Once again we reach that time of year where we are given the privilege of participating in the governance of our communities.  Once again candidates promise the voters things they can’t possibly deliver.  Once again voters believe them.

Also, once again, you will be told that you only have two choices, Republican or Democrat.

Once again, that is a lie.

I have never seen anywhere outside of police state efforts directed solely to limit voter’s choices at elections.

The State of Ohio has already knocked the Green Party off the ballot and tried to knock one of our own candidates off but were thwarted by the Ohio Supreme Court (thank you Rob Bender).

I’ve no doubt they will try again in 2020.

The only way to stop that is to make our voices heard and on Tuesday, November 5^th, we will have the chance to do just that.

We have three endorsed candidates running for offices in Franklin County in this election: Tricia Sprankle, running for City Attorney in Gahanna, Jennifer Flower, running for Prairie Township Trustee, and Rob Bender, running for Reynoldsburg City Council for Ward 3.

If you live in these communities you can help put these three into office, but only if you actually vote.

To quote a line from Babylon 5, “If we don’t create the future, someone else will.”

Ken Holpp, Communications Director, FCLPO.

It’s been a rough weekend around here.  In the span of just a couple of days we’ve had two, two, mass shootings leaving in its wake dozens of families now having to think about planning funerals for the ones they lost rather then spending the time with them that they never will again.

And already the gloves have come off.

Almost instantly, people from both sides of the gun control issue have begun shouting their views and pointing their fingers and raging against each other.

Can we not stop for just a moment and let the families grieve before tearing at each other’s throats?

But I’m not here to talk about guns.

I’m here to talk about people.

I’ve watched in recent years as the rhetoric in our country has descended from civil debates to the level of drunken bar room brawls. Politicians, in their bids to gain support, constantly paint “The Other” as the source of society’s problems.

“If you have a different skin colour and espouse different views, you should go back to where you came from!”

“If you have a different skin colour, I’m going to call the police every time you walk your dog through MY park!”

“If you protest MY President I’m gonna jump out of my truck and punch you repeated in the face! I don’t care if you are 61 years old!”

Seriously? Is this who we’ve become?

We can debate guns until we’re all blue in the face, and I’m sure we will, but that’s going to solve our problem. The only way to solve our problem is to start treating people like people again.

We need to recognize the mental health issues that drive people to commit these acts and address them before hand…and that means getting involved in each other’s lives. Get to know the people who live around you and talk to them and with them. Treat everyone with the same kindness and compassion that you wish to be treated with.

If everyone did this, maybe you’d see incidents like ths weekend’s go down and possibly even stop altogether.  And the beauty of it is no governments need apply.  People being kind to people, people looking out for each other, people caring for each other enough to step in when they see a potential problem requires no special funding, no special agencies, no government oversight.  Just simple human kindness.

It’s time those who wish to lead us preach hopes and dreams and not hate and fear because hate and fear can only lead to violence.

And I’ve had about enough of that.

That’s my two-cents.

Ken Holpp, Communications Director, Franklin County Libertatian Party.

Reprinted with kind permission from Mises.org

Despite what you were taught in school, governance is ugly; in all forms, and at all times. Don’t believe me? Attend a meeting of a local governing entity. You will find the council — omnipotent by vote, omniscient by delusion — seated before you at the table. All night long, they’ll bicker and battle all the while proposing and dissecting plans and schemes with shouts and pounding shoes; Khrushchev moments indeed.

This is the reality of man lording over man, and it’s been that way for eons. Ugly, just plain ugly. And it doesn’t matter the span or purpose of the governing entity. This ugly reality holds equally true for the fist-fighting Taiwanese legislator as for the insult-hurling band booster. Power corrupts at all levels.

One other aspect of governance appears to be consistent at every level: the broader the scope of the proposed plan or idea, the further they reach beyond the stated bounds of the entity, the more receptive a hearing that the entity’s council will give to the idea. Everyone dreams grandiose dreams, whether during solitary reflective moments or while monopolizing the public microphone. But it’s the bully at the public mic, entertaining the media and sparse audience, whose dreams we must fear.

Given that these aspects are inherent in the essence of power, the issue is not how to improve systems of governance, but how to control their scope.

Because enforced contract law and full property rights are the foundations of freedom, governance systems should be based on enforceable contracts that defend property rights. The concepts of general welfare and public good have no place in such systems, as the intent of those ideals is to break contracts and trespass on property.

Governance — government — must be limited in a manner that is akin to a legal, binding contract, where rights are understood and unchanging. While a contract-based system will not change the ugly aspects of the lording class, it will limit the effects that the omnipotent and omniscient have on your pursuit of happiness.

The best way to compare the current systems of unbounded authority with that of contract-based systems is to attend meetings of a homeowners association and meetings at a local township hall. Both entities have documents that define the span and purpose of their respective assemblies, yet only the contract-based system shows any real restraint. Certainly, both dream of utopia, but only the homeowners association must accept the inherent realities of signed agreements.

In Ohio, townships can pass comprehensive plans and zoning codes in order to create orderly communities. Zoning codes are supposed to provide hard, fast rules akin to a written contract between community members with township officials acting as enforcers. Yet, zoning codes are perceived by the marginal vote getters and their appointed minions as something else entirely. In the hands of the township officials, zoning codes are, in the words of Barbossa from Pirates of the Caribbean when referring to the concept of parley, “…more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.”

Consider this situation: You moved into an area that is zoned as a conservation district where developments are limited to 1 home per acre, with natural exteriors, and abundant green space. You desired to live in your neighborhood since it is within the conservation district, an area that meets the development standards you prefer. You had assumed that the zoning codes in place would protect you from development based on subjectively lower standards.

After living in your new home for a year or so, you catch a notice in the local paper that your township is considering a proposed development on the fallow farm fields and woods that abut your backyard. So, you attend the zoning hearings to see what will become of your backyard vista. At those meetings you quickly remember the prescient words of Barbossa.

The zoning commissioners are willing to trade homes per acre, natural exteriors, and green space for a donation of an offsite piece of land for a future community park or fire station. Sure, you hold the zoning codes — still in force — in your hands as if it is a contract to be enforced by the township, yet the zoning commissioners and township trustees see that document as the starting point for exactions and extractions; what the developer considers extortion by other means.

You can complain and shout, but the governance system that you have encountered has no consideration for your assumed contract. The commissioners and trustees only care about their grandiose plans for a utopian community. Your long-term vision of your local neighborhood, based on current regulations, just met their long-term vision of posterity; the one where future residents sing praises to the plans and vision of the current ruling elite.

Now, consider the homeowners association (HOA). Certainly, the same taste of power has corrupted the key players. They have dreams too, but their dreams are limited by the restrictive covenant that governs use of the property covered by the association. Sure, they send out a monthly newsletter with words of wisdom regarding how residents should live their lives, but they can’t do anything about it. The concepts of general welfare and public good are not defined on the deed filed at the county offices as purposes of the association.

Now, I’m not saying that some residents will not suffer the occasional annoyance as HOA trustees hold the color pallet against your mailbox to verify the hue of the stain which you applied, but they can’t change the usage of your neighbor’s property from residential to commercial. Nor can they subdivide properties or dig up sidewalks. The HOA members have utopian dreams, but contracts limit their reality to mending fences and mulching entrance ways.

Other than showing excessive exuberance at times, the HOAs are typically indicted in the press when the singular property owner wants to turn his front yard into a memorial for the flag, replete with search lights and a continually repeating sample of Taps. What’s worse, the property owner knowingly agreed to such restrictions prior to purchasing the property. The homeowner, attempting to trample on the agreement, is hailed as the last defender of Lady Liberty herself, while the HOA, defending its contract with all homeowners, is perceived as evil incarnate.

Such inconveniences and annoyances are nothing compared to the damaged resulting from unbounded governance. As you move up the governmental food chain, you will find that each subsequent level reaps more damage, more ills. At the federal level, it is as if no bounds exist anymore. Sure, the separate branches mention the Constitution, but only as a means to pervert its moral authority.

Some will claim that the Constitution is our written contract, binding rule of law, and restrictive covenant, yet its perversion would seem to imply that contract governments, whether constitutional public or anarcho-libertarian private, are bound to fail.

But, not so fast. For the private supplier of governance, the entrepreneur across the street offering a similar service is enough of a threat to keep private governing bodies in line.

On the other hand, the political class simply requires rumblings from the masses. Rumble, and they shall fear. Shout, and they shall bend. Scream, and they shall wither.

The ilk that sit at the head of the table, whether local, state, or national, are most concerned about keeping their power and status. These are not men and women of principles. They are simply power seekers. They will wither and do as told once this great nation says, “Stop! Respect the Constitution.” They would rather flip and flop than risk the next election.

The ruling elite know this, that’s why they utilize a coerced education system to perpetuate their nonsense. Yet, a simple booklet such as the comic version of Hayek’s Road to Serfdom can turn enough minds to shake the tables of power. But, just because many have lost sight of “Don’t Tread on Me,” doesn’t mean all is lost. A little more education, a stronger tug on the collar of the elected, and the direction toward socialism could reverse overnight.

So, whether your concept of government is constitutional public or anarcho-libertarian private, contract governments will work. They’ll be messy, the public version will take conviction of the governed, but their scope will not creep onto your property and liberty.

Jim Fedako, Contributer

One of the few perks about being a third party candidate after an election is the eventual collective realization that your campaign was right about most of the things you said, despite the fact this realization happens too late for it to matter. Of course, by “perk” I mean sometimes it’s just nice to say “I told you so” after everyone seemed to ignore your contribution to the political discussion. Whether it happens to be our various stances on an assortment of issues or what we predicted that our establishment, two-party opponents would eventually do if elected (despite what they said they’d do) it’s something third party candidates from local to federal office often get used to in the year after the dust has settled.

Naturally, as the Libertarian candidate for governor of Ohio in 2018, these “I told you so” moments keep popping up as my once-opponent Mike DeWine continues to live up to what I told people he would do and more. Yes, when DeWine said that his Democratic opponent Rich Cordray would raise taxes to pay for road repairs, many of us knew this was just another trick in DeWine’s political bag, as he’s been a “tax and spend Republican” himself for decades. I called him as much at multiple Tea Party meetings last year to little fanfare or recognition. Sure enough, one of DeWine’s first big acts as Governor was to advocate for an 18 cent increase on Ohio’s gas tax. At least Cordray had the courtesy to tell the truth, saying he’d put a bond issue in front of the voters, in comparison to DeWine’s boldfaced lie.

Then there’s the issue of guns, a real soft spot in DeWine’s political record that we tried to exploit in 2018 and once again were proven correct. DeWine has since announced that he’s going to look into a “red flag” law that would take guns away from “high risk” individuals in Ohio — obviously something that he chose not to bring up on the campaign trail. Whatever your stance is on gun rights, even the most vocal criticsknow that “red flag” laws can result in a slippery slope of accusations without merit, as evidenced by several instances in states where these laws have gone into effect.

But DeWine’s eventual turnaround was just another chapter in his 40+ year stint in politics, one that the more politically astute knew was coming after the election. We tried to warn people on both sides, whatever their political beliefs, to no avail. Now both conservatives and liberals have to live with the consequences while we third party candidates can only post eyeroll emojis on social media.

Of course, it’s not just the third party soothsaying that applies to DeWine — there have been plenty of policy positions that I advocated for that have come to fruition in some form or another as well. The state legislature is thankfully taking up criminal justice reform, which has been badly needed in Ohio for decades, especially with the opioid crisis ravaging our state. Republicans and Democrats, perhaps with some encouragement because of the Issue 1 campaign, are looking to treat Ohio’s drug problem as a health issue, not a criminal issue. This was something I advocated for throughout 2018, especially as people across the state told me their own stories about how the opioid crisis was impacting them.

Similarly, Ohio’s medical marijuana program is finally rolling alongslowly but surely, as dispensaries across the state are opening despite the state’s backwards way of doing things. Growers and producers of marijuana products are now somewhat operational, leading to a less-than-largesse rollout of products for patients. This was something I said needed to be fast tracked since the program was approved over two years ago, especially because marijuana has been proven to help fight such things as opioid addiction. Thankfully things are now moving in the right direction, albeit slowly.

Again, this is the bittersweet aftermath of being a third party candidate, no matter what election you run in. You can be right as much as you’d like, but likely no one will realize it until it’s too late. I used to watch Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson talk ad nauseam about the need for criminal justice reform and the benefits of legalizing marijuana in America. The pain of knowing we were right while we didn’t have any chance of winning didn’t seem to phase Johnson, to his credit. But in my case in 2018, I knew I was advocating for policies that would have affected many voters in a positive way, whether they knew it or not. It is this mere sliver of joy that makes telling people “I told you so” after the fact worth it, although I’m starting to hate to have to do it.

Travis Irvine, 2018 Libertarian candidate for Governor