’s late entry in 2025 will yield scraps while burying us in social rot.

But numbers without context are just shadows on a wall. Correlation isn't causation, and the report's own caveats—like the homelessness figure's weak significance—beg for a deeper look. Libertarians don't cower at shadows; we demand the state justify its chains, not slap them on out of paranoia. Let's shine a light on what's really at stake.

Economic Freedom: Seeds of Prosperity

Picture a small-town veteran in Asheville, opening a dispensary with a hand-painted sign: "Liberty Grown Here." That's the economic promise of House Bill 413. The Fed report's 3 percent income growth and 6 percent housing price lift may sound modest, but they're sparks of freedom in action. Nationwide, legal marijuana raked in $3.7 billion in tax revenue in 2021 alone, per the Marijuana Policy Project. Colorado's haul that year? $423 million—enough to pave roads, fix schools, or bolster veteran clinics without a dime of coerced income tax. North Carolina, even as a latecomer, could tap millions annually, fueling priorities without bloating the bureaucracy.

Critics scoff at "diminishing returns" for states joining the party in 2025, and sure, we won't rival Colorado's $2 billion industry peak in 2019. But our state's got an ace up its sleeve: agriculture. Since hemp legalization in 2014, North Carolina farmers have tilled fertile ground—literally and figuratively. A 2023 UNC study predicts legalization could sprout 20,000 jobs and $500 million in yearly revenue, even in a crowded market, if we keep regulations light. Think hemp farms turning to cannabis, rural entrepreneurs hiring locals, and tax dollars staying home—not feeding D.C.'s coffers. The Cato Institute pegs the illegal marijuana trade at a $50 billion annual loss to the U.S.; legalization starves that beast, as Colorado's 60 percent drop in seizures since 2012 proves (U.S. Customs Service, 2019). That’s not a mirage—it's Liberty paying dividends.

Veterans: A Fight for Healing

Now, let's talk about my brothers and sisters in arms—North Carolina's 730,000 veterans, per the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. I've stood shoulder-to-shoulder with them, from desert sands to home soil, and I've seen the toll of service: 11-20 percent of post-9/11 vets battle PTSD yearly (VA, 2023), while over 1,000 died nationwide from opioid overdoses in 2020 (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2021). The VA's answer? Pump them full of addictive pills and drown them in red tape.

I say enough. Legal marijuana offers a freer path—one the state has no right to block.

Science backs this up. A 2022 Journal of Psychopharmacology study found cannabis slashed PTSD symptoms by up to 50 percent in some patients—imagine a veteran in Fayetteville sleeping through the night without flashbacks. A 2021 PLOS ONE analysis tied legal marijuana states to 10-20 percent fewer opioid-related ER visits, a lifeline when Big Pharma's hooks run deep. Take John, a Marine vet I met in Raleigh: hooked on OxyContin for a back injury, he switched to cannabis in Colorado and kicked the pills. North Carolina could let vets like him grow their own medicine, cutting the VA's umbilical cord while saving money and lives. The American Legion’s 2021 survey found 92 percent of veteran households back medical marijuana—we demand that our voices are heard.

And that tax revenue? Colorado's funneled over $20 million into housing grants since 2014 (Colorado Department of Local Affairs, 2023), keeping vets off the streets. North Carolina could target funds to vet-specific care—think mobile clinics or PTSD programs—without swelling the welfare state. Freedom heals better than bureaucracy ever will.

Dismantling the Fear: Social Costs in Context

The critic's bogeymen—17 percent more substance use disorders, 35 percent higher homelessness, 13 percent more arrests—sound grim, but let's unpack them. For veterans, marijuana's risks are a whisper next to the VA's opioid pipeline; legalization could cut overdoses, easing clinic loads. That homelessness spike? Housing costs and mental health, not just weed, drive it—Oregon's woes predate legalization. The Fed report admits the 35 percent figure is flimsy; meanwhile, Colorado's violent crime dropped 10 percent from 2012-2022 (FBI, 2023), showing long-term stability. The arrest bump? That's a policy failure—cops chasing unlicensed dealers, not users. Fully decriminalize possession, as I propose, and we free police to tackle real threats, not pot smokers.

Libertarians don't waste tax dollars on victimless "crimes." Prohibition breeds cartels; legalization guts them. The critic's "public health crisis" is a scare tactic—let heavy users bear their choices, not the state. Accountability, not control, is the answer.

A Libertarian Roadmap: Seizing the Day

House Bill 413 isn't flawless—few bills are—but it's a crack in the state's iron grip. North Carolina can get it right: no suffocating regulations, just clear rules to shield kids and roads while maximizing Liberty. We're late to the game, sure, but Liberty isn't a market trend—it's a principle. That 3 percent income bump could mean a vet in Wilmington hires locals for a dispensary, building a life on his terms. Our veteran-heavy state, with rural roots and urban grit, is primed to prove legalization works—not through handouts, but through choice.

As your Senate candidate, I'll fight for a North Carolina where veterans heal with cannabis, not opioids; where businesses bloom without government crutches; where citizens live free, not under a state that bans what it can't control. The Fed report says benefits spread wide while costs hit heavy users hardest—perfect. Let individuals own their paths. House Bill 413 isn’t chaos—it’s a chance to show Liberty delivers. Let’s grab it with both hands.

Shannon Bray is an active LPNC member, and previous Libertarian candidate in North Carolina for U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and Lieutenant Governor. He has recently announced his candidacy for NC U.S. Senate in 2026. 

Resources

• Brown, J. P., Cohen, E. D., & Felix, A. (2023). Economic Benefits and Social Costs of Legalizing Recreational Marijuana. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. https://kansascityfed.org/Research%20Working%20Papers/documents/9825/rwp23-10browncohenfelix.pdf
• U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2023). Veteran Population Statistics. https://www.va.gov/vetdata/
• National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2021). Opioid Overdose Deaths Among Veterans. https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/veterans
• Walsh, Z., et al. (2022). Cannabis for PTSD: A Controlled Trial. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 36(5), 567-575. https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811221080000
• Livingston, M. D., et al. (2021). Recreational Cannabis Laws and Opioid-Related Emergency Department Visits. PLOS ONE, 16(4), e0249119. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249119
• Colorado Department of Local Affairs. (2023). Marijuana Tax Revenue Allocation Report. https://cdola.colorado.gov/reports
• U.S. Customs Service. (2019). Marijuana Seizure Statistics Post-Legalization. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats
• Marijuana Policy Project. (2022). Cannabis Tax Revenue in Legal States. https://www.mpp.org/policy/revenue/
• Cato Institute. (2021). The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition. https://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/budgetary-impact-ending-drug-prohibition
• UNC School of Government. (2023). Economic Impacts of Marijuana Legalization in North Carolina. 
• FBI Uniform Crime Reporting. (2023). Crime in the United States, 2012-2022. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s