We Have Finally Released the Massie

by: Rob Yates, LPNC aka Someone Who Can Still Read a Voting Record

There comes a time, rare and redemptive, when history’s grimiest mechanics produce a thing of gleaming precision. When a blundering force — chaotic, self-interested, and allergic to reading — smashes around long enough to break the machinery of its own movement and, unintentionally, set free a purer form. Such is the paradoxical gift of Donald J. Trump to the American Liberty movement. His utter contempt for all things Liberty has given us, in final boss form, fully activated Thomas Massie.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Trump. Thank you for lurching into the “conservative” movement like a roided-up wrestler crashing a chess tournament (or a billionaire real estate developer lurking in the dressing area of a teen beauty pageant). Thank you for cosplaying as the anti-establishment savior while embracing a gold-plated cocktail of corporate and special interest subsidies, dystopian surveillance initiatives, a personal gestapo army unfettered by Fourth Amendment concerns, a real-life “Where’s Waldo?” with the Epstein files, and a pandemic-era welfare statism that would have made FDR blush. Thank you, because without your clownish reign of narcissistic whack-a-mole governing, we might never have seen the awesome, unifying power of a true Liberty warrior in Congress.

Thank you, Donald Trump, you have finally released the Massie. And he is magnificent.

The Accidental Awakening

Thomas Massie — MIT engineer, Kentucky homesteader, constitutionalist in Birkenstocks — has always been a bit of a glitch in the GOP matrix. Since arriving in Congress in 2012, he has consistently annoyed the leadership by *gasp* reading bills, refusing to vote for wars wrapped in flag-drenched platitudes, and rejecting the bipartisan consensus that the debt ceiling is a polite fiction. He doesn’t think the FBI should be able to spy on you without a warrant, but he does think you have a right to defend yourself. He likes fiscal responsibility and hates the debt. He is not bought and sold by any foreign government but he does drink raw milk. He is, in short, what the Republican Party pretends to be every two years but flees from every day in between.

But under Trump, something changed. The quiet gadfly became a gadfly with a flamethrower. The engineer shed the politeness of the freshman and stepped into the fire as a fully operational Liberty warrior. And for that, we owe Trump. Trumpism — that deranged stew of nationalism, militarism, cronyism, and barstool conspiracy — never had much to do with Liberty. Its relationship to the Constitution was that of a raccoon to a vending machine – he ain’t paying it much more attention than a quick shake to see if there is something useful. But in infecting the Republican Party with this gibberish, Trump forced the few remaining Liberty-minded Republicans to choose: bend the knee, or be deemed a traitor and prepare to fight.

Massie chose the latter.

Holding the King Accountable

We knew something was different in March 2020, when Massie dared to oppose the $2.2 trillion CARES Act, and subsequent payouts. That COVID-era monstrosity, negotiated behind closed doors by Mitch “freeze frame” McConnell and blessed by Trump with his signature Sharpie flourish, was the largest corporate-welfare slush fund in American history, and the kickstarter for the runaway inflation that is ruining everyone’s bank accounts today. It was everything Liberty is not: opaque, panicked, massive, and tailored for the politically connected.

Massie, alone in the House chamber as everyone else phoned it in from their yachts and ski lodges, demanded a recorded vote. Trump, ever allergic to scrutiny and terrified of looking cheap in an election year, called for Massie to be kicked out of the Republican Party. “A third-rate Grandstander,” Trump tweeted, proving once again that projection isn’t just a cinematic technique.

But Massie stood firm. He called it what it was: theft. Theft from future taxpayers. Theft in the name of emergency. Theft dressed up in red, white, and fear. It was his John Brown moment — the lone man at the arsenal, lighting the match, refusing to apologize.

And what a beautiful fire it’s become.

The Engineer Builds Resistance

Since then, Massie has not just held the line; he’s laid new track. One with principles. One that remembers the word “Liberty” isn’t just a bumper sticker but a philosophy.

He voted against sending $100 billion to Ukraine, not because he’s pro-Putin (the lazy slander of warmongers), but because he understands that Liberty at home dies by imperialism abroad. He voted against every extension of the PATRIOT Act, even as Trump’s DOJ weaponized surveillance powers while claiming to “drain the swamp,” and Trump’s fluffer (look it up) Mike Johnson cowered like a baby deer in the face of a little pressure.

Oh, and let’s not forget: Massie has the gall — the unpardonable, unpurchasable gall — to file actual legislation. Not just commemorative resolutions for "National Golf Cart Safety Month" like most of his colleagues. But real bills, with words and consequences. Bills to audit the Fed, to cut the IRS, to force constitutional debates about war. Bills that scare appropriators, bureaucrats, and donors alike.

Massie has introduced bills to abolish the Department of Education, slash the defense budget, and eliminate vaccine mandates for soldiers — all while Trump was cheering police crackdowns, celebrating school lockdowns, and bragging about warp-speed jabs like a pharmaceutical Santa Claus.

The Hypocrisy Patrol

Meanwhile, what of the Republican “base”? You know, the ones who held spontaneous Constitutional revivals when Obama issued executive orders, but now chant “We love Trump!” as he declares that presidents and police should have “total immunity.”

Where are the small-government Tea Partiers now that Trump has ballooned the national debt by nearly $8 trillion, expanded tariffs like a protectionist drunk, and pushed a set of leftist policies straight out of Ted Kennedy’s 1994 playbook? Where are the “Patriots” when Trump praises Viktor Orbán, proposes ICE need respect neither the Fourth Amendment nor due process, and fires administrative staff for giving him bad news?

Crickets. Spangled, flag-waving crickets, interrupted only by shouts of “Trust the plan!” and squeals of glee as another US citizen is assaulted for having the audacity to be of Hispanic descent.

Massie, however, keeps calling it out. When Trump endorsed Red Flag laws — “Take the guns first, go through due process second,” demanded Fuhrer Trump — Massie objected, forcefully. When Trump issued executive orders banning bump stocks — a constitutional abomination — Massie filed bills to repeal them. When Republicans pushed surveillance reauthorization through Congress like it was a spending bill for their special interests (spoiler: it was), Massie said no, again and again. When Republicans took Biden’s budget, added some spending, renamed it the “Big Beautiful Bill,” and demanded obeisance – Massie politely extended his middle finger. And when Trump and his bimbo Bondi took us on the roller coaster ride of “we will release the Epstein files,” to “the Epstein files are on my desk,” to “these influencers have the Epstein files in a binder at the White House,” to “there are no Epstein files,” to “maybe there are files, but the Democrats snuck Trumps name in there to finally get him” – Massie filed a bill demanding they be released. Mike “Trump fluffer” Johnson responded by recessing Congress early to make sure it wouldn’t go to a vote.

Massie’s not just standing up to Trump. He’s standing up to the idea that the United States will tolerate a king. He’s standing up to corruption, big money, powerful special interests, and the entire machine. Thomas Massie is reminding us that Liberty matters, and it is worth defending.

The Irony Is the Point

Donald Trump is our first WWE character president, but, amidst the wreckage of that populist burlesque, Massie is quietly rebuilding. Not with slogans or merch drops, but with votes. With principles. With the courage to say no.

He is the Ron Paul of our time, minus the newsletters and plus a Twitter account that somehow makes farm chores and budgetary amendments cool.

Trump wanted obedience. Massie offers resistance.

Trump demanded loyalty. Massie gives truth.

Trump bellowed, “Only I can fix it.” Massie replies, “That’s not how Liberty works.”

An Example to Follow

And so here we are. The most anti-Liberty Republican president in modern history has, through sheer buffoonery, birthed the most principled Liberty legislator of the post-Ron Paul era. And in that delicious irony, one might almost detect the ghost of the republic whispering, “All is not yet lost.” Thomas Massie is not a savior, but he doesn’t want to be. He is a trendsetter, giving us all an example to follow.

Thomas Massie is the country’s conscience Donald Trump accidentally summoned.

He is the glitch in the Matrix. The engineer who saw through the system. The farmer who smelled the fertilizer of both parties. And now, unbound, he is harvesting something rare: integrity.

So yes. Thank you, Donald Trump.

We have finally released the Massie.

And may God help you when he gets to committee markup.

by: Rob Yates, LPNC Communications Director

On August 7, 2022, Brian Turner and his wife Kerri got into an argument. There was nothing special about the argument, they said not-so-nice things to each other in elevated voices, it never turned physical, and the point of contention was not extraordinary. In fact, the most unique thing about their argument was that they went outside to continue it so as not to wake their children.

Kerri left the house to walk and clear her head, while Brian stayed at home with their two daughters. The story should’ve ended then, with a husband and wife calming down and making up later in the day. Instead, this relatively minor incident marked the beginning of another state-sponsored episode of “we don’t respect your rights.”

Brian and Kerri had argued before, not with any unusual frequency or intensity, but from time to time, like many couples do. As is the case in many normal relationships, they shared mostly good times, worked through their issues, and built a family together. In the months leading up to the event, though, Brian and Kerri had noticed a marked uptick in scrutiny from their Gibsonville neighbors and law enforcement (why this happened is speculative and beyond the scope of this story, but it is pertinent that it happened).

Regardless of why it was happening, it was against this backdrop of all-of-a-suddenly increased visits from neighbors and cops (all documented on home security cameras) that the Turner’s recent nightmare began.

Brian went looking for Kerri later in the evening that August 7, as her walk to cool down had stretched into several hours, and he was concerned. He asked a neighbor to keep an eye on his children and went to search for his wife. He checked a local park, where he encountered Officer William Brennan for the first time.

The first encounter was peaceful and cordial. Brian acknowledged that he had argued with Kerri earlier, and was out looking for her. He wondered if Officer Brennan had seen her. Brennan had not, and they parted ways. Brian continued his search, assuming that was the end of his interactions with police for the day. Officer Brennan had other ideas, and followed Brian back to his house, suspecting that Brian was the subject of a complaint call the department had received earlier – a call which was potentially linked to the increased scrutiny Brian and Kerri had received in recent months.

Once back in the driveway of Brian’s home, Officer Brennan exited his car, and aggressively went to physically detain Brian. The scene was chaotic. Brian’s dog was barking on the porch, and Officer Brennan did, admirably, allow Brian to put the dog in his house. Brian’s daughter Ariel was also on the porch, screaming hysterically at the sight of her father being assaulted by a police officer. Officer Brennan escalated the situation quickly, though, screaming, cussing, threatening to use his taser, and demanding Brian’s compliance, all over a “verbal domestic,” referencing the normal argument that the couple had earlier. Ultimately, Brian was put in cuffs and placed in the back of a cop car.

Shortly after, Kerri returned home, and confirmed that she and her husband had argued, it was not physical, and everything was OK. Officer Brennan decided Brian was a violent criminal, though, and he arrested Brian for Misdemeanor Assault on an LEO, Resist Delay and Obstruct, and Misdemeanor Child Abuse, because why not, go big or go home.

In a just country, Brian would’ve been released the evening of October 7 with an apology and no charges. Instead, Brian went to jail, where cops repeatedly stated that he was belligerent and unruly, on video and on the police report, for the way he acted when being arrested after committing no discernible crime. Ultimately, Brian would plead guilty to obstruction.

The United States exists based on a few simple premises, one of which is equal protection under the law. No matter what anyone in Alamance County thinks personally of Brian Turner, he is entitled to the same rights as every other person in this country. These rights include protection from unreasonable search and seizure, security in one’s person and home, and the right to redress grievances against the police with no fear of retaliation.

As Brian’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by his arrest, he attempted to exercise his First Amendment rights to rectify the situation. Brian made his appeals through the NC court system. He hired a lawyer, who failed to deliver. It was later discovered that the lawyer was connected through family to the Police Chief. Brian filed an appeal to the NC BAR association, which was denied.

Brian shared his videos and images from the arrest and subsequent documents and communications on social media. He took his concerns in front of his local government. For this, he was called a “clown” and motions were made to prevent him from doing anything further. In fact, Brian Turner was trespassed from public property in the Town of Gibsonville, North Carolina, making it illegal for him to watch his daughters play soccer at his local park.

Brian has followed every prescribed remedy, filed every available bit of paperwork, gone through every motion, and done every other thing he was told trying to find justice, or at least closure, for his wrongful arrest and prosecution. As a reward, he has faced increased harassment from his neighbors, denials of every legal remedy he has attempted, and dead ends at all available public outlets.

In fact, Brian is now facing the possibility of jail time for speaking up about what happened to him. There are more grainy, sordid details that certainly suggest an “old boy” system is in place that protects itself through the connections of the people running it, one of many examples of the system working to protect itself and defend the rights of the people it is supposed to serve.

Brian Turner was arrested for a crime that was never committed. The system doesn’t get to pick and choose who it arrests, and why, because the people running the system are annoyed, or don’t like someone. Brian Turner deserves justice, and, until he and everyone like him gets a fair shake, we will never actually be free.

Libertarian Outreach to Arab and Islamic Communities in North Carolina

by: Phil Jacobson and Wael Masri

Arab and Islamic communities have deep roots in both the original cultures from which they draw their identities as well as North Carolina’s broad cultural mosaic. Bound by shared cultural, religious, and entrepreneurial ties, these communities are becoming increasingly politically active, particularly in light of the ongoing crisis in Palestine, yet remain politically underserved. Socialist groups have sought to align themselves with the cause of Palestinian human rights; however, t. contrary to the socialist narrative, these groups are not inherently drawn to collectivist ideologies. In fact, their values, experiences, and aspirations align far more closely with libertarian principles—individual liberty, free markets, and non-aggression. There is a profound opportunity for libertarians to step forward and build bridges with Arab and Islamic communities in North Carolina.

A Community of Entrepreneurs, Not Socialists

A striking characteristic of Arab and Islamic communities in North Carolina is their entrepreneurial spirit. From small grocery stores and restaurants to tech startups and professional services, many members of these communities are deeply invested in private enterprise. This economic independence fosters a natural appreciation for free markets, individual initiative, and limited government intervention—core tenets of libertarianism. Unlike socialist groups that advocate for heavy-handed state control, these communities understand the value of self-reliance and the power of voluntary exchange.

Arab-Americans, particularly those with roots in the Eastern Mediterranean, trace their heritage back to the ancient Phoenicians—renowned seafaring traders who pioneered international commerce and innovation. This legacy of economic freedom and self-determination continues to shape the values of Arab and Islamic communities today.

Moreover, their experiences in North America have shown that they are more likely to collaborate with other religious groups—such as Jewish communities advocating for Kosher standards or religious education—than with secular socialists who often oppose such freedoms. This alignment on issues of religious liberty, educational choice, and cultural autonomy underscores a shared commitment to individual rights and voluntary cooperation, rather than top-down mandates.

Escaping Authoritarianism, Embracing Liberty

Many members of these communities have fled authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and South Asia, seeking refuge in the United States precisely because of its promise of freedom and opportunity. Having experienced the oppressive nature of centralized power, they are deeply skeptical of authoritarian solutions, whether in the form of socialism or fascism. This makes them unlikely allies for socialist movements, despite the latter’s attempts to co-opt their causes.

Libertarians, on the other hand, can offer a compelling alternative: a vision of society rooted in individual liberty, free markets, and non-aggression. By emphasizing personal freedom, property rights, and voluntary association, libertarian messaging can resonate with these communities in ways that socialists can never replicate.

A Natural Fit: Non-Interventionism

One of the most compelling areas of alignment between Arab and Muslim-Americans and the Libertarian Party is the principle of non-interventionism. This principle, deeply rooted in libertarian philosophy, advocates for a foreign policy that prioritizes peace, diplomacy, and respect for the sovereignty of all nations. It stands in stark contrast to the interventionist policies that have characterized much of U.S. foreign policy in recent decades, particularly in the Middle East.

Many members of Arab and Muslim-American communities have firsthand experience with the devastating consequences of U.S. interventionism, especially those who come from Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Palestine.  Gaza is part of Palestine, which is culturally and religiously central to Arabs and Muslims, and it’s still suffering from the ongoing Israeli military action inflicted upon them with the complicity of the US government.  A central tenet of libertarianism is that the means do not justify the ends, and Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch explains in this interview that the genocide in Gaza is being carried out as a means (rather than as an intrinsic end, though various Israeli political leaders have called for it) to depopulate the area from its indigenous Palestinians and to make the area unlivable for them (hence the mass destruction of hospitals, home, and all civilian infrastructure).  While it is natural for some readers to want to reject the label of genocide there, that term has been accepted by leading international scholars on this topic, including Israeli professors of the Holocaust, as well as by governments around the world.

U.S. military engagements exacerbate instability, fuel anti-American sentiment, and displace millions of people. These interventions have not only failed to achieve their stated goals but have also created a legacy of distrust and resentment among the populations affected.

Libertarian icon Dr. Ron Paul, congressman and three-time presidential candidate, has been a vocal critic of U.S. interventionism in the Middle East. In his speeches and writings, Dr. Paul consistently argued that such interventions are not only morally wrong but also counterproductive. During his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, he highlighted the unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy, including the rise of extremist groups and the erosion of civil liberties at home. Arab and Muslim-Americans are acutely aware of the human and economic costs of interventionism, making them natural proponents of a foreign policy that prioritizes diplomacy, trade, and non-aggression.

The Libertarian Party’s commitment to non-interventionism offers a refreshing alternative to the imperialist agendas of both the Democratic and Republican parties. By advocating for a foreign policy that respects the sovereignty of all nations and avoids entangling alliances, libertarians can appeal to Arab and Muslim-Americans who are disillusioned with the bipartisan consensus on endless wars.

The Current Void: Libertarian Absence in Political Discourse

Despite the natural alignment between libertarian ideals and the values of Arab and Islamic communities, libertarian voices have been conspicuously absent from the political discourse surrounding issues like the crisis in Palestine. At rallies and marches, socialist groups dominate the conversation, leaving these communities with no alternative but to listen to collectivist, anti-business rhetoric. This represents a missed opportunity for libertarians to engage with a politically active and increasingly influential demographic.

Libertarians have a unique opportunity to step into this void by articulating a principled stance on human rights, non-interventionism, and the dangers of authoritarianism, as well as free markets and self-determination. By doing so, they can provide a voice for Arab and Islamic communities who align with these ideals, both at home and abroad.

Building Bridges: A Path Forward

To connect with these communities, libertarians must engage in meaningful outreach. This means showing up at community events, listening to their concerns, and demonstrating how libertarian principles align with their values. It also means highlighting the failures of authoritarian socialism while offering a positive vision of a free and prosperous society.

One practical step that libertarians could take immediately is partnering with local business owners and religious leaders to advocate for policies that promote economic freedom, religious liberty, and educational choice. By standing alongside these communities on issues that matter to them, libertarians can build trust and demonstrate their commitment to individual rights and limited government.

Conclusion: A Natural Alliance Waiting to Be Forged

Arab and Islamic communities in North Carolina represent a politically underserved yet highly engaged demographic. Their entrepreneurial spirit, commitment to religious freedom, rejection of authoritarianism, and support for non-interventionism make them natural allies for libertarians. However, this alliance will not materialize on its own. Libertarians must actively reach out, listen, and articulate a vision of freedom that resonates with these communities.

In a time of heightened political polarization, libertarians have the opportunity to build bridges with groups that share their values but have yet to hear their message. By doing so, they can expand their coalition, advance the cause of liberty, and offer a compelling alternative to the authoritarianism of both the left and the right. The time to act is now.

by: Livermush and Grits

Yes. You read that title right. "Don't Tread on Me" vibes with reparations. Mel Gibson's "The Patriot" is on my list of top 20 favorite movies, if not on my top 10. At the beginning of the movie, Mel Gibson's character is debating with another person on whether or not South Carolina should declare its independence from England.

Mel Gibson's quote "Why should I trade ONE tyrant, 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants ONE mile away?"

The point of this debate is directed at a National Level. Don't Tread On Me is historically rooted, rightly so, of government overreach at a large, macro level. But what about at the State level?  County level?  City/Town level? Libertarians are not all anarchists. Government is best when it functions as cheap glue that binds us all together. I want the tension between individual rights and government authority to be as anxious as a short, heavy-set man in a skintight uniform with pants so tight the flap has pulled itself open and you can see the metal tangs of the zipper hanging on for dear life. 

If a local municipality, such as Asheville, votes to start an initiative that pays reparations with local taxes, then the state level should have no authority to tell them "No".  Local control is better, right? State funds should never contribute a single cent to a city funded project such as reparations without being voted on at the state level. An example of this would be "dry" counties. I lived in Lincoln County when it was a "dry" county. Nonalcoholic beverages could not be sold within the county. Should the *State* Legislature supersede what the county citizens voted for? Local control is better, right?

A person that does not live in Asheville should have ZERO opinion on what happens in Asheville. Carpetbagging applies at all levels. As a North Carolinian, I will not entertain a single opinion about North Carolina from someone outside of North Carolina. Those dayumed Yankees. Local control is better, right? If Asheville wants to have reparations and go through the process of reparations then let the people of Asheville have the self determination to do so. I don't live in Asheville therefore I have no representation in Asheville.

"Tyranny by the minority" is a popular saying in our culture. Likewise, "Tyranny by the majority"...

In Federalist #10, Madison warns about the dangers of groups of citizens united by interests contrary to the rights of others or the common good. Whether its differences in wealth, opinions, religion, economy, etc, a peoples from afar and not represented locally should not dictate the affairs of the locals. The beauty of the United States is our beloved 1rst Amendment which means EVERYONE is allowed to voice their opinion. That is Liberty. Consensus can be difficult. In the absence of consensus at the state level, if a local county or city/town has consensus then they should be able to act.

A large Republic, with many competing interests, is the best defense to tyranny. The Duopoly is tyranny, eliminating choice and competing interests from Government representation. I have more choices in purchasing plain white t-shirts than political parties. The goal of capitalism is to create competition in the markets and rid the system of monopolies and poor performance.  The Duopoly is the monopoly.  A healthy Republic makes it harder for any one faction to dominate. A test if our Republic was healthy our local elections would be non partisan. 

"Liberty is to faction what air is to fire." James Madison

State Rights, right? County Rights, right? City Rights, Right? Local Control is better, right? Individual Rights, Right?

Do we perceive this chain to function as Top -> Down OR Bottom -> Up? 

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.