United States of America — Libertarian PartyCandidate for President

There has recently been discussion within the Libertarian Party about what it means to be a libertarian. The main point of debate is whether or not the non-aggression principle is a core tenet of libertarianism. The non-aggression principle, also called the NAP or principle of non-aggression, has been defined in numerous ways over the years, however a generally accepted definition of the principle is something along the lings of: “All people have equal right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as long as there is no unjust harm done to the person or legitimately owned property of another.”

Among supporters of the non-aggression principle there is discussion about what constitutes an act of aggression, or unjust harm, however the wider debate is about whether or not a libertarian must subscribe to the non-aggression principle. To put it another way: Is the principle of non-aggression fundamental to libertarianism? And can someone who rejects the principle of non-aggression be a libertarian, or a Libertarian? (note: a “libertarian” with a lowercase l is someone who supports libertarian ideals; while a “Libertarian” with an uppercase L is someone who is a member of the Libertarian Party.)

In The Machinery of Freedom, David Friedman wrote, “The central idea of libertarianism is that people should be permitted to run their own lives as they wish.” And David Boaz, in Libertarianism: A Primer, wrote, “In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force [or fraud].” Both of these definitions of libertarianism are based on the principle of non-aggression, i.e. don’t cause unjust harm. Therefore, it should be obvious that the principle of non-aggression is fundamental to libertarianism.

Since the principle of non-aggression is fundamental to libertarianism, and libertarians subscribe to the ideology of libertarianism, then it should be obvious that libertarians should also support the principle of non-aggression.

What then of Libertarians, i.e. members of the Libertarian Party, and the principle of non-aggression? To answer this question, one need only look at the Preamble and Statement of Principles of the Libertarian Party Platform. The first statement of the Libertarian Party Platform Preamble states, “Libertarians [seek] a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.” The next sentence reads, “We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships.” These two statements are reiterated in the second sentence of the Statement of Principles which states, “We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”

It is clear that the principle of non-aggression is a core tenet of libertarianism, in general, and more specifically the Libertarian Party; anyone who says otherwise does not really understand libertarianism or the fundamental beliefs of the Libertarian Party.

On August 21, 2013, Judge Col. Denise Lind sentenced Pfc. Chelsea Manning to 35 years in military prison (minus 1294 days for pre-trial confinement). Three hours after Manning's sentence was announced, attorney David Coombs said the appeals process will begin in a matter of days. Coombs said, “I will file a request… that the president pardon Pfc. Manning, or at the very least commute his sentence to time served.”

 

 

Coombs said, the request includes a statement from Manning himself, “I understand that my actions violated the law. I regret that my actions hurt or harmed the US. It was never my intent to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people.”

 

The truth is Manning's actions caused no actual harm to any of the American troops overseas. The only harm was to the egos of those who want to control other people.

 

Col. Morris Davis tweeted that “Manning [will] likely serve about 8 to 8.5 yrs more in confinement.” That means Manning will serve nearly 10 years longer in military prison than the people who commited the war-crimes that he exposed. As of yet, the apache gunner who appeared in the ‘Collateral Murder’ video has never faced criminal charges. Those who slaughtered civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan have never faced criminal charges. Those who ordered the troops into combat have never faced criminal charges.

 

Private Manning is a whistleblower who exposed war-crimes, and for his good deed he is being confined to military prison for at least the next 8 years of his life. I am proud to be among the 4,114 who signed the petition to serve part of Private Manning's sentence, and ask Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan to either allow each of the people who signed the petition to serve 3.1 days in custody so that Chelsea Manning may go free or that the Maj. Gen. Commute Manning's sentence upon review. Regardless the action by Maj. Gen. Buchanan, I formally request that President Barack Obama grant a full pardon to Pfc. Chelsea Manning. Absent action by President Obama, I vow if elected as my first act upon taking office to issue a full pardon to Pfc Chelsea Manning!

 

In February 2015, the Colorado Department of Revenue Marijuana Enforcement Division released a reports stating, “On December 31, 2014, Colorado concluded a full twelve months of lawful retail marijuana sales to adults over 21 years of age. The State experienced many firsts, such as the implementation of the first-in-the-world comprehensive regulatory model overseeing cultivation, products manufacturing, and sale of marijuana for non-medical retail use.”

These so called firsts were a result of the passage of a ballot initiative in 2012, in which voters amended the State Constitution to regulate cannabis like wine. Despite the difference between the cannabis regulations and the regulations concerning alcohol, primarily the regulation on the amount one can purchase or possess, the MED reports that over 17 tons of recreational cannabis were sold in 2014. Additionally, Reuters reports, “State tax officials say sales hit nearly $700 million last year, with medical (cannabis) accounting for $386 million and recreational (cannabis) bringing in $313 million,” which amounted to approximately $76 million in revenue through taxes and fees to the State of Colorado.

Some people argue that a regulatory structure such as that adopted in Colorado and Washington, where figures are not yet released, will be the beginning of the end of the drug war. While the statistics show that arrests for cannabis possession have declined in Colorado by 84% since 2010, and arrests for distribution of cannabis have declined by 90% in the same time period, arrests for public consumption have risen by over three and a half times in only 1 year (184 in 2013 to 668 in 2014).

However cannabis is only one aspect of the drug war. Aside from asset forfeiture, the other aspects of the drug war are more taboo, and less discussed in any serious manner. Additionally, one must define what is meant by “ending the drug war.” Some would be happy to see only arrests for cannabis possession be eliminated, but would support the continued prosecution of unlicensed sales (regardless if they support licensing sales or not). While others believe that taxing and regulating cannabis, but keeping the “hard stuff” illegal is a good enough end to the drug war. Yet others believe that all substances should be able to be manufactured, sold, possessed and or consumed without government intervention. I fall in the latter category, and do not believe that taxing and regulating a substance, any substance, can lead to the eventual abolition of that taxing and regulatory structure. I challenge you to think of something, anything, that has had a taxing and regulatory structure removed from it within your life time.

I long for the day in which all substances are as legal as tomatoes. What do I mean? To my knowledge, there are no laws regulating how many tomatoes a person can grow, purchase, sale or posses. There may be laws regulating business activity in general, but not tomatoes specifically. Thus, to truly end the war on drugs, the federal Controlled Substances Act needs to be repealed, and all state and local laws prohibiting the manufacture, sale, purchase, possession and consumption of all substances must be repealed. By saying this, I am not advocating that anyone consume crystal meth, only that one should not be treated as a criminal for simply doing so. It is not only costly to treat people with vices like criminals, it is also immoral.