The World’s Oldest Gold Trader Is Closing

The World’s Oldest Gold Trader Is Closing

It all started in late 2017, when we reported that JPM was quietly trying to sell the world’s oldest gold trader after a massive money laundering scandal terminally crippled the reputation of one of the most iconic names in the business, resulting in  Canada’s Bank of Nova Scotia exploring options for its gold business ScotiaMocatta. As reported at the time, Scotiabank made the decision to sell ScotiaMocatta following a massive money laundering scandal centered on a US refinery that involved smuggled gold from South America, a fascinating story which we profiled here several years back.

For those unfamiliar, the ScotiaMocatta business better known as the world’s oldest gold trader and a mainstay in PM trading since its founding in 1684 as Mocatta Bullion, was a precious metal and base metal trading company that operated as the metals trading division of the Bank of Nova Scotia.

A few months later in February 2018, we reported that JPMorgan’s attempt to sell the business failed, and one year later, in January 2019 Bank of Nova Scotia quietly dropped the “Mocatta” name from its metals-trading business, shedding the last vestiges of a firm dating back nearly 350 years as the Canadian owner tried to absorb the platform into its capital-markets division.

The restructuring attempt lasted a little over a year, until its failure this week when the Scotiabank told staff on Tuesday it would close its metals business, drawing the curtain on one of the most venerable names in precious metals trading, Reuters reported citing two sources.

Scotia was for years the world’s biggest lender to the physical precious metals industry, with a history stretching to the founding in 1684 of London gold dealer Mocatta Bullion, which it bought in 1997.  Once a global player with more than 100 staff in offices from New York and London to India and Hong Kong, the bank effectively exited the business in 2018 following the abovementioned strategic review and unsuccessful attempt to find a buyer.

“Scotia had a global call with all its metals staff and said it was shutting down its metals business,” said a Reuters source. “The plan is to unwind the metals business.”

Gold bars on display during the inauguration of the ScotiaMocatta eStore in 2009. Photo: Bloomberg.

Scotiabank’s exit of the metals business ends an end of an era that began in 1671 when Moses Mocatta opened an account with one of London’s most famous goldsmith bankers, Edward Backwell. Mocatta and his descendants would go on to build what became one of the world’s largest metals-trading businesses and the oldest member of London’s bullion market. The firm has long participated in the London gold auction, where an industry benchmark price is set twice a day.

Scotiabank came onto the scene in 1997 when it bought the Mocatta Bullion and Base Metals unit from Standard Chartered and renamed it ScotiaMocatta. The Toronto-based bank gained a business with 180 employees and 10 offices worldwide, including in New York, London, New Delhi, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Singapore.

It all came crashing down in 2018 however following a historic money-laundering, metals rehypothecation scandal that wiped out nearly 350 years of good reputation overnight.

Sources told Reuters Scotia would not take on new business and would wind down existing activities by around the beginning of 2021. Some staff would be kept on over that period while others would be made redundant. Around 15 people worked in Scotia’s metals business, Reuters reported,around three-quarters of them in precious metals and the remainder in industrial metals. That compares to around 140 five years ago.

Even after exiting the metals business, Scotiabank will remain one of the five banks that settle gold trades and one of 12 market makers that provide liquidity in the London market. The bank is also a participant in daily auctions that set a globally used gold benchmark price.

That said, without a dedicated metals business, Scotia’s presence in the London gold market will be only symbolic, as the bank hands over the bulk of the business to HSBC and JPMorgan, the two titans who currently dominate the London PM business, and for a good reason: gold trading in London is estimated to be worth more than $5 trillion a year, resulting in some fat commissions for all involved.


Tyler Durden

Wed, 04/29/2020 – 10:44

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2yVJLz2 Tyler Durden

WTI Holds Impressive Gains After Smaller-Than-Expected Crude Build, Production Plunge

WTI Holds Impressive Gains After Smaller-Than-Expected Crude Build, Production Plunge

Oil prices extended their hope-filled gains on the heels of a smaller than expected crude build reported by API last night and ongoings headlines dropped with interesting timing about further output cuts to counter the unprecedented global glut.

“You have a correlation to equities, which are ripping,” Bob Yawger, director of the futures division at Mizuho Securities USA, said. “You have a best possible scenario API report.”

Additionally, there have been tentative signs of a recovery in European physical oil markets. Key pricing contracts in the North Sea and Russia have rallied in recent days, though there are still concerns that the world is on the brink of filling its storage capacity. Major producers were due to start output cuts on May 1, but some, including Saudi Arabia, are now curbing output early.

But once more, all eyes will be on crude inventory increases particularly after the API reported a smaller-than-expected build last week (smallest in 5 weeks).

API

  • Crude +9.978mm (+11mm exp)

  • Cushing +2.486mm

  • Gasoline -1.108mm (+2.7mm exp)

  • Distillates +5.462mm (+3.7mm exp)

DOE

  • Crude +8.991mm (+11mm exp)

  • Cushing +3.637mm

  • Gasoline -3.669mm (+2.7mm exp)

  • Distillates +5.092mm (+3.7mm exp)

This is the 14th weekly crude build in a row but the lowest in 5 weeks and a surprise gasoline draw to boot…

Source: Bloomberg

According to Bloomberg Intelligence Energy Analyst Fernando Valle, the buildup in diesel stockpiles is quickly becoming a concern as economic activity slows.

That will further diminish refiners’ margins, driving plants to be temporarily shut over the coming weeks and bringing U.S. utilization down to the mid-60%s. Gasoline inventories are at historic highs, and with lockdowns in Latin America becoming more severe, exports could drop and exacerbate the glut.

US Crude output tumbled (as the rig count collapses by the most on record)…

Source: Bloomberg

Producers in North Dakota have shut about 6,200 oil wells, which account for about 405,000 barrels a day of supply.

Storage capacity is being tested as a worldwide glut of fuels and crude expands due to coronavirus-led demand destruction with Cushing approaching its limits…

Source: Bloomberg

Front-month (June) WTI futures are up 25-30% (yeah that volatile) ahead of the DOE data, hovering around $15.50… and held those gains

Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Energy Analyst Vince Piazza says production shut ins will take time to work through system, while April demand degradation is likely is the worst of 2Q… Even if states reopen in May, the slow slog will lead to a lethargic recovery for transport-fuel demand.


Tyler Durden

Wed, 04/29/2020 – 10:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3aIFv37 Tyler Durden

Desperate Mayors React to Coronavirus: A Timeline

The past few months have been difficult on politicians. It’s hard to look like you know what you’re doing when you have no idea what you’re doing.

Edited and produced by Austin Bragg. Performed by Austin Bragg and Andrew Heaton. Written by Austin Bragg, Meredith Bragg, and Andrew Heaton. Cameras by Andrew Heaton and Austin Bragg.

Music: “Wholesome,””Marty Gots a Plan,” “Anamalie,” “Anguish,” and “The Cannery” by Kevin MacLeod used under an Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) license.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YgvlV2
via IFTTT

Desperate Mayors React to Coronavirus: A Timeline

The past few months have been difficult on politicians. It’s hard to look like you know what you’re doing when you have no idea what you’re doing.

Edited and produced by Austin Bragg. Performed by Austin Bragg and Andrew Heaton. Written by Austin Bragg, Meredith Bragg, and Andrew Heaton. Cameras by Andrew Heaton and Austin Bragg.

Music: “Wholesome,””Marty Gots a Plan,” “Anamalie,” “Anguish,” and “The Cannery” by Kevin MacLeod used under an Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) license.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YgvlV2
via IFTTT

With Superfluous Demand In Free-Fall, What’s The Upside Of Re-Opening A Small Business?

With Superfluous Demand In Free-Fall, What’s The Upside Of Re-Opening A Small Business?

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Since superfluous demand was the core driver of most consumer spending, and that demand is in free-fall, what’s the upside of re-opening?

The mainstream view assumes everyone will be gripped by an absolutely rabid desire to return to their pre-pandemic frenzy of borrowing and spending and consuming, the more the better. While the urge to believe the Titanic scraping the iceberg will have no consequence and the collision was nothing but a spot of bother is compelling (so party on!), many people will reassess their pre-pandemic lives and ask: do I really want to go back to circling the pavement in a dead end?

Being away from the crazy-busy churn invites reassessment, especially for small business owners who are facing the near-certainty of uncertain sales and still-high fixed costs.

When we’re embedded in the crazy-busy churn, we’re only trying to get through the day. Once we’re removed from the pressure-cooker of running the business, we start wondering: is this craziness what I want to spend the rest of my life pursuing? For what gain? Do I really love my business and my customers/clients, or am I just telling myself that I love my business and my customers/clients as duct tape to keep the whole contraption from flying apart?

Then there’s the question of Superfluous Demand, a topic Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert and I discussed in their recent Double Down podcastSuperfluous demand is demand that’s a manifestation not of what we might call authentic or organic demand for essentials but demand driven by cheap credit and the consumerist mania to fill the insatiable black hole of insecurity inside every debt-serf to raise their publicly posted social status with an endless stream of aspirational goods and services that shout “Look at me! I have the same things and experiences the top 5% have!”

But sadly, no amount of aspirational goods and services will fill the insecurity or create an authentic positive social role, or express an authentic selfhood that exists outside of the consumerist definition of “self” as nothing more than a consuming machine.

Every business owner and manager has to anticipate a decline in superfluous demand as incomes decline and credit tightens, and households and enterprises recalibrate their exposure to risks of further downside and forego spending in favor of rebuilding a cash reserve. How severe the drop in demand will be correlates with how much of their pre-pandemic sales were manifestations of superfluous demand.

Entertainment, travel and a vast array of consumables were virtually all superfluous, so the decline in superfluous demand will be consequential to virtually every business.

But humans are not just consuming machines generating superfluous demand with credit. Humans have to create the goods and services, and that is an intrinsically risky process. Decisions have consequences, and those consequences weigh heavily on those who are accountable: managers, executives and especially owners, who must cover expenses with their own personal cash if the enterprise’s expenses exceed its net income.

Only owners and previous owners of small businesses know what this potential for personal loss and bankruptcy feel like. Very few of the punditry and corporate media commentators have personal experience in running a business, and especially one on the knife edge between covering expenses and losing money. To all these media commentators, “small business” is an abstraction.

Employees also have no idea what it’s like to be responsible for losses and accountable for decisions that may make or break the enterprise.

Which brings us to the asymmetrical impacts of owners, managers and essential workers in the economy, which is effectively a complex network of critical nodes that all the millions of network participants depend on. Examples include oil refineries, nuclear power plants and slaughterhouses.

The fewer the number of these essential nodes, the more consequential the impact when one or more go offline. Put simply: not all nodes are equal in their impact.

This dynamic is also present in human capital: if a small business has 10 employees, the business will survive the loss of an employee, but it won’t survive the loss of the owner. A region can survive 500 white collar workers not showing up for work, but if 500 slaughterhouse workers don’t show up for work, meat production in the region falls to near-zero.

Blinded by their absence of real-world experience, the financial punditry devote their attention to the trillion-dollar Big Tech behemoths, as if they dominate the economy because they’re so incredibly overvalued by Wall Street.

But in the real world, Big Tech’s share of the work force is essentially signal noise. A tiny sliver of the 150 million people with earned income in the U.S. toil for a Big Tech company.

Who really matters in terms of employment and earned income are small business owners, not the Big Tech monopolies.

Which brings us back to the owner who’s wondering if they want to return to the heavy burdens and crazy-busy churn of a business that may well lose money or flounder for years. What’s the pay-off for working extra hours because you can’t afford to hire back all your previous staff? What’s the payoff as rents, healthcare, fees, taxes and the cost of goods all increase while customers balk at any increase in your own prices? Is struggling to survive really what I want to spend the rest of my life doing? And for what? To slowly go bankrupt?

Small business is not a financial abstraction. It is real people who were often burned out even before the pandemic and who are now wondering if it’s wiser to bail out now and close the doors rather than endure a slow side into bankruptcy and exhaustion.

Since superfluous demand was the core driver of most consumer spending, and that demand is in free-fall, what’s the upside of re-opening? Isn’t it more prudent to close up now and preserve whatever capital and health one still has, and pick a way of life that doesn’t require meeting payroll, paying outrageous rents and being liable for calamities that are outside of your control?

Can we be honest, and note that for many owners and managers, their pre-pandemic life was nothing more than a crazy-busy dead end? Why continue the struggle now with even heavier burdens and greater risks, and for what gain?

I’ll tell you what: if “small business” is so great and profitable, then how about you go plunk down thousands of dollars for rent, healthcare, payroll for employees, tax payments, insurance, fees, and on and on, and then take your chances that superfluous demand hasn’t dried up and blown away.

*  *  *

My recent books:

Audiobook edition now available:
Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World ($13)
(Kindle $6.95, print $11.95) Read the first section for free (PDF).

Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 (Kindle), $12 (print), $13.08 ( audiobook): Read the first section for free (PDF).

The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake $1.29 (Kindle), $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)

Money and Work Unchained $6.95 (Kindle), $15 (print) Read the first section for free (PDF).

*  *  *

If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.


Tyler Durden

Wed, 04/29/2020 – 10:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2SfVFdR Tyler Durden

Pending Home Sales Plummet By Record In March, Lowest Level Since 2011

Pending Home Sales Plummet By Record In March, Lowest Level Since 2011

After new home sales suffered their biggest March drop ever, pending home sales were expected to decline by a record amount MoM (-13.7%) in March. However, pending home sales was far worse than expected – plummeting 20.8% MoM and 14.5% YoY

Source: Bloomberg

Contract signings plummeted in all four major U.S. regions, including a 19.5% drop in the South and a 26.8% retreat in the West.

“The housing market is temporarily grappling with the coronavirus-induced shutdown,” which reduced listings and purchases, Lawrence Yun, NAR’s chief economist, said in a statement.

This is the weakest level since May 2011… after hitting its highest levels since Feb 2017 in February.

Source: Bloomberg

March historically begins the annual peak U.S. selling season as warming weather spurs home searches and families with children prepare for moves during the school summer break. That’s been drastically curtailed in 2020 as the virus triggers the biggest economic contraction in decades, closing workplaces, schools and other activities with the biggest March decline on record.

As Bloomberg notes, pending home sales are leading indicators of housing activity, based on signed contracts to buy single-family homes, condos and co-ops, typically occurring one or two months before closings.


Tyler Durden

Wed, 04/29/2020 – 10:06

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2xna2WO Tyler Durden

Justin Amash Becomes the First Libertarian Member of Congress

After a half-century of existence, the Libertarian Party (L.P.) this morning wakes up to a situation it has never before experienced—with a sitting member of Congress proudly waving the Libertarian flag.

“I will be the first,” Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) told me late Wednesday night, just after announcing his candidacy for the Libertarian presidential nomination. “And I’m happy to do that.”

Amash is not the only person smiling. In an email, Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark said, “I’m happy to see that Representative Amash has come home to the political party most closely aligned with his views,” adding: “If more members of the House who are tired of being marginalized by the GOP and Democratic leadership joined him, we could see a caucus of legislators who are able to work for the American people instead of conflicting teams of special interests. My DMs are open.”

Amash, a persistent critic of President Donald Trump who left the Republican Party to became an independent last July 4, was facing a competitive reelection campaign in his 3rd District of Michigan, a state whose straight-ticket ballot option disfavors candidates outside the two major parties. Yet he says his seat could have been defended.

“That was one of the hardest parts of this decision,” he said. “When I’m looking at my polling, and fundraising, and other aspects with respect to the congressional campaign, I felt I was in the driver’s seat. I felt that I was in a very strong position to win it….But I just think this is too important.”

Amash, who is six-for-six in general elections (five in Congress, once in the Michigan House of Representatives), claims that the 2020 presidential contest is a “winnable race” for a Libertarian Party whose previous high-water mark, in 2016, was 3.3 percent of the vote.

“When I look at these candidates, I think most Americans see the same thing I’m seeing, which is these two candidates aren’t up to being president of the United States, and we need an alternative,” he said. The botched and expensive federal response to the COVID-19 outbreak only makes that clearer, he said. “Millions of Americans are seeing that the government spent trillions of dollars and still didn’t get it right. They didn’t get help to the people who need it most. Instead, most of the assistance went to people who have great connections, who run big corporations.”

I talked to Amash about his late entry into the Libertarian race, his policy objections to Joe Biden, his position on abortion, charges that he would “spoil” the effort to dethrone President Donald Trump, and more. The following is an edited transcript of our conversation.

Reason: What took you so long?

Amash: Well, I’ve been spending time with my family, with friends; I wanted to spend substantial time thinking about it carefully. And up until the past month or so, let’s say, I couldn’t really think about it that carefully. There were a lot of things going on in Congress, there were a lot of things going on in life.

Around February I decided I would pause my congressional campaign and really focus on the presidential race. And that meant at the time just researching things, seeing if it was a situation where I could come in as a candidate and win the race. And then over the past few weeks, I really sat down to dig into it and got to the point where I was confident that this was a winnable race. Because I don’t believe you should just run for fun or for messaging. I believe you should run to win, and to make an impact at the ballot box.

So I’m at that place, and I’m in.

Reason: So you start in mid-February—that’s not coronavirus o’clock, but the coronavirus came up by the beginning of March. So explain a little bit how that affected your deliberations, if at all.

Amash: Well, it certainly extended the deliberations. So if not for the COVID-19 situation, I would have been able to focus on it more carefully earlier. In other words, the really aggressive focus on the campaign—where I could think “Is it time to get in or not?”—had to be put on hold a little bit. I was already in the process of researching things, talking to people, talking to family and friends. But when the coronavirus came up, I had to slow that down, because that obviously affects the entire race, and obviously it affects my job, too. I’m in Congress trying to help constituents, making sure that they are getting the resources they need, and so it affected my ability to move forward quickly.

Reason: I look at the coronavirus thing in particular, and you see a lot of 388-5 votes in the House about various phases of this happening. Do you look at a situation in which $3 trillion has walked out of Congress in the last, I don’t know, six weeks—and basically overwhelmingly, near-unanimously, despite Thomas Massie’s best efforts. Is that a fruitful backdrop from which to run a limited-government campaign?

Amash: I think so. I mean, millions of Americans are seeing that the government spent trillions of dollars and still didn’t get it right. They didn’t get help to the people who need it most. Instead, most of the assistance went to people who have great connections, who run big corporations. Those people, they got it really fast; [Treasury Secretary Steven] Mnuchin couldn’t act fast enough to help those people.

But for millions of Americans who are unemployed or struggling right now, they couldn’t get relief to those people, because they have a massive convoluted system, and they doubled and tripled down on it. They said, “Hey, how can we take our bad system and make it worse? Let’s add a whole bunch of restrictions, let’s add a whole bunch of qualifications, let’s try to get money to small businesses, but then make it so that the money is not all that useful to them. Let’s put banks in the middle of it to slow down the process.”

And the banks are trying; they’re trying, I’m not blaming the banks. I blame Congress and the administration for creating such a system….The Los Angeles Lakers applied for relief as a small business, and you know, under the terms of the deal that Congress put together with the White House, that’s actually allowed. But they never thought through this thing, really.

Reason: So you said that you had to think about this in terms of “Can I win? Can I compete meaningfully?” (But you said “win.”) Explain how that calculation works; explain the path. Because I look at the same thing, and in times of high polarization and high partisan interest, you oftentimes see a kind of Death Valley for third parties and independents trying to run for everything. So how do you look at this thing and see a win?

Amash: I look at the candidates running and I see two candidates that are not qualified for the office. Yeah, they have long resumes, different resumes. The president as a reality [TV] star, and as a sometimes successful, sometimes failed businessman; and Joe Biden as a longtime member of Congress who’s on his third run for president, and frankly, doesn’t seem to be up to it.

So when I look at these candidates, I think most Americans see the same thing I’m seeing, which is: These two candidates aren’t up to being president of the United States, and we need an alternative. And I’m confident that I can be that alternative.

What people are really looking for is practicality. They see these two sides in Washington, Red and Blue, fighting with each other every day. When it comes to most pieces of legislation, they’re highly polarized. And then when it comes to the really bad stuff that gets passed, all of a sudden they become best friends. So they’re fighting each other day and night on stuff that often doesn’t impact people directly, and then when you get something that really hurts the American people, they get unified all of a sudden.

This is not the system the American people want. It’s not the system the framers designed. And we need to trust the people. We need to have humility regarding the process of government. And that means allowing legislators to legislate, and keeping the executive branch in check, and having a court that does its job interpreting and deciding cases. We can’t have this system where these two parties just run amok and hurt Americans every day.

Reason: Are you getting out of the race for reelection in Congress, or are you waiting to see what happens at the Libertarian National Convention?

Amash: My campaign is paused, but frankly, I’m running this campaign for president, and I don’t intend to return to my congressional campaign.

It’s been an honor to represent the 3rd District, and that was one of the hardest parts of this decision. When I’m looking at my polling, and fundraising, and other aspects with respect to the congressional campaign, I felt I was in the driver’s seat. I felt that I was in a very strong position to win it. And as I’ve gone around the district, I’ve had tremendous support from constituents everywhere I go, and from all across the political spectrum. So that was a very tough decision to say that I’m going to run for another office. But I just think this is too important.

And I do think we need someone who’s going to govern with some humility, and I don’t just mean personal humility. I think when people hear the word humility, they think of a person who is kind, or gracious, or whatever. That’s not the kind of humility I’m talking about. I’m talking about humility with respect to the process. Humility with respect to how much one individual knows about things.

What you really have right now are two presidential candidates who think they know everything, and want to run everything. And you see the mess that’s happening right now just with the coronavirus relief, where you get this one person thinking they know everything, instead of using the type of knowledge that exists out among the public, which is the knowledge of time and circumstances, things that only people on the ground know, that no one in Washington can know, or no one in the state Capitol can know.

Reason: Members of the Libertarian Party who like you, and have preferred you, and in fact have wanted you to run for a long time, have expressed some irritation of, “Jesus, Hamlet, get off the fence! We’ve been out here trying to build a party, and go to state conventions, and engage in debates, and this is a little bit late in the game.” What do you say to those people as you try to win a majority of a thousand delegates?

Amash: Well, I want to earn their support. I respect the process, I respect the delegates. If it were up to me, and everything had run smoothly, I would have made a decision earlier. But life comes up, things come up. The COVID-19 situation came up, for example, and there are other things that have come up over the past year. And I don’t control all those things.

But I took the time I needed to make a decision. I feel confident about the decision, and I want to go and earn the support of the Libertarian Party. And I don’t think that any person running simply deserves the support. I think they have to go earn it. And I’ll spend a lot of time over the next several weeks speaking to Libertarians, speaking to delegates, and trying to win their support.

Reason: Do you plan on, or have you thought about seeking a vice-presidential copacetic kind of nominee? As you well know, the nominating process is kind of peculiar to the Libertarian Party in this sense, but other candidates such as Jim Gray have reached out to Larry Sharpe, for example. Do you have an approach like that?

Amash: I haven’t reached out to any V.P. candidates or potential candidates to ask them to come on as part of any ticket or anything like that. I want to take the time to talk to people, and I want to be respectful of the process; I want to be respectful of the delegates. I believe that the delegates should have a real say in who the V.P. is on the ticket.

The only thing I ask is if I’m the nominee, I think it’s important that the V.P. be someone who shares a lot of my philosophy, understands the messaging, and can go out there and earn the respect of the entire public. Because running a race for president is not just about one party or one ideology. We have to win lots of people. And we can stay true to our principles while doing that, but it’s important that we expand our reach, and so I think it’s important to have a vice president who understands that.

Reason: Your positions, as I know them, and the Libertarian Party’s platform, as I know it, have a lot of overlap; they’re pretty congruent in many ways. A strong exception to that would be abortion. Can you explain your position on that, as it intersects with federal government policy? What are your preferences on what the federal government should do, or what a Supreme Court should do, having to do with abortion?

Amash: Well, I’m pro-life, and I believe the 14th Amendment provides a strong federal basis for protecting life. But I think the most important thing the federal government can do is not fund abortion. And I think that there is probably broad support for that in the Libertarian Party, to ensure that the federal government is not funding abortions because the federal government shouldn’t be funding something that is that controversial to millions of Americans.

Reason: You had, on either Twitter or on your Amash for America rollout, an emphasis on seeking to represent all Americans. It almost felt italicized in that sense—all Americans. Why that particular emphasis? What does that mean to you?

Amash: It means that there are a lot of people right now who don’t feel represented. When you go around just to my district, for example, and talk to people, they don’t feel that the Republican Party or the Democratic Party really cares about them. And it’s not surprising why they feel that way.

When you look at what the two parties talk about in Washington, they’re hyper-focused on relatively small constituencies, but the ones who are politically active, and get them to win at the ballot box. There’s a large group of Americans that have been forgotten, and we need to reach out to those people, and we need to be the party that represents people from all backgrounds, that brings people together.

And there’s a strong message for bringing people together, which is that the purpose of government is to secure our rights. It shouldn’t matter what your background is; you want your rights secured. Many people right now feel that the government has forgotten them, and doesn’t care about its purpose, and is focused on minutiae, or the politics of the moment, and has forgotten totally about the essential purpose of government, which is to secure the rights of the people.

Reason: Take a swing at Joe Biden in terms of policy. You’ve talked previously that he doesn’t seem like he’s got it all there, which I think we can observe. What’s wrong with him as someone who executes policy, who’s been in public life for a half-century?

Amash: Well, first, he’s held just about every position, which is something that Trump does week to week, but Joe Biden has also held multiple positions over his lifetime. It’s okay to change your mind about things—I’ve changed my mind on things, everyone has changed their mind on things. But when you do it over and over again about multiple big issues, you start to question whether the person’s changing their mind, or whether they’re just doing it for political expediency.

A few examples might [include] the Iraq War. He’s got some wild explanation for why he voted for the authorization but didn’t really support the war. He was one of the architects of a lot of the surveillance that we have today. Back in the day, he was heavily pushing programs that evolved into things like the PATRIOT Act, and FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act], and he’s been wrong on criminal justice reform time and again. So it’s nice to see that he’s changed his mind on some of these things, or says he’s changed his mind. But at this point, it’s time to pass the baton to a new generation and have other people taking the lead on these issues.

And there are other issues where I don’t think he’s changed his mind. Look at this coronavirus relief [approach]. You hear about him saying, “Oh, well maybe this isn’t how I would have done it,” but he’s still applauding [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell and President Trump, essentially, as they passed this kind of thing that doesn’t directly help the people; it’s another corporate welfare scheme in many respects.

So he hasn’t been good on those issues, and I don’t think he’ll be good on those issues going forward. When you look at some of the potential V.P. candidates he’s thinking about, you’ll probably get the same kind of thing—someone who isn’t very good on civil liberties issues, and hasn’t been good on other issues that progressives and many libertarians and many moderates across the political spectrum care about.

Reason: I don’t know why you gotta be so mean to Kamala Harris there.

Amash: I think you know who I was talking about.

Reason: There are quite a few people who agree with you about Trump, or agree with your critiques of Trump over the past year, over the past three years, who are saying, “Jesus Christ, man, not now! Why would you do this? You are jeopardizing—there’s been one poll in Michigan done with you in it and with you out of it, and you knock six points off Biden’s lead—why would you get in the way of removing someone who is uniquely unfit for office?” How do you respond to those people?

Amash: Well, first I would say with respect to the polling, that a poll taken a year ago when you don’t even have the Democratic deal decided, and where I still have very low name ID, doesn’t really mean that much. So I wouldn’t put too much stock into it. Especially when you’re taking a poll around the time that impeachment and other things were going on, and maybe some people on the left thought I was going to be on their side on every issue under the sun because I was in favor of impeachment. And that’s just not correct.

I think the greater likelihood is that I draw from a lot of dissatisfied Republicans, but even if you set aside the two parties, Republicans or Democrats, there are millions and millions of independent and libertarian-minded voters who either are forced to vote for one of these two if they don’t have other choices on the ballot, or who aren’t going to vote at all if they’re required to choose between those two candidates.

And I believe there are enough votes out there to win this race. I wouldn’t be running if there weren’t enough votes to win this race. So people can talk about the “spoiler” thing—I think it’s all academic; it’s hard to say which pot of voters you pull from. But I don’t think it matters that much; I don’t think you’d ever figure it out. And in any case, there are millions of people who want an alternative, and that’s important. We shouldn’t deny them an alternative, deny them a chance to vote for someone who will be practical and have common sense. Why should we force them to vote for one of these other two candidates?

Reason: All right, final question. Are you going to be a Libertarian in Congress?

Amash: I am, yes.

Reason: You are. So you’re going to be the first Libertarian member of Congress.

Amash: I expect so, yeah. I don’t think there’s been another Libertarian in Congress, so I will be the first, and I’m happy to do that.

I do think that the Libertarian Party is important. I spent the past almost year, not quite a year, as an independent…and I’ve learned a lot about the process, a lot about the system. I think most people agree that we’d like to get to a place in this country where political parties don’t matter, but we’re not there yet. That is more of a long-term project. I think we can get there. I don’t think it’s in the distant, distant future, but I think it is still in the distant future. So one distant, but not two distants, in distances.

But right now, these two parties need a strong competitor. And the Libertarian Party has that opportunity because there are so many Republicans who are disenchanted with what’s going on with the Republican Party. There are so many Democrats who are disenchanted with what’s going on with the Democratic Party. And then on top of that, there are millions of Americans who aren’t closely affiliated to the parties, who want to have the opportunity to vote for an alternative. And over the last couple cycles, you’ve seen the Libertarian Party votes pick up, and I want to help it go further. I want to help the Libertarian Party win.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35enfxH
via IFTTT

Make an Anti-Union Joke, Prepare to Be Accused of an Unfair Labor Practice

When writers at Vox Media staged a walk-out as part of their unionization efforts, Ben Domenech, publisher of The Federalist, responded with a joke on Twitter.

There’s no evidence anyone at The Federalist thought this was anything other than a topical joke, responding to a current event. Yet as Domenech recounts in the WSJ, a progressive writer and lawyer responded by filing unfair labor practice complaints with the National Labor Relations Board, and the NLRB pursued these claims with vigor, resulting in this decision against Domenech and The Federalist.

The National Labor Relations Board informed me that the leftist writer Matt Bruenig had filed a formal complaint about my tweet. He withdrew it, but Joel Fleming, a Massachusetts lawyer, filed another.

Mr. Fleming alleged I had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Wagner Act, which states that “it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7″—namely the rights “to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”

The accusation was laughable. No employee had expressed a desire to unionize. If anyone had, my joke wouldn’t have stood in the way. Mr. Fleming was an interloper anyway—he had no association with the Federalist. But according to the NLRB, anyone can file such a complaint against any company.

The NLRB General Counsel pressed the case against Domenech and The Federalist, and the NLRB prevailed in front of an Administrative Law Judge. Because Domenech is publisher, his light-hearted tweet was a prohibited unfair labor practice because, according to the ALJ, it could reasonably interpreted as a threat to impose worse working conditions on any employees who sought to unionize—not that any employees who had ever even considered the possibility (or desirability) of unionizing were ever identified.

The free speech implications of this case are troubling for multiple reasons. First, this episode shows haw well-intentioned regulations can be weaponized for political purposes. The complainants had no interest in “protecting” Federalist workers—if they even know any. Their clear aim was to harass and punish ideological adversaries (a tactic Fleming has expressly endorsed in other contexts—albeit in tweets directed at Domenech’s wife).

More broadly, any regulatory scheme which allows a regulatory agency to punish comments about public policy matters, particularly when there is no evidence the comments have any relation to actual or potential unionizing activity, is itself problematic.

Beyond that, there’s also reason to be concerned that the NLRB is less than even-handed in its censoriousness. Threats and derisive comments made on a union Facebook page are no problem, even when made contemporaneously with picketing efforts and when other employees complained. Somehow we’re supposed to believe that Domenech’s lone tweet is a more serious concern? And who can forget that the NLRB once tried to claim that it would be an unfair labor practice for employers to bar workers from making abusive and threatening comments (including racial and sexual epithets) on the job. In those cases there were actual labor disputes, not here—and that’s part of the problem.

Domenech and The Federalist will appeal, represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Among other things, the NCLA will press the argument that the NLRB process cannot be triggered by any random twitter lurker who wants to sic federal bureaucrats on those they don’t like. I hope the resolution in court will be more sensible. I wish them luck.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3cZdwxL
via IFTTT

The First Federal Female Inmate To Die of COVID-19

Andrea Circle Bear, 30, is the first female federal inmate to die of COVID-19. She passed away several weeks after being placed on a ventilator and having an emergency cesarean section to deliver her baby.

The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) announced Thursday that Circle Bear had succumbed to complications from the virus, making her the 29th federal inmate to die of COVID-19. The virus has killed 30 federal inmates so far, and 1,314 have tested positive for it.

According to federal court records, Circle Bear was arrested for selling two grams of methamphetamine to a confidential informant out of a residence in the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation in South Dakota. She pleaded guilty to maintaining a drug-involved premises and was sentenced to 26 months in federal prison. 

Circle Bear’s sentencing documents say that the judge recommended her for the BOP’s substance abuse treatment program. Because she was pregnant, she was sent to FMC Carswell, a federal prison in Fort Worth, Texas, for inmates with medical needs.

On March 28, a little more than a week after she arrived in federal prison, Circle Bear was sent to a local hospital because of potential complications with her pregnancy. She was released the same day, but several days later she reported to prison medical staff with a fever and dry cough. She was transported back to the local hospital and placed on a ventilator. Her baby was delivered via caesarean section on April 1.

The Washington Post reports that her child is now in the care of her family in South Dakota.

None of the federal inmates who have died from COVID-19 were sentenced to death. Many were serving drug sentences. As Reason reported, the first federal inmate to die of COVID-19 was serving a 27-year sentence for a crack cocaine offense.

According to the BOP, Circle Bear had a preexisting medical condition that the CDC lists as risk factor for developing a more severe COVID-19 disease. Neither the South Dakota town she lived near or the surrounding county has had a positive COVID-19 case.

Many prisons and jails across the country have taken unprecedented measures to reduce their populations in response to the pandemic, halting intake of new inmates and releasing others deemed low-risk. In late March, U.S. Attorney General William Barr issued a directive to the BOP to identify and release elderly and at-risk inmates who met certain criteria, either through an early transfer into home confinement or through a policy called compassionate release.

So far, the BOP says it’s released 1,751 inmates into home confinement. But the rollout of Barr’s directive has been hamstrung by contradictions and confusion.

An unusual alliance of civil liberties groups and correctional officers unions has been warning that these measures won’t be nearly enough to protect staff and inmates inside the crowded and filthy conditions that prevail in jails and prisons across the country. 

They are unfortunately being proven right.

According to data from The New York Times, eight of the 10 biggest COVID-19 clusters in the U.S. are connected to jails or prisons.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3eYdQyC
via IFTTT

Justin Amash Becomes the First Libertarian Member of Congress

After a half-century of existence, the Libertarian Party (L.P.) this morning wakes up to a situation it has never before experienced—with a sitting member of Congress proudly waving the Libertarian flag.

“I will be the first,” Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) told me late Wednesday night, just after announcing his candidacy for the Libertarian presidential nomination. “And I’m happy to do that.”

Amash is not the only person smiling. In an email, Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark said, “I’m happy to see that Representative Amash has come home to the political party most closely aligned with his views,” adding: “If more members of the House who are tired of being marginalized by the GOP and Democratic leadership joined him, we could see a caucus of legislators who are able to work for the American people instead of conflicting teams of special interests. My DMs are open.”

Amash, a persistent critic of President Donald Trump who left the Republican Party to became an independent last July 4, was facing a competitive reelection campaign in his 3rd District of Michigan, a state whose straight-ticket ballot option disfavors candidates outside the two major parties. Yet he says his seat could have been defended.

“That was one of the hardest parts of this decision,” he said. “When I’m looking at my polling, and fundraising, and other aspects with respect to the congressional campaign, I felt I was in the driver’s seat. I felt that I was in a very strong position to win it….But I just think this is too important.”

Amash, who is six-for-six in general elections (five in Congress, once in the Michigan House of Representatives), claims that the 2020 presidential contest is a “winnable race” for a Libertarian Party whose previous high-water mark, in 2016, was 3.3 percent of the vote.

“When I look at these candidates, I think most Americans see the same thing I’m seeing, which is these two candidates aren’t up to being president of the United States, and we need an alternative,” he said. The botched and expensive federal response to the COVID-19 outbreak only makes that clearer, he said. “Millions of Americans are seeing that the government spent trillions of dollars and still didn’t get it right. They didn’t get help to the people who need it most. Instead, most of the assistance went to people who have great connections, who run big corporations.”

I talked to Amash about his late entry into the Libertarian race, his policy objections to Joe Biden, his position on abortion, charges that he would “spoil” the effort to dethrone President Donald Trump, and more. The following is an edited transcript of our conversation.

Reason: What took you so long?

Amash: Well, I’ve been spending time with my family, with friends; I wanted to spend substantial time thinking about it carefully. And up until the past month or so, let’s say, I couldn’t really think about it that carefully. There were a lot of things going on in Congress, there were a lot of things going on in life.

Around February I decided I would pause my congressional campaign and really focus on the presidential race. And that meant at the time just researching things, seeing if it was a situation where I could come in as a candidate and win the race. And then over the past few weeks, I really sat down to dig into it and got to the point where I was confident that this was a winnable race. Because I don’t believe you should just run for fun or for messaging. I believe you should run to win, and to make an impact at the ballot box.

So I’m at that place, and I’m in.

Reason: So you start in mid-February—that’s not coronavirus o’clock, but the coronavirus came up by the beginning of March. So explain a little bit how that affected your deliberations, if at all.

Amash: Well, it certainly extended the deliberations. So if not for the COVID-19 situation, I would have been able to focus on it more carefully earlier. In other words, the really aggressive focus on the campaign—where I could think “Is it time to get in or not?”—had to be put on hold a little bit. I was already in the process of researching things, talking to people, talking to family and friends. But when the coronavirus came up, I had to slow that down, because that obviously affects the entire race, and obviously it affects my job, too. I’m in Congress trying to help constituents, making sure that they are getting the resources they need, and so it affected my ability to move forward quickly.

Reason: I look at the coronavirus thing in particular, and you see a lot of 388-5 votes in the House about various phases of this happening. Do you look at a situation in which $3 trillion has walked out of Congress in the last, I don’t know, six weeks—and basically overwhelmingly, near-unanimously, despite Thomas Massie’s best efforts. Is that a fruitful backdrop from which to run a limited-government campaign?

Amash: I think so. I mean, millions of Americans are seeing that the government spent trillions of dollars and still didn’t get it right. They didn’t get help to the people who need it most. Instead, most of the assistance went to people who have great connections, who run big corporations. Those people, they got it really fast; [Treasury Secretary Steven] Mnuchin couldn’t act fast enough to help those people.

But for millions of Americans who are unemployed or struggling right now, they couldn’t get relief to those people, because they have a massive convoluted system, and they doubled and tripled down on it. They said, “Hey, how can we take our bad system and make it worse? Let’s add a whole bunch of restrictions, let’s add a whole bunch of qualifications, let’s try to get money to small businesses, but then make it so that the money is not all that useful to them. Let’s put banks in the middle of it to slow down the process.”

And the banks are trying; they’re trying, I’m not blaming the banks. I blame Congress and the administration for creating such a system….The Los Angeles Lakers applied for relief as a small business, and you know, under the terms of the deal that Congress put together with the White House, that’s actually allowed. But they never thought through this thing, really.

Reason: So you said that you had to think about this in terms of “Can I win? Can I compete meaningfully?” (But you said “win.”) Explain how that calculation works; explain the path. Because I look at the same thing, and in times of high polarization and high partisan interest, you oftentimes see a kind of Death Valley for third parties and independents trying to run for everything. So how do you look at this thing and see a win?

Amash: I look at the candidates running and I see two candidates that are not qualified for the office. Yeah, they have long resumes, different resumes. The president as a reality [TV] star, and as a sometimes successful, sometimes failed businessman; and Joe Biden as a longtime member of Congress who’s on his third run for president, and frankly, doesn’t seem to be up to it.

So when I look at these candidates, I think most Americans see the same thing I’m seeing, which is: These two candidates aren’t up to being president of the United States, and we need an alternative. And I’m confident that I can be that alternative.

What people are really looking for is practicality. They see these two sides in Washington, Red and Blue, fighting with each other every day. When it comes to most pieces of legislation, they’re highly polarized. And then when it comes to the really bad stuff that gets passed, all of a sudden they become best friends. So they’re fighting each other day and night on stuff that often doesn’t impact people directly, and then when you get something that really hurts the American people, they get unified all of a sudden.

This is not the system the American people want. It’s not the system the framers designed. And we need to trust the people. We need to have humility regarding the process of government. And that means allowing legislators to legislate, and keeping the executive branch in check, and having a court that does its job interpreting and deciding cases. We can’t have this system where these two parties just run amok and hurt Americans every day.

Reason: Are you getting out of the race for reelection in Congress, or are you waiting to see what happens at the Libertarian National Convention?

Amash: My campaign is paused, but frankly, I’m running this campaign for president, and I don’t intend to return to my congressional campaign.

It’s been an honor to represent the 3rd District, and that was one of the hardest parts of this decision. When I’m looking at my polling, and fundraising, and other aspects with respect to the congressional campaign, I felt I was in the driver’s seat. I felt that I was in a very strong position to win it. And as I’ve gone around the district, I’ve had tremendous support from constituents everywhere I go, and from all across the political spectrum. So that was a very tough decision to say that I’m going to run for another office. But I just think this is too important.

And I do think we need someone who’s going to govern with some humility, and I don’t just mean personal humility. I think when people hear the word humility, they think of a person who is kind, or gracious, or whatever. That’s not the kind of humility I’m talking about. I’m talking about humility with respect to the process. Humility with respect to how much one individual knows about things.

What you really have right now are two presidential candidates who think they know everything, and want to run everything. And you see the mess that’s happening right now just with the coronavirus relief, where you get this one person thinking they know everything, instead of using the type of knowledge that exists out among the public, which is the knowledge of time and circumstances, things that only people on the ground know, that no one in Washington can know, or no one in the state Capitol can know.

Reason: Members of the Libertarian Party who like you, and have preferred you, and in fact have wanted you to run for a long time, have expressed some irritation of, “Jesus, Hamlet, get off the fence! We’ve been out here trying to build a party, and go to state conventions, and engage in debates, and this is a little bit late in the game.” What do you say to those people as you try to win a majority of a thousand delegates?

Amash: Well, I want to earn their support. I respect the process, I respect the delegates. If it were up to me, and everything had run smoothly, I would have made a decision earlier. But life comes up, things come up. The COVID-19 situation came up, for example, and there are other things that have come up over the past year. And I don’t control all those things.

But I took the time I needed to make a decision. I feel confident about the decision, and I want to go and earn the support of the Libertarian Party. And I don’t think that any person running simply deserves the support. I think they have to go earn it. And I’ll spend a lot of time over the next several weeks speaking to Libertarians, speaking to delegates, and trying to win their support.

Reason: Do you plan on, or have you thought about seeking a vice-presidential copacetic kind of nominee? As you well know, the nominating process is kind of peculiar to the Libertarian Party in this sense, but other candidates such as Jim Gray have reached out to Larry Sharpe, for example. Do you have an approach like that?

Amash: I haven’t reached out to any V.P. candidates or potential candidates to ask them to come on as part of any ticket or anything like that. I want to take the time to talk to people, and I want to be respectful of the process; I want to be respectful of the delegates. I believe that the delegates should have a real say in who the V.P. is on the ticket.

The only thing I ask is if I’m the nominee, I think it’s important that the V.P. be someone who shares a lot of my philosophy, understands the messaging, and can go out there and earn the respect of the entire public. Because running a race for president is not just about one party or one ideology. We have to win lots of people. And we can stay true to our principles while doing that, but it’s important that we expand our reach, and so I think it’s important to have a vice president who understands that.

Reason: Your positions, as I know them, and the Libertarian Party’s platform, as I know it, have a lot of overlap; they’re pretty congruent in many ways. A strong exception to that would be abortion. Can you explain your position on that, as it intersects with federal government policy? What are your preferences on what the federal government should do, or what a Supreme Court should do, having to do with abortion?

Amash: Well, I’m pro-life, and I believe the 14th Amendment provides a strong federal basis for protecting life. But I think the most important thing the federal government can do is not fund abortion. And I think that there is probably broad support for that in the Libertarian Party, to ensure that the federal government is not funding abortions because the federal government shouldn’t be funding something that is that controversial to millions of Americans.

Reason: You had, on either Twitter or on your Amash for America rollout, an emphasis on seeking to represent all Americans. It almost felt italicized in that sense—all Americans. Why that particular emphasis? What does that mean to you?

Amash: It means that there are a lot of people right now who don’t feel represented. When you go around just to my district, for example, and talk to people, they don’t feel that the Republican Party or the Democratic Party really cares about them. And it’s not surprising why they feel that way.

When you look at what the two parties talk about in Washington, they’re hyper-focused on relatively small constituencies, but the ones who are politically active, and get them to win at the ballot box. There’s a large group of Americans that have been forgotten, and we need to reach out to those people, and we need to be the party that represents people from all backgrounds, that brings people together.

And there’s a strong message for bringing people together, which is that the purpose of government is to secure our rights. It shouldn’t matter what your background is; you want your rights secured. Many people right now feel that the government has forgotten them, and doesn’t care about its purpose, and is focused on minutiae, or the politics of the moment, and has forgotten totally about the essential purpose of government, which is to secure the rights of the people.

Reason: Take a swing at Joe Biden in terms of policy. You’ve talked previously that he doesn’t seem like he’s got it all there, which I think we can observe. What’s wrong with him as someone who executes policy, who’s been in public life for a half-century?

Amash: Well, first, he’s held just about every position, which is something that Trump does week to week, but Joe Biden has also held multiple positions over his lifetime. It’s okay to change your mind about things—I’ve changed my mind on things, everyone has changed their mind on things. But when you do it over and over again about multiple big issues, you start to question whether the person’s changing their mind, or whether they’re just doing it for political expediency.

A few examples might [include] the Iraq War. He’s got some wild explanation for why he voted for the authorization but didn’t really support the war. He was one of the architects of a lot of the surveillance that we have today. Back in the day, he was heavily pushing programs that evolved into things like the PATRIOT Act, and FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act], and he’s been wrong on criminal justice reform time and again. So it’s nice to see that he’s changed his mind on some of these things, or says he’s changed his mind. But at this point, it’s time to pass the baton to a new generation and have other people taking the lead on these issues.

And there are other issues where I don’t think he’s changed his mind. Look at this coronavirus relief [approach]. You hear about him saying, “Oh, well maybe this isn’t how I would have done it,” but he’s still applauding [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell and President Trump, essentially, as they passed this kind of thing that doesn’t directly help the people; it’s another corporate welfare scheme in many respects.

So he hasn’t been good on those issues, and I don’t think he’ll be good on those issues going forward. When you look at some of the potential V.P. candidates he’s thinking about, you’ll probably get the same kind of thing—someone who isn’t very good on civil liberties issues, and hasn’t been good on other issues that progressives and many libertarians and many moderates across the political spectrum care about.

Reason: I don’t know why you gotta be so mean to Kamala Harris there.

Amash: I think you know who I was talking about.

Reason: There are quite a few people who agree with you about Trump, or agree with your critiques of Trump over the past year, over the past three years, who are saying, “Jesus Christ, man, not now! Why would you do this? You are jeopardizing—there’s been one poll in Michigan done with you in it and with you out of it, and you knock six points off Biden’s lead—why would you get in the way of removing someone who is uniquely unfit for office?” How do you respond to those people?

Amash: Well, first I would say with respect to the polling, that a poll taken a year ago when you don’t even have the Democratic deal decided, and where I still have very low name ID, doesn’t really mean that much. So I wouldn’t put too much stock into it. Especially when you’re taking a poll around the time that impeachment and other things were going on, and maybe some people on the left thought I was going to be on their side on every issue under the sun because I was in favor of impeachment. And that’s just not correct.

I think the greater likelihood is that I draw from a lot of dissatisfied Republicans, but even if you set aside the two parties, Republicans or Democrats, there are millions and millions of independent and libertarian-minded voters who either are forced to vote for one of these two if they don’t have other choices on the ballot, or who aren’t going to vote at all if they’re required to choose between those two candidates.

And I believe there are enough votes out there to win this race. I wouldn’t be running if there weren’t enough votes to win this race. So people can talk about the “spoiler” thing—I think it’s all academic; it’s hard to say which pot of voters you pull from. But I don’t think it matters that much; I don’t think you’d ever figure it out. And in any case, there are millions of people who want an alternative, and that’s important. We shouldn’t deny them an alternative, deny them a chance to vote for someone who will be practical and have common sense. Why should we force them to vote for one of these other two candidates?

Reason: All right, final question. Are you going to be a Libertarian in Congress?

Amash: I am, yes.

Reason: You are. So you’re going to be the first Libertarian member of Congress.

Amash: I expect so, yeah. I don’t think there’s been another Libertarian in Congress, so I will be the first, and I’m happy to do that.

I do think that the Libertarian Party is important. I spent the past almost year, not quite a year, as an independent…and I’ve learned a lot about the process, a lot about the system. I think most people agree that we’d like to get to a place in this country where political parties don’t matter, but we’re not there yet. That is more of a long-term project. I think we can get there. I don’t think it’s in the distant, distant future, but I think it is still in the distant future. So one distant, but not two distants, in distances.

But right now, these two parties need a strong competitor. And the Libertarian Party has that opportunity because there are so many Republicans who are disenchanted with what’s going on with the Republican Party. There are so many Democrats who are disenchanted with what’s going on with the Democratic Party. And then on top of that, there are millions of Americans who aren’t closely affiliated to the parties, who want to have the opportunity to vote for an alternative. And over the last couple cycles, you’ve seen the Libertarian Party votes pick up, and I want to help it go further. I want to help the Libertarian Party win.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35enfxH
via IFTTT