New at Reason

Brian Doherty talks with longtime libertarian political activist Paul Jacob, who was recently indicted on felony charges in Oklahoma for conspiracy to defraud the state.

Comments

Warren | October 5, 2007, 1:12pm | #

Dude.

prolefeed | October 5, 2007, 1:28pm | #

In response to the folks here who keep overgeneralizing and saying that libertarians are opposed to unions, abusive things like this:

The challenge [to the TABOR signatures] included public employee unions, teachers unions, the AFL/CIO, and also a number of the most wealthy Republican donors in the state, folks with energy companies and banks.

are why libertarians tend to have a dim view of union political activity (while supporting their right to collectively bargain). This also illustrates why we tend to have a dim view of crony-capitalist large companies, and prefer small businesses.

J sub D | October 5, 2007, 2:00pm | #

...are why libertarians tend to have a dim view of union political activity (while supporting their right to collectively bargain). This also illustrates why we tend to have a dim view of crony-capitalist large companies, and prefer small businesses.

But, but, but, you can't be against one without being for the other. It just doesn't make sense! They're EXACT OPPOSITES!

They aren't? Oh, I'm sooo confused.

Stephen the Goldberger | October 5, 2007, 2:07pm | #

speaking of libertarians being arrested:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071005/ap_on_re_us/tax_evaders_arrested

Big Nanny | October 5, 2007, 2:37pm | #

I am not against Unions, I don't think there should be laws protecting their right to collective bargain. If 1000 people decide to get together and press their employer that that is their right, but the law should not intervein.

I don't really have a problem with a state not letting non-residence influence thier local politics. If that is the decision of the people of a state then fine, it is their business.

ChrisO | October 5, 2007, 2:58pm | #

The crux of the matter here is not the idea of the law, which Jacobs was trying to obey, but its ambiguity. What is a "resident"? Basically, the state courts 'moved the goalposts' from what it traditionally means to be a state resident, just for this one statute.

To me, his best argument is that the definition of "resident" under the statute was ambiguous at the time he took the actions in question, and that he made a good faith attempt to comply with the law.

That's even before all of the First Amendment issues.

Cracker's Boy | October 5, 2007, 3:36pm | #

I'm real confused here...as usual.

How can a state (any state) say that only residents of that state can be employed in that state?

It makes perfect sense to say that only residents of a state can sign a petition (or that only residents' votes will count on that petition) but how can a state say that petitions can only be circulated/presented by residents of that state? Can Florida make a law that says you have to be resident of Florida to work at Disneyworld?

Isn't there some ACTUAL interstate commerce issue here? Or am I confused... again.

Thanks in advance, joe, for 'splaining this to me.

CB

Ben Rushing | October 5, 2007, 3:39pm | #

You can thank the idiots who believe that money corrupts everything for these type of laws exsisting, preventing paid petitioners from advancing political ideas on the ballot.

As far as unions: Libertarian thinking is against unions in the modern day because employees are given fair market value for thier labor. Back in the day when unions were a force of good and not socialism, real monopolies existed and were trading selectively with customers offering different prices to certain parties in order to stifle competition. Competition is something any pro free market person would tend to side with, modern unions seek to make thier labor worth more than the free market value and it forces the company to either cut costs somewhere else or sell thier product at a higher price and lose business. Big Business and small business are still, at the end of the day businesses.

Statism wants to pass laws that benefit few and hurt many. (Laws that take away freedoms)

Libertarianism wants laws that benefit many and hurt as few as possible. (Laws that allow maximum freedom)

R C Dean | October 5, 2007, 4:05pm | #

If 1000 people decide to get together and press their employer that that is their right, but the law should not intervein.

And if the employer thinks the proper response to collective pressure is collective termination, you're cool with that?

Hallie | October 5, 2007, 4:16pm | #

Welcome to what America will look like under a Hillary Clinton presidency--ruthless suppression of political dissidents.

J sub D | October 5, 2007, 5:33pm | #

And if the employer thinks the proper response to collective pressure is collective termination, you're cool with that?

Yep!

Economic Freedom | October 5, 2007, 6:21pm | #

And if the employer thinks the proper response to collective pressure is collective termination, you're cool with that?

When you consider what Unions have done to the Detroit Big 3 Auto makers, I would say yes yes amd hell yes!

I would rather have a company grow and provide employment for many, rather than have a few employees working for higher than free market value with little threats on losing thier jobs for lack of focus. (union pay and rules)

Welfare states hurt many to benefit the few, so do unions.

Toyota, Nissan, and Honda have mannaged to build plants here and are still making a killing in the auto market.

Robert | October 5, 2007, 8:14pm | #

Any statement from his sister Kathy about this? I forgot, does Kathleen Richman have a blog?

Second City Wolverine | October 7, 2007, 10:36pm | #

I'm confused at why hand and leg cuffs were needed. Is petition fraud a violent crime?