A logical look at liberty by Stephanie E. Watson.

BJ, I’ve gotten to know you a little during the 2010 campaign, and I supported you as the best option we had in my congressional district to move toward liberty in Washington. I have really believed in you, and I looked forward to supporting you again in 2012.

However, reading this email I just received, I’m just disappointed. You already decided to cling to Burr during your campaign instead of Beitler, but I understood that as Burr was the top of the ticket for your chosen political party. But now your campaign is going where I can’t follow… encouraging financial support for Ellmers.

This is a woman whose campaign spent thousands on TV ads about the misnamed, misrepresented, and completely irrelevant “ground-zero mosque” instead of how she hopes to solve the real issues facing our nation. That shows a lack of responsibility.

This is a woman who has lots of the same rhetoric as many socially conservative Tea Party candidates, but offers no solutions or alternatives to turn rhetoric into action. That shows lack of planning.

This is a woman who, on some social issues, is very anti-liberty. That shows lack of respect for an individual’s rights.

Ellmers is not for liberty… or logic… or even good sense! She is not ready to represent my parents (who live in her district) in Congress.

BJ, this isn’t about parties, it’s about people. Unless you have a contractual obligation to the Republican party beyond your voter registration, I encourage you to “go rogue” on this one. I’m not saying to come out in opposition to anyone in this situation, but let Ellmers and her supporters fight their own battles if there’s a recount. Don’t encourage your own supporters to set aside their individual values to support this party affair.

I am proud to continue to support Liberty in our state and in our country, and thus neither my money nor my support will go to Ellmers or Etheridge.

The following is an excerpt of a comment I made in response to someone who clearly did not “get” what Libertarians mean by “libertarian.” This is a conversation that extended from a response to my comment on an article that also seemed to misinterpret the term. I wanted to capture this response here, but you can see the article and comments here:
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/the-tea-party-more-for-them-less-for-the-rest-of-us

Over a century before Déjacque, classic liberals like John Locke were penning the philosophy that shapes modern libertarianism. Libertarians (as a political movement) began to use the “libertarian” label because modern “liberals” no longer represented that classic liberalism. Instead, they were (and are) moving toward government-managed socialism. Today the word “libertarian” simply means “one who advocates liberty,” including wide range of social and economic views within that label (as in any political movement).

So… how, exactly, is forcefully taking my property to give to someone else a form of liberty?

In mid-July, the press was buzzing about an American Muslim group that wanted to build a 15-story community center, the Cordoba House, in Lower Manhattan (here’s one article link).

Now, if I said nothing else about that, and you knew nothing of American history over the last decade, this may seem completely innocuous. However, there are some religious, social, and political groups who think it is in bad taste for these Americans to build this center of prayer and community support so close to the site of the World Trade Center buildings that were lost in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (a.k.a. “9/11″).

Why? It’s all because the 9/11 terrorists claimed to be motivated by Islamic purposes. They seem to have ignored the fact that faithful Muslims around the world have tried to dissociate themselves with these violent extremist groups, much in the way many Christian groups in the U.S. try to dissociate themselves with radical groups who bomb abortion clinics.

Unfortunately for the Libertarian Party, one of our most enthusiastic Libertarians, Wayne Allyn Root, is one of those who stands in solidarity with these “bad taste” activists. In one of his regular emails to the Root for America mailing list, Root said, “there are also the rights and sensibilities of others to consider in a free society… To build a celebration of Islam within steps of 9/11 does nothing to increase religious freedom…it inspires hatred, divides our cultures, and increases the odds of violence and hate crimes.”

I would like to say, as an individual and a Libertarian, that this is very much NOT a common Libertarian viewpoint. Muslims in American have all the same rights as those of any other culture or faith: life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Activists like Root are seeking to discourage, or even to stop, a group of Americans from exercising those rights simply because they deem the location choice an “insult.”

Root clarifies his position that “if this is privately funded by parties with no ties to a foreign government, …we have enough people in this country who are offended by the prospect… that the money can be raised to buy this land at a fair price from the owners.” I’m glad Root is expressing that it’s the individuals and economic forces rather than the government that could implement change here. However, I am appalled that he would encourage this behavior.

I’m also appalled that Root would see the funding source of the project as the determining factor as to whether the government should block these Americans’ rights. Root claims that if the funding source is a foreign government or religious group, then “the idea of this being an issue of religious freedom is a sham and an argument can be made that our Constitution would actually prohibit this mosque from being built.” The fact is that the Constitution is on their side in Root’s argument, not his. These individuals are Americans, each with his/her own rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights should be protected under the Constitution *per individual* until such time as that individual has violated the rights of others. The source of funding for the project is irrelevant here.

Mr. Root: you have a right to feel offended and to express your opinion, but you do not have a right to take away ANY Americans’ rights life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness if they have violated no laws.

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?”

The SEANC candidate questionnaire asked if I was going to be seeking their endorsement. My response was: “I’m not seeking any organization’s endorsement as I’m an individual running for office to represent individuals, not organizations. However, I welcome and encourage organizations to consider me for such endorsements if they feel that I represent their political interests.”

It’s because I’m not seeking an endorsement that I find it important for Libertarian candidates like myself to complete and return their candidate questionnaires. It’s not about coloring responses to get endorsements, though I’m sure there are some Ds and Rs that do that without hesitation. Instead, I’m providing informed and carefully constructed responses that educate readers about what I stand for as a candidate. It’s my hope that also translates into a positive representation of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina.

As I complete each questionnaire, I publish the responses here at GoLiberty.net. This is also important for Libertarians, not just as recourse if an organization says we didn’t respond, but also because organizations don’t typically post the responses from the candidates they don’t endorse. I want the voters to have all the information about my responses so they can make an informed choice, whether or not that agrees with an organization’s endorsement.

You see, if we as Libertarians don’t speak up for what we believe in, rest assured that an ill-informed media will be there to fill in the blanks. We don’t want that. We need to return every questionnaire, be available for every interview, and participate in every debate with researched and well-prepared responses. In fact, we need to create such opportunities where we haven’t been invited or where they just don’t exist.

That said… it’s impossible for most candidates who work for a living to research every topic thoroughly, attend every event, or promptly return every questionnaire. I’m working on it as I can, though, and my friends and family have been very patient and supportive. Volunteers can help with some things (and have already been helping a lot , but they have jobs and families of their own. Unlike the Ds and Rs, I don’t have a pre-paid marketing engine at my beckon call, so my campaign, like many Libertarians, is about as “grassroots” as you can get.

Back to the questionnaires, though: I feel the questionnaires I’ve received deserve my well-informed responses and offer a great opportunity for me to structure my responses on related issues. It’s not easy to meet some of the requested deadlines, though: I’ve still got half a dozen to complete and return right now, some past due but still, I think, important for me to respond to. Add work deadlines and a programming project at school into that mix this week, and I sometimes wonder how I find time to make the occasional blog posts like this one.