LPM OnlineOctober 6, 1998 |
|
|
|
Contents
|
The Libertarian Party of Michigan has switched to a new phone number at 248-740-0292. This replaces the LPM's 800 number for calls to the state party. We will continue to use the national party's 1-800-ELECT US number in promotional literature for new inquiries.
Lawn signs and brochures are now available for the Diane Barnes for State Board of Education campaign. If you are distributing literature during your campaign, or at the polls on election day please make arrangements to obtain brochures for our "top of ticket" campaign. If you would like a lawn sign, and/or know of others in your area who can place lawn signs please make arrangements to get the signs you need. Call Diane at 810-774-1625 to get your brochures and signs.
The Libertarian Party of Shiawassee County is moving its meeting location to Nancy's Family Restaurant at 230 W. Main Street, Durand, Michigan. There will be full dinner service for every meeting. Meetings will still be held on the third Thursday of each month, with dinner at 6:00 p.m. and business or speaker at 7:00 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for October 15. Members and guests will work on preparing the last of the Max Dollarhite for State Rep. campaign literature and yard signs for distribution. Everyone welcome to participate.
The Libertarians of Macomb County have found a new location for their monthly meetings. We will meet at the USA Grill and Bar at 27454 Gratiot Avenue in Roseville. That's just north of I-696 on the east side of the street (northbound). Call the restaurant at 810-775-2220 if you need better directions. The LMC continues to meet on the second Wednesday of each month. Cocktails and dinner at 6:00 pm, meeting called to order at 7:00 pm.
The following article is the latest in a series of Op-ed articles written by LPM Chari Tim O'Brien and submitted to news outlets across the state for publication. This latest article appeared Thursday, October 1st in the Detroit Free Press. In a wonderful exchange that gave title to a wildly popular novel in the 60's, a World War II bombardier named Yossarian, looking to remove himself from harm's way and having learned that "crazy" fliers are grounded, is told by a Dr. Daneeka that this was in fact the case but that in order to qualify such a person must request that certification. "And then you can ground him?" Yossarian asked. "No. Then I can't ground him." "You mean there's a catch?" "Sure there's a catch," Doc Daneeka replied. "Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy." That title has since passed into the popular lexicon. And no one in the crazy world of politics is more often confronted by this kind of conundrum than we poor, benighted libertarians. A perfect case in point is the current Ballot Proposal B to legalize assisted suicide. Perhaps the most fundamental tenet of libertarianism is the notion of self-ownership. If we have not even legally established that each individual owns his or her own person, it seems to us rather pointless to get into hair-splitting over control of any other possessions. The implications of self-ownership are fairly self-evident. Proceeding from this premise there can, for instance, be no moral justification for prohibition laws of any type. So long as an individual harms no one else, what substances he or she chooses to ingest is no one else's business. All of our state's bizarre laws criminalizing various sex acts between consenting adults, to cite another example, are also a wholly unwarranted intrusion. Likewise, the state has absolutely no business whatever dictating to any free citizen whether or when or under what circumstances or with whose assistance he or she may end his or her own life. The life belongs exclusively to that individual, not society. And it most certainly does not belong to the state. A competent adult need not seek anyone's permission to end his own life. Further, the right to seek the assistance of others is, even by traditional, common law, let alone libertarian, standards, undeniable. While conceding the obvious -- that it is necessarily futile and a bit foolish to try and legally forbid suicide -- some have argued that the state may legitimately prohibit others from offering any assistance. But this argument is unprecedented. Historically, the right to do a thing has always included the right to seek the assistance of others to do it. If I have a right to build a house to live in on my own property, that includes the right to hire a contractor to help me build it. If I have a right to defend my life and property, that includes the right to hire police to help me. If I have a right to end my own life, that must include the right to hire a physician to help me. Now comes this proposal to create a new government bureaucracy specifically to rule on questions that can only belong to individuals and their doctors and are, by the most fundamental of libertarian precepts, absolutely none of the state's business. Libertarians hold that the only legitimate function of government is to protect its citizens from force and fraud whenever possible and to redress wrongs committed against them when not. To us, the notion that violence or the threat of it should be used to protect sane, adult individuals from themselves is not only a fool's errand but utterly immoral, as well. Obviously, we have a very long way to go in reducing government to what we regard as its legitimate functions and eliminate all parts of it not necessary to accomplish these. We are, therefore, loathe to support the addition of any new powers and the bureaucracies to enforce them. Unfortunately, the practical reality of the situation is that, if Proposal B is rejected by the electorate, the recently implemented legislation making assisting a suicide under all circumstances a five year felony will continue in force. Further, religious fanatics -- far too many of whom seem to find peaceful persuasion not nearly so effective a means of doing "God's will" as employing the coercive power of the state -- will spin the defeat as proof positive that the people of Michigan are completely opposed to legally permitting anyone to assist anyone else in ending his or her own life. What is a libertarian to do? Yossarian would understand our dilemma.
This was written in response to a survey sent to legislators and candidates about proposed rule changes at the FCC. The agency currently will not issue licenses for stations of less than 1000 watts, which effectively prohibits anyone with limited finances from starting a radio station. A group in Michigan is lobbying for the FCC to grant a number of licenses for these smaller stations.
To: Tom Ness, Editor Jam Rag
From: Michael Corliss, Libertarian Candidate for Michigan House of Representatives, 18th District
Thank you for your candidate survey. I wish to expand upon some of my answers to your questions, particularly that of the government's role in helping Michigan musicians. I was unaware that the FCC had actually banned small radio stations, although I am not surprised. Any time a government is given power over a portion of our lives, we become vulnerable to special-interest lobbying and busy-body bureaucracy. While I applaud and support your efforts to expand choices for musicians and the listening public, I would be in favor of going further and abolishing the FCC. Why should anyone be forced to go to a government agency to beg to be allowed to set up a legitimate business? Furthermore, why should the feds be involved at all? Since radio stations only broadcast to a local area, why can't a voluntary local association take care of assigning bandwidths? As to the government's role in revitalizing Michigan's music economy, I say it needs to get the hell out of your way! I don't believe a bunch of politicians know enough about the music business to do more for you than you could do for yourselves. Anything that they could do would be likely to benefit large, influential organizations, not small, independent businesses. My priority as a legislator would be to repeal laws rather than enact them. Getting rid of the dead weight of burdensome regulations will do more for the business than any new laws, laws which can be changed at the whim of the next legislator who gets elected on PAC money. Obviously, at this point you need to go through approved channels in order to accomplish your goals. I would ask you, however, to envision a future in which we all have the freedom to pursue our livelihoods without State interference. All Libertarian candidates support this position, because we are the party of principle. I invite you to visit our website at http://www.lp.org/, or call 1-800-343-1364 for more information. Sincerely, Michael R. Corliss |
| To unsubscribe, send email to markheil@flash.net |
Return to LP of Michigan Home Page
Return to News Archive