Press "Enter" to skip to content

Phil Anderson declares candidacy for US Senate, vows to fight for Peace, Prosperity and Privacy for all Americans

Phillip_Anderson

Press Release:

Phil Anderson, President of the Libertarian Party of Dane County and a lifelong resident of Wisconsin, has declared his candidacy for the United States Senate, representing Wisconsin. The election will take place in November 2016. His official statement reads:

“I am officially declaring my candidacy for US Senate. We need change in Washington D.C. and in all government. We need representatives who are not beholden to corrupt political parties; parties whose only interest is perpetuating their power. We need representatives who are more concerned about the peace, prosperity and privacy of their constituents than personal prestige and re-election.

We need representatives who will speak the truth, no matter what. We need representatives who have faith in people, acting freely and humanely, not in institutions that have inevitably become corrupt.

I will serve you by tirelessly fighting for what we all need and want- peace, prosperity and privacy. I will serve you by telling you the truth, the whole truth. I will serve you by honoring you, and the things that we all have in common, not our differences. I ask for your support. “

Phil Anderson is running for the United States Senate, representing Wisconsin. Phil is currently the President of the Libertarian Party of Dane County. Phil is also the general manager of Green Cab of Madison and a realtor with First Weber. He holds a B.A. in Geography from UW-Madison and an M.A. in Applied Theology from Balamand University. He lives in Fitchburg with his wife and 2 children. For further information about the campaign, contact Phil Anderson at (608) 345-3916 or at 4PhilAnderson@gmail.com

Full Disclosure: Phil Anderson’s candidacy has been endorsed by this author, Andy Craig, who is also running for U.S. House in Wisconsin’s 4th District.

In 2014, Anderson was a Libertarian candidate for Wisconsin State Assembly in the 47th District, winning 18.4% (4,596 votes). This Wisconsin Eye interview was conducted during that campaign.

About Post Author

Andy Craig

10 Comments

  1. Andy Craig Andy Craig Post author | September 9, 2015

    If anybody has any questions for a not-crazy Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate, I’d be happy to pass those on and maybe write up Phil’s answers in a future IPR post.

    😉

  2. Mike K Mike K September 9, 2015

    This guy is kind of an idiot…. Tried to say drunk driving was a crime. No victim no crime………….

    I should add that drunk driving is a bad thing… so is distracted driving. Should we ban people who play with the radio? How about screaming children in the back seat??? They can pose a safety threat too.. Cars are dangerous.. Should we criminalize them too?

  3. Andy Craig Andy Craig Post author | September 10, 2015

    The idea that drunk driving per se is “victimless” and should be legal as such is a minority view even among Libertarians, in my experience. For the general public it’s at best a lame defense, and even a loathsome and absurd argument.

    Intoxicated drivers are not among the risks others on the road voluntarily assume, which is what makes it different from the unavoidable risks of driving. Just like you might accept the risk that your airliner will crash, but that doesn’t mean you signed up for the pilot to be enjoying a nice dose of LSD. The standard argument that is indeed a crime, is that it’s like waving a gun around shooting into a crowd, and arguing there were no victims because you didn’t actually hit anybody.

    There are certainly a lot of legit complaints about current DUI laws. The arbitrary 0.08 BAC line causes all sorts of undesirable craziness with police focusing on borderline cases instead of the real and obvious risks of hurting someone. So in that sense the law is certainly broader than it need be, which in turn leads directly to a lot of the abuses in attempting to enforce it. But that’s entirely different from saying somebody weaving down the road sloshed out of their gourd isn’t doing anything legally actionable until he actually hits someone; that the police who’ve pulled somebody like that over should just send them on their way and come back when somebody’s dead. Good luck making that argument to voters.

  4. paulie paulie September 10, 2015

    Personally I’ve found that exhaustion can be as much or more of an impediment to driving than alcohol, but is taken a lot less seriously by police. At least as recently as the 1990s police were ordering me to get back on the road when I was very dangerously impaired by lack of sleep/exhaustion. As far as I know they are still doing that to drivers today. Telling someone drifting in and out of consciousness and drifting all over the road to go get a cup of coffee and keep driving – as they did to me and people I rode with more than once or twice – is about as useful as telling someone who is shitfaced drunk to go drink a cup of coffee, sober up and keep driving.

    People being on their phones texting or posting on facebook or whatever while driving seems to be becoming a bigger issue as well. Recently I have been in cars with several drivers who do that and I gotta say it does not make me feel safe. Maybe I’m just getting old like that.

  5. Mike K Mike K September 15, 2015

    Andy Craig I’m sorry but your confused version of libertarian ism cost you a donation to your campaign.

  6. paulie paulie September 15, 2015

    Confused in what sense?

  7. Mike K Mike K September 15, 2015

    No victim no crime. It’s a simple concept.

    Not to mention his silly comments about winning and vote totals and what not from last month or a month before.

  8. paulie paulie September 15, 2015

    If you owned a private road would you allow drunk drivers to use it? I would think that would be a serious liability problem.

  9. Andy Craig Andy Craig September 15, 2015

    Who knows what he’s referring to. Probably the heretical notion that Libertarians should actually care if they win votes or not.

    As for his supposed would-be donation– I’ll take that with a very large grain of salt. Even if it was true, and it almost certainly isn’t, it is an obnoxious and merit-less thing to say. I’ll leave changing the message to suit campaign donors to the Republicans and Democrats. Waving a $20 bill in my direction as if that will change my position on a policy matter is as insulting as it is wrong.

  10. Mike K Mike K September 16, 2015

    Case in point: “Probably the heretical notion that Libertarians should actually care if they win votes or not. “.

    Let’s just expand government while we’re at it….. since that might win us votes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.