If you don't follow Dr Frank's open Facebook Group, you should.  Check out Follow the Data with Dr Frank.  He's the adult in the room which is refreshingly rare on social media.

“The Precautionary Principle”

Watch out for this one. It is irrational, and can be used to justify just about any decision or behavior. It goes something like this:

“Since there is the possibility that something *could* happen, we should take precautions and do x.”

This leads to all sorts of silly behaviors and decisions.

A more rational approach is to ask what is *most likely* or *certain* to happen, and to plan mitigations for those things based upon the best evidence available. Not merely what is possible. Almost anything is possible.

Follow the data. Which risks have the clearest evidence to justify our attention?

For example, for decades I have been telling my students that “global warming” is not nearly as threatening to human life as a *global pandemic* would be... and we were due for one. (Boy, did I call this one.)

So if we were going to spend vast resources on something that *might* happen with devastating consequences, we should be investing in things that are inevitable over things that might potentially be relatively mildly harmful.

This is one way to distinguish which are the scientifically justified investments and which are merely political agendas.

Because pandemics are inevitable. (Eh, hem...)

And so are asteroid impacts. (I always show my students a picture of the back side of the moon at this point in the lecture.)

And volcanoes, and earthquakes, and solar flares, and wars...

And all these things are more likely to disrupt humanity and to claim myriad human lives.
So don’t fall for it.

Recent incarnations are:

“We should close the schools because children might die.”

“We should force otherwise perfectly healthy people to take an insufficiently tested vaccine, because it might save lives.”

Instead, use the science and the math to set priorities. Don’t build a house of cards. Build a solid foundation, based upon the sturdiest facts at your disposal.

Children are far more likely to die in a car accident than from Covid. Better never allow them to ride in cars...

Certainly we will make mistakes, and some unlikely things are bound to occur. But the fact that there are infinite unlikely things that *could* happen makes it impossible to predict which ones of the myriad possible bad things we should protect against.

Because we simply cannot protect against everything.

So go with the science. Follow the data.

And please... “drive safely.”

You may not be aware of what the bastards are doing in the UK.

The UK has been in the clear on the virus for a long time.

Here's a relevant chart:

Well, now they're imposing more restrictions.

With a few exceptions, no social gatherings of more than six people.

That applies to indoors and outdoors.

It applies to your house.

If you have six or more people in your household you are allowed to gather in public or private (how generous!) but not with anyone else.

These rules are expected to last through the spring.

And all because of a modest rise in "cases," a stupid figure that should be savagely mocked.

Forget about the original concerns regarding overwhelming the hospital system. Everybody knows the hospitals will be fine. Now it's just a ban on death itself -- as if the lockdowns themselves don't cause collateral deaths. (Not to mention: who can think this bizarre dystopia is a healthy place for children to grow up and develop in?)

Israel, by the way, locked down hard, and required masks and curfews, and engaged in sophisticated methods for mapping contacts, and...now they're considering another lockdown because of a rise in "cases."

If all that couldn't do the trick, what the hell are we doing?

(I shouldn't say we. You and I have nothing to do with this.)

Here, by the way, is a graphical reminder of the helpfulness of lockdowns.

The UK, Lockdown Central, is in green. That other line is Sweden, the country we're all supposed to hate:
​

I've said in numerous episodes of the Tom Woods Show that there are two parallel societies emerging, each living almost in its own reality. One lives in terror of the virus and almost refuses to acknowledge favorable trends. The other realizes that the virus is in fact manageable after all, and that we cannot continue to destroy people's lives -- lives of both young and old, I might add -- indefinitely, or even "until there's a vaccine."

(Dr. Fauci is saying probably not until the end of 2021 can we maybe have our lives back -- an estimate that could well turn out to be about as accurate as "15 days to flatten the curve.")

My Tom Woods Show Elite represents this second society, the one that understands the ubiquity of risk, and the foolishness of madly uprooting one kind of risk while at the same time increasing countless others (e.g., all the ways the lockdowns have caused collateral damage).

You've been thinking about it.

Today's the day.

Join the reality-based community:


http://www.SupportingListeners.com

Also, if you missed the presentation on making a living that's unshutdownable, a topic that's a teensy-weensy bit relevant to the present day, here's the replay: http://www.tomwoods.com/protectyourself

Tom Woods

Any positive mention of Kyle Rittenhouse is being censored on FB. You know why?

Part of it is so that the officialista class can set the narrative that he was there to hunt protestors, is a murderer, a mass shooter, a racist, all in an effort to make this case as political as possible.

The cracks are already starting to show with the Chicago Tribune releasing an article saying why he will “get off”.

But thats all a means to an end, not the end itself. The truth is that this is the biggest case in the country right now. This is not about Kyle Rittenhouse and what happened in Kenosha that night. The meta case is going to come down to two extremely important things:

1. Are we allowed to defend ourselves from violent rioters, arsonists and looters or not?

2. Given the defense they are trotting out to combat the underage gun charge, are we allowed to form militias to do so?

Whichever side wins this case will be emboldened.

If he’s persecuted, the riots will likely get worse as the precedent between the case and the stand down of police will send the signal that there is absolutely no consequences for violent behavior.

If Rittenhouse wins, people will be emboldened to take a stand. Its not going to take too many events like what happened in Kenosha that night for the message to be crystal clear; Wanton violence is dangerous and engaging in it may well cost you your life.

Thats what this is about and thats why they are blacking out any defense of Rittenhouse when in reality when you observe the facts, look at the statutes in WI around these crimes and what is considered a valid self defense argument, everything is in Kyle’s favor.

The future of the 2nd Amendment argument hangs in the balance of this case.

-Michael Heise

As you read this story, please keep the title question in mind.  What would the penalty be if this was conducted by a private company?  What accountability would you demand?

Walter Ogrod was just set free after spending 3 decades on death row. The reason he was there in the first place underscores everything that is wrong with the justice system.

In July of 1988, a 4 year old girl named Barbara Jean went missing in Philadelphia. Her body was found wrapped in a garbage bag inside of a TV box, about 1000 feet from her home.

4 years later, Philadelphia police arrested one of her neighbors, Walter, charged him with sexual assault and murder, and forced him to confess. While he was in jail awaiting trial, they enticed jailhouse informants to fabricate statements against him in exchange for immunity from charge for their upcoming cases.

Let me repeat that: the police got people in jail to lie about an innocent man, in exchange for letting them free from things they were possibly guilty of doing.

Walter's "confession" was riddled with errors that didn't line up with the facts of the case. For one thing, his "confession" was that he beat her to death, but she died from asphyxiation.

During the trial, prosecutors withheld exonerating evidence from the defense, which at this point is something we've all become used to hearing, even though it's illegal.

There was, of course, zero physical evidence.

The prosecution's case was so terrible that Walter's first trial ended in a mistrial. Even still, they were able to successfully convict him in 1996, and he was sentenced to death.

The Philadelphia DA and police were more concerned about pinning Barbara's death on someone, anyone, than they were about doing the harder work of actually finding the person who raped and murdered her.

Let's recap: the people in charge of protecting the people of Philadelphia focused their efforts on framing an innocent man, and even setting other suspects free in exchange for lying about him, rather than trying to find a rapist and murderer who may still be walking the streets today.

Thankfully, even though it took nearly 30 years, a Philadelphia judge finally set Walter free, and the DA's office is filing to refuse to retry him.

Unfortunately, many other people have been executed despite similarly terrible cases against them, including Nathaniel Woods earlier this year (link to my post about Nate's case in the comments).

Jo Jorgensen and I are staunchly opposed to the death penalty. We believe that when government is given power, they often use it in the most cynical, abusive and inequitable ways. The death penalty gives government the power to decide if any of us are allowed to live or die, and we see often what giving them that power leads to.

Thankfully for Walter, after losing over half of his life on death row, he is home with his loved ones.

Thanks for Spike Cohen for posting about this atrocity.

The Libertarian Party of Texas opposes the Death Penalty as a form of punishment by the state, as well as any other unnecessary use of force by state agents in response to criminal action.

h/t Matthew Hicks

I started writing this piece twice now and couldn’t get past the first few paragraphs. The whole thing felt wrong to me. I walked away from putting in any work and took a little time to think about what I was doing and why. It finally occurred to me that I was trying to write it in a professional manner, using a voice that you might expect from a professional journalist. The problem is that isn’t me. This version, the final version, will be completely in my own voice. I’m writing it the same way I speak. I ask you, friends and fellow Libertarians, to indulge the F-bombs and profanity laced screed from time to time. It’s what I do.

I want, by way of this writing, to issue an apology to the members of the LNC upon whom I have recently shat in a few online posts and a video. I called out several of you by name and I want acknowledge you by name here. Mrs. Harlos, Ms. Adams, Mrs. Mattson, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Hewitt, I’m sorry. I retract everything I said and will remove the posts once this is live.

For explanation of my motivation for writing this, I offer this: I was angry after watching the LNC meetings during which the LNC was debating and discussing convention options. As I watched the meetings, I couldn’t help but think, “What the actual fuck is going on with these people? It’s like they are all trying to achieve their own agenda and goals with no regard for the delegates or worse, they want to make sure that their fellow members of the LNC don’t get what they want, at all costs.”

I made that assessment because I have avoided the den of venomous snakes and bullshittery that is internal party politics for the entire time I’ve been in the LP. After I made my posts on social media, people began coming out of the woodwork to fill in the blanks for me. My criticism of LNC member’s behaviors was based on incomplete knowledge. I didn’t know all the behind-the-scenes and cloakroom shenanigans that have been going on. Well, the toothpaste is out of the tube now and I would be negligent in my moral responsibility if I didn’t address it. You see, we Libertarians profess to be the party of principle. If I see some fuckery going on within the party that runs counter to that and I don’t call it out, not only am I assenting to that behavior by my silence, I’m also assenting to compromising our principles through my inaction. I won’t be that guy. Because I’m not.

This is the part where half of you will quit reading: Our chair, Nick Sarwark, is in large part responsible for the dumpster fire in a diarrhea factory that our LNC meetings have become, as it pertains to the national convention. He has created an environment in which factionalism for the sake of agenda is the norm. He has nurtured personal agenda at the expense of the party. He has attempted to exercise strong-arm style dictatorial rule.

Now a brief explanation of how I decided what went into this writing! Nothing that you will read here is second-hand information. Every single allegation comes directly from the primary source. I verified and, to the extent possible, fact-checked everything. There is no, “so-and-so told me that…” I pledged to give anonymity to everyone who agreed to talk to me, and I will honor that at all costs. Anything that is a direct quote is attributed to the source, with their permission. You can pester me and message/comment all you want, I’ll not go into any more detail than what I have done here. I won’t divulge a single source. This is what you get, take it or leave it. Those of you who continue to support Nick in his behavior and his agenda—whatever that may be—can no longer do it in a vacuum. You are now a willing participant in his misdeeds.

To be fair, I used to be a supporter of his. I thought that the LNC was just a bunch of faction members fighting against each other to further their own ends. I believed that Nick was just trying to maintain some semblance of order and look out for the interests of the delegates and the party. Well, color me mad as a murder hornet when I learned what was actually going on. To quote John Phillips Jr, “I will no longer support Nick for any position at all in the Libertarian party, including as a candidate.”

One of the first things that was brought to my attention from more than one LNC member is that Nick has a private agenda for the Libertarian party. Mises folks, Prags, and Radicals, listen closely to this. He has expressed to LNC members more than once that he wants to steer the party left as much as possible. On the surface, there’s nothing wrong with this. A chair serves, in part, to guide an organization towards its goals. Someone, fucking anyone, please tell me when the LNC or delegates decided that our goal was to shift to the left. Last I checked, it never happened. On top of that, steering our party either left or right goes directly counter to our narrative that we are neither right nor left, but libertarian. Bad enough, but let’s just overlook that for a while.

What we should never overlook are the methods by which he has attempted to bring about this and, presumably, other goals. Has anyone here ever whipped against Nick in any meaningful vote? Have any of you ran against him? What about rallied support in opposition to one of his preferred projects? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Well, I talked to some people who have. These people told me the results of their activities. Each of them said the same thing. Nick spoke with them, on the phone or in person, and explained to them that they are going to have to pay a price for going against him. They told me that he said their political career was over, that he would crush them, that their future in the party depended on them supporting him, and that there would be a price to pay for going against him.

Good one, Nick. I especially like how you made sure that there was no email or other written record of you subtly threatening your political opponents—a theme that we will see repeat itself over and over again. I also appreciate the care you took in selecting your words. Consummate politician/car salesman/lawyer stuff there. You say these things in such a way that you can always claim that you meant it in a different way and then gaslight the shit out of those who call you out on it. You could always later say that you just meant political gamesmanship, rather than a smear campaign or something worse. Slick move!

The threats aren’t limited to LNC members. I have spoken with several State affiliate chairs who told me the same thing. One of the sayings that Nick uses to issue threats is to tell people that they need to get on the train or in front of it. Wow, that’s clever! I mean, it implies that there’s a movement building behind you and your agenda (there isn’t) and that there is an air of inevitability to it (there isn’t). It also provides him the cover to later say that it wasn’t a threat. Everyone I talked to about this said that they took it as a threat because the tenor of it clearly indicated that it was.

Nick, threatening people (politically or otherwise) is behavior horribly unbecoming of the leader of a political party. Except the bad ones. They seem to condone that sort of stuff. WE FUCKING DON’T. This shit right here is enough of a reason to demand your resignation. I didn’t think it would get much worse than this. Much to my chagrin, you proved me wrong, sir.

Threats are one thing. Actively working to sabotage another member of the LNC doing work for the party is another ball of wax entirely. Sometime after being elected to the LNC, Joshua Smith was placed on the affiliate support committee. I’ll give you three guesses who put him on that committee! No? Ok, it was Nick. In a stunning and brave display of masterful leadership skills, Nick told several members of the LNC that he placed Joshua Smith on that committee because he wanted him to fail. Further, He expressed his anger at some of the LNC members who helped Mr. Smith so that the committee—the committee that is specifically responsible for helping our State affiliates—would be successful.

What sort of leader places someone in a position with the expectation that they will fail? Worse, what sort of leader places someone in a position with the intent that they fail? I’ll try an even more specific one- what sort of leader places someone in a position with the intent that they fail and that failure will have significant negative downstream effects for their organization? Nick does. So, here’s where a disclaimer has to come into play. I’m not in the Mises caucus. I’m not in any serious caucus that actually does political work. I’m in the Waffle House caucus, the It’s Never Too Early For Scotch caucus, shit like that. I’m friendly enough with Joshua Smith but I wouldn’t call us friends. We’ve spoken maybe twice. I didn’t even talk to him about this piece because the second I did, some of you would throw the taint of some personal bias over this whole thing. I know that you “true believers” will never accept that as fact, but I can only present truth to you. What you do with it is your responsibility, not mine.

Let’s talk about ethics for a bit, shall we? Sometimes, the field of ethics is a little fuzzy and there are grey areas in which those who aren’t eternally vigilant may find themselves. Other times, it’s pretty clear where the lines between right and wrong rest. There was once a lady named Lauren Daugherty who worked on LP staff as the director of development. According to all accounts, she was great at her job and was blasting out the fundraising like no one’s business. Lauren Daugherty decided, for whatever reason, to move on to something else in life and tendered her resignation to the chair, by way of the executive director. The chair sat on it for almost three weeks before telling the LNC.

Let’s put that in perspective, shall we? An important team member, one whose work directly affects the financial health of our organization, decides to quit. The Chair decided to sit on this critically important information for half a month before telling the decision-making body of our organization. This caused a delay in even beginning the search for a new team member.

When asked about it in an LNC meeting, the chair stated that he was making every effort he could to retain Lauren Daugherty during that delay. Woopsie! Mrs. Daugherty was in the meeting and called out that lie! She stated that there was never any contact with her from anyone trying to convince her to stay on. I’m pretty impressed at the gall of a board chair who openly lies to their board, especially one who has the sand in them to try it when the ONE PERSON IN THE UNIVERSE who could call them out on it is in the meeting. Bravo, sir. Bold move. There’s the first ethical no-no. Board members have an obligation to their colleagues to be honest with each other and work with each other in good faith. Nick failed that litmus test.

It gets worse though. Nick, in the middle of this manufactured crisis, offered up his services as a fundraising consultant to the tune of seventy-five dollars an hour. That’s right, folks. Seventy-five dollars an hour. This money would, presumably, be to make the fundraising calls that Mrs. Daugherty had previously been making. Let that sink in. Our chair, a man who should be making these calls already as part of his chair duties, offered himself up in noble sacrifice to be highly compensated for actions he should be performing anyway. Stunning and brave!

Hang on to your fucking petticoats, ladies and gentlemen, here’s where the ethical waters turn from murky to completely dark. When it was decision time for the LNC to vote on Nick’s generous offer, he voted. Ethics 101: one has an obligation to recuse oneself from any vote in which one has a financial stake. Let’s forget for a moment the exorbitant amount he wanted for his time, let’s focus on the fact that he broke this primary rule of ethical behavior.

None of this required sourcing or interviews. If you give even a little bit of a shit about the truth, you can look through old meeting stuff. I did and it was terrible. I still did it. I just want to get this in before any asshats decide to question me or call me out on this part: Do YoUr ReSeArCh.

Let’s get a little more contemporary, shall we? It’s time to talk about the upcoming convention, in all its glory. Before I get into it, I want to come out in support of fucking nothing. I don’t personally give a shit one way or the other how our convention goes down, whether online, in-person, or some combination of the two. I’m a delegate-elect and will be in attendance in any case.

The problem with all the latest LNC meetings and the convention madness is that Nick told some members of the LNC that he intended to gavel in the convention over Memorial Day weekend, no matter what the LNC decided. Wrong answer, dude. You don’t get to do that. Our organization isn’t a monarchy over which you get to rule with an iron fist. The queen of England may be able to override parliament (I have no idea if she can or not, just sayin), but you do not have the authority to override the LNC.

You claim that you’re operating in good faith and that your desire is to ensure ballot access for the early deadline States and protect the health of the delegates. Should we talk about the phone call, Nick? I think we should talk about the phone call. Let’s talk about the phone call.
You got a phone call from someone, didn’t you? Someone named Poppy, right? I have it on good authority that Poppy had a conversation with you about Amash and the presidential nomination.

That conversation went a little something like this:

Nick- We’re going to have our presidential and vice-presidential nomination online over Memorial Day weekend.
Poppy- And it will have to be ratified at a later, in- person, convention?
Nick- That is correct.
Poppy- That sounds like an online presidential preference poll. We don’t do those. We’re out if the process isn’t completed in one piece.
Nick-…

So here we are! Our chair is actively trying to recruit people who would be willing to amend the agenda and bang out the whole convention online so as to ensure that the process would be complete all at once, instead of bifurcated. This is despite the will of the LNC and an attempt to sway the will of the delegates. Nothing wrong with that, except you won’t tell us your motives behind it. I cannot support you in this because your past behavior indicates that you have a personal agenda that you haven’t disclosed.

In light of recent events, specifically the withdrawal of Mr. Amash from the presidential race, it would seem prudent to bag the online idea because, as we’ve seen time and again, some of the delegates can and will sandbag the whole thing through motions, challenges, etc. Nick, on the other hand, seems to have doubled-down on the whole thing. Admitting you’re wrong is sometimes hard. I get it. That’s what this whole writing is about. It’s also extremely cathartic and useful. Try it, Nick.

I don’t pretend to know why you think this was in the best interest of the party and why you tried so hard to ensure the playing field was the one which the Amash campaign demanded. I’m not in your head and the only person that can answer questions about it is you, sir. I believe you will not so it isn’t worth asking the questions. What I am convinced of is your actions performed in something close to secret.

Folks, there are a hell of a lot more allegations floating around out there. I didn’t address those allegations because in many cases I could find no evidence to support them. In other cases, people asked me not to because they feared retribution. Shame on anyone who makes people feel that way for politics. Imagine being a part of a political organization in which speaking your mind could result in tangible negative consequences. Sure, freedom of association and dissociation blah blah blah. Being afraid to speak out because you fear retribution is a different thing entirely.

To wrap this all up, our chair has a history of doing immoral and unethical things to get his way in the party. He has a history of trying to manipulate people through threats to sway decision making in his favor. His M.O. seems to be that, no matter what, the end justifies the means, even if it means compromising all our principles. I would like to close by quoting John Phillips Jr. again, only this time out of context, “Fuck right off.”
​

P.S.—I would like to thank everyone who spoke with me about this, LNC members, State chairs, and other prominent figures in our party. I appreciate your courage in coming forward in the face of likely scorched earth style retribution. I especially want to thank John Phillips Jr., the man who blew the lid off this online. John, you didn’t scoop me. You only motivated me to finish working on this as fast as possible!

Axios is reporting:

"Some of the states that skeptics were most worried about, including Florida and Georgia, haven’t seen the rise in total cases that some experts feared. Florida’s new cases have actually declined by 14% compared to the previous week, and Georgia’s fell by 12%."

"Some experts" have been predicting piles of corpses in Florida for weeks. Our governor didn't lock down soon enough, they said.

These experts also predicted piles of corpses in Japan. Just wait two weeks, they said, and Japan will get what's coming to it. You'll see!

Then...nothing.

Then it was, "Oh, the Japanese wear masks and wash their hands," etc. Nice try, Bozo. You knew they did these things before you made the ghoulish predictions.

What's so hard about admitting: we're not entirely sure what's going on here?

And although the news about declining cases in Georgia and Florida is good, "cases" are not primarily what should concern us. The more we test, the more "cases" we find. The point is, most "cases" wind up amounting to precisely nothing.

There were over 800 "cases" at that South Dakota meat packing plant, and so far over 800 recoveries.

In March we got lurid reports of a doubling of "cases" in Hong Kong. We'd better wait two weeks! Piles of corpses!

Eight weeks later, zero additional deaths.

Now I'll be honest with you: I am afraid to see how these good numbers are being received by the Doomers.

Some of them seemed to be practically licking their chops when describing the wave of deaths they were sure awaited jurisdictions that hadn't adopted their panoply of closures and restrictions. It was downright ghoulish.

We shall see.

Meanwhile:

There is one place you can be sure will cheer good news, and which will keep you sane during the most Orwellian episode in American history.

The Tom Woods Show Elite, of course.

I look forward to welcoming you:


http://www.SupportingListeners.com

Tom Woods

The forcible prevention of Americans from doing anything except what politicians deem “essential” has led to the worst economy in American history since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It is panic and hysteria, not the coronavirus, that created this catastrophe. And the consequences in much of the world will be more horrible than in America.

The United Nations World Food Programme, or the WFP, states that by the end of the year, more than 260 million people will face starvation -- double last year's figures. According to WFP director David Beasley on April 21: "We could be looking at famine in about three dozen countries. ... There is also a real danger that more people could potentially die from the economic impact of COVID-19 than from the virus itself.”

That would be enough to characterize the worldwide lockdown as a deathly error. But there is much more. If global GDP declines by 5%, another 147 million people could be plunged into extreme poverty, according to the International Food Policy Research Institute.

Foreign Policy magazine reports that, according to the International Monetary Fund, the global economy will shrink by 3% in 2020, marking the biggest downturn since the Great Depression, and the U.S., the eurozone and Japan will contract by 5.9%, 7.5% and 5.2%, respectively. Meanwhile, across South Asia, as of a month ago, tens of millions were already "struggling to put food on the table." Again, all because of the lockdowns, NOT the virus.

Read more at PJ Media Here.

The adoption of the income tax in 1913 changed everything for Americans. By wielding the power to tax people’s income, the federal government became the master and the American people became the servants. To enforce the tax, the federal government brought into existence the Internal Revenue Service, one of the most tyrannical, destructive, and feared agencies in history. At the same time, the income tax is one of the major reasons why young people are today having such a difficult time getting started in life.

The ideally free society is one in which people would be trusted and relied upon to voluntarily fund the legitimate functions of the federal government, which are few and inexpensive. Absent that, the second-best method is the indirect taxation methods chosen by our American ancestors. The most destructive method of taxation is the income tax.

For more go read Jacob For Liberty: https://jacobforliberty.com/position/taxation/

The below article went viral and is attributed to a doctor named Abdu Sharkway.  He does a great job of conceptualizing the newest Virus-of-the-Day.  Quit buying out all the toilet paper when what you really need is to wash your damn hands... 

I'm a doctor and an Infectious Diseases Specialist. I've been at this for more than 20 years seeing sick patients on a daily basis. I have worked in inner city hospitals and in the poorest slums of Africa. HIV-AIDS, Hepatitis,TB, SARS, Measles, Shingles, Whooping cough, Diphtheria...there is little I haven't been exposed to in my profession. And with notable exception of SARS, very little has left me feeling vulnerable, overwhelmed or downright scared.

I am not scared of Covid-19. I am concerned about the implications of a novel infectious agent that has spread the world over and continues to find new footholds in different soil. I am rightly concerned for the welfare of those who are elderly, in frail health or disenfranchised who stand to suffer mostly, and disproportionately, at the hands of this new scourge. But I am not scared of Covid-19.

What I am scared about is the loss of reason and wave of fear that has induced the masses of society into a spellbinding spiral of panic, stockpiling obscene quantities of anything that could fill a bomb shelter adequately in a post-apocalyptic world. I am scared of the N95 masks that are stolen from hospitals and urgent care clinics where they are actually needed for front line healthcare providers and instead are being donned in airports, malls, and coffee lounges, perpetuating even more fear and suspicion of others. I am scared that our hospitals will be overwhelmed with anyone who thinks they " probably don't have it but may as well get checked out no matter what because you just never know..." and those with heart failure, emphysema, pneumonia and strokes will pay the price for overfilled ER waiting rooms with only so many doctors and nurses to assess.

I am scared that travel restrictions will become so far reaching that weddings will be canceled, graduations missed and family reunions will not materialize. And well, even that big party called the Olympic Games...that could be kyboshed too. Can you even
imagine?

I'm scared those same epidemic fears will limit trade, harm partnerships in multiple sectors, business and otherwise and ultimately culminate in a global recession.

But mostly, I'm scared about what message we are telling our kids when faced with a threat. Instead of reason, rationality, openmindedness and altruism, we are telling them to panic, be fearful, suspicious, reactionary and self-interested.

Covid-19 is nowhere near over. It will be coming to a city, a hospital, a friend, even a family member near you at some point. Expect it. Stop waiting to be surprised further. The fact is the virus itself will not likely do much harm when it arrives. But our own behaviors and "fight for yourself above all else" attitude could prove disastrous.

I implore you all. Temper fear with reason, panic with patience and uncertainty with education. We have an opportunity to learn a great deal about health hygiene and limiting the spread of innumerable transmissible diseases in our society. Let's meet this challenge together in the best spirit of compassion for others, patience, and above all, an unfailing effort to seek truth, facts and knowledge as opposed to conjecture, speculation and catastrophizing.

Facts not fear. Clean hands. Open hearts.
Our children will thank us for it.

For 15 jurisdictions, today is your first chance to cast a vote in the 2020 presidential election. Of course, it’s not quite that easy if you are not supporting one of the two old parties. For Libertarians in these 14 states and American Samoa, the rules are not all the same. For some, participating in the primary will disqualify them from participating in their Libertarian convention process (heads up Texas, DO NOT VOTE IN THE PRIMARIES if you want to vote in your Libertarian convention). For other states, the convention process is done, and you can sit back today. (We’re talking about you Arkansas, Alabama, and Tennessee). Other states still have conventions coming up (so make sure you know the details, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Utah, Vermont and Virginia). Finally, some states do include Libertarians in the primaries and you can get out and vote today (hopefully you already knew this, California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Oklahoma).

Whether you are voting today, waiting for your state convention, or still trying to decide what to do, we’re here to help. In honor of the 15 different groups of voters trying to figure out what to do today, here are…

1. The Libertarian Party is the only anti-war party.
You cannot count on Democrats to end the wars — they have been every bit to blame as the Republicans. While in the midst of trying to impeach President Trump, a bi-partisan Congress approved a military budget of over $700 billion. Neither old party has any intention to ease up or end our military interactions. If you are ready for an America at Peace, it’s time to vote Libertarian.

2. The Libertarian Party is the only party committed to eliminating the national debt.
Republicans have long been considered the anti-debt party, but that can only be laughed at now. After eight years of calling out President Obama’s reckless spending and increased deficits, they have been silent and/or outright supportive of Trump’s explosive spending that has taken our national debt from $19 trillion to $23 trillion in three years. If an annual deficit of $1 trillion dollars is unacceptable to you, your best move is to vote Libertarian.

3. The only way to stop more government overreach is to vote for the Libertarian Party.
Increased taxation for “free” college is promised by the Democrats; tariffs (which are taxes) and bailouts are executed by Republicans. Both old parties are inching or running toward single-payer healthcare, more gun control and granting the executive branch more and more power. The only choice for those who care about personal and economic liberty, separate from the boot of big government, is the Libertarian party.

4. The only way to send a message to the ruling old parties is to vote for the Libertarian candidate.
Once again, the only alternative party that will be on every ballot in the 2020 general election is the Libertarian Party. A vote for Trump sends the message that nothing needs to change. A vote for any of the Democratic candidates likely to get the nomination is a message that nothing they do needs to change either. We currently have more people choosing not to vote for anyone than to pick one of the options the Rs or Ds serve up, and that does nothing to wake up these power-hungry politicians. If your hope is to see better candidates coming from any party, the only way to send that message is to scare those who rule over us by voting Libertarian.

5. Libertarian policies benefit everyone, and they get adopted the more voters show support for such things.
It seems hard to believe that the Democratic party was officially still against same-sex marriage less than a decade ago. The Libertarian Party has supported equal rights (and removing the government from marriage) since its founding in 1971. Both parties are still waffling on if people who chose to use cannabis for medical or recreational purposes should go to prison. Many states have changed their laws, while federally some lawmakers are looking to add vaping as a crime. The Libertarian party has supported individual liberty (and no victim, no crime) since its founding in 1971. The liberty movement does affect the public view of issues and eventually leads to better policies. If you want to see more Libertarian policies adopted by old party representatives, you show them that by voting Libertarian.

6. You don’t want to have to spend the next four years explaining why the dumpster fire you supported was not as bad as the dumpster fire someone else supported.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still attaching your name to something evil. It sucks. Don’t do it. Vote Libertarian.

7. Because you “Support the Troops”.
Democrats and Republicans both like to act like they are moral patriots who value nothing more than the brave men and women who serve their county. Truth is, they are lying. If they really cared about the troops, they would never flippantly start a new war, they wouldn’t refuse to do their job to vote on military action, and they would certainly spend much more time talking about the 22 veterans a day who commit suicide. War is a failure on every level, and we fail our service men and women once they return home. Do you support the troops, really? So does the Libertarian Party.

8. Consistent Principles only exist in the Libertarian Party.
We already mentioned the Democrats’ evolution on rights for gay people only when it became politically beneficial to them. Republicans say they support your Second Amendment rights, until Trump says we need to limit that a bit. Both old parties jump around on which personal decisions they will allow and which they will criminalize. In their histories, the ruling parties have changed their principles drastically. The Libertarian Party platform has held consistent values of individual liberty since it was first written in 1971. Do you want to know that the party you support is going to hold to the values you supported them for? Your party is the Libertarian Party.

9. The Libertarian Party supports ending harmful election laws and opening up the ballot for other parties too.
Perhaps you feel that another party best represents your views, but they do not have ballot access. Republicans and Democrats write the very laws that keep alternative parties off the ballot or using all of their resources to get on the ballot. Libertarians believe the duopoly has to be defeated if we will ever see real and meaningful changes in this country. A vote for the Libertarian candidate is a vote for allowing more candidates and more parties of future ballots, and an end to the ruling parties ability to force you to choose between two terrible candidates.

10. The Libertarian Party is the most welcoming to immigrants and refugees.
If you believe children should never, ever be separated from their parents and held in government custody for crossing a political border, you can be sure that the Libertarian Party agrees with you. Democrats and Republicans will continue to argue over miniscule changes - the Libertarian Party will end this insane and dysfunction humanitarian crisis by legalizing the free movement of peaceful people.

11. Because you do not want to live in a {insert religion here} theocracy.
Libertarians believe that everyone should be able to hold faith and religion as important or irrelevant to their life as each chooses and that the government should never propose policies or laws based on the support or opposition of any religion.

12. To get money out of politics.
It’s funny how often you hear Democrats talk about getting money out of politics, while they promise to pay for college, healthcare, retirement, childcare, and on and on. That is every bit “money in politics” as corporations and lobbyists writing huge checks. Libertarians want to return the executive branch to the limits our Founders intended — that means removing the authority to make such false promises, either to special interest groups or the general public.

13. You support Free Speech — for everyone.
Both old parties will talk about their commitment to the First Amendment, but in practice, both have proven willingness to limit free speech that they do not appreciate or agree with. Libertarians believe that if you don’t support free speech for everyone then you don’t support free speech.

14. Reject Nationalism and Socialism with one vote.
There are two broken ideologies threatening liberty in our nation today, and they are coming from both major parties. Reject the inhumanities we know come from these authoritarian philosophies, and support liberty instead.

15. Libertarians do not seek power - they seek a world set free.
Republicans and Democrats continue to fight over which one best knows how you should live your life. Libertarians know that they best thing for individual humans is to be free to live their life without the approval of any political party.

Can you think of anymore? No matter which one of these reasons rings the truest for you, remember that when you go to vote. Even if you are not voting today, you can still cast a vote for liberty, fiscal responsibility, human rights, and integrity by supporting the party of principle. We are proud and honored to be the voice for freedom in America today.

Donate to the Libertarian Party Today!