Report from the NC Libertarian convention held this past weekend

The Libertarian Party of North Carolina held its annual state convention in Burlington April 10-11 where it adopted platform changes, elected new LPNC Executive Committee members, selected delegates to the Libertarian National Convention to be held in St. Louis and passed a resolution regarding the 2010 Census.

The two-day convention included members from across the state and guests from Tennessee and Washington DC.

The convention adopted several recommendations of the platform committee, including a refinement of the current platform on Crime, a rewording of the platform plank, "End the War on Drugs," and revision to the LPNC Platform's Preamble.

The convention also heard from several of the Libertarian candidates in attendance. Candidates for federal office attending included Mike Beitler of Greensboro, U.S. Senate; Tom Rose of Benson, U.S. House District 2; Darryl Holloman of Goldsboro, U.S. House District 3; Thomas Hill of Concord, U.S. House District 8, and; Lon Cecil of High Point, U.S. House District 12.

Candidates for North Carolina General Assembly included Barbara Howe of Oxford, N.C. House 32 and Stephanie Watson of Raleigh, N.C. Senate 16. Brandon Black of Graham, a candidate for Alamance County Commissioner, and Tom Hohman of Waxhaw, a candidate for Union County Commissioner were also in attendance.

No Libertarian candidate faces any primary opposition, so these candidates will be the Libertarian candidates on the November ballot.

Dr. Michael Munger addressed the convention on Saturday morning on the topic of "State and Local Government Debt in North Carolina: The Next 10 Years." Dr. Munger is an economist who serves as chair of the political Science department at Duke University and was the Libertarian Party's candidate for governor in 2008.

The LPNC presented its Most Outspoken for Liberty award to the late Fernie Williams of Fuquay Varina. Mr. Williams was the past chair of the Wake County Libertarian Party and a tireless advocate for liberty.

The convention elected four additional members to complete one-year terms on the LPNC Executive Committee. David Grimm of Burlington, Tom Hohman of Waxhaw, Michael Shanklin of Erwin, and Aaron Yeargan of Hampstead joined the committee as new At-large members.

On Sunday, the convention passed a resolution encouraging recipients of the 2010 U. S. Census to refuse to answer questions 2-10 of the census, stating that only question 1, how many persons are living at the address, is the only question required to meet the constitutionally-stated purpose of the census.

This article was originally posted at Mountain Xpress. The full text of the resolution is available at http://www.lpnc.org/.

Mike Beitler to speak at Duke tonight

Mike Beitler is scheduled to speak at Duke tonight, Thursday, April 8. Here's the details I have, but please check the Beitler Volunteers Meetup group for any updates.

Location: The Multi-Cultural Center in the Bryan Center on Duke's West Campus
Date and Time: Thursday, April 8: 8 until 9pm

http://www.meetup.com/Beitlervolunteers/calendar/12995056/

NC Libertarians to hold annual state convention in Burlington April 10-11

by Brian Irving

The Libertarian Party of North Carolina will hold its annual state convention in Burlington April 10 to 11 at the Quality Inn. The theme is A Prescription for Liberty.

“The prescription is the Libertarian Party and its effort to promote the philosophy of libertarianism,” said Barbara Howe, LPNC chair. “Our prescription for liberty will be to educate people on the benefits of a truly limited government.”

Business will include changes or amendments to the party's platform, election of five at-large executive committee members and selection of delegates to the national convention. The Libertarian National Convention will be held in St. Louis May 29 to 31.

Howe said the annual gathering is a time for liberty-minded friends from across the state to reconnect. The convention also allows the LPNC to adjust their platform to ensure it remains relevant to the issues of the day.

“We want to use the political process to move our state in a more libertarian direction,” Howe said. “That direction would lead us to more personal freedom and individual responsibility.”

Wes Benedict, national LP executive director will be the keynote speaker at a Saturday night banquet. He will share his thoughts on how Libertarians make a difference.

As Texas LP executive director, Benedict made Texas the best performing state chapter, against a trend of declining performance of the LP nationwide. In 2008, he recruited a record 173 candidates for office, 29 percent of Libertarian candidates nationwide.

Benedict earned a master of business administration degree from the University of Michigan and a mechanical engineering degree from the University of Texas.

Convention speakers will also include some of the 2010 Libertarian candidates in North Carolina.

Register for the convention at www.lpnc.org by April 5, 2010 to guarantee a meal.

To make reservations at the Quality call (336) 229-5203. Be sure to mention you are with the Libertarian Convention in order to receive the group rate.

This article was originally published to the Raleigh Libertarian Examiner.

New health care law is wrong legally, financially and morally

by Brian Irving

While Republicans are calling for Congress to “repeal and replace” the new Federal health care law, North Carolina's Libertarians want to make more fundamental changes.

Several candidates said the law is unconstitutional and an infringement on individual liberty. They support North Carolina joining the 14 states who are suing the Federal government challenging the new law.

Most are skeptical of Republican opposition, particularly Sen. Richard Burr’s pledge to “repeal and replace” that has become the GOP battle cry.

“Burr's statement ‘repeal and replace,’ tells you one thing: we want our law, not theirs,”said Richard Evey, Libertarian candidate for N.C. Senate District 44.

“Repeal and replace with nothing is what we would like to see,” said Susan Hogarth, Wake Libertarian Party chair.

“The only reform that is needed is for the Federal Government to get completely out of health care programs,” said Thomas Rose, Libertarian candidate for Congress in District 2.

Libertarians believe a completely free market, unhampered by taxation and government regulation, is the best way to insure all people have access to the best health care at the lowest prices. They oppose the new law on legal, moral and financial grounds.

The Constitutional argument, rarely raised by Republicans during Congressional debate, is simply that health care regulation is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to the Federal government.

Proponents claim that Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the commerce clause, which grants the Federal government power to regulate interstate commerce gives the Federal government the right to regulate health care. But that interpretation is wrong, according to Herb Sobel, Libertarian candidate for N.C. House District 3.

“The commerce clause of the Constitution which is used so often to justify government regulation of the rights of citizens applies to positive commercial activity,” he said. “If a citizen declines to purchase health insurance, a negative commercial activity, the commerce clause can not apply.”

Even if the U.S. Supreme Court finds the law constitutional, “that will not make it right and Libertarians will still oppose it,” said Hogarth. “Our opposition is not based solely on Constitutional grounds.”

The law forces people to purchase a service they may not want or need, and it forces people to further subsidize that service for others, libertarians say. It also enforces a moral judgment.

“Providing health services for ourselves or for those who cannot afford it is an individual decision based on an internal moral judgment,” said Stephanie Watson, Libertarian candidate for N.C. Senate District 16. “Like all moral decisions, this should be up to the individual, not forced by government mandate.”

Watson said the bill will increase demand for insurance, thus driving up prices from existing insurance companies.

“A compulsory system with higher health insurance rates means healthcare overall will be an even greater cost to the people of North Carolina,” she said. As a state senator, she said she’d work to keep North Carolina free from any costs and obligations imposed by the Federal government which go beyond its Constitutional power.

Evey and Sobel would support her efforts.

“This law will force tremendous unfunded mandates on the state that would lead us down the same economic path as California and dramatically increase the number of government dependents,” said Darryl Holloman, Libertarian candidate for Congressional in District 3.

Holloman said if elected he would work to repeal the bill using every means possible, including defunding administration and enforcement.

Whatever action the Federal government takes regarding health care “should be based on simple, grade school level problem solving skills and limited to the powers given to our Congress by the Constitution,” Holloman said.

He said that the root of the problem is that health care and insurance have been considered entitlements, driving up demand, while government price controls and regulation have driven up the costs associated with medical practice, restricting supply.

Holloman proposes several ways to let the free market to reform the health care system, including ending state insurance monopolies, reduce medical license requirements and ending government intervention in education and making allowing private companies to do drug testing.

This article was originally published to the Raleigh Libertarian Examiner.

About the Libertarian Party of Wake County (2010)

The Libertarian Party of Wake County (Wake LP) is a county affiliate of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina. Wake LP members participate in a variety of activities, such as supporting Libertarian candidates for elected offices, working with local advocacy groups on state and local issues, and doing the studio work to broadcast the The Libertarian Alternative on RTN-10.

Wake LP Organization
At the 2008 Wake LP Convention, members adopted a Statement of Organization (pdf) for the county party. At the annual convention in March 2010, members elected the following officers for the year:

                Chair – Susan Hogarth
                Vice Chair – Chris Tate
                Secretary – Linda Ellis

In addition to an annual convention, Wake LP holds monthly business meetings. These meetings are posted to the Triangle Libertarian Meetup calendar, along with weekly social meetings in Raleigh and Durham, and other events in the Triangle.

Triangle Libertarian Meetup and Email Lists
For news from the Libertarian Party of North Carolina, sign up for LPNC Announcements. Libertarians all around the Triangle are also encouraged to join the Triangle Libertarian Meetup group. For online discussion relevant only to Libertarians in Wake County, there is also an infrequently used email discussion list.

LPNC Executive Committee Members in Wake County
LPNC Executive Committee members from the Wake LP are Stephanie Watson (Recording Secretary) and Phil Jacobson (Member At Large). Susan Hogarth serves as Outreach Director for LPNC.

Annexation reform is not complicated

by Brian Irving

The annexation reform bill passed by the N.C. House of Representatives is “insulting to those who have fought for annexation reform,” Daren Bakst, director of legal and regulatory studies for the John Locke Foundation said March 22 at the weekly Shaftesbury Society luncheon.

“When people say annexation reform is really complicated, it's completely not complicated. It's a very simple issue. It comes down to this: annexed property owners should have a real voice in the process and they should be provided just one service they actually need,” Bakst said.

“That's it. We can go home. That's annexation reform right there.”

Bakst said that the key to annexation reform is to focus on the core issues and ignore the tangents on unrelated issues that do nothing but confuse the matter.

“The legislature should pass a bill with the core reforms, like SB 494,” he said. “The legislature should even consider blowing up all the bills and just adding a vote, county approval, or real services protection to existing law.”

The legislation passed by the House, HB 524, uses “smoke and mirrors” to do just the opposite. It actually strengthens the power of municipalities to forcibly annex. Although the bill purports to allow people to vote on annexation, Bakst called this provision “a sham” that “means nothing.”

In order to get a vote Bakst said, “Annexation victims have to get the signatures of 15 percent of the registered voters living in the municipality and affected area.”

“Why would municipal residents want to sign the petition,” Bakst asked. Using the example of Raleigh, that would require just over 38,000 signatures from city residents for anyone opposing an annexation by the city.

“That doesn't include the fact that you are going to have signatures that are rejected, so you have to build in 10 to 15 percent more. There is no way anybody is going to do that,” Bakst said.

Instead of the city council deciding their fate, annexation victims will be subjected to the will of city residents who vastly outnumber them, Bakst noted. To make it even more difficult for annexation opponents, the vote would take place during a general election, when voter turnout is usually greatest.

Bakst said that the biggest problem with the bill is the language on providing meaningful services and benefits to annexed areas.

“HB 524 now makes it official: Municipalities can clearly annex areas without providing one necessary service,” he said. The bill includes specific language designed to preempt a possible court ruling clarifying the existing law.

“There is a real possibility that the N.C. Supreme Court will clarify that these games being played by municipalities are not legal and they can't continue to duplicate existing services,” Bakst said. HB 524 would expressly allow duplication of services. The bill complete ignores whether or not an area needs a service.

HB 524 also guts the requirement that municipalities provide newly annexed areas with water and sewer service within two years of annexation. Under existing law, municipalities can only get out of the requirement if the installation of sewer is not economically feasible due to the unique topography of the area.

Under the so-called reform bill, municipalities would have three years to provide the service and can get out of meeting this responsibility for any fiscal reason. Newly annexed homeowner who request sewer service must pay the total cost up front. They will no longer have the option to pay over time, as under existing law.

“Forced annexation exists to help local politicians. It's a way of them bailing themselves out for their mismanagement,” said Bakst. He compared forced annexation to the Federal government bailout of banks and GM, “except that they (municipalities) can get it every year.”

One of the strongest proponents of forced annexation is the North Carolina League of Municipalities. But as Bakst notes, the NCLM represents local politicians and municipal cities, not city residents or even the interests of municipalities.

“Their basic game plan is to whatever their members, city officials, tell them,” he said. “What's interesting is that there is no pretense about the fact that forced annexation has simply become a financial bailout,” he said. “You'd think they'd be embarrassed and not admit that.”

“Now there's no question. They just come out and say we going to have to raise property taxes unless we annex this area,” he said.

“Municipalities and the League are like drug addicts: they can’t help but need forced annexation to cover up for their mismanagement – not to mention why should they care about people living in unincorporated areas,” Bakst said.

County commissioners are the number one enemy to annexation reform, Bakst said. “For 50 years, counties have sat back and watched their constituents get abused by municipalities,” he said.

This article was originally published to the Raleigh Libertarian Examiner.

First planning meeting of Beitler for US Senate volunteers

The first planning meeting of Beitler for US Senate volunteers is coming up this Wednesday, March 24. If you'd like to volunteer and haven't yet signed up for the Meetup group, please do so at http://www.meetup.com/Beitlervolunteers/. You can also volunteer for and donate to the Beitler campaign on his campaign website: http://www.beitlerforussenate.org/.

If you need a reason to volunteer, check out the NAACP campaign forum for US Senate candidates from North Carolina. Dr. Beitler is the only one speaking up for liberty while all the other candidates who attended called for more big government "solutions" that will just add to the national debt. While it's available, you can view a video of this forum on WRAL website here: http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/7230482/. Alternately, you can view this forum on YouTube. Michael Shanklin has provided a YouTube playlist: http://www.youtube.com/user/mikeshanklin#grid/user/28C3B3A2A73C4EA0.

Libertarians say state employee records should be made public

by Brian Irving

Two Libertarian candidates for General Assembly unequivocally believe that the records, salary and employment history of state employees should be public information. They were responding to the same questions asked of Democratic and Republican elected officials by the News & Observer for a series of articles highlighting Sunshine Week.

Sunshine Week is a national initiative, led by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, to open a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information.

"I worked under such an assumption when I was a state employee from 1997 to 1999," said Stephanie Watson, Libertarian candidate for N.C. House District 16. "Personnel records for state employees should be available for review at the request of any citizen of North Carolina," she said.

"After all, the citizens employ them through the agency of government. Each state employee should accept that he or she is subject to public inquiries about his performance in that job," she said.

Richard Evey, Libertarian candidate for N.C. Senate District 44 agreed, saying that it was part of the concept of transparency in government. "This is a part of the job," he said.

Watson said that state employees should accept the fact that they are subject to public inquiries about job performance. Applications, recommendations and hiring reports should also be public.

"Like personnel records, all applications, recommendations, and hiring reports for state employees should be available for review at the request of any citizen of North Carolina," she said.

Watson and Evey agreed, however, that personal data which could leave the individual vulnerable to identity theft should not be available to the public except by subpoena.

While the libertarians gave a straight yes or no answer to all three questions, the major party politicians were a bit more nuanced in their responses.

The first question asked if the personal records of a state employee convicted of a crime or disciplined for misconduct should be made public. Senate leader Marc Basnight, a Democrat, said, "I don't know." House Speaker Joe Hackney, a Democrat, said, "It's a line-drawing exercise, and whether the line is drawn in exactly the right place, I don't know the answer to that."

House Minority Leader Paul Stam, a Republican, said the release of complete personnel records "must be only under specific circumstances." Only Senate Minority Leader Phil Berger, a Republican, said yes.

The second question asked if employee applications, hiring panel reports, job candidate recommendations and other information that helps explain why someone won a public job should be made public information.

Basnight said, "As it pertains to the search for (UNC) chancellors, absolutely not." Hackney said he was opposed to it and Stam also said no. Only Berger agreed such records should be public.

Finally, when asked if a worker's state employment history, including job changes, disciplinary action or commendations, and salary adjustments be made public, Basnight responded with a question. "The law today is the current salary, but not what they made previously," he asked. "I do not understand why that would not be public."

Hackney said he wasn't prepared to argue it either way, adding, "I understand it's been that way since 1975."

Berger said this information should be made public, provided the distinction between employment and personal information in the current law be maintained. Stam said, "No. Public employees deserve the same measure of privacy as employees in the private sector."

This article was originally published to the Raleigh Libertarian Examiner.