John Thomas, Libertarian, Candidate for U.S. Senate
What are your positions on economic policies (ex: inflation, taxes, regulations, etc.)?
Between work, volunteering at church and in our community, and raising a family, my wife and I stay quite busy. One of the things we like to do, just to enjoy some quality time together, is shop for groceries. Yep, I am a hopeless romantic. We actually go on grocery-shopping dates. (For more dating advice, talk to me at one of our rallies!)
Maybe politicians do not see the weight of inflation because they do not make weekly grocery trips themselves. Many have never lived paycheck to paycheck in an inflationary environment. I see inflation, and I know what it can do to a family. To the core of my being, I feel it.
One party says inflation is not a factor. Sometimes they claim that it’s getting better because it didn't grow as much as it did last month. The other party refuses to recognize its causes because they too are responsible for it. Finding a solution between the two feels like a hopeless cause.
This climbing inflation needs to be rectified. Financial problems destroy our health, our families, and our hope. To correct it, we must recognize what is causing it. We also need to look at what is motivating the government to encourage its upward crawl.
You and I hate inflation, because it cuts into our savings and makes it virtually impossible to plan for the future. Government loves inflation though, because it enables them to tax people without being recognized as taxing people. Traditional taxation is daytime robbery. Inflation is covert, nighttime burglary.
Here’s the motivation: They want to send billions to Israel and Ukraine, but they don’t want to be seen raising your taxes. How do they do it? Through inflation. They want to bail out their banking buddies, but don’t want to be caught raising your taxes. How do they do it? Through inflation. They want to give huge contracts to their friends in the pharmaceutical and military industries, but don’t want to be blamed for raising your taxes. How do they do it? Through inflation.
You hate it. They love it. They have more guns, so they win.
Now, let’s consider what causes inflation.
Imagine you have a neighbor who counterfeits money. He is good at it. Really good. In fact, he is so good that his money is completely indistinguishable from an actual Federal Reserve Note. Therefore neither he, nor anyone to whom he gives his money, is in any danger of ever being caught.
Now, let's say your neighbor prints $65,000 worth of $100 bills and buys a new Ford F150.
Next, he prints $12,500 and buys his girlfriend a diamond ring.
Then he prints $450,000 and buys a home.
He now has a truck, a ring, and a home for which he did not contribute anything to society.
From whom did he steal these things?
Was it the car dealership, the jeweler, or the home seller? No, they received compensation that can be used easily throughout the community.
Is the community better off for having this counterfeiter?
Of course not! Because he bought those items, he increased the demand side of the economic ledger in each of those industries ever so slightly. The rest of the community has one less truck, one less ring, and one less home available for purchase.
The additional money he injected into those industries is going to result in a marginal price increase for trucks, rings, and homes. The car dealer, jeweler, and home seller are actually made better off for it, because they have access to the newly printed money prior to the price increases. Those who are harmed would be the people who come to buy a truck, a ring, or a home later on.
What we see on a small scale with your neighborhood counterfeiter, we see on a massive scale when the government prints money. Some people benefit while contributing nothing to the economy. Those who are adjacent to those people printing the money, for example big bankers and people who work in the government sector benefit. The people who suffer for it are further down the ladder. They are not connected to the industries that first see the increased monetary supply.
Most of the time, the first group that can access the money is the banking sector. Inflation makes the banks quite wealthy, while harming others to a degree relative to their distance from the banking sector. The more distant they are, the more they are harmed by increased prices, because it takes longer for them to access the excess money that has been pumped into the economy. By the time the waitress wiping tables at the local cafe sees the extra money, either through more tips or a higher salary, she has already been dealing with price increases throughout the economy for months.
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want to acknowledge the cause of inflation. But it is a direct result of the Federal Reserve's monetary policy. Ironically, the reckless spending in Washington itself influences the Fed.
Because politicians like to spend money they don’t have, they have to borrow it. High interest rates prevent them from borrowing at will, so they pressure the Fed to support artificially low interest rates, which cause inflation. And as we are seeing now, this problem cannot immediately be corrected by raising interest rates.
Republicans don’t want to acknowledge the cause, because Trump was a big spender. Under each year of his presidency, spending grew, culminating with 2020’s cataclysmic increases.
Democrats don’t want to acknowledge the cause because they are big spenders. (One advantage to having a Democratic president, however, is that Republicans finally put a brake on spending when it’s not their guy pushing for it, after all)
Therefore, Republicans will blame Biden, while ignoring the explosion that happened under Trump. Democrats continue to downplay inflation, claiming that it’s getting better. This is despite the fact that we are still seeing groceries, energy, housing, and transportation eating more and more of our paychecks.
Neither dinosaur party will fix inflation because neither will recognize its cause.
Libertarians are the solution. We will fix inflation. We will pursue sound monetary policies and end the counterfeiting regime.
What is your position on addressing the cost of housing?
Housing is one of the first areas of the economy affected by inflation. Banks often are the first to see newly printed money, and they then lend it out to borrowers. Since many of the loans banks make are for homes, housing prices tend to rise before other prices, including wages. This puts new homes out of reach for many. The primary cause of the increase in housing prices is the government's monetary policy. However, that's not the only cause. There is also a demand side of the equation, and here too, we see the government distorting the market. Governments across the country have zoning regulations that limit the types of homes that can be built. This restriction on the ability to supply additional homes results in higher home prices. Those who are existing home owners appreciate this, because it creates equity in their current possessions. But future home buyers are left worse off.
The answer to both of these issues is to reduce the size and scope of the government. As Senator, I would do just that.
What is your position on healthcare access?
A couple of years ago, my brother Brian was driving to a new job. He was planning on signing paperwork to join the company's health insurance plan that day. Getting enrolled was top priority because like my wife, my brother is a type one insulin-dependent diabetic.
Brian remembers leaving for work that day. And he remembers waking up in a hospital later. He doesn’t remember the crash.
On the way to work, he skidded off the road and crashed. The impact knocked him unconscious and injured his brain. He now struggles with recurring seizures.
In addition to the health expenses incurred from being a type one diabetic, he now faced emergency room and hospital bills as well as costs for ongoing seizure care. To make matters worse, he never did get the enrollment paperwork signed.
When we switch jobs, we don’t need to give up our home-owner’s insurance. We don’t give up our car insurance. And we often don’t give up our life insurance. But switching employers almost always means switching health insurance. This is very strange, and results in unneeded hardships for people like my brother.
Why do we get our health insurance from our employers, rather than purchasing it directly?
Some people answer that it is too expensive to purchase directly. However, this doesn’t make sense. Employers could give the money they currently spend on insurance policies directly to employees.
If my boss pays me $70,000 per year plus $30,000 in health insurance benefits, he could instead pay me $100,000 per year. I could then shop for my own health insurance. In either case, he would be shelling out $100,000 per year for me. But if I were paid the $100,000, I would shop for the best plan to fit my needs. This would make insurance plans more customizable and less expensive for everyone.
Health insurance first became associated with employee compensation packages during World War II. During the war, the highest income tax bracket was 91% for some earners. Companies began paying for health insurance for high earners to help them avoid some income tax burden. Over the years it trickled down to most employees. And the recent Affordable Care Act has made it standard for all full-time employees.
If we lower taxes and reduce health care regulations, medical care will be able to work like other sectors of the economy. In other high technology sectors, advances tend to make services cheaper. But because government meddles in health care, our medical costs just continue to rise. As your senator, I will introduce legislation to turn that around.
What is your position on immigration policy?
My brother-in-law Roberto is one of the hardest working people I know. He always puts his family first. He loves, provides for, and cares for my sister in a way that makes me happy. He is an immigrant from El Salvador.
Immigrants have always been an important part of our economy and our nation’s history. It’s a cliche to say that we are a nation of immigrants, but that notion is grounded in truth. The first Thomas immigrant came to Pennsylvania in the mid-19th century to find work. He now has Thomas descendents all over America, working in health care, education, factories, churches, and other industries.
We can recognize the positive contributions of our immigrants while at the same time understanding that a massive influx of them puts a strain on our society. This is especially true for the US because we have an enormous welfare system.
I am a free-immigration idealist, but a restricted immigration pragmatist. Allow me to explain.
Immigration involves both push and pull factors. When the first Thomas immigrated, pull factors influencing his immigration included opportunities for economic employment, while a push factor was restrictive government in Europe.
Such push and pull factors create an ideal environment for immigration. With little-to-no safety net in place in America at the time, immigrants were people who felt confident in their ability to provide for themselves and their family. Today, as illustrated by my brother-in-law Roberto, such pull factors still exist. However, the US has provided additional pull factors, including government resources. And people who come to America to live off of taxpayer-funded welfare do not make us better off.
Ideally, we could create a system with which we pull in economically productive people, regardless of what country they originate from, and exclude those looking for handouts. We could do this by dismantling the government welfare system. Those who are most confident in their abilities will be the ones to leave culture, custom and safety-net behind.
That should inspire confidence in all of us to welcome them. They will build our economy, and make it a larger economy, capable of handling more immigrants.
If we continue to create a massive welfare state, we will not be as worried about those we pull into America as those who we push out. Massive welfare will bankrupt America, and those who are first to see it happening will flee to more productive countries. I want America to continue to be a country that pulls in the hardest-working, most freedom-loving, and most family-oriented immigrants from around the world! Doing this requires getting our own fiscal house in order, and returning welfare spending to individuals, families, and churches.
What is your position on abortion policy?
Several years ago, my mother ordered an ancestry report. What she found shocked our family. The man she called “Dad,” and whom I called “Pappaw,” was not her biological father. Like so many young women throughout history, my grandmother got pregnant outside of wedlock. She later met a man who was willing to raise my mother as his own daughter. He provided love, discipline, and instruction not only to the five children he raised, but also to those of us who became his grandkids. Until the ancestry test, nobody in the family knew any different. (Later, we discovered that my mother’s biological father had been killed relatively early in the Vietnam War.)
In the 1950s, such stories were scandalous. Despite the shame, few people encouraged abortion. Today such a situation is far less scandalous, but many would suggest that the young woman seek an abortion.
I owe my very existence to the fact that Grandma overcame shame and scandal and gave birth to the wonderful person I call Mom. I cannot help but be thankful for life, and be 100% pro-life.
While abortion is a sin that has always existed, the level of mass abortion we see in America and the Western world is an entirely new phenomenon. It is the product of the state.
Throughout most of civilized history, children were viewed more as an asset than a burden. Sure, when children were young, families needed to sacrifice to raise them, but like most investments, the early commitment would pay off with rewards down the road.
Today, children are socialized. I do not mean that they are taught “socialization.” I mean they are socialized, in the same sense that Cuba socialized industry. The government basically claims ownership of children.
Prior to the government claiming ownership of humans by issuing them a “property of” stamp known as the social security number, children were a blessing to the family. They were an insurance policy for their parents’ old age. If you had several kids, each willing to contribute 10%-15% of their earnings to provide for you after retirement, you could get by even if the government destroyed your monetary investments through inflation. This gave you an incentive to invest in your children today, so that tomorrow you would be insured.
Presently, young people still need to shell out 10%-15% of their earnings to Social Security. However, it doesn’t go just to their own parents. It is socialized across the economy. Therefore, even if you do not expend any resources raising kids, upon retirement, you reap the rewards of others who did raise kids. This creates a disincentive to have kids. Today, we hear people say, “I cannot afford to have kids,” whereas throughout most of history, people couldn’t afford NOT to have kids.
The government turned a blessing into a burden. The best way to discourage abortion is for the government to relinquish their property claim on humans and to strive for freedom.
Now, to address the pro-abortion crowd. (I will not use the term “pro-choice,” because the vast majority of the pro-abortion crowd refused to stand for choice in other areas of life. They even refused to stand for medical choice when the Biden administration instituted vaccine mandates.)
Here are various pro-abortion arguments, and my response:
1. “My Body My Choice”
This isn’t really an argument. It’s just an emotional statement with no logical grounding, but it is so common that it needs to be addressed. Every single act of legislation is about regulating bodies. Every one of them! For instance, the flag code states how to use our bodies to fold the American flag properly. Income tax code tells us that when we use our bodies to perform productive labor, the state will fine us for a part of our wages. Other laws state that we cannot inflict bodily harm on others.
So, the “my body my choice” argument is meaningless. Unless you believe in complete lawlessness (and I know anarchists who would not go that far), then you must recognize that all laws regulate bodies.
In a just society, you cannot choose to use your body to violate the rights of another human, and you certainly cannot choose to use your body to murder a baby.
2. “If you don’t have a uterus, then you can’t have an opinion”
Logic does not have a gender and it is not dependent on human anatomy. Two plus two always equals four, regardless of who is doing the math. Logical arguments retain their validity regardless of whether a man or woman states them.
It would be silly to say something like: “If you don’t have a penis, you can’t regulate what men can do with penises. Therefore, women should not be able to regulate rape.” A man using his body to violate a woman is a concern for all society, not just men or women. The fact that some people murder babies is a concern for all society, not just women.
3. “It’s not really a baby. It’s a fetus or embryo.”
This one I will grant. We could define a baby as a newborn or infant, which would not include an embryo or fetus. However, terms like “embryo,” “fetus,” “newborn,” “infant,” “toddler,” “child,” “adolescent,” and “adult” are merely words we use to describe different stages of a human life. If you say that it is OK to kill a human based solely on his or her life stage, then it should also be acceptable for an adult to kill an adolescent.
Murdering people is wrong, regardless of their stage of development.
4. “You are restricting my reproductive rights.”
Limiting abortion does not limit anyone’s right to reproduce. If you want to reproduce, you can. If you don’t want to reproduce, the legality of abortion doesn’t change your right to make that determination. It is complete silliness to suggest that someone who wants to prevent a baby’s murder is somehow “restricting reproductive rights.”
5. “There are no laws that regulate men’s bodies.”
This isn’t really a logical argument, but merely a claim to fact. And as such, it can be tested. Ninety-three percent of the prison population is male. And since any crime that lands a man in prison must be committed with the body, the statement is clearly false. Men are imprisoned far more often than women for doing things with their own bodies. Granted this often, though not always, involves men using their bodies to violate the rights of others, and they are justifiably punished. When humans - male or female - violate the rights of others, governing authorities have a duty to provide restitution.
6. “Unless you are willing to financially support every unwanted baby, you must support abortion.”
This is absurd. It’s like saying, “Unless you adopt every troubled teen, you must support school shootings.” Just because I don’t want someone to commit murder or to be murdered does not mean I am obligated to provide anything for that person. This is an example of a false dichotomy.
I can logically say that it is best if parents care for their own children, and that they should not kill them. I can hold these positions simultaneously and with complete consistency.
7. “If you make abortion illegal, they will happen anyway. They will just be more dangerous.”
This could be said about a lot of things. For example, it is illegal to hire a hitman to kill someone. But presumably, a trained assassin is going to be better at murder than an amateur would be. And since people are going to commit murder anyway, shouldn’t we allow people to hire hitmen, so that there will be less collateral damage? Yes of course people are still going to commit murder, but that doesn’t justify legalizing it.
8. “You want a rape victim to carry the baby of her rapist!”
Actually, I don’t. I do not want any women to be raped. But in the extremely rare cases where a pregnancy results from the crime, we need to ask: who, if anyone, should we condemn to death for it? Should we give the death penalty to the child of the victim, or to the rapist, or to neither? Since we do not give the death penalty to the rapist in most cases, then how can we say that the innocent child should pay the penalty? In what just society would a baby, even if he were the child of a criminal, deserve a harsher sentence than the criminal himself?
I find it interesting that people jump right to this argument despite how rarely it occurs. It would be like if someone suggested that theft be outlawed, and another person said, “You can’t outlaw theft. What if someone needs to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving family?” It is OK to have the conversation about stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family, but first, you should establish that in general, stealing is wrong. Once the general is established, you could begin looking at specifics. The emotionally charged exceptions to the general rules, such as the issue of the starving family, or the issue of pregnancy from rape, distract, but do not compensate for the fact that theft and child murder are wrong.
9. “The woman owns her body, and the baby is trespassing.”
While I disagree with this argument, it is one of my favorites. It looks at the issue from a property-rights perspective. I strongly advocate for property rights, so this argument resonates with me. It is also one of the few pro-abortion arguments that recognizes the humanity of the child, which gives it further appeal. However, it falls short. I cannot invite someone onto my property and then shoot him for trespassing. Sex invites the conception of a new life. When we kill an invited guest for trespassing, we are perverting property rights.
In rape scenarios, I admit that this argument carries some weight. If we can establish that abortion is generally wrong, we can then have a more productive discussion about trespassing in these rare cases.
10. “If you really cared about kids’ lives, you would want guns to be outlawed.”
This is another false dichotomy argument. You can logically hold that one should not murder babies while simultaneously and consistently holding that people have a right to have guns. No pro-lifer is trying to outlaw forceps and scissors, even though a doctor might use them to perform an abortion. They want abortion to be illegal, not the tools used to commit abortion. Similarly, gun-rights advocates want murder to be illegal, not the tools used to commit murder.
11. “Aren’t you a libertarian? Libertarians should not be telling others what they can and cannot do with their bodies.”
I am a libertarian. I believe in the Non-Aggression Principle. The entire foundation of libertarianism rests on this axiom, which states that people should not initiate aggression against others. Since embryos and fetuses are humans at different stages of development, people should not harm them in any way.
It is important to note that if you have had an abortion or advised someone to have one, know that there is forgiveness. Jesus says in Matthew 5:21-22, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”
I have been guilty of anger. I have called people fools without cause. I am far from sinless, and cannot cast a stone. I rely only on the grace of Jesus to forgive my sins, and He can forgive yours as well.
When we recognize the value of all people, regardless of size, forgive our neighbors, and embrace families, we will see a truly peaceful and prosperous Pennsylvania!
What is your position on gun ownership policy?
I chose to raise my family in Armstrong County, PA. Armstrong is the fourth-most heavily armed county in the United States. This is the place I am proud to call home.
Considering the popularity of guns in my area, I am going to state something that may sound controversial: The Second Amendment does not give you the right to own a firearm.
God gives you the right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment merely says that the government cannot infringe upon that God-given right.
This might seem like a meaningless distinction. Whether or not the right originates with or predates the Second Amendment does not affect my daily life. In either case, I am free to own a gun. But I think it is an important distinction.
If the Second Amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms, then all that gun-grabbers need to do is to change the Constitution, and that right ceases to exist. But if it predates the Constitution, then even striking down the Second Amendment cannot remove it. Defenders of the state often claim that the state is the protector of rights. However, if we recognize that God gave us the right to self-defense, and the government denies us that right anyway, then the state rejected its role as protector of rights, which will cause it to lose legitimacy in the sight of the people.
If gun ownership is a God-given right, then it doesn’t matter whether or not the Constitution grants it. And any person or agency that tries to violate that right by taking your property has no authority to do so. They should be resisted like a common thief.
When a group of people form a collective, they cannot collectively do something that no single individual has the right to do. So if no individual has the right to take your firearms without your permission, neither can a collective. This applies even to a collective which is large enough to change the Constitution (or authoritarian enough to nominate judges who will issue opinions contrary to the plain meaning of the Constitution.) A senator has no more right to curtail your right to defend your home and your family than a houseplant does. As your senator, I will never pretend to have a right I do not have. I will use all my power to prevent those who claim that they have that power from curtailing your rights. I will ensure you will always have your rights to defend your home and your family in whatever manner you choose.
What is your position on environmental policy? (ex: addressing climate change, clean water, clean air, etc.)
Several years ago, I read about a research study in the Journal of Educational Psychology. The researchers asked participants the following riddle. See if you can get the answer:
Jack is looking at Ann, but Ann is looking at George. Jack is married, but George is not. Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Cannot be determined
Only 13% of those participating were able to answer the question correctly. (If they had merely guessed, roughly 33% of them should have gotten it right!)
Most people answered “C.” However, if we start considering different possibilities, we can discern the correct answer.
We know that Jack is married. We know that George is not married. Our first assumption is that we do not know anything about Ann, so we answer C. However, we do know that Ann is either married or not married. So, we know slightly more than nothing.
If Ann is married, then married Ann is looking at unmarried George, and the answer is yes. If Ann is unmarried, then married Jack is looking at unmarried Ann, and the answer is yes.
So, regardless of whether or not Ann is married, there is a married person looking at an unmarried person!
You may be wondering what this riddle has to do with climate change. At first glance, probably nothing. After all, 87% of the study participants didn’t look closely enough at the data to solve it correctly. However, if we consider it a little more carefully, we can learn more.
The fact that a large majority did not answer the question correctly illustrates that people are not very good at considering all possibilities. This is not an intellectual flaw, though. God designed us to conserve energy and to react quickly. When a primitive man encountered a tiger, a quick fight or flight reaction benefited him more than asking, “When was the last time the tiger ate? Is he more likely to be thirsty than hungry? Are there other prey available for him to consider before he attacks me?” Sure, those might be worthwhile notions, but in the moment of crisis, he could not afford to spend time constructing a detailed cost-benefit analysis. To conserve energy and act quickly, he merely chose between fight or flight.
Side note - Walter Bradford Cannon, the former chairman of the Department of Physiology at Harvard, came up with the idea of “fight or flight” in the early twentieth century. Over the course of decades, psychologists gradually started to add “freeze.” Now they talk about “fight, flight, or freeze.” This shows that even Cannon was subject to the concept of a narrow view of options!
Regarding climate change, many assume the issue is this: “If there is climate change, it is mankind’s fault, and the government must respond. If someone says the government should not respond, that person is a climate change denier.”
This is characteristic of the shortcut thinking that we saw illustrated in the study. In reality, we should weigh many concerns before considering what role the government should take.
The first question we need to ask is whether or not climate change is indeed happening. I am willing to grant that it most likely is. But if we have learned anything from COVID, it is that science is never settled. For the sake of argument, and considering what we currently know, let’s say that climate change is happening.
Second, we need to ask if climate change is man-made. Most scientists do agree that mankind has contributed to climate change to some extent. But the consensus isn’t as universal as with whether or not it is happening at all. We must also ask to what extent it is man-made. And there is no complete agreement on this subject either. To confound matters further, scientists have found evidence suggesting that other planets in our solar system have also been warming lately. If this is true, then it’s likely that the driving factor of global warming is the sun, rather than your SUV.
Third, we need to ask if man can reverse climate change. This may seem to be a repeat of the previous question, but it is not. Simply because man made something does not necessarily mean that man can reverse that thing once it is made. For example, let’s say man created a virus, and it accidentally gets released to the world. The fact that man created the virus does not mean that man has the cure for the virus. The two questions are separate. Even if man created a warmer climate, it does not follow that man can cool, or even stop the warming of the climate.
Fourth, we need to ask if climate change is bad for mankind. Science cannot answer this question because it cannot make value claims. Science is a descriptive field. It can describe why a process is happening. It can predict what will probably happen given certain variables. However, it cannot say what is good or bad. Its realm does not include value judgments. A warmer world might disrupt the economy, shifting the allocation of resources. For example, areas with lush vegetation might become deserts. But, at the same time, frozen tundra might become areas of lush vegetation. Not all change is bad. Some change results in progress. A warmer environment might stimulate development, innovation, and cause more productivity.
Fifth, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that man can reverse climate change, and that climate change is bad. We now need to ask if the cure could be worse than the disease. The number of climate related deaths has declined over the past couple of decades. People who once would have succumbed to cold are warmed by fossil fueled furnaces. People who once would have died in floods are protected from levy systems built by fossil fueled heavy equipment. People who once would have died of starvation during droughts are saved by food sent in by fossil fueled ships. Fossil fuels have helped us adapt to the present environment, and could potentially help us in future climates as well. Limiting our access to those products could mean we slightly slow the rate of warming of the earth, but it might also mean death to millions, particularly those who live on the margins of society in third-world countries.
When we begin to look multi-step deep into the question of climate change, it becomes much more complex than how it is presented on CNN. The first lesson we should have learned from COVID is that science, including scientific consensus, can change. Another lesson we should have learned is that we should not destroy our economy for some “what if” scientific theory. Climate change might be real. It might be reversible. It might even be dangerous. However, the continued prosperity of the world requires us to consider all issues surrounding it calmly and rationally. Otherwise, we may end up destroying our economy and wrecking lives along the way.
What is your position on the Israel-Hamas war?
When Russia invaded Ukraine, I was heartbroken to see the images of families crying as war planes destroyed their villages. Who wouldn’t be?
Unfortunately, this is reality in many regions of the world, and not just from Russian weapons of war, but from American weapons as well.
I didn’t want to ignore what was happening, but I also didn’t want to perpetuate this horror. Then not too much later, I saw more heartbreaking images from Israel.
As Americans, what are we to do?
Let’s look at a domestic issue and then go back and apply it internationally. When discussing welfare programs, many conservatives point out that Jesus did not say to tax your neighbor to help the poor. Rather, He said to help the poor. Do it yourself. These conservatives are correct! Jesus never said that our generosity should be conditioned upon paying taxes to Caesar. Instead, we are to graciously share our blessings with others.
Conservatives of virtually all traditions celebrate private charity, whether those traditions are Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, secular moralism, or Christianity.
However, what conservatives get right on domestic welfare spending, they abandon on international spending.
Their argument goes like this: Putin and Hamas committed acts of violence against people. We should support the victims in their resistance to those violent actors. But the “we” to which they are referring is the government, rather than themselves.
If we were to be consistent, we would hold the same attitude toward international spending as we do toward domestic. Yes, it is right and good to help people who are in need. But it is not right to force your neighbor who doesn't agree with you to also pay. That is robbery.
If you want to help people in Ukraine, Israel (or Palestine for that matter) send a check to a reputable supporting charity. If you are unwilling to send a personal check to support these countries, do not rob your neighbor, through taxation, to do what you are unwilling to do yourself, through your own private giving.
Conversely, if you don’t want to support a particular cause or country, you should not be forced to do so. Nor should your neighbor.
Some might make an argument like this: “But I am being taxed too much to support them!” The answer is to lower taxes! Charity would thrive if the government were to lift its oppressive tax burden on people.
To that, an astute observer might say, “Even if they cut our taxes to zero, private individuals could not send the billions of dollars to Ukraine and Israel that the US is sending now.”
In that case, you are welcome to take out a home equity line of credit, and go into debt to support the war efforts in far-off lands. You can tap into your child’s educational savings account to buy bombs from an American weapons manufacturer. Sell off your retirement assets to help a foreign government jail dissidents and bomb children.
“But that would be completely insane!” one might argue. “Why would we ruin our future to help support a war in a far away land?!”
Once you get to that question, you are ready to vote Libertarian.
What is your position on LGBTQ rights? (ex: marriage, adoption, gender-affirming care, sports participation, etc.)
In 2017, author and podcaster Michael Malice tweeted, “Conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit.” Nowhere is that clearer than in the 2024 US Senate race in Pennsylvania. In 2013, only one year after President Obama changed his stance to support gay marriage, Dave McCormick, the current Pennsylvania Republican candidate for US Senate, signed an amicus brief also supporting gay marriage.
At that time, McCormick was relatively unknown. George W. Bush created the position of Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs for McCormick in 2007. This position did not bring a lot of limelight. (And considering George W. Bush’s records on international affairs and economics, this is hardly a great launchpad for a political career, but I digress.) In these early days, McCormick made large donations to Republicans, so his influence held sway. His support for same-sex marriage put him at odds with most grassroots Republicans at the time, many of whom advocated for a constitutional amendment clearly defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Today, grassroots Republicans support McCormick. “Conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit.” Conservatism and progressivism end at the same place. Progressives just get there a bit faster.
After McCormick signed his amicus brief in 2014, when most other Republicans still supported a government definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, I posted the following to my personal Facebook account: “I trust the government’s ability to define marriage as much as I would trust their ability to define justification, sanctification, or salvation.” I called for the government to get out of the marriage business entirely.
In 2015, the US Federal Government, through the Supreme Court, defined marriage. Only it wasn’t the definition the grassroots Republicans wanted. It was the definition McCormick wanted. Their desire for a government definition backfired.
Many Americans assume the government must define marriage since it issues marriage licenses. However, the institution of marriage itself does not require a license, and historically, marriages without licenses were common.
Until the mid 1800s, government marriage licensing was not the norm. Most marriages were simply “common-law” marriages. If two people said they were married, they were married. Only the elites, who used marriages as property contracts, desired marriage licenses.
More states began to require marriage licenses with the rise of the eugenics movement. Eugenicists, taking Darwinism in a disastrous direction, said that the evolution of man required the propagation of the preferred race and the extermination of undesirable races. Unsurprisingly, as most eugenicists were white, they identified the white race as the preferred. Mixing the genes of white people and black people defiled their racial vision. To prevent this, they passed laws against interracial marriage and required marriage licensing to ensure racial purity.
In short, marriage licensing grew out of racism. Marriage can and has existed without government licensure. Adam and Eve needed God, not the government, to establish marriage.
The Libertarian Party (LP) has an interesting history with gay rights. When the LP formed in 1971, forty-nine states had laws against homosexual acts. (Illinois repealed their sodomy laws ten years prior, in 1961.) Libertarians believed, as we still do, that consensual acts between adults should not be criminalized. Consensual acts could be morally wrong, such as taking your family to a ballgame rather than to church on a Sunday or spending your child’s education savings on liquor, but they should not land one in prison.
Because the LP was the only party standing against sodomy laws, gay people and their allies joined them.
As the Libertarian Party’s consistency on this issue shifted the conversation, and more Americans accepted equal rights, laws changed throughout the land until gay rights were widely recognized. However, many of those who joined the LP didn’t join because of our consistent stance on the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and our advocacy for universal rights, but rather because of our advocacy for the rights of a particular group. They weren’t Libertarians advocating for gay rights; they were gay-rights advocates in the party. They didn’t join the party because of a belief in the NAP. They joined because our party was the only party advocating for them.
The gay-rights movement, propelled by their victory in achieving equal rights, then began to push for special rights. They pushed for the special right to force businesses to provide them with services. They pushed for the special right to receive preferential treatment in the workforce. They are pushing for the special right to control the language other humans choose to use.
This has put them at odds with pure Libertarians and led some party members to abandon libertarian principles. The 2016 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, demonstrated this conundrum clearly when he said that bakers should be forced to bake cakes that include messages opposed to the baker’s values. This case demonstrated that even the standard bearer of the LP abandoned universal rights for special rights. Under pure libertarianism, no group has a right to force any individual to serve them.
The future of the Libertarian Party requires us to return to our roots. Libertarians should always advocate for equal rights rather than special rights. The government should not define marriage, or force a church to recognize a marriage it does not want to recognize, or force a baker to decorate a cake he does not want to decorate.
The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) defines the Libertarian Party. When we say we are the “Party of Principle,” we are referring to this bedrock axiom.
When individuals define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, they do not violate the NAP. But, when the government demands that you must define marriage that way, it is violating the NAP. When a biological female calls herself a man, she does not violate the NAP. But if she uses the government to force you to call her a man, she is violating the NAP. A business owner who refuses to bake a cake or take a picture does not violate the NAP. But if the couple uses the government to force your business to do something you otherwise would not, they are violating the NAP.
Libertarianism is about individual liberty. Some will use their liberty in ways you don’t approve of. You have every right to criticize them for that. However, you do not have a right to impose your views, religious or secular, on them.
While Libertarians rarely win major elections, we often win the battle of ideas.
Fifty years ago, Libertarians were among the few voices speaking out for equal rights for gay people. Today, equal rights for gay people are almost universally acceptable. We changed the conversation.
Thirty years ago, Libertarians were among the few voices speaking out for decriminalization of marijuana. When Biden recently reclassified marijuana from a Schedule 1 drug to a Schedule 3 drug, very few complained. We changed the conversation.
Recently, when Democrats and Republicans were issuing mask mandates or vaccine mandates, Libertarians were sounding alarm bells. Today, those policies are nowhere to be seen. We changed the conversation.
Today, principled Libertarians will continue to speak up for universal rights, including the right to say what is unpopular. And we will win this battle, just as we have won each battle before - by being principled, consistent, and vocal. Join us in victory!
Is there anything else you'd like to add?
I’m nobody special. I’m just your average guy, living in a small town. I reside in Kittanning, Pennsylvania, a town with fewer than 4,000 residents, located northeast of Pittsburgh. I work for a charter school, I serve as an elder at my church, and I volunteer in my community. I am a husband, a father of two, and a grandfather of two.
Having children and grandchildren puts things into perspective. I have descendants who will be growing up in the world we are making for them. I want them to have the best world possible. America was made great by free-markets and free-speech. I want my posterity to have the same opportunities I had.
I was born in Meyersdale, PA. The middle child of five kids, I have two older sisters, a younger sister, and a little brother.
My parents owned a Western Auto store in Hancock, MD. My first job was helping around the store. (However, I may have been guilty of spending more time in the store basement playing hockey and Nintendo with my friends, than I spent helping around the store!)
Like many businesses of the time, my parents' store closed during the recession of the early 1990s. My family lost our home, and we went to stay with family. I know all too well how economic conditions can affect families. Too many Pennsylvanians are facing this reality, thanks to policies of both Republicans and Democrats.
I got my first paying job in high school. (My parents were wise not to pay me to “help out” at the store!) At my Grandmother’s restaurant, I made minimum wage washing dishes. My mom drove me to work that first day. On the way there, she told me, “You are now getting paid to do a job. If you do not do the job, you are stealing. I didn’t raise a thief!”
My parents always found ways to instill wisdom and values in me. At times I ignored their advice, to my own peril, but I was blessed when I followed their teachings. To this day, I take that work ethic to heart. If you elect me to limit the size of the Federal Government, I will not rest until that job is done. My mother did not raise a thief.
Through high school and college I worked various jobs including food service, a hotel job, customer service, and a factory job. All of these jobs helped me to become who I am. I worked with great people. I helped to make products and services that improved people’s lives. I worked on great teams. I look back on each of my previous jobs with fond memories.
I went to college for Pre-Law, but after talking to lawyers and realizing that a lawyer’s life wasn’t exactly like Matlock, I decided that law was not for me. I got a job working for a market research and political polling firm.
My true passion, though, was for education. I got my teaching certification and have been working in education since. I have taught economics, government, history, and have also worked as a teaching coach. Currently I coordinate professional learning.
I never set out to have wealth or power. Few people who make a career of education do! I simply desire a world where I am free to worship my Lord and love my family. However, our freedoms are under assault, and I don’t want my descendants to lose the freedoms I have had.
That is why I am now on a mission to make Pennsylvania peaceful and prosperous!