April 19, 2024

Dear Libertarian Party of Minnesota Members:

RE: We Seek (1) Support of Proposal for By-laws That Would Allow All Members to Serve on the Platform and Bylaws Committee and Offer Proposals to Convention, and (2) Founding Members for a “Libertarian Party Economic Freedom Caucus”


Americans Against Monopolies (AAM) finds that those with tacit “Republican” principles, especially those who won’t clearly oppose specific government policies favoring monopolies and other special interests, have hijacked the Libertarian Party of Minnesota (LPMN) and also the national Libertarian Party (LP). The Libertarian Party Mises Causcus and prior (what I would call “corporatist”) regimes dating back before the turn of the millennium have been creating progressively worse politics and degradation of the platform and bylaws. The problems, that are also typical of the two major parties, include: abuse of majority power, silencing of the libertarian minority, and especially depriving the U.S. electorate of a clear choice of economic freedom, free trade and free markets. The LPMN and LP have lost their identity and many Americans rightly believe they don’t offer specific and effective economic solutions.

Proposals 4 through 7 offered by the LPMN Platform and Bylaws Committee (PBC) to the 2024 convention would make the problems even worse. The proposed additions to the platform on agriculture and health care are self-serving, conflicts of interest, political favors, misrepresentations, of limited value, diversions from adding more worthwhile policies, and likely risky for consumers without better liability laws. Proposal 7 would deny individual members even more freedom to reform the platform to meet the Party’s principles of economic freedom, free trade and free markets.

We are presenting our proposal in this letter, partly because the current by-laws don’t guarantee that we can even offer the proposal at the convention. As a member of the LPMN, I am offering the initial proposal for addition to LPMN by-laws: “7.1 All individual members are allowed to serve on the PBC and also present proposals to the convention within a minimum period of ten minutes or one hour divided by the number of individuals that want to present, whichever is less.” Meanwhile, I also propose that the current 7.1., 7.2., 7.3., 7.4, and 7.7 are deleted and 7.5. and 7.6 become 7.2 and 7.3 respectively. As it is already incorporated into LPMN by-laws, I am also asking the Executive Committee to uphold LPMN principles by at least asking members to recuse themselves from voting on proposals at the PBC and convention whenever their votes conflict with the principles of economic freedom, free trade and free markets.

In addition, AAM is inviting LPMN members, preferably those who don’t plan to work in the private sector again, to become founding members of a new “Libertarian Party Economic Freedom Caucus.” The LPEFC will seek updated versions of the LP platforms of the early 1990s that opposed specific government policies favoring private-sector monopolies and other special interests, including Federal and state charter requirements favoring Big Banks, medical school accreditation and medical licensing limiting the supply of doctors, certificate of need limiting the building of hospitals, state insurance regulation limiting the number of insurers, preferential subsidies favoring traditional farm crops and junk food processors, tax advantages for non-profit private schools, monopolies granted to private utilities, regulatory exemptions specifically favoring OPEC and Big Oil over other energy sources, and the awarding of excessive patent protections from competition for Big Pharma and Big Tech. After achieving the necessary platform changes, AAM recommends that the caucus and parties convince or pressure economists, and also politicians (who are in charge of the funding for economic analyses), to justify government favoritism for monopolies.


During the early days of the LP and LPMN, the parties established unique and clear principles to prevent corruption of the platform and by-laws. The LPMN principles states: “Governments should exist only to ensure the right to free speech and action, the right to own property, and the right to engage in voluntary contractual arrangements with other individuals.” The principles of the LP add that “the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.” The appropriate response to those within the LPMN who oppose these principles is also clearly stated within the by-laws: “The Executive Committee may suspend or terminate the membership of any member who by action or advocacy, contradicts the Statement of Principles.”

Before 2004 and especially during the early 1990s, the LP had much more comprehensive platforms supporting free markets. The early platforms were based on the writings of Austrian economist Murray Rothbard (1926-1995), who wrote: “big businessmen whose attempts at monopoly had been defeated by the competitive market, and who then turned to the federal government as a device for compulsory cartelization.” The reason the early platforms didn’t gain widespread political support among the U.S. electorate was likely due to the failure of economists to provide supporting economic analyses. Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman explained “jobs for economists has arisen out of government regulation.” (That is why I founded Americans Against Monopolies in 2004, and again after I retired in 2016.) Another reason was likely the failure of the LP to advocate for smooth transitions to free markets (e.g., phase out medical licensing instead of immediate elimination). From 1972 through 2008, the LP never received more than 1.1% of the vote in a presidential election.

During the 1990s, the LP began to chip away at the platform, including dropping planks for entire markets. Between 2004 and 2008 (while I was often working in Europe), the LP purged the economic sections down to 20 percent of what was in the platform during the early 1990s (see Addendum). The LP, Mises Institute, Ron Paul and others have focused mostly on eliminating the Fed, even though that would be disastrous without also eliminating private-sector monopolies. Other libertarian “think” tanks, like the Cato and Competitive Enterprise Institutes, have also avoided analysis of regulations favoring private sector monopolies. As early as 1995, the LPMN had already violated its own principles by failing to incorporate free markets in the short market sections of their platform (note: I haven’t been able to locate a LPMN platform before 1995). It seems likely Minnesota activists were involved in the purging of the LP platform. In 2016, the LP received a still tiny 3.3% of the presidential vote, and only by running Republicans Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.

According to Wikipedia: Libertarian Party (United States): “Some delegates voted for changes so the party could appeal to a wider audience, while others simply thought the entire document needed an overhaul. It was also pointed out that the text of the existing platform was not provided to the delegates (in 2006), making many reluctant to vote to retain the planks when the existing language was not provided for review. Not all party members approved of the changes, some believing them to be a setback to libertarianism and an abandonment of what they see as the foremost purpose of the Libertarian Party.”


The American people want to know how each political party intends to solve the nation’s enormous economic problems created by the two major ruling parties while supporting a mixed economy of monopolized markets, including banking, housing, health care, food, education, energy, transportation, and tech. The legal definition of a monopoly is a firm with the long-term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. Monopolists support politicians, who deny other people the opportunity to compete against them, so they can raise prices and profits at the expense of consumers, and create wealth disparity. Although Republicans have claimed to support free markets, they have favored private-sector ownership of monopolies attained through government favoritism (i.e., corporatism or fascism). Generally, Democrats have favored public-sector monopolies (i.e., corporatism or socialism). Since the early 1990s, Libertarians have increasingly sided with Republicans in their tacit support of private-sector monopolies.

The LPMN platform is circumventing support for free markets through weak and vague platforms and candidate positions that make it possible for special interests to claim it means whatever they want that fits the wording (e.g., the discussion of education and health care on the issues section of the LPMN web site). Like Republican platforms, it isn’t clear whether the LPMN platform opposes government-created private-sector monopolies like Big Banks, doctor and hospital oligopolies, state insurance monopolies, Big Pharma, farm crop lobbies and agricultural conglomerates, non-profit private schools, private utility monopolies, OPEC, Big Oil and Gas (and now wind and solar), the Big Three (and now EV) automakers, and Big Tech. Meanwhile, like Republican and unlike Democratic platforms, the current LPMN platform is clear in its opposition to specific public-sector monopolies like the Federal Reserve Bank, public health care financing like Medicare and Medicaid, public schools, public (government) utilities, public transportation like airports, public entertainment like stadiums, and the U.S. post office.

The current LP Platform offers voters fewer and less specific answers to economic problems compared to the LP platforms of the early 1990s. The planks for agriculture, transportation and public utilities have been eliminated, and energy has been decimated. There are still no planks for tech, even though its importance has grown significantly. Because the current LP planks on banking, education and health care still call for free markets, they are better than those of the LPMN. But the current banking plank lacks specifics such as whether it calls for abolishing the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Banking System, Federal Home Loan Bank System, the National Credit Union Administration, and all similar national and state interventions affecting banking and credit, savings and loan associations, credit unions, and other depository institutions. It is also unclear if the recent plank opposes controls on the rate of interest. The recent education plank lacks specifics on whether it supports subsidies for public and private schools and colleges, and tax credits for parents (or any funding for education). The recent health plank is even more unclear than the 1990s version about its position on Medicare, Medicaid, government-mandated insurance, restrictions of medical education and licensing, hospital certificate of need, and drug patents. In addition, the planks for monopolies, tariffs and quotas have been removed.

It is a disgrace that the Libertarian Party is no longer taking a stand against specific policies favoring monopolies, especially those in education, health care and energy. The U.S. government has allowed monopolies to limit supply and inflate prices by an incredible 30 times as much for education and 22 for health care from 1965 through 2023 (compared to 16 times for all costs), and socialize the costs through government tax, low interest rate and debt financing. Inflation for health care was about the same as education until about 1990, when the government started slowing the increase by instituting price controls at the expense of quality. In addition, oil prices have increased by 23 times as much, due to U.S. government toleration for manipulations by the OPEC Cartel. U.S. policies now favoring wind and solar will likely result in energy crises, since policymakers are unwilling to require utility monopolies to report whether these sources are actually reducing natural gas usage and the environmental effects.


In late 2020, I offered new and improved platform planks supporting economic freedom and free markets in the private sector at the PBC of the LPMN and later at the Convention in 2021. Besides myself, the PBC included executive committee member and PBC committee chair Justin Jelinek, executive committee members Jill Galvan and Mary O'Connor, and also members Anthony Williams and Sam Wipplinger. Party chair Chris Holbrook and vice-chair Mason McElvain were also on the PBC, but were rarely involved and didn’t vote. Moreover, Jelinek would at least sometimes, and likely often, recuse himself from voting. At the first meeting, Galvin said she opposed changes to the platform. Williams and Wipplinger also would not discuss changes and would just vote mostly “no” to my proposals. A few months after the 2021 convention the executive committee hired Williams as the paid executive director, and Wipplinger was voted to the executive committee in 2023. O'Connor would discuss and support changes to health care.

The majority of the PBC refused to vote for planks opposing specific government policies favoring private-sector monopolies. Of the industry planks, they only agreed to remove some glaring problems with the education plank. They removed non-refundable tax credits (supported by Ron Paul), after I argued that they only benefit children of the rich. Then, they readily removed government charter schools, and some government programs that hadn’t existed for many years. But they wouldn’t even remove the Minnesota Energy Agency, even though the state’s energy agency hasn’t been called that since 1981. I believe they wouldn’t touch the Public Utilities and Energy plank, because I was trying to eliminate private utility monopolies. They also wouldn’t change banking and health care in support of free markets in the private-sector, or add new planks for prescription drugs and tech.

I resigned in protest from the PBC before the final voting, because the committee had clearly been stacked with those who wouldn’t explain their opposition to the LPMN principles of economic freedom and free markets within the private-sector (i.e., corporatism). I also took my protest and proposals to the convention, whose opposition confirmed that the LPMN was attracting mostly members lacking support for the principles. During a telecast at the convention, 2020 Vice President candidate Spike Cohen repeated the part serious and part humorous joke that “Libertarians are just Republicans who smoke weed.” One of the few positives coming from the convention was a Mises Caucus member told me that they would be taking over the LPMN in 2022.


As someone who has written several analyses published on Mises Wire about monopolies, I have been trying to convince the Mises Institute to study monopolies with some progress, such as the recent hiring of Thomas DiLorenzo as president. I had hoped that the takeover of the LPMN and LP by the Mises Caucus, which is also based on Austrian economics, would have resulted in something better than the prior corporatist regime by now. The Statement of Principles of the Mises Caucus was hopeful: “We oppose the combination of State, corporate, and/or labor union power known as corporatism or fascism. Likewise, our support of the free market …”

However, the past adherence of the caucus to these principles was questionable given their association with the Republican presidential campaigns of Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012. Paul’s run for president as a nominee of the Libertarian Party in 1988 was because "Reagan's record is disgraceful” especially on the national debt. Paul admitted that he hadn’t even read the entire Libertarian platform and that he "worked for the Libertarians on my terms, not theirs." Recently, there have been allegations that the Mises Caucus is steering the LP toward aligning with the far-right Republican Trump (i.e., a fascist who can’t stop using the word dictator). My communications with this year’s executive committee members convinced me that the Mises Caucus is no better than the prior corporatist regime.

LPMN Chair and Mises Caucus member Rebecca Whiting has been political and self-serving, which has magnified the need for allowing all members equal access to the PBC and convention floor to represent their own concerns. Whiting told me she was offering a proposal on the PBC that would create a new agricultural plank that would call for eliminating the regulation of farms. It is typical for libertarians, and Republicans, to oppose government intervention that doesn’t benefit anyone in the private sector. But picking only this proposal is a conflict of interest since the chair owns a small farm and doesn’t want to incur the costs of regulation, such as licensing fees. At a recent LPMN Meet and Greet zoom meeting the Chair accepted help with her business plan and a grant application from the LPMN Treasurer, who is in a business selling voter contact plans to politicians usually funded by donors. Later, I learned from the Vice Chair that the Chair was giving me false hope by telling me that individual members (that are not on the PBC) could also present proposals at the convention.

Chip Tangen, LPMN Vice Chair & Political Director and former legislative counsel for Republican Congressman Jim Ramstad, discouraged me from presenting my free market proposals at the convention in a March 21 email: “We will take up member proposals only after we complete our business on the 12 PBC proposals….. If we don't get to your proposals this year, you at least will queue them up nicely for next year's PBC, which hopefully you'll be elected to serve on! BTW, it's hard to break through. As a non-PBC member I had a proposal, which the convention body didn't get to for two years in a row, and when I brought it up with the PBC this, the other members weren't keen on it so we didn't include it in our package. And if you were at last year's convention, you recall that we left a lot of the PBC proposals untouched because we got bogged down on other proposals. It can be very frustrating!!” On April 3, he added: “I’m frustrated that the PBC proposal (i.e., 7 about by-laws 7) isn’t higher up on the agenda.”

The Mises-led LPMN is forcing principled libertarian members to wait to get elected by a convention full of self-serving Republicans to serve on a PBC full of self-serving Republicans, just to have little hope of presenting proposals to the convention full of self-serving Republicans offering little hope of agreeing. At least, the prior regime allowed anyone to join the PBC and present proposals at the 2021 convention for at least 10 minutes, regardless of whether the PBC finished their proposals.


Any hopes I had remaining for the Mises-led LPMN were squelched by proposals 4 through 7 offered by the PBC to this convention.

Proposal #4. The LPMN Chair is being disingenuous and perhaps even fraudulent and playing the LPMN for fools by offering this proposal. Whiting falsely claims Minnesota Constitution, Article 13, section 7 states: “No license required to peddle. Any person may sell or peddle the products of the farm or garden occupied and cultivated by him without obtaining a license therefor.” Then, she falsely concludes the Minnesota Constitution is saying the state has no authority to stand between the exchange of goods between two consenting adults with respect to agricultural and cottage food sales. She calls on the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (DA) to cease all illegal licensing and regulation of such sales. The actual section of the Constitution has the first sentence in capital letters: “NO LICENSE REQUIRED TO PEDDLE.” It is clearly a heading and not part of the language, which pertains only to the peddling of the products from the person’s own farm or garden. The Constitution and DA require a license if anything is added to the products from outside the farm.

There is also a question whether liability laws have been established enough to replace regulation for protecting consumers from dangerous foods (e.g., Chipotle), and especially at small farms that could readily declare bankruptcy when sued for food poisoning. Moreover, by offering this proposal as the sole policy of a new agriculture plank, the Chair is self-serving while her fellow PBC members that are supporting her are acting like typical politicians. This isn’t the most problematic agricultural regulations, especially since every farm is regulated, and so there is at least the potential for a level playing field. Why didn’t she serve the state and country by also including an end to crop subsidies that drive down the costs of grains used in junk food? I told the chair about it. Why add only an agricultural plank and not a tech plank?

Proposals #5 and 6. The PBC is also offering two proposals of limited value for addition to the health and medicine plank. The first proposal claims the word “coercion” should be added because “nobody should be forced to pick between their job and complying with medical mandates.” Yet, the plank already states “We affirm the individual right to make one’s own decisions regarding health, medicine, and safety is absolute and not subject to government restriction or mandate.” Moreover, the word coercion is also added in the wrong place, perhaps to distract members from seeing the redundancy. There is no intention stated or proof offered that the coercion involved with vaccine mandates have driven up costs and decreased the supply of doctors, nurses, technicians, hospitals, and medical insurance. Vaccine mandates may have reduced costs by reducing hospital stays. Why not include government interventions in the plank that certainly have decreased the supply of doctors, nurses, technicians, hospitals, and medical insurance, including medical school accreditation, medical licensing, certificate of need for hospitals, and insurance regulation? I had brought up these policies to the chair. This proposal appears like an attempt to waste time, perhaps so there isn’t time for others to introduce real change at the Convention.

The second proposal for the health and medicine plank, that opposes policies “that restrict individuals’ ability to access and practice herbal medicine,” is also currently of limited value. The FDA regulates herbal supplements only to the extent that manufacturers and distributors are held responsible for evaluating the safety and labeling of their products. They don’t even require a FDA-approved clinical trial to prove their safety and effectiveness in treating or managing health conditions. There is also a question whether liability laws have been established enough to replace even weak regulation for protecting consumers. Why not also oppose much more costly government interventions that restrict the supply of doctors and nurses through the accreditation of medical schools and medical licensing and hospitals through certificate of need? One has to wonder if this proposal is a party unification gesture for Cara Schulz, a leader of the remaining corporatist regime and owner of herbal business? Powerful LPMN and LP members should not receive special planks and neither should special interests.

Proposal #7. The proposal to modify bylaw 7 appears intended to strip even more freedom from LPMN members in the minority, including those that actually support the principles of economic freedom, free trade and free markets. Separating “platform” and “bylaws” into two committees could make it more difficult to reform policies that could be accomplished using the other or both, especially since the party members have exhibited such little cooperation on reforms. Allowing members to serve two-year terms on the two committees will allow some majority members to resist change over a longer time period. Consideration of platform and bylaws proposals in alternating years would make it less flexible in the event that the one being heard had less need than other not being heard. The requirement that platform and bylaw proposals must earn a super-majority (80%) of the committee members would allow even fewer members to resist change and reduce the number of proposals even more. The requirement that only proposals that have garnered the support of the PBC members may be brought to the convention floor would deny freedom to individual members and especially the principled minority. Nor does any of this remedy the stated “recurring problem that there is insufficient time at the state convention to get through all platform and bylaws proposals.”

If this bylaw passes, any remaining principled libertarians will become even more disillusioned. The way to get more platform and bylaws proposals through the convention is to judge them based on the principles, and include all members on the PBC to address all concerns, before the proposals ever reach the convention. I am forced to protest these proposals in this letter as proof that I opposed the Mises-led LPMN system before they made it worse.


The LPEFC seeks to reform policymaking at the LPMN by starting with making it inclusive of minority members that actually support the principles of economic freedom, free trade and free markets. All members should be allowed to serve on the PBC and anytime they want. The LPMN shouldn’t even be considering voting for membership on the PBC until many more members want to join. The Democratic Party has 180 members on their platform committee. In addition, every member should be encouraged to offer proposals for platform and bylaw changes to the PBC and also at the convention. The PBC should post platform proposals on the website as they are offered in committee, so members can voice their support or opposition.

The LPEFC will seek to base policymaking on the updating of past platforms passed before 2004 and changes based on the principles. The principled solution should be for the LPMN to direct the PBC to offer the following at each annual convention: (1) a platform plank for each and every market group (e.g., health care), (2) the statement “We favor a free-market system in” followed by the name of the market group at the beginning of each and every plank, and (3) the inclusion of statements of opposition covering all specific government intervention groupings that are restricting economic freedom and preventing free markets in that market group (e.g., medical school accreditation, medical licensing, certificate of need for hospitals, etc.).

Since the early 1990s, LP parties have removed most of the platform that called for the elimination of specific government policies favoring private-sector special interests. LP candidates have done the same. It’s no wonder Americans blame free markets for monopolies. The LP should support the elimination of the following government policies favoring monopolies and oligopolies:

  • Federal and state charters favoring Big Banks,
  • medical school accreditation and medical licensing limiting the supply of doctors,
  • certificate of need limiting the building of hospitals,
  • state regulation limiting insurance,
  • government research grants, preferential FDA approval, and patents with long lifetimes favoring Big Pharma,
  • subsidies favoring traditional farm crops and junk food processors,
  • granting monopolies to private utilities,
  • trade policies allowing OPEC cartel governments to manipulate global oil prices,
  • policies favoring Big Oil & Gas (especially compared to coal), including environmental exemptions, below-market government land leases, laws allowing pumping from under others’ land, numerous tax breaks, and the use of eminent domain for pipelines,
  • Price Anderson Act favoring nuclear energy,
  • the awarding of excessive patent and copyright protections from competition favoring Big Tech, and
  • tax advantages favoring non-profit private schools over for-profit private schools.

The Executive Committee should suspend or terminate the membership of LPMN members on the PBC or at the convention who oppose planks or studies for an industry not already represented, statements of support for free markets, and policies that oppose government interventions that limit economic freedom, free trade and free markets. Republicans, Democrats and others should voluntarily recuse themselves from voting on economic and any other issues that cause them to violate LPMN principles. They should also not be counted when determining a quorum. All votes and abstains should be recorded along with the name of the member.


Tocqueville (tohk-vil) warned about the risk of democracy developing into a tyranny of the majority. Republicans and others can’t be allowed to infiltrate the small groups of the principled libertarian minority and quash their words of economic freedom and free markets before they can get it out. The Libertarian Party is one of the few remaining hopes for spreading the principles of economic freedom, free trade and free markets throughout the state, country and world.

The tyranny of LPMN Republicans is motivating me to seek founding members for a Libertarian Party Economic Freedom Caucus (LPEFC). All Executive Committee positions are available. After achieving the necessary platform changes, the Caucus can guide the Party to focus on offering the electorate support for economic analyses of government favoritism for monopolies in both the private and public sectors.



Mike Holly


Americans Against Monopolies

[email protected]




Comparison of the Economic Sections of LP Platforms in 1992 and 2022



Government intervention in the economy imperils both the personal freedom and the material prosperity of every American. We therefore support the following specific immediate reforms:

  1. drastic reduction of both taxes and government spending;
  2. an end to deficit budgets;
  3. a halt to inflationary monetary policies;
  4. the removal of all governmental impediments to free trade; and
  5. the repeal of all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates.


We recognize that government control over money and banking is the primary cause of inflation and depression. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item, such as gold coins denominated by units of weight. We therefore call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account. We support the right to private ownership of and contracts for gold. We favor the elimination of all government fiat money and all government minted coins. All restrictions upon the private minting of coins should be abolished so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market.

We favor free-market banking. We call for the abolition of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Banking System, and all similar national and state interventions affecting banking and credit. Our opposition encompasses all controls on the rate of interest. We also call for the abolition of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, the Resolution Trust Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, the National Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility, and all similar national and state interventions affecting savings and loan associations, credit unions, and other depository institutions. There should be unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types.

To complete the separation of bank and State, we favor the Jacksonian independent treasury system, in which all government funds are held by the government itself and not deposited in any private banks. The only further necessary check upon monetary inflation is the consistent application of the general protection against fraud to the minting and banking industries.

Pending its abolition, the Federal Reserve System, in order to halt rampant inflation, must immediately cease its expansion of the quantity of money. As interim measures, we further support:

  1. the lifting of all restrictions on branch banking;
  2. the repeal of all state usury laws;
  3. the removal of all remaining restrictions on the interest paid for deposits;
  4. the elimination of laws setting margin requirements on purchases and sales of securities;
  5. the revocation of all other selective credit controls;
  6. the abolition of Federal Reserve control over the reserves of non-member banks and other depository institutions; and
  7. the lifting of the prohibition of domestic deposits denominated in foreign currencies.


We call for the abolition of all regulation of financial and capital markets. Specifically, we demand the abolition of the tyrannical Securities and Exchange Commission, of state "Blue Sky" laws which repress small and risky capital ventures, and of all federal regulation of commodity markets. We oppose any attempts to ban or regulate such innovative financial devices as investing in stock-market index futures.

We call for repeal of all laws based on the muddled concept of insider trading. What should be punished is the theft of information or breach of contract to hold information in confidence, not trading on the basis of valuable knowledge. We support the right of third parties to make stock purchase tender offers to stockholders over the opposition of entrenched management, and oppose all laws restricting such offers.


We support the drive for a constitutional amendment requiring the national government to balance its budget, and also support similar amendments to require balanced state budgets. To be effective, a balanced budget amendment should provide:

  1. that neither Congress nor the President be permitted to override this requirement;
  2. that all off-budget items are included in the budget;
  3. that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes; and
  4. that no exception be made for periods of national emergency.

The Federal Reserve should be forbidden to acquire any additional government securities, thereby helping to eliminate the inflationary aspect of the deficit. Governments facing fiscal crises should always default in preference to raising taxes. At a minimum, the level of government should be frozen.


We condemn all coercive monopolies. We recognize that government is the source of monopoly, through its grants of legal privilege to special interests in the economy. In order to abolish monopolies, we advocate a strict separation of business and State.

"Anti-trust" laws do not prevent monopoly, but foster it by limiting competition. We therefore call for the repeal of all "anti-trust" laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act which restricts price discounts, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act. We further call for the abolition of the Federal Trade Commission and the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice.

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives, and other types of companies based on voluntary association. Laws of incorporation should not include grants of monopoly privilege. In particular, we oppose special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in noncontractual transactions. We also oppose state or federal limits on the size of private companies and on the right of companies to merge. We further oppose efforts, in the name of social responsibility, or any other reason, to expand federal chartering of corporations into a pretext for government control of business.


In order to achieve a free economy in which government victimizes no one for the benefit of any other, we oppose all government subsidies to business, labor, education, agriculture, science, broadcasting, the arts, sports, or any other special interest. In particular, we condemn any effort to forge an alliance between government and business under the guise of "reindustrialization" or "industrial policy." The unrestricted competition of the free market is the best way to foster prosperity. We therefore oppose any resumption of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, or any similar plan that would force the taxpayer to subsidize or sustain any enterprise.

We call for the abolition of the Federal Financing Bank, the most important national agency subsidizing special interests with government loans. We also oppose all government guarantees of so-called private loans. Such guarantees transfer resources to special interests as effectively as actual government expenditures and, at the national level, exceed direct government loans in total amount. Taxpayers must never bear the cost of default upon government-guaranteed loans. All national, state, and local government agencies whose primary function is to guarantee loans, including the Federal Housing Administration, the Rural Electrification Administration, and the Small Business Administration, should be abolished or privatized.

The loans of government-sponsored enterprises, even when not guaranteed by the government, constitute another form of subsidy. All such enterprises -- the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Farm Credit Administration, and the Student Loan Marketing Association -- must either be abolished or completely privatized.

Relief or exemption from taxation or from any other involuntary government intervention, however, should not be considered a subsidy.


Like subsidies, tariffs and quotas serve only to give special treatment to favored interests and to diminish the welfare of other individuals. The measures also reduce the scope of contracts and understanding among different peoples. We therefore support abolition of all tariffs and quotas as well as the Tariff Commission and the Customs Court.


We advocate the termination of government-created franchise privileges and governmental monopolies for such services as garbage collection, fire protection, electricity, natural gas, cable television, telephone, or water supplies. Furthermore, all rate regulation in these industries should be abolished. The right to offer such services on the market should not be curtailed by law.


Current problems in such areas as energy, pollution, health care delivery, decaying cities, and poverty are not solved, but are primarily caused, by government. The welfare state, supposedly designed to aid the poor, is in reality a growing and parasitic burden on all productive people, and injures, rather than benefits, the poor themselves.


We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production, such as that imposed by the Department of Energy, state public utility commissions, and state pro-rationing agencies. We oppose all government subsidies for energy research, development, and operation.

We oppose all direct and indirect government participation in the nuclear energy industry, including subsidies, research and development funds, guaranteed loans, waste disposal subsidies, and federal uranium enrichment facilities. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be abolished; full liability -- not government agencies -- should regulate nuclear power. The Price-Anderson Act, through which the government limits liability for nuclear accidents and furnishes partial payment at taxpayer expense, should be repealed. Nuclear energy should be denationalized and the industry's assets transferred to the private sector. Any nuclear power industry must meet the test of a free market.

We oppose any restriction on the use of alternative fuels.

We support abolition of the Department of Energy and the abolition of its component agencies, without their transfer elsewhere in the government. We oppose the creation of any emergency mobilization agency in the energy field, which would wield dictatorial powers in order to override normal legal processes. We oppose all government conservation schemes through the use of taxes, subsidies, and regulation, as well as the dictated conversion of utilities and other industries to coal or any other fuel. We oppose any attempt to give the federal government a monopoly over the importation of oil, or to develop a subsidized government energy corporation whose privileged status would be used as a yardstick for condemning private enterprise. We oppose the "strategic storage" program, any attempt to compel national self-sufficiency in oil, any extension of cargo preference law to imports, and any attempt to raise oil tariffs or impose oil import quotas. We oppose all efforts to nationalize energy companies, or force them to plow back revenues solely into energy production and the discovery of energy sources, or prohibit them from acquiring companies in non-energy fields. We also oppose all efforts to break up vertically and horizontally integrated energy companies or force them to divest their pipelines.

We consider all attempts to impose an operational or standby program of gasoline rationing to be unworkable, unnecessary, and tyrannical.

We favor the creation of a free market in oil by instituting full property rights in underground oil and by the repeal of all federal and state controls over price and output in the petroleum industry. All government-owned energy resources should be turned over to private ownership.


We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended. We call for the repeal of the guarantees of tax-funded, government-provided education, which are found in most state constitutions.

As an interim measure to encourage the growth of private schools and variety in education, including home schooling, we support tax credits for tuition and other expenditures related to an individual's education. We likewise favor tax credits for child care and oppose nationalization of the child-care industry. We oppose denial of tax-exempt status to schools because of those schools' private policies on hiring, admissions, and student deportment. We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether for profit or non-profit.

We condemn compulsory education laws, which spawn prison-like schools with many of the problems associated with prisons, and we call for an immediate repeal of such laws.

Until government involvement in education is ended, we support elimination, within the governmental school system, of forced busing and corporal punishment. We further support immediate reduction of tax support for schools, and removal of the burden of school taxes from those not responsible for the education of children.


Government interference in transportation is characterized by monopolistic restriction, corruption and gross inefficiency. We therefore call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Maritime Commission, and the transfer of their legitimate functions to competitive private firms. We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of airports, air traffic control systems, public roads, and the national highway system. We condemn the re-cartelization of commercial aviation by the Federal Aviation Administration via rationing of take-off and landing rights and controlling scheduling in the name of "safety."

As interim measures, we advocate an immediate end to government regulation of private transit organizations and to governmental favors to the transportation industry. In particular, we support the immediate repeal of all laws restricting transit competition such as the granting of taxicab and bus monopolies and the prohibition of private jitney services. We urge immediate deregulation of the trucking industry. Likewise, we advocate the immediate repeal of federally imposed speed limits.


We advocate the complete separation of medicine and State. Recognizing the individual's right to self-medication, we seek the elimination of all government restrictions on the right of individuals to pursue alternative forms of health care. Individuals should be free to contract with practitioners of their choice for all health care services. We oppose any government infringement upon the practitioner-patient relationship through regulatory agencies or contracted review organizations. We condemn the practice of criminally prosecuting medical practitioners under the anti-trust laws.

We oppose any form of compulsory National Health Insurance, including mandatory health insurance benefits required of employers by the government. We favor abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs. We also oppose any state or federal area planning boards whose stated purpose is to consolidate health services or avoid their duplication. We support the removal of all government barriers to medical advertising, including prohibition of publication of doctors' fees and drug prices. We further support the elimination of laws requiring prescriptions for the dispensing of medicines and other health-related items.

We condemn efforts by government to impose a medical orthodoxy on society. We specifically oppose the attempt by state and local governments to deny parents the right to choose the option of home births and to discourage the development of privately funded women's clinics. We call for the repeal of all laws that restrict the practice of lay midwifery or that permit harassment of lay midwives and home birth practitioners. We also call for the repeal of all medical licensing laws, which have raised medical costs while creating a government-imposed monopoly of doctors and hospitals.

Since a person's body is his or her own property, we favor repeal of the existing prohibition on the commercial sale and purchase of body parts.

We favor the deregulation of the health insurance industry, and oppose government-imposed limits on its use of genetic and other screening and testing methods. We oppose laws that limit the freedom of contract of patients and health care professionals, and laws regulating the supply of legal aid on a contingency fee basis. We also oppose subsidy of malpractice insurance through public funds. We call for the repeal of laws forcing health care professionals to render medical services in emergencies or other situations.

We recognize that AIDS is a dread disease of epidemic proportions. But governmental proposals to combat it present an unprecedented threat to individual liberty and often encourage the spread of the disease. We oppose all government-mandated AIDS testing. We are opposed to FDA restrictions which make it difficult for individuals to secure treatment for this disease. We also call for the decriminalization of hypodermic syringes, especially since sharing needles is now a major means of transmission of the disease. We oppose government-mandated contact tracing and state intervention into the private medical records of individuals. We are opposed to efforts by the government, especially the postal service, to restrict the dissemination of AIDS education material. We support the rights of all individuals to freedom of association including the right not to associate.

We condemn attempts at the federal, state, or local level to cripple the advance of science by governmental restriction of research. We oppose subsidies to, or restrictions of, medical education. We call for an end to government policies compelling individuals to submit to medical experiments, treatment, and testing. We condemn compulsory hospitalization, compulsory vaccination, and compulsory fluoridation. As interim measures, we advocate dollar-for-dollar tax credits to any individual or group providing health care services to the needy or paying for such services. Tax credits should also be made available for private grants to medical education and medical research.

Because all individuals should have full responsibility and control of their own lives, we support the right of terminally or hopelessly ill persons to end their lives. We support the freedom to use living wills and durable medical powers of attorney in which individuals declare the manner in which they are to be treated and the procedures for disposal of their remains. In the absence of such wills and the ability for the individual to choose (e.g. coma) the matter should be decided by such person or persons as the individual may have clearly preferred, with whatever guidance they may desire. In keeping with the principle of non-coercion, no individual shall be forced to either continue or terminate life sustaining care. This right does not entitle individuals to force medical professionals or others to assist them in ending their lives or in continuing life support.


America's free market in agriculture, the system that feeds much of the world, has been plowed under by government intervention. Government subsidies, regulation, and taxes have encouraged the centralization of agricultural business. Government export policies hold American farmers hostage to the political whims of both Republican and Democratic administrations. Government embargoes on grain sales and other obstacles to free trade have frustrated the development of free and stable trade relationships between peoples of the world.

The agricultural problems facing America today are not insoluble, however. Government policies can be reversed. Farmers and consumers alike should be free from the meddling and counterproductive measures of the federal government -- free to grow, sell, and buy what they want, in the quantity they want, when they want. Five steps can be taken immediately:

  1. abolition of the Department of Agriculture
  2. elimination of all government farm programs, including price supports, direct subsidies, and all regulation on agricultural production;
  3. deregulation of the transportation industry and abolition of the Interstate Commerce Commission;
  4. repeal of federal inheritance taxes; and
  5. ending government involvement in agricultural pest control. A policy of pest control whereby private individuals or corporations bear full responsibility for damages they inflict on their neighbors should be implemented.




2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

Since all persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor, we oppose all government activity that consists of the forcible collection of money or goods from individuals in violation of their individual rights and strive for the eventual repeal of all taxation. To further that end, we call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. We support any initiative to reduce or abolish any tax, and oppose any increase on any tax for any reason. To the extent possible, we advocate that all public services be funded or allowed to be provided in a voluntary manner.

2.5 Government Debt

Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.7 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Markets are not actually free unless fraud is vigorously combated. Those who enjoy the possibility of profits must not impose risks of losses upon others, such as through government guarantees or bailouts. We support ending federal student loan guarantees and special treatment of student loan debt in bankruptcy proceedings. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.

2.8 Marketplace Freedom

Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form commercial enterprises based on voluntary association. We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business, labor, or any other special interest. Government should not compete with private enterprise. We reject government charter of corporations. We call for a separation of business and state.

2.9 Licensing

Libertarians support the right of every person to earn an honest and peaceful living through the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services. Accordingly, we oppose occupational and other licensing laws that infringe on this right or treat it as a state-granted privilege. We encourage certifications by voluntary associations of professionals.

2.12 Education

Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability, and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education.

2.13 Health Care

We favor a free market health care system. Medical facilities, medical providers, and medical products (including drugs) must be freely available in the marketplace without government restrictions or licenses. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines. We oppose governments either mandating, or restricting voluntary access to, medical treatments or procedures including vaccines.







Libertarian Party of Minnesota 2021 Convention

Proposed platform changes

Explanation for proposed platform changes (full version)

Explanation for proposed platform changes (condensed version)




Introduction: How the Libertarian Party Could Win the Political Debate


Position Critique of Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Jo Jorgensen


Proposed Planks for Libertarian Party Platform


Proposed Additions to Libertarian Party Platform


Preliminary Analysis of LPMN Education Tax Credits


Reasons for Proposed Planks - The Platform should show the reasons to vote LP. Voters are looking for something that can free them from the control of politicians, bureaucrats and special interests. 


1. LP should clearly and more specifically state what needs to be done and why. LP should should show the extent of preferential policies favoring special interests. LP should oppose many more regulations and subsidies. LP should better explain and detail regulations so can analyze problems to formulate solutions and transitions. 


Health care planks don’t address many problem regulations, like Certificate of Need.

Education planks don’t mention the bigger problem of subsidies to schools.

Electricity deregulation planks don’t address many problem regulations, like transmission constraints.


2. LP should consider the possibilities of: (a) market imperfections and (b) already imbedded government-granted advantages, before moving abruptly to free markets, to minimize the chances of failure.


Does health care competition require ending the medical licensing of doctors?

Should children be responsible for their education even if parents are neglectful?

Should everyone be allowed to build electricity transmission lines?


3. LP should provide examples of real-life successes and failures, and cite reasons.


Why has Europe been much more successful with medical licensing?

Why have school voucher programs been unsuccessful?

Why has electricity deregulation had so many problems in U.S.?



Planks              My Articles About Planks

Health Care    How Government Regulations Made Health Care Expensive

LP and AAM    How Mathematical Models for Covid-19 Decimated the World


Education      Outrageous Education Costs Caused by School Subsidies

LP and AAM


Energy            US Energy Policies Risk Economic and Environmental Crises

LP and AAM     Coal Industry's Demise Helped Along by Federal Regulators

                      The Feds Choose Winners and Losers in the Energy Industries


Tech &Other Tech Opportunities Depend on Shorter IP Lifetimes




Spread the word Contribute