Ari Armstrong's Web Log (Main) | Archives | Terms of Use
Ari Armstrong's January 1999 Posts
Following are several posts I wrote and published in January 1999 through the Colorado Freedom Report, ported here on August 21, 2025. All contents copyright © by Ari Armstrong. Some of the posts were written by others, as noted. Please note that I may not in every case still agree with my older positions. Some of these posts actually were published toward the end of 1998, but at the time I was dating articles by month in the style of a magazine, starting with January.
Major topics include Victor Koman's sci-fi, the internet, the Kinks band, preppers, the Colorado legislature, and El Paso zoning.
I've separated out the following articles:
Philosophy of the Colorado Freedom Report
1998 Separation of School and State Alliance Conference
Libertarian Participates in DU Law School Panel Discussion on Hate Crimes by David Bryant
Victor Koman's Sci-Fi Thriller, Kings of the High Frontier
Victor Koman's novel of a free market space-race, Kings of the High Frontier, came highly recommended from a local Objectivist friend, so I quickly down-loaded the book from pulpless.com for $3.50 and soon became engrossed in the story. ("Quickly" may be an over-statement, as the down-loading procedure was a bit of a pain, but I got the entire book through the modem nonetheless.)
Koman's book is to my knowledge unique in that it earned accolades, including the Prometheus Award, while in digital-only format. That is, the book until recently had been available for down-load, but it had not been available in ink-and-paper copy.
The novel is about four private organizations that build their own rocket ships after witnessing the slow, politically driven attempts of NASA to conquer space. Koman sharply criticizes the political forces behind NASA and the problems they create. According to the novel, NASA has spent many billions more dollars than necessary to get into space, has put politics before safety, and has made decisions for political expediency, not to further space travel. In other words, NASA has suffered the same problems as every other government agency.
Koman's novel is already somewhat dated, which was perhaps inevitable given its near-future scenario. John Glenn has increased the popularity of the Space Shuttle, and NASA has recently helped build the International Space Station. In the novel, the Shuttle program collapses, along with dreams of a permanent station. The free market comes to the rescue, providing a private station. However, enough of Koman's criticisms of NASA stick so that the libertarian vision of free space seems a viable alternative.
Koman attended the University of Colorado at Boulder during the 1972-3 academic year (a fortuitous event that gives me an excuse to write about his novel for The Colorado Freedom Report, a regional publication). "I attended CU Boulder for one year and majored in Physics," Koman writes. "My goal was to become an astronaut, so I also participated in NROTC. I was not a libertarian at the time, though I was a Heinlein fan (else why would I have been interested in space and picked the navy?). I enjoyed the campus, the town, and my old dorm room at 222 Willard Hall (now an office building)." If the libertarian community of Colorado is lucky, perhaps Koman will stop in to give a talk. "I would love to revisit Colorado," he said.
The story itself was fascinating enough to cause me to miss a night's sleep, but the greater power of the novel for me is its vision of freedom's future. Why create a free society on earth when we can just fly away and start our own voluntaristic societies elsewhere? The State can't control what it can't reach. Space stations flying around earth, or around other planets or the Sun itself, could provide the platforms on which the first truly free society in the history of the world (oops -- the history of humanity) could grow.
Koman's vision is an extension of Robert A. Heinlein's in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, in which a band of "Lunies" conspires to overthrow the rule of Earthly forces. In Heinlein's novel, the people of the Moon must fight a war with Earth to win their independence. Heinlein remains stuck in the "planetary" mode of existence, while Koman expands the range of potential homesteading to all of space.
If Koman's vision ever comes to fruition, Earth will likely lose many of its best minds to the freedom of space. Free trade will soon make space wealthy, as free trade made the early American colonies wealthy. Unlike the American frontier, which ended at the Pacific, space continues on practically forever. As America became the beacon of freedom to the rest of the world, so might space become the beacon of freedom to the entire planet. Earthly States would have no alternative but to surrender power to the people.
As compelling as the vision of free space can be, it is no replacement for an Earthly effort to create a civil, voluntaristic society. For one thing, with Earthly States confiscating nearly half of the wealth created, innovation is stifled, which slows the move to space. In addition, States would likely come into conflict with private structures in space. Those in free space would either have to mount a defense against the coercive powers of Earth, or do well enough in the ideological battle to keep the States of Earth at bay. In Koman's novel, the move to free space depends on public support to keep the US from launching missiles.
Since reading Koman's story, I can't seem to stop looking at the stars.
Kings of the High Frontier is available on-line (in digital format) at (http://www.pulpless.com">www.pulpless.com(. The book is now also available in bound-paper edition from Bereshith Publishing, at (http://www.bereshith.com/order.htm) or (703) 222 - 9387.
CFR and the Digital Age
Net boy, net girl
Send your impulse 'round the world
Put your message in a modem
And throw it in the Cyber Sea
-- Neil Peart, 1996
While these song lyrics from Rush aren't entirely complimentary of the digital age, they indicate, at least, that the age has come. It's hard to look anywhere without seeing some business's web address advertised.
Now, not only are practically all movies advertised on the internet, but movies themselves are increasingly about the internet. The Net, Virtuosity, You've Got Mail, and Hackers are titles that immediately come to mind. On-line movies themselves cannot be far behind. Orders for books can now be placed with a few clicks of the mouse, and, what's more, whole libraries of books are now offered in digital form on-line. Victor Koman's on-line Kings of the High Frontier (available at http://www.pulpless.com) won accolades long before the novel was ever printed on paper.
The nostalgic among us long for a friendlier era when neighbors chatted, when family bonds were tighter, when phone sex was the bizarre frontier. A wired culture needn't be an impersonal one, however; technology may have broken some social ties, but it has also created new ones. Now, families and friends can stay connected for a whopping marginal cost of zero, sending messages and photos at near-instantaneous speeds anywhere in the world. Fathers and mothers are increasingly able to work from home, thanks to their modems.
The Colorado Freedom Report is first an on-line publication; the paper edition is an after-thought. I suspect that we'll stop offering paper copies altogether at some point, simply because the demand for paper won't continue. With the first edition of CFR hitting the cyber-stands in January of 1999, I thought it might be interesting to consider this journal's place in the virtual world.
The main advantages of publishing on-line are high speed and low cost. A few hundred dollars a year will purchase server space. The fact that a CFR paper subscription costs more than twice as much as an on-line subscription reflects the costs of printing and postal service.
Of course, the main disadvantage of cheap internet service is that most material on the internet is of terrible quality. Newsgroups are notoriously bad. However, the free market is increasingly providing ways to assure quality: reputation, web "rings," mandatory fees (such as those of the on-line Wall Street Journal), and copy-editing all are coming increasingly into play. While CFR as a small regional publication cannot afford the full-time staff that larger magazines can maintain, still it will meet high standards because of my editing, the copy-editing of David Bryant, and the improvements made possible through subscription funds.
Another barrier to digital publishing is the eye-strain caused by staring at a computer screen for hours on end. Having read nearly all of Koman's lengthy novel on my web browser (a great book, by the way), I can attest that this is a real problem, though not an overwhelming one. I predict the day will come when most books are published solely on-line. (Movies, TV, and music will more certainly move on-line, as they can be enjoyed directly in a digital format.) I have already read about paper-like screens in the tech magazines. Eventually, someone will come out with a small, dedicated computer the size of a normal book, with a screen as readable as the printed page, that takes some sort of storage disk. Imagine -- instead of buying paper books for $6 to $90, you will buy the book-computer for a one-time $60 and digital books for a fraction of the cost of the bound versions. And thousands of books will fit in the palm of your hand.
Of course I am not ignorant of the failure of previous predictions concerning the coming of the "paperless office." With the computerized office came an incredible increase in the use of paper. This is hardly surprising; the computer printer replaced the typewriter as the primary means of producing documents. Early computers were good at two things: math and word processing. Now, the computer has evolved from a tool to print on paper into a tool to display information first-hand. With digital formatting, computers can drop the marginal costs of texts, videos, and music albums to practically zero. Given this fact, the coming of these products to the internet is a virtual certainty.
We're not there yet, though I'm convinced the time is rapidly approaching. Until then, readers will have to make do with viewing CFR on a regular computer screen or purchasing the more expensive paper subscription.
Libertarians have made much of the internet's potential to advance freedom. The increased ease with which information can travel has already made pro-market ideas more readily available. Many see the internet itself as a paradigm for how markets operate. CFR hopes to play a significant role advancing libertarian ideas in the region.
I am less hopeful that the internet itself can undermine the State. On one hand, this seems possible. Who cares about gambling laws, for instance, when one can gamble in other states and countries over the internet? Commerce can increasingly be handled from outside the reaches of particular governments. In addition, encryption software may enable commerce to evade the eye of Big Brother. However, the State is well able to regulate industries, including the internet. Laws dealing with encryption, internet activities, and internet taxes have already been proposed. No, I do not think the internet can replace a well-fought war of ideas.
The internet can be a tool in that fight, however, and in this respect I hope that CFR will have a real impact. The State with its corruption and oppression will collapse under its own weight, once we convince enough people to stop supporting it.
The Right-Wing Fringe
It was an easy-going Saturday morning, and I just happened to take a break from tidying up some computer files to call Ken Riggs (of the Austrian Economics Discussion Group). He mentioned that he was going to the "Preparedness Expo '98" (which ran December 4-6), and asked if I'd like to come along. I don't normally take much interest in shopping for survival gear, but I thought the event might draw some interesting people, and, heck, we were only going for an hour or two.
It did. Draw some interesting people, that is. Plenty of conspiracy theorists, dooms-dayers, and patriots. Welcome to the right-wing fringe.
Not that these people have it all wrong. Members of each of these groups grasp important aspects of "The Truth," to be sure, even if many of their theories defy reasoned belief. My skeptic-alert hit overdrive when I picked up literature that read, "The average American citizen is being subjected to mind control techniques that have been developed and utilized by our very own US government." The average American? Perhaps I've been too controlled even to notice. I mean, sure, the government puts out more than its share of propaganda, but not even the movie theaters use the "subliminal popcorn" techniques any more.
And, DID YOU KNOW? "HIV and Ebola are most likely man-made?" Well, no, I didn't. At least the advertisement for the book, printed in the official literature, listed the author's associations with Harvard and Rutgers. It is possible that some government scientist played a role in the creation of these viruses, but I'd want to see some hard evidence before I began to take the possibility seriously.
I met some relative main-streamers at the Expo as well. The Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is a group active in state politics in trying to keep the right to bear arms intact, working against the propensity of politicians to sweep the torn scraps of the Constitution under the rug. RMGO's Dudley Brown even derided the National Rifle Association for supporting anti-gun politicians in the state.
Mostly, the Expo just had a lot of grain. Yes, grain -- all in five-gallon buckets sealed for long-term storage. Most of the booths that weren't selling grain were selling goods complimentary to grain, such as solar ovens, hand-cranked mills, other food that might go well with a high-grain diet, and night-vision goggles so you can see your grain in the dark.
Of course, all of this grain will be useful when the entire world goes to hell with the Y2k (year 2000) computer shut-downs. This computer glitch was a major theme of the Expo. I believe Y2k may indeed pose some problems and may even contribute to a recession, if the global economy continues to weaken. And, as Riggs pointed out, it is possible that the shut-down of Social(ized) (In)Security and the IRS might prompt the Federal government to further restrict civil liberties, which would indeed be troublesome.
However, I don't at all expect that the Y2k problem will, in itself, create the magnitude of social chaos predicted by the Apocalyptic types. Randy Weaver even made light of the issue at the Expo, as quoted in the December 5 Rocky Mountain News: "I hope Y2k shuts the government down totally and they have to go out and get real jobs."
The Y2k issue is tied to general Christian fears, spurred by the Biblical Revelation, about the antichrist and the end of the world. One prominent yellow sign at the Expo promised an explanation of the "666 implant," which is the Mark of the Beast, in case you're rusty on your prophecies. Here again the hysteria masks a very real problem of the government monitoring our personal lives ever more closely. While the Pat Robertson type of Christians just impute the content of modern problems to ancient texts, these Christians' fears are not entirely off-base. (And, just because they're paranoid, doesn't mean the Feds aren't out to get them.)
In addition, the practice of storing up supplies for hard times is prudent, so long as it is seen as insurance and not the focus of life. Many -- perhaps most -- Americans blithely consider themselves a-historical. They seem to believe that we've already reached Marx's "end of history" and that the next decade will necessarily look like the last. I suppose that was the attitude of the last of the Romans and of Americans in the Roaring Twenties.
To return to paranoia, I happened across literature that claims Bill Clinton is associated with a number of murders and that he has done cocaine while President. Perhaps if Clinton had taken more stimulants he would have remained alert enough to know better than to "free willy" or to "smoke" that cigar in the company of such a blabbermouth. However, these fears are once again based partially in reality: all but the most blindly infatuated can see that Clinton has long been involved in numerous shady dealings. Clinton's flagrant duplicity doesn't help to ward off conspiracy theories.
The final odd group at the Expo was the patriots (who came from outside Colorado). One table featured a collection of hatchets and knives that would make Conan himself quiver in his sandals. Such displays didn't sit well with Riggs, who said with slow deliberation, "I hate war." Libertarianism, after all, is fundamentally a call for peace and for universal voluntarism. The patriots, though, are also on to an important truth, even if some of them mix in a wide number of questionable practices. The right of self-defense, against legal and illegal criminals alike, is fundamental to a free society.
For me, the most entertaining part of the Expo was watching Riggs use his Federal Reserve Note tear-off pad, the Notes interspersed with CFR "Funny Money" certificates that highlight the history of US currency. The question, "do you take Federal Reserve Notes," drew more smiles and queries about the pad (which office supply stores can create) than the looks of bewilderment the question earns in general society. According to Riggs, many clerks in regular stores doubt the authenticity of the Notes. Of course, it probably helps but little when Riggs explains that Federal Reserve Notes aren't strictly "money," which is defined in terms of gold and silver, but rather only claims for money that doesn't actually exist. "Each time you rip off a Federal Note from the pad, it reminds you what a rip-off US currency is." Such subtleties are often lost on the general public, it seems.
My levity turned to somber reflection when Randy Weaver walked slowly past me. Weaver, whose wife and child were murdered by Federal agents at his home in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, spoke at the conference and sold his book detailing the crimes committed against his family. My eyes burned with sorrow and anger as I imagined the unfolding of those hateful events. I vehemently disagree with the racist ideas Weaver is reported to have once flirted with. However, to shoot a man's wife in the head and son in the back because he holds bad ideas and is perhaps guilty of a minor legal infraction is too reprehensible for words.
During our drive back, Riggs and I discussed the peculiar views held by some at the Expo. (Thankfully, I saw no sign of racism at the event, just some strange paranoias.) I mentioned that, despite my deep disagreement with some of the ideas expressed, at least the people who visited the Expo seem to consistently respect others' rights of person and property, which is more than one can say about the typical IRS or FBI agent. If I were getting mugged, I suspect that most of the people at the Expo would step in to help me. Government agents, on the other hand, confiscate upwards of half my income every year, as they wink and tell me it's for my own good. Whom would you prefer as a neighbor?
Colorado Legislators Eye New Pro-Liberty Laws
The 1999 legislative session of the State House may have a more noticeable libertarian bent, thanks to the election of several liberty-friendly politicians. Penn Pfiffner returns as the favorite son of free marketers. Two newly elected Republicans join Pfiffner -- Shawn Mitchell of Northglenn and Scott McKay of Lakewood. Ron Tupa, a Democrat from Boulder and by no means a libertarian in his politics, nevertheless earns honorable mention for opening up the Colorado ballot to the Libertarian Party and other small parties.
Other state representatives not mentioned here may well support pro-freedom legislation regularly. Their exclusion is a matter of time constraints only. State legislators who consider themselves pro-freedom and pro-market are encouraged to write CFR and describe their record and ideology, for publication.
Penn Pfiffner
Pfiffner, elected in 1992, now enters his last term in the State House. The good news for free marketers is that the State Senate seat in Pfiffner's area opens up at the conclusion of his term in the House. The legislator is "certainly considering" running for that seat.
Pfiffner earned his undergraduate degree in economics and political science at the University of Colorado at Boulder. After a stint in the Navy, he earned his masters in finance at Auraria (the University of Colorado at Denver). Since winning his seat in the House, Pfiffner has been perhaps liberty's best friend in the Colorado legislature.
"I aspire to be the most limited-government, libertarian-leaning member" in the House, Pfiffner said. I was surprised he even evoked the term "libertarian," given that it is sometimes used as a misleading or negative label in popular politics. (Tom "I'm Not a Libertarian" Tancredo comes to mind as one who shies away from its use.) It was heartening to hear a market-oriented politician stand his ideological ground. Pfiffner was a member of the Libertarian Party for about a decade before joining the Republicans.
Pfiffner offered an encouraging view of the progression of the state legislature in the past decade to a more libertarian perspective. Back in 1992, noted Pfiffner, only four or five House members regularly voted for limited government. Pfiffner's Democratic opponent in 1994, Fran Yehle, made much of the fact that Pfiffner had voted alone 38 times. More recently, Pfiffner said, "it's darn near impossible for me to vote alone," given the addition of more market-leaning members, including Jim Congrove (now in the State Senate) and Mark Paschall. "This year, we've added a half-dozen more" pro-freedom members to the House, Pfiffner said.
Of course, Pfiffner is constrained by the need to win votes. While he always votes his conscience, he said, he also "holds back" on some issues. For instance, while Pfiffner might otherwise be interested in looking at reforming victimless crimes, "District 23 wouldn't support major changes in that area," so he hasn't pursued the issue.
One law Pfiffner is particularly proud of is House Bill 1262, now phasing in, which moves Colorado state employees from automatic pay raises to performance-based pay. Pfiffner believes the merit system will create incentives for government workers to do a better job. This is an excellent idea, but of course the real libertarian solution to the problem is simply to drastically reduce the number of state employees from the 27,000 Pfiffner cites (plus another 20,000 in higher education). The potential number of lazy, inept, or corrupt State officials is limited, after all, to the total number of State officials.
My ears pricked up when Pfiffner mentioned his "privatization commission." Of course, what he meant was the State contracting out jobs. Pfiffner mentioned automotive repair (for the Department of Transportation), printing, custodial work, and computer technology in particular. For me, "privatization" is reserved to mean the shifting of power from the political sector to the private or voluntaristic sector. For instance, education would be privatized if the government stopped regulating it and stopped funding it and the voluntaristic, cooperative market system took it over. A job is not private if it's paid for by the State.
However, that semantic pet peeve of mine aside, if the government insists on doing something, it might as well do it by contracting out the work. Pfiffner claims inspiration from the Indianapolis Model, home of the "yellow pages test" -- if a service is listed in the yellow pages, there is no need for the government to offer the service itself. Of course, the ultimate libertarian goal is not to have the State contract out jobs, but to have it stop doing jobs altogether. I would like to see the yellow pages test, divorced from its reliance on State funding, taken to its extreme -- education, police protection, roads, and charitable organizations are all listed in the yellow pages.
In 1996, Pfiffner got a law passed that requires criminals to pay restitution to their victims for damages. Now this is a great idea, even if the law is limited by geography. The law includes provisions to garnish wages. Pfiffner holds what seems to me a balanced view of crime: "I don't defend the criminal, but I also believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty."
Pfiffner has sometimes deviated from conservative causes during his stay in office. In the 1995/96 session, Pfiffner caught some flak for opposing a measure by Doug Dean to turn sex-education in government schools into a religion-based abstinence program. While Pfiffner was quick to point out the social problems caused by sex-education which encourages promiscuity, he doesn't believe that the religious alternative should be enforced in the schools. "A pox on both your houses," is his take. The responsibility of educating children about such matters "belongs to the parents, not to social engineers" of any stripe, said Pfiffner. (Bravo!) Previously, Pfiffner opposed a censorship bill.
One matter on which Pfiffner toes the conservative line is same-sex marriages. To me, the issue of whether Colorado licenses marriages between homosexuals matters but little, as I don't think the State should be involved in licensing marriages in the first place. The anti-homosexual bias bound up with parts of this movement bothers me, though.
Pfiffner looks forward to sending laws to Bill Owens rather than to Roy Romer. Pfiffner anticipates the passage of a concealed carry law, measures against regulatory takings, the work of his "privatization" committee, and deregulations of transportation (for taxis in particular).
Pfiffner predicts the Republican government won't pass socially conservative measures, excepting perhaps a ban on same-sex marriages. "Abortion will be left alone," he said.
Highway bonds may be pushed by Republicans, which Pfiffner sees as problematic. "Government should be pay-as-you-go," he said. Also, Owens may not be able to stop increased State intervention in child care, Pfiffner fears. He cited the possible expansion of Romer's so-called Bright Beginnings program, in which state officials can interfere with child-rearing. (Maybe they could call an expanded program Authoritarian Beginnings.)
Longer-term projects Pfiffner hopes to see accomplished are bills against property seizures and for education tax credits. There have been "blatant abuses" of property seizures in Colorado, said Pfiffner. The ability of law enforcement agents to confiscate property without a trial creates "all the wrong incentives" for the enforcers.
The main issue over which I disagree with Pfiffner is education tax credits. He believes we should "hold our noses" and take the "intermediary step" of credits. "We've got to separate the Statists from kids," he said. I agree with this sentiment, but I believe that education tax credits will serve to increase the control of the State over our children.
Curiously, Pfiffner and I took the opposite sides of the drinking age issue last year: I argued that even restricted drinking at age 18 would be better than nothing, while Pfiffner argued against the regulated status of the right. On education, he calls for an "intermediary step" which I oppose. The principle is that a new law should increase freedom and not decrease it, but sometimes the application of this principle to particular laws is subtle or even ambiguous. Pfiffner seeks out the pro-freedom course, and so deserves the admiration of libertarians.
Shawn Mitchell
Mitchell grew up in Southern California. His mother, a Mormon but a fan of Ayn Rand, would question her son about the beliefs he picked up at school and elsewhere concerning the necessity of a welfare-state. As young as first grade, he said, he was exposed to the notion that the forcible redistribution of wealth is a bad thing.
Mitchell attended Brigham Young University as an undergraduate and then moved on to the University of California at Berkeley to study law, where he graduated in 1990. He was a member of the Federalist Society in law school.
Mitchell moved to Colorado with his wife after picking up his law degree. (His family is now six children strong.) He worked for a couple of Denver law firms before joining Gale Norton in the Attorney General's office for two and a half years, where he drafted legislation to prevent regulatory takings and defended Amendment 2 in the State Supreme Court (a more difficult issue ideologically). He expressed interest in supporting another takings bill at some point. We spent a few minutes on the phone trying to make sense of some of Norton's recent actions, such as the tobacco settlement, given her sometimes-libertarian background.
After leaving Norton's office, Mitchell returned to a law firm before entering private practice. Now he is attempting to balance his legal work with his transition to the State House, something that keeps him working late.
Mitchell cites Frederic Bastiat's The Law as a major early intellectual influence. He was taken with Bastiat's notion that the government has no right to perform any actions other than those an individual has the right to perform. However, it seems this principle can be ambiguous in its application; I noted to Mitchell that he seems to accept a more activist role for government than most libertarians would like. For instance, Mitchell, while aware of the problems caused by the drug war, is still unconvinced that legalization is the answer. On the other hand, he expressed interest in supporting legislation which would limit property seizures absent a trial, and he is concerned about the devastation of civil liberties wrought by the war on drugs.
Mitchell is also familiar with a number of pro-market economists, such as Friedrich Hayek (he cited The Road to Serfdom in particular), Ludwig von Mises, James Buchanan (the Nobel-winning Public Choice scholar), and Milton Friedman.
So is Mitchell more conservative or more libertarian? "When I'm arguing with my parents, I'm more libertarian," he said, "When I'm arguing with my daughter, I'm conservative." His stances on gun rights, regulatory takings, and taxes fall in line with libertarian doctrine. On the other hand, his views on drugs and school vouchers lean conservative. (He seemed surprised to hear me blast voucher proposals.) He's what I usually think of as a market-conservative, someone who is basically pro-market but who cozies up to the State on some social issues. This is in sharp contrast with state-conservatives such as Pat Buchanan, who seem willing to sell out power to the State at every turn.
Mitchell is reserved and reflective when it comes to his new political office. "I don't want to go off half-cocked," he said, explaining that he wants to earn a reputation in the House and spend more time researching the issues before making big waves. "I'll probably be pretty quiet this first session," he added.
I asked him if he expects to experience tension between his ideals and the pressures of holding Republican office. His answer was sensible: the need to win votes might affect what he spends his time fighting for, but "it won't change any of my votes." He offered the example of professional licenses. Mitchell would favor doing away with mandatory licenses for all fields except perhaps medicine, including those for taxis, cosmetologists, and plumbers, so long as practitioners fully disclosed their lack of license, but this is not an issue he expects to take up anytime soon, if at all.
Mitchell is "mostly hopeful and optimistic" about having a Republican governor lead a Republican legislature. He believes that Owens will be inclined to push through pro-freedom legislation more readily than Romer. I asked him if he worries about new paternalistic measures passing; he replied that he didn't expect such problems. He's probably right; laws on abortion (which is an ambiguous matter for libertarians anyway), laws on drugs, laws on gambling, and so forth aren't likely to get any more restrictive than they already are.
What struck me about Mitchell is his forthrightness, uncharacteristic of most politicians. If he disagrees with you, he'll say so, and he'll explain why. If he's having trouble deciding an issue, he'll admit his difficulty in a genuine way. For Mitchell, the morality and practicality of law always trump opinion polls. Or at least such is my impression -- I expect he'll have many years in office to prove me right.
Scott McKay
I called McKay on the advice of Shawn Mitchell, who suggested that McKay is libertarian-leaning in his political philosophy. I'm partially convinced. On the one hand, he says that "less government is better" and that people "should keep more of their own money." He's also good on gun rights. On the other hand, he calls himself a "Republi-tarian," a cross between a Republican and a libertarian, or what I might call a "market-conservative." He noted that he helped close a government-run day care center in Jefferson County, but then he added that private facilities pay taxes, whereas government ones don't. I become suspicious whenever a politician claims as a motivating factor the ability to increase the tax base.
McKay has worked for Coors for 21 years (according to his web page), and he earned his B.S. in Business Administration at Regis in 1991 with minors in economics and Spanish. His father was a Wisconsin Democrat until 1964, when he backed Goldwater. "Politics was always a dinner-time subject," said McKay.
Ron Tupa
I first met Ron Tupa when he introduced legislation last year (the 1998 session) to lower the drinking age in Colorado back to 18 (with certain restrictions). I spoke in favor of the bill for Tupa's committee, where it did surprisingly well (even though it failed), given the fact that Federal dollars are tied to the higher drinking age. Tupa is contemplating offering a resolution on the matter this coming session.
Tupa is best known in libertarian circles for making ballot access easier for third parties. Now the Libertarian Party can place candidates on the ballot without having to go through the arduous petition process, which in the past has eaten up valuable campaign time and dollars. The legislation has also benefited the Greens and the Natural Law Party.
However, while Tupa has done much to help libertarian causes with his ballot legislation, he is himself far from libertarian in ideology. He had two main legislative goals when entering office: ballot reform and campaign finance reform. While a libertarian case could be made in favor of limiting campaign spending, most libertarians see spending restrictions as bad.
Tupa summed up his political views nicely: "Sometimes government can be a bad thing," but "we need most of the government programs the libertarians want to gut." This is curious in that the best way to reform campaigns would be to divest politicians of their power. Tupa is worried about the Republican-controlled government. "This is not the time for someone who's politically active to jump ship," he said about the need for him to stay involved. Whereas Shawn Mitchell stressed his involvement with writing legislation to limit regulatory property takings, Tupa emphasized his worry that Owens might pass such legislation.
Tupa's father was in the military, so young Ron moved around a lot. He attended college at the University of Texas at Austin and then moved to Colorado in 1991 to earn his teaching certificate. He was appointed to the State House for the 1995 session when Dorothy Rupert was appointed to the Senate. He also teaches social studies in Boulder Valley (as a substitute this year). Tupa can run again in 2000 before hitting his term limit.
Working Out the Kinks: The Music of Ray Davies
by Timothy Keirnan
Last May I attended a concert performed by Ray Davies, lead singer/songwriter of the legendary Kinks, on a solo tour for his Storyteller album. Having been a Kinks fan since my teenage years, I was eager to see Davies's solo show at the Paramount in Denver. Most of you probably know the Kinks hits like "You Really Got Me," "In the Summertime," "Lola," "Come Dancing," and so on. But how many of you have noted some libertarian influences in Davies's musical themes?
That's right -- I strongly suspect Ray Davies is a "small l" libertarian, as some of his song lyrics indicate. In a world where many entertainers seem to be socialist stooges whenever interview topics stray from their artistic expertise, Davies stands out as an artist who understands that personal freedom and economic freedom must go hand in hand in a just society. Perhaps a brief analysis of some libertarian aspects of Kinks lyrics will help the reader appreciate their music even more.
Davies's Storyteller show began with this admission:
"You see, I'm a product of a century which started at the height of class conscious imperialism and ended with a society so reduced to totalitarian commonness that in my final years at college the saying 'mediocrity rises' became very popular. And, being mediocre, I rose."
After that succinct statement about the least common denominator effect of socialist systems, he continued to describe the forces that led him to write so many songs in praise of individuality such as "I'm Not Like Everybody Else":
"But oddly enough, although I was taught to think of myself as a man with no face, somewhere inside my soul I believed that one day I would become an individual."
Hmm, is this Ray Davies or Ayn Rand? And with that, Davies kicked into my favorite of what I call his "libertarian rockers," the classic "20th Century Man." It's the first track off the Kinks' Muswell Hillbillies album from 1971 and a clear condemnation of the authoritarian states of the 20th century. The song goes:
I was born in a welfare state
Ruled by bureaucracy
Controlled by civil servants
And people dressed in grey
Got no privacy, got no liberty
'Cos the twentieth century people
Took it all away from me
Davies goes on to admit fearing the abusive power of the state in the lines "Don't wanna get myself shot down / By some trigger happy policeman." This fear of being abused by authority, both governmental and corporate, is a recurring theme in Davies's work with the Kinks.
The Muswell Hillbillies album has many more choice moments. In the sardonic "Acute Schizophrenia Paranoia Blues," Davies bemoans "the man from Social Security" who "keeps on invading my privacy." "They're watching my house and they're tapping my telephone / The income tax collector's got his beady eye on me."
In "Here Come the People in Grey," Davies attacks "eminent domain" seizures of private property:
The borough surveyor's used compulsory purchase to acquire my domain
They're gonna pull up the floors, they're gonna knock down the walls ...
Her Majesty's Government have sent me a form I must complete it today ...
I'm gonna fight me a one man revolution someway
Gonna start my rebellion today
But here come the people in grey
To take me away
In "Uncle Son," Davies reveres the common working people and criticizes the forces that can repress them:
Liberals dream of equal rights
Conservatives live in a world gone by
Socialists preach of a promised land
But old uncle son was an ordinary man
Unionists tell you when to strike
Generals tell you when to fight
Preachers tell you wrong from right
They'll feed you when you're born
And use you all your life
In the mid-70s the Kinks toured to perform their rock musical Preservation: A Play in Two Acts. Davies's premise for this ambitious work was to forecast a society in which a corrupt government approaching anarchy allows a crime boss and land developer named Mr. Flash to flourish at the expense of the citizenry:
The people were scared
They didn't know where to turn
They couldn't see any salvation
From the hoods and the spivs
And the crooked politicians
Who were cheating and lying to the nation
The people cry out against a system where the free market is ruined by political and criminal corruption. Unfortunately, the people in this society aren't very smart (too much state-controlled "education," perhaps?); they yearn for yet another politician to solve their problems for them:
Show us a man who'll be our Saviour and will lead us
Show us a man who'll understand us, guide us and lead us
Enter Mr. Black, leader of what should today be referred to as the Religious Left (unlike the US media, Davies knows pro-State religious movements can be socialist as well as fascist). Mr. Black's religious movement has little to do with spirituality and much to do with concentrating worldly power into his scheming hands:
I am your man
I'll work out a five year plan
So vote for me brothers
And I will save this land
And we will nationalize the wealthy companies
And all the directors will be answerable to me
There'll be no shirking of responsibilities
So people of the nation unite.
Mr. Black uses a moralizing crusade to mask his intentions of becoming dictator. Like any authoritarian with no ideology other than raw personal ambition, Mr. Black will use any group's concerns to advance his own political career:
When a solution comes
It won't take sides with anyone
Regardless of race or creed,
The whole wide world is gonna feel the squeeze
I have waited a long, long time
Biding my time and waiting on the sidelines
Watching it all go wrong.
Witnessing the disintegration,
Everybody's searching desperately,
They've got to run to someone
And that someone's going to be me.
In short, a civil war breaks out between the forces of Mr. Flash and Mr. Black while a confused populace stands in between. A last minute repentance on Mr. Flash's part is too late to stop the ascendancy of Mr. Black's party to power. In a refreshing departure from saccharine endings, Davies concludes the album with the nation in Mr. Black's iron grip, curfews and price controls clamping down on the citizens who elected him. Their desire for security and freedom from rampant crime led the nation into a socialist dictatorship.
I doubt that Davies is a member of any political movement. But some of his lyrical themes and the fact that his band owns their own recordings, thus providing them equality in dealing with record companies (whose abuse of artists is infamous), indicate a man of strong independence and reluctance to trust institutions. Great music and great themes -- what more could a Kinks fan want?
No Yabuts: Notes from the Campaign Trail
by Sandra Davies Johnson
1998 Libertarian Party candidate for Governor of Colorado
"YES, I believe in a free market, BUT we really need a new (tax-supported) stadium."
"YES, I believe in a free market, BUT we really need to educate our children (in government schools)."
"YES, I believe in freedom, BUT we need to keep drugs off the streets (through government force)."
"YES, I believe in free speech, BUT who (except government) will look out for children on the internet?"
"YES, I believe in freedom of opportunity, BUT who will care for the old and the poor (if not the government)?"
"YES, I believe in free trade and prosperity, BUT my business needs (government) protection from competitors."
During my campaign I heard many variations of the "yabut." People were very attracted to the words "freedom" and "limited government" but seemed shocked by the real-world application of these ideas. What is this elusive "freedom" that most people claim to support, but few seem to want in reality?
The generally accepted (and false) assumption is, "if we need it," then the government must use force to provide it (and we hope the next guy pays). In a civil society, things that we need, AND we are willing to pay, trade, or persuade for, will be provided through voluntary exchange (i.e., the free market). The free market is the best way for people to get the goods and services they want, with the quality and quantity they want. The many experiments in socialism during this century have been dismal failures, and have caused great suffering.
Why do we have this behemoth socialistic government? Because we've fallen for the idea that government force is the answer for every social problem. The unintended result is that government force takes from those with the least political power and gives to those with the most political power. Each special interest group pressures the ruling elite, who are too often more than willing to provide goodies in exchange for being re-elected to their positions of power.
Libertarians support the American heritage of individual liberty, very small government, and a free market. The libertarian philosophy stands alone in opposing all elements of socialism. Today's welfare-liberals offer more statism, while conservatives defend the status quo. We will not achieve liberty or full prosperity until those who say they want freedom are willing to consistently apply the principles of freedom to EVERY issue, and not fall for the "Yes, buts."
Some say I took votes away from Gail Schoettler, while others say I took votes from Bill Owens. Many of those who voted for me believe that it made no significant difference whether the Republican or Democrat won, since both those parties have consistently voted to erode our freedoms through bigger government.
Libertarianism has attracted former Republicans and Democrats who realize that government cannot solve all our problems and should not have the power to try. During the gubernatorial race I pledged to veto any budget that was bigger than last year's, and I challenged my opponents to pledge the same. None did. "YES, I should have voted Libertarian, BUT in this close race I'd prefer that Schoettler (or Owens) win." Will you be surprised if Colorado state government grows even larger now that we have a Republican governor and retain a Republican majority in the state house?
Protect El Paso Property Rights from the Zoners
by Carol Geltemeyer
January 26, 1999
State Senator Mark Hillman, R-Burlington, has introduced legislation titled "County Land Use Regulation Resolution" in response to the El Paso County Commissioners' attempt to zone unincorporated part of the county (east of Colorado Springs) against the affected property owners wishes. The bill, SB 99-091, will be discussed and voted on in the Local Government Committee on Tuesday, February 2, starting at 1:30 p.m. The bill states that if the county decides to zone land, the affected property owners must be given the opportunity to vote on it, if they don't approve of the zoning.
The unincorporated land in eastern El Paso County is currently unzoned, but three of the five commissioners want to zone it. If the land is zoned, property owners will have to apply (and pay) for variances on all future land use, all new buildings, all additions, renovations, and upgrades to any structures or the land itself. Currently the property owners can mix business and residential use on their property, and there is no limit to the number and type of livestock, residence structures, etc. If the zoning goes into effect, county government will essentially own all the now-private land -- that's exactly how the residents see it.
A large group of residents, led by the Citizens for Property Rights, will head to the State Capitol in support of SB 99-091 on February 2. Four residents will serve as witnesses for Senator Hillman in support of the bill to the committee.
In addition, Greg Tyner, a member of Savvy People Against Zoning (SPAZ) and a longtime resident of eastern El Paso County, will demonstrate in favor of the bill by walking from the County Hall in Colorado Springs to the State Capitol. He plans to start his walk Sunday, January 31, and arrive on the morning of Tuesday, February 2. He intends to present a folded American flag to the Senators, showing that freedom isn't free and that to keep it takes a lot of hard work and sacrifice -- which Tyner is willing to give, walking 75 miles in who knows what kind of weather.
The Libertarian Party of El Paso County is actively supporting CPR and will attend the demonstration and committee hearing on February 2. Please join these freedom loving people in support of SB 99-091. To help, you can: 1) Call, write, or e-mail the Senators on the Local Government Committee and let them know you support SB 99-091 because the representative government is NOT working in El Paso County. 2) Attend the committee session on February 2, at 1:30 p.m. so when Senator Hillman asks all those in favor of the bill in the audience to rise, the entire room will be on its feet.
The names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of the seven senators on the committee are:
Jim Congrove (chairman), (303) 866-4840
Mark Hillman, (vice chair and bill sponsor), mhillman@sni.net
Ron Teck, (303) 866-3077, rteck@sni.net
Norma Anderson, (303) 866-4859
Peggy Reeves, (303) 866-4841, fax (303) 866-4543
Dorothy Rupert, (303) 866-4872,
Frank Weddig, (303) 866-4879, fweddig@eazy.net
The senate's toll-free number is (888) 473-8136.
If you have any questions, call Carol Geltemeyer at (719) 596-[omitted].
Geltemeyer is a member of Libertarians of El Paso County and the secretary of Citizens for Property Rights.