As part of my near-zero budget campaign for NH Senate district 10, I’ve been posting my responses to various candidate surveys and questionnaires. Here are the latest ones I received this week.
First up, the Marijuana Policy Project’s survey, where I had to answer no to one of their questions about supporting regulation and taxation of cannabis. That’s because I’m against government control of cannabis in any way. I understand MPP is trying to lobby politicians and that’s why they propose such schemes to them. As a principled libertarian, while I’d vote for a tax-and-regulate bill if it were the only way to end prohibition, I don’t support taxes or regulations. I only support freedom, which means ending drug prohibition across the board and letting people grow, sell, possess, smoke, and distribute cannabis without annoying and restrictive government licenses.
Next, it’s the NH Right to Life survey. Abortion is an issue that libertarians have strong disagreements with each other over. While all real libertarians are against aggressive force against other humans, none of them agree at which point a fetus becomes a human. I choose the side that as long as the fetus is dependent on the mother’s connection to survive, it is a part of her and she can decide what to do with it, which will likely not make me popular with the anti-abortion group. That said, I do respect their right to protest and express their opinion. The correct libertarian position on abortion is that the government should neither prohibit or pay for them.
The following press release was received from the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire
For Immediate Release
July 29, 2018
(Concord, NH)- Yesterday, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH) wrapped up the business from their State Convention in late April at a second special convention at the Grappone Conference Center. Among the items on the agenda were revisions to the Party’s bylaws and several platform plank proposals, including one regarding sex work decriminalization, continuing their fight against the state run liquor store monopoly, as well as the first Libertarian Gubernatorial Debate in the state’s history. At the special convention there were 32 credentialed delegates from across New Hampshire. The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire also has the highest number of dues-paying Libertarians per capita in the United States.
The LPNH added several new planks to its Party Platform, including one calling for the decriminalization of sex work; becoming the first political Party in the state to take a position on this issue. Representative Brandon Phinney (L-Rochester) said decriminalizing prostitution gives sex workers access to reproductive services, and the ability to report sexual assaults without fear of legal repercussions. Phinney went on to say, “This would mitigate the effects of human trafficking. If sex work is decriminalized for adults, then you essentially reduce the incentive for human trafficking. It’s not the role of the state to dictate what a person does with their own body.”
2018 is a historic year for the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. Not only do we have full ballot access on par with the Republicans and Democrats, but we for the first time ever actually have TWO libertarians running in a contested primary for governor!
Here’s the full debate between the two candidates vying for the libertarian nomination this September at the primary:
Regarding the AFL-CIO’s survey, (American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations) a pro-union group, I am pro-union, but I’m against coercion. Unions have for too long looked to government to force their way on individuals who do not wish to participate. Neither unions nor businesses should be using government coercion to get their way. I support market-based mechanisms for workers to ensure better conditions, like unionizing and collective bargaining, boycott, protest, and word-of-mouth. I am opposed to the use of the state to target opponents, however, and union groups like the AFL-CIO have embraced state coercion, so while they have good intentions, their means are corrupt. Coercion has unintended consequences.
The Campaign for a Family Friendly Economy questionnaire appears to want to use government coercion to force businesses to give certain benefits to workers. Individuals should be free to organize for better employment terms, but not use the aggressive coercion of the state, so I couldn’t agree with much of what they were asking. Using violent monopolies to get your way is morally bankrupt and will only make our society worse off. If you want change, find a way to get it by persuasion or peaceful market pressure. Don’t use the violence of “the state”.
Here’s my campaign website where you can learn more about my near-zero budget campaign.
This one was easy. Libertarians are always in favor of individual rights, in this case the right of self-defense and the defense of others. Given that libertarians are against aggressive force, they support the use of defensive force as a way to stop aggressors. No one should have to ask permission to defend themselves or own whatever they feel is necessary to defend themselves. That includes felons who should have their gun rights restored.
Hello, I’m Ian Freeman. As you may know by now, I filed last month to run as a Libertarian for NH Senate district 10 (the Keene area). As with my previous campaigns, I’m not accepting campaign contributions though I will certainly accept media requests and fill out candidate questionnaires sent by various interest groups from across NH and beyond.
Additionally, I’ll be posting those filled-out questionnaires online for everyone to see. Starting with the first one I’ve received and just mailed back today, to the National Education Association of New Hampshire (NEA-NH). Click for PDF.
I’ll also use these posts as an opportunity to state my position in much-easier-to-read text on the various issues raised by the interest groups. So, here’s a summary of what I said to them regarding education:
The problems with public education today aren’t the people running the system. They are good people who genuinely want to help educate the youth and are doing their best under the circumstances. The problem with the system is that it is “public”, meaning government-run and funded through coercive taxation.
Government schools, whether they be standard or charter are never going to rise to the level of quality they could reach if they were self-owning competitors in a free market in education. Instead, because of the one-system-fits-all structure of the government schools, everyone is brought down to the lowest common denominator and there are constant public fights between interest groups and political parties over how the money is to be spent. The NEA questionnaire brings up multiple issues that people are frequently warring over including pensions, charter schools, and vouchers. None of these things would be an issue in a free market in education. People could just choose to support the school models they like. No need for fighting with your neighbors.
The school people are good, but the system sucks.
I’ve proposed this before locally on a talk show and was told by the host (a former city councilor, Cynthia Georgina) that it would be great, but that it can’t happen.
Well, why not? Just because government schools have existed in our lifetimes and have been funded through taxes doesn’t mean it always has to be that way. Change your beliefs, and you’ll change reality.
How do we get from here – where education is provided by the slow, expensive monopoly on violence known as the State of New Hampshire – to the free market in education where a thousand ideas can bloom without any coercion?
In order to create as much of a win-win transition to the market as possible, I propose each government school be turned into a self-owning, market-based school with shares of ownership distributed to all current and retired school staff. This would set the schools free to determine their own future. They figure out funding, retirement, rules, curriculum, etc. If they fail, they can sell off their assets, like anyone else who fails in the market. If they succeed, they’ll do that by satisfying their customers. Anyone who doesn’t like their educational model would just choose to send their child elsewhere. (more…)
