Search Results

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.

Hawaii’s latest attempts at cannabis reform, in bills like HB1246/1613   and HB1109/SB142 , have been touted as steps toward legalization. In reality, they propose an oppressive regulatory scheme that stifles progress, burdens small operators, and maintains the status quo of control rather than freedom. These bills don’t dismantle prohibition; they layer it with bureaucracy. While they permit adults over 21 to possess small amounts of cannabis (up to an ounce) and grow a handful of plants starting in 2026, the framework is shackled by heavy-handed oversight. The proposed Hawaii Cannabis and Hemp Office, nested within the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, would wield expansive powers to license, tax, and track every seed to sale. This isn’t legalization; it’s a government chokehold dressed up as reform. The proposals would ensure the state dictates who can participate and not the people. And these regulations would not necessarily be limited to smokable products. HB 1108/SB1427  would redefine manufactured hemp products to include even topicals like shampoos and lotions.  The punitive elements remain glaringly intact. New criminal penalties, like jail time for loose cannabis in vehicles or arbitrary THC limits for drivers, defy the spirit of legalization. These measures, criticized by advocates like the Marijuana Policy Project , risk entangling more people in the justice system rather than freeing them from it. Expungements, while included, are petition-based and delayed, leaving the burden on individuals to navigate a slow, state-controlled process. True legalization would erase these relics of prohibition, not polish them. The bills disproportionately favor corporate interests over local growers. Existing medical dispensaries get first dibs on adult-use licenses, while small-scale farmers face steep barriers like high fees, residency requirements, and caps on ownership that may sound equitable but in practice exclude those without deep pockets or political connections. Testimony from small growers in past sessions has highlighted this imbalance, with fears that the system mimics other states where legalization enriched a few while sidelining grassroots operators. Hawaii’s bills promise social equity but deliver a token nod, not a real opportunity. The timelines and taxation scream control, not progress. With implementation pushed to 2026 and a 14% excise tax piled atop existing sales taxes, the state prioritizes revenue over accessibility. This delay gives regulators time to tighten their grip, while high costs ensure cannabis remains a luxury, not a right—echoing Senator Brenton Awa’s 2023 critique that dispensary-centric models price out everyday users. And just in case these three measures aren't approved, there is a third bill proposed.  HB1110/SB1429  -  would retroactively repeal the sunset date of the authorization for primary caregivers to cultivate medical cannabis for their qualifying patients, while adding a new limit of five plants per grower.  Hawaii’s 2025 cannabis bills aren’t legalization—they’re a mirage of reform, cloaking an oppressive regulatory maze that entrenches power, punishes the vulnerable, and stalls genuine change. The Aloha State deserves better than this half-measure masquerading as freedom. We don’t need a special law to allow cannabis use - we need to end the lawfare and repeal the laws that enable state abuse of cannabis users. Freedom is easy, and doesn’t require hundreds of pages of regulation & enforcement to produce.  Help Us Oppose These Bills: Take action by following the steps: Click on the hyperlinks in the article above to familiarize yourself with the bill text(s). 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.

The Libertarian Party of Hawaii was opposed to SB1043/HB959 , a legislative proposal related to taxation, due to several concerning points. However, we find ourselves in support of the revised version. Outlined below are our concerns regarding the original proposal and why the amended bill aligns more closely with our principles. The Original Version: Incremental Tax Increases: Increasing taxes contradicts our belief in minimal government interference in personal finances. Tax Exemption & Deduction Scheme:  By opposing this measure, we advocated for a less complicated and demanding tax structure that allows for more straightforward financial planning. We believe that the market should determine outcomes , not government intervention. Maui Recovery Special Fund: Aside from the fact that this is yet another tax increase, we were very concerned about the government’s ability to effectively manage and allocate these funds without bureaucratic inefficiencies, especially in light of their recent history . Without something like the proposed emergency bill  passing first, the expenditures would have virtually no oversight.  The New Version: Exempts Grocery taxes Exempts nonprescription drug taxes After reviewing the amended version, we were pleasantly surprised. It was slashed completely, going from 42 pages down to only 2. The amended version left only tax cuts while eliminating all the bad portions.  We believe this new version would support lower-income households and promote individual freedom in purchasing decisions. The Libertarian Party of Hawaii remains committed to advocating for individual liberties and minimal government interference. We initially opposed SB1043 due to its potential negative impacts on taxpayers and the economy, but the amendments made to the bill are a night and day difference. We believe that the revised version aligns more closely with our core values and supports the residents of Hawaii in a fair and efficient manner.  Help Us Reduce Taxes: Testimony is open now, and the hearing is set for February 27. Take action today!  Click on the hyperlinks to familiarize yourself with the bill text(s). SB1043/HB959 Our regularly updated schedule of hearing dates helps you to know when to submit.  Take action by speaking 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.

SB1404 & HB1085  would repeal previous tax rates on tobacco products and replace them with tax rates for cigarettes, e-smoking devices, and little cigars. It is among the many many tax hike proposals this session. Specific Tax Amounts:  16.00 cents  for each cigarette or little cigar sold, used, or possessed. Unspecified  cents for cigarettes and little cigars sold, used, or possessed. 70% of the wholesale price for most tobacco products (excluding large cigars, e-smoking devices, and e-liquids). 50% of the wholesale price for large cigars. 70% of the wholesale price for electronic smoking devices and e-liquids sold. Revenue Allocation:   Specified percentages of tax revenues will be deposited into various “special funds” including Hawaii Cancer Research, Trauma System, Community Health Centers, and Emergency Medical Services Special Funds. Individuals should have the autonomy to make their own choices regarding tobacco consumption without facing punitive financial consequences from the state. Taxing personal habits infringes upon the fundamental right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Higher taxes on tobacco products serve as a regressive burden, making it more difficult for economically disadvantaged individuals to afford their basic goods.  The assumption that higher taxes will effectively deter tobacco has already been proven false. Similar to prohibition , history has shown that such measures fail to reduce smoking rates and can lead to the development of black markets. Promoting personal responsibility and education is a far more effective strategy than punitive taxation which harms both the business owner and the consumer. This bill sets a dangerous precedent for further regulation and taxation of personal choices. This bill represents a step toward a more authoritarian state that undermines personal liberties. HB1085 is an attempt to regulate personal behavior through taxation. As advocates for liberty, we must resist legislation that prioritizes government control over personal freedom. We should instead encourage an environment where individuals are trusted to make informed choices about their health and well-being. Help Us Oppose this Bill: Click on the hyperlink to familiarize yourself with the bill text: SB1404 & HB1085   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.