📆March 15, 2026

Let Me Speak: Notes From a Willing Outsider

Book Review by Caitlin Peters 

March is Women’s History Month, a time dedicated to celebrating the often-overlooked accomplishments and contributions that women have made to history, society, and culture. Nothing quite says overlooked like Libertarian Women, we’re the outsiders whose beliefs in individualism, freedom of choice and limited government, is something the duopoly gets fired up by or takes credit for. If you’d like to take a look at the latest contribution a Libertarian woman has made to society, look no further than Dr. Jo Jorgensen’s first book, Let Me Speak: Notes from A Willing Outsider! While this book does include anecdotes from Jorgensen’s 2020 Presidential campaign, it touches more on her first love, psychology. Unlike any other piece of libertarian literature I’ve read, Jo makes the distinction that you cannot separate politics from psychology. More importantly, this book is centered on what actually makes us happy in our quest to reduce or eliminate the government; we must seek happiness along the way.

What truly makes us happy besides slowly taking over the world and leaving everyone alone? Is it money? Is it fame? Is it being loved by your friends and family? Is it building your own homestead? Is it a combination of all of these? Combining her life experience and psychological research, Dr. Jorgensen provides solid advice on what we can do to be happier people without the mumbo jumbo that is in some self-help books. In 10 chapters, starting with planting the seeds of liberty, to setting up systems that empower you, to staying curious, to healthy eating, and finding your people, are all important reminders and building blocks for us to feel both happy and liberated. We all struggle with self-doubt and are fed up with being told what to think and do, especially by the government! This book offers a fresh take on what our best path forward is. I highly recommend this book, whether you’re a longtime Libertarian, someone new to the party, or if you want to give this book as a gift to someone curious about Libertarians.

Empathy is a powerful emotion.

By Shawn Osborne

Empathy is a powerful emotion. People need it, and many people’s lives are led in a way that coincides with the things they empathize with. Every individual has particular interests that matter to them more than other issues. Some might spend lots of energy, money, or time helping different communities or people because of the empathy they feel toward those groups or causes. These can include women’s rights, wildlife and nature, immigrants, the homeless, LGBTQ issues, refugees, or any number of other causes. The range is as vast as the individuals out there.

Yet empathy has downsides too. We may be accused by others of lacking it—called uncaring at best, hateful at worst—for not sharing someone else’s passions. 

By treating differing empathies as thought crimes, we needlessly create adversaries instead of accepting differences. 

Many examples exist today, but one that frequently dominates headlines and sparks fierce debate is gender identity in sports. 

The participation of trans women in girls’ sports draws attacks from both sides. This is not to excuse mean-spirited extremes, but to acknowledge those who genuinely empathize with one perspective over the other. 

We should recognize the fight the LGBTQ community has endured to gain basic rights the government once denied them—such as the right to marry who they love—and note that their fight continues to this day. At the same time, we should recognize that women have also struggled for their rights, from voting to, more recently, maintaining separate sports leagues where they can excel. 

To me, it boils down to force: some push to enter spaces where others don’t feel comfortable with them in that manner, while some push to exclude. 

Some women want all-women’s leagues; others are open to competing against men or trans women. People should live and compete as they choose. A trans woman uncomfortable in an all-men’s group should have the right to compete elsewhere. 

I’ve seen one potential solution in the past—and surely many others exist. My whole family loved sports; my mother, father, and aunt all played on co-ed teams. Such setups require adapted rules for physical differences. In professional hockey, women’s leagues ban body checks to protect internal organs. Yet in the 90s, French Canadian goaltender Manon Rhéaume played exhibition games with men and suited up for an NHL minor-league team. The goalie position is protected—no hits allowed—so she faced no risk of vicious contact like forwards and defensemen endure. Similarly, in 1973, Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs in the "Battle of the Sexes" tennis match, showing a woman could prevail in direct competition under standard rules with no handicaps. 

When we seek solutions rather than walls, society improves. When we stop imposing our empathy on others, we become more truly empathetic. I hope we can live with our own empathy while accepting everyone else’s.

Big Brother, coming to a street near you

By Aaron Bonn

Thanks to Assembly Bill 645, submitted three years ago by former State Assemblymember (and current US Representative) Laura Friedman and passed overwhelmingly in both chambers, the citizens of seven lucky California cities will all have the supreme fortune - whether they asked for it or not - of being part of a five year pilot program in which certain designated streets in said chosen cities will be subject to speed monitoring cameras equipped with the power to issue tickets for motorists driving at least 11 miles over the speed limit. 

Sounds like a great idea! With the best of intentions! What could possibly go wrong? 

According to ticketsnipers.com, the tickets issued by these cameras, like those issued by the red-light cameras that we have all come to know and love so much by now, will be civil penalties, not moving violations. That means that they don’t add points to your driving record, and don’t impact your insurance. However, they are real and can increase if they are not paid.

Needless to say, this program is a due-process nightmare in the making. Human Rights Watch, which opposed AB 645 precisely on those grounds, among others, has correctly and cogently pointed out that “Despite the bill’s assurance that ‘the hearing (for those who challenge their tickets) shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of contested automated speed violations’ the only evidence the issuing agency is required to present is the notice of violation, registration information, and the ASE generated photo. The agency is under no other requirements to show, for instance, the presence of proper signage, a correctly operating and duly inspected system, or any other facts relevant to the circumstances of the stated violation. More troublingly, the municipal employee who issued notice of the violation is not required to take part in the administrative hearing, eliminating any opportunity for questioning by the examiner or cross-examination by the accused. If somehow the accused is able to prove they did not commit the violation, it is only then they are refunded the civil penalty they previously paid. This refund will not remedy the loss of earnings participants may experience from the time it takes to participate in the hearing. In the far more likely event that the accused loses the shell proceeding, they must pay an additional amount to file an appeal.” 

And this, of course, is exactly why robotic law enforcement, in which punishments are assessed strictly by a machine, is inherently not compatible with justice as we know it under our Constitutional system. Because when justice is assessed by a machine, the accused has no accuser to confront, and virtually no way to overcome the presumption of guilt that is inherent in a machine-driven verdict.

Which, in turn, is of course why this precedent, and the overwhelming support with which it was enacted, should be deeply concerning to us libertarians. Regardless of how low they may set the fines, or how generous (for now) they may have set the speed threshold, the precedent this sets and reinforces is impossible to square with the rights of the accused that we should take for granted as citizens. 

All of which is to say nothing of the perverse incentives faced by the private companies tasked with running this system, if and when our due process rights conflict with their profit motive - as they inevitably will. 

The seven lucky cities which will be taking part in this pilot program are San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Glendale, and Malibu. If yours wasn’t picked, don’t worry this is, of course, just a pilot program. 

Memes of the Month