Author name: Paul Darr

During a past campaign speech, Donald Trump made a significant pledge: to release on day one of his Presidency Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road, who is currently serving a life sentence in federal prison for facilitating drug transactions. From a libertarian standpoint, the idea of imprisoning someone for enabling consensual exchanges among adults is inherently flawed. Ulbricht’s harsh punishment should raise concerns even among supporters of the war on drugs.

Before Ulbricht’s sentencing, his lawyer made a compelling argument: Silk Road was not a more dangerous version of traditional drug markets but, in many ways, the most responsible one ever created. Despite this, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest was not persuaded. Yet, Silk Road did offer significant consumer protections, such as reducing the risks of arrest, black-market violence, and scams through an escrow system.

The platform also provided a measure of quality assurance for drugs, as vendors risked losing business or being removed for low ratings. Additionally, Silk Road fostered a supportive community where users could safely share information, avoiding the typical dangers of street purchases. However, Judge Forrest interpreted these benefits as exacerbating Ulbricht’s crimes, arguing that the site made drug use easier and safer, thereby encouraging it.

Ulbricht’s life sentence, especially for a first-time, nonviolent drug offense, seems excessively harsh, particularly when others involved with the site received more lenient sentences. Although the government accused Ulbricht of commissioning murders, these allegations were never proven and did not feature in his charges. Nonetheless, they heavily influenced his sentencing.

Ulbricht’s libertarian philosophy further played a role in his severe punishment. Judge Forrest saw his belief in the right to defy drug laws as a dangerous aggravating factor. His stance on personal freedom and opposition to drug prohibition were viewed as threatening to the established legal system.

Criticism of Ulbricht’s sentence has come from various political and legal corners. Prominent figures, including Ken Starr—who previously upheld a life sentence for drug possession—have called for clemency, recognizing the injustice in Ulbricht’s case.

As Trump begins his second term, his promise to release Ulbricht, who has already served 11 years, is a step toward justice. This move should be welcomed by anyone who believes in proportionate punishment, and we need to hold him to his promise of completing this on the first day of his Presidency.

The US Air National Guard should consider standardizing the use of the Air Tractor AT-802 as a versatile platform. This aircraft could serve multiple roles, such as firefighting and search and rescue during peacetime, as well as armed reconnaissance, close air support, or ground attack during wartime. Originally designed as a crop duster, the AT-802 has evolved into various variants, thanks to its tough and reliable airframe. Most notably, it has been adopted by SOCOM as the Skywarden for armed reconnaissance. Adopting this platform in a standard configuration would allow highly trained pilots to maintain valuable skills that are applicable both at home and in combat scenarios.

The ongoing forest fires underscore the potential value of having assets like the AT-802 in the Air National Guard’s arsenal. In the face of such natural disasters, the Guard could effectively deploy a fleet of these aircraft to “battle” the fires, providing a critical resource for the nation. Critics may argue that propeller-driven planes like the AT-802 are ineffective against near-peer adversaries in wartime, but these planes would still be invaluable in missions that don’t require advanced aircraft. Their rugged design and lower cost make them suitable for many military operations where high-tech solutions aren’t necessary.

As the focus increasingly shifts toward expensive next-generation aircraft, the AT-802 presents a practical solution for emergency missions at home and offers a cost-effective alternative for certain military roles. Its adoption could help stretch budgets while addressing various needs effectively.

The constant negativity among my friends in the Libertarian Party has become a troubling trend that is doing more harm than good. While it’s understandable to have frustrations and concerns, this persistent culture of pessimism is not only unhelpful but also counterproductive. It undermines the party’s goals, alienates potential supporters, and demoralizes its own members. It’s time we recognize this pattern for what it is and commit to replacing it with a culture of optimism, constructive action, and determination.

No one is denying that there are serious problems within the Party. These concerns are real and valid. However, the way they are being communicated is where the breakdown occurs. Instead of offering solutions or working toward meaningful change, too often these frustrations are expressed in a way that feels directionless and counterproductive. Pointing out problems without presenting a plan for fixing them serves little purpose beyond venting. Worse still, this negativity is frequently injected into conversations where it does not belong. Shoe-horning grievances into unrelated topics doesn’t amplify the message; it dilutes it, alienating both allies and neutral observers who might otherwise be receptive to the party’s ideas.

The consequences of this negativity are significant. For starters, it drains the morale of party members. When people feel surrounded by pessimism, it’s hard to remain motivated or hopeful. If the message they constantly hear is that the Libertarian Party is broken, hopeless, or failing, why would anyone want to invest their time, energy, or support into it? This environment doesn’t inspire action; it fosters apathy and resignation. Those who might otherwise step up and contribute may instead step back, discouraged by the rhetoric and unsure of where to focus their efforts.

Negativity also alienates neutral individuals or those who are still forming their opinions. Whether at events, in conversations, or on social media, a barrage of complaints and criticism does not make the party look like a viable or inspiring option. Instead, it creates the impression of disarray, further reinforcing skepticism from outsiders. Worse still, this kind of rhetoric strengthens opposition. When we air our frustrations in such an unproductive way, we make it easier for opponents to dismiss us. They don’t need to challenge our ideas or values because we’re already doing the work of undermining ourselves.

So how do we change this? First, we need to shift our mindset. It’s time to replace this culture of pessimism with a culture of optimism and action. Optimism does not mean ignoring problems or pretending everything is fine. Instead, it means recognizing challenges while maintaining faith that meaningful change is possible. Optimism is what motivates people to roll up their sleeves and get to work. It inspires confidence, attracts supporters, and creates momentum. If we want to see progress, we need to believe that it can happen—and then take the steps to make it happen.

This leads to the second point: we need to focus on solutions, not just problems. When you identify an issue within the party, don’t stop there. Think about what can be done to fix it. Communicate your concerns in a way that is constructive and actionable. Offer ideas, propose strategies, and be willing to collaborate with others to implement them. Complaints on their own may spark frustration, but solutions inspire action. The more we focus on building pathways forward, the more energy we’ll create for real change.

Finally, we need to put in the work. Talking about change is not enough, action is required. There is so much work to be done within the Libertarian Party, from local organizing to outreach, education, and advocacy. Instead of sitting on the sidelines and complaining, we need to dig in and commit to the work. If we truly care about the issues we’re raising, then we need to step up and be part of the solution. Change doesn’t happen overnight, but it doesn’t happen at all if we don’t take that first step.

It’s time to ask ourselves: What kind of party do we want to be? Do we want to be known for our constant infighting and complaints, or do we want to be a party that inspires people with a vision for change? Do we want to push people away with negativity, or do we want to attract supporters with a message of hope, determination, and progress?

We have a choice to make. The problems we face are real, but so are the opportunities before us. We can sit back and complain, or we can rise up and work for the change we want to see. Let’s choose optimism. Let’s choose action. Let’s be the agents of change our party, and our principles, deserve.