Here is part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6G1rq5LdA4

I'm writing today to publicly state that I support Wayne Allyn Root for Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee along with his running mate, Mark Rutherford who seeks the Vice-Chairmanship. I have had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Root on more than one occasion as he tirelessly and unselfishly has spent time visiting my state and engaging with some of our leaders. I have known Mr. Rutherford for what this year marks as a full decade.
There has no doubt been significant and often unflattering discussion amongst members, fans and observers of the Libertarian Party regarding who should next lead the party. The national convention approaches in just a couple of days and I know that the other individuals vying for these positions with the party are bright, well-meaning people. Even when some of the rhetoric and tactics in trying to discredit Mr. Root have been divisive or misleading I like to believe that it is over an interest in protecting the Libertarian brand however misguided the effort. Regardless, it is clear that the Libertarian Party needs leadership that goes beyond an interest in intellectual debate and rock throwing.
The current environment is ripe for the Libertarian Party, if not libertarians of any affiliation, to stand up, be heard and let America know that there is another way. So many voters have really started to realize that the two old political parties are really just clubs with an interest in raising money and seeking power via elections and that they are not really organizations dedicated to preserving liberties, rights or Constitutional government. Sure, there might be some good people holding office who are still trapped within the old two-party system; but, how often are those folks with whom we might most agree marginalized despite their broad appeal?
In order to get the libertarian message out, I firmly believe that the party needs not only the kind of savvy intellectual leadership that Mr. Rutherford brings to the table but also the energy, enthusiasm and know-how that Wayne Root desires deeply to leverage for the benefit of this great country. If you want someone who can take a message to the media and to the people, who can engage with them and spread enthusiasm for libertarian candidates and ideals than Wayne is the guy. His choice of Mark Rutherford, the once long-serving Indiana State Chairman, shows that he wants to ally himself with people who have proven they can develop a Libertarian organization into an accessible, credible and important part of the political dialog as Mark and his immediate successors have done.
If you're looking for some kind of purity test that would isolate libertarian support down to only the most anarcho-capitalist folks among the party's ranks than, indeed, you may not be ready to help demonstrate to the rest of the world the kinds of pragmatic, sensible solutions that would gradually and increasingly show people that libertarian ideals and philosophy can and will work in the real world. The kinds of things that show that we can be measured and patient while peeling back the onion of spending, taxation and government control of our lives. And more than anything the voters need to know that the Libertarian Party will pay more than lip service to these issues; but, that if given the reigns it will prove that they meant it. Let's give Wayne and Mark a chance to see what they can do. It's time for some fresh perspectives while still sticking true to our core beliefs.
(note: the author is a former Libertarian candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, a former communications director for his county party, a policy advisor and occasional speaker on libertarian issues and helped other volunteers organize and support Indiana Tea Party efforts as far back as 2007)

Local business attorney and former State Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Indiana is seeking the National Vice-Chairmanship along with Nevada entrepreneur Wayne Allen Root who is seeking the Chairmanship.
A letter, the text of which follows, issued by the Rutherford campaign went out to Libertarians across the country.

Dear fellow patriots,

America is not a place ... a country ... or even its people.

At its core, America is an idea. An idea that all men (and women) are by their nature endowed with rights and that government exists only to protect those rights. This was the vision of our forefathers and it is a guiding belief of the Libertarian Party.

The Libertarian Party has a strong platform of principles that uphold the American tradition of freedom and tolerance and in today’s political environment, never before have we seen so many willingly embrace these principles. Indeed, it is a proud day to be a Libertarian.

I am a proud Libertarian, and many of you know me to have championed many Libertarian causes and groups in the past. I led the Libertarian Party of Indiana for many years and helped make it one of the most successful state parties in the country. I am also on the Indiana Public Defender Commissioner (appointed as a Libertarian to the Commission by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels) and currently serve as its Chairman. I started Atlas!Liberty Pac, a non-profit organization aimed at promoting the next generation of Libertarian thinkers and leaders. I am also on the board of directors for Advocates for Self-Government, which serves to spread the message of liberty. Most importantly, I served for many years as a faithful member of the LNC, where I’ve seen first hand what needs to be done so much better in order for us to become a dominant political party.

However, despite all my efforts to promote liberty, none have been as important as the challenge we face now, together. We will soon be electing our next Chair. Who we choose will determine the direction that this party, our party, shall take. It is a choice for the future of the Libertarian Party; can we fulfill our political destiny?

We can all agree that in order for us to continue growing, we have to show that the party of principle is broad, diverse, and inclusive. We need a Chair that is vocal about Libertarian principles and that can penetrate the media to reach the minds of more Americans. Only then can the Libertarian Party ascend to bring its principles to the national debate and save our country.

I am proud to be joining with Wayne Allyn Root in an effort to save our country through building a powerful, effective force of freedom.

I have joined with Wayne to help build the infrastructure, media outreach and professional branding the party will need to run effective campaigns and build a political party that can challenge the status quo of ever-growing government being imposed upon us by the two dominant political parties.

But we can’t do it without your help.

Whether you have been involved with our party for many years or even if you are brand new, I want you to become a delegate to the Libertarian Party National Convention.

Attend the convention in St. Louis this Memorial Day Weekend. As a delegate you can proudly cast your vote of support for the Root/Rutherford team

Vote to bring the Libertarian Party to the forefront to engage freedom’s opponents in a battle for America’s birthright.

Mark Rutherford,

Candidate for Vice Chairman of the Libertarian Party

Somebody sent me a message on Facebook today (feel free to look me up and friend me) asking what "Panarchy" was. Panarchy is an idea that I've become very interested in because it is a concept that provides for open competition between systems of government and taxation. As we all know, when there is no competition for a product that service may be lousy and the price can be high, where else are you going to go?
In the case of government, that is exactly how it is too, "Where else are you going to go?". There also seems to be a lot of confusion, mostly due to misuse of the word, in the media over what "anarchy" is. Below is a slightly edited copy of my very brief and hastily typed response to the Panarchy question and their concern they had about anything that sounds anarchistic.
Anarchy is just a state where each person lives free to interact voluntarily with all others. All things would be private including police and legal systems with open competition and mediation and private third party intermediaries and other mechanisms between them to ensure justice and the protection of each person's natural rights. Anarchy should NOT be confused with "chaos" or "violence" even though those in the media who do not understand the nuance in word selection may try to substitute one for the other. While anarchy may mean no government, it does not mean those functions are not performed or handled in other ways.

Panarchy is an idea that basically allows for open competition between government systems and you would voluntarily align yourself, perhaps contractually, with the one that suits your needs, preferences and values.

Most government systems are basically nothing more than a monopoly on violence, force and theft within the imaginary lines drawn on maps by men. Imagine if a government system you belonged to started charging too much for the services they provide, or started providing services you don't need so you voluntarily de-affiliate and become a citizen of a different system without having to relocate geographically. That way socialists can be (broke) socialists, communists can be communists and free market capitalists can be just that and the different groups need not bother each other with their polices. So long as basic natural and contractual rights and obligations are enforced each system could operate under a very small legal framework with each sub-system augmenting as necessary for their needs.

The overlying mechanism that would make this work and one that I think still makes me prefer panarchy or minarchy instead of anarchy is the idea of that basic legal framework for the protection of individual natural rights. Nobody, not even elected officials or their minions, would be allowed to steal or oppress people without them first having agreed to such by their voluntary association.

Hope this helps. It's an idea that needs more attention and the advent of technology probably makes it more plausible today. There are a lot of potential complications, for example, a company might have to be authorized to do business with citizens of each or any particular system and might be subject to different kinds of restrictions within each population group; but, this is no different than companies doing business in different countries or jurisdictions. Even state laws and regulations vary.Even if not at the individual level, which is preferable, different cities or towns might opt-in to a specific system of governance. There are lots of things that would need to be examined, and certainly the idea of people or groups of people having those kinds of options scares the heck out of big government apologists of the status quo variety who lack imagination; but, otherwise, you're stuck unless you want to pick up and move, emigrate to another country, potentially lose your voting rights, unseat your family or your career.Basically, getting rid of government having a monopoly. Competition, like in everything else, would ensure better service and lower prices (taxes are the price way for our government - we know what happens when there is no competition). I've not really considered this idea fully from a practical perspective; but, I think it warrants some thought. But, I caution that when coming up with roadblocks, objections or complications to stop and really think through whatever the issue is and ask, "hmmmm... how might that work in this kind of environment?", "what kind of cooperation between groups would be needed?" and "could it be any worse than what we have now?"

The recent so-called "health care reform" bill, which in reality didn't so much reform "health care" as to addressing the high cost of care but in reality was a big government shuffling of the health care "insurance" and "pre-paid care" business is already working to limit the supply of hospitals.
Here are some excerpts from an article at CNSNEWS.com today whose site was most unavailable after The Drudge Report posted a link:
The new health care overhaul law, which promised increased access and efficiency in health care, will prevent doctor-owned hospitals from adding more rooms and more beds, says a group that advocates physician involvement in every aspect of health care delivery.

Physician-owned hospitals are advertised as less bureaucratic and more focused on doctor-patient decision making. However, larger corporate hospitals say doctor-owned facilities discriminate in favor of high-income patients and refer business to themselves.

The new health care rules single out such hospitals, making new physician-owned projects ineligible to receive payments for Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Existing doctor-owned hospitals will be grandfathered in to get government funds for patients but must seek permission from the Department of Health and Human Services to expand.

To get the department’s permission, a doctor-owned hospital must be in a county where population growth is 150 percent of the population growth of the state in the last five years; inpatient admissions must be equal to all hospitals located in the county; the bed-occupancy rate must not be greater than the state average, and the hospital must be located in a state where hospital bed capacity is less than the national average.

The rules fall under Title VI, Section 6001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The provision is titled “Physician Ownership and Other Transparency – Limitations on Medicare Exceptions to the Prohibition on Certain Physician Referral for Hospitals.”

More than 60 doctor-owned hospitals across the country that were in the development stage will be canceled, said Molly Sandvig, executive director of Physician Hospitals of America (PHA).
The article goes on to talk about nurse to patient ratios, the employment impact of doctor-owned hospitals and how corporatist interests have been working to limit the suppy of them:
The organization says physician-owned hospitals have higher patient satisfaction, greater control over medical decisions for patients and doctor, better quality care and lower costs. Further, physician-owned hospitals have an average 4-1 patient-to-nurse ratio, compared to the national average of 8-1 for general hospitals.

Further, these 260 doctor-owned hospitals in 38 states provide 55,000 jobs, $2.4 billion in payroll and pay $509 million in federal taxes, according to the PHA.

In one ironic aspect, President Barack Obama’s two largest legislative achievements clashed. The Hammond Community Hospital in North Hammond, Ind., got $7 million in bond money from the federal stimulus act in 2009. It will likely be scrapped because of the new rules on physician-owned hospitals, according to the Post-Tribune newspaper in Merrillville, Ind.

Doctor-owned hospitals have long been a target of the American Hospital Association, which represents corporate-owned hospitals as well as non-profit hospitals. This is the kind of action on the part of government that limits competition and innovation rather than encouraging it. At the same time, if patients took more control of their health care dollars and decisions they might be more apt to shop around. Historically, people have just submitted themselves to the doctor's directions rather than asking if there are any less expensive options. We also have an issue where doctors are limited in which hospitals they may provide services at, this further limits patient choices in ways that may or may not be appropriate but might be understandable from a hospital administration perspective. The problem is that often the doctors can't tell you what the full price will be for any kind of procedure ... hardly anyone ever asks apparently.
In short, the whole health care delivery system needs to overhauled; but, massive government regulation and red tape stand in the way. Instead of getting less red tape, Congress just gave us a bunch more. Once again, taking the country in the wrong direction.