Virginia Libertarian

I just got a call from Christine Smith about 45 minutes ago. She called because of comments I left over at the LP web site. She was interested in what areas that I disagreed with her on where she stands on the issues and how she intends to implement them. The main thing that I could remember being concerned with was how she intended to go about abolishing the income tax, whether she intended to replace it with something like either the fair tax or flat tax. She said that she didn’t really think either of those were the answer, as they just replaced one form of taxation with another. I expressed my opinion that the withholding tax has been the biggest issue in quite some time, and that if people had to write those checks to give to the government, they would be a lot more reluctant to do so, and more inclined to ask what the hell the federal government is doing with half their money. We spoke some on education, where we are in agreement that government needs to be out of the business of schools, and federal authority, which congress seems to overextend all the time. I found it to be quite an enjoyable conversation with another libertarian (note the small “l”). After going back over her page on where she stands on some issues, the only other thing I can find that concerns me in the least is her position on Iraq. I am of the opinion that we should not have been there in the first place, but I’m not sure that we can just start pulling out immediately. I think that we owe it to the Iraqi’s now that we have destroyed a lot of their infrastructure with our nation-building, we need leave them with some form of government they can live with. I think we need to have a concrete set of goals (I don’t know what those should be, I’m not a military person), and once those are reached, we need to get out.

Her positions on shrinking the government, returning power to the states, foreign policy, education, private property, guns, privacy, marriage, the War on Drugs, free trade, freedom of speech, and even abortion will, I believe, resonate with the great majority of libertarian minded people out there. Hopefully there are enough of us, along with those frustrated with the polarizations going on between the Republocrats to put her in office.

Platform & Issues

God, if we can only get someone like this into office. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone match my positions on the issues more closely. I think she was almost 100%, with maybe some minor difference on implementation of some of her plans, but I definitely wouldn’t hold that against her. Definitely take a look at her web site (and if you are a designer, maybe offer your services, I think it needs a little TLC).

TimesDispatch.com | Zones would bar prostitutes, johns

In an effort to tackle prostitution, Richmond is poised to implement a zone defense in three neighborhoods popular with prostitutes and their customers.
With several exceptions, the proposal for Target Enforcement Zones — two along the Chamberlayne Avenue corridor and one in South Richmond along Jefferson Davis Highway — would make it a crime for a previously arrested prostitute or “john” to even be seen within those neighborhoods.

Ok, I’m not sure, but I don’t think that being arrested means that you forfiet your rights under the constitution. Now, they wrote “arrested” here, perhaps they meant to write convicted. I can’t see this law holding up if it were to apply to anyone that had simply been arrested.

The zones were established based on prostitution arrests and calls regarding vice-related crimes, said McCoy, who worked with department lawyer Brian Cummings and sector Lts. Timothy Morley and John Darnes to create the boundaries.

Ok, here is the real issue, they are trying to crack down on vice “crimes”. This is, in my mind, an extension to the War On Drugs™. Any time you try criminalize behavior that has no victim, you are going to have a difficult time doing it (yes I know, a lot of you out there will say that a prostitute is a victim. My opinion is that people make their own choices, and unless someone is physically restraining or harming you, this is a choice). Look how costly and difficult it is to wage the war on drugs. Look at the price we have paid in sacrificing our liberties to such intrusions as “no knock” police raids, and the militarization of our police forces in order to deal with the drug war. Other vice crimes aren’t any different. As long as there are people out there that want this, there will be people who provide the service, whether it is considered legal or not. Just take a look at the locations in AZ where prostitution is legal. The criminalization of prostitutes also makes them victims in many other ways, because the police force now sees them as a criminal (when they really shouldn’t be), they are swept aside if they try to make any complaints against someone, or they never make the complaint for fear that they will be arrested.

The enforcement-zone approach was established in conjunction with the office of Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney Michael N. Herring. Over the past eight months, prosecutors have been seeking — and getting — tougher sentences of between eight and 12 months for people arrested for prostitution.

Yes, becuase that is the answer, throw everyone in jail. Last I looked, nearly every jail in the country was having overcrowding problems. You’d think this would clue these people in, that the problem may lie with the laws they are passing, not with the people they’re throwing in jail.

“We ought to be focused on not just getting tough on crime, but getting smart on crime,” he said.

Yeah, like that’ll ever happen. Getting smart on crime would require the repeal of these stupid vice laws. When was the last time that you heard of a vice law being repealed?

“Once we get folks off the streets, we’ll be more than willing to work with the commonwealth’s attorney and agencies in the city to do something to effect some change for these folks,” he said. “But it does not excuse the collateral damage they cause to these neighborhoods.”

That would be a treatment program, but what is the point of giving them a criminal record, throwing them in jail, and ruining their lives and then trying to help them?  You’ve already killed any chance of these people being able to live a decent life.  With something like this on your criminal record, where are you going to get a decent job?  If you can’t get a job, how can you afford treatment?  You can’t.  You’ve just created someone who is dependent upon the state to get their treatment instead of being able to seek treatment for themselves (if that is even what they want, forcing someone into treatment that doesn’t want to be there is pointless).

Melanie Scarborough: Patriot Act gives Secret Service too much power - Examiner.com
In case you missed it: Before voting to make the Patriot Act permanent, Congress inserted a provision that puts the Secret Service in charge of designated national events. Even when no Secret Service protectees are present, agents will have the authority to arrest individuals for felony trespassing and disorderly conduct.

Although this legislation sounds benign, it sets a dangerous precedent. While other police officers cannot arrest a citizen without citing violation of a specific law, the Secret Service is not bound by such constraints; its agents may act arbitrarily.

If the other provisions in the PATRIOT Act weren’t enough to convince you, hopefully this will help.  This piece of legislation has to go, now!