Skip to main content

Andy Horning: Libertarian candidate for Indiana US Senate

Andy Horning: Libertarian
for US Senate Indiana
In 2008 Andy Horning's Indiana gubernatorial campaign garnered over 57,000 votes (2.1%), which was--as near as I can calculate it--probably the 7th highest vote total for any Libertarian running for statewide office that year.

That's a working start.  Today Andy is running for US Senate in Indiana, and he aspires to do considerably better.

Here are a few quotes from his new (and still partly under construction) website:
We should have laws that are few enough to know, simple enough to understand . . .
and important enough that every one of them is to be obeyed equally, by everybody without exception, all the time.
The Republicans are supposed to be protecting our wallets, the Democrats are supposed to be protecting our rights, but none of them are doing that any more . . .
they're protecting themselves.
Andy is an individual who has thought out his views very carefully.  Even when you don't agree with him, he will make you think.  For example, Andy sees himself as both a Christian and a Libertarian, and doesn't see any conflict there.  He thus reasons very carefully on issues like same-sex marriage:


What we call gay marriage is not (I repeat, NOT) about a church recognized covenant between a man, a woman, and God.  No, the church gave that unto Caesar a long time ago.  That’s why the minister says, “…by the power vested in me by the State of…”
Marriage, my fellow Americans, is politics.
Now, marriage is about Social Security, bereavement pay, visitation rights, property rights, work rules, tax rules, and more rules, rules rules from the Great Caesar’s Golden Calf.  Marriage is legal, contractual, corporate, political privilege, rights, guardianship and healthcare.
So, those who now want to claim the moral high ground on traditional marriage have wallowed into the preposterous role of promoting disparity in matters of simple justice.
I propose we get politics entirely out of marriage.  From the Christian perspective, we should take from Caesar what is God’s. From the secular perspective, we should make policy and law that does not involve sorting, allocating and denying rights based upon abstract and arbitrary political categories. 
Same endgame: get government out of the marriage business.  Same middle game--if secular marriage is going to confer rights, then it must confer them to everyone.  Different path to get there:  I'm OK with that.

Sometimes Andy is, perhaps, too honest for the voters, but he brings up questions that need to be discussed:

To me, the cornerstone and hallmark of a working civil society is peace.
And I must say something that will be very unpopular to some (who’d not likely vote for me anyway):
I do not “thank a soldier” for my freedoms.
Our freedoms were won by citizen soldiers fighting the professional standing armies of that age’s global superpower.
Think about it. Who ever takes away liberty but the professional armed forces/police of the political elites?
Let us stop fooling ourselves about the nature of armed forces. They do what they’re told to do. We’ve been very lucky, so far, that they’ve not been told to do what is historically typical, and seen around the world still today.
Having spent 21 years in the US military I would like to believe Andy's wrong, that American soldiers would not obey illegal orders with regard to the occupation of their own country.  But having also met the officers who plan for that very eventuality, and have witnessed on multiple occasions that which is characterized as "civil disorder training," I am not at all sure he is wrong.  We have traded in, somewhere along the way during the Cold War, for a standing army and all it implies.

Andy Horning is a strong Libertarian voice, and I endorse his candidacy.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...