About Me

7/8/2014 – My Candidates Statement as submitted for the November General Election Voters’ Pamphlet


Occupation: Candidate/Retired

Occupational Background: Stock market investor, real estate investor, landlord, motel owner-operator, US navy.

Educational Background: Portland Community College, Portland State University studying math, physics, Japanese language. (no
degrees). informal study: economics, Spanish language

Prior Governmental Experience: (None) One of the principal plaintiffs in Largent v. Klickitat County, 2000 WL 896411
(Wash.App.Div., July 6, 2000)

Our country’s greatest asset is us – the citizenry. We will continue to be our country’s greatest asset so long as we keep ourselves
free, prosperous, and principled. We can not tolerate politicians who bail-out Wall Street, create tax code for political advantage, or
use the IRS to harrass opponents, or use promises of -jobs- to buy votes, or collaborate with crony capitalists to pass laws which
protect them from legitimate liability, or trick us into wars which enrich financiers and weapons manufacturers….. all at our expense.

We all want to leave this world better for the next generation: no wars, less debt, less pollution, less fear, less imprisonment; and
more wealth, security, liberty, freedom, and opportunity to pursue happiness.

To these ends our politicians have tried wars and a centrally-controlled incentive-based economy. It has been a failure which is
manifested in our exploding debt and deficit. One would think they might audit the FED, or give the Free Market a chance to
establish real interest rates and real prices which would signal how production, savings, and debt should be allocated. Instead they
have doubled down with more of the same.

Centrally controlled interest rates and the corporate-state-agenda have perverted our economy. The consequences will engulf our
good citizenry and some will lose their principles in the ensuing chaos.

We must audit the FED and dismiss all corrupt or misguided politicians.

I understand that our Constitution enumerates powers for the federal government and reserves the rest for local governments. With
this understanding I ask for your consent. I ask for your vote.

by Mike Montchalin www.montchalin.com



April 2014 Candidate’s Statement for the Libertarian Primary

Mike Montchalin, Libertarian

Photo Missing

Running for Jeff Merkley’s US Senate seat.

Occupation: candidate

Occupational background: Monolithic Dome construction, stock investment, landlord, motel operator, always self employed.

Educational background: Portland Community College, Portland State University: Math, Physics, Chemistry, History – no degrees.  Home Study: economic history, Austrian economics, risk.

Prior government experience: US Navy, taxpayer.

I am a mainstream Libertarian and adhere to our mainstream Libertarian beliefs.  We are principled and would rather be principled in defeat than unprincipled in a victory.  And yes, thanks to our principles we have had squabbles.  That is how we sort things out.  We are stronger for it.

Pundits have described our party’s founding as “socially liberal” plus “fiscally conservative”   as though a platypus is just what America needed.  The fact is, our party was founded with the realization that prosperity demands free markets, private property, self ownership, free association, and that our souls yearn for the same things that lead to prosperity.  So when pundits analyze us as though this is an electoral game of strategy where each party cuts it close to the center, they miss our point.  We are principled and don’t cut it close to the center.

A year ago we ratified our new bylaws with 96% voting ‘yes’   to define a Party Member as anyone registering to vote as a Libertarian.  We defied the trend that other parties suffer of becoming top-down.  We are bottom-up. And membership is free.

This year’s primary ballot is as important as last year’s because we can vote on the initiatives.  The results will define our future.

All is not well.  For a century Democrats and Republicans have  burdened our economy with economic ignorance, inflation, exponential debt and wars.  For economic reasons alone, these people should be dismissed.  And that is not even considering their assault on liberty.
Whether I win or lose this nomination, please contact me so that we can share in our local Libertarian efforts.

19 thoughts on “About Me

    1. Senator Post author

      Thanks PK! My opponents have the nicest clothes. But we have the best ideas!!

      And thanks for the personal letter that led directly to improving this site’s content.

      BTW “Senator” is me, Mike Montchalin; just getting used to the idea.

  1. Cheryl Floyd

    Dear Mr. Montchalin,

    As a constituent of the district where you are campaigning, I am sending this questionnaire to ask your position on sex offender registration laws.

    Please let me know your position on the following aspects:

    1. Where do you stand on the issue of registration requirements governing those with a past sex offense conviction that took place prior to a current law?

    2. Where do you stand on the sex offender registry being made available to the public, not just law enforcement, and its value or impact?

    3. What is your thinking on the impact to our state budget due to state registration requirements?

    4. Do you feel registration requirements should be based on any or all of these considerations?

    a. The original offense
    b. A current risk assessment
    c. Empirical evidence from researchers and academics

    5. What value do you place on residency restrictions for registered individuals?

    I hope to hear from you shortly regarding my questions, as I will be posing the same to all candidates in the current election.


    Cheryl F. Floyd

  2. Janette

    Mr. Montchalin,
    Your opening paragraph says, “Our country’s greatest asset is us – the citizenry. We will continue to be our country’s greatest asset so long as we keep ourselves
    free, prosperous, and principled.”
    Can you please share with us what principles by which you live? I am a member of one of the major parties but am in disagreement with both of them at this point. Please share with us the principles you stand for that are not mentioned in your above statement.
    Thank you sir!

    1. Mike Montchalin Post author

      Thank you for asking. I was thinking mainly in the material sense; that it is much easier to do the right thing when one is not under the duress of poverty.

      We Americans are pretty well educated. We have put the internet to good use bringing down transaction costs. We have a strong sense of justice and are indignant at injustice. All of these characteristics (and others) lead to a just prosperity.

      We are at serious risk of losing the opportunity to prosper by abandoning Free-Markets in favor of a Centrally Controlled economy. More on that in other posts.

      For me personally, tolerance and compassion are easy. As for treating others as I would like to be treated, other people might say I abide by that. I think I can do better. I do not change my mind easily, but if I am convinced I am wrong I change my mind. I donate my time without a thought, money not so easily.

      I am anti-war, and have been since 1966 when I rejected the 5th and 6th grade history books of conquest that I had enjoyed so much. I admire Mark Hatfield because he took a stand against racism before he was famous. And as a senator he was always anti-war.

      I am not a pacifist and I believe in the right to bear arms. This right, like all rights are inherant in us and are ours by nature. Rights have nothing to do with times and places where people might have been denied their right to bear arms.

      “Shall not be infringed” is from our Constitution and refers to the government. Our Government, created by man, shall not infringe on our inherent right to bear arms.

      My main interest is economics, specifically what is called The Austrian School. My favorite living economists are Robert Higgs and George Selgin. My favorite deceased economists are Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, and John Locke!

      Just when one would think that there is nothing more to add to St. Thomas Aquinas’ just price concept, along comes John Locke with with some thought experiments to edify it further. Profits are bound by ethics.

      There is a lively, thoughtful audio on that page.

      1. Rosemary McGaughy

        It is good to know you are well versed in economics. Thank you for the reference to The Austrian School.

        However, the statement above implying that Americans are “pretty well educated” with a “strong sense of justice” is debatable.

        If the mass media is any reflection of our priorities as a culture, it indicates that the majority is relatively unaware of what justice really is and what the best choices are for humanity as a whole. It portrays an array of financial choices are socially and environmentally irresponsible.

    2. Tom Hager

      Hi Mike! I was pleased to see your name on my ballot this morning. I didn’t note Clackamas High School in your “Education” list. That’s where I knew you — as a smart, independent-minded student, a little quiet but also humorous, always thoughtful of others. Best of luck.

      1. Mike Montchalin Post author

        Thanks Tom. Yeah. I left out Clackamas because most people graduate from one high school or another.

        I do not remember the first time we met. But I do remember playing chess with you in the 7th grade at the chess club in Mrs. Cartwrights room after school. You had my number.

        I see you are still writing! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hager

        Thanks for commenting. Do you have any thoughts on Ebola?

        Thanks for commenting.

  3. Janette

    You sound like you have your head on straight as far as the things you mentioned. I was looking for something more specific and that’s my fault for not stating what I wanted to know. in the voter’s pamphlet Wehby and Merkley give a list of bullet points on specific issues. Going down those lists, where do you stand on those same issues? And oh, by the way, thank you for taking time to give me your response.

  4. Sandra

    What are your views on 1)abortion, 2) gambling, 3) Israel, 4) strip joints zoning, 5) marriage, 6) legalizing marijuana, 7) online education, 8) tax kicker, 9) illegals being rewarded?

      1. Mike Montchalin Post author

        Here are my positions on Sandra’s 9 topics. Irene and Sandra, Feel free to come back and state your positions. I have approved every single comment that has been submitted. I can not promise to continue to do it if it gets our of hand, after all, this site is supposed to be about who I am. But, please come back and state your thoughts.

        It is not the government’s job to commit abortion, fund abortion, or hold harmless committers of abortion. Abortion is not a procedure. I believe life begins at conception. I am against the death penalty. I am anti-war. I am against droning wedding parties. I am against assaulting people’s lives. I am not a pacifist, though.

        2) gambling,
        Gambling is a vice not a crime. Governments should have no laws regarding vises like gambling.

        Government should never raise money through gambling. Oregon does raise money through gambling and that is one of many good reasons to move away from the state.

        3) Israel,
        Israel should not receive foreign aid. No foreign government should receive foreign aid. Private aid from individuals is fine. I wish they were not assaulting Palestinians, It is not our government’s job to aid Israel or Palestinians.

        4) strip joints zoning,
        The Federal Government should have nothing to do with zoning within a state. I believe in property rights. So individuals should not be able to restrict others uses of their land. There may be cases where individuals can convince a court that they were injured by a Strip Mall or a Strip Joint.

        5) marriage,
        The government has no legitimate interest in regulating marriage. Get the government out of the marriage business. Completely. That means the government should not issue marriage licenses, … to anyone.

        6) legalizing marijuana,
        The government has no legitimate interest in marijuana. Get the government out of the marijuana business. As an Oregon voter, I will be voting Yes on Measure 91 only because it might save a few people from prison. Taxing it and regulating it is not a step in the right direction. I do not like bending on my principles. If I do, it is for reasons of compassion.

        7) online education,
        The Federal government has no business in online education. I believe that online education is one of the next big things. The whole system of educational certification needs to change. As it is, degrees from high schools and college are meaning less and less.

        8) tax kicker,
        Any time the government shrinks, or spends less, or refunds what it over-taxed, it is good.

        9) illegals being rewarded?
        It is not the governments job to reward people. There is no such thing as an illegal human. As an Oregonian, I will be voting Yes on 88, the Drivers Card measure. I wish Oregon had stood up to the Federal Government and refused to comply with the Real ID act, which Ron Paul opposed.

    1. Mike Montchalin Post author

      As a voter I will be voting against Measure 92. Almost all regulation in the US favors the largest corporations and absolves them from liability. I oppose regulation. I favor free markets. People need to take on some personal responsibility and not buy from people or corporations they do not trust.

      1. Steve

        FYI, GMO labeling enables consumers to more accurately choose what they are putting into their body. M92 is vehemently opposed by the largest corporations you speak of, primarily because it pulls the cloak off of their potentially harmful products. Please look into this issue further, the war for control of our food is just beginning and we need representatives who will not be bought by corporations that view people with no moral regard as mere consumers.
        People do need to take responsibility, but they also need information.

  5. Hamsa

    I agree that a citizens real power is in the power of the dollar, what we buy or boycott. And I, and many I know, boycott GMO foods. However, a majority of consumers are still unaware of sheer quantity of GM ingredients and their effects on our bodies which have been studied in other countries that permit studies. My goal with voting Yes on labeling is that it will lead to Federal labeling laws and more informed choices. My vision however is an ultimate ban on the growing of GM crops in the US, and the sooner the better as the cross contamination is already rampant. I believe that this will happen faster when individual states force the issue to become a national issue and discussion and eventually a ban. Boycotting GMO’s will take much longer because the debate and therefore the public education component vital to critical change will not happen like it does when it is put to public vote. Looking forward to your reply…. I really want to vote for you, but this issue is important to me not because I already have choice to not buy it, but because plants do not have a choice of what pollen blows in the wind and alters their DNA and farmers can not sell their crops on the global market given the rest of the worlds proclivity to forego GM foods. Thank you.

Please let me know what you think.

%d bloggers like this: