Search Results

The Libertarian Party of Hawaii has taken a firm stand for digital privacy, decentralization, and the right to innovate, with a powerful resolution adopted on June 25, 2025. This clarion call condemns the federal government’s relentless war on cryptocurrency and its pioneers, demanding that the Trump administration immediately honor its pledges, drop unjust prosecutions, and secure the prompt release of wrongfully imprisoned individuals like Ian Freeman. We urge libertarians, crypto advocates, and defenders of liberty to join this fight by supporting campaigns like Free Ian and Free Roger . The Resolution: A Blueprint for Liberty The Libertarian Party of Hawaii’s Resolution in Support of Digital Privacy, Decentralization, and Ending the War on Cryptocurrency  is a bold rebuke of state overreach and a vision for a free, innovative future. Key points include: Digital Privacy as a Fundamental Right : Digital privacy is an inalienable extension of individual liberty. Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin empower private transactions, shielding individuals from a surveillance state. Decentralization as Empowerment : Blockchain-powered decentralized systems shift control from governments and banks to individuals, fostering innovation and resilience. Cryptocurrency as Free Market Innovation : Cryptocurrencies are a quintessential expression of free enterprise, challenging fiat monopolies and advancing economic sovereignty. Condemnation of Operation Chokepoint 2.0 : The Biden administration’s Operation Chokepoint 2.0 has weaponized financial systems to strangle crypto businesses, stifling innovation and punishing dissent. Support for Trump and Vance’s Pledge : President Donald J. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance have vowed to end Operation Chokepoint and protect Bitcoin, aligning with libertarian values of limited government. Justice for Crypto Pioneers : The prosecutions of Roman Storm, Roger Ver, William Lonergan Hill, Keonne Rodriguez, Roman Sterlingov, and others, alongside Ian Freeman’s imprisonment, are outrageous attacks on innovation. Ian Freeman and Roger Ver: Victims of the Crypto War Ian Freeman, a libertarian activist, minister, and radio host, is serving an eight-year sentence for operating an unlicensed Bitcoin exchange in New Hampshire. He empowered his community to embrace financial privacy but was punished for defying bureaucratic control. His case is a chilling warning: if Freeman can be jailed for facilitating private transactions, no advocate for decentralization is safe. Roger Ver, known as “Bitcoin Jesus,” was arrested in Spain and faces a potential 109-year U.S. sentence for alleged tax evasion and mail fraud. His real crime is pioneering a technology that threatens state control over finance. His prosecution is a calculated move to intimidate the crypto community and criminalize innovation. Freeman, Ver, and others are casualties of the federal war on cryptocurrency—a war our resolution demands an immediate end to. By calling for Freeman’s prompt release and the swift dismissal of charges against Ver, Storm, and others, we fight for a future where innovation thrives without fear. A Call to the Trump Administration The resolution issues urgent demands for the Trump administration to restore economic freedom: Immediately Drop Charges Against Crypto Innovators : Roman Storm, Roger Ver, William Lonergan Hill, Keonne Rodriguez, Roman Sterlingov, and others targeted for their cryptocurrency work must have their charges dropped now. These prosecutions are politically motivated attacks on free markets. Secure Ian Freeman’s Prompt Release : Freeman’s imprisonment is a travesty. We demand his immediate release from federal prison, recognizing his detention as an assault on libertarian principles. End Operation Chokepoint Now : The Trump administration must fulfill its pledge to immediately dismantle Operation Chokepoint and all policies weaponizing financial systems against the crypto industry. Uphold Digital Privacy and Innovation : The administration must urgently protect the rights to digital privacy, decentralization, and innovation, ensuring the crypto industry operates free from unwarranted interference. These demands are a defense of the libertarian vision for a free society. With its commitment to Bitcoin and deregulation, the Trump administration has a critical opportunity to act swiftly and reverse years of federal overreach. Join the Fight for Freedom The Libertarian Party of Hawaii is not just issuing a resolution—we’re igniting a movement. We call on our members, affiliates, and all lovers of liberty to advocate for these principles at every level. Share our resolution with your networks. Raise your voice on social media with hashtags like #FreeIanNow, #FreeRoger, and #EndTheWarOnCrypto. Most importantly, take action by supporting the campaigns to free Ian Freeman and Roger Ver: Sign the petition at FreeIanNow.org  to demand Ian Freeman’s release and attend his oral arguments on February 5, 2026, at the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse in Boston. Sign the open letter at FreeRogerNow.org  to call for the dismissal of charges against Roger Ver and support his fight against extradition. This is a pivotal moment for the libertarian movement and the future of cryptocurrency. The state’s war on digital freedom threatens not just Freeman, Ver, and Storm, but every individual who values privacy and innovation. By standing together, we can send a resounding message: we will not tolerate the criminalization of liberty.

The Aloha State—land of sun, surf, and, apparently, state-sanctioned censorship. In 2024, Governor Josh Green signed Senate Bill 2687 (SB2687)  into law, a so-called “deepfake” measure that took effect the same day and has since been wreaking havoc on free speech like a rogue wave at Waimea Bay. This legislative disaster is so vaguely worded it could turn a meme-maker into a felon faster than you can say “mahalo.”  The Libertarian Party of Hawaii stands in opposition to this affront to liberty, and we’re cheering on satirical savants at The Babylon Bee and Hawaii resident Dawn O’Brien, who filed a federal lawsuit on June 5, 2025, to dismantle this unconstitutional travesty. Here’s why SB2687 is a masterclass in government overreach and how you can join the fight to send it to the legislative landfill where it belongs. The Law: A Censorship Sledgehammer Disguised as a Scalpel SB2687, dressed up as a shield against election-related “ deep fakes ,” is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It prohibits “ recklessly distributing ” or conspiring to distribute “ materially deceptive media ” within 90 days of an election unless it’s plastered with a disclaimer that it’s been “ manipulated by technical means ”. Violators face petty misdemeanor charges, with penalties escalating to a Class C felony if the state decides you intended “ violence or bodily harm .” The devil’s in the details—or rather, the lack thereof. As Seth Dillon, CEO of The Babylon Bee, aptly noted , the law’s definition of “ materially deceptive media”  is so broad it could include “ any digital content, any sort of images that may have been altered or Photoshopped, like what the Babylon Bee posts routinely online .” We’re not just talking about hyper-realistic AI-generated videos of candidates confessing to alien abductions. This law casts a net over any digital content —memes, GIFs, satirical articles, or even a cheeky Photoshop of a politician surfing with a shark—that might “ harm someone’s reputation or electoral prospects. ” What does “ harm ” mean? Who decides? Apparently, the state of Hawaii, in its infinite wisdom, gets to play judge, jury, and executioner of your First Amendment rights. The law’s exemptions are laughably narrow. You’re safe if your content is clearly labeled as satire or parody, but only if it meets the state’s arbitrary disclaimer standards. Forget to slap a “ This is a joke ” sticker on your viral meme? Congratulations, you’re a criminal. And don’t even think about posting that snarky edit of a candidate’s speech without a lawyer on speed dial. This isn’t regulation; it’s a gag order on creativity and dissent. The Babylon Bee Stings Back On June 5, 2025, The Babylon Bee and Dawn O’Brien took a stand against this Orwellian nonsense by filing a lawsuit in federal court against Hawaii state officials. Their complaint argues that SB2687 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by criminalizing protected political speech. The suit asserts that the law’s vague and overbroad language chills free expression, particularly for satirists who thrive on pushing boundaries. They contend that SB2687’s threat of fines and jail time for “ materially deceptive ” content (especially without clear definitions) gives the state unchecked power to silence voices it doesn’t like. The Babylon Bee, known for headlines like “ Donut Sales Surge as Police Departments Refunded ,” is no stranger to legal battles over free speech. Seth Dillon has called the law a “direct attack on comedy,” warning that it could turn satire into a crime. Dawn O’Brien, a Hawaii resident with a knack for stirring the pot, joins the fight as a co-plaintiff, representing the everyday citizen whose right to meme, mock, and even critique is under siege. “Both ‘Hawai’i’ and ‘Aloha’ are rooted in ‘-ha,’ the Hawaiian word for ‘breath of life,’” said O’Brien. “It’s the very essence of our identity: to breathe and speak freely, to express our hearts with one another! No ‘ha’ means no aloha and no Hawai’i! Our governor and lawmakers are trying once again to steal inalienable rights from our Hawai’i ‘ohana’ (family/community). That is not Aloha nor is it Hawai’i! Let’s stand for our freedoms and families against illegal censorship. I stand for our beloved Aloha State!” ( Dawn O’Brien ) Their lawsuit seeks to strike down SB2687 as unconstitutional, arguing that the government has no business policing humor or political commentary, no matter how absurd or offensive. The case is a “beecon” of hope in a state where the aloha spirit is being replaced by authoritarianism. SB2687 is an assault on every Hawaiian’s freedom to speak, laugh, and challenge the powerful. SB2687: A Libertarian Nightmare As Libertarians, we believe the government’s job is to protect individual liberty, not to play nanny to our newsfeeds. SB2687 is the antithesis of that principle.  The law’s language is so nebulous that a high schooler’s TikTok edit could land them in court. Terms such as “ materially deceptive ” and harm to “the reputation or electoral prospects of a candidate. ” are subjective terms that invite abuse. If a politician claims that your satirical tweet “ harms ” their campaign, suddenly you’re facing charges and your candidacy is in jeopardy. This isn’t law; it’s a blank check for censorship. The threat of criminal penalties for posting a meme or article without a disclaimer is enough to make anyone think twice before sharing anything. Politics, much like satire, thrives on spontaneity. The ability of our candidates to think on their feet and to provide meaningful responses is something that profoundly distinguishes our candidates, but now they must tiptoe around and make certain they are not causing “ harm ” to their opposition. This is a slippery slope toward mainstream bias approval as they continue to weaponize the term “ misinformation ”. And this is not limited to news and political outlets; SB2687 turns every content creator into a potential felon, stifling the very discourse democracy depends on. Senator Karl Rhoads, who authored the bill, claims it’s needed to protect elections from disinformation. However, existing laws already cover fraud, defamation, and incitement. SB2687 doesn’t solve a problem. It creates a new one by giving the state a tool to target speech it dislikes. And let’s be real: if voters can’t tell a Babylon Bee headline from reality, the problem isn’t satire; it’s media literacy. SB2687 sets a precedent for eroding First Amendment protections under the guise of public safety. If Hawaii can criminalize a Photoshopped image, what’s stopping them from banning critical op-eds or protest signs? Support the Fight The Libertarian Party of Hawaii is all-in on crushing SB2687, and we need your help to make it happen. Here’s how you can join the rebellion: Support The Babylon Bee’s Lawsuit : Follow  @TheBabylonBee  on X for updates on how to spread the word or contribute financially. Every retweet and dollar helps keep their legal team swinging. Join the Libertarian Party of Hawaii :  We’re mobilizing to amplify this fight through press releases, member emails, and public events. Become a member to stay in the loop and help us organize rallies, forums, and advocacy campaigns.  Raise Awareness : Share this article, tweet about SB2687’s absurdity, and tag @HI4Liberty  and @TheBabylonBee . Use hashtags like #FreeSpeechHawaii and #AxeSB2687 to get the message trending. Educate your friends, and family. The more Hawaiians know, the louder our collective roar. Contact Your Legislators : Write or call your state representatives and senators to demand they repeal SB2687. Remind them that the only thing “materially deceptive” here is a law pretending to protect democracy while strangling it.  Get Loud Locally : Host a discussion group, write an op-ed for local papers like the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, or speak at community boards. We’ll provide talking points and resources as needed: email us at lphisecretary@gmail.com  to get started. SB2687 is a love letter to control freaks and a breakup note to the First Amendment. This lawsuit is our chance to fight back. It’s the kind of law you’d expect from a dystopian novel, not a state that prides itself on aloha. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii stands shoulder-to-shoulder with every Hawaiian who believes comedy, critique, and creativity shouldn’t come with a prison sentence. This law isn’t about protecting elections; it’s about protecting the powerful from being mocked. And if there’s one thing Libertarians know, it’s that the powerful hate a good laugh. Let’s send SB2687 to the shredder where it belongs. Join us, support the lawsuit, and let’s remind Hawaii that free speech isn’t just a right, it’s the soul of liberty. Mahalo for standing up, and let’s keep the aloha spirit one of freedom.

The Libertarian Party of Hawaii is proud to introduce the Ending Judicial Immunity Act . This legislation draft aims to enhance accountability within our judicial system by holding judges responsible for their actions when they violate constitutional or statutory rights.  The principle of judicial immunity has routinely shielded judges from accountability, leaving citizens with limited avenues for redress when their rights are violated. We need only to look at organizations like Pacific Legal Foundation or You Are The Power to see countless examples of Judicial overreach and misconduct. This frequently prevents justice from being served and destroys the public’s trust in our legal system. Key U.S. Supreme Court cases, such as  Stump v. Sparkman (1978) , established that judges are immune from civil suits for actions taken “in their official capacity”. This doctrine is upheld through case law, but is not established as a specific statute.  Every citizen deserves access to justice, and that right should certainly includes the ability to challenge the misconduct of judicial authority. Lack of accountability compromises the foundational principles of our democracy. Our bill seeks to correct this injustice by establishing that judges cannot evade responsibility for their actions under the guise of “immunity”. The End Judicial Immunity Act would provide JUSTICE for Hawaii. Key Provisions of the Bill The Ending Judicial Immunity Act proposes three essential changes: Removal of Judicial Immunity The bill explicitly states that judicial immunity shall not apply to civil actions that result from violations of constitutional or statutory rights. The ability to hold judges accountable upholds the fundamental principle that no one is above the law. Clarification of Defense By removing the defense of so-called “ good faith ," the bill establishes clear standards for judicial conduct. Our legislation draft stipulates that it shall not be a valid defense for judges to claim that they believed their conduct was lawful at the time of the allegations arised.  Judges must adhere to constitutional protections, and ignorance of the law or the belief that their actions were lawful is not an excuse for trampling the rights of others. Think about it. You're not allowed to respond to criminal accusations with, “ I didn't know that was illegal .” If ignorance of the law is not a valid defense for the average citizen, why is it acceptable for a judge who has made a carrier based on their knowledge of the law? Recognition of the Supremacy Clause This bill upholds the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state laws. Judges cannot prioritize State law over Federal law. This provision reinforces the obligation of judges to uphold all rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Take Action: Activism Packet Download The Libertarian Party of Hawaii invites all citizens to support the End Judicial Immunity Act by downloading our free Activism Packet . This comprehensive, open-&-go resource is designed to equip you with the tools necessary to advocate for this important legislation.  Here’s what you’ll find in the packet: Volunteer Guide : Navigate the activism packet with ease to maximize its resources. Bill Text : Stay informed about the latest legislation affecting our community. Fact Sheet : share our J. U. S. T. I. C. E. Handout to spread the word. Key Talking Points & Anticipated Questions : Prepare to confidently speak on this issue. Template Email: See an example of how to contact legislators.   Sign-up Sheet : Gather support and build a strong network. Representatives & Senators by District : Know how to connect effectively with your local elected officials. Support Contact : You don't have to do it alone! Reach out to our dedicated support team for tips and guidance. Let's work together to shape a brighter and freer future for all citizens in Hawaii. Download your free activism packet now and make a difference in advocating for judicial accountability! For additional information, support or questions, feel free to contact us directly . Together, we can restore justice and accountability in our judicial system.

For over a century, the Jones Act  has impacted Hawaii's economy to the detriment of local businesses and consumers. Enacted in 1920, this maritime law has created a protected monopoly in domestic shipping, limiting competition and driving up costs for residents .  The Jones Act eliminated competition in Hawaii's shipping industry by requiring that vessels be built, owned, and crewed by U.S. citizens. It creates recurring economic challenges for Hawaii, causing job and revenue losses. If the U.S. building and shipping requirements were removed, Hawaii could save a lot more money, create new jobs, and generate more income.      As a result of this act, Young Brothers is now the only inter-island shipping company on the market. With no competition to challenge them, Young Brothers has the power to set prices unilaterally. Young Brothers' Price Increases      Young Brothers has filed a request for a total revenue increase of $26,368,923, amounting to staggering hikes over current rates. This proposal includes several specific rate increases across various categories, with the following notable changes: LCL – Less than Pallet (Dry): 35% increase LCL – Less than Pallet (Reefer): 45% increase Hilo Containers & Straight Load: 35% increase Hazardous Materials (LCL): 35% increase Minimum Bill of Lading (MBOL): Increases ranging from 41.5% to 76.6% Automobiles: 30% increase Roll-On, Roll-Off Services: 30% increase Temporary Rate Increase (TRI): an initial 20% increase effective April 1, 2025, followed by an additional 5% increase on July 1, 2025 (applied uniformly to all regulated cargo rates).      The proposed increases come at a time when many Hawaii residents are already struggling with high costs of living. www.koloarum.com Koloa Rum Company's Legal Challenge      The Koloa Rum Company has filed a lawsuit against the Jones Act  under the Port Preference Clause of the U.S. Constitution: “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.” (U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9)      This clause explicitly states that no port should be receiving preferential treatment.  By preventing Koloa Rum Company from shipping molasses from the Philippines on foreign vessels, the Jones Act limits opportunities for local businesses. Worse still, they will have no choice but to fork over whatever Young Brothers charges. If their application passes, this could inflate the cost of shipping products by over double.       On April 15, the Pacific Legal Foundation will be bringing together a panel of experts from across the country for a virtual discussion on the history and disastrous legacy of the Jones Act. You can sign up here , and even if you can't make the scheduled time, you’ll still receive a recording. This will be a collaboration between the Pacific Legal Foundation, Cato Institute, Grassroots Institute, and Hoover Institute.       And don’t forget to raise a glass to Koloa Rum Company!

“ My hope is that the Hawaii chapter can bring a little Aloha and compassion to DOGE.” Kevin Mulkern Calling all local elected officials, appointed committee members, and community activists:   Are you looking for a new way to champion Liberty in your community? If so, we invite you to join the charge to bring a Department of Government Efficiency to your local municipal government. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii is thrilled to announce our Local DOGE Initiative, a statewide effort to empower local elected officials and activists to shrink their local governments.  The Hawaii DOGE Chairman, Kevin Mulkern, has been making plans for cutting back the bloat in Hawaii’s government. Mulkern is a long-time member of the Libertarian Party because he believes that “ we are advocates of issues, not individuals. ” Kevin, together with his wife Susan, have been trying to draw attention to government waste since they started a business over fifty years ago. You can watch his video on the impact of government waste in landscaping practices  published by Civil Beat here .  The Hawaii DOGE Initiative aims to revolutionize local governance by bringing the concept of the Department of Government Efficiency to city halls, town boards, and county commissions statewide. This committee will focus on streamlining operations, reducing wasteful spending, and empowering Hawaiian communities with transparent and accountable governance. By prioritizing efficiency and innovation, the Hawaii DOGE Committee will pave the way for more responsive, effective, and liberty-driven local governments.  Mayor Aron Lam has started working on a Local DOGE in Keenesburg, Colorado. We will have updates on implementation strategies, tactics, and more as the initiative continues to grow. Become a part of our new committee and join the fight against waste, fraud, and abuse. Fill out our volunteer form to get started.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” ("U.S. Const. amend. 10)      The Libertarian Party of Hawaii is committed to upholding the Constitution and ensuring that the decision to go to war rests firmly with the people and their elected representatives. Our “Defend the Guard” bill aims to prohibit the deployment of National Guard units into active combat without a formal declaration of war by Congress.       The primary goal of the Defend the Guard legislation is to restore the balance of war powers between the federal government and the states. As articulated in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress holds the exclusive authority to declare war. The Defend the Guard movement holds that state legislators have a civic responsibility to demand adherence to this constitutional mandate. Frequently Asked Questions: Do states have a role in the decision to send U.S. troops overseas?      Yes, states play a crucial role in this decision under the Tenth Amendment. This amendment affirms that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. The Founding Fathers intended for states to have a voice in significant policy matters, especially regarding war. How can state legislatures participate in this movement? By enacting Defend the Guard legislation, state governments can block the deployment of National Guard units into combat unless authorized by Congress. Their system for checks and balances can constrain the federal government from engaging in endless wars and ensure adherence to the U.S. Constitution. How does this legislation relate to current military authorizations? The common practice of Congress adopting an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) is a political workaround that allows the Executive branch to bypass its constitutional obligations. Our legislation emphasizes that an AUMF does not equate to a formal declaration of war. Printable Defend the Guard Tri-fold Has such legislation been introduced in other states? Yes, Defend the Guard legislation was first introduced in West Virginia in 2015 and has been presented annually since. While it has garnered bipartisan support, it has yet to pass due to political maneuvering. Our goal is to build on this momentum in Hawaii and secure sponsorship for our own bill. Can states refuse to comply with federal demands? While the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can authorize the federal government to call National Guard units for training, it has not addressed whether states can withhold their troops from combat deployments absent a congressional declaration of war. We believe such authority should be upheld if challenged. Activism Packet      The Libertarian Party of Hawaii has created a  comprehensive resource designed to equip you with the tools necessary to engage with legislators, rally support, and elevate advocacy efforts.  What's Inside the Activism Packet? Instructions Bill Text Representatives & Senators listed by District Sample Call Script Template Letter Petition  Sign-up Sheet LPHI Support Contact      Join us in advocating the protection of our armed forces and their Constitutional rights. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii invites all citizens who value constitutional governance to join us in advocating for the Defend the Guard bill. Together, we can take a stand for peace and accountability.       Download your free Defend the Guard Hawaii Activism Packet  and become an active voice for change. It’s time we bring them home.

Please consider writing testimony in support of SB962 and HB456 for the "Mark Nakashima Act," which would legalize the direct sale of raw milk and raw milk products in Hawai'i. This legislation is essential for restoring food security, supporting local farmers, and ensuring Hawai'i aligns with the majority of states that recognize an individual's right to make personal food choices. It represents a critical step toward a more sustainable, self-sufficient food system. This is a food security issue.  Hawai'i's dairy industry was once thriving, with over 160 cow dairies operating independently. Restrictive regulations forced farmers to sell to a single processor at unsustainably low prices. That and the decision to import cheaper milk from California further devastated local dairy farms. Today, 95% of Hawai'i’s milk is imported , whereas it was once 100% before Meadow Gold acquired what was once Cloverleaf, the last remaining cow dairy. The current system places our islands at risk in the event of supply chain disruptions. By legalizing direct-to-consumer raw milk sales, this bill would break the regulatory monopoly, empower small farmers , and restore competitive pricing . It would allow local dairy operations to thrive once again, reducing dependence on imports and enhancing food security. Other states, such as Maine and Pennsylvania, have successfully revitalized their dairy industries through raw milk legalization, proving that this approach works. This would also promote innovation and increase the diversity of value-added products  our farmers can provide. Concerns over raw milk safety are often overstated. Forty-eight states now allow some form of raw milk sales , and as legalization has expanded, there has been no corresponding increase in illness outbreaks . In contrast, pasteurized milk has been linked to over 80 outbreaks between 1998 and 2018, according to CDC data . For further perspective, consider these recent outbreaks in commonly consumed foods: 2023: A salmonella outbreak in cantaloupe and pre-cut fruit led to six deaths and 158 hospitalizations  in the U.S. 2024: The UK saw an E. coli outbreak linked to lettuce , causing two deaths and over 275 hospitalizations . 2023: An E. coli outbreak at McDonald’s  sickened 75 people across 13 states . If the government does not ban cantaloupe or lettuce, why single out raw milk? Modern safety protocols ensure that raw milk can be produced responsibly. The proposed legislation includes rigorous safety standards, such as veterinary oversight, bacterial testing, and clear labeling . Cambridge University published an excellent article in their Journal of Epidemiology and Infection1 discussing how raw milk can be produced with a high level of hygiene and safety. It discusses how Germany has safely regulated raw milk under the Vorzugsmilch system since the 1930s and how the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI)  in California has developed a risk analysis and management system  to assist dairy farmers in maintaining high safety standards. These models demonstrate that safe, regulated raw milk production is entirely feasible. This bill also upholds the fundamental principles of free association and voluntary exchange . Consumers who seek raw milk are not asking for government permission—they simply want the right to engage in a mutually beneficial transaction with farmers. Other states have implemented “For Pet Use Only” labeling , allowing informed consent while providing an option for pet owners who value raw milk for its nutritional benefits. Even warning/advisory labeling  goes beyond the labeling standards for food additives and dyes that are known carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, or contribute to hyperactivity yet remain widely available in processed foods. What other ways could we have legal direct to consumer raw milk sales without the commercial mainstream grocery store? Here are a few: ·         Farmers markets, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), pet food supply stores, and natural food stores ·         On-farm sales: the has the shortest supply chain and ensures consumers have a direct relationship with the producers. ·         Herdshare agreements: consumers buy a share of a cow or goat and receive a portion of its milk as co-owner. They are not buying milk but rather receiving a product of their own livestock. Making this legal still allows the industry to grow and farmers to advertise. Hawai'i already allows the sale of raw animal products, such as sushi, ceviche, and tartare. Banning raw milk while permitting these foods is inconsistent and illogical. If consumers can choose raw fish or raw beef, they should also have the right to choose raw milk. This legislation is not just about milk—it is about food security, economic freedom, and Hawai'i’s right to control its own food system. By passing the "Mark Nakashima Act," you will help restore local agriculture, expand consumer choice, and pave the way for a more resilient and abundant food future for our islands. Reference: Berge AC, Baars T (2020). Raw milk producers with high levels of hygiene and safety . Epidemiology and Infection. 148, e14, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950628820000060

HB127  proposes changes to the pretrial release system in Hawaii. It aims to set bail based on a defendant's financial capabilities.  The bill would allow defendants to evade the consequences of their actions based on their financial situation. Bail serves as a mechanism to ensure that individuals take their legal obligations seriously. This measure promotes dependency by expecting Hawaii to accommodate financial shortcomings of the accused rather than individuals taking personal accountability for their actions. It expands the role of government in assessing individual circumstances. The inevitable result would be bureaucratic inefficiencies and invasive scrutiny. This increase in state power is an infringement on individual freedoms. While the bill aims to reduce overcrowding in jails, this is a problem that was created by criminalizing everyday activities, rather than any fault with the pretrial process. Setting bail amounts based solely on the defendant's financial situation opens the door to easily release individuals who pose a genuine threat to the community. This measure risks penalizing those with stable incomes, but insufficient savings. It would treat these individuals similarly to those without any means. This approach would only create new disparities in the pretrial system, where modestly employed individuals face disadvantages instead of fair treatment. The financial disclosure requirements would also open the door wide for “perjury traps” against the poor and financially un-sophisticated. Worse, the standard would hinge entirely on the individual opinion of a single un-elected lawyer who has zero oversight and no accountability to any laws - the judge.  The proposal could significantly impact bail bondsmen by reducing the demand for their services. This will lead to fewer individuals needing to rely on bail bonds and force bondsmen to reevaluate their business models, resulting in hiked prices for everyone else. Increased competition from alternative pretrial release options, potential regulatory changes, and shifting public perceptions regarding criminal justice reform may further challenge the traditional bail bonds industry in Hawaii. This proposed legislation highlights several critical concerns regarding personal responsibility, state oversight, public safety, and fiscal implications. A more effective approach to reforming the pretrial system would be prioritizing individual accountability and limiting government intervention. Over-incarceration issues could be drastically reduced by simply refraining from prosecuting victimless crimes. Or perhaps the bail should be set only in the cases where harm was enacted on another individual? Focusing on genuine harm rather than enforcing unnecessary regulations would alleviate the burden on the justice system and promote a more just society. Help Us Oppose This Bill: Take action by following the steps: Click on the hyperlink to familiarize yourself with the bill text: HB127 Speak out against these movements.  Maps of districts and representative 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.

SB1547  would allow the Department of Budget and Finance to fast-track the issuance of special purpose revenue bonds specifically for Aloun Kauai Farming LLC.       It is important to note that Act 182 , which this bill seeks to override, is in place to provide for planning and transparency so that people can know the investment is used wisely. It’s simply unacceptable for the government to use public resources to support a single corporation, especially one with such a questionable track record. We need a government that respects the rule of law and protects the rights of everyone, not just a select few.      Aloun Farms has faced various controversies over the years. In 2009, accusations of human trafficking and mistreatment of workers were initially met with guilty pleas from the Sou brothers. However, the prosecution fumbled the case against them, and the charges were ultimately dismissed.       Since then, Aloun Farms branched out into the shrimp farming industry, purchasing a company that has already faced scrutiny over their environmental practices. This year, the Hawaii Department of Health’s draft permit proposes increasing Kauai Shrimp’s allowable wastewater discharge from five million to 20 million gallons per day .       It’s shocking that the Senate would overlook these issues and override existing laws meant to protect taxpayer funds and ensure fairness in government to grant only Aloun Farms significant and swift financial benefits. By favoring Aloun Farms, the Senate sends the message that corporate interests can take precedence over not just the small businesses, but over the law itself. This kind of favoritism removes fair competition before it can begin allowing one already wealthy and powerful business to sidestep regulations designed to protect the public.      The House and Senate completely ignored a proposal that have the potential to substantially open up the free market . That isn't their goal though is it?       The Libertarian Party of Hawaii believes in a fair and transparent government that serves all its citizens. Please urge the Senate to oppose SB1547 and uphold the values of accountability and equality.  Help Us Oppose These Bills: Take action by following the steps: Click on the hyperlink to familiarize yourself with the bill text: SB1547 Speak out against these movements.  Maps of districts and representative 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.

In a world of uncertainty and rapid change, discussions around self-sustainability are very relevant. Contrary to the media’s spin that growing food at home is more costly or impractical than buying from the store , the reality is that there is always immense value in cultivating our sustenance.      Before the involvement of Westerners, Hawaiʻi was self-sufficient and had innovative agricultural systems that produced food for thousands of people. Traditional practices, such as taro cultivation and fishpond management, exemplified sustainability and food sovereignty. Natural resources were respected and preserved for future generations.       However, Hawaiʻi’s current food situation contradicts this ideal. Today, around 85-90% of the food consumed in the islands is imported. This makes the state very vulnerable to disruptions in the global supply chain. This is an alarming statistic coming from such a temperate state that can grow nearly anything. The reliance on foreign crops, such as corn (the state’s largest cash crop) shows us just how urgent the need is for a return to local food production.  The Nutritional & Economic Benefits of Cultural Self-Sustainability       Self-sustainability means acting on the belief that individuals can take charge of their well-being, something our current state leaders don't have any faith in . Growing a diversity of vegetables, fruits, and animals is essential to a healthy and prosperous Hawaii.       Understanding the processes involved in food production cultivates a deeper appreciation for what we eat. It fosters a sense of responsibility, free from excessive regulation. It also strengthens community ties. Sharing surplus produce with neighbors or participating in local farmer's markets creates a network of support. Self-sustainability is best achieved through a collaborative free market, without government intervention. This system has the great potential to reduce hunger statistics in Hawaii.       The ability to produce our food becomes a critical asset in uncertain economic climates. During World War II, the U.S. government encouraged citizens to raise their own livestock and crops as part of the broader self-sufficiency initiative calling them “Victory Gardens”. Families were advised to grow produce, and to keep chickens, rabbits, and even goats for meat and eggs. This effort aimed to alleviate food shortages and ensure that households could adequately balance their diets. The campaign emphasized the importance of utilizing available resources and maximizing food production at home, which in turn bolstered their sense of community and resilience during wartime. Families not only enhanced their own food security but majorly contributed to the national war effort. Studies indicate that with proper land management, only 6% of Hawaiʻi's land could produce enough food to support its population of 1.43 million. Private land management, if not stopped by the state government, could and would provide for our food needs at a much lower cost to Hawaii than our current import-dependent scheme. Homegrown fruits and vegetables, along with eggs or meat, can provide nourishment and peace of mind.      Homegrown fruits and vegetables are often fresher and more nutritious than store-bought options. When we grow our food, we can control the methods and inputs used, leading to produce that is richer in flavor and nutritional content.      Additionally, the economic impact of increasing local food production is substantial. Replacing just 10% of imported food could generate approximately $313 million in economic activity, creating jobs and reducing dependency on external markets.       Food sovereignty also holds cultural and sociological implications. In Hawaiʻi, the land and its natural resources are revered, and viewed as elders that must be respected and cared for. The Hawaiian proverb “ He aliʻi ka ʻāina, he kauwā ke kanaka ” translates to “ The land is chief, man is a servant .” This saying acknowledges that man’s relationship with the land is one of stewardship. Such a philosophy encourages sustainable practices that honor the land’s gifts. Trade Laws and Market Limitations      Hawaiʻi, despite its rich agricultural potential, remains one of the world’s largest importers of food, despite the imported food being vastly more expensive to produce and ship than local food. This paradox is the result of a combination of geographical isolation, bad state government policy, and restrictive trade laws that stifle local production and the free market. One significant factor is the Jones Act, a federal law requiring that goods transported between U.S. ports be carried on ships that are built, owned, and operated by Americans. This regulation drastically increases shipping costs and limits the number of vessels available to transport food to the islands. This framework makes imported goods more expensive and less accessible.      Strict agricultural regulations and trade policies further complicate Hawaiʻi's ability to produce and distribute food locally. These laws often prioritize large-scale, industrial agriculture over small, sustainable farming practices. The complexities of compliance with federal regulations can discourage new entrants to local agriculture, preventing innovation and the diversity of crops produced.      For example, regulations surrounding dairy and meat production in Hawaiʻi present significant challenges for local farmers and hinder the free market. Stringent health and safety standards often impose weighty compliance measures that small producers often struggle to meet. Local dairy farms must adhere to rigorous pasteurization and facility requirements that can be financially prohibitive, discouraging new entrants into the market. As a result, consumers are left with limited access to fresh, locally sourced dairy products, forcing them to rely on imported alternatives that may not align with their preferences for quality and sustainability. This is a big reason why we support the state-wide legalization of raw milk .      Meat producers are also burdened by regulations. Licenses, inspections, and processing requirements create barriers that disproportionately affect local producers, making it nearly impossible for them to compete with larger, industrial suppliers. This regulatory landscape lessens the availability of fresh, high-quality meats for consumers.       The combination of these laws has led to an overall reliance on imported food, leaving Hawaiʻi vulnerable to external shocks, such as natural disasters or global supply chain disruptions. By reforming trade laws like the Jones Act and re-evaluating agricultural policies, Hawaiʻi could enhance its local food production capacity and reduce dependency on imports for a more resilient economy.      If Hawaii were to embrace a free market approach, Hawaiʻi could reclaim its status as a self-sufficient food producer, ensuring that the islands not only feed their current population but once again become a model for sustainable food systems globally. Embracing a Free & Sustainable Future      The act of producing food at home is more than just an economic decision; it’s a commitment to self-sustainability, cultural heritage, and preparedness in an unpredictable world. Looking back on history we can adopt a philosophy of self-reliance, we can stand resilient in our communities.      The simple act of growing our food can empower us to reclaim our independence, build connections with those around us, and ensure our families have their needs met. This path would be a collective movement toward a more sustainable and free future, where individuals take responsibility for their own lives and well-being while honoring the land that sustains us. The source I used for statistics are from 2023 and can be found here .

As the Libertarian Party of Hawaii, we are committed to the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and voluntary exchange. These values are fundamental to a free society and should no doubt extend to our electoral process. However, the proposed bill SB51  for comprehensive public financing of campaigns poses significant threats to these ideals. Here’s why we must oppose this initiative.      By instituting a public financing program, the state is effectively inserting itself into the very fabric of political competition. This increased government intervention contradicts our principle of minimal state involvement in the lives of individuals. We must ask ourselves whether we want bureaucrats deciding which candidates are worthy of receiving taxpayer money, thereby influencing who gets to compete in the political arena. Without this type of interference, candidates of all economic backgrounds can seek grassroots support, meaning tax payers would have the freedom to choose the candidates they want.       Hawaii has previously experimented with publicly funded campaigns, but these initiatives have often fallen short of their intended goals. Past programs have struggled with low participation rates and bureaucratic inefficiencies. Many candidates opted out of public financing altogether, viewing it as inadequate for running effective campaigns. It’s understandable why. Would you willingly vote for someone you knew was running on a campaign bought and paid for by the state?      The Campaign Spending Commission (CSC) would be responsible for determining which candidates are approved for public funding. This raises serious ethical concerns and potential conflicts of interest. When a government body decides who can access campaign resources, it opens the door to favoritism and bias. The CSC would have the ultimate authority, effectively giving them one of the largest voices in the election process.       Need I remind you that the Governor appoints the members of the CSC into their roles? CSC oversight on a scheme like this can easily turn into a power dynamic where political favor can influence funding decisions. Candidates may feel pressured to align with the interests of the commission rather than their constituents, should they be approved at all. Such conflict erodes the already fragile trust in our electoral system and compromises the integrity of the democratic process.      One of the most egregious aspects of this bill is its reliance on taxpayer funds to support political campaigns. This proposal mandates that citizens finance candidates they may not support or believe in. As libertarians, we assert that individuals should have the right to choose where their political donations go. Taxpayers should not be forced to fund any political campaigns; why should someone’s hard-earned money be used to promote candidates or ideologies they oppose?      We cherish the idea of voluntary association and the free market. Allowing candidates to rely on public funding diminishes the influence of private contributions, which serve as a crucial indicator of grassroots support. If candidates know they can depend on government funds to run their campaigns, they will be less inclined to connect with constituents and seek support from their communities. This lays the groundwork for a political landscape where candidates are more beholden to bureaucrats than to the very voters they are supposed to represent.      The establishment of public financing systems leads to increased bureaucracy. Government programs are notorious for their inefficiency, and this one will be no different. The bill states:  “Candidates who choose to participate in the State's comprehensive public funding program established by this Act, after obtaining a minimum of $5 donations from voters, would be barred from soliciting, accepting, or using contributions from any source other than the program's public funds .“      The more layers of government oversight we add, the more cumbersome and ineffective the process becomes. Red tape would stifle the competition this bill claims to promote.      Proponents of public financing argue that it levels the playing field and reduces the influence of wealthy donors. However, this view overlooks the reality that the best way to ensure fair competition is to promote an open marketplace of ideas. State financing does not eliminate the influence of money; it shifts it from private donors to the government. Voters should have the ultimate authority to support candidates they believe in, and this alone should be the determining factor of a fair election. Help Us Oppose These Bills: Take action by following the steps: Click on the hyperlink to familiarize yourself with the bill text: SB51 . Keep an eye out for its house companion, because it hasn't been introduced yet.  Speak out against these movements.  Maps of districts and representative 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.

Hawaii's proposed SB1395/HB1076 , aimed at establishing a “Climate Mitigation and Resiliency Special Fund”, would be a waste of DoD resources and of emergency funds. The approach taken to “mitigate climate change” is nothing short of government overreach and fiscal irresponsibility.      Establishing a special fund administered by the Department of Defense (DOD) would be an expansion of government authority into areas far better suited for the private sector. Climate solutions should emerge from voluntary cooperation and market-driven initiatives, not bureaucratic mandates. The DOD's involvement also opens the door to mission creep as it would divert resources from the emergency funds, to the national defense, and then finally to climate-related projects. This could easily lead to inefficiencies in the defense department as well as a lack of expertise in environmental management. Seriously, we wouldn't want a climate activist to handle our civil defense strategies would we? This concept was a monumental failure in the case of Lahaina.      The bill proposes allocating funds from the Transient Accommodations Tax and interest from the Emergency and Budget Reserve Fund to the new special fund. No wonder Governor Green has no faith in Hawaii’s ability to respond to emergencies ; it all keeps getting diverted. This raises several questions about the prioritization of government spending. Instead of making slush funds to pay for their pet projects , the state should consider reducing taxes  and allowing individuals to manage their resources as they see fit. Or here’s a genius idea: be transparent about where the funds are going and stop playing games with the books.      The bill also includes provisions for appropriations that do not lapse at the end of fiscal years, potentially leading to a perpetual cycle of spending without accountability. Lack of oversight always creates a breeding ground for waste and inefficiency. The government needs to live within its means and prioritize essential services over expansive and never-ending environmental programs. SB1395 relies on government intervention and misallocation of resources.       A more effective strategy would involve individuals and the private sector responding to environmental challenges as they deem necessary without government interference. The State has no more power to “save our planet” than the average person does. And the individual’s motivating factors are almost always better than bureaucratic whim. Help Us Oppose These Bills Take action by following the steps: Click on the hyperlink to familiarize yourself with the bill text: SB1395/HB1076 Speak out against these movements.  Maps of districts and representative 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.