"To place before mankind the common sense of the subject in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent." --Thomas Jefferson

"I, James Libertarian Burns, do affirm that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Jim Burns

I Should Be, I Will Be President

I should be President --- because when I am, I'll have friends to help in the quest: 34 Libertarians in the Senate. I'll have a compass to guide the way: libertarianism. And, I'll have a map to navigate the journey: The United States Constitution.

I will be President --- because I have a strategy to get 270 electoral votes to be elected President and get 34 Libertarians elected as United States Senators.

These are bold statements for a bald, fat, white guy. Nevertheless, you'll see first, why I should be President, and second, how we can receive the 270 necessary Presidential electoral votes , and how we can elect those 34 Senators. And now, for something completely different.

Friends: Libertarian Senators

When I am President, there will be 34 or more other Libertarians in the United States Senate. Because of my friends in the Senate, the United States Congress will not be able to override my veto (Article 1, Section 7) on legislation I cannot support (because it is not constitutional) or will not support (because it is not Libertarian). Nor will the Congress be able to successfully remove me from office (Article 1, Section 3) as punishment for such vetoes or for enforcing Constitutional restrictions on the federal government.

The Compass: Libertarianism

We humans have always found ourselves on what appears to be the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, the vast majority of us cannot live without others. The food we eat, the clothes we wear, and our very lives depend on the division of labor, that is to say, the actions of others. The world would be a bleak place, indeed, if there were not other people in it. On the other hand, our largest danger does not come from wild beasts or even natural disasters; rather, it comes from other human beings. Humans rob, rape, and kill each other, and these activities are often organized by the greatest threat to human beings: tyrannical governments.

According to professor R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii, such governments murdered at least 262 million (262,000,000) civilian men, women and children in the 20th Century. With the approximately 40 million murdered during war that brings the total government kill to over 300 million men, women and children in the 20th Century alone.

That is, governments murdered about six times as many of their own citizens as the approximately 40 million who died in war. This means that of the approximately 300 million men, women and children dead by the hand of government, about 86% were murdered by their own government.

Those 262 million dead citizens are a lot more civilians than the most ambitious non-government terrorist can ever hope to murder. And currently (as of 2007) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, Somalia, etc. we are, unfortunately, still counting.

And murdering people is expensive: As of 2005, 42 Percent of Your Taxes Pay for War. In fact, with nuclear and biological weapons -- so-called " WMD" -- governments have the ability to murder, most if not all, life on earth.

It appears that we cannot live without each other and at the same time we cannot live with each other. The answer to this dilemma is simple -- but not so easy: We must stop the robbing, raping, and killing and at the same time allow the peace, prosperity, and progress that the division of labor brings.

The answer to the dilemma is an elementary rule that may sound familiar. The rule is the fountainhead of civilization. It is the first step in being a good neighbor. The rule has a sister rule -- the golden rule -- "do unto others as you would have others do unto you." The rule is that "no one should initiate force, threaten to initiate force, or engage in fraud against others." Another way to say the same thing is that "people should be allowed to live as they choose so long as they allow others to do the same." In other words, "live and let live."

The rule has a name: Libertarianism. Libertarianism is neither a panacea nor a religion -- though some might be tempted to call it a philosophy. Libertarianism is just a simple rule that makes it possible for us to live with each other. When you think about it, you know that almost everyone follows the libertarian rule almost all of the time. When people do not follow the libertarian rule, we have a name for such behavior: We call it "criminal."

What libertarians want people of good will to know is that, except for scale, there is no moral difference between a local thug and a Washington bureaucrat: No matter who does it, to initiate force, threaten to initiate force, or engage in fraud, is a crime.

Libertarianism is the foundation of civilization. To the extent that the libertarian rule is abandoned, the very core of civilization -- co-operation and trade -- is threatened. And, if civilization breaks down, the results are famine, pestilence, and war -- each of which brings death to large numbers of people. Thus, to all people of good will, "live and let live" -- the libertarian ideal -- should be of paramount concern. To the degree the rule is not followed, civilization breaks down. What better vehicle than the Libertarian Party, then, for the protection of your rights and our civilization?

With libertarianism, we shall take the next step on the road to peace, prosperity, and progress for ourselves and the people of the planet. Peace is a byproduct of free trade. Prosperity is the consequence of liberty. Progress becomes more possible with prosperity and the free exchange of ideas. The first step and maintenance of these benefits is Libertarianism. That is to say, that if people are allowed to live as they choose so long as they do not violate the equal rights of others, the results are free trade which brings peace, free markets which brings prosperity, and freedom of thought and action which brings progress.

My compass is libertarianism. To know my direction, I will ask myself two questions:

1. Does a particular rule, regulation, order, control, bill, or law require someone to act in a way they don't want to?

2. On the other hand, does it prohibit someone from acting in a way they do want to even though that act doesn't violate the rights of others?

If that rule, regulation, order, control, bill, or law does either, thus violating our rights -- in line with my libertarian compass, I will "Just say NO!" Libertarianism is my compass.

The Map: The Constitution of the United States.

The authors of the Constitution gave us a system (a map) that gives Libertarianism a strong advantage. Federal laws that violate our rights must have the cooperation of all branches of the federal government --including citizen-juries-- to be constitutionally enforced, and this system is a shield for our protection.

The majority of the Representatives in Congress must cooperate and approve of legislation that violates our rights, or the shield is maintained and our rights are defended. The same is true for the Senate. The Courts, especially the Supreme Court, should use the constitution as a shield to protect our rights: The Court fails in its duties if it cooperates with any violation of our rights.

If any or all members of a jury do not support a law -- and they vote accordingly -- the defendant cannot be convicted and if enough juries do so, in so doing they act as a shield and effectively void that law. If any branch of the federal government does not cooperate in the violation of our rights, then they act as a shield and our constitutional rights are protected.

Here's the kicker: If the congress or the courts attempt to impose unconstitutional laws or laws which violate our rights, the President has the legal power to refuse to enforce them and stop such tyranny. Congress could attempt to retaliate by trying to remove the President but that requires a two thirds vote of the United States Senate (Article 1, Section 3). My friends in the Senate will protect our rights and not allow that to happen.

After I have received 270 or more electoral votes, my last task before I become President will be to take the oath of office. That's when I will say the following words:

"I, James Libertarian Burns, do affirm that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (Article 2, Section 1)

Please note, I do not say that I will follow what the Supreme Court rules if they do not follow the Constitution -- or unconstitutional dictates of the Congress. As I have sworn, I will, instead, "to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." That means that I will follow the Constitution. Period. The Constitution allows (but does not require) the Federal government to engage only in certain named activities (such as in Article 1, Section 8) and that the Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from engaging in activities which are not specifically named in the Constitution. (Amendment 10)

When I am president, we will have friends to help (34 Senators), a compass to guide the way (Libertarianism), and a map (the Constitution) to navigate the journey: A journey necessity requires.

The Test

Let us see how this would work. Perhaps, you too should be President! With those 34 friendly Libertarians in the Senate, libertarianism as a compass to guide the way, and The United States Constitution as a map, maybe you can make me redundant? How would you handle the three situations below? Check out the following quiz -- choose A, B, or C -- and see if, maybe, you too should be President!

Question 1:

What should be done about the Selective Service (the draft) and registration for the draft and so-called "Universal Service?"

A. The Draft should be reinstated and every male between the ages of 18 years and 50 should be trained and sent to Iraq. Anyone not sent to Iraq should clean our streets and wash our governments' windows.

B. Women between the ages of 18 and 50 should be required to register for the Draft (Amendment 14) equal protection under the law.

C. The Draft and registration for the Draft and "Universal Service" are anti-constitutional and therefore illegal and should never be instituted or maintained.

Question 2:

What should be done about the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)?

A. DEA agents should be on every major street corner and give drug tests to everyone who passes. Those people who fail the test should be taken to jail (they should not pass GO, they should not collect $200; they should go directly to jail).

B.The President should rubber stamp anything the Congress passes as law and should follow any decision of the Supreme Court.

C. The DEA should be abolished by the President and voided by juries. All those convicted of federal drug "crimes" should be pardoned.

Question 3:

What should be done about the Post Office?

A. Raise the postal rate to $10 per stamp to subsidize the people in rural areas -- and save the trees.

B. Lower the postal rate to one cent per stamp to subsidize the people in cities -- and encourage letter writing.

C. Recognize that your mailbox belongs to you and if you want mail delivered by someone other than the US Government, the government should not interfere.

The Approach

The three issues above are examples of three different problems a libertarian President will face:

1. Anti-Constitutional laws, bills, rules, regulations, orders, or controls (such as the "draft" and "universal service").

2. The assumption of powers not granted by the Constitution (such as passing and enforcing so-called "anti-drug laws").

3. Laws, bills, rules, regulations, orders, or controls which may be constitutional but are not libertarian (such as the part of The Constitution authorizing the Post Office). (Article I Section 8)

Here are examples of how I believe we should apply the libertarian compass to the Constitutional Map:

1. THE DRAFT:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." (Amendment 13.) The Draft and Universal Service are clearly involuntary servitude and clearly against (anti) what the Constitution demands. The first question shows the President a direct violation of the Constitution and a libertarian President should void such attacks on the Constitution and uphold the oath of office.

2. THE DEA:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Amendment 10.) The requirement of the 10th Amendment is that the powers of the federal government must be specifically named in the Constitution. What people should or should not put in their bodies is not named. Therefore, federal laws concerning drug use are not Constitutional. The DEA should be abolished by order of the President, and the effects of such laws should be nullified by anyone with the power to do so (such as Juries).

Since the President has the power of pardon (Article 2, Section 2), the President should pardon all those with federal convictions for drug violations. (As a side note, please remember that when they made alcohol against the federal law, they changed the Constitution -- (Amendment 18) and that was repealed by Amendment 21 -- thank God).

3. THE POST OFFICE:

"To establish Post Offices" (Article 1 Section 8.) The government has no good reason to be in the mail business. Yet, there it is in Article 1 Section 8. The Constitution does not demand that we have government post offices, only that the federal government may have them. Further, the constitution does not say that the federal government must have a monopoly and put those in jail who would dare to compete. The President should allow competition and eliminate subsidies and once competition is allowed, the post office would probably die of its own weight.

So, how did you do on the quiz? If you answered A or B to any of the above questions please reconsider, but if you answered C, perhaps you too should be President!!!

Loose Ends

2. The line item veto is unconstitutional, and I oppose it. I offer the following alternative: When I am President, I will not read, I will veto, any legislation that is longer than eight pages (8.5" by 11") of normal 12 point type. I shall only consider one bill per day and veto (Article 1, Section 7) all other legislation sent to me. (With my friends in the Senate no bill which is unconstitutional or unjust shall pass over my veto.)

The 93% Solution

European settlers mostly from England, Ireland, and Scotland came to the eastern seaboard of North America for many reasons but mostly to get away from what they left behind: to start anew. They quickly grew accustomed to running their own affairs, and when the English government and fat King George attempted to wind them in and control them and make uniform the Colonies, the people objected and broke with the past and fought: The Revolutionary War. They knew the value of having government control in the hands of those they could personally attempt to influence. Having different local government gives more choice to all because if you are in the minority, you could vote with your feet.

The Constitution gives us a multi-layered system: A system of jurisdictions. Jurisdiction is the legal authority to make and enforce laws in a certain area or over certain matters. This is important because jurisdiction is the root of government. All jurisdictions of government within the United States of America derive their just powers from the people, to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If government exceeds its legal authority, that government becomes an outlaw. The jurisdiction of the Federal Government is limited. The Federal Government has legal jurisdiction only over matters specifically named in the Constitution. The States and the people have jurisdiction over the rest (Amendment 10). The Federal government should protect our rights, for example, by providing a national defense, and maintaining free trade among the state governments.

State governments have often been called sovereign. This is nonsense. Only people can be legitimately called sovereign and they can only be sovereign over themselves. All other forms of sovereignty are just another way to say "tyranny." Some people have used the idea of sovereign states as a means to violate the rights of people and called it States rights. States are not people. States do not have rights. What States have is jurisdiction. If or when State government violates the rights of the people, it is the duty of the federal government (within its lawful jurisdiction), in concert with the people, to protect those rights. The state governments should protect our rights on matters where it has jurisdiction (such as laws against murder, rape, and robbery). The states may give their jurisdiction to lower governments such as county or cities and so forth.

The Constitution requires that the States have a Republican form of government (Article 4 Section 4) and the people are recognized as sovereign, that is to say, the proper justification for the existence of government at any level is to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This relationship is quite clearly explained in The Declaration of Independence:

"...We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security." --The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, July 4, 1776

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land (Article 7), that is to say, in order to maintain a minimum protection of our rights by other levels of government, the Constitution trumps the jurisdiction of the States, territories, counties, cities, towns, or other jurisdictions within the United States. The benefits of the Constitution are guaranteed to the people in all jurisdictions of the United States (Amendment 14). So, we should have the assurance of rights from the Federal Government, and we, also, have the benefit of government control in the hands of those we have a better chance to personally attempt to influence, that is, the State or local jurisdictions of government.

The fact of the matter is that governments of the United States at all jurisdictional levels are exceeding their legal authority and are therefore, not protecting our rights but are to a large degree doing the opposite. If we require the federal government to dwell within its legal jurisdiction, we can achieve a 93% solution in protecting our rights by following the dictates of the Constitution. The Constitution gives us a strong advantage, but our rights can and have been taken. We must assert and maintain our rights. No one else will.

Within this constitutional framework -- with friends in the Senate (34 Libertarians), a compass (Libertarianism), and a Map (the Constitution) we can achieve much. While it may not bring us to total victory, I believe we can achieve a 93% solution: A 93% solution which necessity requires.

We will abolish legal tender laws: Ending the government's monopoly on money will end the "legal" counterfeiting of our money by the Federal Government in cahoots with the Federal Reserve System. This counterfeiting is the cause of inflation and is a major factor in damaging our economic well-being. Without legal tender laws, good money will drive out the bad money, and by ending the government's monopoly on money, our means of exchange will become sound and the "legal tender" counterfeiting, subjected to market place competition, will end.

We will remove the hoax of the "Social Security" system that makes the lying, cheating, embezzling, thieving tyrants of the past seem as pikers. "Social Security" is neither social nor secure. It is not social to steal the peoples' money to spend it now so the politicians can appear to give us something for nothing. It is not security to make empty promises that give away the future. "Social Security" is clearly not authorized by The Constitution and will bankrupt the nation.

We will terminate the racket of the thugs of the "Internal Revenue Service" -- who could compete with the notorious bullies of history.

We will rub out the scam of "deficit spending," that is, spending now by borrowing from our future and the future of our children and grandchildren so that politicians can get re-elected; this is repulsive.

We will have it within our power to eliminate the arrogance of the federal rules, regulations, orders and controls that dramatically decrease our productivity and industry. The objective of the 93% solution is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

The Declaration of Independence was not perfect, yet it is a great statement of libertarian ideals. Because of the actions taken by Jefferson, Washington, Paine, Franklin, Henry, Adams, and so many other patriots, we can now take the next step in the never-ending pursuit of liberty. This has been the why: We can achieve a 93% solution. The next step is the how.

If you believe as I believe, then here's how we can proceed.

I Will Be President:

The $200,000,000 Solution

(give or take a few million)

Any successful strategy must consider the tools and techniques used in the engaged in activity, the resources and terrain, and the strengths and weakness of friend and foe. It is not difficult to identify the major obstacle barring progress for libertarians: namely money. It has often been said that the color of political blood is green. Money does not guarantee success, but it is almost always necessary to have as much or more than your opponents to be competitive. We libertarians will continue to be unsuccessful in our endeavors until and unless we can attract enough money to realistically be viable: To be able to achieve objectives: To win campaigns.

We all know the political deck is stacked in favor of the Democrats and Republicans. They stacked it. Normally over 95% of incumbents get re-elected if they run. Third parties don't even make an impact on elections. They don't affect the elections because they have no money. They have no money because they do not affect the outcome of the elections: Catch 22.

The incumbents get campaign donations because they deliver special favors to special interests, paid for with our tax money. Clearly, we can't compete in that game -- and wouldn't if we could. But if we will not raise money that way, how then can we realistically compete?

I offer a two-step program, which I believe can change the rules of the political game. Presently, there's not an inflated dime's worth of difference between the two parties. In fact, contests between the Democrat and Republican politicians are usually contests of personality. Let's change that.

Step One: First, Make a Difference

Many people mistakenly believe that the United States has a two party system. What we actually have is a winner-takes- all system but with two parties that dominate. As a rule, third party candidates do not even try to influence the outcome of the elections, and when they do, it is almost always by accident.

Suppose there is a two-way race with candidate D receiving 51% of the vote and candidate R receiving 49%. Now suppose the same race is a three-way race, and candidate L receives 3% of the vote taking all his or her votes from candidate D. Now, the total is 48% for candidate D, the same 49% for candidate R -- and 3% for candidate L. Candidate L has caused us to have a different winner. Candidate L has changed the outcome of the election. Candidate L has made a difference. The key to influencing elections, then, is for the LP candidate to take votes from one of the major candidates, causing the opponent, to win. The question is, how do we achieve this outcome?

The reason we do not get votes, as strange as it may sound, is because we do not ask people to vote for us. Even to get 3% of the vote, you have to ask a lot of people to vote for you. To send even a post card costs money and to send it to a lot of people costs more money than we have at present.

In Nevada and many other states, people register to vote by political party, and voter registration is available as public record. If we had some money, we could use this information and our candidate could target voters by sending direct mail to people registered to vote in the party we wanted to take votes away from, that is the party we want to lose. By sending mail to a targeted group, it would cause some people in that group to vote for us rather than vote for the candidate of their party. -- We do not need to take the majority of votes just a small percentage --. It should be noted, that a person's vote belongs to the person who cast that vote, not to any political party. A person is not required to vote for the candidate of their political party: including us. We have the right to ask anyone we wish to ask and they have the right to listen or not, however they choose.

With direct mail, using larger than average size post cards, we would ask targeted voters to vote for us and give them good libertarian reasons to do so. We could and should take strong libertarian stands on one issue at a time that no Democrat or Republican politicians would or could take. We could appeal to Democrats by taking a stronger liberal stand on an issue than Democrats dare. We could appeal to Republicans by taking a stronger conservative stand on an issue than Republicans dare. Remember, we do not need 50% just 3% to 8% of the vote.

How much we affect elections will depend on how many resources (mostly money) we have. At first, we may have to use our own money but as we show that this approach works, those who have an interest in issues and election results -- these non-libertarian people will be happy to give us some of their money!!! --. Let me repeat that, "these non-libertarian people will be happy to give us some of their money!!!"

There are many advantages to influencing elections. We will be able to force the elections away from personalities and toward issues. We will be able to enforce term limits. We will even be able to cause some of our issues to be victorious. We will be able to cause the election of opponents who are friendlier to liberty. The most important benefit is that we will have something of value to offer in the political arena. With that value, we will attract more money. With more money, we will see better results. With better results we will see the possibility of even greater success -- electing our candidates.

The next best thing to winning is to be able to determine who does win. There is profit in that activity. Profit means influence. Profit leads the way to step two: Victory and the 93% solution.

Step Two: Victory

Now you can see how we can make a difference. Here's how we can win.

In the United States, you don't have to get fifty percent or more of the vote to win -- you just have to get the most votes. In a three-way race a candidate with 34% of the vote can win. In fact, the more candidates there are in a race the lower the vote percentage necessary to win.

We only need enough resources to get 30% of the vote. We could do that by running on a single issue (drugs, for example). Now, suppose there are two other candidates in the race, one left-wing to take 7% of the votes from the Democrats, the other right-wing to take 7% from the Republicans -- as described above. The results could then be:

Libertarian 30%

Democrat 29%

Republican 27%

Left-Wing i.e. Green 7%

Right-Wing i.e. Constitution 7%

Total 100%

We Have A Libertarian Winner!!!

To show how this can work consider the 2004 Presidential Election between George W. Bush and John Kerry. As reported by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), George Bush won with 62,040,610 popular votes and 286 electoral votes over John Kerry with 59,028,444 popular votes and only 251 electoral votes. . You can see the actual Presidential results in Table 1 (Popular Vote Totals) and the Electoral votes at the end of Table 2. You can find the State-by-State break down in Table 3.

Suppose the vote totals were just a little different, what if we modified the votes in 32 states (not even the largest states): click here Table 4. With the proper strategy, Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian, could have won with 17,465,768 popular votes, that is, just 14.12% of the national vote. As per Table 4, we are also assuming we'd get a little help (give a little get a little) from the 4,053,143 for the conservative candidate and the 3,852,596 votes for the liberal candidate -- as explained above. To see how that could work at the state level, see the modified election results at click here Table 5.

According to an FEC news release on February 3, 2005, George Bush spent approximately $2.20 per vote in the primary. My experience tells me that it's not unreasonable to assume as much as $5 per vote might be necessary. To get the 17,465,768 votes for the LP candidate -- in the proper places as explained above -- would thus require a budget of $5.00/vote times 17,465,768 votes or $87,328,840. We would also need to help get 4,053,143 votes ($20,265,715) for the right-wing candidate and 3,852,596 votes ($19,262,980) for the left-wing candidate -- again, all in the proper places as explained above. That would be an additional $39,528,695, for a grand total of $126,857,535 to take the presidency.

To get the 34 Senators we need, we can use the same method, and if we modify the presidential election results at the state level, we see how and where we could win Senate seats; examine the 17 states we need to get 2 Senate seats in each of those State: click here Table 6. Now, all we do is count the votes we need and multiply by five dollars. The LP candidates need approximately 5,929,888 votes in the proper places for a budget of $29,649,440. Adding what we need to get plus what we need for the Conservative Senate candidates to get 1,358,046 votes in the proper places for a budget of $6,790,230 and the Liberal Senate candidates to get 1,352,938 votes in the proper place for a budget of $6,764,690 for a total of $43,204,360.

The total budgets for the LP and other needed candidates for the presidency (enough votes in the right places to get 270 electoral votes) is $126,857,535. Add $43,204,360 for the Senate seats, and the total budget for the 93% solution is $170,061,895.

Robert Burns, of the Burns clan, once said that "the best laid plans of mice and men oft times go astray," and my Uncle Robert Burns often told me that if I were going on a trip I should "take half the clothing I thought I would need and twice the money," so it seem prudent to me to add $29,938,105 to $170,061,895 so that we have a nice, round, $200,000,000 (give or take a few million). This is the budget that I suggest. $200,000,000 (give or take a few million) is all that is standing in the way of a gigantic leap for peace, prosperity and progress for the people of our planet.

$200,000,000 (Give or take a few million)

$200 million (give or take a few million) appears to be a great deal of money. But consider that the Hoover Dam cost $165 million in 1936 (what do you suppose that would be in today's inflated dollars). The government says the Hoover Dam by-pass (a bridge and some Highway) will cost $234 million, and NASA says it wants $63.8 billion to $104 billion to take people to the moon again. All these things have value, but their value does not compare to the prosperity that will result when we win.

Consider that agro-chemical companies such as Hoffmann-LaRoche, Schering-Ploegh, and Eli Lilly each spend over $60 million a year on biotechnology R&D alone. If we were to raise that kind of money, we would have the necessary resources within less than 4 years to achieve our goals.

Now, consider just two companies: Monsanto spends $190 million a year on R&D and DuPont spends $200 million. Clearly, in the grander scheme of things, $200 million (give or take a few million) is a pittance.

Of course, the task is neither simple nor easy. We have some difficulties that our opponents do not have. We cannot take bribes nor steal. We may not grant special favors to some at the expense of others.

How to Win

Democrat and Republican politicians make the rules and they have stacked the deck in their favor and against us. The politicians make these rules in the name of good government and reform. However, the only reforms necessary and the only reforms that would bring good government would be to take from politicians the power to grant special favors to some at the expense of others.

The system they have forced upon us is complex and among other things, requires extensive reporting and limits on contributions. The limits on contributions in federal elections are $2,300 in the primary and another $2,300 for the general election. The exception is that the candidate and his or her immediate family may spend as much as they have or want. These rules leave us with some options.

One way to win would be to have 200,000,000 people send us one dollar each. Of course, if 200,000,000 people sent us a dollar each, we would not need the money. Their votes would be sufficient.

Another way would be to get 43,478 people who would contribute $4,600 ($2,300 for the primary and $2,300 for the general election): If 86,956 people contributed, then only $2,300 each would be enough and so forth.

What if we had 12 rich, 22 really rich, and 2 super rich people; people who could finance their campaigns for the Senate, and a super rich person or two to finance their own campaign for President and/or Vice-President. That is just 36 people give or take and we have the 93% solution.

The LP has always been in search of a constituency. We have targeted college students, gun owners, conservatives, feminists, and others. Unfortunately, as of yet, we haven't had a high degree of success. Why not search for just 36 people who can do the job?

The Democrats and Republicans have already caught on: The Senate is now known as the "Millionaires Club" because nearly every Senator is indeed a millionaire. We have true value; the Democrats and Republicans have none. We can offer the 36 the chance to join us and put a damper on government greed, oppression, and tyranny. They improve our chances to change our country and improve their own situation.

The Problem

There are two ways libertarians can justly acquire the things we need: trade and gifts, that is to say profit and charity. When it comes to libertarianism, we may agree in theory, but many of us rebel in action. When it comes time to put the rubber to the road, many of us fail to act. Often, it is easier to find reasons not to be active or give support.

The LP is the first political party in history that says that profit (mutual benefit from voluntary exchange) is a good thing. Profit should not be impaired by government rules, regulations, orders, controls and taxes. Merchants and mercenaries, professional workers and entrepreneurs, laborers and manufacturers, farmers and salesmen, mechanics and craftsmen all these and more, people who earn a profit are the backbone of civilization.

For Step One, a cadre of libertarians could make some money and promote the cause by being mercenaries and running campaigns that would change the outcomes of elections. They would be mercenaries and many find this abhorrent. Until this prejudice is overcome, we will be without a valuable tool and a way to drag us up so that we will be ready for Step Two. Being able to offer something of political value --who wins the election-- will bring money (profit) to us and enhance our chances for success. Further, success will attract people who appreciate accomplishment, success, and winning. In my opinion, mercenaries are essential, proper, and honorable. However, earning money will not be enough.

We need more money. We don’t have enough. Until we find better ways for our cause to acquire money, almost all budgets are out of our reach. We need more money. We don't have enough. Until we find better ways for our cause to acquire money, almost all budgets are out of our reach. We need to try new ways to get money. To do that, we need to look at things a little differently because the way we are doing things now is not working all that well. We even need to go to territory that may bridge our comfort zone. For example, let's take a look at churches.

Churches have been around for thousands of years. Most of the time the money they received has been voluntarily given. Churches are much better than we are at raising money. I suggest that churches get most of their money from the charity of their followers.

Some Buddhist monks (priests) have a bowl and beg for charity from other Buddhists. I believe that the money they receive is an act of charity. I see no difference between that act and the passing of the basket at the Baptist church when I was young. Charity according to Webster's New World Dictionary is "a voluntary giving of money or other help to those in need, an act of goodwill." I believe that charity can be used for either good or ill, but since it is voluntary both the giver and receiver may learn from and make their own judgments about the activity.

If you will allow me to call gifts to churches charity, then with the same logic I assert the gifts to the activists and organizations of the libertarian cause are also a form of charity. Both churches and activists and organizations of the libertarian cause benefit the community: Both help the poor. Both can give benefits to their supporters. If we view gifts to libertarian activists and organizations as a form charity, it may help us raise more money.

If charity is not voluntary, it is not charity. The LP says that government should not infringe upon charity. Government welfare is not charity. It is plunder. Government steals from taxpayers, keeps a big percentage for the bureaucrats, and gives some to the favored poor. The government places mostly inappropriate controls on its stolen money, which brings to some seemly-unforeseen consequences that people of good will would find unwanted, harmful, and destructive. The politicians who promote this self-righteous, pretentious, and self-serving sham receive votes for their efforts: That is not what they deserve.

I believe that charity can improve our character, health, and happiness. According to 20/20 "Cheap in America", John Stossel reports that scientific research shows that those who volunteer and give money to charity are healthier, happier, and live longer than those who don't volunteer or give money to charity. Students who volunteer get higher grades and higher S.A.T. scores and get the release of dopamine sometimes called the "helpers high." Studies show a volunteer of time and money reduce their asthma and heart disease, and affect weight loss and insomnia and improves general health.

Why charity? Empathy. We identify with those in need. When we engage in charity, we do so in the hope that we are doing good: a "good deed." A" good deed" can help not only the receiver but the giver as well. The principles and benefits of charity and the "good deed" are the same. Both reinforce the foundations of civilization, which is the division of labor, that is to say, the actions of others. Civilization depends on social cooperation. We should not ignore the suffering of poverty because it eats at the core of civilization (social cooperation) and the way to reduce poverty and achieve prosperity is libertarianism. There is no greater "good deed" than supporting the foundations of civilization and that is libertarianism.

I believe that libertarians would benefit by making most of their "good deeds" to support libertarian causes at any level: be it LP candidates, or other libertarian causes. We are the only ones who know the benefits that libertarianism will bring. We are the only market available. Contributions large and small are steps in the direction of our never-ending quest for liberty.

We should take a personal interest in where our money goes and the results that are achieved with the money because some "good deeds" are better than others. Because there are so few of us who know what needs to be done, a person should take an interest in what is done and what is achieved with their donations ("good deeds"): This would make the donations more efficient. We could take pride in the accomplishments: This would help us want to do it more. Please, let others take care of most charities because when libertarian "good deeds" become successful there will be abundance that has never been seen. With abundance, more will be available for all including charities.

The only method I know of to finance a libertarian political campaign is with donations that are "good deeds". Donations should be seen as "good deeds" that can improve our character and happiness. When we find ways to induce, encourage, influence, and generate "good deeds" by others and ourselves to LP candidates, we will have changed our direction.

Let us look upon donations, as doing your part, as of pulling your weight, as a long-term investment in our future and the future of our civilization, and as a "good deed." You may consider that your donations save you from doing the task yourself by giving the resources to others: they may be able to do it better. Find your own reasons but donations large or small are what is needed.

Until and unless we overcome the problem of our prejudice against trade (profit) and "good deeds" (giving), there is little hope for the libertarian movement. Because there is such value in our cause, let us hope that someone will find the answer, or we each will find an answer for ourselves one at a time. Let us hope, we find ways to overcome and prevail against this obstacle.

And now, for something completely different.

History shows the price of liberty has been paid in blood! Wouldn't you prefer the price was paid in money instead? The patriots who have fought, died, and killed in the battle for liberty have made that possible. All we need do is raise $200 million (give or take a few million), to take the next step in human progress. We can even achieve this without bloodshed.

Maybe this time, patriots need not kill nor be killed. This time, all we need to do is raise money. As of September 2007, the Iraq/Afghanistan "war" is costing us U.S. taxpayers $720 million a day. Consider that $200 million will only fund the current ill-conceived unconstitutional conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan for about 6 hours and 40 minutes, just long enough, according to Pentagon projections, to get approximately one of our soldiers killed per day -- and another 20 or so wounded and/or maimed. Can you think of a better use for $200 million (give or take a few million)?

Most non-libertarians do not know the value of free trade. They do not know that with the restraints on trade gone, where there was conflict there will come incentives for peace in the self-interest of all. Most non-libertarians do not know that free trade is the division of labor in action and history has shown that when it is practiced peace, prosperity and progress follow in abundance.

The government of the United States must have a foreign policy that, to paraphrase George Washington, has "peaceful relations with all nations and entangling alliances with none." Most non-libertarians do not know that the government of the United States must get out of the internal affairs of other nations. If Americans are concerned about the evil taking place in other nations (and they should be), let them take what action they deem appropriate -- as long as it does not violate the rights of others -- and let them do this at their own risk and for their own benefit. The LP and its candidates are the only ones who would implement this sane foreign policy, and we are its only constituency.

"If you attempt to prevent men from folly, you fill the world with fools." --H.L. Mencken

The war on drugs has caused untold human suffering and has prevented progress. Surely, some will not prosper when they are free to choose unwise behavior, but attempting to take away free choice will increase neither prosperity nor wisdom. Where success is possible so too is the possibility of failure. It is impossible to remove failure from human actions and when they try, the government reduces the possibility of progress and success.

If you compare the obstacles we face with the obstacles faced by Spartacus, William Wallace, or Washington, all we face is a schoolyard bully. To achieve all I have described requires only the Presidency and 34 seats in the United States Senate: The 93% solution: Just $200 million (give or take a few million) and that amount of money in the larger scheme of things is a drop in the bucket: A drop in the bucket compared to the value success will bring.

Now, the question is, do you want, what I want? Is my quest, your quest? Am I a person who should be President? If you think that I should be President, then I need your help and the cause we support requires your help.

There is no need to ask that we attack the barricades. Others have already attacked the barricades and in so doing they have given us other means to achieve victory. In this endeavor, we stand on the shoulders of giants. I ask you to join my campaign. I ask for your money, your time, your hope, your reason, your passion, your influence, your inventiveness, your powers of persuasion, your love of justice, and your hate of tyrants. If you love duty, family, friends, and country, if you want a better life for your posterity and yourself, if you love liberty, join with me in this noble enterprise. Give as much money as you can afford. Remember you are the only constituency we have. Your acts of charity are "an act of goodwill" and can improve your character and happiness.

There is no need to ask that we attack the barricades. Others have already attacked the barricades and in so doing they have given us other means to achieve victory. In this endeavor, we stand on the shoulders of giants. I ask you to join my campaign. I ask for your money, your time, your hope, your reason, your passion, your influence, your inventiveness, your powers of persuasion, your love of justice, and your hate of tyrants. If you love duty, family, friends, and country, if you want a better life for your posterity and yourself, if you love liberty, join with me in this noble enterprise. Give as much money as you can afford. Remember you are the only constituency we have. Your donations are "good deeds" that may improve your character and happiness.

The first step to change how we are perceived is to have the ability to determine who wins. To take the next step -- step one -- please click here to go to the web site of Porcupine Management.

Click here to make a donation.

Click here to return from the scenic route to the freeway.

Click here for "Quotes of Interest"

Click here for "Some Background"

Click here for "The 8.34% Solution -- Juries"

Click here for "Books of Interest"

Click here for "Hit'em Where They Ain't", an original series of advertisements that ran in Libertarian Party News and explained one of my original political concepts.

Click here for "Calendar of Events and Appearances"

Click here to contact me

I wish to thank Mr. L. Reichard White for his help in writing and editing this essay. Credit if credit is due goes to him, if criticism is appropriate, of course, that belongs to me. Click here for articles by Mr. White -- where he gets the blame as well as the credit.