With elections just around the corner, libertarians such as myself sometimes tend to forget that a bunch of people are also looking to get into the White House under the libertarian ticket; that is to say: as a candidate affiliated to the Libertarian Party.
I tend to forget this, mostly because i tend not to take candidates affiliated to the Libertarian Party very seriously. There is this habit of the LP to attract the kind of people that just don’t seem to grasp the basics of libertarian philosophy.
Sometimes, it gets even worse.
Sometimes, it attracts people who simply don’t have a clue whatsoever about libertarian principles. They may get some issues right, but their positions on these issues seem mostly determined arbitrarily than by some solid philosophy of individual liberty. What you get is positions that, from the viewpoint of a libertarian, are quite honestly baffling and infuriating.
So meet the first candidate among the bunch of this election’s hopefuls. Joy Waymire.
Because Waymire’s own website isn’t very broad in the presentation of her opinion on the issues, i have decided to use the positions that she has expressed to the website VoteSmart.org
Abortion: This is not government’s place to regulate in the first place. Irregardless of my own beliefs, I must remain neutral on any issue that involves Free Will or I would only be serving this faction or that one instead of ALL the people.
So far so good. To state that government should stay out of this issue is a very good libertarian position.
Budget: I support reducing defense spending because we have gone from a Nation of “Non-Intervention” to one that is intervening everywhere & anywhere at the cost of many innocent lives. If we concentrated on the security of our own Nation instead of everyone else’s, maybe many of the events of late would not have occurred. War/aggression never truly solves anything, just harbors mistrust & fuels more bloodshed.
I support lowering taxes to a 5% across the board tax on net income. The more one earns, the more they pay by percentage, but not penalized with higher taxes for their abilities.
And here the trouble starts. On defense spending she is excellent. On taxes she is an improvement on the percentage in comparison to current conditions, but she is in favor of discriminatory taxation which penalizes people who earn more, by having them pay more. This is government class discrimination. Why should people who earn more have to pay more? Because they can afford it? This is not a valid libertarian argument. Because they deserve to be punished more? This would be the opposite of a valid libertarian argument. Because it is necessary to still fund the state? Libertarians ought not to tax people in order to fund a state, particularly a state that is more than a minimalist and minarchistic state. Waymire’s position here is liberal-light.
Campaign Finance: This is something I cannot answer for I do not believe in campaign donations. I have always seen donations from corporations, unions, or other public figures as being nothing but a candidate buy out. When money is doing the talking, there is very little hope for the average citizen to have a candidate that puts their rights first before anything else.
I personally agree. Politicians are paid for by the tax payer and their existence as such hampers individual liberty. In so far as politicians continue to exist as a vocation (which i oppose), they should not be paid by anyone other than the tax payer in order to avoid interest groups from buying allegiances at the expense of those not having similar funds to buy favors. Most people, after all, cannot buy their way out of laws, regulations and other assorted government interventions. A monopoly over the legitimate use of force should be entirely neutral. In order for there to be any justice in the political system at all, all civilians should be treated equally by government.
Crime: Because of the story of Cain and Abel, I cannot fully back capital punishment. But I do believe they should be imprisoned on an island with all the seeds, grains, chickens, etc. to tend; being self-sufficient over the high cost of a prison cell and taking the burden off the citizens and putting it on them. If all prisons were patterned to teach the prisoners skills yet make the prisons self-supporting, what a major cut in the budget.
Although i sympathize with alleviating citizens of the cost of maintaining criminals, i find this example to be really odd. Is being “imprisoned” on an island with the means to live a sufficiently comfortable life any kind of punishment? What restitution is there in this for the victims? Some non-criminals would actually find this life-style appealing, yet Waymire thinks this is a proper way to “punish” criminals.
By the way, Cain was not even punished for his murder of Abel, despite the promise of God that he would be a vagabond and a fugitive; instead he was ”allowed” by God to be a city-builder, start a family and settle down. Who decides their positions on real world issues on Bible mythology anyway, except religious conservatives?
Economy: It is not the Federal governments place to regulate economic growth or use incentives to create jobs that may or may not lead to long lasting jobs. Once government pulls back the reins on spending and allows the people to operate in a Free Market, then we will see the economy grow.
The only proper libertarian position.
Education: I think it is disgusting to use the education of our children as pawns to proliferate education reform especially for a specific amount of money. I could go on a full rant over my disgust with the public education system but I will hold my tongue for the time being.
Yes. But i see no truly specific position on education itself. Is it the business of government in any way? Because of what we will learn about this later, i will mark education as a resounding negative in terms of libertarianism.
Energy: Do you support building the Keystone XL pipeline? NO.
Do you support funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, thermal)? YES.
Do you support increased regulations on the hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) industry? YES.
Yes I support increased regulations on fracking but would prefer to see it completely stopped. You can only rape and pillage the earth for so long before there is nothing left to give. We need to preserve what we have instead of looking at the dollar signs over what we will have in the future if we keep on this course of destruction.
And here is where the cat comes out of the bag. Waymire is an environment regulator wannabe. A greenie. Not only does she support increasing regulations on fracking but would rather see it stopped. Like all environmentalist nutcases she anthropomorphizes nature by claiming it is “raped” and ”pillaged”. Of course, libertarians have already suggested environmental damage would be reduced by allowing complete private property, but Waymire is no anarchist. And now we can see she is not even a libertarian. Exactly who owns the ground where fracking occurs? The government cannot according to any consistent libertarian theory. It is owned by whomever homesteads it or buys it legitimately. Waymire here proves to be a regulating busybody. Not only that, but she want to use expropriated taxes to fund special interests in the green energy sector. From the libertarian position, no government ought ever the fund anything unless specifically to protect individual rights and freedoms. They are NOT to fund any energy sector or otherwise manipulate the market.
Environment: It is not merely human activity but also the natural order of things. Humans may have sped it up a little, but just a drop in the ocean compared to the natural changes the earth goes through since it’s formation.
I agree that some regulations are needed but unfortunately as humans, we tend to take them to the extreme; also something the government has become good at.
Waymire believes that some regulations are needed. Again Waymire acts as a greenie that wants to regulate. This despite the fact that, disregarding all the propaganda to the contrary, there is NO consensus about the impact of human activity on the climate.
Gun Control: I support basic gun-control but not more and more regulations. Those who are going to commit crimes of murder will find the way no matter what regulations are in place. It is better to have trained people evaluate each new gun application, besides background checks, before a purchase is completed. This step should resolve any issues with the possibility of mental illness coming into play with the purchase.
Waymire supports gun control. Enough said. This crackpot believes the government is to be the right arbiter of whom should or should not get guns (among the non-criminal population). This despite the fact that government itself is the greatest threat to liberty, rights and safety, as all true libertarians know well enough. This despite the fact that mental illness is often a diagnosis by state-supporting professionals (how many students get Ritalin for having “ADD”?). Mental illness can easily be defined as any (non-criminal) behavior deviating from the “norm”, as if this is a proper way to decide who deserves which rights.
Of course it will not be difficult to figure out if Waymire supports government agents being armed or disarmed, regardless of how many people government agents have killed all throughout history. So here we have the state determining whom among the citizenry has the right to arm himself, and that government agents are armed. No conflict of interest there in the view of this alleged “libertarian?” Government, as the monopoly of the use of force as well an an inherently expansionist organization in terms of power, has an interest in disarming people that may pose a threat to such a monopoly and power. Only a statist would not believe this to be the case.
There can be no liberty and no right when one does not own ones own body. And if one cannot own the means to protect ones body and property, then self-ownership means nothing. If the state decides whether, and/or when you get to defend yourself with arms, then the state owns you, plain and simple. Waymire proves to be a failure as a libertarian by this mere position alone.
Health Care: Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”)? YES.
That’s good. How about getting government out of health care completely?
Immigration:I support the deportation of any who violate the laws of this Nation. But then again, there are those who have been model citizens, paying their way like most other citizens of this Nation. So those who have been productive, should be allowed to remain while their paperwork is processed for citizenship while others should be returned to where they began.
The number of libertarians in the country is a mere drop in a bucket. So what does the term “model citizen” mean exactly from the point of view of libertarian Waymire? Is it obedience to all laws, including unjust ones? Is it paying taxes properly? Is it making use of government benefits and handouts to the degree the nation’s laws will allow? Is it using voting rights to vote for meddlesome, interventionist liberals or neocons and thus voting to take people’s money away through taxes and perhaps even dropping bombs on the other side of the world? We are not talking about a conservative or liberal presidential candidate but allegedly a libertarian one. So what then is a “model citizen” in this context? I don’t even really know what “paying your own way” is supposed to mean. In my opinion, a libertarian, tax evading, non-violent, pot-smoking immigrant should always be more welcome than a tax-paying, liberal-or-conservative-voting, law-abiding citizens who likes big government and the welfare state.
Marriage: This is another topic that is none of government’s business in the first place. Once again I must remain neutral on this topic regardless of my own belief or I would only be serving the needs of some of the people instead of ALL the people.
You mean, as with environmental regulations, gun control and other topics to be handles a bit further down? It is true that marriage is none of the government’s business, but virtually nothing is.
National Security: Answers no to the questions of whether the U.S. should target terrorists outside of the official theaters of conflict, and if the U.S. should use the military to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing nuclear weapons.
No argument here. But the U.S. should also immediately pull back all troops from foreign nations and stop taking sides in any on-going conflicts outside of the U.S. or it would continue to generate hatred and contempt for the U.S.
Social Security: Do you support allowing individuals to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts? YES.
No argument here.
Spending and Taxes:
Spending: Agriculture (greatly increase); Arts (eliminate); Defense (greatly decrease); Education (greatly Increase); Environment (greatly increase); Homeland Security (eliminate); International Aid (eliminate); Medical Research (slightly increase); Scientific Research (slightly decrease); Space exploration (eliminate); United Nations (slightly decrease); Welfare (greatly decrease);
Taxes: Capital Gains Taxes (greatly decrease); Corporate Taxes (greatly increase); Small Business Taxes (greatly decrease); Excise Taxes (alcohol, tobacco, transportation fuel; eliminate); Income taxes (unknown); Inheritance Taxes (eliminate); Payroll Taxes (slightly decrease)
A lot of these are correct or at least acceptable libertarian measures, but Waymire wants to actually increase spending on a few departments (one of them agriculture), not decrease spending enough on others (United Nations), increase taxation on some (corporate taxes) and not decrease enough on some others (payroll taxes). This wildly inconsistent view on government spending and taxation clearly shows no philosophically consistent libertarian viewpoints. Waymire sees no moral problem with government spending and no moral problem with government theft (taxation). In areas where she herself is an advocate or activist, she sees an activist role for government.
Executive Orders: I would only use an Executive order when it would be of benefit of the common good of all people. To restore what is right yet lost in the passing of time.
The “common good of all people” is a meaningless phrase used as an excuse by any president that would use executive orders or otherwise dictate policy. Which president ever admits that his policies are really about advancing the interest of specific lobby groups? There should not be any executive orders, period, except in cases where liberty is advanced in the libertarian sense. But this is not what she says.
Administrative Priorities: My first priority would be to cut salaries from President on down & rely more on technology to control government spending. Second would be to amend the Constitution to read that those born on US soil take the citizenship of their parents. My third priority would be to turn the White House in to a museum for I believe it is offensive to the people for one to live above the means of their people.
Symbolic politics; utterly pointless. It reeks more of class antagonism and equality rhetoric than libertarian policy. Control government spending? There should be virtually no government spending, to the point where any spending there is left would be easy to be controlled by people.
Joy Waymire is a poseur and in some cases seems like a bit of a crackpot. She wants to use government for environmental activism and is not principled on the issues of government spending and taxation. She believes government has a role to play in education, disregarding government’s historically contemptible involvement in schooling since the Prussian era. Government should stay out of schooling period; its interests and the interests of families and children are opposites. What may be worst of all in nature is her promotion of some variety of gun control, regarding government, the greatest threat to rights and liberties, the proper institution to make decisions on whom, when and why people get to own guns, also putting way too much stock in the pseudoscience of psychology.
Joy Waymire is not a libertarian. She is a smaller government statist at best with no clear understanding of the Non-aggression principle and of private property rights.
P.S. Some information about Waymire’s overall mental reliability can be given from this snippet:
Waymire is a deeply spiritual person, saying that she learned her faith as a child from a friend only she could see, called Becky. Her mother dismissed this phenomenon as a typical imaginary playmate, but today, as an adult, Waymire still believes Becky was real. She also believes that God has supernaturally intervened in her life on numerous occasions, including by manifesting several graphic and painful stigmata on her head, hands, feet, and side. Having once suffered from Hepatitis C, astigmatism, diabetes, thyroid disease, and rheumatoid arthritis, among a host of other tragic conditions that had her confined to a wheelchair, she says that she has been miraculously healed of all, with doctors unable to offer any rational medical explanation.