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

Blast from the Past

by Susan Hogarth, LPNC

Published at the Mises Institute, December 20, 2007

Economics examples crop up in the most interesting places. Over the Thanksgiving holiday I ran smack into an application of the Law of Comparative Advantage that was so pure and simple that I can’t resist the opportunity to share.

After flying up to visit family for the weekend, I accompanied my sister to work on Thanksgiving morning, in order to hang out with her some and pitch in. “Pitch in” is precise, because I wound up with a pitchfork and a wheelbarrow. My sister works as stallion manager in a stable. (A really nice stable. This place is cleaner than my house, although such a statement could be considered damning with faint praise.)

“I’ll clean the stalls,” my sister said. “You can bed them down.”

Well, this was good news all around. I don’t at all mind the smell of stables, but it’s undeniably more difficult to clean stalls than to bed them down. Cleaning consists of removing the (heavy) soiled straw bedding while keeping the still-reasonably fresh bedding for another day’s use. Bedding down just requires lugging a fresh bale of (relatively light) clean straw bedding into the cleared stall, spreading the nearly clean straw left from the previous day, and then breaking up and scattering the fresh bale.

Very simple — but as with any sort of labor, there are little tricks and ways of conserving motion and effort that are not easy to explain but that accumulate with experience. Many of these economies of effort aren’t even known to the worker; they develop as a sort of optimized “body memory” in response to muscle aches and the need to get work done as quickly and efficiently as possible. I’ve done my share of stable work “back in the day,” but nothing even approaching the years my sister has put in under all sorts of conditions with all sorts of equipment. My sister even generously complimented me on knowing enough to “whack” the opened bale of straw with the fork to loosen it before I began spreading it around the stall. I’m not a complete newbie to stable work, after all. However, I’m sure I was wasting considerable effort — and time! — because of my relative inexperience and forgotten “body memory” of the necessary motions.

I think it’s probably reasonable to say that in the process of cleaning and bedding, the workload is split about 70% into cleaning and 30% into bedding (my sister may be inclined to offer a correction to that estimate, but it seems about right to my less-experienced eye and pitchfork arm). I knew that 70/30 was probably the best split we could work and still finish at or around the same time, given my relative inexperience, general out-of-shapeness, and, frankly, my holiday mood. But even so, after the first stall, I asked my sister if it might not be more efficient and fair if we both cleaned and bedded stalls — meaning, of course, that she do around two-thirds of both cleaning and bedding, and I do around one-third.

Taking much less time to think it out than I am taking to write it out, my sister replied, “Thanks, but it’ll go faster if I stick to doing the cleaning and you to the bedding.”

And that jogged loose a memory of Ricardo’s Law of Comparative Advantage. I remembered having an early economics mentor point out that, although Ricardo was thinking of international trade, the principle of the law made just as much sense when applied to the division of two tasks between two individuals, one of whom is better at both tasks. And that was clearly the situation in this case! As long as my sister was even better at stall cleaning than at stall bedding, then the job would get done much more quickly if she stuck to the cleaning and I to the bedding. Since cleaning is more difficult to pick up than bedding, not only was she sure to be better than me at both tasks, but she was very likely to be even better at the more difficult task, since she had been doing both for so long. My effort — willing but awkward — was best put to use in the task that was easiest for my sister, so that she could concentrate on doing a superior job at the task that was hardest for both of us.

To flesh out the insight with some numbers for illustrative purposes, suppose my sister was three times as good at me at cleaning stalls and just twice as good as me at bedding them. I hope these numbers are unrealistic (I can’t be that bad!) but they do make for easier math. If it takes her five minutes to clean a stall and three minutes to bed one down, it would take me fifteen to clean and six to bed. So to finish two stalls with each of us working at both cleaning and bedding one stall, we’d take her 5+3 minutes and add my 15+6 minutes, which would give us a total of 29 minutes of labor — although, since we were working together, the total time to finish both stalls would only be 21 minutes, the last 13 of which would be filled by my sister nagging me to hurry up and finish so we could go for coffee.

If we do the same two stalls with her cleaning both and me bedding both, it would take her 5+5 added to my 6+6, which would let us get the job done in a total of 22 minutes of labor, or 12 minutes of time, allowing her only two minutes to relax while watching me finish the last bit of straw pitching. Assuming that the goal for both of us was to get the stalls completed in the least amount of time (and you can believe me when I say it was), then we both benefited from my sticking to what I was least bad at: bedding down stalls. But the best and most fascinating part of this is that it is the weaker and less experienced partner in the joint venture who stood to gain the most from this specialization and division of labor.

Well, who am I to argue with efficiency? I settled into the sneeze-inducing job of breaking open and spreading bales of straw around with a pleasure at knowing that my contribution to the joint effort was maximized by the rational division of tasks. Of course I was so tickled at running across Ricardo in such a seemingly unlikely spot that I spent — one might say wasted — several minutes enthusing on the subject rather than actually getting any work accomplished. The idea that it’s the relatively weak and the unskilled who benefit most from specialization and the division of labor is so foreign to an American-public-school education that, even as I write this, I have to think it all out again as if it were the first time I encountered the idea.

If you are unskilled, there is no doubt that cultivating one or more skills that are (or will be) in demand will better your position. But even without particular skills, each individual has something of value to trade with — and the fewer specialized skills he has, the greater proportional benefit he will see from a mature marketplace with a high degree of specialization and division of labor. The mere existence of specialists will make his willingness to do unspecialized labor valuable to them. This is exactly why the unskilled laborers of America are likely to have pickup trucks and widescreen TVs.

There’s a sort of built-in progressivism to the division of labor that, although it benefits all and almost always will benefit specialists by an absolutely greater amount, provides a greater proportional benefit to those who are relatively unskilled or weak. Again, this notion is so profoundly the opposite of the accepted economic tales of “robber barons” and Dickensian factory owners that, even while writing it, I find it startling.

The idea of the division of labor isn’t so much about the skilled and the wealthy exploiting the labor of the unskilled and the poor as it is about the benefits of cooperation to everyone. That those who bring better skills or more experience to the cooperation do absolutely better is no surprise, but the fact that those who bring relatively less in the way of skills and experience to the market gain a proportionately greater amount is big and exciting news to a world steeped in the weak tea of socialist labor theory.

Real civilization is built on a foundation not of exploitation but of cooperation. And those with the most to gain from civilization and the cooperation it is built upon are the weak and the unskilled. Chain together my clumsy pitchforking, my sister’s skilled farm management, her boss’s business acumen, and his clients’ professional success, with their employees’ skilled and unskilled labor alike and you start to see the only real “safety net” the working world will ever know: the vast and amazing web of transactions and interdependencies of the marketplace, where even the weakest and least skilled have something of value to contribute.

...and how it gets in the way of winning elections for us.

"One love, one life, one too many victims. Republicrat, Democran, one party system." -Sage Franics, Slow Down Gandhi

by: Rob Yates, LPNC Communications Director

For the two sides of the uniparty coin, the party itself is the terminal objective. In other words, there is nothing bigger or greater than the party, and winning is all that matters. Neither party adheres to some underlying principle. They have platforms built around nebulous concepts that they call principles, sure, but those change on a whim, even on core issues.

Derived from their platforms, each party has a set of policies and related messaging that exists - and changes - for the sole purpose of getting that party's members elected. Just in the last few years, both parties have dramatically shifted their positions on things like tariffs and free trade, government surveillance, free speech, undeclared war, and so much more.

For example, Democrats claim to be pro-bodily autonomy as a core principle, but they loved those jab mandates (that appears to have been the wrong choice, now, huh?). And the Republicans say they want freedom and small government as part of who they are, but they also want to put people in cages for smoking pot and they valiantly defend criminals when those criminals are wearing a badge and a uniform.

The uniparty, both sides, is publicly for or against whatever they need to be according to internal polls and focus group feedback and all sorts of other inputs they use to (they hope) drive voters to the polls to pull the lever in the party's favor. Then they go and pass laws that in no way reflect the will or good of the people, but benefit their big donors. The parties want power because they can cater to the people who make them rich and help them buy ever more power. This is demonstrably true and ubiquitous to almost all elected officials (Thomas Massie is a shining beacon of hope), regardless of party. We call them the uniparty because there is no difference between them, except maybe what culture war issues they use to drive their base into a frenzy.

The platform changes, the messaging changes, the focus changes, and the rationalization continues... The whole point is electoral success, and their efforts to demonize the "other" side in pursuit of that goal is a big part of why we are so polarized as a country (but that is a separate conversation). The only thing they cannot tolerate is a challenge to their power.

Most importantly, by the very nature of being solely constructed to pursue power, both parties are inherently and utterly anti-Liberty, because, for the most part, the members of each major party are unable to separate their desire to enforce their respective morality on others from any fealty to the principles of Liberty and self-ownership.

You can back the uniparty or you can back a principle. You cannot back both.

This is where the Libertarian Party (LP) differs from the uniparty. The LP exists not as its own terminal objective, but as a piece (a major piece, but a piece nonetheless) of the broader Liberty movement.

Libertarians (small "l" in this case) exist with the purpose of spreading Liberty, generally speaking. "A world set free in our lifetimes" is a platitude, for sure, but not a meaningless one. How individual libertarians spread Liberty varies widely. Some post memes and start podcasts, for example, while others go all the way to dedicated activism or engaging in the electoral and political process.

For those who are working through the electoral process to try and promote Liberty, the LP and its affiliates comprise the vehicle for furthering that goal, at the federal, state, and local levels. There is room for political work outside of just electoral campaigns, such as building coalitions and influencing legislation (#DefendtheGuard), and that work is a critical part of how the LP and state and local affiliates succeed. Nevertheless, the LP 's ultimate purpose is advancing Liberty through winning elections.

However, the LP is still a piece of the broader movement and thus must always act in the interests of advancing the principles and practices of Liberty. The structural difference is subtle, but it is massively consequential in terms of how the LP operates and why electoral success is rare.

If we act as if the Liberty movement exists to win elections and the Party should only think about winning elections, then members will necessarily follow the incentive structures inherent to that paradigm, meaning they will do what it takes to win elections. This approach is the hallmark of the uniparty - no principles, no scruples, just your team winning or losing so you can try and force your morality on someone else and mock them for disagreeing, then thinking your life is over a few years later when the pendulum ultimately swings the other way.

Of course, people with money want to buy power, and, since we Libertarians are interested in taking that power and giving it back to the people, we don't attract the self-serving big money that the others do. This, more than anything else, is the biggest single roadblock to Libertarian electoral success. Money buys ads, volunteers, infrastructure, media, signs, mailers, events, attention, and souls. The last major election cycle generated about the same net revenue as the entire Marvel movie franchise and more than one NFL season.

Further, libertarian principles are sacrosanct, which leads to an absurd amount of internal gatekeeping and infighting. "Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff" is an easy message to convey at a high level. Application gets trickier, and, because of our allegiance to our principles, proposing approaches to social and political problems generates a lot of "you're not a real Libertarian" nonsense. We spend a preternatural amount of energy infighting over the 5 percent of stuff where we disagree, instead of focusing on how to unite around the 95 percent of stuff where we agree completely, and ultimately, we aren’t focused on how to win.

There are a myriad other minor factors that play into the Libertarian Party's difficulties in making major headway at the ballot box, with impact that varies by candidate, election season, political climate, region, and more. I am not going to analyze them here because all of them could be overcome if we could unite around common purpose and find innovative ways to push back against the machine.

We are facing a behemoth that has unlimited funds, holds all the levers of power, changes the rules to its benefit but uses them against us, and has no scruples or restraints when it comes to pursuing its objectives. Resistance should be our only objective. Fixating on that which divides us assures nothing but a Sisyphean fate of increasing irrelevance. By the time people realize we were right all along, it will be too late, and our small pittance will be saying "we told you so" as the world burns.

Not that we are at lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate levels yet. The uniparty machine was built by humans and relies on predictable patterns of human behavior. Duverger is not invincible.  We have the most powerful weapon there is on the ideological battlefield - the truth. How we write our future story will be determined by our ability to work together to wield it.

This article was first published in The Torch, the news stream of LP Alliance.

by: Paul Darr, LP National Vice Chair

The constant negativity among my friends in the Libertarian Party has become a troubling trend that is doing more harm than good. While it’s understandable to have frustrations and concerns, this persistent culture of pessimism is not only unhelpful but also counterproductive. It undermines the party’s goals, alienates potential supporters, and demoralizes its own members. It’s time we recognize this pattern for what it is and commit to replacing it with a culture of optimism, constructive action, and determination.

No one is denying that there are serious problems within the Party. These concerns are real and valid. However, the way they are being communicated is where the breakdown occurs. Instead of offering solutions or working toward meaningful change, too often these frustrations are expressed in a way that feels directionless and counterproductive. Pointing out problems without presenting a plan for fixing them serves little purpose beyond venting. Worse still, this negativity is frequently injected into conversations where it does not belong. Shoe-horning grievances into unrelated topics doesn’t amplify the message; it dilutes it, alienating both allies and neutral observers who might otherwise be receptive to the party’s ideas.

The consequences of this negativity are significant. For starters, it drains the morale of party members. When people feel surrounded by pessimism, it’s hard to remain motivated or hopeful. If the message they constantly hear is that the Libertarian Party is broken, hopeless, or failing, why would anyone want to invest their time, energy, or support into it? This environment doesn’t inspire action; it fosters apathy and resignation. Those who might otherwise step up and contribute may instead step back, discouraged by the rhetoric and unsure of where to focus their efforts.

Negativity also alienates neutral individuals or those who are still forming their opinions. Whether at events, in conversations, or on social media, a barrage of complaints and criticism does not make the party look like a viable or inspiring option. Instead, it creates the impression of disarray, further reinforcing skepticism from outsiders. Worse still, this kind of rhetoric strengthens opposition. When we air our frustrations in such an unproductive way, we make it easier for opponents to dismiss us. They don’t need to challenge our ideas or values because we’re already doing the work of undermining ourselves.

So how do we change this? First, we need to shift our mindset. It’s time to replace this culture of pessimism with a culture of optimism and action. Optimism does not mean ignoring problems or pretending everything is fine. Instead, it means recognizing challenges while maintaining faith that meaningful change is possible. Optimism is what motivates people to roll up their sleeves and get to work. It inspires confidence, attracts supporters, and creates momentum. If we want to see progress, we need to believe that it can happen—and then take the steps to make it happen.

This leads to the second point: we need to focus on solutions, not just problems. When you identify an issue within the party, don’t stop there. Think about what can be done to fix it. Communicate your concerns in a way that is constructive and actionable. Offer ideas, propose strategies, and be willing to collaborate with others to implement them. Complaints on their own may spark frustration, but solutions inspire action. The more we focus on building pathways forward, the more energy we’ll create for real change.

Finally, we need to put in the work. Talking about change is not enough—action is required. There is so much work to be done within the Libertarian Party, from local organizing to outreach, education, and advocacy. Instead of sitting on the sidelines and complaining, we need to dig in and commit to the work. If we truly care about the issues we’re raising, then we need to step up and be part of the solution. Change doesn’t happen overnight, but it doesn’t happen at all if we don’t take that first step.

It’s time to ask ourselves: What kind of party do we want to be? Do we want to be known for our constant infighting and complaints, or do we want to be a party that inspires people with a vision for change? Do we want to push people away with negativity, or do we want to attract supporters with a message of hope, determination, and progress?

We have a choice to make. The problems we face are real, but so are the opportunities before us. We can sit back and complain, or we can rise up and work for the change we want to see. Let’s choose optimism. Let’s choose action. Let’s be the agents of change our party, and our principles, deserve.

Read the original posting of the article and get to know Paul by checking out his blog here. 

How We Subsidize Corporate Farm Monopolies

by: Jon Warren, LPNC

There is a monopoly on Food Production in the U.S. by "Big" Agribusiness and U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill of $20–$30 billion per year in farm subsidies. Here are the top 5 consumers of our tax dollars:

1. Corn – 35–40%
2. Soybeans – 20–25%
3. Wheat – 10–15%
4. Cotton – 5–10%
5. Rice – 3–5%

Farm subsidies in the U.S. are distributed through various programs, primarily managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA):

1. Crop Insurance Subsidies (40-50%) The government pays a significant portion (60-70%) of farmers’ crop insurance premiums. Corn and soybeans receive the most crop insurance subsidies.
2. Commodity Program Payments (20-30%) Price Loss Coverage (PLC): Pays farmers if market prices fall below a set threshold. Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC): Covers revenue losses due to price drops or yield losses. These programs mainly benefit corn, wheat, and soybeans.
3. Conservation Payments (10-15%) Funds programs like the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), where farmers are paid to leave land fallow to prevent soil erosion. Mostly impacts wheat and marginal farmland crops.
4. Disaster Relief Payments (5-10%) Direct aid for extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts, or floods. Distributed on a case-by-case basis, benefiting various crops depending on the disaster.
5. Marketing Assistance Loans (5-10%) Provides low-interest loans to farmers, allowing them to store crops and sell later when prices improve. Primarily used for corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice.

But protecting the American Food supply is important, right?

WRONG. Just like with most Government programs that start out with good intentions, they eventually morph into giant bureaucracies that consume more and more tax dollars with more red tape that only benefit the few at the "top of the food chain" (pun intended) that can afford to lobby for themselves.

Most Subsidies Go to Big Farms: About 70% of subsidies go to the top 10% of farm owners—large agribusinesses or corporate farms. Bigger farms use subsidies to expand operations, buy more land, and outcompete smaller farms. Subsidies increase farmland values, making it harder for new or small farmers to buy land.

Where and how did crop insurance begin?

On May 15, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed legislation to establish the United States Department of Agriculture and two and a half years later in his final message to Congress, Lincoln called USDA "The People's Department." Congress first authorized Federal crop insurance in the 1930s to help agriculture recover from the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl.

Initially, the program was started as an experiment, and crop insurance activities were mostly limited to major crops in the main producing areas. Crop insurance remained an experiment until passage of the Federal Crop Insurance Act of 1980. In 1994, the program was made MANDATORY for farmers under the Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994.

In 1996, Congress repealed the mandatory participation requirement. However, farmers who accepted other benefits were required to purchase crop insurance or otherwise waive their eligibility for any other disaster benefits. These provisions are still in effect today.

Participation in the crop insurance program BOOMED following enactment of the 1994 Act. Go figure.

According to estimates by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, in 1998, about two-thirds of the country's total planted acreage of field crops was insured under the program. The liability (or value of the insurance in force) in 1998 was $28 billion, the largest amount since the inception of the program. (Government force will do that.) The total premium, which includes subsidy, and the premium paid by insured persons (nearly $950 million) were also record figures.

This is how the U.S. Government created a monopoly on the American Food supply.

So who Benefits the Most?

Large Agribusinesses Corporate farms dominate subsidy payments.

Crop Insurance Companies: The government pays private insurers billions to manage subsidized crop insurance.

Livestock, Processed Food Industries: Cheap corn and soybeans benefit meat producers and food manufacturers (e.g., high-fructose corn syrup).

In 2022, the federal government allocated approximately $17.3 billion to the crop insurance program. This amount covered various costs, including $12 billion in premium subsidies for policyholders, averaging about 62% of the total premiums, and payments to insurance companies for program delivery and underwriting gains.

• Top 10% of Recipients: Receive approximately 56% of all crop insurance subsidies.
• Top 1% of Recipients: Collect about 27% of commodity payments, with an average payment of over $2 million per recipient between 1995 and 2023.

This concentration suggests that larger, well-capitalized farming operations are the primary beneficiaries of federal crop insurance subsidies. The transparency from the USDA is opaque to say the least. The overall objective of the USDA is to support business as usual with "Big Agri". The USDA has little interest in challenging corporate farming.

How can we move forward and challenge "Big Agri" and the USDA?

Grow your own food!

Eliminate them from the equation. You can buy heirloom and NON-GMO seeds to plant. You can design and cultivate your own garden to your desires. (Native Americans used the three sisters method.) A raised garden bed can fit the smallest yard or apartment balcony for those living in more Urban areas. Find a local community garden to volunteer at. The best part? No government needed.

The next level would be to support your local Farmers market! If you have a car, there are many farms that sell direct outside Charlotte. In Union County, NC the local government has partnered with the County Farmers Market for farmers to sell their goods online. 

As policy, eliminating the unfair practice of the Government picking winners and losers is vital. In North Carolina, creating an agricultural "sandbox" for Aquaponics, Hydroponics, Vertical farming, Regenerative farming and other alternative farming practices would be a great start to begin a new "space race" of farming capabilities that could feed more people with healthier foods that require less water, less land and less need for "Big Agri."

It will always be challenging to take on the establishment. For our own health, we need to do this.

by Joshua D Glawson

Living in North Carolina is a unique and wonderful experience. After living in California for nearly 13 years and coming back to my home state of North Carolina, I have a renewed sense of perspective and appreciation for the traditions, history, people, geography, and everything else that makes NC the best place to live in the world. There is a lot to be thankful for in my own life, and there is a lot we can all give thanks to in North Carolina. 

I’m grateful for North Carolinians leading the way in many fields and industries that the rest of the country and world now enjoy. I’m thankful for the North Carolinian adventurous spirit in starting the first gold rush in North America.

I’m grateful for the ingenuity the state brings, including the first airplane. I’m amazed that North Carolina Chapel Hill was the first public university in the United States.

I’m in awe of North Carolina continuing to be the leading producer of things like furniture and craft beer. I’m sure most Americans are thankful for North Carolina’s sweet potatoes since NC is the number one grower of them.

I’m dedicated to and thankful for the country’s leading sound money policy group - Money Metals Exchange’s The Sound Money Defense League - based in Charlotte, North Carolina.   

Even in fields where North Carolina is second in the country including Christmas trees, hogs, and turkeys, there is plenty to be thankful for!

Sometimes it is a good idea to step away from politics and remember to assess the things around us that are good.

North Carolina’s pristine Outer Banks and their magnificent lighthouses; the beauty found in the changing leaves of the Blue Ridge Mountains; the diverse parks and forests; the mild weather; the rich history of mining and human flourishing; the athletics and sports around the state, and so much more, are things to be thankful for. 

For many outsiders, they may not get the privilege of ever seeing these things and appreciating them the way we North Carolinians do. Perhaps Canadian snowbirds and New Yorkers who move to Cary, N.C., (humorously called “Cary: Containment Area for Relocated Yankees”) are the most common outsiders to enjoy the state in appreciation of its natural beauty. 

As a former Californian, the beauty in North Carolina is most certainly found in nature and the forests. I often find myself thinking about North Carolina’s nature the way Henry David Thoreau saw nature - a source of inspiration, wisdom, beauty, and spiritual awakening. If only we could follow his steps and not pay taxes, haha! 

As we enter into spring of 2025, with so much opportunity at our fingertips, take a moment to think about what you are thankful for and express your gratitude out loud to those you love. Thank you, Libertarian Party of North Carolina, I’m certainly thankful for you and your ongoing promotion of liberty in the state and around the country. Thank you.

by Nathan Hohensee, LPNC Communications Intern

The government response to Hurricane Helene has been absurdly deficient. The failure to help people are as similar at the state and federal level as they are devastating to those in dire need. If only we had a similar situation from recent history that could've predicted how badly this would go.

Recovery efforts remain frustratingly slow for the residents of Western North Carolina who saw their homes, towns, families, livelihoods, and more destroyed by Hurricane Helene barely two months ago. As snowfall marks the onset of winter in the Carolina mountains, people who remain without shelter, power, heat, running water, and more are struggling for their very survival while our state and federal government devolve into another round of finger pointing, blaming, and political posturing to cover up egregious failure and ineptitude.

While recovery efforts of this scale are naturally a long process, at this point it seems like we should expect basic response measures - like shelter with heat and potable water, medical supplies, and funding set aside for this exact situation - to have been distributed to those in need as expeditiously as possible. Unfortunately, too many of the victims of Helene remain without stable shelter, basic resources, answers, or any idea of how much the government will prolong their suffering. If previous North Carolina storm relief efforts are any indicator, those waiting for assistance should expect neither the state nor federal government to provide any meaningful relief in the near future.

Helene is the third major storm to affect North Carolina in recent years, following the widespread destruction of Hurricanes Matthew and Florence on the eastern side of the state, and history as an indicator of future actions does not bode well for recovery efforts in the mountains. Rebuild NC, a program founded from Governor Roy Cooper’s installation of the North Carolina Office of Recovery and Resiliency (NCORR) in the wake of Hurricane Florence, is sitting on a $221 million deficit with several victims of that storm still seeking the help they were promised. 

The program and restoration effort was spearheaded by Laura Hogshead, who was removed this week as director of the program, a position which she had held since 2018, following disastrous testimony (pun intended) revealing her grossly incompetent “oversight” of the recovery program. Hogshead took responsibility for the deficit, stating (the painfully obvious) that she had not been "watching the money closely enough." The North Carolina General Assembly was allegedly not notified of the fact that extra funds were needed for eastern NC until October of this year.

The current worst-case scenario is that Rebuild NC needs another $264 million to finish building homes in eastern NC - from the last hurricane six years ago. Not only is there no more money to build future houses, there are currently 57 contractors who have completed jobs for Rebuild NC and have not received any compensation or pay for the work they have already completed. Altogether, there were about 10,000 people who applied for help from Rebuild NC during an application window that was left open for several years. Of those applications, roughly 4,420 applications were withdrawn and around 1,600 were found ineligible. The number of those who have not been helped still exceeds the number of homes that have been built by Rebuilt NC and, again, it has been six years since Hurricane Florence landed in North Carolina.

So far, this program has been its own disaster on a scale greater than those for which it is supposed to provide relief. In fact, $150 million is needed to keep NC Rebuild afloat for ongoing projects. Meanwhile, reports are that the houses that have been built are subpar and often fall into disrepair as soon as families move in. Complaints ranging from doors falling off of their hinges to broken windows and floors caving in are the hallmarks of a program that continues to spend around $2.1 million a month for displaced eastern NC families. In fact, the program has spent around $76.5 million on temporary housing which might have gone towards giving 270-280 families new homes, except it is taking Rebuild NC between 600 and 800 days to build a modular home. Normally, a typical modular home takes anywhere from 60 to 120 days to fully construct. NC Rebuild is working at about 10 percent of expected speed, which is actually surprisingly good for a government entity built on a pattern of abject failure. 

The NC government has been consistently ineffective when it comes to helping its people bounce back from these horrendous storms and the devastation they have caused. Pryor Gibson, who previously served in the NC House - District 69, has been tapped as interim director of the North Carolina Office of Recovery and Resiliency. In his joint testimony with Hogshead, he stated that bureaucratic issues can make it difficult for people to bounce back from a storm. While finger pointing and the political blame game is the prominent narrative in the news cycle, people continue to suffer serious consequences from the inability of the government to help its citizens. Even Hogshead acknowledged that efforts are different in western NC depending on where governments “allow” building, and the news that continues to find its way through the smokescreens is increasingly horrifying. 

FEMA apparently had an unofficial policy to not help people with Trump signs, but what they do have is a backlog of trailers that has been sitting for weeks because FEMA will not place them where they are needed, based on an arbitrary “floodplain” designation. Instead of providing people with the shelter and protection they are supposed to receive in return for dutifully complying with the theft we call “taxes,” FEMA is offering buyouts to the residents who have lost everything and are facing utter desperation, which would provide immediate relief but often result in substantial loss against the overall value of their property and possessions. 

There is a lot happening here in NC following these hurricanes that just does not add up - or maybe it does when taking the inherent inefficiencies of government into account. The great Thomas Sowell said, “You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.” Rebuild NC has seven or eight accountants among the many employees who make upwards of above $100,000 a year, and yet they still could not keep up with all of their budget problems. Leave it to government officials to somehow profit during a crisis while NC residents, who have paid their taxes believing that would ensure the government would be there when they were in need, are learning a hard truth. 

The government is, on its best day, grievously inadequate at most everything except spying on us and creating bureaucratic nightmares. If people are paying into a system expecting responsiveness when they are at their greatest need, and that expectation is proven to be false hope time and again, it begs the question of why do we keep paying into the system. This is not a political game to win elections. People’s lives are in the balance. 

If you want to help with disaster recovery efforts, a number of people and organizations are providing real help to those in need in WNC, including Samaritan's Purse.

If you want to let your local representative know what you think of the disaster recovery efforts and demand better, instructions are here. 

This article was derived from reporting by Cassie Clark, NC historian, culture preservationist, and founder and steward of the Where the Dogwood Blooms blog and podcast. 

by: Phil Jacobson

Recently (October 5, 2024), I attended a protest rally at Moore Square in Raleigh NC, held in recognition of the fact that one year had passed since the events which initiated the current state of conflict between the State of Israel and Hamas, which quickly thereafter engulfed the entire civilian population of Gaza.  Attendance at the protest was estimated at around 4,800 persons. 

The main themes of the rally were a call for a ceasefire and an end to the unrestricted military aid from US taxpayers to Israel.  While not endorsing the initiating actions of Hamas, the protesters strongly condemned the highly disproportionate responses against civilian targets by the Israeli military.  Sympathy was with the plight of Palestinian civilians and against the blanket support given to the current Israeli regime by the current regime of the USA.  Sponsors of this protest included a wide variety of groups, from Palestinians and other Arab-Americans to Muslim, Jewish, Christian and secular Americans, as well as adherents of a variety of political persuasions.  The most advertised political grouping being left leaning, from the Green Party to open advocates of socialism.  Many of the attendees there, especially those with a direct connection to Palestine, were not affiliated to specific political parties.  However, in general, Arab and Muslim Americans have natural leanings towards libertarian philosophy, especially regarding the ideas of free enterprise and non-violence in global affairs (be it proxy wars or otherwise).

As a Libertarian, I was a rare attendee.  In addition to my personal desire to show support for the human rights of all concerned, I distributed copies of the Position Paper on this subject which was issued this year by the LPNC.  (https://www.lpnc.org/position_paper_funding_foreign_wars_and_the_situation_in_israel_and_palestine)  I was also able to convey verbally that the same sentiment has been expressed by our candidate for US President, Chase Oliver. Few of the attendees seemed aware of the Libertarian position on this topic.  But I had to balance my efforts between my personal sentiments and the policies of the LP. 

The LP likes to be seen as opposing conscription in all its forms.  We praise the adoption of voluntary cooperation as a means of addressing community concerns. We question the value of relying on conscripted funds used by professional government bureaucrats. This virtue is often seen at its best when communities react to natural disasters.  Governments with large budgets can provide critical aid, to be sure. But the voluntary contributions of individuals are often more effective, more essential - especially as a first response - than the work of professional government bureaucrats.  

The topic can be a little tricky, however, regarding the topic of armed self-defense, especially with regard to foreign affairs.   The people of Gaza have been living in a concentration camp created in 1967.  They are not at war with the State of Israel.  Their land, in which they have lived for centuries, has been occupied by force by the State of Israel.  As such, any resistance to occupation is not a declaration of war against the occupier, but a legitimate right of any oppressed people.  Israel cannot claim that their response to this resistance is a matter of self-defense - not morally, nor according to international law.

 (as noted by Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur here: https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/francesca-albanese-says-israels-right-to-selfdefence-non-existent-and-is-committing-war-crimes/news-story/99514e7f7928ec92fd68e9a470a5cf27.

And in a more formal and detailed document by Anna Qiang, of Columbia University:
https://www.culawreview.org/journal/the-self-defense-principle-re-examined-the-israel-palestine-conflict-in-international-law

While there were not armed forces patrolling Gaza, as was the case in the West Bank, Israeli military forces patrolled and controlled all access in and out of Gaza, land, sea, and air, which is just another form of occupation.

The LP explicitly, passionately, and unconditionally opposes the use by our government of conscripted soldiers or conscripted dollars to take sides in conflicts between foreign belligerents.  But many individual Libertarians would and do gladly volunteer their own private resources to aid foreign peoples whose lands have been invaded.  Sometimes the most important private resource a Libertarian might give is vocal moral support.  And yet, as a Libertarian, one would not want to mistakenly argue, while expressing sympathy for an oppressed foreign community, that one’s own government should actively join the conflict.  

I felt that I did not cross that delicate line at this event.  But I wish to remind my fellow libertarians that we do believe in the right of self defense - to include armed resistance to initiated force, as do many of the those who attended the rally.  While all pacifists are, by definition following the libertarian doctrine of refusing to initiate force, libertarianism as a philosophy also recognizes the right to retaliate.  Thus, when considering this issue, as a libertarian and as an individual, I heartily endorse one of the most important slogans which was repeated many times at this rally:  

“Resistance is justified when people are occupied.”  

Each situation must be judged by each individual on its own merits. But as for myself, as a libertarian but not as a Libertarian, I have to say at this time, on this issue, as I did at the rally, I do take a side.  I stand with the people of Palestine. 

by: Matthew Kordon, Libertarian Candidate for NC House - District 11

A humbling misstep running for office came in September when, in my naivety, I planned to divert time to a side goal. I wanted to convince voters to choose the smaller-government option for an upcoming Cary housing bond. I announced my decision no sooner than my treasurer discussed with me the logistics. Concerned, I pivoted to research whether this would be difficult or discordant with the law, and it was both.

Upon reflection, I realized a candidate committee is entrusted to focus on the advocacy of that candidate; the people of my district are stakeholders. I owe it to them to stay focused. Embarrassed, I swiftly announced that the project was canceled.

Then one week later, my incumbent rival Allison Dahle permanently stretched the purpose of her candidate committee: On September 26^th, she announced that she took all remaining funds and redistributed them to other Democrats running for offices including Kamala/ Walz.

By opaquely redirecting thousands entrusted to her, what she did was unethical, maybe illegal. There should be a price for such malfeasance! What we know about her behavior is disgraceful; when I requested to know more about her decision, she only repeated her announcement and claimed what she did was not illegal. She even spun the situation as no different than if she had spent the money!

By redirecting those funds, she betrayed the donors who distinctively choose not to give that money to others. Maybe for them, the issues at the State-level matter most. Maybe they only donated because they know her enough to judge her character in contrast to the out-of-state Kamala Harris. Their choice was to a specific cause, in hundreds of dollars by some, but that action was overridden entirely.

My conversation with her was brief but exhibited astonishing contrast! I was courteous and transparent in my desire to know more. Her written response was blunt. She asserted that redistribution was not for “other causes.” In response, I then addressed the fact that Rep. Dahle had just told everyone a lie and pleaded with her one final time to share details. Instead, she went silent, not even accepting an offer to speak in private. Much like when my Republican opponent was accused of bigotry in April, my inquiry to get to the truth was stonewalled.

These days I uphold the Golden Rule; I believe people are foremost individuals with the birthrights Enlightenment figures spoke of, thus I refer to her as “Representative” or “Rep. Dahle” and not “Allison” because I grant her and hers humanizing respect. I believe there are no shortcuts: either you aspire to be just and it reflects in your actions, or not. That the Representative behaves unjustly reveals her true character, which flows downstream to the authoring of bills and voting.

If the Representative broke financial law, it was not the first time! In July, Dahle’s treasurer recorded funds redirected to her Party as an operational expense, seven thousand dollars. Dahle then waited a month before the election to offload most remaining money and her final financial report will not be public until it is too late to affect her reelection. If what she did was as “above board” as she claims, why hide? Should not politicians be an open book? The Republicans are already pursuing greater secrecy in finances and disclosure requests so it is disheartening to see a Democrat display the same corruption.

Lastly, Representative Dahle broke an unspoken promise with her donors. One PAC donated more than the size of my biweekly paycheck. Many individuals gave contributions in the hundreds of dollars! I, by contrast, take my fiduciary responsibility seriously for each person who gives me anything; I not only backed away from my bond project, I wrote a newsletter to my donors to get their feedback after.

Campaign season is a trial period to discover a candidate’s professionalism, thus Allison Dahle demonstrated that she cannot be trusted with money she promises to spend. But that should not surprise anyone who knows her record: only 1/6th of bills she attaches her name to as a major or minor contributor have gotten a vote by the Republican majority, and even fewer of those bills pass or have a dollar amount. Allison has almost-always failed to keep her money promises!

Over 150 people reacted positively to the announcement on Facebook, but what is seemingly popular is not always moral. Engagement on social media is lethargic —not the same as 150 people in a crowd cheering. I ask you, if 150 people smiled at a painting of Satan, would that suddenly make him any less evil?

I align with her agenda 40% of the time, and I will try a new approach at coalition building across aisles with a focus on consensus to yield results for overlapping agenda items the Representative halfheartedly pursues. In light of her sordid character, would not voting for me be better?