LP 101 Archive

Family business of 40 years fights eminent domain by Ball State

Ball State University has recently voted to use eminent domain to seize the private property of Hiatt Printing to build the McKinley Commons, a $25.9 million hotel, dorm, and conference center. It will be paid for by bonds.

From the Castle Coalition story:

In response, Chris Hiatt criticized the university for using eminent domain as “a convenient vehicle” to satisfy “their own ‘capitalistic wish-lists’”:

Condemnation and the seizure of private property is, as it should be, reserved for the most serious of circumstances for which there are no reasonable alternatives and is absolutely necessary for the overall general public welfare or good. It is not a convenient vehicle for psuedo-government entities such as Ball State to use to seize private property for their own “capitalistic wish-lists” for which there are many alternatives. Therefore, we strongly disagree with Ball State’s assessment that they can successfully meet the “public use threshold” in this proposed project.

Read the entire write up here.

Libertarians believe that respecting private property is one of the foundations of a free society. So how could infrastructure be built without eminent domain? Click here to see the answer.

Join us for our second LP 101 Class in Southern Indiana on Jan. 28

“Are Libertarians librarians that like Liberty??”
Join us for an hour-long look the Libertarian Party and it’s principles. The Libertarian Party of Indiana will be holding its second LP 101 class on January 28, 2012 in Clarksville, IN. We are the third largest political party in America. Libertarians have practical and principled solutions to today’s problems. This is a great class to bring friends or family that may have misconceptions or questions about the party or for people looking to find a way to start making a difference in politics.
 Saturday, January 28, 2012, 1:00 PM EST

Holiday Inn

505 Marriott Dr., Clarksville, IN (map)

We will meet downstairs in the Shakespeare Room.
If you are unable to attend, visit our website LP101.org for more information on the libertarian philosophy and the party that works to implement it through government.

Video of the Day: Defining the Different Strands of “Libertarian”

With any political movement or party, there are different strains of thought withing the Libertarian Party and the philosophy known as libertarianism. This video helps break it down:

Second LP 101: Intro to the Libertarian Party Class Announced

Be sure to visit LP101.org!

Time:
Saturday, August 13 · 2:00pm – 3:00pm

Location:
Libertarian Party of Indiana HQ
156 E Market St Suite 405
Indianapolis, IN

More Info
A one hour introduction to the Libertarian Party and the principles and philosophy of Libertarianism. Please join us to hear principled solutions to today’s problems. We will probably get together for food or drinks afterwards for those interested.

Space is limited, so please RSVP to frank.rossa@att.net or a private message on Facebook.

Does Government Spending Grow the Economy?

It’s often said that WWII was the reason the Great Depression ended. Larry Summers recently proposed that the Japan tragedy would be beneficial to the world economy. (The truth is that oil dropped because they will be using less and many are predicting that the world’s 3rd largest economy will never recover. After any great tragedy that destroys personal property some economist says that we shouldn’t be gloomy because it’s actually good for the economy.

The truth is that war, economic stimulus, and natural disasters are bad for the economy. Watch this short video to learn why:

The broken window fallacy was first introduced by a French philosopher named Frederic Bastiat. He wrote a short book titled “The Law.” It’s surprisingly easy to read, and it will really enlighten you. Pick it up here.

10 Simple Things You Can Do to Advance Libertarianism

(By Kenn Gividen, LPIN 2004 Gubernatorial Candidate)

Some call it “guerilla marketing.”

It’s out-of-the-mainstream marketing that energizes your core efforts with little or no expense. Most anyone can do; even if those who are strapped for time.

Like a myriad of tiny snowflakes that combine to make a blizzard, guerilla marketing strategies can interact to comprise a powerful presence with a significant positive outcome.

Different strategies work for different organizations. So what guerilla marketing strategies can Libertarians use?

Here are ten suggestions:

1. Post comments on web sites and blogs.

The power of this strategy is harnessed by the Chicago-based advocacy group Latino Policy Forum. That organization claims a list of 3,000 people who are asked to post comments on various web sites and blogs as needs arise. Other agenda-driven organizations have similar programs. Libertarians should do the same.

Most major newspapers allow readers to post comments at the end of on-line articles. Short, concise and to-the-point comments are effective. Keep in mind you don’t have to engage in a protracted debate with everyone who challenges your views. Most readers are bright enough to see through the abject nonsense of retractors.

When using this strategy, keep the following in mind:

  • Focus on newspapers (or blogs) that are widely read to maximize your efforts.
  • Use the term “libertarian” in your comments. And do so responsibly. What you say and how you say it reflects on all libertarians.
  • Consider using an alias.
  • Organizing a “comment bomb” or “online flash mob” with other Libertarians can also be effective. This is accomplished when you ask dozens of Libertarian friends to post comments on a specific article. Most newspapers and blogs will appreciate the added attention.

2. Write very short letters to local newspapers

While there’s nothing wrong with submitting lengthy op-ed articles to your local newspapers, short and poignant letters to the editor often fare better.

The reason?

Short letters containing one to five sentences are more likely to be read than longer submissions. They also have a better chance of being published. Consider it a wise time investment. Would you prefer to spend one hour writing a 700-word article that may never get published? Or would you rather invest five minutes forming a simple thought that will be read by, perhaps, thousands?

Keep in mind that your two inches of space on the Letters to the Editor page would, if purchased as an advertisement, cost a ton of money. Newspapers with broad circulations can command over $100 per column inch. Consider your letter a financial contribution to the libertarian cause. And it didn’t cost you a dime.

Note, also, that virtually every newspaper welcomes e-mail letters. They don’t like attachments. When you compose your letter via e-mail, simply place it in the body of the message. Include your real name, address and phone number.

3. Use a bumper sticker

Notice, if you will, “sticker” is singular; not “bumper stickers,” plural.

Imagine Jeff Foxworthy saying, “If you’ve ever been pulled over for having too many bumper stickers, you may be a Libertarian.”

Many people, myself included, view bumper stickers as tacky; both literally and figuratively. But they are an effective use of your time.

Consider the two minutes it takes to attach a sticker to you bumper. Compare that to the months or years it will remain on your vehicle; seen by hundreds if not thousands of motorists.

The ideal bumper sticker contains one to three words. It is attractive and easy to read from a distance. Apply this rule of thumb: If it takes longer than a fraction of a second to read the sticker, don’t use it.

Bumper stickers fail to be effective if they are so “wordy” that no one cares to read them. Such stickers also tend to contain small print, making them nearly impossible to read and, in some cases, encouraging tailgating as the driver behind stresses to read the message.

Consider taping your sticker to the inside of your rear window. It will be more visible and will not be eroded by weather. If you choose this strategy, you can print your own “sticker” on your home computer. Use upper and lower case letters in an arial font. Make the letters big and bold. Keep the size to 11″ x 4.25″ max. Print on light card stock or heavy paper.

And, above all, drive courteously.

4. Speak up

I call them “conversational inserts.” They are short, polite and non-offensive spoken thoughts intended to impress others with libertarian ideals.

You may hear others talking about abusive government or exorbitant taxes. Rather than rudely ranting about your iron-clad solutions, offer a basic one-liner. One of my favorites is, “That’s why God made Libertarians.”

Engaging in heated debate is a waste of time and energy. It creates resistance, not acceptance, of your views. Imagine, for example, if someone tried to force-feed you your favorite food. You would most certainly resist even though you like the food. Likewise, everyone resists being force-fed arguments; even if those arguments are water-tight. Have you ever walked away from an argument, and felt positive towards your verbal sparring partner, or had your mind changed? Most of the time, a lengthy argument with an acquaintance breeds contempt.

Though personally controversial, the noted philosopher Sam Harris weighed in on this subject. “You almost never get the pleasure of seeing that you won the argument in real time,” he quipped. “People just don’t like to publicly change their minds. They change their minds in private.”

Don’t try to win arguments. Try, instead, to instill friendly thoughts for future consideration.

5. Post and puff on Facebook

Posting links to Libertarian articles is a simple way to raise awareness. After you make a post, be sure to add a comment. Few of your Facebook friends will bother to open the link and read the article. Many, however, will read your comment.

When other Libertarians post on Facebook, puff their posts. That is, draw positive attention to them. There are several obvious ways to do this. You can “like” their posts. You can make supportive comments. You can repost their posts. doing this helps increase the amount of “impressions” this post will have. That’s a fancy way of saying that more eyeballs will see it because it’s more “popular.”

If your local or state party have facebooks, share the link to the facebook page on your wall. Also, suggest friends to join the page. It’s located right below the page’s profile picture.

Consider posting links to articles on Libertarian blogs. This not only places the articles in front of your friends, but it may also may help the host blog’s search engine rating.

6. Be friendly

Personal appeal consists primarily of personality and appearance. It is a powerful part of any marketing system.

Making a positive personal impression on those around us is a passive yet effective tool for advancing Libertarianism. Eventually the bank teller, co-worker or UPS driver will associate you with the Libertarian movement. If you are viewed as friendly, your libertarian values will also be viewed as friendly.

Remember that 1) first impressions are lasting and 2) people will “buy” you before they buy your product.

Use breath mints.

7. Be sociable

Consider joining affinity groups such as a church, lodge or professional organization.

Don’t be over zealous in communicating your Libertarian views. I refer to such folks as “living spam.” Not only will you be counter-productive, but your motive for group participation will be questioned.

8. Write complimentary letters

Write letters to businesses thanking them for their services.

I once wrote a letter to the Post Office praising the employees for unusual kindness and above average service. My letter was posted in the lobby. It stayed there for several weeks.

Business owners and managers are inundated with complaints. They seldom receive compliments. When they do, they take notice. Some will post your letters for all to see.

A complimentary letter, for example, may thank the manager at a restaurant for superior service and great food. You letter should be short and genuine. Casually mention your libertarian values in the letter. A sample phrase would be, “As a Libertarian I support competition and you certainly out performed your competitors.”

If you serve in an official Libertarian capacity, use your official designation. For example you will sign your letter as “Cordially, John Doe, Chair,

Libertarian Party of Rand County.”

9. Attend government functions.

School board meetings, city council meetings, county council meetings, etc., are ideal opportunities to amplify simple questions or comments to your community via the local media.

When determining which meetings to attend, consider this question: Will the media be there? A “Yes” answer to that question signals an opportunity to advance libertarian perspectives and, occasionally, the Libertarian Party.

When you attend politely ask relevant questions. The media may report your concern and will often single you out at the close of the meeting to get your name, affiliation and to clarify your views.

Be sure to behave professionally and dress appropriately. Donning a chicken suit is not advised.

Don’t be surprised if you are the only other citizen there. Local officials rarely see people that aren’t elected or work for their body of government. When they do, you can have a surprisingly positive effect on them.

10. Vote

Is Personal Freedom in Indiana a Constitutional Right or Unauthorized Government Control?

(By Phyllis Klosinski of Brown County)

This Indiana Constitution language is explicit, limiting and deliberate, it controls government not YOU.

“No law shall be passed, the taking effect of which shall be made to depend upon any authority, except as provided in this Constitution.

The Libertarian Party Platform adheres to the Constitutional constraints protecting YOUR sole dominion over YOUR life.  The Libertarian Party is committed to protecting theses rights, and stopping a government that over steps its boundaries.

This is why Libertarians oppose any law that keeps two people from living their lives as they wish.It’s why we oppose the government dictating to us the terms of marriage for anyone, not just same-sex couples.

Do Indiana Court Rulings over-rule the Constitution and your guaranteed inalienable rights of individual personal freedom? Rulings such as Morrison v. Sadler 2005 which determined:

“The State has no burden to demonstrate that the statute is constitutional, the burden is entirely upon the Plaintiff (The anti-gay marriage amendment side) to overcome the presumption of constitutionality and to establish a constitutional violation”;

Only the Indiana Constitution contains the authority for Legislators to consider passage of laws and only if those laws adhere to the provisions of the Constitution.

The Indiana Constitution does not contain any authority for the passage of laws which provide government control of marriage. The Amendment adding Section 38 defining marriage in civil law terms will impose unlimited government authority to define, condition, limit and control marriage.

The Constitution is the sole source of authority, therefore current Indiana Code which defines marriage, prohibitions and any and all requirements, licenses, terms, and conditions are not authorized by any current section of the Constitution.  The passage of this “Marriage” Amendment would legalize the aspects of family law which are now not authorized under the same Constitution.

Some in the government claim government control is necessary to protect marriage, but none explain how the statutes controlling personal choice, including marriage, were ever enacted into law absent the required mandatory Constitutional authority.  Instead Indiana Legislators have chosen to make statutes legal after the fact.

If you think Indiana is protecting you consider the language contained in amendments to HJR-6:

“The legislature has the power to define marriage and the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage”:  “Marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall remain permanent until death do they part”.

Further consider SB 119 “ Covenant marriage” controlling by civil contract the lifelong commitment of marriage and HB 1248 requiring “The office of the secretary shall review research based marriage and relationship curricula for the purposes of IC 31-11-4.5-2(3)(F) and approve curricula that meets the criteria established by the office of the secretary”.

And finally SB 2 defining the “Authority to solemnize marriages” all authorizing Indiana to make personal determinations not authorized by the Constitution by nullifying YOUR Rights.

Every individual within Indiana law is under attack by even the proposal of laws which do not adhere to the Constitution, we must all set our individual preferences aside and unite to protect all equally.

The principles of the LP Platform are available for everyone, but YOU are the driving engine, YOU must protect Your Rights!   In a series of comparisons between Constitutional Rights and proposed and enacted legislation, LP will provide continued information for the necessity of all citizens to act now to protect themselves from an out of control limitless Indiana government.

The Bell Curve: We Hold These Principles…

A number of people, through choice or misunderstanding, fail to draw a distinction between what are called large “L” Libertarians, small “L” libertarians, and anarchists. While there are similarities, there are also some differences. Anarchists are probably best described as being in opposition of all government.  Small “L” libertarians are a little more accepting of a little bit of government, as long as it doesn’t interfere with any individuals rights.

Large “L” Libertarians, which I consider myself, are pretty much in line with the small “L” libertarians, with a dash of pragmatism added. They generally support a constitutionally-limited government, while realizing that our original Constitution fell short of protecting everyones’ rights and might need an occasional amendment.  I think they are more likely to belong to the Libertarian Party, although there are certainly a lot of small “L” members.  I can personally testify that it makes for lively conventions.

One thing that Libertarians, libertarians and civilized anarchists generally agree on is the non-initiation of force.  That doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to defend yourself or to help others defend themselves.  It simply means you don’t have the right to initiate aggression against another person, or another person’s property.  Furthermore, you don’t have the right to designate another person or group to initiate that aggression on your behalf.

Just as you don’t have the right to force others to support a cause you might find worthy, neither do you have the right to prevent others from supporting a cause they might find worthy.  It is what sets the Libertarian Party apart from other parties, and it’s one thing that prevents Myanmar and other governments around the world from ever being considered libertarian.

Put as simply as possible, the Libertarian Party holds these principles:

  • That all people possess certain unalienable natural rights, and that among these are rights to life, liberty, justly acquired property, and self-governance.
  • That the only moral basis of government is the preservation and protection of unalienable natural rights.
  • That no person or institution, public or private, has the right to initiate the use of physical force or fraud against another person, and that all people are bound, without contract, to abstain from infringing upon the natural rights of other people.
  • That all people are entitled to choose their own lifestyles, as long as they do not forcibly impose their values on others.
  • That the voluntary and unrestricted exchange of goods and services is fundamental to a peaceful and harmonious society.

Somebody once said that “There may be two Libertarians somewhere that agree on everything, but I’m not one of them.”  I’m not either, but I think you will find that most agree that we need a smaller, less expensive and less intrusive government.

Of course, there are a lot of people that don’t consider themselves to be Libertarians that will agree with that.

As I said at the outset, this is just my version, and I’m pretty sure that even if we find that other Libertarian out there that agrees with me, I’m just as sure that with just a little effort we can find something here to disagree about. That’s another thing Libertarians do.


What is a Libertarian? The LPIN launches a new LP 101 Class

“Are libertarians just librarians that take liberties? Why is a Libertarian Party even necessary? Aren’t you guys just Republicans?”

We’re launching a new program to help teach the LP’s beliefs and how we’re different from other parties. This site – http://www.lp101.org is a portal to information on our principles, stances on issues, links to sites, how to get involved, and information on our brand new one hour class!

We’re launching a short class to cover the basics of the libertarian philosophy, an introduction to the party, its leadership, and how you can get more involved in making a change in your community. Please share this website with friends that are looking for more information on the party.

The first class will be held Saturday March 26 from 3 PM to 4 PM at the Bonefish Grill in Greenwood. Soon, local organizers will hold these classes across Indiana.

Find All the Details on the New Class At LP101.Org

What is Government? The Force Behind the Law

(By Dennis Beatty, Originally Posted at Rhinehold’s Blog)

There has been discussion lately about what the government should be doing, can do and is constitutionally allowed to do. But underneath those discussions we need to understand what makes government different from other organizations. Private organizations like the Red Cross, the NAACP, MADD, the Salvation Army, Angie’s List and the ACLU can all perform functions the citizens of a regional area need. Most things the government can do can be performed by similar privately ran organizations, so what is it that the government can do that these organizations can’t? Simply put, the government is the only body that we have legally given the power of force over its citizens.

That’s it. By force the government can enforce its laws. If the laws aren’t followed, we have given this single body the power to remove us from society and place us into custody at gunpoint if necessary. Yes, if we take the natural progression of resistance to the government, that is the end result.

Let’s look at a natural progression. Let’s say you are guilty of one of the laws that the government has been entrusted to enforce. You have decided, for your own personal reason, to not carry automobile insurance. As this is illegal in most states, you are breaking the law. Now you get pulled over and given a ticket for this. You ignore it. Soon a warrant is issues for your arrest. When the warrant is served, you resist arrest. The police will, rightfully so, use force to arrest you and take you into custody. And they would be legal in performing this action.

No other organization or agency has this power. If you pledge money to MADD and then don’t give them that money, you will not be made to by force, unless the government gets involved to put enforcement of a contract into action. No one from MADD will visit you with contingent of gun-toting enforcers to make you give over the pledged funds.

It is precisely this power that we have given to the government that requires that we limit what the government can do. Every time we ask the government to enforce a law, we are asking them to use the threat of force, possibly death, to ensure that the law is followed. Every program that requires taxes to fund is asking the government to take the earned wealth, by force, from one individual and giving it to the program.

The writers of the US Constitution understood this. They knew it all too well, having lived under a government previously that used that power to limit the freedom of it’s citizens as it suited the needs of the government. So, in writing the Constitution they put hard limits in it, most notably in the bill of rights, capped with the 9th and 10th amendments. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” and “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

In other words, our ruling document is not a listing of rights that we are given by government, but a listing of limits that are placed upon the government.  If something is not enumerated within the Constitution as a power of the government, it simply does not have that power.

Yet, all too often, in trying to get the notions we want enacted as laws we ignore this fact. We imagine that there is some wording or clause in the constitution that allows us to use it for our desires, while at the same time imagining that those desires we oppose are not allowed to use those same clauses. The reality is that we have so far pushed the line of what the federal government was designed to do, without properly amending the constitution to allow for these new desires, that most people aren’t even aware that there are some things that the federal government just isn’t allowed to do.  Thomas Jefferson warned about this when he wrote:

“They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.”

“I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words ‘general defense and public welfare.’ These words only express the motives which induced the Convention to give to the ordinary legislature certain specified powers which they enumerate, and which they thought might be trusted to the ordinary legislature, and not to give them the unspecified also; or why any specification? They could not be so awkward in language as to mean, as we say, ‘all and some.’ And should this construction prevail, all limits to the federal government are done away.”

When an injustice or problem comes before us we instinctively want something to be done to fix it. If someone is down on their luck or a person is being unfairly victimized based on something they have no control over, we want to see the little guy ‘win’ and beat the system that is causing their pain. So many times we say to ourselves, ‘There Ought To Be A Law’ to prevent this from happening again! But is making another law really the best way to handle these events?

There are many times where there are other ways to resolve issues that do not involve bringing in the government and their enforcement of laws that are made. For example in dealing with the less fortunate, should we be involving the federal government into such issues or should the community, each individual deciding for themselves how best to help, or even if help is warranted in each case, get involved and resolved the problems as they occur without creating a bureaucracy that invariably leaves some who are deserving out in the cold while rewarding those who know how to ‘grease the system’?

In many cases the laws create new problems that need to be addressed by, yes, another law. We want a law to stop people from committing prostitution, but in effect we push the behavior underground, preventing the community from adequately dealing with the issue while involving the police state into the personal lives of two consenting adults. A similar issue with abortion, gambling and the use of recreational drugs like tobacco, alcohol and marijuana. We ignore the history of prohibition in regards to alcohol many decades ago and recreate the same situation in an unrealistic War on Drugs that has had little effect on the use of drugs while creating an underground mob culture, criminals out of people who need help and the filing of our jails with people who’s only offense is the smoking of a plant that grows naturally in the wild.

So the situation is now that every perceived ill should be handled by the government. By using their ability to force people to follow whatever law is enacted they can force people to solve these perceived ills. But by doing so things that could be handed without that threat of force behind it, instead done through charity and good feelings are now accomplished through force and lack of freedom. More funds are required to be taken, by force, from the citizens instead of offered up by the citizens through charitable means. But worse than that, because we are forced by fund these endeavors we no longer feel the need to provide charity. “We gave already” is the view of many, because they are forced to give from their paychecks in taxation they feel less motivated to give to charitable organizations.

This permeates. We no longer know or care who are neighbors are or what their needs are. There’s a governmental program to take care of them, “I can live my life knowing that I’m doing my part without actually ‘getting dirty’.” Not exactly the type of attitude that helped make this society great. It’s also a trend that I am afraid may be too far entrenched to reverse.

Of course, I am not advocating anarchy. Many will say, wrongly, that anyone suggesting a reduction of the influence of government in our lives is just trying to bring anarchy to our society. There are times when laws and government are definitely needed. The protection of an individual’s rights as prescribed by the constitution being the highest priority, the regulation of interstate trade and commerce, protection of the country from outside forces, etc. But when confronted with an issue that needs to be corrected, we should be asking first what we can do to resolve these problems ourselves without involving the institutionalization of rigid laws.

The 7 Never-to-be-Forgotten Principles of Government

(By Harry Browne in 2003, Originally posted at HarryBrowne.org.)

It’s easy to think sometimes that a new government program, law, or regulation could cure a pressing social problem.

Whether it’s a desire to end abortions, keep the wrong people out of the country, make your city drug-free, stop corporate frauds, crack down on criminals, or make health care more accessible and less expensive, you can imagine how the right new law could make everything okay.

But when you get that kind of thought, I hope you’ll remember the seven principles that apply to all government programs — not just the ones you oppose.

Read the rest of this entry »