Richard Winger Reviews Conscience Of A Libertarian

Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News and a leading authority on American third-party politics, has posted on Amazon.com a review of Conscience of a Libertarian, the new book by 2008 Libertarian Party vice-presidential nominee Wayne Root.  He gives Root’s book 4 stars out of 5 and writes:

I have read the entire book, but I have not discussed it with anyone else who has read it. It seems to me that Root’s major purpose with this book is to persuade conservatives to become libertarians in their thinking. This is not a book that seems to have the major purpose of persuading Libertarians to nominate Root for president.

Root’s technique for moving conservatives to more libertarian thinking seems to be to show at the beginning that he has been a conservative himself, and that he still appreciates the values that conservatives value. So, as one reads through the book, Root seems to evolve. For example, page 24 seems to indicate he is only opposed to drug prohibition when the federal government does it. If someone stops reading there, that is the impression one will have of Root’s thinking. But, on pages 79-81, the book makes a strong case against any government (state or local as well as federal) from blocking medical marijuana. Then, on pages 225-226, he makes a stronger, more emotional case against drug laws. Then, on pages 260-263, he talks about the horrible way in which Steve Kubby was persecuted.

Root’s education policy also seems to change as one reads further into the book. Pages 164-167 seems to endorse the idea that state and local government should handle education. But, when one reads further, there is a big shift. Page 207 says, “As long as most of our children are educated in government-run public schools, the government bureaucrats running them will instill the idea into the heads of their captive audience (our children) that more govenment is better.”

In order for a book to persuade, the reader must be open to persuasion. Root’s technique probably works better than most books do to persuade conservatives toward libertarianism. I have re-reviewed all the campaign books published by Libertarian presidential nominees (all LP presidential nominees wrote a campaign book, either before or after they were nominated, except for Andre Marrou). I believe that this is the best book for persuading conservatives toward libertarianism, of any of those books. There are times when I was angry at Root’s book, but those moments came less and less frequently as I kept reading. It is not fair to the book to put it down without reading all of it. And, it is never boring. I spotted a few factual errors but no non-fiction book of this length is ever perfectly accurate.

Meanwhile, a source reports that LP founder David Nolan has issued a call for “REAL libertarians” to “post some reviews pointing out that Root’s version of libertarianism is pretty lame, and that he does not speak for all libertarians. Or any, for that matter.”  Nolan’s message admitted that he hadn’t read the book, and the same may be true of the author of the first 1-star review that subsequently appeared on Amazon.  That reviewer wrote: “What readers never learn is just what libertarianism actually *is*. That’s because Mr. Root himself cannot tell them — he doesn’t know.”  However, on page 69 Root’s book says:

I believe the proper definition of “Libertarian” is “fiscally conservative, socially tolerant, pro freedom, pro constitution, standing for more rights for the individual, and reducing the size, scope, and power of the government”.

207 thoughts on “Richard Winger Reviews Conscience Of A Libertarian

  1. Galileo Galilei

    I am going to buy the book today. I saw it stacked up at the front of Barnes & Noble in Madison.

    Root has made a great effort to get the Libertarian message out. We owe it to Root and the Libertarian movement, and the Libertarian Party, to buy this book. Who knows, it could become a best-seller.

    I also thank Richard Winger for the fine review.

  2. Michael Seebeck

    So what Richard calls “evolving” throughout the book is actually mere inconsistency and flip-flopping.

    Either that or his proofreader didn’t take very good notes.

    Now, who’s gonna write this?: “Heart of a Libertarian: Enlivening the Citizen Revolution with Booze, Sex, Drugs, and Rock N Roll”, aka “Pass the Hemp Oil, the Goddess needs to lube my Sex Pistol.”

  3. George Phillies

    Readers who wonder about the effect of this book — assuming anyone takes it seriously — on the future viability of our party, assuming any is left, might want to start with Chapter 27 “Stop the Global Warming Insanity: Facing the Real Global Threat” in which Root lines up firmly behind the right wing fruitcake global warming deniers.

    Root rolls out a healthy number number of arguments of the Republican Conservative Party of Stupid, for example, noting that his home town just had the biggest blizzard in 30 years, this being the conservative philosophy of stupid effort to confuse weather and climate.

    He does roll out increased snowfall in East Antarctica, which drives faster glacial flow, as though he were showing a refutation of global warming. In fact, the increase in that snowfall rate is a significant triumph of global warming models, and arises from the issue that sub-32F air can carry less and less water as it gets colder and colder. The same models also predicted the sequential collapse of the Larson Ice Shelfs, as being seen.

    He then (p.313) invokes the old conservative lie about global climate modelling in the 1970s generally predicting global cooling. It actually did not. A majority of the legitimate papers predicted warming. You can find several aerosol analyses that predicted warming, but they were quite specific about saying they were asking “what will aerosols do” not “what will climate do.

    If Libertarians are seen as being linked with nonsense like this, our party’s future is pretty bad.

    George Phillies

  4. JT

    Phillies: “…Root lines up firmly behind the right wing fruitcake global warming deniers.”

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    31, 478. That’s A LOT of nutty fruitcake scientists who’ve researched this issue extensively, right Phillies?

    Seriously, why don’t you want to be in the Green Party? I think you might be more comfortable there.

  5. JT

    What’s more, I bet many of those petitioners personally have a big-government orientation. So that makes their signatures even more impressive here.

  6. George Phillies

    There are almost no scientists who do research in the area of climate who deny the reality of man-made global warming. People have checked. You see, that list can be checked against the list of people who actually do research in the area.

    And to point at your petition “31,478 American scientists have signed this petition,
    including 9,029 with PhDs ”

    anyone who thinks that in 2009 there are a significant number of scientists who do not have PhDs is a rightwing crackpot out of touch with reality. That’s not 31,000 scientists there, though likely many of them actually know something about science.

  7. Andy

    “It seems to me that Root’s major purpose with this book is to persuade conservatives to become libertarians in their thinking.”

    I don’t have a problem with reaching out to conservatives to persuade them to become libertarians, but this seems to be the primary focus of Wayne Root’s outreach and this is one of the reasons that I did not support him for the nomination in 2008 and why I’m not big on him being the nominee in 2012.

    Wayne Root seems to pretty much ignore the other 2/3 of the political spectrum. The Libertarian Party needs to do way more outreach to the left as well as the center and especially independents and non-voters (independents and non-voters are the biggest potential constituency for the Libertarian Party).

    The Libertarian Party needs a Presidential candidate who reaches out across the political spectrum, not one who only reaches out to the right.

    I have not read Mr. Root’s new book yet, but from what I’ve heard, it sounds like it is not as good of an indroduction to libertarianism as Harry Browne’s campaign books, “Why Goverment Doesn’t Work” and “The Great Libertarian Offer” were (and still are).

  8. Galileo Galilei

    George;

    How many PhDs from Greenland support Global Warming?

    1000 years ago, Greenland was green, and Viking farmers farmed the coast as far as 300 miles north of the southern limit.

    Then, a couple hundred years later, the Vikings had to leave because Global Cooling set in, and their crops froze over.

    Nitpicking Root’s book over a couple points does not impress me.

    I’d be more impressed if you wrote your own book, rather than dumping on fellow Libertarians.

  9. Christian Prophet

    I will get a copy and read the entire book. But from this review it seems like the same old attempt to convince people by going over the entire gammut of libertarian positions … a big mistake. Libertarians only need to find ONE issue where they are in rapport with the vast majority, but not with the government worshipping parties. ONE issue is enough to win millions of converts. In the meantime, government worshippers have messed up so enormously that now is a great time to start talking about an entirely different form of government. See:
    http://spirituallibertarian.blogspot.com/

  10. JT

    Phillies: “There are almost no scientists who do research in the area of climate who deny the reality of man-made global warming. People have checked. You see, that list can be checked against the list of people who actually do research in the area.”

    People have checked that there are “almost no scientists” who deny the notion of catastrophic man-made global warming? WHO?? Have you done that personally? If not, please do tell me where to find that evidence. I’d love to see it.

    Again, with the comments you make, I can’t understand why you wouldn’t rather be a Green. They’re anti-war and pro-civil liberties also. I think you’d fit in there.

  11. Joey

    I, too, am reviewing the book for The Plymouth Review, the independent conservative paper I’m starting here in Plymouth, NH.

    This book so far is just soaked with energy. If you didn’t know Root on TV or the radio before reading it, you would sense that this guy is just overloaded with a the torch of what RP started.

    I love this book so far.

  12. David F. Nolan

    From my experience, there is no consensus among libertarians on the causes of global warming, even if it’s still going on.

    GW is the Left’s equivalent of the Right’s “War on Terror” — a justification for higher taxes, more controls, and less freedom. I’ve even read quotes from some GW zealots saying that anyone who publicly speaks out against this “established fact” is a “traitor” and should be muzzled, or even thrown in prison.

    The Earth has undergone numerous cycles of warming and cooling trends, and it always will. So I’m very uncomfortable siding with those (like ultra-statist Al Gore) who want bigger, more powerful government to step in to “solve the problem.”

    I think Wayne Root is a shameless opportunist, but I agree with him on this issue!

  13. tab

    Rmight want to start with Chapter 27 “Stop the Global Warming Insanity: Facing the Real Global Threat” in which Root lines up firmly behind the right wing fruitcake global warming deniers.

    To act like Global Warming is a proven science is the height of arrogance. To act like you must believe in the hoax of global warming to be a libertarian is even more arrogant.

    If Libertarians are seen as being linked with nonsense like this, our party’s future is pretty bad.

    No, it really wouldn’t be. Libertarians can have differing opinions on issues. Just like Republicans, Democrats, Greens, etc. all have differing opinions on some issues. People won’t agree on every issue nor must they agree with you.

    I see you do a good deal of criticizing but not much positive promoting of your own.

  14. Brian Holtz Post author

    The vast majority of the debate over global warming is caused by two kinds of misdirection. In the first kind, energy industry interests opposed to amelioration efforts exaggerate the uncertainty and minimize the risks for obvious reasons. In the second, climate researchers exaggerate both the uncertainties and the risks to keep the climate research gravy train going.

    Anthropogenic global warming is not an urban legend. The urban legends are 1) that global warming might be much more than the expected 2 degrees C over the next 100 years, and 2) that modest global warming will have overwhelmingly negative consequences. The Cato Institute acknowledges that modest warming is underway but recognizes that it will likely provide a modest benefit: http://cato.org/research/articles/michaels-031016.html

    My primary worry about anthropogenic global warming is the highly-uncertain possible risks to species in marginal ecosystems. Extinction of species and forgetting of languages are pretty much the only crimes against Earth that wealthy future generations will hold against us. Warming’s two biggest threats — to the Gulf Stream thermohaline circulation and the West Antarctic ice sheet — are very unlikely to be realized, and moderate warming (up to 2C) would have a net positive impact on the developed (i.e. temperate) world. [For more on this, see Skeptical Environmentalist p301].

    The best sites I’ve seen for global-warming skepticism are:

    * http://www.heartland.org/IssueSuiteTopic.cfm?issId=2&istId=349
    * http://www.globalwarming.org/

    The best sites I’ve seen against GW skepticism are

    * http://www.realclimate.org
    * http://www.climateark.org/

    An interesting way to compare two sides of a debate is to see how often the best sites on each side reference the other side in attempted rebuttals. On this metric, the anti-skepticism sites above are way ahead.

  15. Deran

    Let me guess; these folks that don’t believe in human effect on climate change are also birthers and truthers? Well, in that case, I’ve got some fantastic bridges between Brooklyn and Manhattan that I am looking to unload cheap!

  16. Deran

    And, has anyone at IPR got any news on the Peace and Freedom Party’s national organizing conference this last weekend?

  17. George Phillies

    Deran,

    You are right. Go for the big time. Skip the bridges. Sell them the interstate highway system. And the Pacific ocean.

    Of course, there are other issues on which everyone does not agree. Evolution, for example. The earth, round or flat? The earth, created 6000 years ago, 7500 years ago, or four seconds ago, with all internal evidence of being a bit older.

  18. Ayn R. Key

    “I believe the proper definition of “Libertarian” is “fiscally conservative, socially tolerant, pro freedom, pro constitution, standing for more rights for the individual, and reducing the size, scope, and power of the government”.

    Socially tolerant? I would like someone from the reform side to tell me how “socially tolerant” is different from “socially liberal” as is more often used. “Tolerant” seems like a milquetoast version of the libertarian position on civil liberty.

  19. Michael Seebeck

    Ayn,

    I’m not of the reform side, but I’ll give your request a shot from my POV.

    “Socially tolerant” is the more accurate term since it means allowing without neither advocating nor condemning. “Socially liberal” is used more to indicate the 2-D spectrum position for the masses who have never seen a Nolan Quiz. They really are equivalent, just context- and circumstance-selective.

    I suppose on the fiscal side we could use the term “fiscally prudent” to go with “fiscally conservative”, but most people don’t get what prudence actually means.

    Personally, I’d love to go with “socially visionary, fiscally wise” or something close to that, but the other terms have a huge head-start on familiarity.

  20. Eric Dondero

    Conservatives have been moving libertarian for years now. I can remember the late 1980s and early ’90’s in the GOP. It was an awful environment for libertarians. The Republican Party was completely controlled by the Religious Right. Now, the libertarian wing has almost complete dominance. Hell, Rush Limbaugh is now almost entirely a libertarian, even though he persists in calling himself a “Conservative.”

    So, I fear Wayne’s book may be a failure in one regard: It may be a little redundant.

    The battle for winning the hearts and minds of Republicans over to libertarianism, has already been won, with only small pockets of opposition left.

    The real battle ahead is defeating and then destroying the enemies of Freedom: The Democrat Party.

  21. Steve

    Ayn,
    How “socially tolerant” is different from “socially liberal” is all in the context. To the conservatives that Root is preaching too, “socially liberal” probably connotes with social engineering programs through government schools and the state pliable media while “socially tolerant” means “live and let live.” At least that’s how I as a conservative leaning libertarian use the terms. And I can’t speak for all reform types but I wouldn’t have any problem with liberals and conservatives throwing down in a rhetorical culture war if each side were forbidden from using the state as a weapon.

  22. Steve

    Eric,
    It’s easy for Republicans to sound libertarian now that they’re opposing a Democratic controlled government. As for non-Ron Paul, Campaign for Liberty, and Liberty Caucus type Republicans rolling back the state, I’ll believe that when I see it, because I sure didn’t during the last 8 years.

  23. Andy

    “The battle for winning the hearts and minds of Republicans over to libertarianism, has already been won, with only small pockets of opposition left.”

    LOL!!!

  24. JT

    David Nolan, well said as usual.

    Brian: “Anthropogenic global warming is not an urban legend. The urban legends are 1) that global warming might be much more than the expected 2 degrees C over the next 100 years, and 2) that modest global warming will have overwhelmingly negative consequences.”

    You’re right, Brian. The earth has undergone some very slight warming overall in the last century. But like David said, slight planetary temperature change is nothing new. Citing that as proof that we’re on the verge of a climactic crisis that requires more government controls is the real issue here, and one that any libertarian should be very skeptical about.

    Phillies: “However, if you want a reality based party, global warming denialism is somewhat less credible than opposing evolution.”

    I see you didn’t respond to my request for credible evidence, George. Just another bald assertion from you. I don’t want to hijack this thread from Root’s book. But you should really stop sticking your foot in your mouth here. I’m sure you won’t though.

    Dondero: “Conservatives have been moving libertarian for years now.”

    I guess that’s why Mike Huckabee, a religious evangelical and proven tax-and-spend governor, did so well in the GOP presidential primaries, right Eric?

  25. William Smith

    Theresa Amato’s “Grand Illusion” is a great, laugh out loud read.

    Amato was 2000 Green Party Prez campaign mgr….and 2004 Nader..

    Amato says her first every campaign – as a worker on a campaign…was….yes 2000, when she managed a Presidential campaign…

    Now that is laugh out loud funny…in any body’s book…

  26. JT

    Oh, and Eric, lest you respond, “Well, Huckabee didn’t win the nomination,” he did get millions of votes from those “conservatives who have been moving libertarian.” Had conservatives really been moving libertarian, Huckabee would never have received even one-fifth of the votes he did.

  27. Michael H. Wilson

    From Root’s book we apparently get; “I believe the proper definition of “Libertarian” is “fiscally conservative, socially tolerant…”

    Identifying Libertarians as “fiscally conservative” says nothing about the regualtions and licensing laws that act as barriers and keep people down. And I always thought you need to know about something before you could actually be tolerant of it and we can’t know everything. As well Libertarians are big on privacy and your life is none of someone else’s business.

    I’ll settle for describing Libertarians as being for Civil Liberties and Economic Freedom.

    MW

  28. Donald R Lake

    “Michael Seebeck // Aug 4, 2009 at 7:05 pm:

    Ayn, I’m not of the reform side, but I’ll give your request a shot from my POV.”

    Well from my point of view this is very appropriate on a specific Libertarian site. How ever in a more general area, reform, Reform Party USA, and or Libertarian reform are the correct responses. Any thing else is an inappropriate slide into turning a general alternative political blog into an informal Libertarian Party confab.

    Bad, bad, Mike. Plz say what you mean and mean what you say! If not, then you are a liar!

  29. Bryan

    Global Warming….

    Yes, the climate is changing just as it has for millions of years.

    Does “modern” man and society have an additional impact on it…probably.

    Can we correct it in our lifetime? If your response is yes…Bullshit!!!

    I am not a proponent of government subsidies to nuclear energy, however, I do feel that every effort should be made to “speed up” the process of getting reactors online. This is, in my opinion the “fuel of the future”.

    If left to their own free will, Americans have shown they care about the environment, and are taking steps INDIVIDUALLY to play a small role in it’s protection.

    It all comes down to what individuals will do…what sacrifices they will make…and how much credibility they give the …climate change Chicken Littles.

  30. Chuck Moulton

    I don’t feel informed enough on this issue. I’d appreciate references to further reading on the SCIENCE of global warming, especially by George Phillies and Brian Holtz who seem to have done some research. (Note: “everyone knows XXX, so if you don’t accept it you’re an idiot” is what I primarily hear from one camp… that’s not science.)

  31. tab

    I don’t feel informed enough on this issue. I’d appreciate references to further reading on the SCIENCE of global warming, especially by George Phillies and Brian Holtz who seem to have done some research. (Note: “everyone knows XXX, so if you don’t accept it you’re an idiot” is what I primarily hear from one camp… that’s not science.)

    The problem is MMGW is not scientific fact either. MMGW is scientific theory. There is absolutely no conclusive evidence to suggest the warming is caused by the actions of man.

    I think most would agree the Earth is warming somewhat, but they are unable to prove it isn’t part of the natural warming and cooling cycles that are constantly happening on this planet.

  32. Aaron Starr

    We all know and respect Richard Winger as a dedicated long-time libertarian activist. I believe he’s been involved longer than my almost 30 years with the Party.

    And unlike some individuals with an opinion on Wayne Root’s book, Richard Winger’s opinion is unusual in one critical respect: He’s actually read Wayne Root’s entire book.

    Not only has Richard read the book, but it appears he approached it with an open mind and gave it a balanced review without the normal partisan spin we see masquerading as debate these days.

    And Richard Winger actually understands what the book is designed to accomplish!

    Sure, Wayne Root could have written a philosophical treatise designed to entertain a thousand or so people already part of the libertarian fold.

    Or Wayne Root could write an interesting fast-paced book intended to appeal to perhaps hundreds of thousands of people who aren’t libertarians yet.

    Richard Winger really gets it! He understands that Wayne Root is using the latter approach, and the result is that Root is delivering our message to many more people in a persuasive manner.

    Does Wayne Root’s book appeal more to conservatives than liberals? Perhaps, but who cares? There are certainly other libertarian books (e.g. Healing Our World) more oriented toward those who are liberal, and we’re not complaining about those.

    I believe it’s difficult – and perhaps impossible – to write a book on libertarianism that can successfully persuade people from all walks of life and significantly penetrate the marketplace beyond perhaps a few thousand copies. I am certainly not aware of anyone who has written such a book being actively marketed today.

    Frankly, we should be celebrating each new person we reach through Wayne Root’s book. Wayne Root’s success does not detract from our movement; it only serves to make it larger.

    If some people do not like that Root’s book is written to attract soon-to-be former conservatives, there is a simple solution: write your own libertarian book, get it published by Wiley & Sons or some other big name publisher, and then go out and promote the heck out of it on national television and radio programs.

  33. Erik Geib

    The idea of and science behind man-made global warming (particularly among its enthusiastic proponents) too eerily reminds me of the ‘sound science’ behind eugenics.

  34. libertariangirl

    who was that on the other thread that read Waynes book and said it was way better then they thought it was gonna be?
    you know , it was someone who actually read it 🙂

  35. Ayn R. Key

    ISTM that when a libertarian, well versed in the 2-d Nolan Chart as his political spectrum instead of the archaich French Assembly spectrum, says “socially liberal” he’s saying his score on civil liberties is 80% to 100% while if he says “socially tolerant” he’s saying his score on civil liberties is 60% to 80%.

    But then liberals aren’t liberal and conservatives aren’t conservative on the Nolan Chart, and Dondero is far removed from libertarian.

  36. Robert Milnes

    This is one of the reasons I’m running Independent. The LP is probably going to nominate some fool rightist like Root or Barr again. Gravel/Ruwart could have been promoted as a fusion ticket even if neither understood it. The GP will probably nominate somebody that is zoned out about the Progressive Libertarian Alliance Strategy. Either not knowing about it or not understanding it or against it. Since there is no Progressive Party & Milsted is not making any progress that I know of with his “new upper left party”, that leaves Independent.

  37. Melty

    girl, that was Richard Winger who said that on the other thread while partway into the book

    Robert Milnes, Milsted sed he’d gone to the dark side to infiltrate the Republicans . . .
    also, all Gravel wanted in both his prez campaigns, and all he wants now, is venues to sound off about national initiatives . . . he told me that himself this summer, and he sed that’s his life’s work . . . maybe YOU should start yer own ProgLib Party

  38. George Phillies

    @35

    The word “theory” is used in science with a meaning radically different than it is used in common speech. There is a very large amount of evidence demonstrating man-made global warming. The are extremely large scientific reports assembling this evidence.

    There are a number of points where models are known to be limited, for example, modeling ice flow from land ice masses into the oceans. Those models have tended to fail by underestimated the amount of global warming. Feedback effects tend to be understated. Thus, for example, while 2007 gave us the smallest summer arctic polar ice cap, 2008 gave us the largest area to melt (that’s actually not a very interesting number; it reflects how far our the fringes froze in winter) and probably gave us the largest volume melt (measuring ice volumes is challenging, because you cannot see the underside, and sampling to measure the depth gives you a small number of points, so a reasonable estimate of the statistical error in estimating the change in the ice volume leads us to say ‘probably’).

    The Westher Underground web sute wunderground.com has a fair number of interesting links and several sets of course notes. For ongoing scientific papers arxiv.org has a scattering; they are public access, but the sampling is a bit mixed.

  39. Melty

    What people do aint makin the world cooler, but consider how puny we are. Think of that fiery thing that makes up 99.8% of the known solar system (and Jupiter most of the rest), that driver of all earthlife energy – Sol. The Sun experts have readjusted their predictions for the next sunspot cycle over the last two years from firier than average, to average, to weaker than average, in view of the extended paucity of sunspots we’ve been experiencing. They now are scrambling to cover their pink empirical asses with ad hoc hypotheses to explain what they supposed would not happen in their lifetimes – that the Sun might act strangely. They recently brought up solar southern hemispherical torsional oscilations that should bring burgeoning sunspots any day yesterday. They hope against hope for some real spotage soon so as to be spared further embarrassment. No spots again this week. The experts admit this’s odd. To predict glacial advance would be as hysterical as global melt, but judging from the current whims of the source of all weather/climate, my forecast is a decade or more of chill.

  40. Robert Milnes

    melty, Milsted told me that he temporarily joined the GOP to accomodate Ron Paul. Gravel may have thought he could hook into the Ron Paul contributions & campaign frenzy by joining the LP. Nevertheless, if I had the opportunity to explain it to him, he might have got it. Then with my assistance gotten the nomination. Ruwart could have gotten the vp with Gravel’s endorsement as instructed by me. As for me, I’ve already decided to not start or endorse Milsted’s proposal. But he is definitely in the right ballpark.

  41. Melty

    Like I say, Gravel carries the torch of national initiatives at this point to the exculsion of everything else.

  42. Melty

    Look ahead at the potential for converts out of disgruntled left leaners, rats from the sinking ship of the Democrat-held lower, upper, and white houses. Sex Drugs n Peace Party baby.

  43. Melty

    Winger points to evolving stances over the course of the book and sees it as perhaps an effective technique for persuading disgruntled Republicans. Most would just scoff and call it inconsistant. The direction it evolves in is good.

  44. JT

    I haven’t read Root’s book yet, so I won’t pass judgment on it here. But I’m disturbed that it evidently includes the following:

    “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.”

    A libertarian believes social/personal freedom may properly be violated by various state governments, but not by the federal government? How is that libertarian?

    It’s one thing for a libertarian to take the position that some federal programs should be scaled back but not outright abolished in order to appeal to more people.

    It’s quite another thing to say that a libertarian makes any moral distinction between which level of government is violating individual rights and freedom (one on level it’s awful but on another it’s okay). That’s not right for a book titled “The Conscience of a Libertarian.”

  45. Galileo Galilei

    Global Warming, if true, is good according to John Stossel, check out his famous video on the subject.

    I agree.

    The average human is best fit and evolved for the temperature of 73 degrees F.

    But the earth’s average temp, averaged over 365 days, night & day, from the equator to the poles, is only 58 degrees F.

    So the earth is 15 degrees too cold!

    Also, only rich people own oceanfront property.

    If the earth’s temp goes up, it will redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, without government action.

    No wonder the NWO opposes Global Warming!

  46. Michael Seebeck

    Don @32:

    I was referring to “reform” in a specific context that was clearly not yours.

    The dominant faction on IPR is libertarian. Deal with it, or go form RPR.

    Calling me a liar was also unfounded. I said what I said, musing over synonomous terminology. Only you can think of it as “lying”.

    Sheesh! It gets so a guy can’t answer a question anymore before the nuts fall out of the trees while wrapped in their squeaking squirrels…

  47. Jeremy Young

    George Phillies is too much of a gentleman to remind us, but he’s a pretty distinguished scientist himself who speaks with some authority on this subject.

  48. John C. Jackson

    To me “tolerant” brings to a mind a bigot who doesn’t want to kill the objects of his bigotry, but doesn’t want to be around them or consider them equal human beings. Like a person who can’t stand gays but doesn’t advocate their mass execution. Or a Jim Crow segregationist who isn’t a big fan of lynching.

    If libertarians aren’t going to be sufficiently “radical” ( and by that I mean at least to a degree that is still WAY less than most radicals would prefer), there really is no point.

  49. AFH

    Lets see:

    We have a Libertarian condemning a book by another that has not yet even read it.

    Another condemning a growing and learning human being for… well… learning and growing.

    Yet one more spouting his dogmatic pseudo religious scientific opinions as a straw man attack on a Libertarians work full of other points.

    And one more attacking the work because it does not buy into his singular direction for political action.

    In “Philosophy of Liberty” terms: The work that Mr. Root put into that book, is a part of him. That is he invested some of that finite part of his life to that endeavor. To destroy, impugn, or devalue that work, out of narcissism, greed, jealousy, righteous indignation, or pure entertainment has the same effect as theft for the same purposes.

    The “correct way” to make sure that there is a LP Candidate that you like in 2012 is to PROMOTE the right person.

    Competing with others by destroying their good works is immoral.

  50. Michael Seebeck

    Aaron,

    The mere fact that WAR is trying to appeal to conservatives alone is the whole problem, not to mention inconsistencies in his own belief structure. If he’s gonna sell the LP, then he needs to know what he’s talking about, and judging from the quotes here, he hasn’t a clue.

    No, I haven’t read it, mainly because my own reading pile is high enough without it. Right now I’m reading my autographed copy of Radicals for Capitalism, and after that is finishing a book that details the rise of the House of Sa’ud (which coincidentally is out of print and banned in Sa’udia Arabia)-which lends very interesting perspective on our Middle East situation from both an economic but also a political and religious perspective. About a dozen books are on the pile behind that, too. And that’s not to mention the other things in my life that fill up my schedule outside the political world, like home renovations, family, birdwatching, and state political stuff that you’ve not been around as of late.

    A real LP book would not repeat the same tired old appeal-to-conservatives mantra. It would be a sign of intellectual honesty (and philosophical maturity) for WAR to write a book that would appeal to disgruntled liberals.

    I doubt we’ll see that any time soon, because Root isn’t comfortable outside his own zone, and that zone is right-conservative waxing libertarian rhetoric–Rush Limbaugh these days, without the audience, money pill addictions, deafness, weight problems, and marital problems.

    He needs to get himself on more than just Fox News to show he has the mettle and the ability to appeal to both sides of the aisle. That really hasn’t happened yet.

  51. JT

    Jeremy: “George Phillies is too much of a gentleman to remind us, but he’s a pretty distinguished scientist himself who speaks with some authority on this subject.”

    Nice “appeal to authority” fallacy there, Jeremy. Just because someone is a scientist doesn’t mean he or she is an expert on any particular scientific question–there are A LOT of scientific questions. It also doesn’t mean that person doesn’t have to offer objective credible evidence proving a particular claim.

  52. Trent Hill

    The only reason the dominant faction at IPR is libertarian is because libertarians tend to be a.) more interested in their own internal news, b.) tend to be more web-savvy, and c.) are larger in number.

    Don–if you’d like to turn this into a hangout for your Reform Party buddies, do so. Quit bitching.

  53. Jeremy Young

    JT, it does mean at least that Phillies has a passing familiarity with the scientific method. Just as a historian (not me, someone with a doctorate already) has at least a passing familiarity with how good history is researched and argued.

    I don’t know the first thing about Japanese medieval history, but I’d have a pretty good idea if I saw some amateur peddling bulls**t about it. Phillies has the same sort of competence about global warming. He’s not an expert on the subject, but he does know when an argument is entirely devoid of scientific merit, as the deniers’ arguments are.

    Trent — are Don Grundmann and Don Lake the same person? If not, I think Lake just impersonated Grundmann.

  54. Jeremy Young

    According to Stuart Nachbar’s review of Root’s book, Root advocates term-limiting legislative positions to a single six-year term. This is a terrible idea for pragmatic reasons. I’m not going to get into the term limits argument — I do support them for some offices. However, term limits to a SINGLE term are a terrible idea.

    When I used to live in Arizona, the Corporation Commission (a public utility commission) had three seats, each term-limited to a single six-year term. It sounded like a good idea, but what transpired was that people got elected to the Commission and decided they had zero reason to be responsive to the people. Specifically, some of them became corrupt and began breaking state laws and taking bribes from utility companies. At one point, two of the three Commission members had either broken a law or were indictment for having done so. Both were forced to resign, and one did time in prison.

    My state senator sponsored a bill to change the apportionment to five members, term-limited to two four-year terms. In the ten years since this passed, there has not been a problem with the members of the Commission. While they still spend half their careers as lame ducks, the first four years of needing to position themselves for reelection creates a pattern of responsive behavior that few break if they are reelected.

  55. morey

    @Aaron
    Wayne Root’s success does not detract from our movement; it only serves to make it larger.

    And there we have the crux of the matter. We all want the LP to get bigger, but not at the expense of our principles. This supposed shortcut of melding our positions with conservatism is going nowhere.

    If some people do not like that Root’s book is written to attract soon-to-be former conservatives…

    What do you mean, “former”? In the appearances I’ve seen, Wayne himself always identifies himself as a conservative or conservative-libertarian, except for LP conventions. I’d have to give him points for honesty if he were consistent.

  56. Bill Wood

    Just got my copy of Wayne’s book today. I will have to say it is a must read for everyone. Wayne does a great job explaining how the Republicans and Democrats are very close to the same (dumb and dumber) and how they are bankrupting the Country and how the Libertarian Party is different. I like how he describes “Conservatives” and how that term has been co -opted by the religious right.True Conservatives, believers in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (limited Federal Government) would also be against “Big Brother”. With Waynes sense of humor the book is a fast and fun read. It is great to see someone like Wayne devote so much time, energy and money to try to help turn the Country around and to openly invite others to join the Libertarian Party.

  57. Donald J. Grundmann, Junior ?????

    Trent, all of my postings are specific. I mention American Reform Party or Reform Party USA and do not try to portray this as a generalist reformist blog. I do not try to informally LIE to the public, thus ensuring my banishment from Dems and GOP!

    OTOH, many Theocrats, Lib and Modern Conservatives pass this [and failed TPW] on as ‘their’ site via misconstrued references which are just NOT TRUE. Aren’t you ashamed of the blogs stating for the eworld to see ‘it is so nice to have a Libertarian [Biblical, Conservative] that we [partisans] can get to gether on?

    You, and shame on you, do not smack these liars down. It is like Cody Quirk. You can not be polite. You can not be diplomatic. You can not be less than brutal. It just does not make an impact on dishonest, unethical zealots whom plan to be less than honest to begin with.

    What is with the [so called] reform movement? My one and only concern is that internal reformers in other formal parties are linked to general reformers or Reform Movement types.

    That is all. That is it. New people hit this site every day. Don’t they deserve the unvarnished true instead of sneaky lies?

    You’re welcomed —- for me doing your job!

    Grundmann lives in the east SF Bay area, I am in the phone book, ect, in San Diego County. I can be easily tracked. My blog is http://www.calvets.blogspot.com

    I am a former [2004] supporter of both Grundmann and Quirk. I do not speak for them, and [as long as they are unethical] I will speak out against them, or at least their dishonest.

    Grundmann use to be less of a religious zealot. He use to concentrate on IRS, Federal [Monopoly Money] Reserve and abused veterans. In 2004 he got a standing ovation on lethal government veterans programs in a national meeting ‘back east’!

    Not knowing a good thing when he had it, by 2007 he was much more the heavy of the Bible thumpers. All I am saying is that we need to be more honest. Do you expect me to sit quietly while I hear/ see unethical behavior, including the ‘churchigication’ of political sites?

  58. Donald R. Lake

    I am not talking QUANTITY of Libertarian style, orientated posting. I am talking QUALITY. I am talking about lying, I am talking about less than the truth. If Libs would quit lying [especially ’bout things I have personal knowledge of] and quit passing this general site off as an a partisan specific blog I would actually sit down and shut up!

    Do you really think it is a numbers game? It is an ethics game! Is you really da stupid ?????

  59. Donald R. Lake

    Michael Seebeck : is u every been to skool ???? It takes what, a half second to type ‘Lib reform’, or ‘Libertarian reform’ into your reply.

    This is a general political site. It is not a Libertarian specific blog. If you are not lying, then you are just out and out lazy!

    Say what you mean and mean what you say. This style of corruption would put you in good stead with the 836 TOTAL voters of the Reform Party USA candidates in P2008!

  60. Trent Hill

    “You, and shame on you, do not smack these liars down.”

    They do not lie if they claim this website is a place where many Libertarians comment and read. That is true, and i’m proud of it. It is not an explicitly Libertarian blog, though, that much is OBVIOUS. Anyone, like Dondero, who claims that this is a libertarian blog, is a liar. But I see no one on this thread making that claim.

    As for doing my job–dont. You dont speak for me, or for my website. You are barely able to form sentences in English, as near as I can tell. If you want to create your own website–do so.

  61. Donald R. Lake

    ‘it is great that we Libertarians have a party site like this ……….”

    You approve of Cody Quirk and other misinformation activists ??????

    What do you have against some one pointing out blatant lies and lack of ethics. Like I said. Newbies visit this blog every day. Don’t they deserve the truth ??????

  62. JT

    Jeremy “JT, it does mean at least that Phillies has a passing familiarity with the scientific method.”

    What? You don’t need to be a scientist to have a “passing familiarity” with the scientific method, Jeremy. It’s not a concept that’s very difficult to understand.

    Jeremy: “He’s not an expert on the subject, but he does know when an argument is entirely devoid of scientific merit, as the deniers’ arguments are.”

    Lovely. More assertions with no evidence.

    I hate to say this because it’s obvious to anyone who has read about this issue at all–which I guess doesn’t include you–but there are MANY respected scientists who have gone on record as saying that a so-called global warming crisis is NOT a crisis at all. They’ve produced evidence of temperature readings, both surface-based and satellite-based, as well as historical data to back up what they say. This is real science, not environmentalist theology. Look it up.

  63. Leymann Feldenstein

    Root is really a paleo-conservative in the tradition of Bob Taft and other promoters of rightwing statism.

    It’s the same bunch that claims to favor limited government as long as it is limited to defending their own economic interests.

    And that holds true for global warming, or nonwarming, as the case may be.

    Root is just pushing his own brand of libertarian snake-oil.

  64. JT

    Leymann: “Root is really a paleo-conservative in the tradition of Bob Taft and other promoters of rightwing statism.”

    Even that might be a comparison Root doesn’t deserve. Like some other “old” conservatives, Taft was an advocate of not intervening in other countries around the globe. I haven’t heard Root ever take that stance. He may think the Iraq War was a “mistake,” but he seems to not have a problem with aggressive militarism in principle.

  65. Catholic Trotskyist

    Seabeck will probably not appreciate this because of our past disagreements, but I support him in his disagreement with Don Lake. Don, this is indeed a site dominated by libertarians. Even the third person in our triumverate of insanity, Robert Milnes, is more or less a libertarian. If you ever find Reform Party friends to come post on this site with you, and I can find some Catholic Trotskyists, Kimberley finds some more Greens and Cody and Trent find some more constitutionists/conservatives, and maybe some liberals and old line communists show up, then the libertarians will lose their dominance of this site. But that time is not now. In a Libertarian Party thread, it is easy to understand that Reform caucus means Libertarian Reform, not the completely split and defunct Reform Party USA.

  66. Catholic Trotskyist

    Grundman is a great man for going into religious zealotry like I just did. And his support of Baldwin was very helpful in splitting conservatives a bit and helping Obama get elected.

  67. Catholic Trotskyist

    Root’s book really doesn’t matter. With socialized healthcare moving forward, and the impending confirmation of Catholic liberal justice Sonia Sotomayer, the world is moving closer and closer to Catholic Trotskyism. Soon America as we know it will be dissolved into the world Democratic prototheocratic structured free libertarian socialist government.

    Stay tuned to IPR later this week as I write a poem dedicated to the Lady of our Destinies, Judge Sotomayer.

  68. libertariangirl

    whats the difference in bitching at politicians who dont read the bills and vote on them and folks leaving bad reviews for a book they haven’t read?

    David Nolan , youve been naughty , dont make me give you a spanking. I checked , you actually did a review on the same day you told Richard Winger you we’re going to read it soon.

    Lucy , youve got some splainin to do…

    Now i know you were sorta suggesting such a thing , but i didnt think you’d follow thru.
    whats up with that LPDaddy?

    Come on now , I know you have super powers , but you cant possibly know what the book says 🙂

    I love you anyways , but on this matter I disagree

    respectfully, deb

  69. Trent Hill

    “Cody and Trent find some more constitutionists/conservatives”

    Im neither of the above, though I once was. I am libertarian in philosophy, Republican in party, independent in my voting.

  70. Todd Andrew Barnett

    @6

    George:

    As much as I respect a lot of your views personally (although I can’t say I respect them politically), you’re definitely off-base on the GW matter.

    But before I move to the thrust of my point, I’d like to chime in on the following talking points you made…

    “Readers who wonder about the effect of this book — assuming anyone takes it seriously — on the future viability of our party, assuming any is left, might want to start with Chapter 27 “Stop the Global Warming Insanity: Facing the Real Global Threat” in which Root lines up firmly behind the right wing fruitcake global warming deniers.”

    As much as I can’t stand Root because of the fact that he is a shrill opportunist (like his co-hort Bob Barr), I take issue with your contention about GW.

    Now I haven’t read Root’s book, and I may get a copy later, although I suspected that his lame and puny brand of libertarianism would seep into his writings sooner rather than later. But that’s not even point at all.

    As a scientist, you’re being intellectually dishonest about the fact that Global Warming, while it is happening, IS happening on a much smaller scale and is NOT a threat to the planet the way the limousine leftist socialists are making it out to be. There’s no environmental/ecological apocalypse occurring and the planet isn’t going to heat up and become a celestial and cosmic fireball of grand proportions. There’s no valid and credible evidence that this is going to occur.

    Has it *EVER* occurred to you that the earth has had significant periods of changes in the climate for well over a millenia? At one point, just PRIOR to the Industrial Revolution, we had an ice age. Oh yes, we did, now didn’t we? Humanity managed to survive that. After all, if that weren’t true, we wouldn’t be here right now, would we?

    Al Gore is peddling the foolish notion that the “debate is over”; GW is here, and it’s going to destroy us in the end. I’ve heard that ludicrous rhetoric many, many times. He claims to be an environmentalist, yet he wastes more of his so-called “solar powered energy” in his estate, which became the subject of interest for the conservative talking heads a couple of years ago.

    Whether man is responsible for GW or not, no one truly knows. We have no true way of knowing that. The problem with the envirowhackos is that they THINK they know but they don’t. But, prior to the Industrial Revolution when we had an ice age, nature was responsible for that, not man.

    But let’s suppose it’s true what the leftist socialists say, that GW “threatens” our planet and dooms us into extinction. What are they going to do about it? Are they going to stop volcanoes, which discharge thousands of CFCs into the air, destroying the ozone layer and doing significant amount of damage to our environment? Nope, they’ll slap treaties (like the Kyoto Treaty, if you recall), carbon taxes, carbon credits, yada yada. Is that the kind of statist tyranny you want? Do you want the state to get involved with the environment even more or less?

    Besides, nature can be a rather terrible, cold-hearted bitch to the environment at any given point in time.

    Let’s say you’re right here, George. Let’s say everything you’ve said on this topic is true. Again, like I hinted before, what ARE you going to do about it? Advocate for more government to protect the planet from us? Join the Democrats on this issue? Are you one of those “Earth first, liberty last” people now?

    Moreover, the planet does NOT have a valid global temperature. Since you’re not an expert on climatology and meteorology (I admit I’m not either, but I don’t have to be one to know everything about the bullshit scam about GW),
    temperatures are measured regionally and locally. What’s warm and hot here is horrendously cold in the Artic now. What’s cool at this time of night as I’m writing this response in my home state of Michigan must be hotter down South past the Mexican border.

    Plus, what about the fact that sun spots and solar flares have affected the planetary climate as well, having a paramount affect on the various differing temperatures all over the country? Does that mean that earthquakes are not a natural disaster but an effect of GW now? (Are we supposed to swallow that crap and accept that on blind faith, even when the shitbag scientists who believe in this crap claim they have proof, yet don’t have it at all?)

    Also, don’t lump me in with the conservatives on this issue because a number of them are not good representatives of arguing against global warming.

    Have Obama, Gore, and his environmental thugs cracked open some biology, chemistry, and botany textbooks lately? If they have, on what basis do these books make their case against global warming? The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? Did you know that panel is chaired by a group of politicians, bureaucrats, and fruity environmentalists and not a single scientist has a seat on it?

    “He then (p.313) invokes the old conservative lie about global climate modelling in the 1970s generally predicting global cooling. It actually did not. A majority of the legitimate papers predicted warming. You can find several aerosol analyses that predicted warming, but they were quite specific about saying they were asking ‘what will aerosols do’ not ‘what will climate do.'”

    Please, George. Have you gone Democrat with this kind of machoflashistic rhetoric? Those reports from the ’70s that “global cooling” was coming did occur. Even Reason Magazine did a piece on it at the time when they came out and came to the same conclusions that haven’t changed much since then: that the socialists’ politically religious claim against the demonic global warming (used to be called “global cooling”) is all about slapping taxes and regulations on people. It’s a means of controlling them and keep them obedient slaves to the state. It’s a political religion by itslef; what more else?

    “If Libertarians are seen as being linked with nonsense like this, our party’s future is pretty bad.”

    No, if Libertarians are seen as being linked with the Chicken Little Democrats who say “The environment is crumbling! The environment is crumbling,” then the LP will more doomed than it is now.

    Yours in Liberty,

    Todd Andrew Barnett

  71. Susan Hogarth

    LG @81,

    I picked up the book last night and have definitely read enough to review it. It’s a fast read, partly because it’s very repetitious and possibly because so much of it reads with so many of the catchphrases and stories Wayne uses in interviews (not necessarily a minus, since most peeps reading this probably won’t have heard them a dozen+ times before).

    Google probably has enough published to do a reasonable review, in fact.

  72. Richard Winger

    I received a midnight visit last night from the ghost of Adolf Hitler. He is outraged at David Nolan’s Amazon review, comparing Mein Kampf with Conscience of a Libertarian. Hitler says Mein Kampf is a far better book than Conscience of a Libertarian. Hitler also says he suspects David hasn’t even read Mein Kampf.

  73. Bruce Cohen

    Narcissisism and Jealousy?

    Stepping back from the ‘debate’ over Wayne Root’s Book ‘TCoaL’ and looking at the book’s detractors from within the Libertarian movement, we see a clear pattern.

    The folks slamming Wayne are the same people who cast aspersions and throw tantrums whenver they don’t get their way.

    Dave Nolan knew Wayne was writing this book and is very open to suggestions. Dave has Wayne’s email address, I’m quite sure, and he knows plenty of people who speak with Wayne on a daily basis, myself included.

    Davey never bothered to check in, encourage, or suggest.

    This is all a serious case of narcissisic jealousy.

    The only ‘fair’ negative about Wayne posted on this thread was posted by Mister Seebeck.

    It’s pretty amusing to find David Nolan and Toad Borenett holding hands and agreeing on this issue. Who would have thought they are in the same literary and philosophical place together?

    ___________________________

    Nolan calls Wayne a “shameless opportunist”.
    Well, David is projecting. Wayne is far from shameless, and since when does a Libertarian call another Libertarian “shameless” for taking advantage of, or for creating their own, opportunity?

    Clearly, David is the one without shame for his bad political and literary manners, reviewing a book he hadn’t read.

    Clearly David is without shame over his own opportunism, going after Mister Root out of jealousy and not for any other reason.

    David has changed over the years and I for one, find it disappointing to see his ad hominem behavior towards anyone who might dare to somehow not live up to the David’s standards.

    _____________________________

    Jason Gonella, knowns as AynRandKey on the internet is another jealous narcissist, prone to attacking people not fitting into the approved
    ‘official’ Anarcho-Radical mold.

    Jason, you know perfectly well what Wayne meant by ‘Socially Tolerant’ and so do the
    American voters the LP needs to court.

    ‘Tolerant’ means, in this case, that Libertarians, including Wayne, are against the use of Govermental influence to promote or detract from lifestyle choices.

    Wayne doesn’t smoke pot, but he wants to protect your right to do so. Wayne isn’t gay, but he is disgusted by people who want to use the law to discriminate against them or their unions.

    I know the Libertarian so-called ‘radical caucus’ like to slime anyone who is an ‘ex-Republican’.
    But why don’t they slime ex-Democrats?

    These people have called me ‘ex-Republican’ for years, using that term as some kind of derogatory epithet.

    Go figure.

    ___________________________

    Finally, on Mister Huckabee, he sounds more and more Libertarian to me every day.

    He’s certainly not where I want him to be, philosophically, but he’s got the fundementals down pat when it comes to the idea of a limited government and adherence to the Constitution.

    _______________________________

    Wayne is a high-energy guy who is quite forward thinking. His shoot from the hip style of speaking and writing is appealing to many, myself included.

    If any of us had written this book, it would have been quite different. So? Wayne is Wayne and will be himself and SHOULD be himself.

    His appeal can and should be an asset to us. That he was once in another party should be a further asset, and a COMPLIMENT to both him and the LP, not some kind of insult.

    Would you rather have a high energy guy like Wayne promote our party and ideas, or a bump on a log?

    Would you rather have Wayne all over radio and TV, in fact more than any other Libertarian in History, I dare to venture, or someone less exciting, but in your personal style that’s not on?

    I suggest that Mister David Nolan is indulging in the bad behavior the British call ‘blowing out another’s candle so one’s own appears brighter’.

    Let us all encourage all different personal and political styles of Libertarianism and Libertarians to participate and promote the party and our ideas, not indulge in dishonest character assassination.

    Let us read the book first, and if we honestly hate it, let us consider the 11th Amendment of politics as adapted for the LPs use.

    Wayne has sacrificed much of his life and time for something that can benefit the LP and the wider freedom movement.

    Let’s not push him, or future/potential Libertarians away with nastiness.
    Again.

    We’ve been doing that since the 70s.
    Seems to me it’s time for a change.

  74. George Phillies

    Barnett writes

    “Moreover, the planet does NOT have a valid global temperature. Since you’re not an expert on climatology and meteorology (I admit I’m not either, but I don’t have to be one to know everything about the bullshit scam about GW),
    temperatures are measured regionally and locally. What’s warm and hot here is horrendously cold in the Artic now. What’s cool at this time of night as I’m writing this response in my home state of Michigan must be hotter down South past the Mexican border.”

    I do not have a personal image to convince every crackpot in the world that I am wrong, and I am not going to do so.

    For those of you unclear on the above, Barnett
    apparently does not know what an “average” is, as covered in roughly sixth grade math.
    “Average” means that you take the numbers, appropriately weighted when your sample is uneven, add them up, and divide by the sun of the weights. It’s in Chapter 2 of my Statistical Mechanics book. Barnett is simply wrong.
    You can indeed, with appropriate weighting for sampling density, construct an average of the temperature of the entire world.

    “the planet isn’t going to heat up and become a celestial and cosmic fireball of grand proportions. There’s no valid and credible evidence that this is going to occur.” Readers who do not believe me should try reading

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report and then the technical links therefrom.

    Also, there is no valid or credible evidence that the global warming people are predicting global annihilation. This argument is what happen when the kooks Barnett is quoting try to fake a case.

    I do not have a mission in life of convincing the birther crackpots, the truther crackpots, and the global warming denial crackpots that they are wrong, and I am not going to try. My mission is to convince libertarians that making common cause with the birther crackpots, the truther crackpots, the global warming denial crackpots, et tedious cetera is a bad idea, because we will damage our Party by associating with the causes of the birther crackpots, the truther crackpots, and the global warming denial crackpots.

  75. Melty

    On account of there’s never been an independent investigation of the jumbo jet calamity, none should shy away from calling for one.

    As for global warming, we need to call upon government to wage Global War on Terror and Global War on Climate like we need a hole in the head. There’s no stopping Nature and her the everchanging Climate, and all our car exhaust, nuke bombs and whatall aint gonna add up to Mother Nature’s lil finger.

  76. Thomas Knapp

    Bruce,

    You write:

    “If any of us had written this book, it would have been quite different.”

    Based on the excerpts readable at Amazon, I’m pretty sure you did write this book, or at least significant portions of it.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  77. Richard Winger

    Root’s page 314 says, “I am not saying global warming is not real, or a threat. I am not saying it’s a bad thing to be environmentally conscious. I am not saying that creating green jobs is not a worthy goal. But I am saying that further study is needed before we make decisions based on political correctness, or the political agenda of special interest groups interested in creating more jobs, more power and more governmental contracts for themselves.”

    Also his piece about ethanol is excellent.

    I quoted that because some of the commenters above have given a false impression of what Root says about global warming.

  78. libertariangirl

    does anybody but me have problems with writing reviews of a book you’ve never read?

    if not why?

    ( note there are several folks on the rads list who agree with me that its a bad idea , the question is for folks here)

  79. Michael Seebeck

    Don @72:

    “you are just out and out lazy”

    To paraphrase W.C. Fields:

    And you sir, are an asshole. But I can become ambitious.

  80. Thomas Knapp

    LG,

    I agree that one should read a book before reviewing it.

    I suspect you’re mistaken in accusing Nolan of reviewing before reading.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  81. Michael Seebeck

    Trotsky, I’d appreciate it more if you could simple spell my name right! Not like you don’t know how to copy and paste…

  82. libertariangirl

    Knapp I am not , note dates below

    Richard Winger // Aug 4, 2009 at 2:47 pm

    Yesterday David Nolan told me he will probably read the book very soon.

    from Amazon , note the date A long title for a long-winded book, August 3, 2009
    By David F. Nolan (Tucson, AZ United States) – See all my reviews

    If nothing else, Wayne Root deserves some kind of prize for coming up with one of the world’s longest book titles: 30 syllables by my count. The title is meant to evoke Barry Goldwater’s “Conscience of A Conservative,” published almost half a century ago, and I’m sure that Mr. Root would like his book to become as influential as Goldwater’s was. Unfortunately for him, it almost certainly won’t.

    For one thing, it’s WAY too long for a campaign book. And make no mistake, that’s what this is. Root is running hard for the Libertarian Party’s 2012 Presidential nomination, and this bombastic tome – three and a half times as long as Goldwater’s book – is bloated and turgid. Root makes some points over and over and OVER, while ignoring many “liberal” aspects of the libertarian political philosophy.

    Clearly, his intent here is to sell himself to disgruntled conservatives seeking an alternative to the tired and fractious GOP. This strategy may work, but most longtime libertarians (such as myself) are less than enthralled by his constant evocation of God, and his ludicrous assertion that the United States owes its success to its citizens’ faith in God. There are lots of nations founded on adherence to one religion or another, and many of them are authoritarian hellholes.

    Will this book help Root win the Libertarian Presidential nomination? I doubt it, because while it will win him praise on the Right, it is likely to alienate many of the Libertarian Party activists who choose their party’s national ticket.

    This is surely not the worst book I’ve ever read, or even the worst political tract – Mein Kampf probably wins that dubious honor – but there are numerous better books on libertarianism available. In all likelihood, Wayne’s “Conscience” will sink beneath the waves quite rapidly. By Christmas, it will be in the remainder bins; by 2012 it will be all but forgotten unless Root’s ceaseless efforts to flog it can keep it afloat.

    me_ i am not wrong

  83. Michael Seebeck

    Cohen thinks the only fair negative review was mine?

    I must be losing my touch! 😀

  84. libertariangirl

    LOL , i thought the same thing Mike:)

    Knapp , what do you have to say now , am I still mistaken?

  85. Bruce Cohen

    Mister Knapp,

    I had zero to do with the book.

    I edited or contributed not one bit.

    Certainly I did encourage Wayne when he was working on the book, but he never offered me even the slightest glimpse, much less have me edit or write.

    My writing style is very, very different from his, and I’m confused as to what possible similiariry you see between us in this regard.

    Nevertheless, this is typical from the radicalistas. Somehow saying that it seems like I wrote parts of this book is supposed to be derogatory to me, the book and to Wayne.

    Wayne appeals to a different type of person than I do. And that’s a good thing. For the LP and/or its mission to succeed, we have to appeal to all styles of Libertarian who have in common one thing.

    The love of Liberty.

  86. Thomas Knapp

    Bruce,

    You write:

    “I’m confused as to what possible similiariry you see between us in this regard.”

    Similarities in style, the tendency to randomly capitalize words, etc.

    “Nevertheless, this is typical from the radicalistas. Somehow saying that it seems like I wrote parts of this book is supposed to be derogatory to me, the book and to Wayne.”

    To the best of my recollection, I’ve publicly uttered not so much as a single derogatory word about the book.

    Lots of political figures use ghost writers, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Hell, I do ghost work myself.

    You might want to lighten up there a bit, Bruce.

    LG, I said “I suspect you’re mistaken” because I suspected you were mistaken. You haven’t shown me any information I didn’t already have when I said that, so yes, I still suspect you’re mistaken.

    Regards,
    Tom

  87. libertariangirl

    TK , WTF? explain then why you think Im mistaken?

    Nolan posted a review on the 3rd , the same day he told Winger he was going to read it , and he’s admitted he hasnt read it .

    exactly where am i mistaken .

    please qualify?

  88. libertariangirl

    Philosophy , loyalty , admiration and factionalism should not be thicker than the truth.

    I am not mistaken .

    I want reasons why people think I am.

  89. JT

    lg: “Nolan posted a review on the 3rd , the same day he told Winger he was going to read it , and he’s admitted he hasnt read it.”

    Where did Nolan post that review on August 3? I haven’t seen it.

  90. Thomas Knapp

    LG,

    You write:

    “Nolan posted a review on the 3rd”

    Check.

    “the same day he told Winger he was going to read it”

    Check.

    “and he’s admitted he hasnt read it”

    Hold — where has he done that?

    I’ve read a book in one day and then reviewed it, so I don’t see why it’s impossible for Nolan to have done so.

    If he reviewed it without reading it, bad on him.

  91. libertariangirl

    Thats a stretch .

    I will wait for him to respond , Im confident he’ll be honest on this matter.

  92. libertariangirl

    TK are you a member of the Rads yahoo group and have you read the posts concerning this issue?

  93. Susan Hogarth

    Knapp @99,

    you do Wayne a great disservice. The writing isn’t splendid, but it’s miles above Bruce’s.

    WHICH might be considered damning with faint praise.

  94. Susan Hogarth

    Bruce @86:

    Wayne doesn’t smoke pot, but he wants to protect your right to do so.

    Do you have a quote that supports this assertion? This was not the impression I got from reading his book, certainly.

  95. Richard Winger

    David good-naturedly said to me, “Oh well, I guess I’ll have to shell out the $24 and buy the book”, and I responded, “It’s cheaper than that on Amazon; I think you can get it for $17.” David also made a good comment about the book much earlier in this thread, saying he agreed more with Wayne Root about global warming than others in the thread.

  96. Thomas Knapp

    LG,

    “TK are you a member of the Rads yahoo group and have you read the posts concerning this issue?”

    If by “the Rads yahoo group” you mean lpradicals, yes, I’m a member. I take the group in digest, usually read it in a leisurely and non-methodical manner, and haven’t seen the posts on this “issue” yet.

    I’m not sure what the burr under your fur is. I agree with you that if Nolan didn’t read the book before reviewing it, he should have.

  97. Erik Geib

    I’m certainly not a fan of Wayne by any stretch of the imagination, but in all fairness he does have another 2 years to work on his message concerning social issues.

    Yes, he’s been horribly off at times in the past on a number of topics, but I suspect a lot of libertarians have a similar history. It’s also within the realm of possibility (though unlikely) that WAR is laying the foundation with the audience he connects with best, and plans to use the next 2 years to bring them over more on ‘left-libertarian’ issues.
    WAR also has the chance to try and back a more ‘left-leaning’ running-mate.

    I don’t particularly care for the guy, but it *is* possible he won’t be a complete disaster for our party. That being said, it’s altogether possible the skeptics and/or haters are correct in their assessment as well.

  98. George Phillies

    Root actually writes

    “We don’t know if global warming really exists.”
    Try again. See, for example:

    http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-6.gif

    “it sure seems obvious to me that temperatures are not getting warmer, when we’re getting hit with historic blizzards…”

    Appealing to the yahoos who can’t tell the difference between weather and climate, or is he one himself?

    “…despite the fact that the cooling of the last few years would indicate…”

    There is no cooling of the last few years. See the link at the top of the comment.

    “If global warming were real, how do we know that anything mankind does would have an effect in it.”

    The models that from the 1970s and forward have fairly consistently been predicting warming also explain how we can change things.

    In the same paragraph Mr. Root claims that solar wind (as opposed to solar radiation) can affect the long term changes in the climate. Slar wind gives us the aurora, lights so dim they can usually barely be seen. He also proposes that the El Nino can affect weather, which is true, as we are about to see for the next year — but El Nino and La Nina are cyclic events and simply cause those graphs I referenced at the top of the page to wobble a lot.

    Mr. Root claims that “The mean global temperature is now the same as it was in 1980.”
    This claim is just plain nuts. He goes on about Antarctica, and gets wrong the significance of the Antarctic polar snowfall.

    And then Root wheels out traditional conservative — after all, he admits that he is a conservative — smear lines, like “is global warming a threat or an industry?” “Why does the national media only report on…?” followed by the conservative wife -beating question lines “What if we are now reversing course and entering a global cooling period?”

    Well, there is no evidence for that claim at all, but it really sounds neat.

    To be to the point, Root very definitely writes a chapter denying global warming, and at the end drops in a sentence saying the opposite.

    Root is a two-faced conservative, and some of his supporters aren’t being honest, either. (aside to Bruce: I am not talking about you.)

    I am amused to note that Root goes on about ethanol (largely pushed as an oil import reducer) and misses the funniest libertarian point of all: Congresses cornahol subsidy mandates using for gasahol America’s entire corn production. Four times a year! What do expect from the conservative idiots — but I repeat myself — doing their bit for the cornahol producers who bought their services.

    Remember, this is a book by the man who endorsed Bob Barr as our Presidential candidate, delivered the nomination to Barr, and gave us Barr’s phony campaign. (Which, I am amused to note, still owes Root money.)

  99. David F. Nolan

    OK, I confess: I have not read either Root’s magnum opus nor Hitler’s Mein Kampf in their entirety. But I’ve read a fair sample of material from both (MK translated into English) and my Amazon review (quoted and linked above by l-girl) is based on those samples.

    Where did I see a fair amount of Root’s epic? It appears on the Google Books site, hopefully linked above. It contains enough for me to make valid comments like those in my Amazon review. That review addressed the book’s PURPOSE more than the CONTENT, and I think my observations were legitimate. This book is part of an ongoing campaign effort, aimed at making Mr. Root the LP nominee for President in 2012, and/or to get him on Fox News talk shows.

    Thee book’s main flaw, as I see it, lies not so much in what it says as in what it DOES NOT say. It focuses almost entirely on issues where Root’s views align closely with conservatives, and avoids or downplays issues where Libertarians and Conservatives disagree. In other words, it is “Conservatarian,” to use a word that pops up a lot in discussions about Wayne Root.

    I do not dislike Wayne personally; he’s actually a rather likable fellow in his own over-the-top way. I just don’t want to see him as the LP Presidential nominee in 2012, unless he stops leaning so much to the right.

    PS: Just in case the link to Google Books does not “take” in the Website field, here’s the URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=vmyGTXhzzF8C&pg=PP1&dq=Wayne+Root%27s+%22Conscience+of+a+Libertarian%22&ei=BBp6SvLXCKbKyQSV-vjMCA&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=Wayne%20Root%27s%20%22Conscience%20of%20a%20Libertarian%22&f=false

  100. David F. Nolan

    OK, I confess: I have not read either Root’s magnum opus nor Hitler’s Mein Kampf in their entirety. But I’ve read a fair sample of material from both (MK translated into English) and my Amazon review (quoted and linked above by l-girl) is based on those samples.

    Where did I see a fair amount of Root’s epic? It appears on the Google Books site. It contains enough for me to make valid comments like those in my Amazon review. That review addressed the book’s PURPOSE more than the CONTENT, and I think my observations were legitimate. This book is part of an ongoing campaign effort, aimed at making Mr. Root the LP nominee for President in 2012, and/or to get him on Fox News talk shows.

    Thee book’s main flaw, as I see it, lies not so much in what it says as in what it DOES NOT say. It focuses almost entirely on issues where Root’s views align closely with conservatives, and avoids or downplays issues where Libertarians and Conservatives disagree. In other words, it is “Conservatarian,” to use a word that pops up a lot in discussions about Wayne Root.

    I do not dislike Wayne personally; he’s actually a rather likable fellow in his own over-the-top way. I just don’t want to see him as the LP Presidential nominee in 2012, unless he stops leaning so much to the right.

    PS: Here’s the URL for Google Books page containing lengthy excerpts from Root’s book:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=vmyGTXhzzF8C&pg=PP1&dq=Wayne+Root%27s+%22Conscience+of+a+Libertarian%22&ei=BBp6SvLXCKbKyQSV-vjMCA&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=Wayne%20Root%27s%20%22Conscience%20of%20a%20Libertarian%22&f=false

  101. libertariangirl

    actually , David you should remove your review until such time as youve read the book in full , then re-post another one.

    That would be the ethical thing to do.

    TK , the burr in my fur is the reluctance of some to admit the truth, yourself included .

  102. David F. Nolan

    I see that Bruce Cohen is back to attacking and insulting people, as usual. Yawn. But he does make one statement that deserves comment: “Wayne appeals to a different type of person than I do. ”

    Wrong. Many people (mostly conservatives) find Wayne quite appealing. Nobody I know finds Bruce appealing at all.

  103. David F. Nolan

    l-girl: I can’t answer your question right now because I’m too busy holding hands with “Toad Borenett.”

  104. libertariangirl

    David , your being mean.

    are you having a bad day?

    in case noone told you they loved you today , I do.

  105. Eric Dondero

    Hey you all, I just got my review copy of Wayne’s book, and saw I was in the acknowledgements for my blog’s inspiring him to launch his ’08 campaign.

    Pretty cool.

    Thanks Wayne! And good luck in your 2012 endeavors. You’re making life real difficult for me. I gotta support Romney or Palin, but then you’ll be in there too.

  106. Ayn R. Key

    Bruce Cohen takes time out to lecture me on the use of “socially tolerant” instead of “socially liberal”. He also praises Mike Huckabee for being more and more libertarian every day.

    What a sad, hate-filled old man. I pity him.

  107. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 126 ARK writes; “What a sad, hate-filled old man. I pity him.”

    Who Cohen, or Huckabee?

  108. libertariangirl

    you guys are unduly mean .
    maybe im naive , probably so , but I always thought the more ‘radical’ types were of moral superiority .

    i am soooooo rethinking this

    Im so tired of the rudeness , name calling , lying

    grow the fuck up!

  109. Michael H. Wilson

    lg I thought we had rules that allowed one sarcastic comment a month? I’ll have to check with paulie.

    MW

  110. Michael H. Wilson

    Back to Global Warming for a moment. The LP should be suggesting that the government open the urban transit marketplace to competition. It has been closed for years and most people have no idea of the imapct that the lack of transit has on people especially the elderly and the poor.

    By bringing more opportunities to the marketplace, especially such things as jitneys and ride share taxis, cities might find that they can lower the ambient pollution by as much as thirty percent, or more. That would tend to offset pollution and reduce the potential for global warming as well as give the elderly and poor more opportunities and do so without raising taxes.

  111. libertariangirl

    that sounds like a great idea .

    however in Las Vegas they did a study that proved it costs so much to run the transit system here , you could buy every regular rider a cheap car for less.

  112. Michael H. Wilson

    lg that is the reson I suggested opening the marketplace. We get new ideas tried. I’d love to see the study if the inputs were anything like those in the typical city. One of the problems is the benefit package given to the employees of the government agencies that operate them.

    Typically the buses they use get 4-5 miles a gallon whereas if you use a different vehicle, such as the Dodge Sprinter those vehicles get in the neighborhood of 20-25 miles a gallon, or so I read.

  113. NewFederalist

    “ARK__are you named after Ayn Rand”

    Susan alredy said it… say it out loud,
    AN AR CHY
    (Now don’t you feel foolish! 🙂

  114. AFH

    I would love to see a mind like Dr. Phillies turned toward selling environmental responsibility libertarian style as a persistent theme.

  115. libertariangirl

    ha ha ha ha , i thought she was telling me to write out Ayn Rand instead of saying ‘you know who’

    thats hella funny , i wonder if thats her real name 🙂

    how cool

  116. Erik Geib

    I believe Bruce Cohen identified ‘Ayn R. Key’ as one Jason Gonella in post #86.

  117. Donald R. Lake

    IMNSHO transit only starts to work when:

    [a] it is pre paid [free] —— why bother the driver by making them toll takers ……

    [b] the least amount of transfer[s]

    [c] repeated, frequent runs

    ………. and then there are terrains [like sprawling, spread out Los Angeles and or Metro Kansas City] which just do not lend them selves to rider ship. Like public housing, public transit is often cheaper just to give monies to individuals ………..

    ……….. and the building of transit [or housing] often disrupts normal secular private effort[s] only to provide minimal impact. As some one whom has lived a television free and or private automobile free existence [and a former bus driver to boot] I see that transit ‘numbers’ often do not add up.

    Sandy Ego County has two transit train lines and they replace only a few dozen automobiles. With or with out transit the presence of the other is not noticeable —- sad to say!

  118. Thomas Knapp

    Since I haven’t read the book yet, I’m not going to try to review it, as I’d rather not have Libertarian Girl on my case about it.

    HOWEVER, on the up side, based on the excerpts I’ve read, I can offer some observations:

    – Root seems to have a good handle on the fact that most “defense” spending is actually just corporate welfare wrapped in the flag. That’s a good sign … and it’s generally considered a “left-libertarian” position.

    – Root makes the case for the US not providing for the national defense of other countries through foreign military aid. And while he doesn’t specifically mention Israel as one of the beneficiaries of such policies, neither does he attempt, so far as I can tell, to carve out an exception there. As a pro-Israel libertarian who doesn’t think the US taxpayer should be on the hook for funding my position, I’m glad to see that Wayne’s on the same page.

    On the down side:

    – Root calls his tax plan a “flat tax” when it’s actually a two-tiered regressive tax (15% on incomes up to $500k, 10% on incomes above $500k).

    – Root characterizes earmarks as “off-budget” spending. Um, no they’re not, and that’s a pretty basic error for someone who wants to talk about federal spending.

    Earmarks are on-budget — they’re just specific demands as to how appropriated funds are to be spent, i.e. Congress appropriates $400 billion for “defense,” and one congresscritter “earmarks” $1 billion of that $400 billion to be spent specifically on Project X at Boeing in St. Louis.

    At some point, I’ll get the book, read the whole thing and review it. Please don’t hit me for saying things about it already, LG!

  119. David F. Nolan

    Once again, Tom Knapp is sane and insightful. Along with L. Neil Smith and Fred Reed, he’s one of my favorite bloggers/columnists/whatever; always worth reading!

  120. Ayn R. Key

    @135 & @140

    Susan and New Federalist @136 and @143 figured it out. My screen name is a pun.

    Ayn R Key, spoken aloud, is Anarchy.

    But I’m not an Objectivist, I’m a Misean. So it’s even funnier.

  121. Michael H. Wilson

    Yea, but I recall my relatives pronounced Ayn to rhyme with mine, not Ann.

  122. paulie

    Melty @ 49

    Look ahead at the potential for converts out of disgruntled left leaners, rats from the sinking ship of the Democrat-held lower, upper, and white houses. Sex Drugs n Peace Party baby.

    Word!

  123. paulie

    I received a midnight visit last night from the ghost of Adolf Hitler. He is outraged at David Nolan’s Amazon review, comparing Mein Kampf with Conscience of a Libertarian. Hitler says Mein Kampf is a far better book than Conscience of a Libertarian. Hitler also says he suspects David hasn’t even read Mein Kampf.

    ROFL

  124. paulie

    It’s pretty amusing to find David Nolan and Toad Borenett holding hands

    The “adult libertarian” take on the issue?

  125. paulie

    Finally, on Mister Huckabee, he sounds more and more Libertarian to me every day.

    He’s certainly not where I want him to be, philosophically, but he’s got the fundementals down pat when it comes to the idea of a limited government and adherence to the Constitution.

    Really? Would love to hear more on this one.

    My impression of Huckabee is that he is someone whose main interest in politics is using the force of government to enforce his preferences on sex, drugs, etc., and believes that the military-industrial complex should serve to hasten Armageddon as foretold by the Book of Revelations, but distinguishes himself from the mainstream of Reaganite Republicanism by being more openly in favor of high taxes and big spending, including social spending traditionally identified with the post-FDR Democratic Party — in other words, the exact opposite of a libertarian on nearly every issue (except gun owners rights and maybe one or two others), and is far from even being a constitutionalist.

  126. paulie

    Wayne is a high-energy guy who is quite forward thinking. His shoot from the hip style of speaking and writing is appealing to many, myself included.

    If any of us had written this book, it would have been quite different. So? Wayne is Wayne and will be himself and SHOULD be himself.

    His appeal can and should be an asset to us. That he was once in another party should be a further asset, and a COMPLIMENT to both him and the LP, not some kind of insult.

    Would you rather have a high energy guy like Wayne promote our party and ideas, or a bump on a log?

    Would you rather have Wayne all over radio and TV, in fact more than any other Libertarian in History, I dare to venture, or someone less exciting, but in your personal style that’s not on?

    Here, Mister Cohen has a good point.

    I’m thinking that what we need is a book that presents libertarianism in a popularized and personal way, rather than a lofty and intellectual manner that is above most people’s reading level, and in a way that connects with people coming from the social and/or political “left.” Peter McWilliams did some of that with _Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do_, but unfortunately he is dead.

    Also, the author should be someone who is willing and able to promote the book heavily, as Root is doing with his, and who can come across fairly well in TV and radio interviews.

    One criticism I have encountered in making such proposals is if it is such a good idea why don’t I stop trying to get other people to do it and just do it myself. That is a fair question. While I could probably do a halfway passable job on the writing end of such a project (not as well as some here, however), I would in no way be the guy to have on TV – between my lack of public speaking skills and my shady past, it’s a really bad idea, and if running for president is part of the deal, I was not born in the US, and I think we should at least have someone who is constitutionally qualified.

    However, if someone here IS willing to take this on, I am willing to help on the writing end of things.

  127. paulie

    Wrong. Many people (mostly conservatives) find Wayne quite appealing. Nobody I know finds Bruce appealing at all.

    Joe Cobb seems to be rather fond of Bruce Cohen, as is Steve Kubby last time I checked. Probably other people you know as well. Angela Keaton as well, last I checked, but I no longer keep up there.

  128. paulie

    Knapp,

    Bruce,

    You write:

    “I’m confused as to what possible similiariry you see between us in this regard.”

    Similarities in style, the tendency to randomly capitalize words, etc.

    “Nevertheless, this is typical from the radicalistas. Somehow saying that it seems like I wrote parts of this book is supposed to be derogatory to me, the book and to Wayne.”

    To the best of my recollection, I’ve publicly uttered not so much as a single derogatory word about the book.

    Lots of political figures use ghost writers, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Hell, I do ghost work myself.

    You might want to lighten up there a bit, Bruce.

    My sources tell me it was actually ghost written by Bruce Wayne.

  129. paulie

    Dondero

    Hey you all, I just got my review copy of Wayne’s book, and saw I was in the acknowledgements for my blog’s inspiring him to launch his ‘08 campaign.

    Pretty cool.

    Thanks Wayne! And good luck in your 2012 endeavors. You’re making life real difficult for me. I gotta support Romney or Palin, but then you’ll be in there too.

    To be fair, Root is having a hard time deciding between Romney and Palin as well. But with Cohen’s help, you, him and Wayne might yet all settle on Huckabee. Sure, it might seem like a stretch now, but give it another three years.

  130. paulie

    you guys are unduly mean .
    maybe im naive , probably so , but I always thought the more ‘radical’ types were of moral superiority .

    i am soooooo rethinking this

    Im so tired of the rudeness , name calling , lying

    Mostly correct, except for the moral superiority. People of all ideological persuasions sometimes behave poorly, and other times well. Sometimes the same people; I’m no exception.

  131. paulie

    lg I thought we had rules that allowed one sarcastic comment a month? I’ll have to check with paulie.

    Sorry, but your check bounced. There will be a twenty five dollar bounced check fee.

  132. paulie

    Global Warming, if true, is good according to John Stossel, check out his famous video on the subject.

    Silly corporate propaganda.

  133. paulie

    Doubtful on The Keaton, Paulie.

    It’s been over a year, so I don’t know anymore who all else Pope Angela has excommunicated since me. As of recently, Cohen says they are still friends. Since you talk to Angela, you can ask her.

  134. libertariangirl

    roots book doesnt address the fact we never landed on the moon , ufo’s and area 51 , the lost city of atlantis or octomom right or wrong .

    damn him!!

  135. paulie

    I’m thinking that what we need is a book that presents libertarianism in a popularized and personal way, rather than a lofty and intellectual manner that is above most people’s reading level, and in a way that connects with people coming from the social and/or political “left.” Peter McWilliams did some of that with _Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do_, but unfortunately he is dead.

    Also, the author should be someone who is willing and able to promote the book heavily, as Root is doing with his, and who can come across fairly well in TV and radio interviews.

    One criticism I have encountered in making such proposals is if it is such a good idea why don’t I stop trying to get other people to do it and just do it myself. That is a fair question. While I could probably do a halfway passable job on the writing end of such a project (not as well as some here, however), I would in no way be the guy to have on TV – between my lack of public speaking skills and my shady past, it’s a really bad idea, and if running for president is part of the deal, I was not born in the US, and I think we should at least have someone who is constitutionally qualified.

    However, if someone here IS willing to take this on, I am willing to help on the writing end of things.

    Any thoughts on this? Anyone?

  136. Michael Seebeck

    LG @181:

    roots book doesnt address the fact we never landed on the moon , ufo’s and area 51 , the lost city of atlantis or octomom right or wrong .

    damn him!!

    That’s because the UFO’s in Area 51 were from the Atlantis colony on the dark side of the moon (not Pink Floyd), whose colony needs repopulating, and Octomom got the call. 😀

  137. Brian Miller

    I’m the author of the review who the anonymous author of the column in question cites indirectly. His/her suggestion that “I did not read the book” is entirely false.

    Root does not describe what libertarianism is… he describes what he believes a “Libertarian” to be — a definition that is fluff personified.

    There is not a single third party or major party candidate who does not describe himself as “pro freedom and pro constitution.” The reality is that Root doesn’t understand libertarianism and doesn’t articulate it in his book to any significant degree.

    The original blog post is unethical because it indirectly references me, is anonymous, and makes a contention (that I did not read the book) which is easily proven false.

  138. Brian Miller

    a book that presents libertarianism in a popularized and personal way

    Well, there’s certainly some stuff here that will touch numerous people in a personal way — especially individuals who aren’t religious, aren’t heterosexual, or don’t believe that “liberal” is a dirty word. The problem is that it will touch them in an intensely negative way, and tar libertarianism (which, for the confused, is easily defined as believe in the right of self-ownership) with a conservative right-wing brush.

    But hey, I’m just a “radical purist.” Uh huh. 🙂

  139. Brian Miller

    And PS, I am LOLing at Bruce Cohen referring to Marakay Rogers — one of the most successful Libertarian candidates in the Northeast — as “Mister Rogers.”

  140. libertariangirl

    Brian the article does not say you havent read Waynes book

    it says…

    and the same MAY BE TRUE of the author of the first 1-star review.

    it doesnt say IS TRUE.

  141. Brian Holtz

    If Miller thinks my article here on IPR is anonymous, then he reads this blog about as closely as he apparently read Root’s book. As Debra pointed out, Miller left out the word “may” when he once again made up some stuff to put between his quotation marks.

    And when Miller does manage a mostly-accurate quote, he yanks it out of context. With the proper context restored, we can reverse Miller’s claim, and say: there is not a single non-libertarian candidate who describes himself as “fiscally conservative, socially tolerant, pro freedom, pro constitution, standing for more rights for the individual, and reducing the size, scope, and power of the government”.

  142. Thomas Knapp

    “If Miller thinks my article here on IPR is anonymous, then he reads this blog about as closely as he apparently read Root’s book.”

    It’s not a matter of how closely he read either.

    Analogous situation: Imagine if Root’s book appeared in Barnes and Noble on a pile of books with a sign over them that says “by Wayne Root” … but that his name appeared nowhere on the cover or dust jacket.

    Your article on this blog does have your name on it IF IT IS VIEWED FROM THE BLOG’S FRONT PAGE. If it is viewed at its direct URL, there’s visible no sign of authorship.

  143. Brian Holtz

    Anyone who reads this blog closely will have noticed that articles have bylines on the front page but (for whatever lame reason) not on their permalink/comments page. Nothing about your analogy changes this fact.

  144. paulie

    Brian H.,

    I don’t think it’s a mark of shame that someone does not keep up with IPR enough to not know that particular quirk of the wordpress theme we use. Personally, it’s a pet peeve of mine, too.

    For a while, I was signing my posts manually. I’ll try to remember to start doing that again, and recommend everyone else do it too.

    Also, someone (Tad?) mentioned a plugin that fixes this. Anyone know what it’s called?

  145. paulie

    Brian M.,

    Way to miss the point of what you are responding to.

    I guess my question is, what are your goals?

    If your goals are to stir and keep stirring a bunch of non-productive drama and complaining about how much you dislike Barr, Root, the dominant faction on the LNC, etc, you can keep doing that til the cows come home and after that, and it won’t change anything.

    If your goals are in fact to have a more effective Libertarian Party that does a good job of reaching people who are, e.g., “individuals who aren’t religious, aren’t heterosexual, or don’t believe that “liberal” is a dirty word,” I would suggest that the only way to get such a Libertarian Party is to actively pursue such people with targeted outreach, using all the tools Root is using and others.

    Trashing Root, Barr, and other Libertarians who come from the right and do their outreach to the right in right-oriented terms will do nothing to attract people who are not coming from the right to the party. Any amount of time and energy anyone spends on such is better used in devising other ways to present the libertarian message, bringing it to other audiences, signing up new party members who are not former and future Republicans, and bringing them to conventions as delegates.

    Of course, criticism is easier, and, for some people, more fun. But it will not swing the balance of power in the party.

    So what are your goals?

  146. Brian Miller

    I guess my question is, what are your goals?

    To write a review of a book that is being presented as a fantastic representation of libertarianism but isn’t.

    criticism is easier, and, for some people, more fun. But it will not swing the balance of power in the party.

    You could say the same thing about being a registered Libertarian to begin with, if you substitute “polity” for “party” in your above-tracked phrase.

    If you’re not concerned about (or openly embracing) the candidacy of a guy who “ran” a company that has had negative working capital, a $20+ million negative retained earnings, and that’s stiffing large classes of creditors according to its latest filed SEC documentation, that’s fine.

    The idiocracy will happily embrace his stories of being a “successful businessman” regardless of his actual performance in business.

    The idiocracy will also argue that it’s not nice to criticize a poorly written, poorly articulated “libertarian” book because you’re under an “obligation” to “reach out” to the fringe right. That’s their choice. I have made a different one.

    My choice is a bit different. I challenge bullshit where I see it. Some, like Mssrs. Holtz and Cohen, don’t like that. I don’t really care… liberty is a much bigger concept than the LP, especially these days when the liberties of inconvenient-to-Republican groups are to be traded away for ephemeral “benefits” that are always “just around the corner.”

    I’m not into the passive-aggressive paradigm advanced by Root and his followers. They’re either too obtuse or too cynical to recognize that one this gig is up, he’ll dump it for something new just like he has done with his ridiculously insolvent business and his prior career as a Republican.

  147. David F. Nolan

    paulie@182 – I just started wring a short book that will introduce libertarian ideas to the general public, and address the burning issues of the day. A well-known libertarian organization has expressed interest in publishing this book, but there’s nothing definite yet. Will I be able to get the amount of exposure that Root is getting? I doubt it, but we will see. (And so far, despite claims by some people that Root’s book is a “best seller,” it isn’t. As of this morning, it is #5,869 on Amazon.com)

  148. Michael Seebeck

    David, some days the difference between “wring” and “writing” is writer’s block. 😀

  149. Brian Holtz Post author

    One Brian indeed issues bullshit, and the other indeed challenges it. One Brian has written:

    * Ron Paul is “a homophobic bigot”;
    * Ron Paul “declares he isn’t a libertarian”;
    * Ron Paul is “a statist on health care”;
    * Ron Paul “voted for continued government spending on education”;
    * Ron Paul “committed himself to pursuing increased government funding of abstinence education in the future”

    The other Brian has challenged the first to provide even a shred of evidence for these claims and characterizations.

    Readers here are smart enough to figure out which Brian is which.

    I wouldn’t agree with Paulie if he’s saying that it’s always a suboptimal use of time to pressure our leading Libertarians to distinguish us from conservatives. Our primary message should always be: we’re the only choice that is neither Left nor Right, neither liberal nor conservative. I try to make that point in several of these bumper stickers:

    bumper stickers

  150. Michael H. Wilson

    David @ 197 I sure there are a number of us who could help promote it and I know there are shows that are always looking for writers to discuss their books. Btw I don’t think I have ever heard a libertarian on the NPR show Fresh Air.

  151. Brian Holtz Post author

    You can order any of them from Zazzle by clicking the image. You’re also welcome to re-use the images I created as long as all profit goes to the LP or an affiliate.

  152. Donald R. Lake

    Brian Holtz: truly works of art!

    Unlike the uninspired Eagle and Eagle Head no thot signs of other alternative groups [Green Party, the Sun Flower, especially in Kansas, still stupid in general!] the Libs at least have a handle on symbolism.

    What do you think of the 1776 Liberty Flag [via Charleston’s Fort Mountrou] and the Air Powered Wind Mill Electricity Generator as the 21st Century Peace Sign?

    donlake@ymail.com

  153. Paulie

    Me: I guess my question is, what are your goals?

    BM: To write a review of a book that is being presented as a fantastic representation of libertarianism but isn’t.

    Me2: Thanks, the rest of the post was superfluous.

  154. Paulie

    David F. Nolan // Aug 11, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    paulie@182 – I just started writing a short book that will introduce libertarian ideas to the general public, and address the burning issues of the day. A well-known libertarian organization has expressed interest in publishing this book, but there’s nothing definite yet.

    Excellent news. I look forward to reading it.

  155. Paulie

    Brian H.,

    I wouldn’t agree with Paulie if he’s saying that it’s always a suboptimal use of time to pressure our leading Libertarians to distinguish us from conservatives.

    I don’t believe that is what I meant to say, and I’ve exerted whatever pressure I am able in that regard. My point was more that time which is being spent tearing down Root, Barr, Starr, et al., would be better spent in selling libertarianism as well as the LP to non-conservatives.

    If the conservative oriented folks are the only ones doing the selling, and all we do is criticize them, we should not be surprised at the results.


    Our primary message should always be: we’re the only choice that is neither Left nor Right, neither liberal nor conservative. I try to make that point in several of these bumper stickers:

    I like the bumper stickers a lot. Excellent work!

  156. Bruce Cohen

    Jason said:
    “Bruce Cohen takes time out to lecture me on the use of “socially tolerant” instead of “socially liberal”. ”

    Eh? When did I do that? Maybe the age has caught up with me and I have Alzheimers?

    “He also praises Mike Huckabee for being more and more libertarian every day.”

    Have you watched or read Mike recently?
    He calls for many of the same things we do now.

    “What a sad, hate-filled old man. I pity him.”

    Old, maybe – 48.
    Sad, hardly.
    Hate-filled?

    Sounds like a Democrat ‘rules for radicals’ tactic because I disagree with Jason.

    Hmmm…. Who’s hate filled?
    The inclusivist Libertarians like me?
    Or the exclusivists like Jason.

    Oh, and as for David Nolans fantasy book?
    His question as to who would help him promote it? Maybe David should ask Wayne for some help, since he has multiple best-sellers under his belt.

    Oh, whoops…

    Dave burned that bridge already.

    BWAHAHAHA!

Leave a Reply

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