Author: LPChesco

Doctor Christopher Burritt is a Chester County Psychiatrist who will be discussing several topics of interest at the next meeting of the LPCC. Dr. Burritt will offer observations and answer questions about well-publicized concerns about opioids, pending approval of Marijuana use (and possible ramifications from a medical perspective), as well as his extensive experience with prisoners in a local penitentiary. Dr. Burritt has a range of experiences that will interest Libertarians as well as the general public.

Join us upstairs at Ryan’ s Pub on Gay Street in West Chester, Pa. this Tuesday, Nov. 12^th at 7 pm. If you would like to order dinner first, join us at 6:30 pm. Enjoy a lively discussion in a casual setting. All are welcome.

Pennsylvania lawmakers are attempting to restrict our rights with an unconstitutional ballot initiative next month. The Libertarian Party of Chester County, Pa. urges all Pa. Libertarians to vote on November 5^th, 2019, and defeat this proposed change to our state constitution.

Chester County voters this November will experience Pennsylvania state mandated upgrades to the equipment. The state decommissioned the old voting machines and mandated an upgrade before April 2020.

Members of the Chester County Voter Services chose our new machines: Expressvote and Precinct Scanner (DS200) along with ADA compliant stands that are wheelchair accessible.

The old iVotronic was not ADA compliant and the scanner would jam frequently. Pennsylvania continues to be a paper ballot voting state to dissuade voter fraud. Voters will continue to use paper ballots and pen (pens are provided). After completing the ballot either with the Expressvote or at a standard privacy booth, the voter feeds the paper ballot into the Precinct Scanner.

The new machines and stands meet the standards of security, auditability and accessibility.

Check Chester County voter Services web site for 2 short videos about the new machines at www.chesco.org

Please see our previous blog post to learn more about the Pa. ballot initiative.

The Democratic and Republican parties of Pennsylvania like to pretend that they represent different ideas and actions. While there are some small differences in managing government, the two major parties agree on far more than they oppose.

Both parties support higher taxes and increased government spending. They both love the idea of backroom deals that reduce the power of third parties (like controlling public debates and the state gerrymandering, which was originally sanctioned by both major parties).

But the biggest agreement between the Pennsylvania Republican and Democratic is in the increase of the power of government over the rights of the individual. The latest example is the “Victim Rights Initiative’ appearing on November’s ballot.

Like most bi-partisan power initiatives, this proposed amendment to the state constitution is written in a way that obscures the real purpose of the law. The ballot is a tiny version of the amendment that appears to grant new rights to alleged crime victims. Among these ‘rights’ are the power to refuse to cooperate with the defenders of the alleged criminal. The ballot assumes both guilt and victim, without constitutionally protected due process.

The full documentation on the law may be found here: https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/CandidatesCommittees/RunningforOffice/Pages/Joint-Resolution-2019-1.aspx

The ACLU and others have rightfully pointed out that the problem with this proposal is that it pretends to balance the rights of the alleged victim against the rights of the accused. This is a misunderstanding of how our laws work. Due process is designed to protect the rights of the individual against the abuse of state power. This includes providing the accused with the tools required to defend themselves against an accusation. This amendment would enable attorneys for the alleged victim to refuse cooperation including having their client even testify when called by the defense, It also eliminates Right of Discovery, meaning that any materials that may exonerate the accused may be hidden from the jury.

Even if passed (which seems likely, given the poor wording of the law) the constitutional problems raised in this badly written law will make enforcement almost impossible. Trials will go on forever, as the courts attempt to navigate a broken Pennsylvania constitution. This ballot initiative should be voted down.

Both the Pennsylvania Democratic and Republican parties are attempting to perpetuate a myth about the rights of state citizens. In the first line of the initiative are the words, ‘Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to grant certain rights to crime victims…” The myth is that the state grants rights to individuals. It is the citizens who grant powers to their government, and these powers should be designed to protect the rights of the individual.

Libertarians understand that government exists to protect the rights of individuals. And that, while states are granted just powers to protect those rights, the people can amend those powers to further restrict the state when it becomes too obtrusive. We urge the Republican and Democratic parties to re-read the Declaration of Independence and we urge voters to reject this government power grab on the ballot in November.

Pennsylvanians of a certain age remember the days when opening a shop on a Sunday and selling a consumer something was against the law. The result, predictably, was to drive business to nearby states or communities that did not have such a law.

These laws restricted the freedom of citizens and wasted public resources. When retailers at the Granite Run Mall in Delaware County decided to test the law by allowing people to shop with them on a Sunday, a state trooper was positioned outside the store all day, carefully recording every single sales transaction. This record was used to generate multiple fines for daring to allow people to buy a record album on the Sabbath.

The law was declared unconstitutional in 1978 on technical grounds, so Pennsylvanians were allowed to shop when they pleased, if a retailer was willing to be open. The sales of Alcohol remained unavailable for a longer time, and today is still is a type of Blue Law allowing the state to hold a near-monopoly on sales., as well as restricting types of alcohol sales on Sundays.

Blue Laws are still enforced around the world, notably in Europe. The reasons for restricting freedom to shop vary. While these laws may have had religious beginnings, they often exist because restricting freedom is viewed as perfectly natural by some. Businessweek reports that a union representative in France expressed this opinion, “Sunday should be for rest, for spending time with friends and family…there’s no reason consumers can’t plan ahead and shop another time”. There is nothing wrong with that sentiment, unless you decide to mandate it into law to restrict the freedom of others.

In France the result has been the opening of 24/7 retail by several chains, with almost no employees, because the staff is not allowed to come to work. Instead, the stores employ self-checkout and a few security guards. Businessweek reports happy consumers regaining their freedom. What about the employees who might want to earn a bit of overtime? They are out of luck.

In Pennsylvania, we woke up (after hundreds of years) to the freedom to shop for most things whenever we wish, and from any retailer we like. When will our sales of alcohol exit the dark ages?

The fear following 9/11 was used to justify all sorts of unconstitutional government powers.  Pennsylvanian valiantly fought off one of the worse examples, called Real ID. But eventually, our state capitulated under federal pressure.  Real ID was created in 2005 by Congress and the Senate. Supposedly improving security, Real ID is a database that is under Federal control, and required that state date, like driver’s licenses, comply with the Federal system.

Three things tell us that this government power grab has nothing to do with “real Security”:

1 – Nine requirements must be met to obtain a state-issued Real ID. These include a legal name, date of birth and gender, a driver’s license or substitute, digital photo, current address, signature, and some security built into the ID that can be machine read. Yet Federal IDs like Military and Passports are valid as Real IDs, without all of these requirements.

2 – Many states have resisted this intrusion and the federal government has granted extensions for over 12 years.  Initially 25 states passed laws refusing to comply and as many as 42 objected. But most have capitulated and, as of May, 47 states and territories have complied and the other 9 have been granted extensions.  Pennsylvania is one of the extensions.  It is now scheduled to go into effect for Pennsylvanians in October 2020, as Governor Wolf and the PA state legislature finally surrendered. Obviously, if Real ID provided security, we would never have seen these endless extensions.

 
* The best part.  Federal ID (like military) and passports are valid Real ID replacements, yet all 9/11 hijackers were in the US legally and had valid passports.   They also would have easily been issued valid Real ID driver’s licenses had such been available back then.  In other words, this so-called security measure would have done nothing to prevent 9/11. 

What is this government overreach costing us?  PA budget estimates that the initial cost to taxpayers is $24-30 million to put the system in place, $26.3-$28.5 million for the first year of operation, and $17-$20 million every year after. Annually you will pay an additional $30 over the regular license renewal fee and, anytime you change your address you will presumably need a new one.  The cost to the Federal government will certainly be much higher.

We do, however, get shiny new ID cards, and we get to convey personal and state rights over to a central government with an unimpressive record of personal privacy. It is political theater, it is a loss of personal and states rights, and it is bad for us. The costs are both short-term in terms of dollars and longer term with regard to the further tilting of the balance of powers further toward the federal government.

Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren recently tweeted a startling proposal. She proposed the creation of “…a federal Office of Broadband Access”.  The cost required to do so, she estimated, was only about $85 Billion dollars. According to this plan, all broad band connections would be allowed only through the government – “…publicly-owned and operated networks”. This government takeover of communication would magically provide broadband to “every home in America”. As a bonus, “no giant Telcom companies running away with taxpayer dollars”. In other words, only the government should be allowed to run off with taxpayer dollars.

While this proposal appears ridiculous to many of us, the dangers of the idea of government control over the means of public communication were made evident by two news stories that appeared less than 24 hours after Warren’s tweet. Both reports appeared on the same page of the Wall Street Journal on August 8^th, 2019.

One report detailed the Moscow citizen protests against Putin’s party rigging the city council elections. The protests were met with the inevitable beatings and arrests – 1,000 people were detained by riot police. Government controlled TV stations ignored the riots and instead reported on a local food festival. It was easy to suppress reports of the demonstrations, says the opposition, because authorities slowed or blocked all internet access around the protests sites.

At the same time, India was able to lockdown reports of unrest in the states of Kashmir and Jammu by creating a near-total communication blackout. In this case, the activities of 10,000 troops suppressing the public went largely unreported. Nearly all mobile phone service, landlines, internet connections and even TV transmissions were halted by the government.

Freedom of communication is one of our most basic needs. Increasingly, internet access provides almost instantaneous access to news, along with the ability to verify accuracy of the reports, for those that choose to do so. By assigning exclusive control over communications to anyone – government or not, is a clear endangerment of freedom.

Fortunately, Warren’s proposal will eventually be technically impossible, as space-based internet access becomes increasingly available for everybody (politicians tend to be blessedly ignorant of technology). But the fact that politicians would even propose such authoritarian measures is disturbing, and must be challenged by those who value our personal freedom. A politician may envy the controls that are exercised by Russia, China, India, and others. We must not allow that envy to destroy our personal freedom.

A new book by a distinguished Yale Law professor discusses the problem of diversity in our schools and in our approach to ideas in general. Anthony Kronman has been a law professor for 40 years. In “The Assault on American Excellence” he discusses how this over-used term has been perverted in meaning, to the point of now standing for the very opposite of the real meaning of diversity.

Increasingly, on the campus, at the workplace, and in political discourse, the concept of diversity is being used to promote a society that does not accept diverse ideas. Groups are becoming accepted as blocks of people who think alike. Ethnic background, race, sexual preference – all now stand for specific viewpoints that must share specific viewpoints. The fact that you happen to have a background or preference automatically validate your viewpoint and dismisses independent thought.

Kronman is equally concerned about what he calls, “the Tyranny of majority opinion”. This means that the search for the truth and allowing free discussions of viewpoints is no longer being tolerated. We can see this happening in the recent political debates where most candidates are expected to move in lockstep opinions. Alternate views are belittled, discourse is discouraged.

Nowhere is this lack of idea diversity apparent than in our political system. The two major American parties now differ only slightly in rhetoric but act almost identically. Which party stands for freedom of the individual? Who promotes fiscal responsibility? What about free movement of people and goods? The answer is not to be found in either the Democratic or Republican party.

True diversity is to be found in the expression and promotion of diverse ideas. No one should be expected to have viewpoints based solely on their background, gender, or color. Every one of us should be free to formulate our own opinions and to respect the views of others. This is what creates a truly great society. This is the goal of the Libertarian Party.

Only Libertarians promote individual freedom of thought and action. This is why our party is growing faster than any other party in our country. The Libertarian Party of Chester County, Pa. is made up of people from all walks of life who are dedicated to the promotion of free ideas. We welcome you to our monthly meetings to discuss how we can best do this. Unlike the other parties, we welcome the diversity of your ideas – the type of Diversity that really matters.

One of the best examples of government overreach is located in our own backyard (or shipyard). The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the Philadelphia Shipyard is collapsing financially due to a little-known law called the Jones Act.

Enacted in 1920, The Jones Act requires all goods moving between US ports to be made using American-made ships. The predictable result has been the decimation of an industry that our country once excelled in. The local shipyard has laid off 800 workers and posted a $44M loss last year alone. This, after the US government paid $438M in 1997 to create the yard.

As The US becomes a powerhouse liquid natural gas (LNG) exporter there is a growing need for LNG vessels. The WSJ reports that these cost about $180M to build in Asia. In Philly the cost would be about $700M each. Our costs are about 4X our competitors. (Philly generally only assembles ships from Korean components at exorbitant costs). On top of that, only vessels moving from the USA to Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico and Alaska qualify in the law. We no longer can provide ships for commercial use.

Why have our ships become so expensive? When government outlaws competition the protected industry no longer needs to improve to retain business. This lack of competition reduces private investment and innovation. The result eventually destroys a manufacturing base that has no idea how to compete in world markets.

Local politicians will no doubt call for renewed investment of tax dollars to save a money-losing operation. These calls should be ignored, and the Jones Act, no longer relevant (if, indeed, it ever was) should be consigned to the region of another Jones – Davey Jones’s Locker.

We were reminded six years ago that the federal government impinges on our rights in the name of security even though its measures don’t improve security. In 2013, Edward Snowden informed us that the NSA had been gathering records of phone calls and texts of US citizens as part of Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. How this overreach of Government, restricting the rights of US citizens ever became approved is a sad reminder of what politicians will do in the name of security.

The NSA reported collecting an amazing 534 million records in 2017, three times more than collected a year earlier. The results of these privacy intrusions have been predictable. The NSA’s record of safety is similar to the number of times the expensive and intrusive TSA has saved us from terrorist attacks. Never.

Luke Murray, national security advisor for House Minority leader Kevin McCarty recently revealed that the NSA hasn’t used the collection system for half a year as the data collected was unwieldy and impossible to use effectively. The government has again proven their time-honored ability to both infringe our rights and waste our money.

Bi-partisan bills have been introduced in the House and Senate to end the NSA’s practice of collecting these records. The bills are sponsored by U.S. senators Rand Paul and Ron Wyden and U.S. Representatives Justin Amash , and Zoe Lofgren. We contacted Chester County’s Rep Houlahan, and senators Casey and Toomey to see if they support the removal of this terrible law. While they have not yet responded, we will publish their statements here. Which of the two major parties fight to protect our rights? Neither. Not only did they pass this law secretly, but if a fugitive whistle-blower had not revealed this, we might have never known about this intrusion on our rights. It is time we voted people into office who respect our personal freedoms and pass laws with transparency. That’s why we vote Libertarian