Volume 4, Issue 1 | February 2025
|
|||||
"When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles." -Frank Herbert, Children of Dune |
|||||
In this issue…
|
From the ChairI haven't written one of these in a few months. I hope everyone took advantage of some downtime to rest, relax, and recharge. I missed you all, and I am excited about the big 2025 we have planned at the LPNC. Things are starting to pick up. First, I hope you and your loved ones were able to stay safe and warm during the recent snowstorm. Parts of North Carolina got more snow this winter than they have in decades, but spring is around the corner, and we have exciting events to announce with the pending thaw. The 2025 Libertarian Party of North Carolina State Convention is just a few months away, and we can’t wait to gather with all of you in May. This convention is an important opportunity for us to come together, celebrate our accomplishments, and get excited about the path forward for liberty in North Carolina. I encourage you to sign up today at https://www.lpnc.org/2025_lpnc_convention and be a part of this great event. We have some new things planned, and old favorites, and it promises to be a fantastic gathering with speakers, workshops, and discussions that will set the stage for the coming year. This convention, members will elect seven people to serve on the Executive Committee for the next two years - Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, and four At-Large. We will also elect five people to serve on the Judicial Committee for the next two years. It has been my honor to serve as your chair for the last two years, and I recently announced that I would be seeking that privilege again at Convention in May. The work of the EC is often behind the scenes, reflected in the success of our staff, our candidates, and our affiliates. Watching these successes is fulfilling and rewarding, and I encourage everyone to consider throwing their names in the hat, either to run against me or to run for one of the other roles. If you are interested but unsure, please, reach out, and I can answer your questions or connect you with the right person. We are coming off a historic election year for the LPNC, garnering over a million votes total, with several candidates gaining more than 20 percent of the vote in their respective races, margin-breaking races that prevented one-party rule in Raleigh, and the most state-level candidates of any third party in the U.S. by far. Now we are focused on building on that success in 2025. With local elections on the horizon, we are also looking for individuals who are ready to step up and run for office. Whether you’re thinking of running for a local board, city council, or another position, we need candidates who are committed to advancing Liberty and putting the people first. If you are interested in learning more or wish to express your interest in running, please don't hesitate to reach out to us at [email protected]. Please also make sure you’re going to your local meetings already so you know what to talk to voters about! As we gear up for these elections, it’s important to remember that the success of the Libertarian Party relies on the strength of our community. We need volunteers, supporters, and advocates who are ready to make a difference. Whether you can volunteer your time, donate, or simply spread the word, your involvement helps us continue to push for smaller government, more individual freedom, and greater personal responsibility. Thank you for your continued support and dedication to the principles of liberty. We here at the LPNC greatly appreciate your support. Let’s continue to work together to make North Carolina a better place for all its residents. Here’s to a strong year ahead -Ryan Brown, LPNC Chair |
||||
Upcoming EventsLPNC 2025 Annual State ConventionFriday, May 16 - Sunday, May 18, 2025Hello everyone! The Convention Committee is planning to host a larger Silent Auction in Clemmons, NC, due to its manageability and success in 2024. We will pump the brakes on the traditional Live Auction for 2025. If that wasn't enough of a plot twist for you, then sit tight a little longer! The Convention Committee is issuing a new challenge to each County Affiliate with a goal of beating out their peers for the best basket donation. The affiliate whose donation raises the most money for the Auction, will earn bragging rights in the Newsletter and in the Post Convention Report, with the hope that this will be a fun rivalry each year. All donations will be final. Silent Auction Organizers will not coordinate returning donation items. Auction Organizers will use their discretion to fundraise and acquire the highest bids possible for all donations. All donations are greatly appreciated. Each donation provided will come with a suggested starting bid amount and also a suggested retail value so each bidder knows the value of the contents of the basket. Baskets must also come with a list of contents. WHAT IS A SILENT AUCTION?A silent auction is a usually a multi-day fundraising event where people place bids on items without speaking. Silent auctions are often used by schools, nonprofits, and other organizations.
Great Auction Ideas:
Event Contact: Angela Humphries 919-395-7224 |
|||||
Trevor's Takes
Welcome to Down South Salvation! I’m thrilled to have you join this community where we explore the depths of Christian faith and the enduring impact of orthodoxy in today’s world. Here’s what you can look forward to as a subscriber:
I hope this space becomes a source of encouragement and inspiration for you as we navigate the complexities of faith together. Whether you're here for theological insights, personal growth, or to engage with a broader faith community, there’s something for everyone at Down South Salvation. Thank you again for subscribing – I can’t wait to share more with you! Blessings, |
|||||
Thankful for North Carolinaby 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. Even in fields where North Carolina is second in the country including Christmas trees, hogs, and turkeys, there is plenty 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. |
|||||
How We Subsidize Corporate Farm Monopoliesby: 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:
Farm subsidies in the U.S. are distributed through various programs, primarily managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA):
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.
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. |
|||||
Civility PleaseLetter to the Editor, published in the Winston-Salem Journal on February 14 (paywall) by: Steve Feldman, LPNC Have you bought into one of the cults that would have you believe folks on the other side wan tto kill babies or control women’s bodies? That their goal is for our kids not to have a great education? Would you label the other side as oligarchs or elitists or believe that the other half of the American population supports tyranny and abuse? We aren’t going to make Americans healthier by sowing anger, discord, more stress and higher blood pressure. Instead of demonizing the other half of the country, let’s be civil when we disagree about policy. Let’s try to convince the other side that the pregnant woman is or isn’t carrying a human life, or that our public schools are or are not a better way to educate our kids than giving parents more school choice. Perhaps we can be healthier, both individually and as a society, if we recognize the folks on the other side care as much as we do but simply have different policy ideas on how to make things better. Perhaps a letter-to-the-editor policy could be implemented that discourages people from spewing unfounded venom about what the other side believes or wants to do to destroy the country and that encourages positive statements about what the letter writer believes would make things better. Steve Feldman is not just one of our Liberty warrior candidates or an accomplished doctor. He is also an author, and his new book, Bent Toward Justice, is available so hurry up and get your copy! |
|||||
NCGA Proposes Series of Bills - Guns and Taxes, LPNC Quick Reactionby: Ryan Brown, LPNC Chair During the first week of the North Carolina General Assembly session there were a significant number of bills filed. I took a look at a few of them and will rate them, according to our platform and beliefs. If you guys like this type of article, let us know and we’ll keep it up. Today we’re going to keep it short and do a quick writeup on five bills: HB5, HB9, HB11, HB14, and HB28. GunsFirst up, there were three gun-related bills, two of which were pretty good, and one not great, or superfluous, at best. First up was HB 5 - NC Constitutional Carry Act introduced by Representative Keith Kidwell (REP) and sponsored by another two dozen representatives. Overall, it is a good bill but still includes some disappointing things. It keeps the requirement to notify officers you’re carrying and provide an ID. If not, you’re guilty of a crime. It keeps the stipulation that you are committing a crime if you are carrying and have a single drink out at dinner with your family. And it fails to lift the ban on students or visitors carrying or owning a weapon on college campuses. Regardless, we’d support passage of this bill. On net, it is a reduction of gun laws in North Carolina. Next, we have HB 9 - Firearm Discharge/Preempt Local Ordinance, also introduced by Representative Keith Kidwell (REP). This bill seems like a response to local governments trying to mandate how people are allowed to exercise their right to self-defense on their own property. This is a short and clear bill restricting local governments and protecting property rights. We strongly support this bill. Finally, HB28. The Gun Violence Prevention Act was introduced by Representative Jennifer Balkcom (REP). While the intentions of this act seem good, it has no provisions to actually try and prevent gun violence. All the act does is make it extra illegal for people to commit crimes with a gun. North Carolina needs fewer gun laws. Making crime extra illegal isn’t going to help anyone. Go to the Liberty and Legislation page to read our reaction to the bills concerning taxes. |
|||||
LP in NC
|
|||||
OpEd: To my Friends in the Libertarian Partyby: Paul Darr, LP National Vice Chair
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.
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. |
|||||
Why the Libertarian Party is Different...
...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.
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. If we fail to unite, we will be divided and conquered, and 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. |
|||||
Meeting Ricardo in the StablesBlast from the Pastby 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. |
|||||
Liberty BabesLiberty Babes (@LibertyBabesX) is using the power of AI to create Liberty warriors and spread freedom messaging. Now, with Tar Heel exclusives:
"The unfettered autonomy of individuals and minimal government intrusion serve as the catalysts for prosperity, where free markets become the incubators of innovation and self-determination paves the way for boundless potential." - @LibertyBabesX |
|||||
2A TalkThe AR-15 IS a Weapon of War: Which is Why It is Perfect for Youby: Justin Hinckley, 2A Issues Coordinator For some reason, the AR-15 finds itself a constant target of the anti-gun crowd. The AR-15 is now the single most popular model of privately owned firearm in the US, according to the National Sports Shooting Foundation (1). For those of us who want Americans to have the best tools available to defend themselves, their home, and their families, this is fantastic news. For those who want to ban the AR-15, this is awful news. After all, why do we want to have access to “weapons of war?” This may be a difficult question to answer if you are presented with it for the first time, as the framing of this question is meant to imply that if you support AR-15 ownership, you must be wanting to turn America’s streets into a war zone. Or maybe just to imply that mass AR-15 ownership will or, perhaps already has, turn those streets into a war zone. The AR-15 may be a weapon of war (irrelevant); it is also the best tool for your protection, particularly in your home. Whether or not the AR-15 is a weapon of war is a largely pointless question with a mainly semantic answer. Anti-gunners largely answer the question with a resounding yes, pointing out that the military uses AR-15s everyday. Follow this answer up with a question seeking any additional depth and you will quickly find out that “weapon of war” is purely a propaganda term meant to demonize an inanimate object. That said, the term is factually correct, if we take it purely to mean a weapon currently used in warfare. Nevermind the refrain about how many handguns, bolt-action rifles, shotguns, or even knives are also weapons of war by that loose definition. AR-15 variations are used in war all around the globe and are the favored firearm of the most effective killing machine in the modern era: The US military. The US military, despite being a corrupt back-scratching and palm-greasing cabal, does still factor in utility and effectiveness into decision-making. The AR-15 is used often in war because it combines many of the best features of other firearms into one package, while doing many of those things better than others. It is lightweight, accurate, fires an effective round out to intermediate distances, has a high ammo capacity, low recoil, good ergonomics, and great modularity. A new shooter can learn basic operations and hit targets out to 100 yards in about 1 day. A week of instruction can have the shooter performing intermediate skills and completing complex shooting drills in a matter of seconds. Perhaps the most compelling question around the weapon of war discussion is; do these benefits confer any advantages to private citizens? After all, if we decide to define weapon of war as a weapon that is ONLY useful in war then it might just be a useful term. A Patriot missile could largely be considered a weapon only useful in a war. The same could be said for Javelin anti-tank missiles, anti-personnel mines, M1 Abrams tanks, and Apache attack helicopters. All of these weapons have relatively narrow uses outside of warfare, if they were to be used in their traditional military configuration and armament. In contrast, the military M-4s can generally be taken off the rack of the armory and handed to a US homeowner with no modifications and be a useful tool for home defense. In fact, the government of Ukraine was doing that with AR-15s and their Russian equivalent, the AK-47, at the beginning of the Russian invasion (2). Let’s examine the specific features I listed above to determine how they offer advantages to US civilians. The feature I consider of utmost importance for the AR-15 as a defensive tool is the modularity of it. Not only can I decide between 30, 40, 60, or more rounds in my gun at one time, I can also easily change aiming optics, barrel lengths, grips, flashlights, and so many more. One of the difficulties in defining an AR-15 is also what makes it so popular; each one can be modified to suit the specific needs of each individual owner. Next we turn to the actual employment of the gun; ammunition capacity and ease of shooting. Ammunition capacity is great for the individual because most people don’t keep a stack of extra magazines with their defensive guns, meaning if you only have one magazine, you want as many rounds as possible. Ease of shooting breaks into recoil and ergonomics; the recoil is light enough that even non-gun people can tolerate it and gun people can put a full 30 round magazine on a single target in a matter of 3-5 seconds, depending on range. The ergonomics enable the shooter to operate the gun smoothly under pressure, such as operating the safety as part of your trigger pull (increasing safety overall), reloading the gun quickly due to the proximity of the bolt release to the hand as it inserts a new magazine, and finally the ability to do all basic gun operations without the firing hand ever leaving the gun, enabling quicker overall employment. The propaganda term weapon of war is not generally used to stir up engaging discussion. That said, if one decides to really engage with someone using the term, you may be able to demonstrate to observers just how shallow a thought is usually attached to it. Sure, the AR-15 is a weapon used in war but it is not a tool whose only use is in war. The same things that make it useful to the infantryman on the battlefield also makes it useful to the private citizen wishing to defend himself against aggressors. So, the next time someone decides to ruin Thanksgiving with their weapon of war rhetoric, ask them to explain what makes the AR-15 a weapon of war, and why those features disqualify it from civilian use.
|
|||||
Help WantedThe LPNC is seeking passionate and dedicated volunteers to join our team and play pivotal roles in advancing the cause of Liberty across North Carolina. To learn more about exciting volunteer opportunities, please visit our staff page at https://www.lpnc.org/staff. Your involvement can make a significant impact on the success of the LPNC, and we welcome individuals with diverse skills and backgrounds to join us in championing liberty in North Carolina. Take the next step in your commitment to liberty by becoming a vital part of the LPNC team. We look forward to welcoming you aboard! If you are interested in filling one of these positions, please email why you would be a good fit to Ryan Brown at [email protected]. |
|||||
Remember to Check Out Our StoreCheck out the latest LPNC merch to get ready for summer weather!
The LPNC store has it all, from clothes and hats, to buttons and stickers, tumblers, mugs, glasses, and more. Stop in and grab something! |
|||||
Meme of the WeekBy Stephen Sumner, LPNC Judiciary Committee
|
|||||
Liberty iNCYour source for all things Liberty in our great Tar Heel state.
Your rights, all the time. Nothing more, nothing less, no exceptions. Simple as that. Season 4 is in full swing, and we have had some great guests so far, including:
Plus, Dub Dub and Groo talk sports! If you want to assist with the show, be a guest, suggest a guest, or have any other comments or feedback, please, reach out to [email protected]. |
|||||
2A TalkThe Philosophy of Fuddby: Justin Hinckley, 2A Issues Coordinator I was inspired to write this article in response to the constant bleating during, but even after, the election around Tim Walz, his supposed masculinity, and his “support” for gun rights. The Harris campaign attempted to prop up this lie with an embarrassing hunting trip in which Walz had to learn how to load a shotgun, apparently for the first time. Tim Walz is an excellent manifestation of the archetype of the fudd. Fudds such as Walz love variations of the phrase “I support the 2nd Amendment but…” Walz has said some version of this phrase many times, usually with some mention of him being good at shooting a shotgun. It's like he's going for some super fudd title or something. The fudd is one of the most dangerous avatars in the gun rights debate. They always have been and this era is no different than when I first found myself entering the gun community 20ish years ago, with one notable exception. The fudd is no longer the standard-bearer for the pro-gun side. In fact, the modern fudd is currently relegated almost to a point of cultural irrelevance. A potent example of this is the hemorrhaging of members the NRA has seen since its peak of just over 5 million members around 2013. The NRA has long been known in the gun community as fudd central and in past eras was also the flagship gun rights organization. Yet under their leadership, we saw the creation and passage of major firearms restrictions such as the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act. To their credit, the NRA has spent considerable resources to temper such legislation and reduce the damage it causes. But this is a key component of fuddism as we will discuss below. They oversee only the shrinking of rights, and their victories are exclusively in slowing the wheel that grinds us to dust. They never break the wheel.
The primary issue with the fudd is not that they don't like guns, it's that their support for gun rights is based primarily on a hobbyist view and not based in a deeper philosophy about human rights. The fudd enjoying gun ownership as a neat hobby or means of providing food for their family is perfectly acceptable, but if your primary reason for owning a gun is cause it's neat or to avoid grocery stores, the restrictions on guns are actually perfectly acceptable. Alas, these reasons are distant considerations compared to the true purpose of gun ownership, or the bearing of arms. I am, of course, talking about the natural right of self preservation. This sacred right springs out of the idea that each person has inherent value as an agent of divinity itself. If we are created in the image of God, each of us is a sovereign being simply from our human nature. We are representatives of something higher, thus meaning our life has a value worth preserving. The firearm is an extension of the deeper philosophy of self-preservation, which is itself built on the idea of the human being with inherent value, rights, and responsibilities. If your support for gun rights is built on the above ideas, then knee-jerk, poorly planned gun restrictions get no support from you. The reason for this is simple; gun restrictions are barriers to the most effective means of self-preservation and ought to be rejected outright as an attack on the individual sovereignty of each of us. Even though a restriction may not affect you, it ought to be rejected in recognition of its effect it will have on others who are endowed with all the same rights as you. Even in this role as a gun rights supporter borne naturally out of being a human rights supporter, the philosophical gun owner, there is room for interpretation and individual variance. The difference is the philosophical gun owner will have certain restrictions they will not entertain. There is such a thing as too far for them. For those restrictions which could have merit, there is a starting point of rejecting proposed restrictions until such time that overwhelming evidence is brought to bear in support of their restrictions. And no, multitudes of biased, weak data making vast claims of causal certainty based on tenuous correlation is not overwhelming evidence. Fudds can be convinced of anything because they have no coherent moral reasoning around gun ownership. If you ask them about what they support, or ask them why they reject a new restriction, their justifications will be timid and shallow. As one makes the case for new restrictions, the fudd, considering the social factors of holding controversial views while also standing on no strong moral foundation, is likely to bend to the whims of the mob. This is the reason why fudds can be convinced to support anything, as long as enough people tell them they’re wrong. They won’t even have to present strong arguments to do so, just get a large group together. Which brings us to the threat posed by fudds. At best, fudds can be relied upon to be suspicious of new gun regulations. This is where the NRA and its resistance to new laws benefits the pro-gun movement. These people will slow roll and water down new gun laws as much as possible. The problem is this is as far as they will go. The NRA oversaw a century of increasing encroachment on our liberties and their fudd base was all too happy to celebrate their various pyrrhic victories. Today, with the gun rights banner being carried by the likes of the Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of America, and half a dozen smaller groups, we have actually increased gun rights. But even now, with huge strides being made in freedom, fudds continue to embrace concepts like universal background checks and red flag laws. Fudds like Walz continue to give anti-gun advocates someone to point to as the “good gun owner” who support “common sense” regulations. This obviously has no effect on philosophical gun owners, but it can convince the public at large. This is why we must neve let fudds carry the banner of gun rights ever again. We must also continue to convert fudds to be philosophical gun owners, we must teach them why self-preservation is an important concept and how guns fit into the overall morality of humanity. |
|||||
Support Your Fellow LibertariansPort City FirearmsOur very own Justin Hinckley, 2A Issues Coordinator, has opened an online store, and you don't want to miss it! Port City Firearms and Training
--- Non Crappy CraftsAngela Humphries is a free-spirited watercolor artist who lives by the calm, colorful waters of New Bern, North Carolina. With her loose, expressive strokes, she works to impress the magic of flora and fauna onto her canvases. Her lighthearted, whimsical mark making, infused with the inspiration of her surroundings, invites admirers to walk in nature to enjoy its beauty and magnificence. 
Angela is a member of the North Carolina Watercolor Society and enjoys working in the privacy of her small home studio. She shares more of her work in the digital realm on her greeting card creations. Her work may be discovered in New Bern, NC at the local Bank of the Arts Gallery, as well as the Nautical Star Coffee Shop and finally her online store via Etsy. --- Dr. Dan's Freedom Forum Radio
"The right to own private property that cannot be arbitrarily regulated or confiscated by the government is the moral and constitutional basis for individual freedom" Listen Live: Freedom Forum Radio Podcast: Freedom Forum Radio Podcast Index ---
|
|||||
|
|||||
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.
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 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.
To understand why the fudd is dangerous, we must first attempt to define him. Since the fudd is more of an archetype than a specific behavior or issue, the definition I'll give should be considered a flexible one. There are two basic criteria for being a fudd. First, fudds are gun owners. Second, fudds do not have a strong belief in the natural right of self-preservation. From here, the other things we note about fudds flow naturally. Fudds are often ok with restricting gun rights, as long as they think it won’t affect them. The fudd often rejects magazines holding more than 10 or 15 rounds, suppressors, AR-15s, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, night vision, body armor, automatic guns, optics on handguns, lights on handguns, and all sorts of other things. Sometimes this results in supporting legislation against such things, but it always CAN lead to supporting bans on such items because fudds are often only supportive of guns from a self-centered perspective. If I have no use for this thing, why does anyone need it?
Do you like this page?