Yesterday I went to Canton, NC, with Cassie Clark of Where the Dogwood Blooms fame, to drop off some supplies and try to help victims of Hurricane Helene. I got a first-hand look at what is going on, at least in the area just beyond Asheville, and I wanted to share that.

Things are both better and worse than everyone thinks. In Canton, some people were hurting, and there was damage, but they had running water and power. Once you got past Canton, people didn’t have water or power yet, but they did have roads to travel to aid sites.

The good news is, people, including local officials and cops, were all working together to get needed food, water, and other supplies to those in need. The supply center where we brought our contribution was humming, with people coming in to drop things off and pick up what was needed, and it was well staffed and well stocked.

The bad news is that there are still a ton of people who are out of reach with no communication. Roads completely washed out – and you could see some of them and just how utterly impossible transportation is in some areas – and the people on the other side of those roads are trapped, sometimes without power, water, medical supplies, and other things they need to live.

As far as the government helping, I saw no evidence. I asked several people, and only one had seen FEMA anywhere. Apparently, there was a station set up where bottled water was distributed, but only for people in cars, meaning if you couldn’t get gas or your car was flooded out, you couldn’t get water.

I did hear rumors of FEMA and other officials preventing people from carrying out rescue and support operation, but nothing I could substantiate as true or false. The people in Western NC are angry – and understandably – which, to be fair, creates a fertile environment for rumors to spread.

One thing that seemed to really irk people was Biden surveying the damage, as all rescue flights were grounded while he was in the air (and he then forgot that he had taken the flight a few hours later).

The LPNC is working to help provide some aid as well, if you would like to donate, please give here: Libertarian Mutual Aid.

Marky Mark is a Funky Chump

As we near the gubernatorial election in November, I think it bears importance to highlight some of the candidates' positions. For the first entry, I’m going to be looking at Lt. Governor Mark Robinson.

Robinson recently unveiled part of his "public safety" plan at a news conference in Statesville. Robinson claims to stand behind law enforcement and law and order in the state, but my question is what is his opinion on the unconstitutional arrest of Joshua Rohrer and the brutal assault of his VA service dog Sunshine? I'm guessing that he would see it as police "taking care of business" and "handling the dregs of society," based on statements he’s made previously showing his unquestioning support for law enforcement.

Also, let's take a look at another statement he made at the Statesville conference, claiming he would “reinstate the death penalty for those that kill police and corrections officers. Firstly, the death penalty wasn’t banned in NC, it was simply placed on a moratorium due to legal challenges. Secondly, the fact that an African-American man has the audacity to advocate for the death penalty when so many African-Americans were unjustly and unconstitutionally executed by the government in the years prior is mind boggling, and should clearly tell you that Mark Robinson isn’t standing up for the civil rights of anyone except the elite who he rubs shoulders with.

For my final point, let’s look at his statement to work with the General Assembly to enact a measure to require law enforcement to hold jail inmates thought to be in the country illegally and cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Let me make this plain and clear. The current system of holding aliens suspected of entering unlawfully for indeterminate periods of time is a violation of the due process of law guaranteed by the US Constitution, and extended to aliens, including illegal ones, by the Supreme Court. Any cooperation by state and local authorities should be viewed as a direct violation of their oaths to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and North Carolina.

In summary, while Mark Robinson hides his sadistic, authoritarian opinions behind a mask of "law and order" and models himself as "one of the people" it is clear to those who read between the lines that he is no better than Cooper, or Stein, or Harris, or Trump, and is just another power-hungry elite frothing at the mouth to crush the people of this great state beneath the boot of D.C. and Raleigh. I urge every North Carolina to vote for the only candidate that will push back against the tyrants in Raleigh and D.C.: Mike Ross!

#FiretheUniparty

by: Dan Johnson, LPNC

Much of politics is about predicting the future.

Choosing what issues to focus on, choosing who to reach out to, and choosing when to run for office have a bigger impact on your success as a candidate than all the hard work you can put in, and that gets worse the higher of an office you run for.

If you had correctly guessed that the mood of the country in 2016 would be righteous anger, a special hatred towards DC and its politicians, then you would have come out on top running a campaign that tapped into that anger. 

Likewise, if you had correctly guessed that the mood of the country in 2020 would be a disgust with chaos, a desire for a return to normalcy, and that the level of stress that the average American felt that was worse than the beneficial economic policies of the Don, your campaign would have gotten a major boost.

Most everyone, except rabid partisans, can see it when it is happening. Kamala Harris is rising, not because of her policies, positions, or a good debate performance, but because the country is so thrilled to not have a contest between two old men with dementia. Predicting it, however, gives you a chance to prepare your campaign to take advantage of it.

With that said, here are some Macro-Political trends Libertarians should be aware of.

There’s a cease-fire in American rhetoric, not a peace deal.

The Biden campaign in 2020 and the Harris campaign now have brought with them a seeming return to normalcy in politics. Both campaigns avoided touting radical progressive agendas and focused more on heartland issues. However, the normalcy is a mirage.

The issues underlying the Charlottesville, January 6th, and Black Lives matter protests and riots haven’t been resolved. The issues underlying the shooting of several at a Republican Congressional baseball game, including Rep. Steve Scalise, have not been resolved. The recent shooting of Donald Trump proves that.

You cannot resolve political violence without resolving the issues that caused it in the first place. Inflation is making American consumers pay 20-30% more just to live the life they lived 10 years ago. Online censorship is still rampant. Technology is still advancing fast. Once the hope fades and the underlying economics takes their toll, people will be angry again. And this time, they will burn even hotter, as revenge for the false hope that is being granted to them now.

Political tribalism is going to get worse, not better. 

Humans are naturally social creatures - to the extent that we find it difficult to work with others who don't share many similar values. The old bonds that held us together - nation, freedom, opportunity - they are no longer working. Less young people go to church, where they once got their values, than ever before. We are less tied into our neighbors and have less in common with them when we do talk.

Historically, we have gotten our social identity from two very large tribes, church and nation. With these two no longer being sufficient, a lot of people will default to their core political identity in other areas of their lives.

You already see this happening with for profit companies dedicated to one ideology (Ultra Right Beer, Angel Films), nonprofits (Mutual Aid Societies, LGBT-exclusionary adoption agencies) and you will see it more as the people someone is most comfortable with are those who share their political identity. 

You also see this with trends of where people choose to live. More than the economic opportunity, more than the natural beauty or the weather, politics is becoming how we decide where we live. As it becomes more a part of our core identity, it becomes more a part of making us, us.

Political identity is not going away, despite the rise of independent voters. Political identity is just transcending party.

We are transitioning from a Big/Small government divide to a Good/Bad government divide. 

This shift has been evident in the data for a while now. The National Citizenship Survey has asked people what it means to be a good citizen for decades. For the first few years of its life, it was clear that there was a strict divide in America between those who believed in big and those who believed in small government. I.e. Liberals and Conservatives.

However, millennials and other generations don’t see the government as inherently evil, or inherently good. We see the government as having a place, and being good at some things and being bad at others.

This means the old rhetoric of “government bad” appeals to a smaller, and smaller group of people.

We must instead recognize what government is bad *at* and present ways that those things can be addressed without using the force of the state. 

A perfect example is the Cajun Navy.

The Cajun Navy started as a ragtag band of Louisanans who were sick of FEMA leaving their people to die during floods. They took their shallow bottom boats and saved them, lots of them. When they helped their neighbors in Houston during Hurricane Harvey, they rescued over 3,000 people for 1/100th the price of the U.S. Coast Guard.

We need policies and practices that allow more Cajun Navies and less Hurricane Katrinas.

If you’d ask me, that's what Libertarians should be advocating for.

Dan Johnson was the Communications Director for the Lars Mapstead campaign, and is an active Libertarian in North Carolina, where he lives with his Fiance’ and two children, Alex and Leo (+1 on the way).

Mises Club of the Carolinas - Sugar Mountain 2024

by: Joshua D Glawson, LPNC Strategic Communications Adviser

August 9 through August 11, 2024, the Mises Club of the Carolinas met at Sugar Mountain Resort in Sugar Mountain, North Carolina. The discussions focused on sound money, education, and entrepreneurship in North Carolina, the United States, and the world.

The event, led by Kent Misegades, had a variety of speakers including some prominent libertarians, classical liberals, conservatarians, and conservatives. Those in attendance included Ulli Misegades, Paul Cwik (pictured below), Andrew Jochl, Franklin Sanders, Justin Sanders, Trey Carson, Jared Wall, Kerubo Wall, Winston Brady, Doug Newell, Mark Brody, Pierre Lawson, Ken Silva, Joshua D Glawson, Jim Brunner & The Walker Family (family of Bena Bien Greaves), and others.

Many others attended including an appearance by Bob Luddy, Robert Napolitano, Matthew Bianco, Vann Walters, Cheryl Nester, and more.

The family-friendly event was a success because it met all expectations and exceeded them by educating more people outside of the liberty sphere about the key topics of sound money (i.e. gold and cryptocurrency), education, and entrepreneurship. This Mises Club of the Carolinas conference had around 60 people in attendance - an audience filled with smiling faces and inquisitive minds.

For most people, they ae not necessarily intrigued by ideas of individual liberty, limited government, personal responsibility, and sound money. However, the Mises Club of the Carolinas does an excellent job of getting people of various backgrounds and interests together, starting a much-needed public dialogue, and sparking ideas of liberty in the minds of witnesses.

There may be political events that occur throughout the state that claim the name of “liberty,” but so far only the Mises Club fits the bill aside from the Libertarian Party of North Carolina.

In this article, I will tell you about three parts of the event that enjoyed. You can see the presentation slides here.

Starting off the event was yours truly, Joshua D Glawson (Strategic Communications Adviser of the LPNC), representing Money Metals Exchange and the Sound Money Defense League. These two organizations embody the philosophy of Mises and put his philosophy into human action. In this opening presentation, I discussed what sound money is, the failures of monetary policy by the Federal Reserve, and the success stories of the Sound Money Defense League in 2023 and 2024.

(From Left to Right: Franklin Sanders, Justin Sanders, Andrew Jochl, Joshua D Glawson, Trey Carson, Mark Brody)

I was also a part of the sound money panel discussion that was led by the liberty martyr and legend Franklin Sanders. This is a giant of a man who bravely stood up to government tyranny in the name of sound money and suffered through jail time because he refused to bow to the government’s tyrannical overreach and unconstitutional actions. One of the assistant US attorneys called Franklin Sanders, “The most dangerous man in the mid-south,” yet he was kind, intelligent, peaceful, and principled.

Another presentation I enjoyed was that of Ken Silva, an award-winning investigative reporter for Headline USA. Silva discussed a few of his findings over the years, including how the FBI starts various fringe groups (e.g. white supremacists, neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and various “hate groups”) to incite social instability, chaos, and violence all to entrap unsuspecting targets and build government power.

A third presentation that I enjoyed was that of Jared Wall of the Monroe, NC, area (pictured with his son, Ron Paul). Jared has been heavily involved in the Liberty Movement since the days of Ron Paul where he worked on Dr. Paul’s campaign and helped to edit works by Libertarian Institute’s Scott Horton. Jared’s wife, Kerubo, is a children’s book author, who also promotes ideas of liberty in her work. Together, they promote international entrepreneurship - in the U.S. and Kenya. The Walls’ presentation highlighted the importance of entrepreneurship, personal responsibility, and the liberty gained through these efforts.

The Mises Club Carolinas Meetup #10 - Sugar Mountain, NC - August 9-11, 2024, was a fantastic time and a great break from the summer heat. If you are interested in learning more about liberty in North Carolina, networking with liberty-minded professionals, and getting involved in the North Carolina liberty movement, I highly recommend attending a Mises Club of the Carolinas event. For more information visit the Mises Institute.

OpEd: The Mystery Surrounding Mark Robinson's Master Bait-and-Switch

- Rob Yates, Communications Director 

Coo, coo, ca-choo, Mr. Robinson

When we look back at the 2024 election season, I think the thing we'll remember the most is how we elevated our political discourse, as a country... just a bunch of engaged, well informed citizens having erudite and productive conversations about difficult issues in good faith. 

For example, late last week CNN reported that Mark Robinson, GOP candidate for NC governor - shout out to North Carolina, keepin' it real - at one time in his life was practicing to write graphic erotica, and drafted some material on that great keeper of information, the internet. 

As far as extraordinary political stories go, this one had it all. Robinson allegedly posted on the message board section of a porn site, Nude Africa, for a period of roughly five years starting in 2008. The story provides screen shots where the user, "minisoldr," which CNN claims is Robinson, called himself a black nazi, hated on jews, romanticized about trans porn, detailed a brief-but-specific history of peeping on women in the locker room shower, and wrote a lot of graphic descriptions of things he implies he was doing involving his wife's sister, her friend, and lots of body fluids, including a fair bit of golden showers because of course, we go hard in '24.

Fair warning, they are legitimately graphic. Read them or don't, it has exactly nothing to do with any policy positions. I read them (and, full disclosure, I couldn't stop laughing). If this must be the rhetorical battlefield on which we engage, so be it, I'd rather be armed.

From Slippery Slope to "Dookey Chute"

Writing something like this, I try to present the absurdity of it all without being biased to one "side" as perceived by people who still think there's a difference. I usually feel like this requires that I share my perspective on the actual situation to try and minimize any accusations of bias by opening myself up to scrutiny. I'm not taking sides, because y'all are the same to me, but I still have an opinion on the matter. In this case, I can say that I am 99.9+ percent confident that those screen shots were authentic Robinson. 

Much more importantly, I also don't care. The screen shots are almost 20 years old, ostensibly written by someone who was not harming anyone else, under a reasonable expectation of privacy (pour one out for 2000s internet). It's absurd to act like they somehow have relevance today. This is coming from someone who thinks Robinson is a terrible candidate and would make a terrible governor. (Seriously, y'all could've had Mike Ross, Dale Folwell, and Mike Morgan. You chose this.)

Robinson runs on a pretty hard right moralistic platform, so I realize that, if legit, this appears immensely hypocritical on Robinson's part. I think it's true that he's a hypocrite, for example when his entire political career was sparked by a speech defending the Second Amendment, and yet he's failed to defend constitutional carry as his party has cowered away from the issue. Libertarians showed up to push for HB 189, not Republicans and definitely not Robinson. We're used to it.

But messages on a porn site from decades ago? …roughly as relevant to my life as the type of milkshake a politician orders at Cook Out. So no, I don't care about the posts. This was barely even newsworthy, and certainly not worth the dramatic Thursday-afternoon buildup to the announcement. I strongly believe that, had Robinson completely ignored this, it would have been relegated to discussion by the Angry Online People, and nothing more, by today or tomorrow. 

Ruh Roh, Mark, Urine Trouble

What happened next, though, was that brilliant twist at which the writers of America: The Reality Show have been adept the last few years. Robinson’s response to all this was to go on CNN and deny the story, then release a video calling them all liars, and then double down on the "this is fake" response. Faster than you can say "they're eating the pets," the NC GOP put out a press release defending him and much of the electorate has joined in. 

I have seen some intense back and forth as to the authenticity of the screen shots. In fact, this might end up being good for Robinson's campaign, which is losing to Stein worse than Tammika Brents did to Fallon Fox. His base of supporters has rallied, and there were even some reports that his fundraising spiked over the weekend, though I haven't found any evidence to confirm that.

Think about that... Americans distrust the legacy media so much that it is immediately more plausible to them that the media made up this story than it is that Robinson, about whom we've recently also learned likes adults-only shops and abortions when he's the one they benefit, was writing bawdy stuff on a porn site decades ago. In a vacuum, the evidence seems to point one way. When the story comes from CNN, though, it creates an ad hominem strong enough for a big chunk of people to instantly find "it was fake" the higher likelihood. And, to be fair, I get it.

Seriously, is there anyone reading this who would be surprised to find out it was made up? CNN has been a constant source of misinformation, disinformation, fabrication, misdirection, hyperbole, panic-pimping, prevarication, slander, propaganda, and outright lies for as long as Mark Robinson has been an aspiring adult-themes author. Further, CNN’s "it's complicated" relationship status with the truth has been decidedly one-sided, and it isn't the side Robinson is on.

Don't Piss on My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining

I mean, it would be oddly specific if it was fraudulent, for sure. The part that would impress me the most is that whoever made the hoax found a writer who combines the Marquis de Sade's focus on celebrating love with the poignant empathy for the plight of humanity typically associated with Rudolf Jung, all built on top of a powerful narrative voice, eloquent in a unique simplicity wistfully reminiscent of Wesley Willis. 

And impressive for the creative team behind this great illusion to find his virtual alter ego and use that on the forged screen shots which it was then able to retroactively drop into a message board. And then planting his email address in the old Ashley Madison dump - absolute stroke of genius. Personally, I would love to have some of this digital time travel equipment.

Mark Robinson is not a lifelong politician, so when he had his not-so-wild sex parties, he didn't have the power of the federal government behind him to help hide it. His failure was not what he did (or didn't do...), it was taking too long to sell his soul to the machine. I can't blame him for that. 

A Steady Stream of News

Since the original disclosure by CNN and Robinson's tacit denial, the story has not gotten less weird. Almost his entire campaign staff quit. Then a convicted felon – for telecommunications-based voter fraud (read the story, it’s as awful as you’re thinking) – claimed to be his new campaign manager, a claim Robinson's campaign denied. The Republican Governor’s Association has stopped funding ads for Robinson in North Carolina, and several high-profile Republicans have withdrawn their support or distanced themselves from him.

For those keeping score, he also apparently asked internet sleuths not to investigate the claims on his behalf, although internet sleuths did turn up some further information that is potentially damaging to his position of being the victim of a Clarence-Thomas-style "cyber lynching." Now, Robinson has hired a law firm to investigate the claims made by CNN and defend him against them. And, most recently (as of finishing writing this Wednesday evening – I have redrafted it like 11 times as new developments come to light), much of his Lieutenant Governor staff has dipped out as well.

There are some who will see him hiring a law firm as proof that the story is, in fact, a fabrication. I think it’s a guarantee that we will know nothing new until after the election, at which point this will go away regardless. But that’s really the point, isn’t it? It’s all about the distraction.

A former president and current candidate was the subject of back-to-back assassination attempts, one of which made it unnervingly close to succeeding, but we don't talk about that. We do talk about Haitians eating pets, and that feels like we chose the serious topic. In fact, it's right up there with Kamala's brat, and Taylor Swift's endorsement, and the Olympic opening ceremony, and what song the Foo Fighters licensed (p.s. Dave, congrats?), and what candidate pretended to be in the military, and now what Mark Robinson wrote in a porn blog 15 years ago, or any of the other absurd things we're told are life or death, none of which have any bearing on how these people will operate in office. 

As far as the screen shots go, I find it hard to assign any meaningful importance to them in regards to the actual governor's race. However, if they were fabricated to influence the race, that is a big enough deal to put you in jail in the People’s Republic of California under Gavin Newsome.

Kidding aside, the accusation that this was fabricated is major. If CNN either went to great lengths to fake this oddly specific story that doesn’t take much of a leap of faith to believe, or even just failed to perform any due diligence before reporting something totally false, we should expect it to be the final curtain call for a network that is roughly as popular as inflation, I would be the first to admit I was wrong on all counts, and Josh Stein better be the loudest voice calling for heads to roll.

But, if Robinson is lying – and make no mistake, if those are his screen shots, then what he is doing is straight-up looking you in the eye and brazenly lying – then he belongs on the scrap heap of discarded North Carolina scumbag politicians, right next to John "don't worry, she'll be gone soon" Edwards, and I would expect Republicans to be at vanguard of putting him out to pasture while admitting they put party over principle and were ultimately wrong.

I look forward to a series of escalations and screeching from both sides over this issue before never getting resolution.

The Ridiculous Saga of Naked Corruption Continues

by Rob Yates
LPNC Communications Director

Over the past few months, three new parties - the Constitution Party, the Justice For All (JFA) party, and the We The People (WTP) party - collected the required number of signatures to gain recognition and ballot access in North Carolina. The North Carolina State Board of Elections (NCSBE) approved the Constitution Party - ostensibly a right-leaning party, and also the WTP party - which is the party for RFK Jr in North Carolina, while rejecting the JFA party - the party under which Cornell West is running for president.

The NCSBE comprises three Democrats and two Republicans. Under the current rules, the Governor's party gets to pick three of the members. Cooper is, of course, a Democrat. No unaffiliated members are on the NCSBE, despite unaffiliated voters making up the largest block in NC, nor are there any Libertarians or Greens on the NCSBE, the other two parties recognized in NC at the beginning of this year. Our government is loathe to actually resemble the people of North Carolina. 

In fact, just last year, Cooper used the courts to fight an attempt by Republicans to increase the number of members to eight, with four members from each major party. He then fought a lawsuit brought by five unaffiliated voters seeking representation on the board. The "party of democracy" seems to have serious concerns with a government that represents anything but its interests. 

Using the Elections Board and the courts to hoard power is a go-to in the playbook for the North Carolina Democrats. In 2022, the NCSBE tried to keep the Green Party and Senate candidate Matthew Hoh off the ballot, despite their petition having the required number of approved and confirmed signatures. The Green Party candidate was viewed as potentially taking votes from the Democrats, and several people reported receiving harassing phone calls asking them to remove their signatures from the petition.

Publicly, the NCSBE claimed that they were concerned about fraudulent signatures. The courts disagreed, and Matthew Hoh gained ballot access while the NC Dems received a strong rebuke for their meritless legal wrangling. The North Carolina Democrats were even further embarrassed this year, when courts awarded the Green Party damages for the Dems' "frivolous" efforts. 

History repeats itself, and the NCSBE this year delayed the votes on recognizing parties that might hurt Democrat candidates, this time the JFA and WTP parties. While reports once again surfaced of harassing phone calls targeting people who signed the petition, the board cited fears of fraudulent signatures and alleged that the two parties were circumventing rules surrounding independent candidates on the ballot (the signature threshold is nearly six times higher for an independent candidate than for a new party to be recognized) as the reasons for delaying the vote and eventually denying the JFA party. 

Both this year and in 2022, Democrat super lawyer Marc Elias, known for filing suits all around the country to help Democrats hoard power so aggressively that he was fired by the Biden campaign, and the Elias Law Group were the face and the finance driving the push to prevent competition. This year, Clear Choice Action superPAC brought some out-of-state money to the fight as well. Together, they sent at least five letters to the NCSBE encouraging them to reject the JFA and WTP applications under nearly the exact same imaginary concerns as two years ago. 

After delaying the vote, the NCSBE eventually would approve the Constitution Party and the WTP party, while rejecting the petition from the JFA party. But this saga is far from over.

After the NCSBE rejected their petition, the JFA party filed a federal lawsuit against the board alleging violation of their constitutional rights and seeking ballot access. In a twist straight out of 2022, however, the North Carolina Democrat Party has also filed a lawsuit against the board and against the WTP party, seeking to have RFK removed from the ballot. The actions of the board and the NC Dems have drawn scrutiny and review from the NC General Assembly and from federal lawmakers. The board did not take action on the lawsuits in its most recent meeting.

The first hearing on the JFA's lawsuit was Tuesday. The Libertarian Party of North Carolina (LPNC) has been engaged in this from the beginning, including a letter from our State Chair, Ryan Brown, signed by 22 leaders from six other parties, calling on the NCSBE to recognize all three parties in the name of fairness and representative government. When they rejected the other two parties, we called for the resignation of the three Democrats on the board. That letter and our related press releases are linked below. We will keep you updated as we have more information or further involvement. 

• LPNC Expresses Strong Disagreement with the NCSBE Decision - Press Release on the June 26 Meeting
• Application to Recognize Three New Parties in North Carolina - Letter from LPNC State Chair Ryan Brown, signed by more than twenty leaders from six different NC parties
  
• LPNC Expresses Strong Disagreement with the NCSBE Decision, Redux, Calls for Resignations - Press Release on the July 9 Meeting
  

LPNC State Chair Ryan Brown discusses the NCSBE decision on the Pete Kaliner show

by Dr. Mike Munger
Duke Professor of Political Science, former LPNC Governor Candidate, and current LPNC Candidate

Read the full article on the American Institute for Economic Research

We seem to be moving towards a wealth tax. At least, there is a growing consensus on one side of the political spectrum that a wealth tax is "needed" — politician-speak for "bad idea that I want to do anyway."

Interestingly, the need for a wealth tax is not primarily the need for revenue, a way to reduce the exploding deficit. That would at least have some tenuous connection to reality, though it would still be a bad idea. The argument for a wealth tax is fairness; as far back as 2008, candidate Barack Obama famously said the quiet part out loud, and strongly advocated for increased taxes on capital gains, even if it explicitly meant that tax revenues declined.

I have written before about some of the reasons that wealth taxes are a problem. The notion of "social justice," and the unique position of the state as controller of coercion, are somehow supposed to justify theft of accumulated savings, even after the owner of the wealth paid his or her taxes on the income. The logic is eternal: "You have something left over? Give us some! And next year, too, until you have nothing."

The difference between an income tax, or consumption/transactions tax, and a wealth tax, is important. The first two are taxes on what economists call flows, activities that are defined over a time period. Income, or consumption spending, is a movement of value, and taxing those movements (flows) is a way of collecting revenue from the working of the system.

Wealth is different, because wealth is the accumulation of income I already paid taxes on...

Article continues on the AIER website.

Mike Munger is a Professor of Political Science, and Director of the PPE Certificate Program, at Duke University. Munger's most recent book, The Sharing Economy, was published in 2021 by the Institute for Economic Affairs.

Written by AI, and checked and updated by Joshua Glawson, LPNC Strategic Communications Adviser

Watch the video: The History of Gold in North Carolina

North Carolina has a profound and storied history with gold and sound money, a legacy that has influenced its economic policies and cultural heritage.

This history is punctuated by the first gold rush in North America, the pioneering Bechtler Mint, and the establishment of the Charlotte Mint.

To fully appreciate this rich past, it's essential to understand what sound money is and its relevance to North Carolina's economic development.

What is Sound Money?

According to Jp Cortez of the Sound Money Defense League, sound money refers to a currency that maintains its value over time and is not subject to significant fluctuations in purchasing power. This stability is achieved by tying the currency's value to a physical commodity, such as gold or silver, which has historical value.

Sound money is considered trustworthy and reliable because it is less susceptible to inflation and government manipulation compared to fiat money, which has no true historical value and is subject to changes in value based on governmental policies and economic conditions.

Early Gold Discoveries and the First Gold Rush

North Carolina's association with sound money began with the first gold rush in North America. In 1799, Conrad Reed, a 12-year-old boy, discovered a 17-pound gold nugget in Cabarrus County. This discovery set off a gold rush that spread through several counties, including Cabarrus, Mecklenburg, and Union. By the early 1800s, gold mining had become a significant industry in North Carolina, second only to agriculture.

The gold rush not only brought wealth to the state but also highlighted the need for a reliable and stable form of currency. This need was partially met by the establishment of private mints, which played a crucial role in the production of sound money.

The Bechtler Mint: A Pioneer of Sound Money

One of the most notable contributions to sound money in North Carolina came from the Bechtler Mint. Christopher Bechtler, a German immigrant, established a private mint in Rutherfordton in 1831. The Bechtler Mint was revolutionary because it produced the first gold dollar coins in the United States, 18 years before the U.S. Mint began producing them.

The Bechtler Mint was instrumental in providing a local and reliable source of gold coinage, which helped maintain economic stability in the region. By offering a trusted and convenient way to convert gold into coins, the Bechtler Mint ensured that gold miners and traders could engage in commerce without the risks and delays associated with transporting gold to the Philadelphia Mint.

The Charlotte Mint: Federal Recognition of North Carolina’s Gold

The success of the Bechtler Mint and the thriving gold mining industry in North Carolina prompted the U.S. government to establish a branch of the U.S. Mint in Charlotte in 1835. The Charlotte Mint exclusively produced gold coins until its closure at the onset of the Civil War in 1861. This federal recognition underscored North Carolina’s importance in the national gold market and its role in promoting sound money.

Joshua D. Glawson and Sound Money in North Carolina

Joshua D. Glawson, a writer of economics, politics, philosophy, and more, has extensively covered the concept of sound money and its historical context in North Carolina. Glawson emphasizes that sound money is crucial for economic stability and prosperity. He argues that North Carolina's early adoption of gold-backed currency and private mints like the Bechtler Mint exemplifies the benefits of a sound money system.

In his writings, Glawson points out that sound money policies helped North Carolina maintain economic stability and foster growth during the 19th century. He also highlights the importance of returning to principles of sound money in modern economic policy to avoid the pitfalls of inflation and currency devaluation that plague fiat money systems.

Conclusion

North Carolina's history with sound money is a testament to the state's innovative and forward-thinking approach to economic stability

From the first gold rush to the pioneering efforts of the Bechtler Mint and the establishment of the Charlotte Mint, North Carolina has played a significant role in promoting sound money principles.

Today, the insights of economists like Joshua D. Glawson remind us of the importance of these principles in ensuring long-term economic prosperity and stability.

*Editor's Note: Article originally posted here on LinkedIn

by Rob Yates
LPNC Communications Director

The immigration debate has reached a fever pitch lately, and promises to be a key issue in the upcoming election on a federal, state, and local level.

Statistics show that immigrants tend to commit slightly less crime than native born Americans, although that research can go several ways depending on who conducts it and how the statistics are interpreted. There have also been some heinous crimes committed by undocumented people in the United States lately, a few of the most high-profile committed by criminals set free by overzealous DAs or judges.

The problem we face when confronting the issue of immigration is the immediate tendency by many having the discussion to group all immigrants together. This sort of collectivist thought is, admittedly, the root of so many of our disagreements and unaddressed social problems, but it is particularly misleading in the immigration debate, as there are as many varied people trying to come into the United States as there are living here. Not all immigrants are violent criminals, nor are all immigrants future studious pillars of society.

None of this should matter, and a free market would provide answers to this question, but we are far from that rational approach. In the meantime, we see how the fear mongering leads to people willing to weaponize the state against peaceful individuals.

Just recently, someone posted on X / Twitter that s/he saw a woman selling flowers on the side of the road and called the police after ascertaining (according to the post) that the woman selling flowers was an "illegal" immigrant (picture above). Someone else followed up in response to the two brilliant tweets (posted below) by the Wake County LP, seeking my thoughts, which I provided online, but wanted to expand on here.

The person who followed up does not appear to be anti-immigrant, but does appear to favor relatively strict border controls, and made an interesting argument about private property rights and how they are analogous to sovereign border rights. Specifically, he noted that it would be a significant violation of one's property rights if someone else planted crops, harvested them, and sold the goods on private property without the permission of the owner of that property.

In my response, I noted that I am for mostly open borders. I believe we first need to eliminate the welfare state entirely, so anyone who comes here must make it on his/her own. I recognize and respect the Radicals' "No Particular Order" position. However, I find it counterproductive and potentially dangerous to grant huge additional incentives, in the form of the welfare state, for people to immigrate beyond the opportunity that our country provides (or at least used to provide before the last two jackasses in office sent us into a hyperinflationary economic environment). The backlash from significantly open border policies in conjunction with the enticement of American welfare, I think, would do long-lasting harm to the push to make peaceful exchange between all willing parties the norm. 

Further, it's ridiculous to take money from people like you and me, who are working hard to earn it and suffering from the economic malfeasance of the last 20 (well, really the last 111) years, and give it to people for simply coming here. That's theft, and those politicians should be in jail. We need to remove those incentives so that all immigrants, and everyone else, are operating from a roughly level playing field.

At that point, I support the "Ellis Island" solution. Let's know who's coming in and work to keep out the bad people. I believe that one of the few proper roles of the state is to protect the borders from aggressors and malign actors. Beyond that, if I, for example, want to invite someone to come stay at my house from another country, the government should have virtually zero insight or input into that decision (though they know all about it now because traitor Republicans and traitor Democrats like Greg Murphy and Jeff Jackson - there's no difference between the two, it's time to #FiretheUniparty - voted for warrantless spying in FISA 702).

Certainly, it would be a gross violation of my property rights for someone else to plant crops on my land without my permission. Further, I respect and agree with - to an extent - the argument about sovereign borders as an analogy. But my property, with defined borders and clear ownership, should not change without voluntary exchange for me to either gain more property or grant someone else ownership (though, as an aside, we need to completely eliminate property tax and eminent domain, and actually enforce the 4th amendment against cops to make this a reality).

On the flipside, who "owns" the territory inside a sovereign border changes depending on how you look at it, and there are levels of implied ownership. Do you "own" the United States if you're a citizen? What if you aren't, but you're here "legally" and you pay taxes? What if you aren't "legal" but you pay taxes? What if you are an expat, but still a tax-paying citizen?

The issue is complicated. There's a line somewhere, and the left has crossed it in what I see as a virtue signal to their poorly informed "anti-colonizer" contingent. Leftist judges and prosecutors letting violent criminals walk is abhorrent, and another argument for getting rid of qualified immunity.

But the right has crossed its own Rubicon when it comes to aggressive anti-immigrant sentiment and violent reactions to peaceful people. I mean, seriously, going after a peaceful person for selling flowers? Calling the cops on that person... That action implies that the state is morally justified to exert its monopoly on violence over peaceful, voluntary commerce. If that person is existing without hurting anyone or taking their stuff, it's no one else's concern what that person is doing. The person selling flowers wasn't damaging any property. And if I choose to spend my money in a voluntary exchange for those flowers, that's also no one else's concern.

The person who called the cops in this case had the same energy as people who call the cops on kids selling lemonade. But I honestly don't blame this person, Karen-ish behavior and all. I blame a political environment that embraces fear-mongering and hatred, and seeks to turn us against each other and place our reliance on a political class that promises to protect us from the horrors of immigrants, or gays, or guns, or Christians, or whatever boogeyman has been selected to drive fear and lead the country to abandon the principles of Liberty and embrace the violence of the state.

We are a nation of immigrants. There are good among us, and there are those who commit evil, just as is the case with every group of humans. Instead of turning our fear and violence against people who mostly come to the United States seeking the same promise and opportunity that we enjoy, let's look to the political class that takes away this promise with every move they make.

by Dr. Mike Munger
Duke Professor of Political Science, former LPNC Governor Candidate, and current LPNC Candidate

Reprinted from Fusion

I am a Libertarian. Capital "L," member of the Party, frequent candidate, activist, and contributor of campaign funds.

Some of my economist friends mock voting, since "it doesn’t matter." Another topic, for another time; let's suppose we agree that I am going to vote. There is still a question: for whom? Many folks feel strongly that I should "vote the LOTE."

LOTE is "the lesser of two evils." In an election between an awful candidate, and a once-in-a generation, apocalyptically terrible candidate, one should vote for the candidate who is merely awful. Anthony Downs called this the "net candidate differential," and thought it was a key to explaining election turnout and vote decisions.

I disagree. It seems to me that if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are endorsing evil. The cliché answer is always that "this election is the most important of our lifetime!" Sure, because you sheep keep voting for evil. I understand that my binary "evil/not evil" is not very helpful, when there are degrees of evil. But we have greater moral obligations than simply passively accepting whatever garbage the electoral system serves up.

Look: We "live in a two-party system" because of First Past the Post voting, and Duverger's Law. I put that in quotes because, despite teaching political science at universities for 40 years I’m often told that we "live in a two-party system," as if that has some moral significance. I understand that if you have never studied any formal political science—perhaps you are an economist, but you have "done a lot of reading on Reddit" - that this argument feels persuasive to you.

We do not have a two-party system. What we have is a system that is likely to have two effective parties, in any given election, because people don’t want to "waste their vote" on a candidate who has little chance of winning. But there is a world of difference between the following two situations:

1. After surviving strong competition, from free entry, the two best and most representative parties contest elections, and most people vote for the candidates who run under those two-party banners; and after finding contested elections, with new points of view and candidates who criticize the status quo, to be inconvenient, lazy intellectuals simply dictate that only two parties are allowed to run. That is, voters are free to vote for the candidate of their choice, but we will tell them what their choices are.
2. The second situation represents the current U.S. system. Only the two remarkably corrupt state-sponsored parties are allowed to participate. Neither of them could survive actual competition, and neither of them is capable of advancing a candidate that would have a chance of beating a roadkill possum if elections were actually open.

In January, Gallup released a poll on Presidential preferences that was, frankly, remarkable. To make sure I won't be accused of misrepresenting, here is the money quote describing the findings: "Less than a third of Americans say they would be willing to vote for someone nominated by their party who is over the age of 80 or has been charged with a felony or convicted of a felony by a jury."

That's great news, because it means that neither party can win a majority in November! Neither of these two corrupt clowns can win!

Not so fast, Chester. Lazy intellectuals on both the left and the right find actually persuading people to be tedious, and frankly beneath their august persons. We’ll simply have "rules" that limit the allowable votes to two parties. I understand that these intellectual economists and other scholars, who have no understanding of political institutions, think that they own my vote. Unfair? They accuse my party, the Libertarians, of "stealing" votes from their favored candidates (the superannuated drug warrior and the unrepentant felon, the very people that Gallup found people don't want to vote for, remember!). Votes don’t belong to voters, they belong to parties! Who knew?

That's nonsense, of course. The truth is that the very fact people are willing to vote for Chase Oliver, the Libertarian nominee for President, means that they are dissatisfied with the "take it or leave it!" tactics of the state-sponsored duopoly. The corruption of the state-sponsored machines is so grotesque that I no longer see any important difference between them. Sure, the particular catastrophe that will ensue is different if Biden wins, compared to if Trump wins, but both outcomes are catastrophes.

But suppose you don’t buy my claim that the two candidates represent different, but equally calamitous, outcomes. Suppose you think one candidate is much, much worse than the other. For example, my friends on the right, even people who until recently pretended to value liberty, tell me is that Joe Biden is an existential threat, and that I (and my Libertarian allies) "must" vote for Trump.

I have two responses: First, my vote will not determine the outcome. If you want my "emergency" vote, you’ll need to provide a candidate who sucks less.

Second, it is possible that Libertarian votes as a group will determine the outcome (I certainly hope so!). Early polling shows that third party candidates will take three times as many votes from Biden than from Trump. I'm not a Trump fan, but I’m okay with Oliver causing Trump to win, because if the Democrats want my "emergency" vote they will need to suck less, also. But the point is that having a Libertarian candidate, and having Chase actively campaign, in many states, may end up helping Trump.

Two-thirds of Americans said they didn’t want to vote for a dotard or a convict. Telling me I have to vote for one of those debauched caitiffs doesn’t pass the laugh test. It’s my vote, my only precious tool for protesting this disastrous forced choice.

Mike Munger is a Professor of Political Science, and Director of the PPE Certificate Program, at Duke University. Munger's most recent book, The Sharing Economy, was published in 2021 by the Institute for Economic Affairs.