Campaign Evaluation: Austin Petersen (POTUS)

[Bryan]

This thread is intended to be a collection point of the strong pros and cons of any potential liberty candidate / campaign that is being discussed / promoted on the forum. You are welcome to post both positive and not-so-positive attributes about the candidate as they related to the evaluation.


Information

Candidate Information
Candidate Name: Austin Petersen
Office Sought: President of the United States
Website: austinpetersen2016.com
Social Media:
https://www.facebook.com/producerpetersen
https://twitter.com/ap4lp
https://www.instagram.com/petersenforpresident/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc-1CNbjbBADoa_Y00VDUog
https://www.linkedin.com/in/austin-petersen-5b41353


Race Information: Competition & Demographics
Incumbent: Barack Obama
Other Primary Candidates: Libertarian Party, see: http://2016.libertarian-party.org
Non-Incumbent Candidates from Other Parties: Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump
Relevant poll numbers: None.



Evaluation

Candidate Profile: Issues
Civil Liberties: [Rating TBD]
Constitutional Issues: [Rating TBD]
Economic Issues: [Rating TBD]
Foreign Policy: [Rating TBD]
Social Issues: [Rating TBD]
Overall Issues Rating: [Rating TBD]


Candidate Profile: Personal
Honesty: [Rating TBD]
Issue consistency: [Rating TBD]
Personality: [Rating TBD]
Associations: [Rating TBD]
Personal history: [Rating TBD]
Overall Personal Rating: [Rating TBD]

Candidate Rating: [Rating TBD]



Race Profile Rating
Race Impact Rating: [Rating TBD]
Victory Impact Rating: [Rating TBD]

Race Profile Rating: [Rating TBD]



Overall Rating:



Evaluation Commentary

Key strong points:

Possible weak points:

Possible deal breakers:

Unknown points for further research:

Rating commentary:

 

[afwjam]

great kid, knows his stuff, needs more experience. A+

 

[younglibertarian]

His pro-life stance is a big thing to consider due to the fact that many libertarian candidates are pro abortion. For me this is a huge thing and gives him a big, fat, A+ for social issues, though I know for others it may do the opposite.

I'd take off some points for supporting the NSA for sure.

Regarding personality, I think he seems a bit unpolished and over scripted. Something just throws me off. On the other hand he has great passion, understanding of libertarian platforms, and is young. These are pros to me.

In terms of the Libertarian race his impact could be massive due to him taking on the incumbent Gary Johnson. (Who was basically expected to win without a fight.)
On a national scale I don't think he has the credentials yet to harm the establishment significantly.

 

[afwjam]

He supports the NSA?

 

[presence]

Austin Petersen

Editor

Austin Petersen is the founder of The Libertarian Republic,

as well as the CEO of Stonegait LLC.

Formerly an Associate Producer for Judge Andrew Napolitano's show "Freedom Watch", on the Fox Business Network.
Austin was referred to by the Judge as "The right side of my brain".
He built Judge Napolitano's social networks with over 700,000 fans and millions of clicks a month.

Austin graduated from Missouri State University. He has written and produced award winning plays and videos, and previously worked for the Libertarian National Committee and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation.

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/author/apetersen/

 

[presence]

Austin Petersen - Former Guest Speaker at the Leadership Institute

Austin Petersen is the Director of Production at FreedomWorks, as well as the CEO of Stonegait Pictures, LLC.


Formerly an Associate Producer for Judge Andrew Napolitano's show, Freedom Watch, on the Fox Business Network, Austin built Judge Napolitano's social networks with over 200,000 fans and millions of clicks a month.


Austin grew up on a farm in the Midwest of the United States in a town called Peculiar, Missouri. Graduating from Missouri State University with a degree in the Fine Arts, he moved to New York City after graduation to a pursue a career in media. After three years of working in the entertainment business, Austin became engaged in politics during the 2008 Presidential election cycle and moved to Washington, DC to accept a job at the Libertarian National Committee.

Austin pursued limited government solutions to national problems by fielding candidates for public office working for the Libertarian National Committee for a year. With a focus on building grassroots movements nationally, Austin used his previous experience in the entertainment business to produce activism politically in support of Presidential Candidate Ron Paul.

Through social media and a newly developed internship program, he effectively doubled the size and scope of the activism portion of the Libertarian Party from 2008-2009 even serving on the Presidential campaign for Bob Barr, former House Representative from the State of Georgia.


After a successful run in third party politics, he was asked to join the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in 2009 as the New Media Program Manager and Video Producer. Atlas is a free market think tank whose purpose is to facilitate the spread of libertarian ideas by supporting other think tanks all around the world. At Atlas, Austin built a high definition video and photo production studio, produced several video and photoshoots, ran campaign operations, and helped coordinate events.

After his time with Atlas he joined the Fox Business Network in 2010 and returned to New York City to work at Fox. After an excellent two year run, Freedom Watch was cancelled and Austin returned to Washington, DC to continue the fight for limited government.

https://www.leadershipinstitute.org/training/contact.cfm?FacultyID=168905

 

[presence]

https://www.atlasnetwork.org/
http://www.freedomworks.org/
http://stonegaitllc.com/
Freedom_Watch_with_Judge_Napolitano
Libertarian_National_Committee

 

[presence]

J. Wilson: Let’s go back to one of the highlights from the Libertarian Party debate on Stossel: the gay wedding cake/Nazi wedding cake question. Was there anything you wanted to add to that?
AP: The fundamental libertarian foundation is private property rights. Freedom of association is in the First Amendment. People should not be forced to provide a service if they don’t wish to.
[]
Civil Rights Act overall was a good piece of legislation because it outlawed discrimination by government. It’s the Title II section of that which was the camel’s nose under the tent. But let’s get granular and let’s talk about it. Let’s talk about what it means. If I am President of the United States I will say that we should defend the right of free association. That does not mean that I endorse bigotry. I am wholly opposed to it. I’ve never discriminated.

http://alibertarianfuture.com/famou...stin-petersen-wedding-cake-issue-making-name/

 

[presence]

So how do you make the case for a libertarian foreign policy in contrast to the Trump/Clinton strategy? AP: Well I think as libertarians, we have marketed ourselves improperly there. We are anti-war, war is the health of the state, we want to have less war and less killing. But we also want to defend ourselves and do so according to due process. You know, there are Constitutional processes that we can follow and still maintain a strong national defense. We should never go to war without a declaration of war. But the reality is we do have to fight this new style, fourth generation, warfare. This isn’t like fighting the Nazi’s, taking down Berlin, and killing Hitler. This is fighting insurgencies and terrorist groups. It’s less institutional type of warfare. In order for us to do that, I think we need to revive the Constitutional letters of marque. This is…
JW: This is what Ron Paul proposed after 9/11 to go after Al Qaeda…
AP: Yeah, and a lot of libertarians give me hell about this because I bring it up. But if I preface it by saying this is what Ron Paul proposed then even the extreme pacifists of the libertarian movement tend to be quelled. There are some people where there is just no end to their pacifism. They want us all to go down with the ship. They don’t care if they are killed. They’re more than happy to sacrifice all of us for their dogmatic ideology of extremist pacifism. That’s fine. People without guns are protected by people with guns.
AP: I think that if Congress were to reinvigorate these letters of marque there are thousands of veterans out of work who would…
JW: Or the Turks or the Jordanians or the Egyptians might take us up on the offer perhaps?
AP: Potentially. I would probably trust American veterans first.

http://alibertarianfuture.com/famou...war-plan-for-isis-reasonable-budget-proposal/

 

[presence]

Anarcho-Capitalists For Austin Petersen 2016

Guest Post
January 7, 2016



by Ricardo Marquez


Austin Wade Petersen is a highly controversial figure in libertarian circles, especially among anarcho-capitalists such as myself. But he’s a libertarian running for president, and someone who we should not be so dismissive of, simply because he is not himself an anarchist.

If Mr. Petersen is an outspoken critic of anarcho-capitalism (and advocate for minarchism), and has openly rejected the Non-aggression principle (An axiom that most anarcho-capitalists, including myself, see as central), why should we support him?

The answer is simple…

He’s not just a person who could lead us closer to anarcho-capitalism than anyone else, but in fact, he might be the only one in this election cycle who would lead us very close to anarchism.

It is also to be remarked that, if other LP candidates, mostly classical liberals like Gary Johnson, would win, or at least gain international recognition, the international left would call him a “neo-liberal” a term that neo-marxists love to use with anybody who’s not an outspoken marxist, even social democrats.

But if an outspoken minarchist, like Mr.Petersen would win (or at least win recognition) the international left would face a very new, and very real threat. They’ll face an outspoken basher of total statism, who’s not afraid to tell you in your face who would build the roads, or how a minimal government might be funded in a voluntary way.

Another usual “argument” of the international left is that the “neo-liberals” are a bunch of trust fund kids who get everything they have from their parent’s money, this is certainly not the case of Mr. Petersen. Whatever amount of possessions he has (he isn’t super-rich by the way) he has earned it through hard work, using his head, and never giving up. He was the son of rural farmers, who made his own way in politics and television by himself with no connections or money to help him get ahead. He even used to play guitar in Times Square for extra money while trying to break into the media business.

Mr Petersen also represents the voice that pro-life Libertarians, such as myself, have been needing in the Libertarian Party. Many “radicals” use Ron Paul’s association to the GOP to say that pro-life Libertarians are really paleocons at best. Such claim is hugely wrong, and studies find that around 50% of Libertarians are pro-life, Mr Petersen among them. That being said, Austin Petersen is a secular man, thus he also represents pro-life humanists.

But this article is not “Pro-lifers For Austin Petersen” or “Foreigners For Austin Petersen” although both could be written, this is “Anarcho-capitalists for Austin Petersen” so why do I, as an Anarcho-Capitalist support Austin Petersen?



To answer this, i’ll go through Mr Petersen’s Platform, and many of his declarations



First, let’s see Mr Petersen’s words on Taxation



His Platform states

<<Reduce economic inequality by lowering barriers to entry in the marketplace, licensing, taxation, and fees. Urge congress to adopt the “Penny Plan,” across the board spending cuts of 1% per program. Abolish the existing, complicated tax code that discriminates against the most productive Americans, and replace it with a simple, flat tax at the lowest rate necessary to support the core functions of government. Seek voluntary ways to fund public services where possible, lotteries, tolls, etc.>>

When asked “how small should government be?”

Mr Petersen replied “Police, courts and the military
[….] and even there I would like to see more private aspects” “I’m almost an anarchist…”

In short Mr Petersen believes in “ultra-minimal” government, H.L. Mencken called it

“government that barely escapes being no government at all.”

This view of minimal, voluntary government, known as “Minarchism” comes from the tradition of Auberon Herbert, the great libertarian philosopher of the 19th Century, in an announcement of Herbert’s death, Benjamin Tucker said, “Auberon Herbert is dead. He was a true anarchist in everything but name. How much better (and how much rarer) to be an anarchist in everything but name than to be an anarchist in name only!”


His Platform also states<<Monetary Policy4. Audit the Federal Reserve. Institute a Monetary Commission devoted to studying the implications of replacing central banking with “Free Banking,” and abolishing laws of legal tender.>>

His monetary policy might just as well have being planned by F.A Hayek or Peter Schiff, Mr Petersen has taken advice from Austrian economists on this issue.

As for drugs, his platform states:

<Deschedule drugs at the federal level.>>



Do I need to say more on this?



If Mr Petersen achieves any of this goals, and more, not only would the society be markedly improved, but he would also give the world a fine example of an almost-anarchist society to the modern world, which would lead many people, especially young people to ask

“Do we need government at all?”


fortunately, I believe many of them will answer


“No.”

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/anarcho-capitalists-for-austin-petersen-2016/

 

[presence]

In terms of which (mcafee johnson petersen) approaches libertarianism and voluntarism from the same austrian perspective as Ron... Petersen is the winner, he gets it... he's looking for the same path to catallaxy. He may not have the name recognition, but he is the pure candidate if you want a vote with clean anti-state conscience. Without a doubt he should be considered a "Liberty Candidate".

 

[younglibertarian]

He supports the NSA?

Try doing the I side with quiz and see his answers. He supports drone surveillance over sovereign nations. He wants to "reel" in the NSA, but not abolish it. I'll link some videos/articles tomorrow but I am a little tired at the moment.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

He may be a good script reader, but his pathetic vanity campaign for LP is a disgrace. If he wanted to be a serious liberty candidate, he could have ran at the local, county or state level and built a resume. But this egomaniac tries to run for President in a moribund party with no experience and no qualifications other than being a coattail rider and a click bait queen instead.

He can take his watered down pro-aggression bastardization of liberty and shove it. He should go back to the Beltway thinktank scene because that's where this scumbag belongs.

 

[Suzanimal]

Ep 414 Woods/Petersen Clash on Minarchism, Anarchism, and More



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Woods/Petersen+Clash+Minarchism,+Ana rchism,

 

[brandon]

He's memorized all the libertarian talking points and probably has close to an ideal platform.

But god, I can't stand the guy. He sounds way too rehearsed, is boring, and just too young. I want to support someone who has some serious accomplishments under their belt. Johnson was a governor, McAffee was a very successful engineer and business owner. What is Peterson? A guy with a shitty blog?

He's just totally unqualified and has zero leadership experience.

 

[afwjam]

Ep 414 Woods/Petersen Clash on Minarchism, Anarchism, and More



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Woods/Petersen+Clash+Minarchism,+Ana rchism,

I'm listening now and I'm not in Petersons camp of libertarianism, whose purpose I think is to head towards an anarcho-ideal. However in the grand scheme of things and particularly in a Presidential election, I believe his grade still stands at an A+, despite not believing in the NAP.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

He's A+ on the issues, definitely. B- on personality. He doesn't captivate an audience the same way others do. He doesn't appear to speak from the heart, maybe he does but he doesn't appear to. There are issues with that and that is his biggest problem. If this were an election on paper with just the issues, he'd be the absolute winner.

I'd almost argue that he is too pure as a libertarian to be on the stage.. He needs more exposure and another decade to form his personality and he'll make a great candidate.

 

[presence]

He's memorized all the libertarian talking points and probably has close to an ideal platform.

But god, I can't stand the guy. He sounds way too rehearsed, is boring, and just too young.

Yes... he's pretty Rubioesque in that regard.

What is Peterson? A guy with a $#@!ty blog?

He's just totally unqualified and has zero leadership experience.

I agree he should seek a house or senate seat. But I don't think his intention is to "win". Its to run an educational campaign.

 

[Suzanimal]

He's memorized all the libertarian talking points and probably has close to an ideal platform.

But god, I can't stand the guy. He sounds way too rehearsed, is boring, and just too young. I want to support someone who has some serious accomplishments under their belt. Johnson was a governor, McAffee was a very successful engineer and business owner. What is Peterson? A guy with a shitty blog?

He's just totally unqualified and has zero leadership experience.

Me neither.

Islamic Terrorism, Ron Paul, And The Problem With Non-Interventionists

Austin Petersen January 8, 2015 Political Opinion


Yesterday, the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity posted a story where Paul attempted to paint the murders of French cartoonists as a form of blowback for French interventionism. As a friend of mine said, If Dr. Paul thinks that French foreign policy is too aggressive, then it’s clear that no level of passivity would meet his standards.

The attacks by Islamic authoritarians shocked the world for their callousness, and pitiless disregard for free speech and human life. Charlie Hebdo, a satirical weekly newspaper, was targeted specifically due to their cartoons which mocked the prophet Muhammed. It’s the latest in a long line of attacks on artists by Islamic radicals, whose barbarism calls their entire creed into question.

Paul called the attacks “obscene,” but went on to try to link them to an interventionist foreign policy. Paul’s argument for why the terrorists attacked the cartoonists was as follows:

France has been a target for many, many years, because they’ve been involved in foreign affairs in Libya, and they really prodded us along in — recently in Libya, but they’ve been involved in Algeria, so they’ve had attacks like this, you know, not infrequently. So, it does involve, you know, their foreign policy as well.

It’s that overall policy which invites retaliation, and they see us as intruders. But it’s a little bit more complex, you know, when they hit us, either here at home, and hit civilians, and what’s happening in France. But I don’t think you can divorce these instances from the overall foreign policy.

The problem with that argument specifically is that there is no end to what you can attribute these types of attacks to if you just label them as “blowback.” The 9/11 attacks were a result of blowback because of the American base in Saudi Arabia, Paul once said. Perhaps, but are the Mexican incursions into Texas blowback from the annexation of the Lone Star State? Some La Razans might argue that. How far back do we have to go to be able to lay blame for every attack on the victim? Do you think modern Iranians still are that upset about operation Ajax that it’s their entire reason for desiring a nuclear weapon? Theoretically you could use any incident in history as justification or explanation for the use of violence. But that is incoherent.

The problem with blaming every attack on Western powers on blowback is that it reeks of justification for violence, as if there was a good excuse, not just an explanation. I’m personally sympathetic to the idea of blowback as a single theory, but not as the only theory of terrorism. It’s merely one explanation, and sometimes it is absolutely NOT the reason that people want to attack us. Sadly, many people do indeed hate us for our freedoms.

...

Qutb despised America because he believed, as many modern Muslims do, that the zenith of civilization occurred in the Middle Ages. He rejected the Enlightenment, the Industrial Age, and modernity. He wrote of our American pioneers that “interminable, incalculable expanses of virgin land” were settled by “groups of adventurers and groups of criminals.”

One night while at a school dance in Colorado, the song “Baby, it’s cold outside” came on. Qutb was disgusted at the sight of innocent American boys and girls dancing with one another. This simple act of love and affection that we all enjoy was at the very center of his hatred for us.

Truly, he hated us for our freedoms.

...

So, continuing my earlier point and the title of this article; what is the problem with non-interventionists? The problem with non-interventionists is not the entirety of non-intervention itself, but rather the people who call themselves such. They are so inherently full of contradictions and ignorance as to when self-defense is necessary, and the means to defend oneself that it is discrediting to the ideas of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Yes, of course we should not go abroad in search of dragons to slay. Those who do invite trouble for themselves and often deserve what they get. However, there are some who have argued that the cartoonists are not innocent. Swedish foreign correspondent Alice Petrén stated plainly that the people murdered at the newspaper were “not innocent.” This is victim blaming taken to the extreme, and not indicative of the philosophy of most non-interventionists I believe. However, it does stand as an example of how some people want to blame everyone but the perpetrator when someone commits an act of violence.

In the case of modern libertarian non-interventionists such as Ron Paul, and perhaps many who agree with him, they are seeking to make hay out of their worldview by using this tragedy to advance their principles. That alone is not always wrong, as many others are doing the same thing. But in at least this one instance of terrorism, it is absolutely not the case that it is due to blowback from foreign policy. The terrorist’s clear motives were to kill the cartoonists because they blasphemed their god. That is a problem that we as classical liberals must oppose vigorously.

Many who call themselves anarcho-capitalists today also claim to be non-interventionists. But the problem with that statement is that it is an inherent contradiction. To be an anarchist is to believe that the state should not exist at all. To be a non-interventionist is to believe that the government should follow a set of policy guidelines, namely stay out of foreign affairs. The non-interventionist one is at least slightly statist, in that it argues for a specific set of government policies, and would require working within the government to bring about those changes.

That would be fine in and of itself if so many of these same people did not then advocate that any intervention or retaliation is statist, or the philosophy of neoconservativism. Incredibly, many neoconservatives actually see themselves as anarchist libertarians precisely because they don’t believe in borders. They see Islamic authoritarianism as a threat to liberal values, and they are willing to use the U.S. government to stamp it out, irrespective of national sovereignty because, like anarchists, they don’t believe in borders. (RELATED: Why I’m a Libertarian Neocon by Todd Seavey)

Todd Seavey, a former writer for Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote:

To those of us coming of age on college campuses just after the Cold War ended (and reading books like The Closing of the American Mind by Leo Strauss-influenced Allan Bloom), the moralism of the neocons — or just plain “conservatives,” since we all seemed to be on the same side, opposed to the left, back then — was also a welcome alternative to the left’s relativism, which was one of the primary means of cloaking socialism: Who are we to say that what seems right in America is also right in Albania, and so on and so forth?

Far from harboring dreams of isolationism or even non-interventionism, most of us who came of age as libertarians in that cohort, I would guess, agreed that individual rights ought to be universally legally protected, even if that meant (ideally, one day) toppling every last government on Earth, including our own. But better to start, perhaps, with Moscow or Tehran — that is, if push came to shove, internal reform proved impossible, and lives were urgently at stake. Change without bloodshed is always best, but in a defensive situation, spilled blood is ultimately on the hands of those who began the coercion, including tyrants, commissars, and terrorists.

To suggest, by contrast, that libertarian rights apply inside the (presumably arbitrary) geographic boundary of the U.S. but do not apply to the (equally human) Albanians or Cubans or Iraqis overseas would be a bizarre relapse into leftist, geographically-arbitrary relativism, a way of thinking unbecoming a serious, committed libertarian. It still is.

Once I was asked to give a speech at a Young American’s for Liberty conference on the subject of international terrorism ( I imagine after this article that will never happen again). The speech came immediately after the Boston bombings, but before the suspects had been brought to justice.

My presentation asked the group of young libertarian students a simple question: Pop Quiz Hot Shots: Chechen terrorists bombed your marathon. Do you A: Send in Seal Team 6 or B: Hire Mercenaries to assassinate those involved. Remember, if you believe that someone must receive due process, it’s unlikely that you are an anarchist, because any mechanism of authority that seeks to punish individuals for crimes has the exact same effect as any government.

One half of the students voted to send in Seal Team 6. The other half voted for the mercenaries. Now can you see why we have a problem in the liberty movement advocating for a consistent foreign policy? We don’t have one.

Personally, I am in favor of the anarchist approach of dealing with Islamic terrorism with mercenaries, non-state actors. But when I suggest this approach I am roundly pilloried as statist, warmonger, interventionist.

This is ignorant.

It is not interventionist to defend oneself from terrorism, and to disregard national borders in seeking out those who have committed murder to your friends, neighbors, or loved ones. In fact, to disregard national borders and hire mercenaries to bring retribution and justice to criminals is the most anarcho-capitalist approach. But still, this is not enough for some people. There must be some way for libertarians to defend themselves from violence, but the way that many non-interventionists set the debate is to disarm those who would retaliate against aggression.

Some non-interventionists argued that since France is not our country, that it’s none of our business. But this is not the anarcho-capitalist approach, because in the anarchist’s mind, there are no borders. They are just imaginary lines. So if you are to call yourself an anarcho-capitalist, then technically all humans on this planet are our brothers and sisters, and we should encourage that justice be done against violent aggressors no matter what. To believe that it is none of “our” business is to be an isolationist nationalist, not an anarcho-capitalist, and NOT non-interventionist. You’re saying “America First.” When you say “it’s none of our business,” you’re saying it’s none of the U.S. government’s business.

Then whose business is it? The French government’s? You’re still a statist!

The problems of non-interventionism do not lie with non-interventionism. It lies with the people who advocate for the philosophy, who have confused non-intervention with pacifism and appeasement. We have a right to defend ourselves against violent extremists, and to do it either in a manner that accords due process to the accused (Government), or to investigate ourselves and assassinate those involved (mercenaries).

To lay the blame for these attacks on foreign policy is a red herring, meant to muddy the issue, and to provide cover for Islamic terrorists who threaten classical liberal values. It’s a disservice to libertarianism, and worse, it’s moral weakness.

And that is all.

Read more: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/i...l-problem-non-interventionists/#ixzz46eW9FQBw
Follow us: [MENTION=40901]The[/MENTION]LibRepublic on Twitter

 

[brandon]

Yes... he's pretty Rubioesque in that regard.



I agree he should seek a house or senate seat. But I don't think his intention is to "win". Its to run an educational campaign.

He should try to do something meaningful with his life outside of government. Prove himself successful and then revisit government when he's older.