Vegard Martinsen: ISI scoring research dossier

Vegard Martinsen is one of Norway’s most doctrinaire advocates of individual sovereignty, with four decades of consistent Objectivist activism yielding an extensive written record across all six ISI dimensions. His positions derive from a unified philosophical framework — Ayn Rand’s Objectivism — applied rigorously to Norwegian politics. As former leader of Det Liberale Folkepartiet (DLF, 2003–2017), chairman of Foreningen for Studium av Objektivismen (FSO, 1993–2006), alternate Storting representative for Fremskrittspartiet (1989–93), and current primary author at Foreningen Gullstandard, Martinsen has produced six solo-authored books, hundreds of articles in outlets from Aftenposten to Liberaleren, and a weekly podcast — all advancing laissez-faire capitalism and minimal-state governance. His core maxim: “Frihet er retten for individer til å bestemme over seg og sitt: sin kropp, sin eiendom og sin inntekt” (Freedom is the right of individuals to decide over themselves and theirs: their body, their property, and their income).

1. Kroppslig autonomi: documented positions

Medical freedom and COVID restrictions

Martinsen criticized COVID-era restrictions as excessive intrusions on individual liberty. On Gullstandard, he listed “omfattende sosial isolering og nærmest obligatoriske vaksinasjonsprogrammer” (extensive social isolation and near-mandatory vaccination programs) as examples of the state using research to justify “de store begrensninger på individuell frihet.” He opposed vaccine passports on freedom grounds, not anti-vaccine grounds — he stated forthrightly that “fordelene ved vaksinen er større enn ulempene” (the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the drawbacks). His objection was to coerced equality: “Vi har svært liten respekt for det synet som innebærer at flere skal berøves for sin frihet for å oppnå et meningsløst prinsipp om likebehandling.” Vaccinated individuals, he argued, should regain their freedom immediately rather than being held back until everyone was vaccinated (gullstandard.no, April 2021).

Drug legalization

Martinsen explicitly supports full legalization of all drugs. Direct quote: “Selv om man som jeg er tilhenger av full legalisering av narkotika, så må man dømme i samsvar med de lover som gjelder” (Even though I, as I am, support full legalization of narcotics, one must judge in accordance with the laws that apply). Under his leadership, DLF stated: “Kampen mot narkotika har feilet og bør avsluttes; den skaper langt større problemer enn den løser” (The war on drugs has failed and should end; it creates far greater problems than it solves). The party platform was explicitly “for legalisering av prostitusjon og all bruk og handel med narkotika” (stemdlf.no). A notable controversy arose when Martinsen, while serving as a lay judge, voted to convict on drug charges despite personally favoring legalization — arguing this demonstrated fidelity to rule of law as it stands.

Immigration and freedom of movement

DLF under Martinsen advocated free immigration: “DLF er tilhenger av fri innvandring, som betyr at alle som ønsker komme hit for arbeide er velkomne til det — det skal ikke være nødvendig med noen form for arbeidstillatelse for jobbe her” (stemdlf.no). In more recent Gullstandard writing (2023), he reaffirmed: “Det som er den rette politikken er å stå fast på full individuell frihet, inkludert bevegelsesfrihet og ytringsfrihet, men også å gå inn for strenge straffer overfor de som utfører reell kriminalitet.” He rejected both national-conservative anti-immigration approaches (calling them “primitiv”) and uncritical open borders in a welfare state context, noting “Muslimer flest er fredelige, anstendige mennesker.”

Euthanasia

Martinsen supports the right to active euthanasia. DLF’s platform included “Legaliser aktiv dødshjelp!” (Legalize active euthanasia!), as documented in Liberaleren (2005). In a 2019 Gullstandard article, Martinsen criticized the Høyre/FrP government for planning to “innskrenke retten til aktiv dødshjelp” (restrict the right to active euthanasia), listing this alongside other freedom-reducing policies as evidence the government was not genuinely right-wing (gullstandard.no, March 2019).

Abortion

Martinsen is strongly pro-choice, consistent with the Objectivist position. He specifically criticized Republican opposition to self-determined abortion as “et av de verste innslagene” (one of the worst elements) of their platform. He mocked Nikki Haley’s position for being anti-abortion but “generous enough” not to pursue punishment for women who have had abortions (gullstandard.no).

2. Ytringsfrihet: a free speech absolutist

Hate speech laws — explicit opposition to §185

DLF under Martinsen’s leadership explicitly sought to abolish Norway’s “rasismeparagrafen” (§185). When asked whether the party supported full freedom of speech, DLF responded: “Ja. Vi ønsker å avvikle de begrensninger som ligger i rasismeparagrafen, der ytringer som gjelder rase, kultur, religion eller seksuell legning forbys” (Yes. We want to abolish the restrictions in the racism paragraph, where expressions regarding race, culture, religion, or sexual orientation are prohibited). The only speech restrictions DLF accepted were direct threats and disclosure of state secrets (Liberaleren, 2005). On Gullstandard, Martinsen wrote: “Graden av ytringsfrihet er et tegn på graden av sivilisasjon. Forsvinner ytringsfriheten forsvinner også sivilisasjonen” (The degree of freedom of speech is a sign of the degree of civilization. If freedom of speech disappears, civilization also disappears).

Blasphemy and religious criticism

Martinsen vigorously defends the right to blaspheme. On Quran burning: “Å brenne en Koran er som vi sa over en primitiv måte å protestere på, men også primitive mennesker har rett til ytringsfrihet. Å brenne Koranen bør derfor være tillatt” (gullstandard.no). He praised Sweden for defending this right under Turkish pressure and criticized Denmark for banning Quran burning. He criticized Norwegian politicians Stoltenberg and Støre for pressuring editor Vebjørn Selbekk to apologize for publishing Muhammad cartoons, arguing that if citizens cannot criticize Islam without fear of violence, the government is failing its fundamental duty.

Press freedom and media criticism

Martinsen draws a sharp distinction between government censorship and private editorial decisions. He wrote: “Vi vil presiserer at dette ikke er sensur, private aktører i pressen har lov til å publisere akkurat hva de vil, men når de utestenger viktige opposisjonelle synspunkter er det rent hykleri når de beskriver seg selv som om de bedriver ‘fri, kritisk og uavhengig’ journalistikk” (gullstandard.no). He describes mainstream media as “propagandaorganer” on Islam, immigration, climate, and COVID — but defends their right as private entities to publish what they choose. He also criticized Trump for threatening TV stations with losing broadcast licenses and threatening newspapers with lawsuits, demonstrating consistent principle regardless of political alignment.

Government “disinformation” strategy

He opposed the Norwegian government’s strategy against “desinformasjon” as dangerous overreach, questioning: “Spørsmålet er altså hvorvidt reguleringer overfor de som har som oppgave å formidle og å fremskaffe kunnskap – presseorganer, tankesmier, skribenter, akademikere, forskere – kan hindre spreding av ‘desinformasjon’” (gullstandard.no).

3. Eiendomsrett og økonomisk frihet: the laissez-faire program

Taxation — opposes all compulsory taxation

Martinsen’s position is unambiguous: “Etter mitt syn bør alle mellommenneskelige forhold baseres på frivillighet; tvang hører ikke hjemme i forhold mellom siviliserte mennesker. Statens legitime oppgaver — politi, rettsvesen og militærvesen — bør finansieres ved frivillige bidrag” (In my view, all interpersonal relationships should be based on voluntariness; coercion has no place among civilized people. The state’s legitimate tasks — police, courts, and military — should be financed by voluntary contributions) (vegardmartinsen.com/skatt.html). He further states: “Skattenivået er et mål på graden av frihet i et samfunn” (The tax level is a measure of the degree of freedom in a society). He endorses the thesis that “sivilisasjoner vokser og blomstrer når skattene er lave, og forfaller og går til grunne når høye skatter kveler produktiv virksomhet.”

On tax reform vs. reduction, he wrote: “En politiker [bør] aldri gå inn for reformer i skattesystemet, men kun for reduksjoner i de gjeldende satsene” (A politician should never advocate reforms in the tax system, only reductions in current rates).

Property rights — absolute and Lockean

Martinsen treats property rights as the foundation of all other rights: “Eiendomsretten må gjelde fullt og helt. Dette betyr f.eks. ingen tvungen skatt” (Property rights must apply fully. This means, for example, no compulsory tax) (vegardmartinsen.com/eiendom.html). He endorses Rand’s formulation: “The right to life is the source of all rights — and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible.” On expropriation, when asked his position: “Alltid imot hver eneste gang uansett!” (Always against, every single time, no matter what!) (Liberaleren, 2011).

Business regulation — total separation of state and economy

Martinsen advocates removing all economic regulation: “Alle reguleringer er krenkelser av eiendomsretten” (All regulations are violations of property rights). He argues: “Politikernes mulighet til å regulere økonomien må fjernes. Sagt på en annen måte: alle reguleringer av økonomien må fjernes” (gullstandard.no). He characterizes bureaucrats as “fullstendig uproduktive; det de gjør er ikke å produsere verdier, det de gjør er å omfordele verdier andre har skapt.” DLF was explicitly “imot konkurranseutsetting, men sterkt for privatisering” — against competitive tendering of public services, but strongly for full privatization.

The welfare state — fundamental opposition

DLF’s platform stated bluntly: “Nei til velferdsstaten, da velferdsstaten er et system som hverken er moralsk eller bærekraftig” (stemdlf.no). Martinsen elaborated: “Ingen skal ha rett til å bli forsørget på skattebetalernes bekostning, dvs. ingen velferdsstat. Det innebærer et totalt skille mellom stat og økonomi” (gullstandard.no). On what municipalities should not provide: “Skole, barnehaver, kultur, veier, parker, sykehjem, eldreomsorg, osv. Alt slikt bør være privat” (Schools, kindergartens, culture, roads, parks, nursing homes, elderly care, etc. All such things should be private) (Liberaleren, 2011).

Free trade and EU/EEA

DLF advocated: “Nei til restriksjoner/avgifter/toll på import og eksport” and “Nei til EU og EØS — Ja til frihandel” (stemdlf.no). The party wanted Norway to “etablere full ensidig frihandel med alle vennligsinnede land” (establish full unilateral free trade with all friendly nations). Martinsen criticized modern trade agreements: “I dag kryr det av frihandelsavtaler, men de representerer ikke frihandel: en reell frihandelsavtale er kun på to setninger: ikke tusenvis av sider som dusinvis av byråkrater bruker år på å forhandle frem.”

Monetary policy — gold standard and free banking

The name “Foreningen Gullstandard” signals Martinsen’s monetary position. He defines inflation as a form of taxation and supports gold-backed currency with free banking: “Den eneste måten å ordne dette på er å ha et fritt, uregulert bankvesen hvor statens eneste oppgave er å la rettsapparatet ta opp saker dersom kontrakter blir brutt. Har man et fritt bankvesen vil det dukke opp banker som utsteder penger forankret i gull” (gullstandard.no). DLF’s platform included “Nei til inflasjonspolitikk — Ja til stabile penger”. His 500-page book Saysiansk økonomi (2017) presents Jean-Baptiste Say’s economic framework as the correct alternative to Keynesianism.

4. Rettsstat: constitutional minarchism

Equal treatment under law and constitutional protections

Martinsen emphasizes the Norwegian Constitution’s original liberal protections: “Grunnloven sier at ingen skal dømmes uten etter lov og dom, at det skal være likhet for loven, at det er forbud mot tortur, at det skal være ytringsfrihet.” He criticizes how the original Constitution’s economic freedom protections — including §101 stating “Nye og bestandige Indskrænkninger i Næringsfriheden bør ikke tilstedes Nogen for Fremtiden” — have been eroded by subsequent legislation (gullstandard.no). He contributed two sections to Grunnlov og frihet: turtelduer eller erkefiender? (2017), an essay collection examining whether the Constitution protects or undermines freedom.

Limited government — the night-watchman state

His position is stated with crystalline clarity: “Det offentlige kun skal ta seg av de legitime offentlige oppgavene, dvs. politi, rettsapparat og det militære, at alt annet skal overlates til private” (Liberaleren, 2011). More broadly: “Et samfunn er fritt dersom staten ikke initierer tvang, og dersom staten effektivt tar seg av de kriminelle… oppgaven å stanse kriminelle er statens eneste legitime oppgave i fredstid” (vegmar.wordpress.com). He rejects anarchism, arguing it would lead to “continuous wars between competing protection firms” — making him a consistent minarchist, not an anarcho-capitalist.

Judicial independence and due process

Martinsen criticized the use of the justice system against Trump as “misbruk av rettsapparatet initiert av relativt viktige aktører” (abuse of the justice system initiated by relatively important actors). His own conduct as a lay judge — voting to convict on drug charges despite personally supporting legalization — demonstrates his commitment to rule of law as distinct from personal policy preferences.

Rights framework — negative rights only

Martinsen explicitly rejects positive rights as “kunstige rettigheter” (artificial rights). The UN Declaration’s rights to education, work, and housing are illegitimate in his framework. Only negative rights — freedom from coercion — are genuine. This is core Objectivist doctrine applied consistently to Norwegian politics.

5. Foreningsfrihet: civil society over the state

Religious freedom and separation of church and state

Martinsen is an atheist who supports complete religious freedom — including the right to blaspheme, criticize, and satirize religion. DLF explicitly advocated separation of church and state. He wrote for the secular humanist publication Humanist and has argued that western leaders should demand countries like Turkey maintain “en stor grad av demokrati, inkludert slike ting som ytringsfrihet og religionsfrihet” (gullstandard.no). His extensive Islam critique (“Islam: den ellevte landeplage,” published as a lecture in 2003 and included in Frihet, likhet, brorskap) argues that Islam as a political ideology is incompatible with a free society, while insisting Muslims as individuals deserve full rights.

Political freedom of association

Martinsen’s own career exemplifies active political association across multiple organizations: FSO (1993–2006), Fridemokratene board member (1994–95), DLF (deputy then leader, 2003–2017), and Gullstandard (2018–present). He has also participated in the Sidelinja podcast — described as “a friendly discussion between anarchists and minarchists. Disagreeing about a little, agreeing about a lot” — with Arne Eidshagen, Trond Sørensen, and Vegard Nøtnæs.

Civil society vs. state

The entire DLF/Gullstandard program envisions civil society absorbing all functions currently performed by the state beyond police, courts, and defense. Every social service — education, healthcare, elderly care, infrastructure — becomes a matter of voluntary private action. DLF sought to withdraw Norway from the UN (“DLF vil melde Norge ut av FN”), viewing international organizations as additional layers of coercive governance.

6. Digital autonomi: inferred positions with some direct evidence

Surveillance

DLF under Martinsen praised the Pirate Party for having “priseverdig nok tatt opp den stadig økende overvåkning som alle borgere i dag utsettes for” (commendably raised the ever-increasing surveillance that all citizens are subjected to today) (stemdlf.no). The successor party Liberalistene, to which DLF members were directed after dissolution, explicitly states: “Enhver form for generell overvåkning av fredelige borgere skal være strengt forbudt” (Any form of general surveillance of peaceful citizens shall be strictly prohibited). Martinsen criticized Chinese internet censorship: “det er som kjent omfattende sensur i Kina: i diktaturer kan ikke borgerne ha tilgang til alminnelig informasjon; noe slikt vil underminere diktatorens makt” (gullstandard.no).

CBDC and digital money

No direct Martinsen statement on CBDC was found in text-searchable sources. However, his position is strongly inferable. His organization is literally named “Gold Standard” and advocates gold-backed currency and free banking. His framework calls for total separation of state and economy. A central bank digital currency — enabling state monitoring of all transactions and expanding central bank power — represents the precise opposite of his stated monetary philosophy. His podcast has covered “inflasjon, deflasjon, renter” with critical commentary on Norges Bank (January 2026).

Digital ID and internet freedom

No direct statement on state-mandated digital ID was located. Given his consistent position that the state should perform only three functions (police, courts, military) and his opposition to surveillance, a state-mandated digital identity system would conflict with his framework. His criticism of Chinese internet censorship and defense of Quran-burning as protected expression suggest strong support for an open internet free from government content control.

Data ownership

No direct Martinsen statement on data ownership was found. This represents a genuine gap in the documented record, though his absolute property rights framework (“Eiendomsretten må gjelde fullt og helt”) would logically extend to personal data as a form of property.

Biographical and organizational summary for ISI context

Evidence quality assessment

Martinsen’s positions on bodily autonomy, free speech, property rights, economic freedom, and rule of law are documented through abundant primary sources — his own articles, books, party platforms, and interviews with direct quotes. His positions on digital autonomy have thinner direct documentation; the surveillance and internet freedom positions have some textual support, while CBDC, digital ID, and data ownership positions are inferred from his consistent philosophical framework. His weekly Gullstandard podcast (2018–present) likely contains additional positions on these topics but podcast audio was not searchable as text for this analysis.

Across all dimensions, Martinsen displays remarkable ideological consistency over four decades. Every documented position flows from the same Objectivist premises: individual rights are negative rights only; the state’s sole legitimate function is protecting citizens from force and fraud; all voluntary interaction between individuals should be free from state interference. There are no documented cases of him contradicting these principles on any policy question.