A logical look at liberty by Stephanie E. Watson.

I really enjoyed the B.J. Lawson BBQ event on Saturday. The brisket was delicious, and the conversation was enjoyable. I appreciate B.J. giving me the unexpected chance to introduce myself and mention my top campaign issues. That simple introduction broke the ice for me and made for a wonderful evening of meeting some great people and talking about liberty.

Had an opportunity to meet my Republican opponent at the event. Mr. Beezley is a great guy who’s also passionate about changing the direction of government in N.C. Though we disagree on the role government should play in that change, I’m glad there’s people like Beezley putting their hat in the ring to get the self-serving establishment out of the legislature.

Wednesday’s coming, and I’m really looking forward to being part of the StopNCAnnexation Rally in Raleigh. I’ll be doused in sunscreen and ready to talk about meaningful annexation reform. Hopefully, I won’t forget to take my camera this time. (Darn it, Fernie! You were always there, and you always remembered! We miss you, and we’ll keep trying to fill your well-worn activist shoes.)

Then… Saturday, June 19, is the big COOKOUT at Pullen Park! Be sure to spread the word! The food and fun are free, and I’ll give a brief statement to talk about my campaign. Bring the whole family! I posted the details at the Meetup.com group, but RSVP there is optional: http://www.meetup.com/GoLiberty/calendar/13591665/

If you’d like to volunteer to help for the cookout, email me at stef@goliberty.net and I’ll let you know what tasks we still need covered.

In one of my college math classes a few years ago, my class discussed the different forms of voting and how it’s nearly impossible to have a “fair” voting system for all situations. So let’s not talk about “fair” voting for N.C. elections. Instead, let’s talk about how to achieve a “true majority” vote. Here are some facts that reveal that our current “whoever gets the most votes” system is not a true representation of who we want in office:

• North Carolina has an increasing number of unaffiliated voters, and they outnumber at least one of the “big two” parties in several counties.
• Governor Perdue won her seat by less than 50% of the vote, implying that even with the large voter turn-out for Obama, the majority of North Carolina voters DID NOT vote for her.
• Each time there is not a clear majority in an election, N.C. has to fund and orchestrate a separate run-off election. This gets expensive, and yet it’s preventable!
• The Libertarian Party in North Carolina has shown consistent growth since it regained ballot access in 2008, but it has struggled against the fear among voters that they would be “wasting” their vote to vote Libertarian. As long as the “big two” parties can perpetuate this fear, no third party will prevail, and the unique and diverse interests of the growing block of unaffiliated voters will be ignored.
• Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) has been a success in several places so far and it’s growing in popularity. It’s currently the best option on the table to achieve a “true majority” vote while only casting a single ballot.
• IRV has already been well-received in N.C.: check out this link at FairVote.org where Cary, NC, voters are interviewed about IRV in their municipal elections in 2007: http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=2302

Without IRV, a vote for a Libertarian candidate like me will count only for me. With IRV, votes for Libertarian candidates like me will count not only for that Libertarian, but also for the voter’s second choice if the first choice doesn’t get enough votes to make it through the first “round.” Plus, we don’t have to go to the polls but once to enjoy this: it’s all done by ranking choices on a single ballot.

I’m ready to see IRV used in North Carolina. In the N.C. Senate, I will author and introduce a bill to phase IRV into N.C. voting procedures, starting at the top of the ticket with our Governor’s race in 2012.

If you’re not familiar with IRV, check out some of the helpful information at Instantrunoff.com and FairVote.org

Seriously, if you just take all the tweets I made at twitter.com/goliberty with the hash tag #lpnc, you’ll have my complete report from the Libertarian Party 2010 National Convention. I really enjoyed this first experience at “national,” and I look forward to our growth and movement from now through the 2012 elections. It’s never been a better time to consider the Libertarian Party!

For official information about our party business, see lp.org.  In the meantime, I hope I get some time in the next few days to edit my “Blair Arch Project” video (the Munger van crew came up with that one) and post that a GoLibertyTV on YouTube.

This questionnaire gave me a headache. I think this is where I depart slightly from the Libertarian party line, and that’s why I had to read and think about each question carefully before I responded. Here are the questions and answers:

(1) What do you consider to be the most pressing conservation challenge in your district?

With the municipal development in our area comes the need to ensure that the water and sewer systems can support that growth and that waste water from homes is treated and does not pollute our soil and fresh water resources.

(2) Are there any environmental regulations or policies you consider ineffective or unnecessarily burdensome, which should be reformed?

Currently, we allow municipalities to restrict private landowners from seeking their own forms of making a smaller environmental impact. I would support state-level legislation to discourage towns from restricting its residents from building of personal solar panels, wind farms, and means of waste-water collection/reuse.

(3) Climate Change. There is a broad agreement within the scientific community that global warming pollutants must be reduced by 80% by the year 2050 in order to avoid the most severe and irreversible impacts of climate change on future generations… [text omitted for brevity]

3-A. Would you support legislation to adopt the goal of reducing global warming pollution in North Carolina by 80% by the year 2050?

No. I would like to read the scientific reports. I would respect this position more if the generalization of “broad agreement within the scientific community” was replaced with 2-3 citations from reputable researchers stating these “80% by 2050″ numbers and outlining the “severe and irreversible” impacts.

3-B. Would you support “NC SAVES” legislation (HB 1050), which would create an Independent Energy Efficiency Administrator that would help weatherize low and moderate income homes, reducing the need for new power plant construction?

No.

3-C. Would you be willing to pass legislation to put a moratorium on new coal fired [sic] power plants, until technology is developed that is safe and proven to sequester carbon dioxide, the major pollutant that causes global warming?

No. Such technology already exists and is in use today. In addition, the impact of coal-fired power on the environment is orders of magnitude less than the prosperity such plants bring to those that need it most.

(4) Effective Enforcement. The single largest pollutant by volume in North Carolina’s lakes, rivers, and streams is sediment… [text omitted for brevity] Would you support legislation to hire additional Division of Land Resource and Division of Water Quality staff in order to adequately inspect development sites for compliance with sedimentation & erosion control and stormwater standards?

Yes. It is my hope that we can shape legislation that is effective without imposing on the rights of landowners.

(5) Water Allocation. Just as we must budget for our money, we should create a budget for our water… [text omitted for brevity]

5-A. Do you support comprehensive planning for NC’s water resources?

Yes.

5-B. North Carolina’s Environmental Management Commission (EMC) has gone through a science-based, multi-year stakeholder process to create standards to address polluted stormwater runoff in North Carolina… [text omitted for brevity] Would you support proposals to weaken the water quality protection standards developed through the EMC stakeholder process?

No.

6. Land Conservation. North Carolina loses more than 100,000 acres of farm and forest land to development each year… [text omitted for brevity]

6-A. Would you support maintaining and restoring funding for the state’s four natural resource trust funds (Clean Water Management, Natural Heritage, Parks and Recreation, and Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation) once the economy has rebounded enough to do so? During FY 2008-09, state funding for conservation was cut by more then $120 million dollars and reduced by nearly 50 percent in FY 2009-10.

No. I support the Clean Water Management fund, but the others are in need of re-evaluation to determine how the money is spent and whether the funds are relevant.

6-B. Would you support making the NC Conservation Tax Credit refundable or transferable for lower income landowners? Currently the Conservation Tax Credit is capped at $250,000 that can be taken over a five year [sic] carry forward [sic] period, which many lower income landowner [sic] cannot take full advantage of due to their lower tax liability.

Yes.

6-C. Would you support a dedicated source of revenue for the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the Agricultural Development Trust Fund, which are both currently funded out of the state general fund?

No.

(7) Wind Energy. Would you support the development and adoption of an application process for permitting the construction of wind turbines in NC that gives individuals the right to apply for a permit to construct one or more wind turbines on their property, but requires county approval for any project smaller than 2 MW and both state and county approval before any permit is issued for any projects over 2 MW in size? The application process for a project larger than 2 MW would require public hearings, studies, and impact assessments that satisfy the permitting authorities.

Yes. Though, I’d like to see private landowners able to construct these with no application process necessary.

(8) Construction on steep slopes. Landslides across western North Carolina during the hurricanes of 2004 demonstrated the devastation that can result when homes are built on steep slopes without attention to potential landslide hazards… [text omitted for brevity]

8-A. Do you agree that home buyers in western North Carolina should be told when a home is in a known landslide hazard as mapped by the NCGS area, and do you support mandating that sellers make such disclosures?

Yes. This should be as available as flood plain information for prospective landowners, or at least available by request of local government agencies.

8-B. Do you support state legislation that would require developers building in known landslide hazard areas and on very steep slopes to consult an engineering professional to ensure that mountain homes are sited and built safely?

No. If they own the property and want to build on it, it’s their choice. They should just be ready to provide the NCGS findings to potential buyers.

(9) Coastal ecosystems. For many decades, North Carolina has maintained a policy prohibiting the construction of groins and other hardened structures on North Carolina’s coastline… [text omitted for brevity] Do you support continuing North Carolina’s policy of protecting our coastline from hardened structures?

No. On public beaches yes, on privately-owned beach property no. If there is a violation of rights, take it to court.

(10) Economic Development and the Green Economy. [text omitted for brevity] Would you support focusing our economic development policies and incentive programs on modern green companies and practices to prepare North Carolina for the next economic boom?

No. I do not support offering discriminatory incentives to hand-selected private businesses from taxpayer money.

Before today, I thought that if there’s a Libertarian candidate running for an office, it’s a good chance the NRA would find that candidate the most likely to support their causes. Having just answered this questionnaire, I’m not so sure.  The questions are long, so I’ll just provide a summary here.

For questions about gun regulation (licensing, carry restrictions, sale restrictions), I responded that I would support legislation making guns easier to obtain and carry and oppose legislation increasing restrictions. There were no exceptions to my answers on these questions.

I do not support N.C.’s range protection laws. The fact is, if a person feels that the range is imposing on his rights, then he should be welcome to make his case in court. I added the comment, “A range is like any other business and, unfortunately, is subject to the often-restrictive rules of counties and municipalities. The law should not single out any business for special protection.

I do not support the “No Net Loss” legislation in N.C. I stated, “As property owners and municipal borders shift, I believe it is unreasonable to restrict that free market with such a law.”

I also oppose “Open Fields” legislation to the extent that it would use public funds. I stated, “Such incentives should not come from public funds except (as stated) the sale of licenses, and I’m opposed to needing a license for hunting or fishing.

Finally, I am opposed to having a constitutional amendment making hunting and fishing a “right.” I stated, “Hunting and fishing are not ‘rights,’ they are privileges afforded to those who exercise their right to property and liberty. The U.S. and N.C. Constitutions already protect those rights.”

Hoping to better tie together my responses, I made the following statement at the end of the questionnaire:

“As a Libertarian, the Second Amendment is just one of many parts of the U.S. Constitution I hold sacred. I support all efforts to remove unreasonable legislation limiting Second Amendment rights here in North Carolina, and to hold county and municipal governments liable when they attempt to impose their own restrictions. I also support smaller government and more personal liberty, which means I would not support legislation that requires the citizens of North Carolina to give up their liberty, property, or other rights for the purpose of preserving the privileges and pursuit of happiness for a select group.”

For my district and for the voices of Liberty in North Carolina, my top three issues in our 2010 campaign are annexation reform, educational choice, and medical marijuana availability. However, I think the toughest issue we face state-wide right now is that the government is trying to have too much control over its citizens and its commerce. This is a trend I want to reverse while I’m serving in the North Carolina Senate.

The result of this government interference is that regulations and costs of doing business make North Carolina an inhospitable environment for those who choose to set up shop here. To make up for it, government officials spend time and money courting a hand-selected group of business executives to lure them to set up shop using tax-based incentives and special breaks rather than real market analysis and a skilled workforce. This allows the executive branch to brag about creating jobs, but ignores the fact that those are only trial-run jobs while businesses use the state’s special breaks to gamble on its resources. That is not a path to sustained growth in the job market or to permanent career-building positions for the people of North Carolina.

For many of you, I need say only one word to evoke the potential failure for such methods in North Carolina: Dell

The issue of government control over citizens and their commerce is at the heart of many other issues, too, including my own top three.

I composed the following statement to a recent press question when asked to comment on immigration policy in North Carolina, especially when reflecting on recent legislation in Arizona:

Immigration policies like Arizona Immigration Law SB1070 2010 are a discriminatory practice, allowing law enforcement to judge who can enter and why. The only reason this discrimination exists is to protect government entitlement programs that shouldn’t be in existence to start with. The solution, then, is to open the borders and eliminate the entitlement programs that are the real source of animosity and hyper-defensiveness. Furthermore, I personally believe such a “let me see your papers” attitude is a violation of the natural rights of those whose papers are required or requested, and that it’s the role of government to protect those natural rights for both naturalized citizens and unnaturalized guests.

I’ve voted in several primaries, but this is the first where I’m limited to a ballot that only includes judicial candidates. You see, as a registered Libertarian now, I can’t vote in the primaries for other parties, and our party doesn’t have any contested positions for the primary here in Wake County.

However, we *do* have a primary ballot, and an important one!

The nonpartisan judicial candidates are important, even though they are so often ignored by the media. It’s important that we use our votes to help shape the justice system as well as the legislative and executive branches of government.

Libertarians: get out and vote for the judicial candidates in the primary Tuesday, May 4th!

I’m using this post to examine the judicial candidates here in Wake County and offer a libertarian perspective on who you might want to vote for this week. Though I emphasize who I’d recommend here, I encourage each of you to do your own research and make your own decision on who to vote for.

Disclaimer: These are all my personal and political opinions and don’t necessarily represent the positions of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina or its other members.

N.C. Court of Appeals, Calabria’s seat
Candidates: Ann Marie Calabria, Jane Gray, Mark E. Klass

Incumbent Judge Calabria needs the Libertarian vote! Calabria describes herself as a “Constitutionalist” who believes in limited government and judging with restraint, not activism. Furthermore, she was the appeals judge who dissented from the majority in the LPNC ballot access case, agreeing that the general statutes cited in the case were indeed inconsistent with the Constitution of North Carolina. Thanks to Judge Calabria, we’ll have our case heard in the N.C. Supreme Court.

In looking at Calabria’s opponents, neither cite the Constitution of North Carolina as an authority. That alone was a concern even before I made the following reflections:

Judge Gray doesn’t cite any of the rulings she’s made or cases she’s presided over at her Web site, only citing her experience in “all three branches of government” as the qualification that’s separates her from the other candidates. She also touts the endorsements she has from various individuals in government and the community. At UNC-TV online, Judge Gray does describe herself as not having an “agenda,” which I interpret to mean she’s not out to be an activist judge. She markets being fair and impartial, and she says she believes in the “rule of law,” but she does not cite the state constitution as the core of all of the decisions she has to make. I’m also concerned that though Judge Gray is sincere about her work and her experience, that experience has been working on the side of the state government for many years.

Judge Klass has served in Superior Court since 1999, and his Web site is generally lacking in information, profiling who he is and his career history, but not citing any of his rulings. At his audio interview at UNC-TV online, he expressed his thoughts about the culture of attorneys in the state today as being unaware of the judges serving on the courts and being disconnected, not showing up in true representation of the person on trial. If I knew more about Judge Klass, or took time to go through his rulings, I’m sure I could find out more. However, he’s not presented anything to me that would compel me to look further.

N.C. Court of Appeals, Elmore seat
Candidates:Al Bain, Leto Copeley, Rick Elmore, Steven Walker

This race is interesting in terms of experience because only incumbent Judge Elmore has judicial experience. The others are trial attorneys with various experiences. I can’t say I have a strong endorsement here because I’m not entirely happy with any of the choices, but I’ll be voting for Al Bain because I think he will be the most likely to analyze the lower court decisions and make sure that each law is fair and followed. The following paragraphs include my reflections on each candidate.

Though Al Bain’s Web site lacks in information, his statements in other resources are more helpful. At UNC-TV Online, Bain stated openly that his judicial philosophy is that “judges should follow the law, not make it.” Out of college he worked as a clerk at the Court of Appeals for a while. Now, he has 22 years of experience practicing law, including helping individuals take their concerns to court about their small businesses and farms. Bain said he doesn’t want people to be denied their day in court due to some tedious technicality in paperwork, saying, “I believe I have a duty to be fair, and to get the law right.” I get the impression this is a guy who will carefully research and review each case that comes to appeal, making sure the rulings of lower courts are consistent with the law, and that the law is consistent with the Constitution of North Carolina. I was disappointed he didn’t mention the Constitution directly, though “getting the law right” implies that the law should be consistent with the Constitution.

Leto Copeley has 27 years of experience as an attorney. In the UNC-TV audio interview, Copeley centered her judicial philosophy around “fairness.” Like Judge Gray, she did not mention the Constitution of North Carolina as being an authority in that fairness, plus she didn’t mention the authority of the law she has to analyze. However, she directly mentions the importance for people to bring to court the laws they find unconsitutional. Copeley echos the statement that judges should follow, not make, the law, and she emphasizes he belief that the court should not affected by outside influences. I like that approach, but her list of endorsed organizations imply that she’s already made up her mind with regards to the interests of certain activist groups. Copeley’s advertising of the endorsements of activist organizations is the only reason I find myself going with Bain instead of Copeley.

Incumbent Judge Elmore was elected to the Court of Appeals in 2002, and, like Judge Calabria, he emphasizes that the bench is not a place for activism. Like too many other candidates, he does not detail his judicial philosophy on his site, instead focusing on his experience, memberships, and endorsements. His promotion of his membership in the National Rifle Association conveys an assumed position on gun rights, which certainly appeals to libertarians who are concerned about losing those rights. The UNC-TV online audio interview was more helpful to get to know Judge Elmore. In that interview, and in the printed voter guide we all received in the mail, Judge Elmore expressed that his judicial philosophy is “fairness to all the parties.” He explained that the court should be a place where people of all political leanings should be able to get a fair trial. He also stated that the biggest concern of the courts today is the money available to the judicial system, conveying an assumption that the judicial system in its current state should continue being publicly funded and held responsible for the overwhelming amount of laws they must enforce. Overall, I like what I am hearing and reading about Judge Elmore, but I’ve decided to vote for someone else.

Steve Walker’s Web site opens with a statement that we need more “conservative” judges, with “conservative” in bold type and italics. He states in the same text that he means non-activist judges who will follow rather than make law, but the emphasis on the word “conservative” made me cringe that a judge is putting his politics, not his judicial philosophy, at the head of his message. I do like that he says judges should “understand their consitutional role,” and that his actual “Judicial Philosophy” page mentions the importance of the Constitution of North Carolina (and the U.S. Consitution) in the work those judges do. He describes himself as “strict constructionist” and expresses concern that judges would work to reduce liberties rather than secure them. As a Libertarian, I should like what I’m reading. However, when he states that a person “constitutionally convicted of a crime should serve their sentence, not have their conviction overturned by a judge’s extra-constitutional imagination,” I have to wonder whether he’s running because he’s just upset when courts overturn prior criminal convictions. Despite his claims for sticking to the constitutions, I will not be voting for Walker because of his emphasis on conservatism (a political concept) rather than liberty and justice (philosophical concepts).

District Court (District 10)
Candidates: Kris D. Bailey, Damion McCullers, Dan Nagle

I actually had an opportunity to meet both McCullers and Nagle at the Lincoln Park Holiness Church candidates event a couple of months ago. I thought both gentlemen were very courteous and enjoyable to talk to, so I admit I would be glad to see either of them on the bench. However, this article is about making a choice as a Libertarian, so here it goes…

First thing’s first: none of these guys have mentioned anything about the state constitution and the constitutionality of law, though they all expressed the importance of the rule of law. (I suppose at the District level this is okay, but I had hoped someone would mention the constitution.)

Judge Kris Bailey, has already served as district judge (2000-2004), and his campaign Web site focuses on his buzz words “experience,” “integrity,” and “common sense.” I don’t get a lot from the site about his judicial philosophy, though, except that judges should “show a measure of humility and refrain from personal whims in decisions. Judges must listen carefully and apply the law without favoritism.” As I’ve said before, I should hope all our judges follow that as it is in the job description. He’s known for fighting fraud in the state in his recent work as General Counsel and Chief Deputy State Auditor, and State Auditor Leslie Merritt applauds his “tireless work ethic,… calm positive demeanor and …excellent record.”

Damion McCullers is a Raleigh native and has worked as an attorney with the Wake County District Attorney’s Office and with Legal Aid of North Carolina. At his Web site, McCullers states that he believes each citizen “deserves to be treated with respect, fairness, and have his or her matter move forward with the rule of law leading the way.”

Dan Nagle has served in the Wake County District Attorney’s Office as well as in the Wake County Sherriff’s Office where he rose to the rank of Major of Administration. He has 28 years of experience in the law enforcement side of the judicial system, coming later in life to his law degree after a wide range of other law enforcement positions. This is a guy who has worked his way up from the entry level of the judicial system.

Oh, this one is so hard!  I feel like all three judges will work hard to uphold the law, not try to make it from the bench. It would be easier if at least one of them has said something about the state constitution, though. Personally, I think it comes down to McCullers and Nagle: I feel like McCullers seems to be the most in touch with the community he’ll be serving if he’s elected, and I feel Nagle has the most experience in the judicial system overall and will understand the needs of those working to enforce the law.

Since I can’t decide (probably until I walk into the ballot booth on Tuesday), I’ll just say “choose your own guy” on this one. Be sure to read the SBOE Judicial Voter Guide and the respective candidates’ Web sites to help with your decision, and let me know what *you* think with a quick comment here.

Enjoyed meeting folks in the N.C. Cannabis Patients Network today at the Marijuana March. Hope to see you again soon at other events! http://www.nccpn.org/

I have added “More Choice in Medical Treatment, including Marijuana” to my issues page here. Please take time to read those couple of paragraphs to see where I stand on marijuana prohibition and on legislation such as H.B. 1380 allowing patients in North Carolina who need the benefits of medical marijuana to obtain and use it without fear of prosecution.

I was just reading this morning’s Reason article by Jacob Sullum entitled “Free Speech for Us: The Gray Lady’s inconsistent defense of the First Amendment.” The fact that some legislators are out of focus when it comes to First Amendment rights is both amusing and disturbing.

That led me to make this loosley-related post, where I’d like to tell you up front: You Have the Right to Not Like Me.

What does that mean? That means that while I speak about libertarianism, promote Libertarian candidates, and discuss my campaign and platform, you have a right to disagree, and you even a right to say so!

If I were a Democrat, some might consider it a more faux pas for folks to disagree with me in public, but you’d still have that right. If I were a Republican these days, I’d probably just keep my mouth shut to avoid the ridicule. As a Libertarian, though, I’ve already had to develop a thick skin to ward off those who are so indoctrinated in government-sponsored entitlements that they’re unable to effectively listen and logically evaluate my arguments. Now, not everyone is opposed to me, my platform, or libertarianism to that degree, but it is something I am prepared for, especially during the campaign.

More importantly, you also have the right to agree with me.

More important, you ask? Your right to agree with me is more important right now because if you agree with me, you’re part of the fight against an oppressive two-party duopoly. I’d argue that essentially the majority of Americans are libertarian at heart, but that’s not something that’s proven in numbers. When you’re not in the majority for something, those that are often impose their viewpoints in ways that ignore your right to disagree.

You have a right to agree or disagree with me, my platform, or libertarian ideas.  Either way, though, I’d ask for you to at least be able to provide an educated answer to: “Why?”