In terms of promoting himself, Perry kind of starts on the wrong foot. He does this by insinuating that before Rand Paul ended his presidential run, there were two candidates who were consistently promoting ideas of liberty on every issue, every time.
Real libertarians, of course, know that Rand Paul did nothing of the sort. So what does that say about Darryl Perry? We will investigate.
But this appealing to people like Rand Paul and his supporters is kind of dubious. It makes the reader think Perry is not being serious and honest.
Another problem is that Darryl Perry seemingly presents himself as a constitutionalist. He believes the power of government should be brought back to being within the limits set on it by the constitution. The piece claims that this makes Perry promote ideas that are “textbook” libertarian.
Libertarianism does not equal constitutionalism. The constitution allows government to maintain post-offices (and the power of government postal offices that implies), to tax people for the “general welfare”, to coin and regulate the value of money, and other things that would violate the Non-aggression principle and private property rights. The constitution was a weak replacement for the Articles of Confederation, which the likes of Alexander Hamilton thought did not give the federal government enough power. Lysander Spooner has effectively proven that the constitution cannot have any legitimacy.
Constitutionalism is essentially reactionary; whereas libertarianism is radical. It promotes the kind of individual liberty unheard of in government history.
Now let us disregard the second hand information above for a moment to take a look at Perry’s actual platform to see how it holds up to libertarian scrutiny. The reader should bear in mind that the positions as they are formulated do not necessarily cover wide ground on the topics.
I oppose abortion for moral reasons, however I do not believe it should be illegal. Forcing individuals to fund a practice they find abhorrent is unacceptable; as with any medical process, I oppose any taxpayer funding of abortion. I also oppose taxpayer funding of organizations that offer “abortion alternatives” (i.e. organizations that encourage adoption). Government created barriers to adoption should also be eliminated…
…Additionally, just as a mother can waive parental rights upon birth by putting the child up for adoption, the father of the child should likewise have the legal option of either waiving parental rights, or having the first opportunity to adopt the child if placed for adoption.
This is an excellent position on abortion. And a libertarian one. Good start for Perry.
– Copyright & Intellectual Property
Current copyright and patent laws are flawed, and must be repealed to respect the free flow of information. When you use information to guide your action or configure your own property, the originator of the idea still has the idea.
Again, an excellent position. There can be no theft when the property is still in the hands of its rightful owner. Since people have a right to their property, but not a right to any profits derived therefrom, the spread of a bunch of zeroes and ones cannot be a violation of property rights. This is actually an unsettled debate within libertarian circles and therefore I realize I am stating a point of view not necessarily shared among libertarians. Therefore I add the disclaimer that this is merely my own point of view.
All peaceful prisoners should be released, so long as their offense does not have a victim. Police should no longer arrest or ticket people for offenses with no victim, and such crimes should be eliminated from federal statutes, state statutes and local ordinances.
Once again an excellent position. One could not be more libertarian on this.
– DC Voting Rights
The residential areas of Washington, D.C. should be retro-ceded to so that all residents are in Maryland. The District should only contain offices, museums and parks.
As a non-American, I am not entirely sure what the meaning of this is, therefore I find it hard to evaluate this position on libertarian grounds.
The “War on Drugs” costs the federal government over $15 billion per year, State and local governments spend an additional $25 billion each year. These costs include the incarceration of nearly 1 million people for drug offenses; the vast majority of these individuals have harmed no one.
Individuals with drug addictions should be treated medically for these addictions, they should not be treated as criminals.
There were no federal drug laws until the early 20th Century. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was ruled Unconstitutional in 1969. In 1970, however, President Nixon was successful in getting Congress to pass the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, and States were forced to adopt the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. These sets of laws are a blatant violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
ALL laws regulating the production, distribution and/or use of any substance should be repealed.
Darryl Perry hits the bullseye yet again. Although I always question why libertarian(ish) politicians insist that drug addictions should be treated medically. What I mean by this is I harbor doubts about what they mean with the word “should”. I’ll give Perry the benefit of the doubt here.
The Federal Department of Education should be abolished, and all voucher programs should be abolished. Parents should take a more active role in the education of their children, something as important as education should not be handed over to a government.
And yet again Perry states the absolutely correct position. Even on school vouchers (something often peddled by so-called libertarians as a good thing). School vouchers basically give people a choice in which school they want government to interfere in their business. That’s like getting to choose which slave-master will own you. Government should be out of the education business, period.
– Equal Protection Under the Law
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by any government entity on account of race, creed, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Another one on the mark. Whereas we as libertarians can question the necessity or even morality of some laws, the fact is that they exist. As long as there are laws, and as long as there is government, government ought not to have any right to discriminate any person or groups falling under its purview. When you are forced to accept the aggression of the state, the least the state ought to do is treat people equally, because no alternative service-providers are available.
– Freedom of Association
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and that no one may be compelled to belong to an association. This freedom of association includes the right of business owners to refuse service to any person for any reason; however no business owner should be compelled by law to deny service.
This is getting boring. At this point, Perry’s promoting of himself as a consistent libertarian seems to be right on the mark. Where will he finally deviate? It is certainly not here.
– Freedom of Speech, and of the Press
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. I oppose all forms of censorship, whatever the medium involved; this includes laws and/or regulations that stifle the expression of ideas, especially ideas that are dissenting or political in nature, regardless if the person expressing the idea is doing so on their own accord, as part of a group, or as a member of the media.
100% libertarian. It should be added however, that there is no freedom of speech on someone’s private property. But it is obvious that what Perry really means here, is that government ought not to limit or censor speech.
– Government Reform
Governments should be transparent and free of corruption. I believe the Downsize DC Agenda is one methods for bringing about this reform.
Further, all individuals have the god-given right to life, liberty & pursuit of happiness, whenever governments become destructive of these rights, the people have the right to alter or abolish it. The federal government has been destroying rights since 1791, therefore I believe that the federal government should be abolished!
This is libertarian radicalism usually unheard of within the Libertarian Party. Perry is wonderfully correct here, again.
I believe that people should be allowed to travel freely without government interference. This includes the right of individuals to choose where they decide to live.
Current federal immigration laws are convoluted and give preferential treatment to individuals from certain countries. The current system also relies on quotas, hosts and in some cases an immigration lottery, as well as preferred treatment to athletes and refugees. This must change, and there should be one uniform immigration law. I believe the best model law is the “wet foot, dry foot rule” in place for people fleeing Cuba. Under this rule, anyone from Cuba who makes it safely into the United States, is allowed to stay; however, the aspect of this rule that I would end is that the Coast Guard patrols the waters looking for people with “wet feet” in order to redirect them back to Cuba. The immigration policy of the United States of America should once again resemble the words written on the Statue of Liberty
– “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
– An aside: most of the people who argue against eased immigration standards point to the “abuse” of the welfare system. That is actually an argument against welfare, not an argument against immigration!
Finally Perry states a position that I disagree with, even though even here it cannot really be called an unlibertarian position. For in-depth argumentation on why “freedom of movement” in a libertarian society is nonsense, see articles here, here, and here.
Encroachments on privacy by government should be eliminated so far as it is possible to do so. Electronic and other covert government surveillance of citizens should be restricted to activity which can be shown beforehand, under high standards of probable cause, to be criminal and to present immediate and grave danger to other citizens. The national census and other government compilations of data on citizens should be conducted on a strictly voluntary basis, and the census should only ask the question: “How many people live at this address?”.
I agree with Perry again here. Although I fail to see the purpose of any government question about the number of residents at any house.
– Secession and Self-Determination
I fully support the right of self-determination; that is the right of “determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status.” Though there are no established guidelines regarding how a group of people exercise their right of self-determination. During the 1860’s several States attempted to leave the United States of America, several counties in these States took secession one step further and seceded from their seceding State. It was this act of self-determination that allowed West Virginia to become a State, it also led to several “Free States” throughout the Confederacy.
The United States of America was founded on the principles of self-determination. Not only has the U.S. government violated the self-determination rights of the Native Americans, but also the people of Hawai’i, Guam, Puerto Rico and many other people who have become dependent on the U.S. government. I believe that every person and/or group of people should be allowed to decide for themselves if and/or how they will be governed.
The only proper position for a libertarian to take, and Perry nails it yet again. I am truly impressed so far.
– Self Defense
As a Life Member of the Second Amendment Foundation, I support the right to privately own and possess firearms or any other weapons for self-defense purposes. I oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, transport, or transfer of firearms, ammunition, or any other tool that could be used for self-defense. Additionally, I oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition, and oppose any government efforts to ban or restrict the use of other self-defensive tools, including (but not limited to) pepper spray, stun guns, tear gas (mace). I further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition.
Perry on the mark about gun ownership. His clear and non-compromise way of explaining his position really appeals to me.
– Budget & Economy
I fully support abolishing the Federal Reserve, IRS and all unconstitutional spending. I support a repeal of legal tender laws, and a free-market monetary system of competing currencies.
I also oppose any attempts to regulate virtual currencies.
Perry is a champion of the genuine free market. Kudos.
I oppose all governmental subsidies and bailouts, direct or indirect, to business, labor, or any other special interest; a business should be allowed to succeed or fail without governmental interference.
– Energy & Oil
I support the use of alternative energy sources. While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. I oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and/or production.
The problem I have now is that I am running out of ways to say that I agree with Perry.
I share the opinion of Dr. Mary Ruwart “The environment would benefit immensely from the elimination of sovereign immunity coupled with the privatization of land and beast. The third and final step in the libertarian program to save the environment is the use of restitution both as a deterrent and a restorative.”
In other words, make polluters liable for their pollution without any special protection by government, and make it possible for ordinary citizens negatively affected by pollution to sue polluters the moment their pollution impacts in any way their health or private property. It is up to the polluter to find ways to prevent pollution from crossing the boundaries of their own private property. It is also much easier to pollute land and/or be negligent to nature and beast when you don’t own them. That is why privatization is important.
– Health Care
I support the existence of free-market certifications and believe such certifications are helpful to those looking for qualified health care.
I believe that individuals should be free to choose the medical care they believe is best for themselves. This includes the freedom to seek alternative forms of treatment, such as holistic, homeopathic, chiropractic, acupuncture, shaman, or any other form of treatment they choose. Governments should not mandate what qualifies someone to give medical treatment, nor should any government use force, or the threat of force, to prevent an individual from seeking treatment from an “unqualified” practitioner.
I support the repeal/abolition of the FDA, Medicare, Medicaid, forced vaccination, mandatory health insurance laws, and any other governmental dictate that interferes with than individuals right to choose the medical care they wish to seek.
No ifs ands or buts from Perry here. Especially when it comes to forced vaccinations the likes of Reason Magazine could learn something. A graver invasion of one’s own property (one’s body) there could not be than to be forcibly vaccinated by government dictate. Again, whether one’s position is either pro or con has especially something to do with the amount of trust one puts in the state (and its clients in the pharmaceutical industry), and to what degree one denies the conflict of interest between state wanting to control people, pharmaceutical industry wanting to make profits from such control, and people wanting to be free. In a libertarian society, the problem of refusal of vaccinations could be solved by boycotting and/or isolating people socially by denying them access to other people’s private property.
– Infrastructure & Technology
Government should not be involved in this area, this is an issue best left to private industry.
It is not the job of any government to create jobs. This is an issue best left to private industry, without interference from government.
Any government that has any claim to legitimacy, has its legitimacy in protecting rights. Jobs are not a right. By creating jobs, they are manipulating the market process. They are diverting funds from productive society toward creating jobs that productive society obviously does not deem necessary. Often, unemployment itself has been caused by government through all kinds of interferences such as licensing, regulations, minimum wage laws et cetera. A legitimate government of any kind has the sole reason for existence in protecting rights and liberties that are negative in nature (rights and liberties that do not themselves violate rights and liberties of others), not in being pro-active.
– Social Security
Social Security is nothing more than a Ponzi-scheme, whereby a fraudulent investment operation pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.
Every individual should be responsible for his/her own retirement. Therefore, everyone should be allowed to opt-out of the Social Security system. Those who decide to opt-in to Social Security should have their contributions placed into a private account, such as a 401k or Money Market Account, which they control.
I wish to phase-out the system altogether to remove the coercion of government from an individual’s retirement.
Could not agree more.
– Tax Reform
I support abolishing the IRS and all forms of coercive taxation (this includes tariffs, excise taxes, payroll taxes, etc), and government programs should be funded voluntarily.
Perry and I would theoretically disagree merely on government being funded voluntarily, because this would render government a private institution, especially if Perry opposes the monopoly function of government, which he inherently must do if he proposes that government must be funded voluntarily. This implies, after all, that people can fund alternatives to government. In the case of voluntary payment and competition for services, there would be no more government as we know it. But in practical sense, we agree completely.
– Welfare & Poverty
The welfare state, supposedly designed to aid the poor, is in reality a growing and parasitic burden on all productive people, and injures, rather than benefits, the poor themselves.
I oppose government-enforced charity such as welfare programs and subsidies, but heartily applaud those individuals and private charitable organizations that help the needy and contribute to a wide array of worthwhile causes through voluntary activities. Taxpayer funding for welfare should be phased out as quickly as possible.
I agree, but can see Ron Paul’s point that this is not as much a priority as other issues, if only because you cannot make a thoroughly dependent society go cold-turkey without major social upheaval. So rather than this being phased out as quickly as possible, I would phase it out more slowly. Other than that I agree with the meat of this position.
– Foreign Policy
There is a saying “If goods don’t cross border, armies will.” I believe American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Peace will never be achieved through force. Libertarians seek the withdrawal of troops from the 900+ military bases in over 130 nations around the world.
I support an end to taxpayer funded foreign aid.
This is to assume that government with such an aggressive foreign policy is actually looking for peace rather than instability from which to enrich itself in various ways. I support Perry’s solution, but do not see good intentions in America’s foreign policy, because I do not think America’s champions of its current foreign policy are that stupid.
– Free Trade
Free Trade does not require a treaty, rather a lack of government involvement. I support real free-trade (not the bureaucratic version of “free trade” that exists under NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, etc). To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, I support peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.
Right on the mark. Unlike what non-libertarian so-called champions of free trade state about free trade agreements, no government agreement is necessary for free trade. Only voluntary agreement between two or more interested parties, without involvement of government bureaucrats. Trade agreements serve one purpose only: for government to maintain control over international trade, and to fuse a faucet onto the trading-pipeline from which governments can put a part of the proceedings into their own pockets. So-called proponents of free trade who support trade agreements, still believe government ought to intrude in private trade, and therefore do not champion genuine free trade at all. Rather, they champion corporatism.
– Homeland Security
I support abolishing the Department of Homeland Security. Constitutionally, the military is responsible for protecting the country; however, I do not support a standing army, rather I support calling up a military only in times of declared war or in cases of imminent defense.
A standing army needs to have a function. It needs to be supplied with weaponry, housing, and uniforms constantly. This means the military industrial complex has a vested interest in making sure a standing army indeed has a function in order to guarantee continual purchases. Military policy is working toward a predetermined conclusion of intervention and/or war. If one has no enemies, one makes them. This is how increased defense budgets are rationalized (hear that RAND PAUL?).
– United Nations
I support the immediate withdrawal of the United States government from, and an end to its financial support for, the United Nations. Specifically, I oppose any US policy designating the United Nations as policeman of the world, committing US troops to wars at the discretion of the UN, or placing US troops under UN command. I oppose US government participation in any world or international government. I oppose any treaty under which individual rights would be violated.
Even under the acceptance of the system of democracy, the United Nations and other supranational organizations are hardly, if at all, democratically answerable to the various peoples of nations. They have no legitimacy, democratically or otherwise. Aside from that, the UN has its own ideological agenda like all governments do.
– War & Peace
I am opposed to war for moral and philosophical reasons, not for political reasons. Force is only justified in defense of person or property; preemptive use of force is always wrong.
The foundation of libertarianism is mutual respect. It is a principle that extends to our relationships with people throughout the world.
All American troops currently stationed around the world, excepting those troops who are protecting embassies, should be brought home immediately.
I am somewhat ambiguous about this. If (and I state that word strongly) any military base in any foreign land is welcome by that foreign land’s people, and IF the base is financially supported by that foreign land, then I can see how such bases can remain there. No cost should be directed at – in this case – the American people, and no military base should remain when it is not wanted by the people in said foreign nation. Essentially, if military bases in foreign countries meet these conditions, they are virtual private army bases. Under these conditions, military personnel cannot be compelled to return without violating their rights to their occupation and their chosen residence. Under the current conditions, however, they should indeed return.
My silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination, including the existence of any particular governmental system, should not be construed to imply approval. In every matter, I adhere to the consistent application of the principle of the non-initiation of physical force or fraud.
That is good to state. On the basis of the above, I have no reason to suspect that Perry would deviate much from libertarian philosophy.
After putting Joy Waymire through the libertarianism-test I was afraid she would be the first in a line of poseurs that have no grasp of libertarianism’s foundations. Surely some readers may think that I would act like some kind of purity-freak that denounces anyone as a fraud when not adhering to the complete libertarian ‘manifesto.’ I chose Darryl Perry to be the second candidate to be tested completely at random, and I must say I was incredibly surprised by his positions being so correct, and on top of that being correct for the right reasons. We have some disagreement on immigration issues, but aside from that I think Perry is a genuine full blooded libertarian at least on the basis of his positions as outlined above. And even his position on immigration is held to be libertarian by many peers in this movement.
I can only congratulate Darryl Perry on being a true and worthy libertarian candidate for the LP.