Minnesota LP Vice Chair Interview Draws Criticism from Minnesota IP Candidate

S.L. Malleck

Libertarian Party of Minnesota vice chair S.L. Malleck was recently interviewed by Cyndy Brucato of MinnPost, following their incorrectly identifying libertarian Republican activist Bill Jungbauer as a Libertarian. The Malleck interview mainly explains the LP’s ideology and differentiates the LP from the Republicans. An excerpt:

MP: Why do some Republicans describe themselves as libertarian?
SM: There are two types. There are Republican libertarians who truly believe in liberty. Others are conservatives and see libertarian as a hip new way to describe themselves as conservatives. Some are truly libertarian and some are not.

MP: Rand Paul brands himself a libertarian and his Republican supporters use the word a lot. What do you think of the use of the term liberty as a political message?
SM: Rand Paul is libertarian leaning on certain issues, for example: surveillance. But he supports continuing the drug war. Conservatives tend to talk about freedom, but what they do is just the opposite. Bush [Pres. George W.] promoted TARP [the 2008 government program that purchased assets from banks to strengthen the financial sector]. When big institutions get government support and little guy is paying for those efforts, that is not freedom.

However, the interviewer also asked Malleck to differentiate the LP from the Independence Party of Minnesota:

MP: What is the difference between the Libertarian Party and the Independence Party?
SM: The Independence Party is a centrist party that moves in an authoritarian direction, supporting a government approach. We are centrist in a pro-liberty direction. Let me give you an example. We have the FDA, which regulates food as well as pharmaceutical drugs. But the market is capable of performing the regulatory function. A great example is Underwriters Laboratories – UL – a private, for-profit company. And UL has competitors. We believe we should rely more on entrepreneurs to do things that government is spending a lot of money on and not doing very well.

Dave Sullivan-Nightengale, an Independence Party candidate for St. Paul City Council responded on the party’s website:

Recently, MinnPost’s Cyndy Brucato, a known conservative stalwart in Minnesota media politics, interviewed the Libertarian Party of Minnesota’s vice chair S.L. Malleck. The intersection of accusations levied against the Independence Party of Minnesota with misguided information on government and third-party approval agency regulatory environment demands my attention.

Obviously, I’m a member of the IP. Those who know me in my paid-professional environment know I work with exida, Underwriters Laboratories, Factory Mutual, and both government and non-government approvals agencies and standards bodies. I’ve also helped to develop DoD regulations on safety and industry regulations on unmanned aircraft. I know what works and what doesn’t in various regulatory frameworks of many national and international organizations when it comes to transportation safety, functional safety, and environmental protection. While I don’t always agree with and cannot represent the IP on each of these issues, I can certainly levy my expert opinion on the issues.

You don’t need to go far to see how misguided an unregulated environment would be if the Libertarian Party had its way. The bottom line, is we’ve done it the Libertarian way before and got a lot of people killed and raised taxes and our national debt the Libertarian way.

For example, the recent General Motors recalls for ignition switch failures, the Takata air bag recall, the Honda seat belt recall of 1995, and the VW emissions cheating scandal clearly show that third party approval agencies alone are not enough to self-regulate.

What does work is when government and industry work together to develop consensus standards that are scientifically objective. Commercial aircraft development is a shining example of a highly-regulated environment by both government and commercial standards.

When government goes it alone, like the Department of Defense often does with its standards, the standards are too often tied to just a few people in government who really understand them thoroughly to implement them. As a result, this adds expense end stymies good ideas about how to design and test things that are safety critical like boats, power plants, cars, offshore oil platforms, trains and planes.

We know both regulatory extremes are bad for the public. Both lack public input and oversight due to through government bureaucracy or private industry secrecy. We know the consumer cannot regulate the industry because we keep buying products and services that kill us! We allow trains with DOT111 cars full of oil that are uncrashworthy within 50 feet of our houses – one failure away from incinerating our loved ones within seconds. All it takes is for one worker to inadvertently leave a derailer on a track or for a switch to be a few inches out of position.

Join me, and together we can engineer solutions for our future that make sense, are verifiable, and where we can hold both government and industry accountable.

6 thoughts on “Minnesota LP Vice Chair Interview Draws Criticism from Minnesota IP Candidate

  1. jim

    Apparently, this guy “S.L. Malleck” who was interviewed is nutty. He said, quoted in this article:

    “You don’t need to go far to see how misguided an unregulated environment would be if the Libertarian Party had its way. The bottom line, is we’ve done it the Libertarian way before and got a lot of people killed and raised taxes and our national debt the Libertarian way.”

    I simply don’t recall ‘doing it the Libertarian way’. Did I sleep too late? I must have missed it?

  2. Andy Craig

    “What does work is when government and industry work together to develop consensus.”

    Good to know Invictus isn’t the only fan of Mussolini in American politics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *