A logical look at liberty by Stephanie E. Watson.

Even popular comedian Stephen Colbert has picked up on what has become a misrepresented story about the changes in school assignments in Wake County. My commentary on the matter is overdue, so I’m taking time for a short post today. I hope I have some time to do a more in-depth story later from a libertarian perspective.

NOTE: Because board positions are non-partisan, I will refrain from labeling school board members with political party affiliations or political activist movements. I think creating this unnecessary association serves only as an emotional trigger than changes how the reader reacts to the facts. I challenge any reputable media outlet to do the same.

Here’s a summary of the situation: The current school board majority, elected in 2009, supports assignments to schools based solely on location. This is a reverse of a decade-old assignment strategy that identified certain students who would be bussed to schools in other parts of the county in an attempt to ensure no school had more than 40% of its students who qualified for free or reduced lunches.

Considering Colbert’s brutal yet entertaining satire on the situation, I have to point out that he, like many others, have been focusing only on select facts in this case. The NAACP and other civil rights organizations misrepresent the situation as “going backwards” and “resegregation.” However, the Wake school board majority is, in no way, claiming a desire to reverse the free integration of schools. Instead, it’s trying to reverse a school assignment strategy that’s not only an expensive (and environmentally unfriendly) approach to assignment, but also for which there is absolutely no data indicating an improved quality of education for students.

Furthermore, isn’t the assignment strategy, itself, a form of systematic discrimination? I mean, it requires forcing individuals to do something they might not want to do solely on the basis of economic status. How is that not discrimination?

So let’s summarize… Wake is trying to trim its budget by putting aside an expensive and ineffective program, and it is no longer assigning people to schools based on race or socio-economic status. Because it has ended a form of systematic discrimination, it is now accused of racism and bigotry.

It certainly isn’t easy for a poorer family to move into a wealthier area. The words and actions of civil rights organizations, though, suggest that poorer students are entitled to attending school with wealthier students, all at the taxpayers’ expense. Has Wake County been in its bubble of prosperity and entitlement so long it has lost its sense of logic and reason? This program is a privilege, not an entitlement. If people want a “diversity” assignment policy to continue, shouldn’t they work to find a reasonable no-cost compromise instead of focusing so much energy on their hatred for those who want to end the policy?

Personally, part of me wants to laugh at how pretentious the civil rights organizations in Wake County are being. I grew up in the north part of neighboring Johnston County. There, my small 1-A high school was not only 10 miles from home, but also an additional 15 miles from the next available high school (a 4-A) in the same system. That was average at that time, though some students lived over 15 miles from their closest middle or high school. Johnston County couldn’t have afforded a socio-economic school assignment program like Wake County, nor could they have reasonably implemented it. So I have a difficult time finding sympathy for Wake County students when the lowest rated school in Wake County still had more resources than my high school had back in 1991, before Wake’s “diversity” assignment policy was implemented. (Despite all that, I think most of us turned out alright.

But I digress. I’ll just end this post by saying that the attacks on the current Wake school board are getting out of hand. People need to calm down, take a deep breath, get all the facts, and look at the big picture.

If this is your first time landing on GoLiberty.net, WELCOME! If you’re still undecided about who to vote for in the N.C. Senate District 16 race, here are some quick thoughts from my campaign experiences that might help:

Reasons to vote for me:

• I’m ready to serve. I have the background in research, writing, and collaboration that will be valuable when preparing legislation.
• I’m the only candidate ready to take an active stance sponsoring or co-sponsoring legislation for meaningful annexation reform, helping to restore property owners’ rights across the state.
• I’m the only candidate willing to promote parental choice in education by examining all our options and taking careful, well-planned measures to move away from the state’s ineffective one-size-fits-all approach.
• I’m the only candidate both ready and willing to make the reforms necessary to make sure medical patients have legal access to a natural product that is safer and more effective than today’s powerful prescription medications: marijuana.
• This is our Senate seat, not a career stepping stone. My only political ambition is to serve in that seat as long as you want to re-elect me. Then, I’ll step down when you’re ready for someone else to represent you.

Reasons NOT to vote for me… seriously, if you answer “I agree” to any of these,
you probably don’t want to vote for me:

• You appreciate that Stein’s campaign has spent over $280,000 for a seat that pays just over $20,000 per year.
• You’ve been wooed by Stein’s glossy mailers with empty promises, hyperboles attacking Beezley, and some of the same great posed pictures he used in 2008.
• You think that any Republican is better than having a Democrat in office… or vice versa.
• You feel that people aren’t able to think for themselves and, instead, need elected officials to do that for them.
• You have a few extra dollars you don’t mind the state taking from you by force at the end of the year, and you’re happy to pass that obligation on to your children and grandchildren.
• You think that even though the state is broke, deep in debt, and bound for further economic decline, it should still be spending more.

North Carolina’s rail supporters, for both high-speed and light rail, want you to believe that rail is going to solve a lot of problems and that it’s long overdue. The fact is that rail is expensive, unmovable, and discriminatory against those who pay taxes to subsidize it but don’t live near it.

Instead of looking for ways to improve transportation based on the natural growth patterns of a city, our cities are looking at ways of socially engineering future growth to be compressed in high-density areas along certain corridors. Overwhelming evidence is that people come to N.C. often because it’s cheaper and they can escape those high-density scenarios. City planners, though, are so focused on the shiny new structures they want to build that they’re spending all their efforts trying to justify and fund those instead of supporting their existing citizens and natural city growth.

On September 16, the John Locke Foundation published a Spotlight Report Public Transit in North Carolina. The report, by Randal O’Toole of the Cato Institute, features facts about how much taxpayers are subsidizing each rider’s trip on public transportation, how that compares to the much cheaper cost of driving a car, and five recommended changes that can address the concerns of state and local planners at much a lower cost and in a way that benefits the most people.

Check out the report here:
http://www.johnlocke.org/research/show/spotlights/250

The attorneys the LPNC has been working with on the ballot access lawsuit discovered something buried in some state tax law changes (S.B. 1177) passed by the General Assembly last session and signed into law in early July. The GA has implemented an important change in the N.C. Political Parties Financing Fund that was requested by Gary Bartlett at the State Board of Elections office to resolve a conflict in the definition of “political party” between the state’s election law (G.S. 163) and the public campaign financing law in G.S. 105-159.1. I’m happy to report that the N.C. Political Parties Financing Fund now refers to G.S. 163-96 for that definition instead of establishing some arbitrary requirement within G.S. 105. Consequently, this means the LPNC will have equal treatment under the N.C. Political Parties Financing Fund as other qualified political parties, and will be able to receive their proportionate and designated shares of that fund.

Here are the documents of note:

• The bill that was passed and signed into law (S.B. 1177)
• The N.C. Political Parties Financing Fund (not yet updated to reflect these changes)
• G.S. 163-96 with the state’s definition of a political party

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’d like to, once again, express my deep appreciation to the Cary Chamber of Commerce for inviting me to be part of the N.C. Senate candidates form at their breakfast event this morning. None of the District 17 candidates showed up, but all three of us for District 16 were there to answer questions and meet the businesspeople of Cary.

The questions were, as expected, focused on business, with one exception being on the state of schools in Wake County (amidst the current controversies). I’ll make another post later touching on the education question. In the meantime, here are some of my post-forum thoughts on the business questions:

* Only business knows what’s good for business. As a legislator, I’m not going to tell you what’s best for your business. In fact, unless your business is violating the rights of others by a way you can prove in court, I’m going to leave you alone. The government needs to take the stance of “how can we best stay out of the way so you can do your thing” rather than “how can we best try to control your business.”

* The current General Assembly loves to talk about gambling. The problem is that they think that they can outlaw all forms of gambling except what they sponsor themselves. I’m not talking just about the education lottery, whose funds have been raided to pay for other projects against the lottery’s promised intent. I’m talking about the gambling the Legislative and Executive branches do with regards to business growth in NC. Instead of making an equal playing field for all businesses, they hedge their bets on select businesses and industries. This creates false incentives to start and grow a business. A smart business would be operating based on its economic viability and sustainability, not based on promises and incentives that are at the whims of elected officials. The only way to create lasting growth and lasting jobs is for government to make it easier for *everyone* to do business.

* There is inter-dependability in commercial infrastructure. A convenience store is successful because it’s on a busy corner, the corner is busy because there’s a shopping mall there,  the shopping mall is successful because of new home construction in the area, and the home construction is booming because of a new factory that opened a couple of miles away. Incentives and regulation focused on any single part of that chain throws off the balance. Good or bad, it’s still intrusive and potentially disruptive.

* We need to stop thinking of our General Assembly as a retirement community. We need anyone who is constitutionally qualified to run for office able not only to run, but also to serve in tandem with their own full-time employment. I’ve been laid off a couple of times due to economic strains on the businesses where I worked, but I’m taking the chance of having to quit temporarily in order to serve in the GA. Not everyone has the family budget to take those chances, though. We need to put some options on the table that make the part-time work of being a Senator or Representative something that the average person can do without fearing for his/her job. (Naturally, I would start with shorter sessions. )

I just completed and mailed three more questionnaires, and this time I’ve scanned them in instead of typing them up. Clicked the linked organization name to view each as a PDF:

North Carolinians for Free and Proper Elections (NCFPE)

N.C. Voters for Clean Elections (NCVCE)

North Carolina Family Policy Council

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

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.”