Meet William Hurst, The Progressive Libertarian Running For President In 2020
William Hurst has announced his candidacy for the office of President within the Libertarian Party. An outspoken critic of the Trump administration, Hurst has a strong focus on individual freedom and personal liberty, while concurring with progressives on a few key positions. I spoke with him with regard to some of those issues, and asked if he imagined that the Libertarian Party would consider nominating a candidate who holds multiple progressive ideals. "I would hope so, it would not be very libertarian to consider any proponent of freedom invalid of consideration". He pointed out that "Libertarian and progressive positions can easily coexist", and made his case from the fact that the Democratic Party establishment continues to push against progressives in favor of more authoritarian policies, while "the GOP [goes] down the path it has recently". He furthermore stated his believe that "advocating for progressive stances in a libertarian way" would make for a stronger presidential candidate that he believes would be "a greater possibility of success in the general election".
When asked about tax policy, Hurst stuck to his Libertarian roots; "I would advocate for any responsible means of funding that helps reduce dependence on income taxes. I am aware that it would not be inherently possible to pursue a system at this time that does away with it, but, I see pursuits in that direction as a good course to the average person. As for the current implementation, if it is going to exist, it must be fair to all participants without a major reliance on income from those that cannot reasonably afford it."
Hurst's campaign platform outlines support for "Medicare For All", so I asked if he would sign such legislation into law should it pass Congress. His response; "Yes, if it doesn't lend a hand to furthered abuses of the current healthcare system, I am all for it. This is one of the generally non-libertarian stances that you referred to earlier. I argue that it should be. You can't enjoy freedom of you're dead and the for-profit style of medicine has become a means of oppression." He continued; "To clarify on oppression, you generally have no choice in healthcare, it is pay whatever someone arbitrarily says is their rate or go without. Insurance isn't much different or guaranteed to help you in a life or death situation, while being a vector for easy abuse of federal funding."
With the ever-ubiquitous poison of corruption with regard to campaign finance practice, I asked about how we should go about solving the crisis. His answer favored "transparency", but called out PACs; "Pac money is a veil. If we remove that veil we can directly see who is contributing to these campaigns and who accepts these donations. Large donations, if they are public knowledge, can hurt a campaign immensely." I felt the need to follow that question, so I asked, more specifically, "...should Citizen's United be repealed or upheld"? His direct answer was "Without a doubt repealed. It ruled that a company has the same freedom as a person to advocate for or against a candidate."