Skip to content

NC Civitas Makes Disturbing Stance on Marriage

As part of the John W. Pope Civitas Institute article “20 Change For 2010,” Jessica Custer suggests that because NC is the “only southern state” without a “marriage defense amendment,” and that Civitas polls suggest that “two-thirds” of North Carolinians support such an amendment, that our government should add such an amendment to our own state’s constitution. You can read the article here: http://www.nccivitas.org/media/publication-archive/policy-brief/20-changes-2010-defense-marriage-act

In response, I wrote the following:

After reading Jessica Custer’s article “20 Changes For 2010: Defense of Marriage Act” (March 8), I wanted to express my disappointment. I had hoped an organization like Civitas, with mostly reasonable approaches to our state’s problems, would not assume it is within the realm of state government to reward or punish any specific group of individuals for personal decisions that do not encroach on the rights of other individuals.

As in many other states, North Carolina’s marriage laws were established as a means of allowing the state to discriminate against any group it chooses with respect to the legal marriage contract. These laws are antiquated and an egregious affront to liberty and individual rights. The remedy to solving any marriage “issue” in government policy is to get rid of the laws altogether, not to amend them.

Furthermore, I feel a deep sadness that anyone, especially members of Civitas, would want to amend our country’s or state’s constitution in an attempt to enforce a social or moral stance which is not within the realm of government to enforce.

Individuals can still make legal agreements with regards to important life decisions. They should continue to have the right to make such contracts and to have those contracts legally binding. However, the definition of “marriage” is best left to its original jurisdiction: individuals and religious groups.

Thank you for your time. I hope that the ideas of liberty will prevail at Civitas and that you will reconsider the role of government in social and moral issues.

Posted in issues.

Comments Off

By admin – 10 March 2010

Web Site Updated, First Volunteer Meeting Set

I have spent time today carefully reworking the Web site content so I could make it live today. Not only are the Donate, Voter Info, and Volunteer pages updated, but I’ve posted my priority issues and stances on the Issues page. The campaign theme is set: “It’s about choice.”

I’ve scheduled the first volunteer meeting, mostly an organizational meeting for March 14, 2010, at 3 PM. Supporters are encouraged to attend! The agenda, directions, and other details are posted at the volunteer mailing list/Google group here:
http://groups.google.com/group/goliberty/browse_thread/thread/2a0712cbc6995e1c

NOTE: apologies if the Web site seems slow occasionally; we’re working to fix it ASAP

Posted in campaign 2010.

Comments Off

By admin – 1 March 2010

Stephanie Watson to Kick Off N.C. Senate Campaign Wednesday

The announcement:

Stephanie Watson will kick off her campaign for North Carolina Senate at noon on Wednesday, February 17, 2010, when she visits the Wake County Board of Elections to file her notice of candidacy. Watson, a native of Johnston County and graduate of N.C. State, says her motivation to run is her desire to serve the people of Raleigh, Cary, and Morrisville in the General Assembly. Current filing statuses indicate that Watson will face first-term District 16 incumbent Josh Stein in the general election.

Watson joins several Libertarians in North Carolina who are offering a fresh alternative for voters in the 2010 elections. Read more about Watson’s campaign at GoLiberty.net. In March, Watson plans to hold an official kickoff event to coincide with one of the regular social meetings of the Libertarian Party of Wake County.

The commentary:

For best media attention, campaign experts will tell you to file for candidacy on the first or last days of the candidate filing period. I considered that. On the first day, February 9th, I committed to supporting Mike Beitler and other Libertarians who filed at the N.C. State Board of Elections to run for U.S. Senate and Congress. Now, I could wait until the last day, February 26th, but waiting makes me uneasy. I have a sense that I’m procrastinating, and that putting off the responsibility is tempting fate. It’s not so much superstition as a sense of caution.

So, rather than going with hope for media attention, I’m going to “get it done” so we can get the campaign started. No pomp, no circumstance; just a quick trip downtown while I’m on my lunch break. Anyone interested in the campaign is invited to join me in the lobby of the Wake County Board of Elections sometime around noon (though I might disappear for a few minutes while I’m filing), and then to hang out for lunch at Martin Street Pizza.

Posted in campaign 2010.

Comments Off

By admin – 16 February 2010

New Look on the Web

GoLiberty has a new look!

Plus, the blog has been moved here, so be sure to update your bookmarks and news feeds.

Look for more additions through the coming weeks as the campaign gears up for 2010!

Posted in campaign 2010.

Comments Off

By admin – 6 February 2010

Durham and Charlotte: Don’t forget to vote tomorrow!

North Carolinians: if you’re in Durham or Charlotte, don’t forget to vote tomorrow!

Here’s the sample ballot from the Durham County Board of Elections:
http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/elec/2009_Election/Ballots/Election/Durham%20%20Sample%20%28WM%29%201.pdf

In Durham’s Ward II race, GoLiberty endorses Matt Drew: http://electmattdrew.org/

Here’s the link to look up your sample ballot in Charlotte:
http://www.meckboe.org/AddressSearch.aspx

In Charlotte’s city council race, GoLiberty endorses Travis Wheat: http://www.electwheat.com/

If you’re not sure what ward or precinct you’re in, look up your voter registration at the following link, and click the “My Districts” link at the bottom of your search results to see all your municipal information:
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/VoterLookup.aspx

Need to know where to vote? After you look up your voter registration above, it should tell you where to go vote. If you want to double-check, click the “My Districts” information to get your precinct information, and check one of the following links:
DURHAM: http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/elec/Polling_Locations.html
CHARLOTTE: http://www.meckboe.org/PollingLocations.aspx

Posted in archive.

Tagged with , , , .

Comments Off

By admin – 2 November 2009

Update: Matt Drew to Face Incumbent Howard Clement for Durham Council

As I wrote in my last post, Matt Drew, a fellow Libertarian, was likely to face a runoff after a tight race for Durham Council, Ward II. It looks like a runoff isn’t necessary: Matt received enough votes to officially put him in second place, and he will face incumbent Howard Clement in the final election November 3rd.

Check out this article about the news from the John Locke Foundation.

Though Clement got 60% of the vote Tuesday, voter turn-out on November 3rd could potentially turn the tables. Campaigning is not over; if anything it is now as important as ever.

Durham residents in Ward II, vote for a voice of liberty on November 3rd! Vote for Matt Drew!

Posted in archive.

Tagged with , .

Comments Off

By admin – 9 October 2009

Libertarian Matt Drew Likely in Durham Runoff

From WRAL:
“In Durham, Councilwoman Cora Cole-McFadden will face Donald Hughes in the Ward 1 election. Councilman Howard Clement easily won his Ward 2 primary, but his opponent next month hasn’t yet been determined, with Matt Drew, Sylvester Williams and Darius Little all within 100 votes of each other, according to unofficial results.” (article link)

I’m excited for Matt, who is a co-member with me on the LPNC Executive Committee. A runoff is likely with voting this close, something that could easily be resolved with instant run-off voting.

Congrats to Larry Hudson in Raleigh who made an impressive showing in the mayoral race. Meeker was held to 62% of the vote. Unlike reports that state Meeker had no trouble getting elected for a fifth term, a few facts should be noted for that race:
* Only about 28,363 votes were cast, far less than 10% of registered voters in Raleigh
* A combined 38% of voters did not want Meeker to continue as mayor
* 115 voters made the effort to write in someone not already on the ballot

A better showing in local elections could be the answer to bringing more Liberty to the table. I think that Matt’s upcoming run-off and Meeker’s mere 62% in a poor voter turnout are both proof that more voices in local elections can make a difference.

Durham, be sure to get out and vote if there’s a runoff in the Ward 2 primary!

Posted in archive.

Tagged with , , .

Comments Off

By admin – 7 October 2009

Vote Locally! Make a real difference!

First, let me apologize for letting other parts of my life overwhelm me through September so that I didn’t profile any of the Raleigh mayoral candidates here as I had hoped I could. Like many of you, it is not always a priority for me to take time out and work in the political arena. However, Liberty is important to me, and local elections such as those going on today are where voices for Liberty can make the biggest impact.

Endorsements? GoLiberty is not going to endorse anyone at this time. Had I been able to ask questions more directly related to Liberty, I think I could have done so with more confidence. Instead, I encourage readers to look at the candidates’ websites, think about the issues that are most important for you, and vote for the best person to represent your views. That’s what I will be doing.

So… who am I voting for? Well, I have taken some time this morning to read a couple of interviews and websites from candidates on the unofficial election results page that line up with my ballot. I’m in municipal (Raleigh) District C, and I am not in one of the school board districts with candidates running.

My first thought was to vote against anyone endorsed by New Raleigh. Why? Well, they clearly think “we all love” Meeker for his discriminatory actions to concentrate on new development and gentrification at the cost of the majority of citizens who live outside of the designated growth areas. As much as I like some of the articles in New Raleigh, I really cannot trust any endorsements from a group who makes such broad and assuming claims about its readership, or judging that he has "no real opponent" when three men have stepped up and done what they could (or could afford) to make their voices heard.

For Raleigh mayor, I’m voting for Larry Hudson. No, not just because he replied to my early blog post. ;-) He most represents me and my friends here in Raleigh, and he is removed enough from the downtown scene to see the needs of Raleigh at large. Kunz was my close second, and it sounds like he is in close touch with what’s going on in Raleigh government; he came in second only because he may be socially out of touch with those of us who live at lower incomes (most of Raleigh, actually). Enloe also has a few good ideas, but I think we need to steer away from the light rail dream.

For District C, my choice is between Charles Reisinger, James West (incumbent), or a write-in candidate.

I read this IndyWeek interview with Reisinger and really liked some of his responses. Certainly anyone who admits he does not want big government is at least on the right track. I also like his desire to make the council stronger and more accessible to Raleigh citizens. Reisinger’s one weak point, though, is his responses of “whatever the district wants me to do.” While it does sound like he wants to be a true public servant on the council (which I think was his intent), it comes across as a weak and unprepared response. For a stronger campaign, he would have been better to say “my district needs me to…” and fill in the blank with some well-researched response about District C.

have skimmed through this Southeast Raleigh Assembly information, a community organization effort by Dr. West. He definitely conveys awareness of his District, and he wants people in the community to be directly active in improving it. On the surface this sounds like a good thing. However, in my opinion, gathering a group of people who do some stuff and call it a success for the District may be little more than a “feel-good” strategy to win accolades for being the organizer. The true assurance of Liberty is not to organize some group to force change on individuals, but to take actions that might inspire individuals to make changes for themselves. I sincerely hope that’s the true goal of this organization, not just to get city money and continue to extend the bureaucracy sprawling forth from the Upchurch building.

For City Council District C, I will be voting for Resigner. It is time for the old bureaucracy to step aside.

The At-Large positions make me cringe for Liberty, but the fresh faces do have some sense of hope for Raleigh. For the sake of getting fresh faces in the fight against Meeker (who is likely to win because his sheeple will come out in flocks to vote for him), I will not be voting for Mary-Ann Baldwin or Russ Stephenson.

Lee Sartain’s website really conveys his vision for Raleigh. Though I think some of his ideas are not on par with Liberty and smaller government, he does want strong neighborhoods across the city. Candidates who will not leave behind certain neighborhoods in the overall vision are inclined to win my heart, whether or not they win my vote.

In this IndyWeek interview, Champ Claris conveys fiscal conservatism, which I think is important for Raleigh in our current economic climate. Though he does frighten me a bit with talk about providing incentives for private development, I think his response about ensuring the budget covers services first is an important statement about how he will contribute on the council.

Though on the ballot, candidate Bill Shakespeare did say he was pulling out of the race back in August. Be sure to reserve your two at-large votes for the other candidates.

For City Council At-large, I will be voting for Sartain and Claris.

Now… get out there and vote, people!

Posted in archive.

Tagged with , .

Comments Off

By admin – 6 October 2009

Skeptical About What Obama Wants in the Health Care Bill

This evening, President Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress to address concerns about the health care bills currently making their way through committees. On the positive side, he showed a lot of strength, outright scolding folks for bickering and making false claims. He likewise expressed appreciation for people showing their passion and wanting to make the best decision about health care reform.

As I followed the speech, though, I spotted a few logical inconsistencies. I’m not sure if he has consulted with many economists on his plan, but it seems in direct contradiction to the “encouraging competition” goal that he claims is one of his guiding principles. Here’s a breakdown of what I mean:

(1) Obama said that he wants there to be no choice about whether or not an individual actually carries insurance. In short: he wants to see compulsory coverage. His reasoning was that it was the individuals without coverage that are costing everyone else more money.

This means, no matter what your income level or financial situation, you *must* have health insurance coverage. As this is not free, it means you have to shop for what you can afford. Without a public option, the financial outlook for individuals is frightening… with a public option, the economic outlook for healthcare is in danger (see #2 coming up).

Compulsory health insurance is a direct affront on liberty: forcing an individual to purchase something whether they want it or not. As such, anyone who reads my blog will know where I stand on that matter. The real solution to my not having to pay for someone who doesn’t have health insurance is not to require me to do so in the first place.

(2) Obama said that he wants a public health insurance option that will be self-sustaining and compete with other health insurance companies. What he isn’t telling you is that the federal government would be breaking its own rules: it would be competing across state lines while continuing to restrict private insurance from doing so.

This means, if you are in a state with unreasonably high rates, and the federal government offers something significantly less, they can gain thousands of customers where private companies are unable to come in. How Obama can call this competition is confusing: if the federal government offers a public option in the true spirit of competition, the only right thing to do would be to allow all private insurance companies nation-wide to compete on a level playing field.

(3) Obama said he wants employers to be required to provide health insurance benefits to employees. He did say there would be assistance for small and start-up businesses, but I’m not sure how he’s going to fund that without the aforementioned public option. I’d like to see more numbers on this. Again, though, any compulsory requirement like this is an affront to liberty. I don’t think there’s more I can say to that here… except that I hope this does not create further stagnation in the job market.

These are the three areas that are concerning me the most. Even a multipartisan bill will be a great source of personal frustration for me if it includes any of the items mentioned here.

For me, the true question is simple… and paints me as cold-hearted in some respects:

Is “health care” a right?

or further…

Is “good and affordable health care” a right?

How you answer those questions probably says a lot about where you stand in your own ideas of how healthcare and health insurance can be improved.

My answer? I have a right to pursue any health care as much as I have a right to refuse it… but I have no right to require or expect others to provide it to me.

Posted in archive.

Tagged with , .

Comments Off

By admin – 9 September 2009

How to Debunk False Claims of Libertarianism

There are some disturbing claims of libertarianism from the Right. Part of me takes it as a compliment that liberty and libertarian ideas are trendy enough that people want to claim to be in the trend. However, the technical writer in me does not want to see this term redefined as a replacement for conservatism, Republican, or any other group that does not share the majority of libertarian values. Such a redefinition is a threat to true libertarians, whether or not they are part of the Libertarian Party.

Here are three questions you can ask to help determine if the claimant is truly libertarian, or just a someone jumping on the trend:

(1) When is it right for the U.S. to send troops to another country?
If the individual is a pure libertarian, he would say “never.” Some libertarians may also extend this to emphasize that the U.S. has no business occupying countries, though may see some well-targeted actions against an immediate threat as a means of self-defense. The assertion that the U.S. has any business forcing its ideas on another country is an empirical claim. Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of the U.S. to be the worldwide hero for human rights. Individuals and private organizations can choose to be part of these efforts, but this is *not* government business.

(2) How should law define marriage?
If the individual is pure libertarian, he would say “there should be NO laws defining marriage, let alone rewarding or punishing an individual based on marital status.” Some libertarians may also remind us that current marriage laws were intended to discriminate, and thus the only proper solution is to repeal them, not to supplement them with further discriminatory allowances or restrictions. In essence, the government should not be in the business of defining “marriage,” and if two consenting adults want to enter into a legal civil union, there is nothing that should restrict them from being able to do so.

(3) What’s the best solution for raising taxes?
If the individual is pure libertarian, he would say “get rid of all government spending that requires taxes for funding.” Some libertarians will go further to explain the more we submit our money to the government, the more of our individual power we surrender to a political agenda. As there is no such thing as a “common good” that all individuals will agree on, majority rule is inherently flawed as a means of providing “what’s best for everyone.” Libertarians believe that “what’s best” is to leave an individual to be responsible for himself and his personal possessions, provided he does no harm to anyone else.

BONUS: What is the solution to the drug problem?
If the individual is a pure libertarian, he would say “repeal the laws against illegal drugs.” Some libertarians prefer to ease in to this, knowing public opinion needs time to recover from the scare tactics of the anti-drug movements of the last few decades. However, almost all libertarians agree that lives could be spared, and even saved, if some drugs (like marijuana, which has been consistently proven less harmful than alcohol) are made fully legal.

The overarching theme here is “non-aggression.” The most basic of libertarian principles, on which platforms are based, is outlined in the following often-used pledge:
“I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE IN OR ADVOCATE THE INITIATION OF FORCE AS A MEANS OF ACHIEVING POLITICAL OR SOCIAL GOALS”

If a person is not willing to take such a pledge, I would dare say his libertarian claim is questionable.

Posted in archive.

Tagged with , .

Comments Off

By admin – 3 September 2009