Search Results

The Libertarian Party of Hawaii proudly calls itself the " Party of Principle ." It's not just a catchy slogan; it's our identity, etched into the foundational documents that guide every action we take as a movement dedicated to liberty. It is what sets us apart from every other political affiliation in the country.  Yet, in a stunning display of hypocrisy, the Libertarian National Committee's (LNC) current leadership, through a respondent's brief penned by Jonathan McGee  on their behalf, has brazenly argued that our sacred Statement of Principles does not apply to LNC leadership. McGee clearly redefines this key component himself as aspirational fluff without real teeth or binding force. This isn't just a legal maneuver; it's a knife to the heart of what makes us all Libertarians. How can these so-called “stewards” of our party claim to champion individual rights and non-aggression while casually tossing aside the principles that sustain us? The Libertarian Party of Hawaii (LPHI) demands answers and accountability from a leadership that seems all too eager to prioritize power plays over principle. Undeniably Principled Let's start with the facts, straight from The Libertarian Party BYLAWS, CONVENTION SPECIAL RULES, AND JUDICIAL COMMITTEE RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE , which the LNC is sworn to uphold.  Article 3 couldn't be clearer:  "The Statement of Principles affirms that philosophy upon which the Libertarian Party is founded, by which it shall be sustained, and through which liberty shall prevail."  This isn't vague poetry; it's a mandate . The party isn't just inspired by these principles; it 's sustained  by them.  Article 2 reinforces this: "The Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles…"  And Article 7 explicitly binds the LNC to adhere to them:  "The National Committee shall have control and management of all the affairs, properties and funds of the Party consistent with these bylaws. The Libertarian National Committee shall establish and oversee an organizational structure to implement the purposes of the Party as stated in Article 2."   There it is, in black and white: The LNC's every move must  align with the Statement of Principles because that's the core purpose of the party itself . LNC Claims They're Not Bound by Principle But apparently, that's not good enough for Jonathan McGee and the "factionless" LNC. In their respondent brief in Roos et al. v. LNC , filed just yesterday on September 16, 2025, they have the audacity to claim:  "While Article 3 clearly states the purpose of the Statement of Principles, how it can be amended, and its relationship with the party platform, shockingly it does not actually state that LNC actions are bound by the Statement of Principles."   Shockingly? The only shock here is the LNC's willingness to misrepresent our foundational documents to evade responsibility. They go further, asserting:  “ The LNC maintains that it is not bound by the Statement of Principles and further asserts that the Statement of Principles is a philosophical foundation and not a self-executing disciplinary code. Treating the Statement of Principles as a self-executing disciplinary code could have dangerous future implications.” Aspirational? Philosophical? This is the language of bureaucrats (or lawyers?) dodging accountability, not the sentiments of sincerely liberty-loving leaders. Has McGee read our bylaws? His brief doesn't stop there. He goes on to state that party leaders could be "censured for misstating a fact in a press release or even a personal remark."  And it doubles down: "Next, even supposing that it did, the petitioner alleges that the SIC report violates the Statement of Principles by way of supposed 'misrepresentation'.   Misrepresentation can be intentional or unintentional, and if unintentional misrepresentation is ruled to be a violation of the Statement of Principles the implications would be catastrophic for the operation of the Party."   Catastrophic? What is truly catastrophic is leadership that views our principles as optional guidelines rather than the non-negotiable bedrock of our existence. If the Statement of Principles' prohibitions on fraud, misrepresentation, and aggression aren't binding, what stops the LNC from becoming just another swamp creature in the political machine? What separates us from the right or the left party’s leadership, marred by corrupt whims mandated in their policies? Hypocrisy Exposed  This isn't abstract philosophizing. We are watching a real betrayal unfold in response to the Roos  case. It drips with irony. The LNC adopted resolutions condemning former Chair Angela McArdle for alleged violations of the party's core ethical and fiduciary principles of governance . They wield the LP Statement of Principles as a sword to justify their actions through a Special Investigatory Committee (SIC) report, claiming her conduct violated the very principles they now say do not apply to themselves. In a shocking display of hypocrisy, the same LNC argues in their respondent brief that the Statement of Principles is merely philosophical and does not bind them as a governing body. Petitioners like Jonathan Jacobs and Hector Roos, rightly argue this violated notice rules and the Statement of Principles’ stance against misrepresentation. Instead of defending their actions or admitting fault on principled grounds, the LNC hides behind claims that the principles they so readily invoke against others don't apply to their own conduct.  If leadership can cherry-pick when to uphold the Statement of Principles, using it to attack their chair while dismissing its authority over themselves, what's next? Brushing off property rights in budget decisions? This slippery slope leads straight to the irrelevance we've known, or else to the corruption seen in other parties that sold their souls for recognition and expediency. I don't know about you, but I joined the Party of Principle because they are the only political party in America that remains with a moral spine. I cannot stay silent and watch the knife twist through it. Our Principles Guide Every Affiliate Hawaii and the other state affiliates built their parties on these very principles, fighting for personal freedoms in a state dominated by big-government overreach. The LPHI bylaws follow the same foundational principles.  Article 2E states:  “That the only moral basis of politics is the protection of individual rights. In recognition of the fact that the initiation of force by government has been the chief instrument for the expropriation of individual rights and freedom, the party enters into politics for the specific purpose of eliminating the intervention of government in moral and economic affairs.”   “The Libertarian Party is, at its core, the party of principle. The Statement of Principles is not just a philosophical decoration, it is the bedrock of who we are and why we exist. To suggest that the LNC is not bound by it undermines the very integrity of our movement. While it may not function as a legal code, it serves as our compass and moral standard. Every member of our leadership should hold themselves accountable to it, and every libertarian should expect nothing less. Without steadfast adherence to these principles, we risk becoming just another political party that compromises away its soul.” ~ Nicholas Zehr, LPHI Treasurer We affiliate under the national party, expecting the LNC to lead by example, not to lawyer their way out of binding ethical obligations.  Jonathan McGee, as the signatory of this shameful brief and a key LNC figure (recently considered for Chair, and subsequently Vice Chair), bears particular responsibility. His words aren't just a way of legal loophole; they're a signal that our current leadership values self-preservation over the very liberty we all pledged to advance.   Call to Action Libertarian Party of Hawaii Chairman and Region 1 Alternate, Austin Martin weighs in on this disturbing development: When asked to elaborate, Chairman Martin simply warned: "Take note of those who respond to these indefensible actions of the LNC by attacking the messengers." We call on Libertarians nationwide to wake up. Demand the Judicial Committee reject this LNC farce and boldly reaffirm that the Libertarian Party’s Statement of Principles is binding on our leadership , especially those representing us on the LNC. The SIC Report condemns Angela Mcardle for violating the same statement of principles they are now claiming do not apply to them.  Contact entire.lnc@lp.org  and your LNC Regional Representative today. We call on the Libertarian National Committee to sustain the party through principles, as Article 3 demands. If they can’t uphold something so fundamental, perhaps it's time for new leadership that will. The Party of Principle deserves better than guardians who treat our ethics and principles as disposable.

As the Libertarian Party of Hawaii gears up for our upcoming convention, we're excited to spotlight the individuals stepping up to lead our movement toward greater freedom and self-reliance in the islands. Today, we're featuring Nicholas Zehr, who is running for re-election as Treasurer on the Executive Committee. Nick has shared his thoughts through our nomination survey, providing insights into his background, principles, and vision for Hawaii. Below, you'll find the full questions from our survey along with Nick's responses, presented exactly as submitted. Why are you running? "I’m running for re-election as Executive Treasurer because I believe liberty is worth fighting for, especially here in Hawai‘i, where over regulation, taxation, and government overreach stifle opportunity and personal freedom. I served as an Army officer for 10 years and now support the Army as a Department of the Army civilian. I hold degrees in economics and supply chain management, and I bring disciplined financial oversight, strategic thinking, and a commitment to integrity. I’m motivated by a vision of a freer, more self-reliant Hawai‘i where individuals can live peacefully without government interference in their personal lives or choices. Serving on the Executive Committee allows me to put my skills to use supporting candidates, strengthening our organization, and advancing liberty across the islands." What is the most important libertarian principle to you, and how would you apply it to improve Hawaii? "The most important libertarian principle to me is voluntary association. No one should be forced into a relationship, obligation, or payment against their will. This principle applies to everything, from how we fund government to how we educate our children, treat our health, and engage in business. In Hawai‘i, I would apply this principle by advocating for reforms like ending mandatory occupational licensing, legalizing direct-to-consumer food sales such as raw milk, and pushing back against victimless crime enforcement. When relationships (economic, personal, and political) are rooted in consent rather than coercion, human potential thrives. This is why I’ve helped create systems within our party to identify and testify on legislation that either expands or restricts liberty. In 2025, we submitted testimony on over 100 bills, with a focus on issues where voluntary choice should replace government mandates. Empowering people starts with saying no to coercion and yes to freedom." What is the most pressing issue facing Hawaii, and how would you address it using libertarian principles? "The most pressing issue facing Hawai‘i is the cost of living, which is driven largely by government intervention: land use restrictions, permitting delays, taxes, and monopolistic policies. I would work to address this through a libertarian lens by eliminating unnecessary barriers to housing, farming, and small business. That means supporting bills to streamline permitting, end civil asset forfeiture, and reduce taxation, while empowering families to pursue alternative education, food sovereignty, and medical freedom. We don’t need more government programs, we need less government in our way. Using libertarian principles, we must tear down the artificial barriers that prevent housing, food production, entrepreneurship, and self-sufficiency." How would you grow the Libertarian Party of Hawaii’s influence and membership in a state dominated by other parties? "Growing the Libertarian Party of Hawai‘i requires both grassroots energy and infrastructure to support it. I’ve worked to modernize our operations, increase engagement, and expand opportunities to take action. I created the “Take Action” tab on our website, which offers real-time tools for engaging with legislation. I helped launch a successful joint fundraising campaign that raised over $35,000, established our FEC account, and supported new funding initiatives like our Cost Commission program and plans for accepting cryptocurrency. These initiatives give us the resources and reach to compete, and they also show that principled ideas, backed by smart strategy, can grow our influence even in a state dominated by other parties." What unique qualities or experiences make you the best choice for the Executive Committee? "I bring a rare combination of fiscal discipline, military leadership, and grassroots passion. I don’t just talk about liberty, I live it. I volunteer regularly with local farms, serve as a Weston A. Price Foundation chapter leader, and am involved in community advocacy. As Treasurer, I’ve ensured financial transparency and strengthened our compliance. I want our money to go towards impact, value, and ROI. My experience as an Army logistics officer and contract specialist equips me with the accountability, precision, and strategy needed to help our party grow. My focus is not to play politics, but for my family and others to live in a more free Hawai’i." We encourage all members to review Nick's responses and consider how his experience and dedication align with our shared goals for a freer Hawaii. Stay tuned for more candidate spotlights as we approach the convention on August 30th . If you're interested in nominating yourself or someone else, email us at lphisecretary@gmail.com

We are excited to announce that the Libertarian Party of Hawaii 2025 Convention will be held at the Hilo Hawaiian Hotel. ZOOM links will be available for members who cannot attend in person. Date: August 30, 2025 Time: 11:00 am - 4:30  Location : 71 Banyan Dr. Hilo, HI 96720 Room Reservations:  +1 (866) 284-7547 Volunteer Help us plan for the August 2025 Convention. There is a lot to do to make this a memorable and efficient experience. The more volunteers we have pitching in, the better the event outcomes will be. Help us plan venues, entertainment, food, agendas, & more. Let’s make this Convention one for the history books! Fill out our volunteer sign-up sheet,  and check the “Event Planning” box to get started.  Nominations Nominations for 2025 Executive Committee The Libertarian Party of Hawaii will elect its Executive Committee (Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Secretary, Treasurer, and five members-at-large) at the upcoming State Convention. Nominations have been open for several months, and the following current Executive Committee members have indicated their intent to run for re-election:  Austin Martin, Chairperson  Nicholas Zehr, Treasurer Abbra Green, Secretary  Nominations remain open, and any party member may be nominated from the floor at the convention. We encourage all members to consider running or nominating candidates to help lead our party forward. For more information on the nomination process or executive roles, view our bylaws .  Submissions or inquiries can be sent to lphisecretary@gmail.com

HB1119 & SB1438  probibit home care agencies from providing services outside the scope of their facility license unless they are contracted with the city and county of Honolulu or Hawaii Medicaid programs. This legislation undermines personal freedom, stifles competition, and causes harm to those it claims to protect. Why should some agencies be allowed to operate without a license while others are not? This selective regulation can lead to inconsistencies in service accountability. All providers should be subject to the same standards without the need for government control or intervention. Clients and families should be able to make their own decisions regarding health care based on their preferences and needs, rather than being subjected to government mandates. If clients feel that a particular professional or agency does not meet their standards, they should have the freedom to seek alternatives. HB1119 & SB1438  is a misguided approach to public health and safety. Rather than imposing regulations that restrict freedom and competition, lawmakers should focus on individual rights. Help Us Oppose this Bill: Click on the hyperlink to familiarize yourself with the bill text: HB1119 & SB1438 Take action by speaking out against these movements.  Call your representatives: Maps of districts and their representatives with contact information can be found here. Join Our Team! You don't have to do this alone. We are here to help your actions succeed and amplify the voices of Hawaii! Contact us today to get tailored advice, collaboration, and support. And don't forget to let us know what issues matter most to you. Keep an eye out as we continue to publish on topics that affect our liberty.

On September 9, 2024 at 7pm, long-time member and international author Ken Schoolland addressed The Libertarian Party of Hawaii. He gave LPHI an overview of the creation of his book and a glimpse into his new animated series, “The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey” To learn more about Ken Schoolland’s work, and his masterpiece literary work visit his website at: https://www.jonathangullible.com/free-book

In America, we are often told that laws exist to ensure justice. But what happens when laws are unjust? What if the government uses its power to punish people unfairly? Throughout history, citizens have had a powerful tool to push back against government overreach: jury nullification . Jury nullification occurs when a jury votes “Not Guilty” despite evidence that the defendant broke the law  because they believe the law itself is unfair, unjustly applied, or would lead to an immoral outcome. It is a vital, but often hidden, power that allows regular people—not politicians, judges, or prosecutors—to make the final decision in the courtroom. Despite its long history in America, most jurors don’t even know they have this right . Courts and prosecutors actively avoid discussing it, and some have even punished people for trying to inform jurors about it. But jury nullification is real, legal, and has played a crucial role in some of the most important struggles for justice in American history. A Long Tradition of Defying Bad Laws Jury nullification is older than the United States itself. It has been used for centuries as a way for ordinary people to resist government overreach. The Trial of William Penn (1670) One of the earliest examples of jury nullification happened in England when William Penn , the founder of Pennsylvania, was arrested for preaching in public against the Church of England. The government ordered the jury to convict him, but they refused. The judge locked the jurors in a room without food or water for two days, trying to force a conviction. Still, they stood their ground. The case established that jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts , setting a precedent for jury independence. Jury Nullification and the American Revolution In colonial America, British authorities tried to enforce strict laws on trade, taxation, and speech. But American juries often refused to convict colonists  accused of violating these oppressive laws. This widespread defiance helped fuel the Revolution. John Adams, who later became the second U.S. president, praised jury nullification, saying: “It is not only [the juror’s] right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” Fighting the Fugitive Slave Act (1850s) One of the most powerful examples of jury nullification in American history occurred in the fight against slavery. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850  made it illegal to help escaped slaves, even in states that had already outlawed slavery. People who provided shelter, food, or assistance could be arrested and forced to pay heavy fines. But many Northern juries refused to convict  people accused under this law. Some abolitionists, like William Lloyd Garrison, actively encouraged jurors to use nullification to stop slavery’s spread. As a result, many prosecutions failed, weakening the law and making it unenforceable in large parts of the country. Alcohol Prohibition and the Power of the People (1920s) When Prohibition made alcohol illegal in the 1920s, many Americans disagreed with the law. Police arrested thousands for making, selling, or even possessing alcohol. But juries often refused to convict, making it difficult for the government to enforce Prohibition effectively. In some cities, more than 60% of alcohol-related cases ended in acquittals , despite clear evidence of guilt. This widespread jury resistance was a major reason why Prohibition was eventually repealed. Jury Nullification in the Modern Era Today, jury nullification continues to play an important role in the justice system, though it is rarely talked about in courtrooms. The War on Drugs  – Many Americans believe drug laws, especially those criminalizing marijuana, are too harsh. Some juries refuse to convict people for nonviolent drug offenses, even when the law says they should. Overcriminalization – The U.S. has thousands of laws that can turn ordinary behavior into a crime. Juries can resist unjust prosecutions by voting Not Guilty when they feel the punishment doesn’t fit the “crime.” Victimless Crimes  – Jury nullification can prevent people from being punished for acts that do not harm others, such as selling raw milk, gambling, or refusing to comply with arbitrary government regulations. Why Haven’t You Heard About Jury Nullification? If jury nullification is so powerful, why don’t more people know about it? The answer is simple: the government doesn’t want you to know. Judges won’t tell you  – In most trials, judges instruct jurors that they must apply the law as written, without questioning whether it is fair. In reality, jurors have the right to use their own judgment. Lawyers can’t talk about it  – In many courts, defense lawyers are forbidden from mentioning jury nullification. If they do, the judge may remove them from the case or declare a mistrial. Activists have been arrested  – In some cases, people handing out flyers about jury nullification near courthouses have been arrested or harassed by police. Despite these challenges, jury nullification remains a powerful tool for justice —but only if people know about it. How to Use Jury Nullification If you are called for jury duty, you have an opportunity to make a difference. Here’s how: Know your rights  – You are not legally required to convict someone just because the judge tells you to follow the law. Keep quiet during jury selection  – If a prosecutor or judge suspects you support jury nullification, they may remove you from the jury pool. Answer questions honestly, but don’t volunteer unnecessary information. Vote your conscience  – If convicting someone would be unjust, you can vote Not Guilty , even if the law was broken. Your vote is final —the judge cannot change it. Stand your ground  – Jury verdicts must be unanimous. If you hold out and refuse to convict, the case may end in a mistrial, giving the defendant another chance. What Can You Do? Educate others  – Most people don’t know about jury nullification. Share this information with family, friends, and community members. Serve on a jury  – Don’t avoid jury duty! See it as a chance to stand up for justice. Get involved  – The Fully Informed Jury Association ( FIJA.org ) provides resources to help people understand and use jury nullification. Jury nullification is one of the most powerful, yet least known, rights in our legal system. It allows ordinary citizens to stand up against government overreach, unjust laws, and unfair prosecutions. Throughout history, juries have used this power to fight tyranny, resist oppression, and protect individual rights. The next time you are called for jury duty, remember: you are not just judging the defendant—you are judging the law itself. Will you use your power?

The Aloha State is grappling with a corruption crisis that strikes at the heart of its democracy. A political bribery scheme, implicating even the FBI, has come to light, with desperate attempts to sweep it under the rug. As chairman of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii, I say enough is enough. We stand unwavering in our fight for individual liberty, limited government, and free markets—values that many scandals like this have trampled. State lawmakers took bribes to rig legislation , and the FBI, instead of rooting out this rot, orchestrated it to their ends. This isn’t justice—it’s a betrayal of the people, a glaring sign of an agency drunk on power and devoid of integrity. Meanwhile, under the authoritarian grip of Governor Josh Green, we’ve seen a flood of resignations across state government. These aren’t random exits; they’re the fallout of a system festering with corruption, where self-interest reigns over public good. This mess casts a dark shadow over the 2026 elections. Trust in government is crumbling, and who can blame the people? The Libertarian Party of Hawaii demands action—real action, not empty promises. We call for: Full Transparency: Release every document tied to this scheme, especially those the FBI is clutching tight.   Independent Investigation: Launch a non-partisan probe into the FBI’s role and this cover-up.   Legislative Overhaul: Enact reforms such as term limits and stricter oversight to reduce government overreach.   Voter Power: Urge every Hawaiian to rise up, vote out the corrupt, and back leaders who honor liberty. We’re not here only to point fingers—we’re here to fix this. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii is fighting for a government that answers to you, not the power-hungry elite. Join us. Together, we’ll dismantle this tyranny and build a Hawaii where freedom thrives.

Hawaii’s tourism industry is changing fast, and it’s sparking big fights about freedom and government control over local businesses. In July 2025, Governor Josh Green asked all 12 Hawaii Tourism Authority (HTA) board members to quit. The newly signed Senate Bill 1571  turns the board into an advisory group, puts a CEO in charge, and focuses on “green” tourism. This plan has some good parts, but mostly hurts Hawaii’s people and overall economy.  What’s Going On with HTA? The HTA has been costing us a lot. Hawaii News Now  and Honolulu Civil Beat   reported huge blunders:  a $482,000 penalty for late payments an $80,000 overspend on a Los Angeles Rams deal a $780,000 interest charge for delayed bills Workers quit, fights broke out, and a toxic workplace took over. HTA bosses ignored the Hawaii Convention Center’s roof to punish whistleblower Isaac Choy , who exposed their bad deals, costing $100 million to fix and losing millions in bookings. HTA is now controlled by the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT): The board only gives advice, with no real power. A CEO makes all decisions—hiring, spending, contracts—and answers only to the governor. Tourism shifts to “regenerative” visitors: eco-friendly, rich travelers, over big crowds. On July 3, 2025, Governor Josh Green successfully requested that all board members resign to start fresh with a greener, less messy HTA. But this plan fails libertarian values like freedom and small government, with lawmakers backing the call to action shortly after.  The Libertarian View: One Win, Big Losses Our aim is for a tiny government, free choices, and markets without meddling. Here’s how HTA’s changes stack up with liberty-centric principles: The Win: Less Board Power Cutting the board’s power is a good move. They blew a $63 million budget on bad decisions with no proper oversight mechanisms. These board removals could mean less money down the drain. Tourism should pay for its ads, not use taxpayer cash, and less board power could stop insiders from giving deals to friends. The Loss: Too Much CEO Control The plan gives all power to the CEO and the governor. The CEO decides everything—hiring, contracts, spending—and only talks to the governor, not the public. The board’s advice doesn’t matter. One or two people in charge lead to corruption, like giving jobs to buddies or hiding bad moves. This obliterates the possibility of checks and balances. The old board had open meetings and Senate-approved members. Now, the CEO and governor act in secret, ignoring the people. Locals have no say. The government must serve us, not unilaterally boss us around. This tourism plan crushes small businesses and freedom. HTA wants fewer, richer visitors, which helps fancy eco-hotels but kills local shops, restaurants, and markets that need all the tourists they can get. Total visitor arrivals are projected to decline  by 4% over the next two years, with a $1.6 billion reduction in real visitor spending by 2026. This will only get worse, bankrupting small businesses.  New rules are only going to exacerbate the problem. The Transient Accommodations Tax  will add 0.75% to the daily room rate tax starting Jan. 1. Green said this amounts to an extra $3 tax on a $400 hotel room rate. It also levies a new 11% tax on cruise ship bills starting July 2026, prorated for the number of days the vessels are in Hawaii ports, to bring cruise ship taxes in line with room taxes on land. Together with other state and county taxes, visitors will pay a nearly 19% levy on their accommodations, one of the highest rates in the country ( source ). This favors big hotels, not locals. This is the government picking its victors. Such taxes and rules raise prices and kill jobs. What’s at Risk for Locals? HTA’s changes follow the Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Plan for a greener, less tourism-heavy economy by 2050 ( State of Hawaii Office of Planning ). Forcing businesses to be “sustainable” with taxes and rules is wrong. Libertarians want businesses to choose green practices to attract customers, not to comply with state orders. Tourism is Hawaii’s economic powerhouse, encompassing 216,000 jobs and $17.8 billion in spending ( Source ). Visitors spent $245.70 daily in 2024 (2024 HTA Report), but fewer tourists will slash this cash, killing small businesses. The CEO-governor setup lets a few insiders control major portions of the Hawaiian industry. This will only end up serving big companies over local stores. The government should not control tourism. Let businesses and their patrons decide what works for them.   Hawaii’s HTA changes could have freed people, but they instead locked up power with a single CEO and the governor. This hurts businesses, hides decisions, and wrecks the economy. It’s time to end HTA and let tourism pay for itself; however, it naturally will. Hawaii needs freedom, not government control.

Politics proper is the applied study of leadership. It answers the question: “ Who rules ?” in any given social context. It is the science and art of power, and its application. It is how leaders and rulers attain the ability to act through granted power.  What most ordinary people call “politics” is, in reality, just news entertainment. The front-facing national conversation is perpetually mistaken for politics proper.  When would-be politicians enter the modern “political arena” (usually within a Party apparatus), they often enter with the misguided assumption that “winning” in politics is a result of their opinions and ideas gaining popularity and more attention. The mistake comes from observing news and public conversations about the ideas and movements of the political elite.  Political entertainment and “news” are designed in such a way as to give the viewer the impression that the conversation “matters” organically and based solely on the merits or newsworthiness of the content. However, this is a necessary tool in the art of politics. In truth, the content is designed and curated to manufacture such opinions and consent for political action. The US notion of a free and independent press helps provide diverse interests to compete within the realm of disseminated ideas — but these two fall under the same ever-present rules of politics proper, subject to the hidden turnings of the balance of power.  Shadows on a Wall To borrow from Plato’s allegory of  “ The Cave ”, the “shadow on the wall” (e.g., the “national Conversation”) is mistaken for substance. Most ordinary people who get involved in “politics” want the promotion of their opinions and ideas to higher prominence within the “national conversation”, because this is the extent of their awareness of the hidden world of power. They want to see their own shadow on the wall join in the production, and mistakenly believe that directly interacting with the other shadows is the best way to participate and be seen, which ensures they are facing the wrong direction to discern the true nature of the production. They are captivated, but unable to affect the outcomes. To cast their own shadow on the wall for the rest of the cave to see, the observers would need to turn around and truly interact with those casting the shadows from behind.  This is the defining factor that determines the successful political operator from the rest of the ignorant observers in the cave, who follow the puppet show, only dimly aware of the real events taking place behind them. If they were to turn their attention around from the cave wall, it would then become apparent they are dealing with mere men, not shadow monsters or the grand edifices of narrative storytelling.  Dividing Lines: Audacious Actions Such is the situation on the ground in American politics — the truth of power is much more visceral than we would expect, and at first glance, is offensive to our Western democratic ideals. The real decisions of weight and importance are never decided by a group. They are always determined by those rare individuals who are audacious enough to take action.  Ludwig Von Mises correctly argued that human action, rather than group consensus, was the true driver of real events and that those who chose to take representative action were the only real source of meaningful action. The power to act in a representative capacity is granted by several factors, but the most prominent is the virtue of alignment with the constituency. Once aligned, another factor comes by the constant and tacit consent of that perceived group, by which the operator gains the ability to act on their behalf as a representative.  For the group to effectively reject the proposed representative actor, it is practically necessary that some rival champion emerges from the group (another operator who is capable of taking representative actions to contest them). Only once a choice such as this is presented can the crowd explicitly offer or withhold their approval for one actor/action over another. This makes the real world of decision-makers very small indeed. The sphere of real influence can be understood as confined to those who have the power to act effectively.  Effective Rule Requires Consensus  What this means for the average civic participant is both good and bad, depending on one’s perspective. The good news is that there is no glass ceiling and that the world is open to you. Anything is possible. Simply turn, take action, and the world is open to you.  The bad news is that our vague democratic notions of diverse groups of people, slowly working out their differences through our institutions and by empirical scientific knowledge, converging slowly and inevitably together upon the truth at the center, is a very idealistic (and false) myth.  There is a kernel of truth to the myth: some consensus is needed to rule effectively, and if the ruling elite ever get so far out of balance with the concept of representative action, then the bar by which they can be overthrown is lowered. This makes it easier for other operators to take action against them and win. This is the political “law of heaven”. As noted in the Art of War, the people will only follow the will of the ruler if he is imbued with the moral law, by which he may command their loyalty.  However, this is also the means of his downfall. Here we see a peek behind the covers: the basis of power and authority is ethical morality. It has a practically necessary relationship to all real events that play out between free moral agents, and usually forms the basis for consent of the governed.   To cultivate the moral law, the shadows are projected onto the wall by those who understand the need for power. Its tendency to subjugate ever larger constituencies puts distance and layers between ignorant observers and the pivotal stage upon which the true action is taking place.  Much then depends on the quality of those actors, those craftsman who embrace the ability to act, and upon their ability to guide the shadow play toward the outcomes which they deem to be desirable, by casting their shadows in the form of human action.

The Hawaii County 2045 General Plan, finalized in July 2024, is a 25-year exhaustive framework dictating land use, housing, transportation, and environmental policies across the island. To put it bluntly, a direct assault on individual liberty, property rights, and free markets, with both global agendas and conflicts of interest among its creators. Similar initiatives are unfolding across the state of Hawaii, threatening local sovereignty statewide. We urge you to oppose this overreach before it transforms Hawaii.  Read the Final Recommended Draft . Why Oppose the Plan? Spanning over 300 pages, the plan’s zoning laws and urban growth boundaries limit property development, with mandates like “Natural Beauty Sites” preservation. It centralizes power into a few unelected planners, ignoring local autonomy and personal initiative. Policies protecting cultural and environmental areas restrict landowners’ rights to develop or sell, reducing property values without consent. Government-led housing (“missing middle” units) sidelines private innovation, relying on public funds and regulations that crowd out market competition. Capital improvements and impact fees (p. 220, 251) will enforce tax raises without consent. Extensive code amendments (Housing for All, p. 249-255) for housing and business create major compliance burdens, regulating entrepreneurship and innovation. Ties to UN Agenda 2030 The Hawaii 2045 General Plan is deeply entangled with the United Nations’ Agenda 2030, a global framework of 17 goals for sustainable development . These goals may sound benevolent, but they carry a heavy cost for local sovereignty.  The plan’s push for zero carbon emissions by 2045, aggressive renewable energy mandates, and government-controlled housing projects mirrors UN goals for clean energy, climate action, and sustainable cities. Rooted in Hawaii’s 2050 Sustainability Plan and shaped by the state Planning Department’s engagement at a 2023 UN Association meeting, this alignment raises red flags about external influence over Hawaii’s future. These measures hand control to distant global entities, eroding the ability of local communities to chart their own path. The plan’s environmental and social mandates impose restrictive regulations that threaten property rights and personal freedoms. Policies prioritizing “sustainable” development often limit a landowner’s ability to use their property as they deem fit, devaluing it without compensation. This globalist blueprint serves the interests of powerful elites, not Hawaii’s people. The hypocrisy of its loudest advocates (often linked to high-carbon lifestyles and conflicts of interest) only fuels distrust. This isn’t about saving the planet; it’s about control, and Hawaiians are right to question who truly benefits. Conflicting Interests The Jean K. Campbell Trust and Jeffrey S. Clapp Trust are linked to Zendo Kern, the previous Planning Director for Hawaii County, through a land project on the Big Island. Kern, who used to help the trusts as a consultant, later approved a plan for the same land after becoming director in late 2020, causing worries about fairness  shortly after his appointment by Mitch Roth. The Hawaii 2045 General Plan, a 25-year guide for growth, could help the trusts change their land from farming to city use. Kern’s actions unfairly favored big landowners. The trusts could make money by raising land value and selling it, or building homes and businesses. They might have wanted to use their investment in Kern to give insiders an edge, while appearing to support the community through the plan’s green goals. Similar Initiatives Across Hawaii The Hawaii 2045 General Plan isn’t an isolated scheme; it’s part of a coordinated push across the state, with individual counties rolling out their own versions of similar restrictive, top-down plans. These efforts, also cloaked in the language of sustainability and resilience, align closely with state mandates and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. And the cost is steep with the expense of local control, cultural heritage, and individual freedoms. Each island’s plan shares a troubling pattern of centralized power, erosion of property rights, and a one-size-fits-all vision that drowns out the unique voices and industries of Hawaii’s communities. Maui’s General Plan 2030  and post-2023 wildfire recovery plans promise affordable housing and climate resilience but prioritize tourism-driven development, sidelining residents’ needs. Locals are pushing back, frustrated by policies that seem to favor corporate interests over community rebuilding.  In Honolulu, the 2021 Oʻahu General Plan  and 2025-2028 Housing Plan drive urban density and transit-oriented development, threatening to displace Native Hawaiian families and small businesses.  Kauai’s 2018 Kauaʻi Kākou  claims to aim for rural preservation (similar to Hawaii's General Plan), but faces fierce opposition for imposing rigid zoning laws and land-use restrictions that limit agricultural innovation and small-scale development. The plan's heavy-handed regulations threaten Native Hawaiian land stewardship practices and block affordable housing solutions by forcing bureaucratic control over community-driven initiatives. Like Hawaii County’s plan, these initiatives are not well-received by residents, who see through the misleading rhetoric. The lack of transparency is glaring—public input is often sidelined. The true scope of these generation-altering plans is buried in dense documents and vague promises. This is a statewide assault on the Hawaiian way of life, orchestrated in lockstep to reshape our islands into a homogenized, globally compliant vision that serves elites, not locals. Act Now to Stop It! General plans across Hawaii’s counties threaten liberty, property rights, and free markets with restrictive zoning, tax hikes, and globalist ties. Here’s how you can fight back before it’s too late for the Big Island: Attend public hearings to demand less government control and more market-driven, liberty-centered solutions. The Hawaii County (2045 General Plan  is under review by the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions. Keep an eye on hearing schedules and submit testimony.  Contact your Hawaii County Representatives  to express opposition.  Act now to protect the Big Island’s sovereignty and freedom!

Living in or visiting Hawaii requires that you understand and embrace its cultural heritage, natural beauty, and legal protections. One key area to understand is your rights regarding identification when interacting with law enforcement. Whether you’re a resident, visitor, or part of the Native Hawaiian community, knowing your rights empowers you to navigate these situations confidently. Here’s a clear guide to your identification rights in Hawaii. Hawaii Is Not a "Stop & Identify" State Hawaii does not require you to provide identification just because a law enforcement officer asks. If an officer approaches you in public, you’re not legally obligated to show ID unless you’re being detained. You can politely decline to provide identification if you’re not under suspicion of a crime. Key Tip : If asked for ID, calmly ask, “ Am I being detained, or am I free to go? ” This clarifies whether the interaction is voluntary or mandatory. Detention vs. Voluntary Interaction Understanding the difference between a voluntary encounter and detention is critical: Voluntary Interaction : If you’re not detained, you’re free to leave and don’t have to provide identification. For example, if an officer asks for your name without indicating you’re under suspicion, you can respectfully decline, and even walk away. Detention : If an officer has reasonable suspicion you’re involved in criminal activity, they may detain you briefly. In this case, you must provide your name, but not necessarily a physical ID unless arrested or cited. For example, if you are stopped in Waikiki and the officer suspects you match a suspect’s description, they may detain you and ask for your name. You must give your name, but you don’t have to carry or show an ID card unless required (e.g., driving). Stay Calm and Respectful Interactions with law enforcement can be overbearing and intimidating, but staying calm and respectful is the best approach: Ask if you’re being detained to understand the situation. If you choose to provide your name or ID, do so calmly to de-escalate. Avoid becoming confrontational, as this can complicate things. Always note details like the officer’s name, badge number, and the time/location. You may need to address concerns later through legal channels. If you are being detained, you have the right to ask the officer for their name and badge number.  Special Considerations for Native Hawaiians For Native Hawaiians, interactions with law enforcement can carry cultural and historical weight due to the history of colonization and sovereignty movements. Additionally, many law enforcement officers try to dismiss, downplay or outright discriminate against the sovereign rights of native Hawaiians. Do not be deceived- your identification rights are the same as others. You only need to provide your name if detained with reasonable suspicion.  If you’re asserting cultural practices (e.g., gathering traditional plants or accessing sacred sites), calmly state your purpose and rights under Article XII, Section 7  of the Hawaii State Constitution, which protects traditional and customary Native Hawaiian practices. If questioned about land access, explain if you’re on public or trust lands where such rights apply.  Document the encounter by noting officer details, location, time, and your personal recollection of the events. If needed, contact an attorney familiar with Native Hawaiian law to follow up. Empower Yourself with Knowledge Knowledge is power. Here’s how to stay prepared: Learn Your Rights : Understand Hawaii’s laws and your Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Document Encounters : Write down or record details of every interaction and seek legal advice when possible. Share Information : Educate your community to build collective awareness. Understanding your identification rights in Hawaii is about protecting your dignity and autonomy. Whether you’re at the beach, a cultural event, or going about your day, knowing when you must identify yourself ensures fair treatment. This is vital in a state with a diverse population and a marred history of violated rights.

As fireworks crackle across the islands this Independence Day, we celebrate freedom. But in 2025, we must ask ourselves: How much of that freedom remains intact?   Most Americans don’t realize how subtly—and how "legally"—freedom has been eroded over time. A pivotal moment came in 1933, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared a national emergency during the Great Depression and amended the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA)—originally meant for wartime foreign adversaries. He used it to: Seize private gold from Americans Criminalize “hoarding” Control banking and foreign exchange   Even though the U.S. wasn’t at war, these powers were extended to citizens—setting a precedent for bypassing the Constitution under the guise of crisis. And while that “emergency” wasn’t officially lifted for decades, its legacy continues today under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).   Hawai‘i in 2025: Still Governing by Emergency   That same spirit of centralized emergency control is alive and well in Hawai‘i today. During the pandemic, Governor Green (then Lt. Governor) helped craft the state’s prolonged emergency orders. In 2025, he continues to favor top-down, executive-driven governance, often at the expense of local input and individual liberty.   Governor Green signed or supported a slate of laws that expanded executive authority under the guise of crisis management. SB 1396, known as the “Green Fee,” raised the transient accommodations tax to 11%, adding a new 0.75% surcharge on all lodging—including cruise ships—allegedly to fund climate resilience projects. Yet without dedicated oversight, this $100 million annual revenue stream is funneled into the general fund, raising serious concerns about transparency and accountability. Meanwhile, a package of fireworks bills (HB 1483 & HB 550) responded to a tragic New Year’s explosion by imposing $300 fines, creating felony charges of up to 20 years, and allocating millions for an explosives lab and undercover enforcement—expanding drone surveillance and potentially criminalizing peaceful cultural celebrations. HB 427, the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity Act, granted the governor sweeping new emergency powers to control land, seize property, and deploy funds in the name of “biosecurity,” all without clear legal triggers or judicial safeguards.   Other 2025 measures signed into law have increased centralized planning authority in the name of housing, climate, and land use—sometimes fast-tracking projects through governor-appointed working groups or commissions, and reducing the voice of communities and counties.   It’s a pattern: declare a crisis, demand compliance, centralize power, and marginalize the people.   Meanwhile, in Washington…   At the federal level, Congress recently passed the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill”—a sprawling omnibus that mixes tax credits, housing provisions, green energy spending, and corporate subsidies. While marketed as progress, it’s another massive consolidation of federal control—an example of how both parties often abandon fiscal restraint and individual liberty in the name of national improvement.   It’s no coincidence that state-level leaders follow similar logic: solve every problem with more spending, more mandates, and less accountability.   What Liberty Really Requires   July 4th shouldn’t just be a celebration—it should be a recommitment to the values that inspired independence: Local control over distant decision-making Checks on executive authority Property rights and individual autonomy Skepticism of centralized power—no matter how well-intentioned   Our rights are not granted by government—they are inherent. They should not be suspended in times of crisis. They should not depend on political convenience.   This Independence Day, the Libertarian Party of Hawai‘i renews its commitment to: Ending emergency rule as the default governance model Defending property rights and individual choice Empowering communities, not commissions Promoting accountability, transparency, and consent   The more we own our land, our bodies, our decisions—and the less we outsource those to unaccountable institutions—the freer we become.   Let’s not just wave the flag this July 4th. Let’s live the principles it stands for.