ABC News and Wayne Root on Steve Kubby

ABC News Medical Unit posted a story last week about possible uses of Steve Kubby’s cannabis lozenge to treat flu, and this week 2008 Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate Wayne Root made available an excerpt from his book passionately criticizing the prosecution of his 2008 LP rival Kubby on charges related to medical marijuana.

Excerpts from the ABC story:

Cannabis Science, an emerging pharmaceutical cannabis company of which Melamede is president and CEO, is working on an edible form of medicinal marijuana that its officials think will help treat many infectious diseases, swine flu included. Last month, the company announced its intention to apply to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s fast track approval process in the hope of making its anti-flu lozenge available for a possible second wave of swine flu. […]

The concentrated cannabis lozenge was an idea pioneered by Steve Kubby, who, up until two weeks ago, was himself the president and CEO of Cannabis Science.  […]  Because the marijuana plant contains natural, plant-based cannabinoids, called phytocannabinoids, giving cannabis to someone with the flu supplements their body’s endocannabinoid system and helps take down the inflammation.  But could it work for swine flu? Though the current and ex-CEO might not meet eye to eye on many things right now, both feel that the potential for using marijuana for serious strains of the flu, like H1N1, is enormous.  “It’s such a changeable virus that vaccines might not work,” Kubby said. “But changing the way our bodies respond to the virus [with cannabis] does work.”

Here is the section about Kubby in Root’s book Conscience of a Libertarian:

The list of idiotic, hypocritical, and dangerous actions taken by Nanny State politicians and government bureaucrats is long. My good friend Steve Kubby serves as a reminder of what can happen when you anger public officials. Steve has one of the deadliest forms of cancer there is, cancer of the adrenal gland. If the cancer doesn’t kill you first, you’ll die from a heart attack or stroke, caused by the tumor suddenly releasing extreme amounts of adrenaline. Steve is the only human in the annals of medical science to have lived more than a few years with his form of cancer and is currently celebrating his 35th year of surviving this cancer. Steve is literally a walking miracle. He credits his remission to one thing and one thing only: medical marijuana. Now I’m no fan of drugs. As a matter of fact, I’ve never smoked marijuana (or any other drug) in my entire life. It’s just not my thing. But you can bet if someone I loved had a painful or deadly disease, and medical marijuana offered hope, I’d explore everything and try anything offered by medical science to save my loved one. So would you.

When someone has a deadly disease like cancer and medical doctors report possible progress, miracle breakthroughs, or just the easing of pain with the use of medical marijuana, should government remove that option for the sick and dying? Do you want government banning the only thing that might keep your father, or mother, or grandparents, or children alive? Do you want government banning the only medicine that doctors agree might ease your dying mother’s excruciating pain? Does government even have the right to limit your medical choices or decisions? Perhaps that is why despite the United States being a strongly antidrug nation, medical marijuana has passed in nearly every state where it has been on the ballot-usually by huge margins of victory.

Steve Kubby has never hurt another soul on this earth by smoking marijuana. He’s simply trying to stay alive. This brave man’s life is on the line every day. He’s lived like that for 35 years. Yet prosecutors in California put him in jail and took away his medical marijuana, even though it was legal based on California law at the time. It was legal because Steve led the fight to pass Prop. 215.

The reason that Steve led the fight for legalization is because for years, politicians, police, and prosecutors told him “If you don’t like the law, change it.” So Steve and his friends did just that. They did exactly what government asked them to do. They ran a statewide political campaign-and they won. Steve Kubby and his friends convinced the voters of California to legalize medical marijuana. Little did they know that victory over the vicious and vindictive political establishment would come back to haunt them. The government came after all the leaders of the medical marijuana movement, and nearly every one of them ended up facing felony prosecutions. Steve faced 19 felony counts and 40 years in prison. But worst of all, they threatened to take his children away from him. They threatened his loving wife Michele that if she allowed their daughters near Steve, Child Protective Services (CPS) might have the children removed from her care and put in foster homes. For what? For the crime of having a deadly form of cancer and using a medicinal herb proven to work (but which pharmaceutical companies can’t sell or make profits)? According to our government, that’s a crime worthy of 40 years in prison and losing your children?

But 40 years in prison was only the stated term of punishment. In reality, by withholding the only known treatment that had kept him alive for over three decades, prosecutors tried to impose a death sentence on Steve Kubby. They made Steve lie shivering in a freezing jail cell, without a blanket, without the only medicine known to keep his cancer in remission. Soon Steve was blind in one eye, urinating blood in his cell, and suffering from horrendous blood pressure attacks of 260/220. Doctors testified that if he were not released from jail soon, Steve would surely die. This sounds more like the way we’d treat a terrorist who just blew up the World Trade Center and murdered 3,000 people, than a cancer patient trying to prolong his life by smoking medical marijuana. Is this my United States of America?

What were these California prosecutors protecting us from? Why were they willing to kill Steve in order to prevent him from taking an herb that was keeping him alive? How did Steve’s decision to take medical marijuana affect anyone else’s life? Who was Steve hurting in any way? How exactly is our society damaged by a cancer patient using an alternative therapy? This reminds me of the old story about the Holocaust. None of this matters-until it happens to you. Then it’s too late-you’ve allowed the government to take away your rights, to grow too powerful.

Eventually Steve was released, and his record expunged by a judge. So the government was willing to let a man die (or put him away for 40 years) for a crime so minor that a judge eventually ordered Steve’s record to be completely cleared?

I consider Steve a hero, not a criminal. Medical science should be studying Steve Kubby. His story and experiences offer hope for millions of present and future cancer victims. Remember, I lost my mom and dad to cancer.

But Steve’s story proves once again the limitations of allowing government officials, politicians, or prosecutors to define “morality” on behalf of citizens. Should drugs that offer hope for seriously ill cancer patients be banned by close-minded politicians and government bureaucrats who have no medical background? Tens of thousands of patients die each year from legal prescriptions, written by doctors. Yet those drugs are allowed to continue to be sold by pharmaceutical companies unabated. Why? Because billions of dollars are on the line and lobbyists make sure they stay legal and available for sale. Yet no one has ever died from medical marijuana.

So why is there such a desperate need to ban it? Could it be because there are no lobbyists writing huge checks to politicians? Could it be because pharmaceutical companies don’t make any money off its sale? These prosecutors must be the descendents of the Nanny State politicians of the early twentieth century who banned alcohol during Prohibition. We all know how well that experiment worked out. The results were that U.S. citizens kept right on drinking, the government lost millions in tax revenues on alcohol, ordinary people lost respect for the law, and organized crime was born (Prohibition was the best thing to ever happen to Meyer Lansky, Lucky Luciano, Al Capone, and Bugsy Siegal). Government proves every day that those who fail to study history are destined to make the same mistakes over and over again. The history of the United States is that government screws up virtually everything it touches.

52 thoughts on “ABC News and Wayne Root on Steve Kubby

  1. David F. Nolan

    Surprisingly good commentary by Root. Maybe I’ve been too harsh on him. (And maybe not!)

  2. Robert Milnes

    David F. Nolan, why the ambivalence about Root? He must be getting some sort of in effect coaching. The Concience of a Libertarian title is clearly derived from Goldwater’s book, which was evidently ghostwritten. It is a very good title. Like literate, you know. & the diatribe against the government concluding with “The history of the UNITED STATES is that government screws up virtually everything it touches.” is clearly pandering. That conclusion is not true in my opinion yet is a good soundbite. How did Root get so good at soundbites? & Kubby’s case is so simple & clear cut. AND also extraordinary & unusual. Obviously the medical marijuana saved his life. But it involves the specific confluence of the relationship of the adrenal system to the sympathetic & parasympathetic nervous system which is affected by marijuana. It would be incorrect to extrapolate from Kubby’s case that medical marijuana is generally a life saving medicine. In one instance it is & further the reason for that is the reason that answers his rhetorical question “So why is there such a desperate need to ban it?” It is not the reasons he notes. It has to do with psychoanalysis and the sympathetic & parasympathetic nervous system. See: Wilhelm Reich, The Cancer Biopathy; also The Sexual Revolution by Reich. In other words the moral and legal arguments against marijuana are anti-sexual in their deepest nature. As was the prohibition against alcohol. Everybody knows the saying about if you want sex with a woman, get her drunk! Well, the moralistic knee jerk response to that is “Ban alcohol!” Further rationalize that with pointing out all the other bad effects of alcohol abuse & you have the basis for legislation! The problem was the consequential effects of Prohibition became so outrageous e.g. The Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre that Prohibition became untenable. No, Root is clearly among the rightists trying to develop a GOP/Constitution Party reactionary and/or counterrevolutionary movement. The government may very well be manipulating Root as a counter policy to an incipient progressive movement, WHICH COULD WIN & therefore a threat to the status quo. However Root may be personally involved in evolving his own political perspective from conservative to libertarian which generally takes many years. His transformation, like Barr’s, seems remarkably rapid. No, let’s be skeptical of Root, despite his flamboyance.

  3. Bruce Cohen

    Only a few hours after the Nolan publicly stated he had not read Mister Root’s book, and intimating he would order it from Amazon, he posted a nasty review about it.

    Now we see him say something guardedly positive about one chapter. That the Nolan read online from an exerpt.

    Which sort of PROVES the contention that David wrote the review without having the book in his hands.

    Is Dishonesty a ‘radical’ Libertarian principle?

  4. Richard Winger

    David Nolan already posted a “OK, I confess” remark to Independent Political Report saying he hadn’t read the whole book, probably about 5 days ago.

  5. JT

    Bruce: “Only a few hours after the Nolan publicly stated he had not read Mister Root’s book, and intimating he would order it from Amazon, he posted a nasty review about it.”

    I don’t consider Nolan’s commentary a “nasty review.” I think it was a criticism of one significant facet of the book based on the excerpts that Nolan had indeed read on Google. Writing an extensive book review–negative or positive–without reading the whole book in question would be wrong. While he probably jumped the gun, I don’t think a few paragraphs posted to an Amazon.com comments section falls under that category.

    I think the truth is that Root’s loyal supporters would be annoyed by any negative comments about the book, whether the commenter had read it or not. They seem to think any criticism of the work is as wrongheaded sniping by radicals with a vendetta (some of it may be, but some of it isn’t).

    And for the record, I don’t hate Wayne Root. I just wish he’d recognize the obvious difference between libertarian and conservative. Libertarians are as close to conservatives ideologically as we are to liberals. Any aspiring LP presidential nominee who doesn’t understand that is going to have a very tough road to hoe.

  6. JT

    lg: “I thought this topic was over.”

    The book was released less than a month ago by a major publisher, written by one of the most prominent LP members today, with the title “The Conscience of a Libertarian.” Why would discussion of it be over?

  7. Galileo Galilei

    It really gets me. I go and shop over at Barnes & Noble all the time. There are always large stacks of books as you enter, most of them crap. Yet Root’s book is now among them, the word ‘Libertarian’ in big bold print.

    Instead of complaining, please go out and support the effort Root has taken and buy his book; I did.

  8. Robert Milnes

    Galileo, lol! You probably didn’t mean that to be funny, but… What is Root’s book doing in the Barnes & Noble large crap stack?/// Actually that is a very good question. How did a major publisher publish ANYTHING about libertarianism & how did it get prominently displayed. Hint: Uncle Sam has a lot of influence.

  9. Galileo Galilei

    Root’s book was at the front in the ‘New Releases’ section. It was also placed in another section for new releases in non-fiction, as well as on the shelf in its normal place.

    Root’s book could catch on and become a best-seller. Glenn Beck’s book on ‘Common Sense’ is # 1 right now in non-fiction and # 4 overall.

  10. Robert Milnes

    Well, counterrevolutionary Ron Paul did”catch on” so I guess Root’s book catching on is very possible. Counterrevolution pandering as profit making device. Whodathunk?

  11. Robert Milnes

    I have recently come by some very interesting information. & I’ll ask Prof. Phillies, Carl Milsted & Chris the Myopic Physicist whether this is technologically possible. The UNITED STATES government has the capability to engage in surveillance through one’s television.

  12. Robert Milnes

    By the way this is a hijack. The following people AT LEAST have seen this in operation but only one knows that what they were watching was surveillance via television, not a webcast. David Gregory, NBC News. Norah O’Donnell, MSNBC News, A.B. Stoddard, associate editor, The Hill. Gregory and Stoddard saw what they believed was a webcast. O’Donnell is aware of the origins of the url involved & it is a government agency. Here is how it works. When the TV is on, an energy pulse, probably radio waves, is sent through the antenna system. Whatever is on the TV is filtered out. What remains is the image of what the energy pulse has reflected back to the TV screen. Both video & audio. The case I know about involved satellite tv. However I’m sure the technology applies to cable also. Whether it applies to the new digital boxes which gather free local tv signals I’m not sure. But I see no technological bar. This technology does not need tv to function. The reflected signal can go right through buildings etc. In that case it is not necessary to filter out the tv program image. Just thought I’d let all you targets know.

  13. John C.

    I went to B&N a couple days ago. Didn’t see Root’s book. Wasn’t looking for it, but I did notice the displays/new releases

  14. Aaron Starr

    Wayne Root’s book is on special displays at Barnes and Noble bookstores in 300 cities. This is quite an extraordinary accomplishment for a libertarian book.

    What I find strange is how people who haven’t read the book have an opinion of it, some even attempting to pigeonhole Wayne Root as being some sort of social conservative, when the extensive quote from Wayne Root’s book in this posted article clearly demonstrates otherwise.

  15. Aaron Starr

    By the way, here’s another quote from Wayne Root in Chapter 1, page 19 of his book, extolling the virtues of his hero Barry Goldwater:

    “Goldwater felt that abortion was a personal choice, not intended for government intervention. He was also supportive of gays in the military. Goldwater said, ‘You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to shoot straight … Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar.'”

  16. JT

    Starr: “What I find strange is how people who haven’t read the book have an opinion of it, some even attempting to pigeonhole Wayne Root as being some sort of social conservative, when the extensive quote from Wayne Root’s book in this posted article clearly demonstrates otherwise.”

    He’s not a social conservative. But he’s not a social libertarian either. His quotes of Barry Goldwater don’t prove he is; elsewhere in the book he essentially says it’s acceptable for states to pass laws restricting social liberty if most people want them (i.e., majority oppression) . Root’s obviously trying to straddle the fence so as not to upset social conservatives in any way. That strategy won’t gain any votes from genuine social conservatives, but it will lose votes from genuine social libertarians.

    Milnes: “The UNITED STATES government has the capability to engage in surveillance through one’s television.”

    The US government needs to engage in surveillance in your head. Maybe we could learn something about how the brain of a kook works.

  17. Jay

    Root calls himself a conservative too often in his radio show.

    I do admire him and the work that he is doing. But he needs to realize that conservatives are no friends of liberty.

    I intend on picking up his book.

  18. Robert Milnes

    JT, I told you. I explained how it works. I named names as to who knows about it. I asked 3 libertarian physicists to report their opinion. I don’t know what more you need to get it. Don’t say I didn’t tell you.

  19. Galileo Galilei

    300 bookstores! Great point, Aaron! At least some Libertarians have practical sense.

    I bet more non-Libertarian comments are made in this very forum each day, than you could find in Root’s entire book!

  20. sunshinebatman

    MILNES-

    They obviously have their rays very focused on you right now.

    What you need to do is to move your trailer around the park frequently.

    That way they need to set up all their shit over and over again.

    This is a simple way to cut down on the mind control rays.

    Also, turn off your TV.

    Hope this helps.

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    John C,

    You write: “Who pays for the special displays at Barnes& Noble?”

    If B&N selects the books for the displays on some merit system, then the fact that Wayne’s book is being treated that way says that B&N suspects it can be a strong seller. They don’t waste premium shelf space on books they expect to tank.

    If the publishing company — Wiley, which is not by any stretch of the imagination a fly-by-night outfit — is paying a promotional fee, then it says that Wiley is behind the book, intends to have it do well (you’d be surprised how often that’s not the case with publishers — on many books, the author gets a small advance and the publisher lets the book die after the first print run) and happy to have its name as a publisher associated with Wayne’s name as an author.

    If Wayne himself is paying a promotional fee, then it says he’s willing to shell out to promote his book — and by extension, to promote his vision of Libertarianism. Can’t fault him for that!

    I don’t endorse the book, of course (haven’t read it yet), but there’s no “bad” answer to your question.

  22. Aaron Starr

    JT @ 19: “He’s not a social conservative. But he’s not a social libertarian either. His quotes of Barry Goldwater don’t prove he is; elsewhere in the book he essentially says it’s acceptable for states to pass laws restricting social liberty if most people want them (i.e., majority oppression) . Root’s obviously trying to straddle the fence so as not to upset social conservatives in any way. That strategy won’t gain any votes from genuine social conservatives, but it will lose votes from genuine social libertarians.”

    JT, I don’t know where in the book Wayne Root states that it is ACCEPTABLE for states to pass laws that limit personal freedoms.

    There are many people who hold the belief — one also held by many constitutional scholars — that the Constitution allows for states to enact laws you and I oppose.

    However, I suspect you might be equating Wayne Root’s statements on page 44 concerning constitutional law with him taking a position that he is somehow in favor of laws that limit personal freedoms.

    Wayne Root makes clear what are his ideals when it comes to personal freedoms on the very next page (page 45), where he states he wants more freedom at all levels:

    “I’d prefer that no government (local, state, or federal) limited the personal freedoms of consenting adults, but I am a realist. Incremental success on the state level, which can lead to full-fledged success on the national level, is preferable to no success at all. And even if the freedoms achieved on the state level are never implemented on the national level, it gives citizens a chance to choose to live in the states that allow the most personal freedom that fits their lifestyle.”

    And on page 41-42 he criticizes the GOP when he writes:

    “The fact is, today’s Republicans leaders have moved away from the limited government ideals of my heroes Thomas Jefferson, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. When it comes to issues like abortion, gay rights, stem cell funding, right to die (think Terri Schiavo), online poker, medical marijuana, and censorship of television, the GOP is actually in favor of Big Brother moving into our bedrooms, taking over our televisions and computers, and taking control of our lives.”

  23. Joe Cobb

    Wayne Root is saying the correct ideas about legalization, and his nice words about Steve Kubby are good “party unity” stuff, since Steve and his supporters voted for Ruwart against both Barr and Root in Denver. Root wants to be the LP candidate in 2012, and he is working toward it. I am glad he is saying the correct things. I hope he never deviates, although …

  24. Michael Seebeck

    Aaron @33:

    The question not yet raised on this: What he has said about the 9th and 10th Amendments?

    If Root doesn’t have those down correctly, not to mention the clear and careful delineation between rights and powers, who has them, and why, and which one trumps the other, then anything he says on the subject is kinda meaningless. The Founders were pretty clear on those, and the modern idea of “states’ rights” is nothing more than an “artificial-entities-have-rights-too” bullshit perversion of the Founders’ clear vision.

    This is fundamental stuff, as fundamental as the First, Fourth, and Second Amendments.

  25. Mike

    ““The fact is, today’s Republicans leaders have moved away from the limited government ideals of my heroes Thomas Jefferson, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. When it comes to issues like abortion, gay rights, stem cell funding, right to die (think Terri Schiavo), online poker, medical marijuana, and censorship of television, the GOP is actually in favor of Big Brother moving into our bedrooms, taking over our televisions and computers, and taking control of our lives.”

    WTF? How does any of that deviate from Reagan?

  26. JT

    Aaron Starr: “JT, I don’t know where in the book Wayne Root states that it is ACCEPTABLE for states to pass laws that limit personal freedoms.”

    Well, I was referring specifically to this quote in Root’s book:
    “As a Libertarian, I believe that social and personal freedom issues are quite simply States’ Rights issues. …These issues are none of the federal government’s darn business. Voters should decide these issues on the state and local level.”

    Now, why should social/personal freedom issues be decided at any level of government? Why should a particular state or local government pass laws about such things? Unless an action is one of physical aggression, any government should do nothing about it whatsoever–whether most people in that state or locality personally endorse it or not.

    Why couldn’t Root have just written, “These issues are none of the federal government’s darn business?” Obviously, because he wants to throw a bone to social conservatives and not completely alienate them. He’s saying, “Hey guys, the federal government just shouldn’t be involved in these things. But listen: you should still be able to outlaw abortion, certain drugs, gay marriage, etc. in your own state if that’s what most people there feel like doing.” Sorry, but that’s simply not a libertarian attitude.

    Libertarians don’t think any non-violent, non-encroaching activity should be up for majority vote and subject to the force of law. If Root continues to say/write things similar to the above, I’d think based on my experiences he’d lose more votes from civil libertarians than he’d gain from civil conservatives.

  27. JT

    I should amend the first line in my last paragraph above to “non-violent, non-encroaching activity among adults.” Many libertarians, including me, don’t think small children can give informed consent to certain things.

  28. Aaron Starr

    Michael @ 35

    I haven’t seen Wayne Root write about the Ninth Amendment (though that doesn’t mean he hasn’t), but I do note that on page 18 of his book he does quote Barry Goldwater’s comments on the Tenth Amendment.

  29. Aaron Starr

    JT @38

    At this point we Libertarians have very few votes.

    JT, you and I are probably part of the <1% of the population actually interested in reading a philosophical treatise on libertarianism. For people such as us, I highly recommend John Hospers’ book Libertarianism. That style of book is perhaps more appealing to you and me. However, it will never be a big seller.

    Wayne Root wrote a book designed to appeal to a wider audience not yet familiar with libertarianism. I imagine this is why major publisher Wiley & Sons agreed to pay Wayne Root to write it.

    Wayne Root is interested in marketing and strategy, when it comes to promoting and implementing our ideas. His book pushes a general theme of dramatically reduced government in both size and scope, and he does so in a very readable fashion that respects where the reader is today, not where we want necessarily him to be.

    And this approach seems to have legs.

    A few days ago, Wayne Root was telling me about some of the raving fans he has been accumulating who have been e-mailing him after reading his book, seeing him on television or listening to him on the radio.

    I was a bit skeptical. I thought, “who in their right mind would take the time to write an author after reading their book or listening to a radio program?”

    Wayne now forwards to me each day actual fan e-mails he receives.

    Folks, I’m a believer.

  30. Michael Seebeck

    Quoting someone else is not that say as saying it oneself, Aaron.

    So, I’ll repeat the question: What has he said about the 9th and 10th?

  31. Danny S

    Anarchy State and Utopia got pretty big by Robert Nozick, the Harvard philosopher. It is quite thorough and is excellent for minarchists.

  32. Aaron Starr

    Michael @ 43

    Wayne Root speaks about the general concept, rather than mentioning those amendments by name.

    For example, he writes the following:

    As one of my heroes, Thomas Jefferson, once said, “The true theory of our Constitution is that States are independent as to everything within themselves and united as to everything respecting foreign affairs.” Jefferson recognized the right of a state to nullify a federal law within its own borders, even describing federal government intrusion in state matters as “interference by a foreign government.” In other words, let the voters decide these issues on the state and local level where government is closer to the voters and keep the federal government out of it. When it comes to personal issues and private choices, I believe the only answer, no matter what the question (unless it is specifically authorized by the Constitution) is: It’s none of the federal government’s darn business!

    In other areas of the book, he makes it pretty clear that he does not want government interfering in our lives.

    Perhaps others would write this differently by going through each article of the Constitution and each amendment one-by-one, providing historical background, case law citations and explanations as to what each means. I’m sure that approach might delight a few Libertarians across the country, but it is not likely to sell very many books.

    That’s certainly not the type of book Wayne Root intended to write and it is an author’s prerogative to write his book in a style he prefers and that the publisher is willing to support. And he wanted to write a book that people not yet in our party will actually read. Writing a book few will read is a lot like the proverbial tree falling in the middle of the forest.

    Of course, anyone else here is free to propose a book with a different approach and ask Wiley & Sons or any other major publisher to publish it and pitch it to thousands of book stores across the country.

  33. Robert Milnes

    Did somebody (Uncle Sam?) go to Wiley & Sons & say I (Uncle Sam?) want a book published by you for my (Uncle Sam’s?) guy to further assist by me (Uncle Sam?) his candidacy. I (Uncle Sam?) think a good title would be Concience of a Libertarian. & he should be paid not by me (Uncle Sam?) but by you.

  34. Robert Capozzi

    Ms 35, actually, a literal reading of the Constitution often leads to gray areas. Did or does, for ex., 2A mean any and all arms, and did or does bear mean anywhere at any time? I’d say no, and most Ls I know would ALSO say no.

    Or, did or do the 9 and 10As override Article 1, Section 8’s “insurrection” clause? Some say yes, I’d say no.

  35. Aaron Starr

    Robert Milnes @46

    Here is my understanding of how it works.

    Ultimately, it’s all a negotiation.

    If you are an author who has managed to successfully sell your previous writings, you can actually have a bidding war between publishers, where they will compete in their offers of an advance payment to you before you write the book and for a book tour to promote your book. The publisher will print up many copies of your book at their expense. The royalties you earn from the sales of the book are first used to offset the advance, then the amounts above that become royalties that you, the author, receive.

    If you are an author no one has heard of before and you have a story few are interested in, a publisher will not pay you an advance on royalties to write the book. They will not heavily promote your book. They will likely only be there to print up copies of your book at your expense, not theirs.

    No-name authors may find that it is more economical to self-publish and self-promote, but soon also discover they have a garage full of unsold books.

  36. Michael Seebeck

    Robert, if you think that Am9 and Am10 don’t override A1s8, then you are seriously lacking in the fundamentals of rights vs. powers.

    Aaron, quoting Jefferson is one thing, but anybody with a web browser can do that.

    What I want to know is does HE specifically mention those two at all? Not a point-by-point deflection argument by YOU about going through of the constitution (been there, done that, lost the file in a PC crash, and Story wrote one too), but those two specifically.

    Does HE know the difference between rights and powers, who has them, and which is superior or subordinate to the other and why?

    Do YOU?

    That’s one of my basic litmus tests. 99.98% or more of the population fail that litmus test. That’s a shame, because all it requires to pass it is careful reading of two Founding Documents, and a little bit of Locke.

  37. Michael Seebeck

    “Folks, I’m a believer.”

    You really ought to think before hitting the submit button, Aaron.

    That one left you so wide open in so many different directions, from Kool-Aid to the Monkees to Shrek to cult jokes, that it’s best to leave it alone and let everyone else draw their own conclusions.

  38. Steve LaBianca

    Aaron Starr writes, “Wayne Root wrote a book designed to appeal to a wider audience not yet familiar with libertarianism”.

    That would be fine if W.A.R.’s ACTUALLY was about libertarianism!

    It ACTUALLY takes a libertarian to write authoritatively about libertarianism. W.A.R.’s book, to the extent I have read excerpts (many) appears to be is more of a personal exercise of bits of cutting and nibbling away at bloated government, and not at all with any reference back to principles of libertarianism. Thus, it fails miserably in presenting libertarianism fairly, though it does give an egotistical account of W.A.R.’s personal political philosophy. That philosophy, is mostly in line with mainstream Republican Party beliefs.

    Why again, is it that W.A.R. is in the LP?

  39. Steve LaBianca

    That would be fine if W.A.R.’s ACTUALLY was about libertarianism!

    Missed a words- should read “That would be fine if W.A.R.’s BOOK ACTUALLY was about libertarianism!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *