Connecticut Congressional Candidate Phil Maymin

Very good stuff. I like how Maymin is direct and to the point in a matter of fact kind of way.

BEST CANDIDATE THIS YEAR.

Mad props.

undercover_anarchist incorrectly wrote:

“According to Mr. Maymin, only Americans deserve freedom. According to him, the rights of Americans are derived from our benevolent government. Also according to Mr. Maymin, my freedom to contract the labor of another is not a valid freedom.”

None of those statements are true.

1) Everyone deserves freedom. But Americans formed an American government to secure the freedoms of Americans. It is not the duty of American government to secure the freedoms of billions of non-Ameriacns.

2) Rights exist before government. Government is created to secure rights.

3) Your freedom to contract for labor with another is indeed a valid freedom. You should not have to check whether the person you contract with is legal or not. You can outsource to another country. But you cannot import people like goods because people have rights.

I would drastically increase legal immigration. But illegal immigration must stop.

Best regards,
Phil Maymin

Thank you for the response, Mr. Maymin. But why not call for an increase in legal immigration? Why not call for limitless legal immigration for all individuals who come here for work and opportunity? Individuals should be able to apply for legal resident status and should be granted that status so long as they are not criminals. I have no desire to import people like goods. I have a strong belief that people come here, as your family did, for freedom and opportunity. The state should not seek to limit or infringe upon this natural right. Borders are a legal fiction, decided by tyrants and militarists throughout history.

I really appreciate the utter contempt you showed for the stupidity of your mega-party opponents. You really exposed them as the shallow hucksters that they are, and if every LP candidate were as credible as you, then perhaps the whiny wing of the party would have something to complain about, RE: debate exclusion, lack of media attention, etc. The fact is that most (but not all) LP candidates who don’t get media attention DESERVE not to get any. Take a look at Mr. Maynin. He’s getting his share because he is the most credible LP candidate in the nation. Smither only outranks him in the candidate tracker because he lucked in to the DeLay implosion.

Holy crap. Read Maymin’s biography. Unbelievable.

But for god’s sake, Mr. Maymin. If anyone would be a prime candidate to advocate a genuinely libertarian position on immigration, you’d think it’d be you. As a hedge fund manager, you must recognize the beneifts immigration has on our economy. (to be cont’d)

Hi undercover_anarchist,

I believe securing our borders *is* the genuinely libertarian position. The American government exists to protect the rights of Americans, not everyone else on earth.

I’m sorry, I don’t know much about the Constitution Party.

Thank you for all your kind words.

All the best,
Phil

I vehemently disagree with his immigration stance. I can give him a pass because he is an immigrant himself. Native born white people base their opposition to free immigration on propositions that are ultimately racist in root. A sense of entitlement for (white) natives. “Our” jobs. “Our” borders. Mr. Maymin, on the other hand, probably feels it is “unfair” that he and his family did things the right way. The problem is that the US government shows racial preference to certain groups in terms of allowing them in here. Historically, that has been the policy even more so. My ancestors were allowed in, no questions asked, because they were white.

I never thought I could say anything positive about an anit-immigrant candidate. But this guy is the best the LP has to offer.

Excellent! I also disagree with the America only protects Americans stance, but the rest of what he said was excellent. If people like him were in more debates this country might be a much better place!

For those interested, I’ve been following Phil’s campaign and blogging about the debates over at To the People. My last report, on last Wednesday night’s debate, is here. I’ll be posting on Sunday’s and Monday’s debates later today.

Phil’s campaign is extremely notable because it is a well-funded, well-organized effort featuring an articulate, charismatic libertarian who is — and I can’t stress this enough — not crazy. I make a lot of predictions in my coverage and here’s another one: be prepared to stick signs saying “Maymin, Libertarian for President” on your lawn in 2012.

Halliburton has already built the future gulags. Congress has already passed legislation which allows the white house resident to declare anyone an enemy of the state for any reason, and put us in these camps, with no rights whatsoever.

They’ve already put American citizens in secret prisons with no trials or charges and tortured people.

And legislation has already been passed which will require a RFID-chipped passport (government permission) to leave the country by 2008, including to Mexico and Canada.

This meets the technical definition of a jail. The whole country will be a giant jail, which you can only leave with the warden’s permission.

What better than to build a wall on the border to keep the inmates in?

Don’t think it can’t happen here. It’s already starting, and it’s going to get a lot worse. The next terrorist attack will probably give dubai-ya all the excuse he needs to declare anyone who opposes his regime and his war domestic enemies.

(..)28(…)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/fraudulent-tax.html

I much prefer candidates I agree with.

Other people can disagree; they might regard disagreeing about, for example, health care to be more important.

Should their criticism also be muted?

Maymin is utterly amazing for a Libertarian candidate. From his mental powers to his background. Watching him debate, if he was running for congress as a Republican(I’m glad he’s with us) in a more libertarian leaning district, he’d be a sure-win.

Not sure if this was a slip-up but Just one public speaking tip: Alwayls keep your hands above the table, kinda bothersome when they aren’t.

Man, would it not be simply amazing if you can eek it out, Mr. Maymin. A Libertarian like you in U.S. Congress. The huge media attention that would generate.

Personally I say any and all of us anywhere in the libertarian area should put our fullest support behind Phil Maymin here. Whatever we can do. Differences we have may be important in terms of that difference, of that issue or issues specifically, but think of it on the whole. Think of it in the full perspective of what he would do in Congress. Of what he would say. And teach. And exemplify as the first Libertarian.

We’ve got to do whatever we possibly can to help this candidate to win over either of those other two.

I donated to Phil’s campaign. I hope more people send him money… he is a really quality candidate and we need to attract more superstars like him to run with the LP.

Watching the debate on TV now.

I was just watching the debate on c-span. I think Phil is doing a decent job, but I am actually a little disappointed. On a few questions he obviously shines above the others. On education he seemed to drop the ball some. Talking about guns instead of saying that the federal education dept doesn’t teach any students and just adds another layer of bureacracy and that he would rather decsions be made by parents and local communities than by federal burecrats would have made a lot more sense. He was asked about vouchers and he could of came back with tax credits as an answer. He could of came back with how choice and competition in every other aspect of our lives has benefitted us more than monoplies but is not allowed in education. He did however, kick everyones butt on the gambling issue. Shays is not a bad debater and he has definetly taken on the role of a long time politician, emblishing the fact that they are getting so many fed govt grants because of him. (con’t)

One example of what I am talking about would be the question about education and money from vouchers taking money away from public schools. The first response should be to agree with her that education is vitally important to our children and our society. (with that you have everyone on your side). Then you may say that were my competitors and I disagree is that a gov’t monopoly is the best way in providing that education. I believe that when we have alternatives, competition and choice it leads to better products, services, and in this case better educational options. In response to vouchers you may say that you are more in favor of tax credits where a person is able to use their own money or money from other taxpayers that they designate can be used for school choice. By a child choosing to go to a private school with a tax credit that is likely for half or less than the public school cost the actual per child funding in public schools will actually go up not down.

Actually even a possibly better way to answer the education question is to just say that I am running to be a US congressman. I believe that education is a state and local issue, but even more importantly an individual parent issue. What I can do at the federal level is get rid of the federal education department. They teach no children and just add another level of bureacracy and associated costs. They force schools to do what they want through legislation such as the no child left behind with threats of funding from the federal gov’t being cut if they don’t. The money the schoold get from the federal gov’t is actually money that the taxpayers of Conneticut sent in the form of taxes to the federal gov’t and the federal bureacrats are sending it back with strings attached. They believe that they know more about teaching our kids then we do. I disagree. I believe that money would be far better put to use by the people of Conneticut without it ever going to Washington.

Phil: What can HoT readers do to help your campaign?

Continue to work to try to improve his views.

Or, if you already find them adequate or don’t care, pursue the “volunteer” and “contribute” sections of his website.

I actually think his views are pretty solid in most but areas, but the way he represents some of them leaves a little to be desired. To really have a chance at winning you have to come to the voter in their territory and bring your ideas into an area that they are comfortable with. Some of his answers to questions were very brash and probably alienated many would be voters as it is outside their comfort zone. You could tell in the debate, however, that he did have a good following and he will get a fair number of votes. With the R and the D being about as “political” of candidates as you could get, there is a huge group of potential voters that could swing his way. The way he comes across, however, as well-spoken as he is, IMO may be a little to radical or brash for many voters to consider voting for him. I am not from Conn. so I may be way off base here, but a little milder tone with the same ideas IMO could really sell. All in all, though, I would vote for him in a heartbeat

Michelle,

He ended the latest debate on CSPAN in a very similar manner. It is a excellent closing and he does try to end by saying, look some of my ideas may be out of your comfort zone, but don’t be scared, give freedom a try and I think you will like it and you will want more. I really do like his closing a lot and it does help transition some of his more harsh answers during the debate. If people haven’t turned off to him prior to his closing, his closing could easily win them over. IMO more libertarian candidates need to look at his closing statements and use similar tactics as it really brings libertarianism to a voter in a way that is very appealing.

Good job Phil, keep up the good work, and as I just said I think your closing statement is excellent. Try to take some of that tone from the closing statement and use it more while you debate. I think it will help win over more voters. Good luck.

Hi all,

Thanks for all your comments and suggestions.

Of course money contributions always help, and thanks to everybody here who’s already contributed.

If anybody knows anybody in national media, or contacts, that would be great. If you can get me on O’Reilly, the Daily Show, Colbert Report, SNL, Hannity, Lou Dobbs, etc., anything. Or at least put me in contact with the decision makers. That would be helpful both for the campaign and for libertarianism in general. Or even if you don’t know them, if you contact the shows and make a case for them to have me on, they will bow to the overwhelming pressure.

Thanks,
Phil

p.s. I just finished uploading my closing statement from debate #6 in Fairfield University, the one that was on C-SPAN yesterday. This is from our own videocamera so it’s a different angle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg_Gh8_5SdQ

For a list of all videos, go to http://www.MayminForCongress.com and click “Videos” on the left.

As a non-libertarian, I think I have a somewhat different take on the whole libertarian “purity” test. I’m more of a social liberal/fiscal moderate than a libertarian, but I tend to vote libertarian due to my aversion to the two major parties and my strong support for civil liberties.

Quite a few small (L) libertarians at this blog and many other blog have argued that the libertarian message needs to be “moderated” to some extent in order to attract non libertarians. As a non-libertarian, I used to think this way but don’t any more. As much as I might disagree with the “purist” libertarians, I find them more honest and credible on the whole than the libertarians who are constantly calling for the Libertarian Party to “moderate” their views. Too often, these “moderate” or “reform the LP” libertarians end up coming across as pseudolibertarians such as Glenn Reynolds, Neil Boortz, and the bloggers over at QandO.

The LP is a right-wing party. It will never have broad appeal so long as it remains such. The party platform, prior to reform, was a wonderful and (nearly) perfect philosophy – but not practical (or necessarily even desirable) public policy.

That said, the party not only tolerates but EMBRACES those who oppose civil liberties, while shunning even the most moderate critic of a truly unfettered free market. This is the right-wing bias. Ovarian Marxists and Border Nazis are held up high. But if you don’t want to bomb the Federal Reserve and return to trading clams instead of fiat currency, you are a socialist and unwelcome in the LP.

This is the way that the LP needs to moderate. It should not tolerate any deviation from personal and civil liberties. But it needs to open up more and embrace candidates and members who accept the basic legal and financial framework of this nation that have provided so much prosperity. This is the only way that the party can grow.

undercover,

I’m not arguing that the LP shouldn’t try to attract more moderate libertarians. I’m just saying that given the choice between “purist” libertarians and “reform the LP” types, I find the “purists” to come across as far more principled and honest.

When I write “reform the LP” types, I’m specifically referring to the pro-war “libertarians” who have served as apologists for the Iraq War. Libertarianism, at its very core, rests upon the “non agression principle”–the idea that force should not be initiated on any person, no matter how laudable the goal. All government programs involve the initiation/threat of force, but war is the use of government force at its most extreme.

Many of the people in the “Reform the LP” and “Mainstream Libertarian” movements are nothing more than pro-war Republican apologists. Mr. Dondero, who comments fairly often at this blog, is a good example of this.

You are right nicrivera, Dondero, is not the type of person we need to be going after, but if we stay in the purist area of the Nolan chart, we have no chance of bringing in enough libertarian leaning people to make a difference. Think of it this way. If we are in a circle we can go after all sides outside of the circle to get voters. However, if we are at the top of the chart (purist), we can really only move out about a third of a circle to get voters. Why hamstring yourself in such a way? We need to be centering ourselves in the libertarian half of the chart and reaching out in all directions to get voters. Up towards the purists, down, left, and right. If we are stuck in one corner we cannot do that and we limit our ability to attract voters that believe in liberty.

A little off topic but FYI:
on Friday I called on my opponents Shays/Farrell to withdraw from the race because of their inability to cite Constitutional authority for their scheme to regulate gun ownership.

Links to the press release, videos, transcript, and more info are on the campaign home page: http://www.MayminForCongress.com

Best,
Phil

And finally…
check out the video documentary by the Washington Post and our new TV ad, both at http://www.MayminForCongress.com

Best
Phil