Liberty Blog

Shocking, isn’t it? I mean here I am, a long-time Tesla shareholder ranting about the dangers of electric cars, of all things? Granted, I was able to pay off our mortgage with the gains we made selling off some Tesla stock, and we paid off our daughter's college debt. Regardless, there's still a lot to rant about electric cars, and from a number of angles—dozens of angles, actually.

Probably the biggest fatality awaiting Pennsylvania after electric cars become big is the state police. Yep, electric cars can be potentially fatal to the state police, as we know them. That's assuming nothing is done to stop that death. And no, I'm not being dramatic—it IS going to happen.

Think about it.... About two-thirds of the state police budget is currently funded by the gas tax. But once the cars are all electric, no one is going to be paying any gas tax anymore because they won't be buying gas any more. No gas, no gas tax revenue, and the state police don't get funded. Pretty straightforward, ain't it? And possibly fatal.

And it's not just the state police who're facing death. There's good old PennDOT, too. They get their funding from the gas tax, too. Without gas tax funding, who's going to pay for the roads? Who's going to pay for building the bridges? Who's going to pay for those big yellow trucks that sleep six? No one, when there's no gas tax, that's who.

And what about all those unconstitutional remoras that suckle at the gas tax breast? Remoras like SEPTA, LERTA, LANTA, and other government transportation authorities? I counted, and there are thirty-eight of them in Pennsylvania. Imagine all of them, suddenly without subsidies, going from mass transit to massive deficit

Exactly how much revenue does Pennsylvania expect to lose? Last time I looked, the state's Motor License Fund brought in around four billion a year, and it's glad-handed all over the state. But where's that four billion going to come from once the gas tax dwindles? How would you carve a new four billion dollars out of a forty billion dollar state budget? But we're going to have to bite that bullet—and do it soon, all thanks to the imminent electric car revolution.

And it's not just the state police and PennDOT who are in mortal danger. How about your local gas station? . According to Manta.com, there are about eighteen hundred of them scattered across Pennsylvania. What's going to happen to them? What's going to happen to all the jobs they represent? I'll tell you what'll happen: gone, gone, gone. Sheetz, Wawa, Turkey Hill? Dinosaurs! Every one of them. And the asteroid known as electric cars is already on its way to wipe them out... and the thousands of jobs they provide. Gone, all gone

But wait! There's more! Or should I say, "But wait! There's less!". What about your friendly corner mechanic? There's very little to go wrong with an electric car, you know. And no more emission inspections either, meaning even less money for that friendly corner mechanic, not to mention less cash for the state.

And what happens to Jiffy Lube, Aamco, Meinike? Electric cars don’t need oil. They don't need transmissions. They don't need mufflers. Poor old Manny, Moe, and Jack will need to find new jobs

But wait! There are even MORE fatalities in the making. So far, all the ones I've mentioned have been direct fatalities There are bunches of indirect fatalities, too. For example, what happens to the big oil companies? Exxon, BP, Lukoil? At best, they become Shells of their former self (pardon the pun). The same fate awaits offshore drilling companies, and their inevitable Deepwater spills. And what happens to that poisonous Mariner Pipeline In southeastern Pennsylvania that's destroying all the communities in its path with all its pollution, sinkholes, mudspills, poisoned wells, and worse? Not to mention all its unseen medical risks?

Gone, thank God! Did you hear the other day they were facing no fewer than forty-eight criminal charges?? But soon, we won’t need that poisonous pipeline. It'll be as dead as the people who would have died after its construction.

I can go on and on—as if I haven't already. All these financial fatalities are inevitable with the advent of the electric car in Pennsylvania, and it's already too late to stop it. It's a fact that we've already reached a tipping point where it's cheaper to maintain an electric car than it is a gas car. Total cost of ownership is already far less for an electric car. And mark my words: sometime in the next year or so, the purchase price of a new electric car Is going to be the same as a comparable gas car, and soon after, even less. And once that happens, no one in their right mind will even consider buying a new gas car.

Look around. It's happening already. Demand for electric cars is soaring! Tesla is currently selling every single car they make. Their waiting list is months long, or, in the case of the Tesla Cybertruck, years long, with over a million paid reservations already. Pandora's electric box has been thrown wide open, my friends, and there's no going back.

Don't believe me that there's no going back? Hah! Think of all the treehuggers out there with their gas-guzzling Prius-es. Yes, gas guzzlers; when you compare them to tee-totaler Teslas, they're definitely gas guzzlers.

Think of all those climate stability deniers who think we're headed to a climate Armageddon, clutching their hockey stick graphs close to their chests.

Think of all the people who just want a kick-ass car that does zero to sixty before you even touch the pedal. Do you think any of them will buy a sluggish car fueled by dirty energy? A car that leaves toxic puddles behind and a cloud of toxic smoke? A car that has so many toxic fluids in it that they have to color them differently so that you can tell them apart? Red for transmission, yellow for power steering, green for antifreeze, brown for oil. Do you think an ecologically-aware buying public will go for that rainbow of toxicity? The only color that will be left is blue, for wiper fluid—but Tesla's latest patent uses lasers to clean your windshield instead. So very soon, even the blue will be gone.

Folks, I ain't kidding here. Electric cars are already cheaper, cleaner, AND more fun to drive. Have you driven one yet? Ridden in one? It's like being in a jet airliner blasting down the runway on takeoff—only stronger. I ride motorcycles, and the kick you get from an electric car is even stronger than that.

And the brakes? You hardly need them. Electric cars have regenerative braking. That means the car slows itself just by lifting your foot off the gas pedal—uh, excuse me, off the electrcity pedal. The best analogy I can think of is a model train set. Model trains don’t have brakes. Turn the knob up, the train goes faster; Turn it down, it goes slower. No braking necessary. Electric cars work the exact same way.

And that leads to another reason why Manny, Moe, and Jack are in for big trouble. Brake pads on electric cars last a lot longer than a hundred thousand miles. So you won't be paying a mechanic to replace them every twenty or thirty thousand miles.

So what do we do about electric cars conquering Pennsylvania? We're all about solutions here at The Pennsylvania Project, and we're big fans of a government being limited to protecting the rights and property of the citizens. So to my mind, the top priority is to continue funding the state police. And the gas tax remains THE most logical way to fund them. Ditto for the roads— although not necessarily via PennDOT.

So let's keep the gas tax— and don't be shocked hearing it coming from me. The gas tax is probably THE most Libertarian tax there is. Because it's not a tax at all—it's actually a user fee.

Think about it: If you use the roads, you pay the tax. If you don't use the roads, you don't pay the tax. Like I said, it's not really a tax; it's a user fee. Maybe we should call it a "Road Use Fee" instead?

So the correct problem to solve, is how to collect that Road Use Fee once gas tax revenues dry up. And there is a simple answer. All electric cars can have their software updated over the air. Conversely, it's easy to check your mileage over the air then bill you monthly for any miles you use. No, I don’t know what the rate per mile would be That's for the eggheads to figure out. But I'm sure there is a rate comparable to what the gas tax brings in, and it can be weighted for vehicle weight (pardon the pun), even adjusted for peak period usage, if necessary. So you'll be charged for road use, just like you are today; but if you don’t drive, you won't be charged for it, just like you aren't today.

There you have it, folks: A Road Use Fee. A way to transition away from the dirty-energy gas tax while still maintaining the level of highway safety we've come to know and love. Sadly, no one in Harrisburg is talking about this pending problem. No one is getting ready for the inevitable. Maybe I should run for governor or something? And help the state get ready before it's too late? Beats me.

And by the way, I haven't told the entire story. There's another asteroid heading for Pennsylvania that's flying in right behind the electric car asteroid. But I'll have to save that story for next time.

Ken Krawchuk is a former MontcoLP chair, candidate for governor, and the current host of the Pennsylvania Project program and podcast. This article comes from The Pennsylvania Project Radio Show, Episode 133. Listen to the article on the web here. 

For the record, again, I don’t really care about our state party. As I’ve involved myself deeper into our own county committee, I’ve tried to avoid getting involved in its various dysfunctions. I think the real power and opportunity for our party lies at the county level and it is where I always intended to apply my efforts. 

Despite this, I am a member of the LPPA as required by our bylaws and thus receive their newsletters. This latest issue contains what I consider some misleading and unwarranted broadsides against members of our county committee. As bad as these are, they are nothing compared to the flamewars taking place on various social media channels, proving once again that no one hates libertarians as much as other libertarians. 

Diminishing returns

Before I address the broadsides, let’s talk about postcard mailings. I know Kevin only from a brief meeting over two years ago and from some cordial exchanges we’ve had online. In his report, he celebrates the effectiveness of the primary referendum mailing, which may or may not have activated enough Libertarians to affect the final vote.  

I have some experience with direct mail but from an era when direct mail was the way to conduct outreach and marketing. Today, direct mail is something of a dinosaur, especially when not coordinated with other channels. I’m sorry to say that our own committee had to learn this the hard way only to watch the state party make similar mistakes.

Most of the mail that comes into my house is junk. Twice a week, our box gets stuffed with circulars, and if anything gets swallowed up in that pile, it gets trashed and unseen. In that mess, a postcard doesn’t stand a chance. As a marketer, when I see these campaigns, I wonder about a broader effort. Were there e-blasts? Did ads gets placed on Facebook? Was there a coordinated social media campaign? Was there a public rally before the media? Did anyone write and distribute a press release?

Yes, a 19% response is indeed impressive, but with a Libertarian mailing targeted at registered Libertarians, I have to wonder why it wasn’t 30% or more. I understand that funds are tight, and that managing volunteers is like herding cats, but the LPPA needs to focus their outreach resources on channels that reach actual people. 

Who's the enemy here?

Meanwhile, the LPPA saw fit to devote an extraordinary amount of space attacking two of our own members by name. 

I suppose Aaron Reinsmith is entitled to his own opinions, but he’s not entitled to his own facts. As someone who gets his ear chewed off regularly by Marc Bozzacco during our long drive to the monthly meetings, I know why Marc voted against the Moulton Maneuver, and again, it had to do with money spent on mailings.  

Having run several election campaigns himself, I think Marc understands the value and effectiveness of multi-channel marketing. Given my comments above, I think Mark legitimately cited a concern over the financial propriety of throwing limited funds solely at an obsolete marketing channel. 

That’s not being obstructive. That’s being fiscally responsible. 

But Aaron spent most of his article attacking Michael Heise and the Mises Caucus (again). I’ve concluded that this has nothing to do with ideology or party platform and everything to do with turf protection. I don’t consider myself a Mises “member”, but I know Michael Heise and after speaking with him, studying the Mises website, reading Mises newsletters, talking to supporters, I can’t help but ask, What is the fucking problem here? 

Aaron crows about the LPPA’s “record-breaking donations and membership levels” and then eviscerates the person and organization responsible for probably most of that. 

If Aaron is so curious about why Mises is so hell-bent on changing everything, maybe he should just go straight to the source and ask.

“If at the next convention, Mises successfully changes the guard with its own supporters, what would you like to see done differently?” I asked Michael via text. 

Michael responded:

“The messaging is completely uninspiring, the committees don’t produce much and are totally politicized, theres no culture (more events), theres no focus on races that actually matter meaning city council, sheriff, mayor, judge, etc. positions that could nullify. Issue work needs to be as important as candidates”.

This is why the LPPA is having seizures every time Mises shows up? Really?

Last but not least, it’s rather rich for the newsletter’s new editor John Waldenberger to pen a screed about party division that goes on to falsely and specifically indict one of this party’s most popular, active, and hard working members. What a great way to let the healing begin, Mr. Editor! 

Hey LPPA, you want to end the division? Then just end it. Lead by example.

I look around this tiny little political party, and I (mostly) see people who all pretty much believe in the same thing — an ideology that boils down to “don’t hurt people, don’t take their stuff.” I do understand that this is politics, and I’m no pollyanna, but if we want to attract qualified people to the cause, we need to be qualified people ourselves first. 

“It is not easy to give you a just and accurate idea of the sufferings of the Army at large – of the loss of men on this account. Were they to be minutely detailed, your feelings would be wounded,” wrote George Washington to the New Hampshire Convention of survival through the bitter winter of 1777 at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. To this day, that fortitude remains the strongest memory of the Revolutionary War here in Montgomery County.

Such reflections ought to remind a modern audience that the conflict was underpinned by belief in universalist enlightenment ideals rather than strictly military exploits. Even as the United States attempts to emerge from its own societal winter, however, some have still drawn the incongruous conclusion that the American Revolution was won merely by shooting people. Their implied solution to current political trends is to likewise commence firing literal salvos. But the Revolutionary War and its rejection of the British monarchy did not immediately result in equal rights for all Americans. While the adoption of a Bill of Rights in 1791 was a start, the march towards universal rights of life, liberty, and property continues today. As the political duopoly flirts again with political violence, it is critical to remember that portraits of musket-bearing colonial militiamen do not show the entire picture.

“As a member of that society which has now made a solemn Appeal to Heaven… you must admit that there are such things as Right and Justice, to which the whole human species have an indefeasible claim,” wrote British abolitionist Thomas Day upon reading the Declaration of Independence. “He that admits no right but force, no justice but superior violence, arms every man against himself, and justifies all excesses.” A fractional majority of Montgomery County residents, like those who tried their hand at upending the results of the 2020 election or were convicted of shooting the county Democratic headquarters in broad daylight, have ably demonstrated that political violence is neither a persuasive nor constructive force. 

The intent of the right to bear arms had been established nearly a century before it was codified in the United States Constitution. Scotsman Andrew Fletcher wrote in his 1698 pamphlet "A Discourse of Government with relation to militias” that the intent of “well-regulated militia's [sic]” would be keeping “these nations… free from the fears of invasion from abroad, as well as from the danger of slavery at home.” Fletcher, an author and politician who earlier fled the British Isles for mainland Europe to join a rebellion against King James II, argued that arms were “the only true badges of liberty.” 

Yet the true bedrock of independence was not merely weaponry, contended America’s second president John Adams. Writing to newspaperman Hezekiah Niles in 1818, Adams said that the “radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments and affection of the people, was the real American Revolution.” In fact, he said, posterity should focus on the uncoordinated religious, moral, political, and social movements for the ways they “contributed to change the temper and views of the people and compose them into an independent nation.” The enthusiasm for rashly launching rebellions should be tempered with “deliberate consideration and sober reflection.” They ought not to be undertaken without “a solid, immutable, eternal foundation of justice and humanity; nor without a people possesed [sic] of intelligence, fortitude and integrity sufficient to carry them with steadiness, patience, and perseverance, through all the vicissitudes of fortune, the fiery tryals and melancholly [sic] disasters they may have to encounter.”

The nation was constructed to protect against the “violence of faction” from the beginning - whether schemes of vitriolic minority or “the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority.” Thus the ship of state was carefully laid down and designed to turn slowly, and its wheel cannot safely be turned faster without violating someone’s individual freedom. Though a plurality of Americans consider themselves independents, and a middle ground for discussion and promotion of liberal reforms has arisen, the language of warfare is now used by radical factions of both American right and left when the country will not bend to their will. The very concept of a peaceful resolution is mocked as unrealistic.

In actual fact, radical social changes elevated by principled nonviolence have been responsible for the dethroning of some of history’s worst authoritarians. A movement that began in the shipyards of Gdansk, Poland in 1980 would defeat secret police, martial law, and the communist system.Originally a free trade union, the Solidarity movement grew into “a nonviolent force with its strict nonviolent discipline and belief in the greater effectiveness of nonviolent actions over other means of a political contestation.” To undermine the dictatorship, Solidarity made use of strikes, protests, symbolic media, and mass amounts of literature. Even when outlawed, Solidarity caused enough damage to the prestige and economic power of the Polish People’s Republic to force reform. After nearly a decade of struggle, the party gained power in June 1989 elections, trumping the state security service and garrisons of Soviet troops. Nonviolent revolutions in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria collapsed the entire Soviet Eastern Bloc, culminating in the fall of the Berlin Wall separating East and West Germany. 

Libertarianism is the last American political philosophy which recognizes this tradition. The Libertarian Party has a unique identity in the non aggression principle, stating in their platform that “no individual, group, or government may rightly initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.” It has laid the political groundwork for the defense of individual rights at all levels of government.

Here at home, the Montgomery County Libertarian Party is the only political entity that carries these ideals forward. For those within the liberty movement, embracing violence not only scuttles principles, it imperils the hard-won progress of a state party that could double the count of elected Libertarians nationwide. For those seeking an alternative to the increasingly bellicose two party system, the revolutionary identity of nonaggression can be a torch held aloft to light the way forward.

Josh Marcinik is the current vice chair of the Montgomery County Libertarian Committee.

What was my red pill that brought me to libertarianism? It comes from my schooling and the tragedy of the 9/11 attacks.

My libertarian journey started with the stories I heard around the camp fire while in the Boy Scouts, and more importantly from the lessons my teachers taught while in public school.

Like the Indian tribes in times long ago, my history teachers taught this nation’s history like tales handed down through generations. Our state of Pennsylvania is rich with history, especially during our nation’s founding. Philadelphia served as the country’s first capital before the ratification of the Constitution. I would become an admirer of George Washington and how he led the colonies during our fight with the British. Of all the presidents, he’s my favorite.

Washington’s actions during the war and especially his win at the Battle of Trenton in the dead of winter right up to his role in the drafting of our Constitution was always something I admired. What impressed me the most, though, was the fact that he did not want to be president. He only took the role because he was the unanimous choice among his peers.

Let me just say I think of Washington as a major bad ass. He had collected more than 200 swords, each representing a time he spent in service to the King, Virginia, and eventually the United States. He understood that as the first president, he would set precedents that would be followed for years to come, including the tradition of the executive serving no more than two terms. Only Franklin Roosevelt broke that tradition, which brought the 22nd amendment to finally establish the two-term limit as law.

I think that the level of brilliance in those who helped found the United States’ founding was unlike any before seen in world history. In my life, I do my best to live up to those examples those men set for us. Understanding this was part of my red pill.

However, I completely swallowed the red pill soon after 9/11. I had just got into the Pennsylvania Youth Apprenticeship Program (PYAP) program at North Montco Technical Career Center. I had a teacher there who worked on the Limerick nuclear power plant that gave me doubts about the official explanation about how the two towers fell. He made me wonder how two buildings designed to withstand the force of a fully fueled 747 could fall like they did that day. Given the greed of our government, I’ve wondered ever since.

From that point on I sought truth over the illusion being fed to us all and knew things had to change. I ran for president as a libertarian to bring that change. Even without winning in the endeavor, I found my candidacy to be a success in my eyes.

Libertarianism to me means freedom to be what you want and to think for yourself. I will be no slave nor sheep, I’m not built for that. I will continue to be me Erik Chase Gerhardt a free American who will fight till we all are free to be free as long as no one’s rights or freedom are challenged or taken. That is the world I will fight for.

I hope you all will go with me on my next challenge running for the US Senate in 2022. In this I will seek truth and justice for all, and of course defend and spread liberty to all that will listen.

Erik Gerhart is a member of the Montgomery County Libertarian Committee and is running for US Senate in 2022. The views expressed in this article are his and do not necessarily reflect those of the Montgomery County Libertarian Committee.

Not for a moment did this libertarian believe that the lockdowns or mask mandates would have any effect against the spread COVID 19. And what do you know? I was right. 

Podcaster Tom Woods has hammered on this point for quite some time now. The most damming of all the charts he’s presented are the ones comparing Calilfornia and Florida, two states with similar climates (at least where most of the population resides) but with opposite approaches to slow the virus’s spread. California imposed draconian lockdowns and mask mandates while Florida stayed mostly laissez-faire. The result? No effective difference. In other words, the virus gonna virus. 

So, what did the lockdowns do? They inflicted a cure worse than the disease, with side effects that included massive increases in unemployment, skyrocketing debt, inflation not seen since the Carter administration, further social discord, shortages, increased suicide rates, and more. The mandates normalized a new government breach of individual rights and created an entirely new class of government dependents.

The mandates and accompanying largess to the unemployed did produce one positive. Government's experiment with universal basic income indeed proved that when people get paid not to work, they don't. 

#Lockdown was a trial run.

— Libertarian Party (@LPNational) May 23, 2021

Much to its credit, the national party finally came out and took a stand. It cheekily suggested in a tweet that the lockdowns served as a dress-rehearsal for the dystopia to come. These new oppressions tightened the ratchet of authoritarianism one or two more clicks, extending the power of government just a little further into our lives. 

The tweet also exposes a rift in the party between those of us who believe in the non-aggression principle and those who disavow it. Our “hippies of the right”, as Ayn Rand dubbed them, accuse the national LP of spreading conspiracy theories. However, in the face of the data and historical trends, it reads to me more like a public service announcement warning us of events to come.

After all, “My work here is done,” is a claim no government official has ever uttered. 

Randy Garbin is the current Chair of the Montgomery County Libertarian Party. The opinions and positions stated in this article are his and do not necessarily reflect those of the Montgomery County Libertarian Party or its members. 

Sometime in 1982, I turned the final page of the book Atlas Shrugged, and as I closed its cover, the red pill slid down my throat. With my brain on fire with all the ideas crystalizing in my head, I looked around with no small desperation for more. I wanted more to read about this thing called liberty. I wanted to meet more people who understood reality as I finally did. 

Within the next three years, I tore through every book Rand wrote, fiction and non-fiction, and sought out alternative voices. However, in that prehistoric, pre-internet era the pickins' were slim. I lived in Boston at the time, and I can count on one hand the number of libertarian-related events to attend in that decade. One day while riding the subway, I saw a man reading The Fountainhead, and we furtively exchanged subtle nods of acknowledgement. Ours was, at the time, a secret cabal. 

In the 1980s, we had Reason Magazine, a mail-order book store, and a state party you could fit on a bus. Because of that relative isolation, I knew of only one flavor of libertarianism, the one based on, as Reason stated it, “free minds and free markets”. You can’t have one without the other. I led a quiet libertarian life mostly by example, gently questioning opposing dogma when appropriate, but the idea that I had to choose sides within my own party seemed inconceivable. 

What a difference an internet makes. Not coming from academia in any sense, maybe I missed out on all the libertarian salons. Maybe my invitation to the rallies got lost in the mail, but I had no clue nor any expectations that the movement could experience the explosion of internal debate I am seeing today. I have to think that somewhere in a paneled room, Democratic and Republican Party apparatchiks laugh in their snifters watching this movement tear itself apart in a bloodbath of tribalism. 

Looking at this rabbit hole of a graph I found on Quora, it seems that calling myself simply a libertarian is no longer sufficient for my credentials. So, lessee.. Am I a libertarian capitalist or an anarcho-capitalist, or mutualist (huh?), or… What tortured soul calls themselves an anarcho-communist? Sounds like therapeutic rape to me. 

In the grand scheme of things where this party has a very small chance of success in even uncontested elections, who the fuck cares? Is this really worth the discord? 

For a political party that received a whopping 1.2% of the presidential vote in the last round, I see a lot of fighting for a larger piece of a very tiny pie, which makes me not wonder why more people don’t join the cause. Then again, welcome to politics. Put three people in a room, and that’s what you get. 

My challenge as Chair of our committee, as I see it, is to keep these schisms out of our business meetings. The qualifier you attach to your libertarian moniker won’t matter unless you make it matter. As long as you work to build our membership, bring in more money, and help us get people elected, we welcome you. 

If you want to debate the virtues of your tribe over someone else’s especially with any degree of hostility, please take it outside or maybe just leave it at home. 

 Randy Garbin is the current Chair of the Montgomery County Libertarian Party. The opinions and positions stated in this article are his and do not necessarily reflect those of the Montgomery County Libertarian Party or its members. 

Last Saturday, the Montgomery County Libertarian Party lead a group of fifteen volunteers who came to Pottstown to help in a downtown cleanup effort. Led by committee member Michael Mastrocola, the event was also an effort to bring attention to both the upcoming May 18 primary referendum questions and to, as Michael put it, "Do what libertarians do best. Volunteer." 

According to Michael, the group filled and collected over twenty bags of trash on both sides of High Street between South Hanover Street and Franklin Street. The call for volunteers attracted eight Committee members and their friends and family members. 

"The town was happy to have us," Michael reports, who said he received the generous cooperation of the Borough Manager's office who arranged to have the trash bags picked up by the city streets department. 

The Boost Mobile store on High Street also donated $20 towards the effort. 

Michael also plans to bring the volunteer road show up to Boyertown on Sunday, June fifth to help out with a park cleanup. If interested in joining a great group of people doing good, contact Michael via this This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

A libertarian schism more than forty years in the making is coming to a head in Pittsburgh. Given what's at stake, is this necessary or at all productive for a party perennially on the political fringe?

The outlook for increased human freedom seemed grim in April 1947. Economist Friedrich Hayek, whose 1944 book The Road to Serfdom warned about the dangers of right- and left-wing collectivism, called a convention in a Swiss hotel at Mont Pelerin. The attendees presented their view in a  statement of aims: The position of the individual and the voluntary group were under attack, arbitrary power was rising, and even “tolerant” creeds sought to suppress alternate views. But there was no universal agreement on how to reverse these trends. 

Ludwig von Mises, Hayek’s countryman, coworker, and one-time instructor, made this clear.

When the subject of taxation was debated by the assembly which included “people who you would hardly call socialist or egalitarian, people like myself,” recalled economist Milton Friedman. “Mises got up and said, ‘You're all a bunch of socialists,’ and walked right out of the room.”

So began a schism in the liberty movement that continues today, with the bloc claiming Mises’ legacy growing in prominence. Facing our own state convention, libertarians of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania find their present path paralleling the Mont Pelerin experience. Should we then follow in Mises’s footsteps? From my personal perspective on gaining members, systems of governance, and maximizing individualism, it would not be wise to follow Mises out the door.

Adding to the Movement

My personal journey towards individualism did not begin with Austrian economists but rather the classical liberals who preceded them. I didn’t spend years in the intellectual trenches before entering the arena. This is a problem for many modern-day adherents to the Mises movement who see their role as holding the line for theories whose author claimed they were true “a priori” and incontestable by real world experience.

Jacob Hornberger, a long-time economics lecturer and admirer of Mises, exemplified this attitude in his 2020 Libertarian Party presidential campaign. Hornberger went to great lengths to label Justin Amash, the first ever Libertarian Party congressional representative, a party “interloper." If someone with nine years of applying Hayek in Congress received this treatment, how would a newcomer fare? Like Mises himself, who refused to speak with a colleague for three years when he rejected the gold standard, his followers seemingly prefer a smaller, ideologically homogeneous membership over a diverse membership with unifying goals.

New libertarians should not be forced into this false dichotomy while their ranks are swelling from the past year of lockdowns, emergency powers, and executive overreach. 

Competing Visions of Society

Whether or not Mises intended it, the modern interpretation of his work forms the canon of anarcho-capitalist political philosophy. Mises’ student Murray Rothbard summarized its goal: a society without a state.

In Rothbard’s conception, this requires abolition of taxes and the state monopoly on force. All services are instead provided by the market – which sounds appealing to the libertarian ear. But while it lacks a societal overlord, anarcho-capitalism has no mechanism to prevent coercion equal in measure to state power. Competition against any weak or disadvantaged minority is all but guaranteed. Some strains rejects any community benefits, adopting what libertarian journalist Jane Coaston calls “personal libertarianism:” let me do whatever I want and let me make you do whatever I want.

If our goal is to maximize individual liberty, anarcho-capitalism cannot compete as an objective counterbalance to the violence of faction. Libertarianism is not fundamentally opposed to a government which utilizes voluntary coordination rather than control, provision not production, and maintains a common system of litigation in defense of the individual. We acknowledge this counterbalance comes at a price – the perpetual vigilance needed to preserve freedom.

Relinquishing Individualism

The ideals of a stateless society might not be caustic on their own, but increasingly visible Mises trolls represent only the beginning of how its idealogues attempt to corrode alternative systems. 

Many online Mises personalities championed presidential election conspiracies - which insisted Libertarian votes in our county were fraudulent They supported the January 6th incursion at the United States capitol which attempted to overturn every single vote cast in Pennsylvania. Failing that, they openly urged secession. 

It highlighted the perilous convergence between the new anarcho-capitalists and the alt-right. 

Hans-Herman Hoppe may be the most prominent Mises torchbearer removing “liberalism” from neoliberalism and substituting nationalist statism. Envisioning a “natural social order” with white heterosexual families at the top, he famously suggests opponents be “physically separated and expelled from society.” Presumably because such a world is predicated on coercive power, Hoppe prefers monarchy over representative government. Elements of the movement embraced rather than rejected these stances antithetical to human liberty; the leading “Misesian praxeology” institute hosts over 300 of Hoppe’s works. 

In rejecting a pluralistic world, the foundation of individualism is abandoned for identitarian tenets.

The Final Analysis

Libertarians of Montgomery County are separated by seven decades and 4,000 miles from Mont Pelerin. Like 1947, we confront the task of rebuilding a freer world. As the institutions that bear Mises’ name organize and fundraise with the apparent goal of systematizing all libertarianism in their image, I would urge every stakeholder in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and the nation to ask themselves: 

Is it justifiable to limit participation to those who accept a strict interpretation of Mises? 

Must we adhere to a model which fails to defend individual rights?

Should we shed individualism in favor of right-wing identity politics? 

The room which Mises left was filled with future Nobel prize winners, economic luminaries, and masterful communicators who would spread the message of liberty to every corner of the globe. Like them, Libertarian leaders in our county and state can reach unrepresented constituents if they exemplify liberty and justice for all. They can guard human rights against all forms of coercion as the American political duopoly waivers. They can repudiate the bigotry of identity collectivism if they prize the individual above faction.

I cannot personally support the alternative ideological movement leading libertarianism away from openness, pluralism, and securement of rights. The path towards Mises’ ideological mountaintop is treacherous, and the summit is not always a safe place to plant our flag. 

Josh Marcinik is the current Vice-Chair of the Montgomery County Libertarian Party Committee. The views expressed in this article are his and do not necessarily reflect those of the Committee. 

Unless you’re a libertarian living in a cave or without an internet connection, you’re surely aware of the brewing tempest heading to Pittsburgh next week. 

I’d like to state for the record that I personally support Marc Bozzacco’s candidacy for Chair of the state party. I like Marc and I think he’s as libertarian as they come. He’s capable, dedicated, and hard-working, and he did an amazing job with his state rep campaign last November. I wish he’d quit smoking, but his health is his concern. 

I also know Jenn Moore. She bought a birdhouse from me. She’s also capable with a track record advancing the party and its causes in this state. She actually won an election — no small feat for any Libertarian. 

Frankly, I think both are qualified for state party Chair, but for some reason their candidacies now seem to represent a stark choice for members, and that’s what bothers me. It seems that your vote here either means the utter destruction of the party in this state or the triumphant entry into the promised land, depending on who bends your ear. 

I stated at the outset of my term here as chair that I really don’t care what happens at the state level. It’s not my concern, and I have zero interest in getting involved in this internecine political warfare taking place between the party stalwarts and the Mises Caucus. 

I do have issues with the state party, similar to what I have with the national starting with their belated and flaccid positions on the lockdowns. I do detect some rotten smells coming out of our party headquarters and suspect underhanded maneuverings to retain power, but I know nothing first hand. I leave those conflicts to the political wonks and warriors, of which I am not. 

Finally, I think more Libertarians is better than fewer (unless you call yourself a libertarian socialist, whatever the hell that malformity is), so if the Mises Caucus can bring more people to to the party, I see that as a positive. From what I’ve seen so far, they’ve earned their place in the party through effective membership drives and fund-raising. Incidentally, that's how you win elections. 

If you want to get your panties in a twist over their fealty to the philosophy, you truly don’t understand the nature of political movements or the purpose of political parties. Do they espouse hurting people? No. Do they want to take their stuff? No? Okay, I'm good. 

I will not be going to Pittsburgh because I have better things to do with those three days than defend my libertarian bona fides to party fanatics who have lost all perspective on reality as I cast my vote for leadership. I think those who do go are doing God's work (for lack of a better term), and I applaud their efforts. 

I wish everyone good luck and hope that all involved have fun and that you play nice with others. I just hope that Marc doesn’t lose by one vote. 

Randy Garbin is the current Chair of the Montgomery County Libertarian Party. The opinions and positions stated in this article are his and do not necessarily reflect those of the Montgomery County Libertarian Party or its members. 

Posted with permission from the Chester County Libertarian Party.

The doors of the Pennsylvania Members-Only Primary Club will be open to all on May 18th this year. This is because of some critical referendums on the ballot that every voter can voice an opinion on Libertarians, Greens, Independents all get to vote in this primary.

While primary elections benefit only the major parties, everyone's taxes pay for them. Unlike General Elections, thousands of us usually cannot vote in a Primary. Even major party members often ignore primary elections, assuming that their local political machines have already stacked the deck for their choices in the general election. This means even fewer voters participating in decisions that may change our state laws.

Such is the case in the May 18th Primary. Critical proposed changes to the Pennsylvania constitution are on the ballot, and the Libertarian Party of Chester County would like to call your attention to these major proposals. Placing these proposals on a Primary ballot may receive less voter attention, while the changes involved will affect the rights of every voter in the state.

There are three important proposed amendments to the state constitution on the ballot, and the LPCC supports each of them. One is a joint resolution to prohibit discrimination due to race or ethnicity. This resolution is designed to ensure that our rights are not denied or abridged because of who we are. Another amendment places the responsibility to terminate or extend an emergency act back to where it always belonged, with the General Assembly. This decision should never have been placed in the hands of only one individual - a chief executive who wants to control the actions of constituents in a dictatorial manner, with no ability of constituents and their elected officials to affect this important decision. The final proposed amendment returns the idea of a temporary emergency act to what it was always meant to be. An Emergency Act is a limited circumvention of state laws in the event of extreme emergency on a temporary basis. The Emergency Act is specifically designed to last for up to 21 days, without the ability to endlessly extend this suspension of the constitution, thereby restricting the rights of the electorate.

The LPCC urges everyone, major and minor parties, as well as independents to vote YES on these ballot initiatives. This will send a message to the Assembly that we want them to pass these amendments that promote the ideals of freedom in Pennsylvania.

The pandemic is thankfully reaching its final stages, thanks to brilliant technology and the hard work of so many in the medical profession. But the damage caused to business, students, workers and families will unfortunately be with us for a long time, largely due to the poor decisions made by a single chief executive who felt he could ignore the will of his constituents and their elected representatives.

It is time to end the dictatorship. Support equal rights. Support our state constitution. Vote YES on the ballot initiatives on May 18th.

MontcoLP position statement on the primary

The Montgomery County Libertarian Committee of Pennsylvania is calling on all registered Libertarians as well a all registered voters generally within the commonwealth of Pennsylvania to vote ‘Yes’ on two ballot questions on May 18th 2021 regarding the governor’s emergency powers.

One ballot question would alter the state constitution such that the state legislature would be granted the ability to override the governor’s emergency declarations with a simple majority. The other ballot question would alter the state constitution to require all future emergency declarations to expire after 21 days, require the state legislature vote on any extensions of that declaration, and remove the ability of the governor to unilaterally extend such declarations.

Furthermore, we the Libertarian Committee of Montgomery County Pennsylvania demand an end to the authoritarian emergency declarations and the associated lockdown measures. We demand an end to all enforcement of mask mandates, occupancy limits, limits on gatherings as well as any and all restrictions on businesses of any kind. We encourage the people to make their own risk assessments and decisions with regards to their own bodies and their own health.

The lockdowns have been an unmitigated disaster for working families, the education of children within the state, the mental health of the people of the state, the economy, people with serious health concerns other than COVID-19, and are an unprecedented assault on the natural rights and liberties of the people of Pennsylvania. The very concept is an affront to the idea of a free society.

The Libertarian Committee of Montgomery County Pennsylvania stands for the sovereignty and dignity of the individual and against arbitrary state dictates.

Full text of the ballot questions address by this statement: 

Pennsylvania Emergency Declarations Amendment

Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to change existing law so that: a disaster emergency declaration will expire automatically after 21 days, regardless of the severity of the emergency, unless the General Assembly takes action to extend the disaster emergency; the Governor may not declare a new disaster emergency to respond to the dangers facing the Commonwealth unless the General Assembly passes a concurrent resolution; the General Assembly enacts new laws for disaster management?

Pennsylvania Legislative Resolution to Extend or Terminate Emergency Declaration Amendment

Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to change existing law and increase the power of the General Assembly to unilaterally terminate or extend a disaster emergency declaration—and the powers of Commonwealth agencies to address the disaster regardless of its severity pursuant to that declaration—through passing a concurrent resolution by simple majority, thereby removing the existing check and balance of presenting a resolution to the Governor for approval or disapproval?

More information found here. 

Beginning one year ago, State Governors and the President began using executive orders, generally without legislative approval, to impose lockdowns and other personal and business restrictions intended to combat a “pandemic.”

After one year, this posting explains why now is the time to act and to ask: “Is COVID-19 still an “emergency (or was it ever)” “What is the true meaning of acting in the “public interest”? And “how long should such an ‘emergency’ be allowed to justify unilateral executive orders?”

Continue Reading

Pennsylvania legislators may wish to consider what is emerging as a model approach, taken by three other states so far, to try to limit federal executive orders by means of "executive order review" legislation.

On February 25, 2021, the Oklahoma house became the second state after North Dakota to pass a bill which permits their state legislature to declare federally issued executive orders and regulations unconstitutional by Joint Resolution. In addition, even absent such a joint resolution of unconstitutionality, the state legislature may jointly refer federal executive orders to the State Attorney General to consider legal actions to invalidate the measure in question. A similar house bill is pending in South Dakota. (See links below).

The executive orders which would be subject to review and potential invalidation would generally be limited to those which have not been ratified by Congress, because such Executive Orders do not originate with authority from the U.S. Congress. Although the three proposed State bills differ somewhat as to the subject matter of the executive orders which may be reviewed, and the procedures for such reviews, the general categories of executive orders covered by the proposed bills include (1) pandemics or other health emergencies; (2) the regulation of natural resources, including coal and oil; (3) the regulation of the agriculture industry; (4) the use of land; (5) the regulation of the financial sector as it relates to environmental, social, or governance standards; and (6) the regulation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Passage by the Senates and signature by the Governor of the respective states would be needed before such measures become law. Even once enacted, it is possible that the courts may be called upon to determine whether such state enactments themselves are constitutional exercises of State authority under the 10th Amendment, or under principles of federal preemption.

North Dakota Bill PDF

Oklahoma Bill PDF

South Dakoka Bill PDF

A federal judge in Texas has declared that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) moratorium on evictions for COVID reasons violates the U.S. Constitution.

Decision here.

The CDC moratorium on evictions had been in effect and was extended until at least March 31, 2021. The District Court for the Eastern District of Texas held that the eviction moratorium restricted an individual''s property rights and denied them access to State court proceedings and thus were not permitted by the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. Since the CDC moratorium on evictions was a nationwide order of a federal agency, the Court's Declaration of unconstitutionally likewise applies nationally, including in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

However, the Court's decision does not affect any local or State regulations or bans on evictions for COVID reasons, which at time of writing, do not exist state-wide in Pennsylvania, though that may change after this Court decision.

With all the legal appeal briefs filed as of a few weeks ago, a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is now poised to rule on Pennsylvania Governor Wolf's appeal of a District Court decision striking down some of Pennsylvania's earlier lockdown orders. The decision by the Appeals Court will have implications for the scope of individual rights set out in the United States Constitution in the face of a declared emergency like the COVID pandemic--such as the right of assembly, freedom of movement, and equal treatment under the laws.  

The original decision in September 2020 sent shockwaves through the state by holding that certain early lockdown orders by Governor Wolf violated those rights as guaranteed by the U.S Constitution, including the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The specific orders declared unconstitutional included the closure of non-essential businesses, the stay-at-home order, and limitations on indoor or outdoor gatherings.

Even though the Governor has "suspended" those particular orders, the Court held that the issue was still relevant, as the Court found that those orders could be reimposed at will.  Similarly, if the Court of Appeals agrees with the lower court that those measures are unconstitutional, absent an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Appeals Court decision would set a precedent for evaluating similar orders imposed in the future in Pennsylvania. The lower court decision in PDF format can be found here. 

I tried to blink away the sleep, which should have been easier given the FBI agents from the Philadelphia field office standing a few feet in front of me. 

The year was 2016, and I was working as a bottom-level defense contractor out of a facility on the East Coast, and we were being briefed on an array of threats foreign and domestic. Campaign season was in full swing, and we were told the presidency was either going to be hacked or stolen by a covert cabal. Terms that I dealt with on a daily basis - like “sensitive compartmented information facility” - were suddenly being thrown around by anyone and everyone. This election, we were told, would be the most important of our lives.

Continue Reading