Now that New York has had its state primary and that Gov. Andrew Cuomo has the renomination in place after beating challenger Cynthia Milhaus Nixon, is there a chance that the Republican candidate could actually win the election in November?
The Republican, Marc Molinaro, is a lifelong, career politician (first elected to public office at age 18) who presents himself as an outsider. He’s a “government should get involved” person. Based on what little information on his views that’s available online, it appears that he takes a very government interventionist approach to issues. Not really big on privatization or free market answers to problems. And also, he looks a little like Scott Brown, which bothers me.
So, aren’t there any libertarian thinking candidates for governor in New York? Well, there’s the Libertarian Party candidate, Larry Sharpe, who was beaten by Bill Weld for the LP’s VP slot for President in 2016. But like many other “libertarians” these days, Sharpe is a disappointment.
For instance, in the issues part of his campaign website, on “MTA” (Metropolitan Transportation Authority), I’m searching, searching frantically for any reference to “privatize,” but I can’t find that. Why isn’t Larry asking, “Why the hell is government running the transportation system? That’s the problem!” But, nooooo, he’s not saying those things. Instead, he’s got all these central-planning ideas for every aspect of New York’s government-run transportation (i.e. he’s a statist). Perhaps this Forbes article might be helpful, or Walter Block’s book, The Privatization of Roads and Highways (.pdf).
On tax reform, Sharpe discusses unfunded federal mandates, and has some little nips and tucks proposed, but he doesn’t discuss nullification. Perhaps reading Tom Woods’s book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century can be of some help. And more important, no where does Sharpe state that taxation is theft, and shouldn’t be permitted in a free and civilized society.
Taxation is theft because it is involuntary. For any contract, transaction or association to be legitimate it needs to be voluntary, free of coercion, in a civilized society. And in a just society any acquiring of wealth or property (such as by bureaucrats in Albany or on Crapitol Hill) must be with the consent of the previous owner of such wealth or property.
The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful” the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society. Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation.
Thus, the State is a coercive criminal organization that subsists by a regularized large-scale system of taxation-theft, and which gets away with it by engineering the support of the majority (not, again, of everyone) through securing an alliance with a group of opinion-moulding intellectuals whom it rewards with a share in its power and pelf.
But there is another vital aspect of the State that needs to be considered. There is one critical argument for the State that now comes into view: namely, the implicit argument that the State apparatus really and properly owns the territorial area over which it claims jurisdiction. The State, in short, arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given territorial area — larger or smaller depending on historical conditions, and on how much it has been able to wrest from other States.
If the State may be said to properly own its territory, then it is proper for it to make rules for anyone who presumes to live in that area. It can legitimately seize or control private property because there is no private property in its area, because it really owns the entire land surface. So long as the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules for people living on his property.
And, while I have already discussed New Hampshire’s state-wide elections for November, and was disappointed in the Libertarian Party candidates, I did see that Darryl Perry, who ran unsuccessfully for the LP nomination for President in 2016, is running for state representative in New Hampshire.
that all coercive forms of taxation should be eliminated, and government programs should be funded voluntarily.
that people should be allowed to travel freely without government interference; this includes the right of individuals to choose where they decide to live.
in the right of self-determination; that is the right of “determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status.”
that every person and/or group of people should be allowed to decide for themselves if and/or how they will be governed.
However, in his current 2018 campaign for state representative, he promises,
If elected I will:
1) support any efforts to reduce taxation; and
2) oppose any efforts to increase any existing tax rates
3) oppose any efforts to implement any new forms of taxation.
Why doesn’t he mention the elimination of “all coercive forms of taxation” as he wrote in his previous campaign? Has he gone soft? Is he compromising principles?
And that would have to include the property tax, which he mentions on that page. A property tax is just as much theft by bureaucrats as any other. If you own your property, it is yours, and not the city’s. The property tax is a form of rent that the “owner” is paying bureaucrats, and coercively. Why doesn’t Darryl Perry mention eliminating property taxes?
Anyway, my posts on these state elections has mainly been on state-wide elections, such as governor or U.S. senate races. But I couldn’t help but mention this one for a state house of representatives contest because of the LP candidate’s familiar name.
My point here is that people who believe in liberty, the non-aggression principle, self-ownership and private property really have our work cut out for us in attempting to inform the average person that the institutionalized criminality and theft of the State, of federal, state and local governments are contrary to a society of freedom and peace.