Viagra Professional - Buy Online

The Cato Institute has just published a new study on the importance of the libertarian (small “l”) vote in the American electorate.

The main theme of political commentary in this decade is polarization. Since the battles over the impeachment of President Clinton and the Florida vote in 2000, pundits have been telling us that we’re a country split down the middle, red vs. blue, liberal vs. conservative. Political analysts talk about base motivation and the shrinking of the swing vote. But the evidence says they are wrong.

Not all Americans can be classified as liberal or conservative. In particular, polls find that some 10 to 20 percent of voting-age Americans are libertarian, tending to agree with conservatives on economic issues and with liberals on personal freedom. The Gallup Governance Survey consistently finds about 20 percent of respondents giving libertarian answers to a two-question screen.

Our own data analysis is stricter. We find 9 to 13 percent libertarians in the Gallup surveys, 14 percent in the Pew Research Center Typology Survey, and 13 percent in the American National Election Studies, generally regarded as the best source of public opinion data.

For those on the trail of the elusive swing voter, it may be most notable that the libertarian vote shifted sharply in 2004. Libertarians preferred George W. Bush over Al Gore by 72 to 20 percent, but Bush’s margin dropped in 2004 to 59-38 over John Kerry. Congressional voting showed a similar swing from 2002 to 2004. Libertarians apparently became disillusioned with Republican overspending, social intolerance, civil liberties infringements, and the floundering war in Iraq. If that trend continues into 2006 and 2008, Republicans will lose elections they would otherwise win.

The libertarian vote is in play. At some 13 percent of the electorate, it is sizable enough to swing elections. Pollsters, political strategists, candidates, and the media should take note of it.

For more details:

• Article at Cato website
• Link to full study in PDF format.

MARK YOUR CALENDARS: IHS/RLC/JINX EVENT IN MANHATTAN OCTOBER 4

On Wednesday, October 4, 2006 from 8pm-10pm, IHS alums, New York-area libertarians, media folk, and debate fans are encouraged to come to a two-tiered event at Manhattan’s Lolita Bar (northeast corner of Broome St. and Allen St. on the Lower East Side, one block south and three west of the Delancey St. subway stop).

We’ll use the main floor of the bar for a libertarian gathering organized by the Republican Liberty Caucus to discuss issues of pragmatism and principle one month before the mid-term elections, while the downstairs space sees a debate on the question “Do Celebrities Have a Right to Privacy?” — timed to coincide with the New York Film Festival — pitting Jill Friedman (an actress and blogger with terrible secrets, such as being in the Society for Creative Anachronism) against Jen Dziura (a comedienne with nothing to hide), hosted by IHS alum Todd Seavey and moderated by Michel Evanchik.

The debate is one in the monthly series Seavey hosts for the non-partisan Jinx Magazine — and this month’s two-level intellectual adventure, including $500 worth of drink tickets for those participants over 21, is kindly sponsored by the Institute for Humane Studies. Please join us, especially if you’re an IHS alum, and bring every libertarian movie star friend you have.

Related:

• New York State Republican Liberty Caucus / National Republican Liberty Caucus
• Institute for Humane Studies (George Mason University)
• Jinx Magazine
• Lolita Bar

The New York Times recently posted a list of questions for candidates for State Assembly to answer, and our man Stu Mirsky, Candidate for the Assembly in the 23rd AD, responded.

Recently the New York Times posed a series of questions for voters to ask their candidates for the State legislature this year before choosing whom to support on Election Day. I’ve taken the liberty of providing my answers to the Times’ questions here (since the Times showed no interest in them when I actually sent them to them directly):

[…]

The Times: Does the candidate support property tax relief?

Stu Mirsky: Actually, I want all kinds of tax relief. I want to cut all taxes wherever and whenever this can be done because taxes are a burden on the citizenry and the economy. Of course this means we have to cut spending as well. To do the latter, I would seek to introduce zero based budgeting for state agencies, establish sunset provisions for all discretionary state programs, rein in and reform the “public authority” system, introduce transparent budgeting rules (so the public can see how we’re spending their money and where), restrict usage by the state of surpluses collected in any tax year by directing that they either be returned to taxpayers or placed in a rainy day fund against future fiscal difficulties, and seek to ensure that borrowed funds could not be routinely used to cover operating expenses (though this could be waived in emergencies). Finally, I’d look for cost reduction opportunities in areas currently identified with major fraud and abuse such as the state Medicaid program.

If you want to read all the questions (and Stu’s answers), visit Stu’s blog, here: Stu’s Blog: Responding to the NY Times.
Related:

• Stuart Mirsky for Assembly (official site)
• Stu’s Blog: Responding to the NY Times 

Death and Taxes: A Visual Guide to Where Your Federal Tax Dollars Go.

The New York primary elections are being held on Tuesday, September 12th.

Here’s a link to the RLC-endorsed candidates in the State of New York.

And here are their individual web sites:

• John Spencer for US Senate
• Related: Spencer Blog
• Steve Finger for US House, NY District 11
• Warren Redlich for US House, NY District 21
• Stuart Mirsky for New York State Assembly, District 23
• Related: Stuart Mirsky’s blog
• Gerry Gershonowitz for New York State Assembly, District 92

The RLC has endorsed 107 candidates nationwide for the 2006 elections. Find them here.

If you live in New York State… find them here.

Established in 1991, the Republican Liberty Caucus works to advance the principles of limited government, individual liberty, and free markets within the Republican Party and throughout America.

The New York State Republican Liberty Caucus, which was chartered in June 2006, focuses on a broad range of issues, including education, taxation, property rights, gun owners’ rights, free speech, federalism and the proper role of government.

While rolling back decades of government nannyism will require a great deal of public education and grassroots lobbying, the most important means of changing public policy is to change public officials. Therefore, the Republican Liberty Caucus works to elect pro-liberty Republicans to offices at all levels, partisan and non-partisan, in both primary and general elections. The Republican Liberty Caucus is committed not to just electing more Republicans, but better ones, too.

• For more information on the RLC’s stands on the issues, see our Statement of Principles and Positions;
• We request candidates seeking our endorsement to sign the Liberty Compact;
• Please contribute to our favored federal candidates by supporting our Political Action Committee, the RLCUSA-PAC.
• Every year the national RLC organization publishes a Liberty Index which ranks all US Senators and Congressmen based on roll call votes in the House and Senate. See how your representatives ranked in 2008.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence

Liberty: Winning The Battle for Freedom
(a talk by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, from the June 2006 issue of “Liberty”)

Excerpt:

How many people in the audience believe drugs should be legalized? What about pornography? How many of you believe that prostitution should be legal? I believe all three should be legalized — within certain parameters which protect children. Who among you believes that private ownership of guns should be made illegal? I certainly don’t. Gun ownership is protected by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. It is an important right.

I believe, however, that all four of these issues are far less critical for improving our society than creating educational choice, privatizing Social Security, deregulating health care, and enacting meaningful tort reform. The legalization of drugs, pornography, prostitution, and guns, as issues, are all too closely associated with the freedom movement. Aligning ourselves with these issues has hurt our brand tremendously, by associating the freedom movement with cultural decadence. Parents don’t want their children’s lives ruined by drug experimentation, or their innocence prematurely lost to pornography and prostitution, or their lives ended with a bullet.

These four freedom issues need to be de-emphasized by the freedom movement if we hope to create a mass movement and continue to evolve our society in positive directions. How many of you believe that lessening the power of government over our lives is the most important goal of the freedom movement? I believe that the freedom movement’s biggest mistake today is focusing primarily on freedom “from” government coercion as its primary goal. Obviously this is a very important goal, but I strongly believe it must be accompanied by an equally important goal: the freedom “to” take responsibility for our own lives; the freedom “to” take responsibility for our own communities and our planet.

Freedom from government coercion is clearly a very, very important goal. But unless you live in a country like China, North Korea, Cuba, or Iran that lacks many personal liberties that we Westerners take largely for granted, freedom is not usually an important goal. American citizens mostly take their liberties for granted. Unlike the people in this audience, most Americans forget that vigilance is the eternal price we have to pay for protecting liberties.

Once we are free, or relatively free, to live our lives in the manner we choose, we must answer the question, “How then shall we actually live our lives?” Will we live our lives as hedonists, indulging ourselves with various amusements, diversions, and pleasures? Or will we choose the more difficult path of personal development and acceptance of social responsibility?

The freedom movement needs to reposition itself and re-brand itself. Personal freedom may be the first goal we work towards — but we can’t stop there; it isn’t enough. There is so much more to life. Using our freedom to take on greater social responsibility, as well as striving to reach our fullest potential as humans, needs to be a goal we support just as much as freedom from government coercion.

Has there ever been a more destructive legislative session than the one just ended in Albany?We’ll leave that matter for the historians. Suffice it to say that the lawmakers last week passed a raft of bills that will leave New York saddled with monster taxes and at the mercy of greedy union bosses long into the future.

On the other hand, it will leave the members of the state Assembly and Senate safe and cozy in their protected legislative cocoons.

That’s all that matters to them.

Robbing New York Blind (New York Post, June 27, 2006)