Wayne Root on the Lou Dobbs Show, 9/10/09

283 thoughts on “Wayne Root on the Lou Dobbs Show, 9/10/09

  1. Thomas L. Knapp

    “There are a few of them that are good conservative Republicans with libertarian leanings, like I am.”

    Hey, I didn’t say it, Wayne did. He’s unambiguously identified himself.

    The question now is whether the Libertarian Party wants to nominate a libertarian or a “good conservative Republican with libertarian leanings” in 2012.

  2. HS

    While I admit to not being the most educated person on L(l)ibertarian politics, it seems that the party is gaining a reputation among the mainstream voters and media as almost like a conservative Republican caucus. I say this because of Glenn Beck, Root, Barr and other conservatives who seem to almost be interchangeable with the conservative GOP and LP.

    I read another post where Thomas Knapp debated someone I’ve never heard of, and I agreed very much with Thomas. The problem for the LP, at least in my opinion, is that I or anybody I associate with outside of really being into third party politics don’t know who Steve Cubby, Mary Ruwart and Thomas Knapp are. Instead, we know who Barr and Beck are, and to a very lesser extent, Root (CNN watchers apart from Lou Dobbs may not know who he is at all).

  3. mdh

    Beck is not a member of the LP at all much less an LP supporter, as far as I know.

    If he is, maybe someone can clarify?

  4. HS

    mdh,

    That’s kind of my point. Most people don’t know the difference between “libertarian leaning” or Beck proclaiming his newfound devotion to being a libertarian. A long time ago, I asked the question here on the difference between big L and little “l.” People hear Beck say the word and appreciation for being a libertarian, and it’s going to associate people with the LP because, again, the party is named after the ideology.

  5. Robert Milnes

    Tom @2, agreed. The problem is that rightists get to muddy up the water (obfuscate) & skate. Calling themselves reformers, which I don’t think Milsted counted on. Declaring themselves libertarians. Joining the Lp. Registering libertarian, becoming LP officials, running for office, etc. They have become a slight majority, enough to sway the whole party. So the answer to your rhetorical question as to whether the LP wants to nominate a real libertarian or a good conservative (r)epublican with libertarian leanings is: been there, done that, fool enough to do it again.

  6. Robert Milnes

    HS, a quick primer on the situation might be put this way, Kubby, Ruwart, TK et al are considered radicals, largely anarchists. The Radical Caucus. Since they haven’t got their shit together enough to take over from the rightist reformers (Libertarian Reform Caucus), they fell back on passive aggression, which evidently doesn’t violate their nonagression gobbledygook, & formed the Boston Tea Party, not to be confused with the current rightist fad Tea Bag Parties, assuring further chaos & confusion. But then, that’s the definition of anarchy, isn’t it?

  7. Thomas L. Knapp

    mdh,

    You write:

    “Beck is not a member of the LP at all much less an LP supporter, as far as I know.”

    So far as I can recall, he has not thus far declared himself a partisan Libertarian. He has, however, described himself as “small-l,” and he’s been rigorously promoted as such by both the “libertarian Republican” set and the “conservative” and “cargo cult” factions within the LP.

    Bob,

    I’m not sure that rightists constitute a majority, slight or otherwise, within the LP. Remember, Bob Barr barely managed the nomination last year, and he was supported not only by the “rightist” faction, but by the non-ideological “seek popular recognition at any cost” faction.

  8. mdh

    Bob, I take offense at your qualifications of radicals within the LP. You are neither a radical nor a reformer. You fail to fall into any faction within the LP because your views are illogical and insane. Quite frankly, you have no room to talk trash about others within the party, when you ran for president and received 0 votes, not even your own, since you failed to attend the convention as a delegate. I doubt you could even obtain a delegate slot from the NJ party.

  9. Robert Milnes

    Tom, I’m not sure if rightists are a slight majority either, but they keep getting their way. They could be passive-aggressively put in their place with a Peer Review Board/ Bylaw, no matter.
    mdh, I am a member of LRC & I claim to be an anarchist. I originally thought Milsted was on to something & he was. Start a “new upper left party”. Upon a lot of reflection I had to reject this as creating a party which would be a direct competitor with the LP & GP. & also I started noticing how rightists like Barr were calling themselves reformers. Kubby & Ruwart lost points with me by endorsing Ron Paul, counterrevolutionary in libertarian camoflage.Now they are involved in Cannabis Science scandaol which I won’t even go into here. Ruwart also failed to bolt the party when I asked her to. She has as far as I know failed to join the BTP but is on the LNC which is in disrepute. I don’t need to talk trash, it speaks for itself.

  10. Brian Holtz

    Tom @2, your quote is not accurate. At about 3:40 into the interview, what Root actually says is: “So there’s like five off the top of my head that I think are good Republican conservative [sic] with libertarian leanings, like I am, who don’t believe in bigger government.” He didn’t use Republican as a noun, and his singular on “conservative” shows that he was tripping on his words somewhat. His “like I am” could have been referring to “libertarian”.

    Except for John Stossel, I don’t pay much attention to talk radio/TV, but you seem to think you’ve got a good handle on the views of Beck. Could you tell us roughly what score he would get on my libertarian quiz? I’m guessing that Root would score around an 85/95 on my quiz, and about a 90/90 on The Advocates’ quiz.

  11. Jeremy Young

    Real libertarians/Libertarians are radical in that they advocate radical changes in the state. That’s why I like and respect them. We agree on almost nothing ideologically, but we are united in our support for radical change in the functioning of the state.

    In a perfect system, statists like me and libertarians like Mary Ruwart would represent the two opposing parties and would duke it out verbally and respectfully in the public square. Unfortunately, before we can get that point, there’s a whole bunch of corrupt and mushy moderates we have to deal with first.

  12. Erik Geib

    Unfortunately Stossel just signed a deal with Fox, furthering the misassociation of libertarianism with conservativism.

    What’d be nice is to see some libertarians on MSNBC and/or in the Democratic Party (among those who game the system instead of running 3rd party) to do away with this fallacy of logic.

    Obviously my first preference would be to see Libertarians in office, but until the Big 5 obstacles (plurality voting, debate access, ballot access, gerrymandering, and single-member district voting) are done away with, that’s probably unlikely.

  13. JT

    Brian, I usually agree with your posts, but you’re wrong here.

    Root didn’t use “Republican” as a noun, but he did use “conservative” as a noun. He said “Republican conservative with libertarian leanings, like I am.” He clearly considers himself a conservative who sympathizes with libertarians on some things. If he wanted to call himself a “libertarian with some conservative sympathies,” he could do that. He never does. In the past, he has called himself a conservative/libertarian, which I think is the same as calling a single flavor of ice cream chocolate/strawberry.

  14. Erik Geib

    Stossel is awesome – I’m not arguing that. But working at Fox definitely dampens his credibility with non-conservatives.

  15. Solomon Drek

    Why are so many LP activists willing to embrace “conservative republicans with libertarian leanings” while ignoring liberal democrats with libertarian leanings?

    It seems to me Arlen Specter, who ran for president in 1996 as a “fiscal conservative and social libertarian” would be a much better fit and provide alot more media exposure for the LP than Wayne Root.

  16. Solomon Drek

    Wayne Root and Lou Dobbs; perfect together.

    Just like Pat Buchanan and David Duke.

    Speaking of David Duke, wouldn’t he be just as good a fit for the LP as Wayne Root?

    Maybe New Jersey libertarian blogger and radio show host Hal Turner should be considered. He has a history with the LP going back to 1997 when he was campaign manager for NJLP gubernatorial candidate Murray Sabrin. Like Lou Dobbs, Turner has been a leader in the movement to expel undocumented immigrants, and has gained lots of publicity and celebrity notoriety for his recent arrest threatening the lives of gungrabbing federal judges, a hot bujtton libertarian issue if ever there was one.

  17. Brian Holtz

    SD, back in Oct 1995 when I still thought the GOP was more salvageable than the LP, I donated $250 to Arlan Specter when he was the lone socially-tolerant candidate for the GOP nomination. I’m not sure how closely he has stuck to the positions he set forth in 1995:

    I intend to win the other house — the White House — with ten commitments to America:

    (l) to balance the budget through spending reduction;
    (2) to begin to pay off the national debt;
    (3) to foster economic growth through enactment of a flat tax;
    (4) to reduce violent crime;
    (5) to improve education with innovations like privatization and charter schools;
    (6) to reform health care through the free market;
    (7) to provide strong leadership in international affairs;
    (8) to contain weapons of mass destruction;
    (9) to control terrorism; and
    (10) to champion tolerance and freedom, including a woman’s right to choose.

    These commitments embody my personal core beliefs as a fiscal and economic conservative and social libertarian.

    I agree with Barry Goldwater when he said we must get government out of our pocketbooks — off our backs — and out of our bedrooms.

  18. Brian Holtz

    JT, in exonerating Root from the charge of affiliating with the Republican party, I didn’t mean to excuse him for calling himself “conservative”. I’ve long said that the LP’s top marketing priority should be to distinguish itself as the only ballot choice that is neither Left nor Right, neither liberal nor conservative. That’s much better than our “cult of the omnimalevolent state” rhetoric.



  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    Solomon,

    They don’t like to talk about it now, but one time Eric Dondero admitted that back when the Republican Liberty Caucus was first formed, they though Specter was the bee’s knees.

  20. libertariangirl

    Drek_Why are so many LP activists willing to embrace “conservative republicans with libertarian leanings” while ignoring liberal democrats with libertarian leanings?

    me_ whos ignoring anyone? we need to embrace BOTH types and quit trying to make others always see the same or calling ‘fake-sies on their LP cred.
    theres room for us all

  21. paulie Post author

    “There are a few of them that are good conservative Republicans with libertarian leanings, like I am.”

    🙁 Wayne should stop saying shit like that if he is running for LP leadership.

  22. paulie Post author

    While I admit to not being the most educated person on L(l)ibertarian politics, it seems that the party is gaining a reputation among the mainstream voters and media as almost like a conservative Republican caucus. I say this because of Glenn Beck, Root, Barr and other conservatives who seem to almost be interchangeable with the conservative GOP and LP.

    I read another post where Thomas Knapp debated someone I’ve never heard of, and I agreed very much with Thomas. The problem for the LP, at least in my opinion, is that I or anybody I associate with outside of really being into third party politics don’t know who Steve Cubby, Mary Ruwart and Thomas Knapp are. Instead, we know who Barr and Beck are, and to a very lesser extent, Root (CNN watchers apart from Lou Dobbs may not know who he is at all).

    Heather is correct, except that Kubby is spelled with a K.

  23. paulie Post author

    Beck is not a member of the LP at all much less an LP supporter, as far as I know.

    If he is, maybe someone can clarify?

    Open Letter To Glenn Beck By Alex Jones

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/open-letter-to-glenn-beck-by-alex-jones.html


    Alex Jones has addressed Glenn Beck in the form of an open letter, appealing to him to “be on the right side of history” by using his growing public platform to tell the truth rather than exploiting it to deceive grass-roots conservatives and libertarians into following a re-birth of the neo-con agenda that Beck has embraced all along.

    ——————————————

    Glenn Beck,

    It is important to preface this letter by highlighting the fact that I do not attack people lightly and have defended you in the past when Van Jones was calling for you to be fired. I fully support your right to free speech.

    It cannot be denied that you – Glenn Beck – are an extremely talented radio and television host and you have a magnetism and a proficiency of public speaking that draws people in and maintains their interest. However, being a novice history buff I am also painfully aware of the fact that Benedict Arnold was, like you, a talented individual – he was also a traitor.

    History is what matters and being on the right side of history is what’s important when it comes to the legacy we leave on this planet. You don’t want people to look back on you as a Benedict Arnold, as a traitor to America. You don’t want people to look back on you as a media whore, as playing the role of being loyal opposition to sucker legitimate and growing grass roots opposition to the new world order.

    Your agenda is to put out a dual message – to discredit and polarize the conservative movement to the benefit of the establishment left and the elite. Your bizarre and clownish antics of fake crying, which you proved were staged when you replicated them on demand for a GQ photo shoot, are doing nothing but reinforcing the stereotype that the conservative right is insane.

    Your entire 9/12 project has nothing to do with uniting America and everything to do with reinforcing neo-conservative rhetoric about how we should relinquish our rights and accept the police state because terrorists want to attack us and Saddam Hussein has WMD’s and yellowcake.

    As the video below illustrates, despite the fact that you claim to be “a Libertarian at heart,” you have publicly supported programs and legislation that are universally abhorred by the vast majority of libertarians, such as the banker bailout and the USA Patriot Act.

    During your Monday September 22 2008 TV broadcast, you expressed your vehement support for the bailout, stating, “The $700 billion dollars that you’re hearing about now is not only I believe necessary, it is also not nearly enough.” However, as soon as Bush left office and Obama picked up the baton and continued the same financial policy, you changed your tune and routinely attacked the bailout as an example of how socialism was taking over America.

    The bailout was bad news for America under Bush just as it is under Obama, both were merely performing a transfer of wealth from America to offshore banks and giving the Federal Reserve total dictatorial control over the economy, but you only opposed it when Bush was out of office, proving that your opinions are not wedded to right or wrong, but to which puppet is in the White House.

    A host of mainline conservative talking heads opposed the banker bailout, as did the majority of the American people, but you went on television and publicly supported it. This is irreconcilable with you being “a libertarian at heart” as you claim.

    In addition, you aggressively attacked Ron Paul and his supporters during the election campaign when it looked like the Texan Congressman might have a real chance of winning the nomination. You implied that Ron Paul supporters were domestic terrorists and should be dealt with by the U.S. Army, but later tried to side with Ron Paul supporters when the infamous and discredited MIAC report echoed your own talking point that people who support Ron Paul were dangerous.

    The smear came during a November 2007 show when you were still hosting on CNN. Yourself and ex-Marxist David Horowitz smeared Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and the anti-war left as terrorist sympathizers and inferred that the U.S. military should be used to silence them, parroting a talking point that traces back to a September 2006 White House directive. When asked about the issue, Ron Paul dismissed you as “pretty discourteous” and a “demagogue”.

    You Glenn Beck have acted as a cheerleader for the wars of aggression launched since 9/11 and in addition called for Iran to be attacked, claiming that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is preparing a “second holocaust.” Once again, these political opinions stand completely contrary to libertarian principles, which follow the founding fathers’ view that an expansionist aggressive foreign policy is bad for America.

    You have attacked Obama for unraveling the Bush war machine to give you left cover, when in fact Obama has done everything in his power to expand Bush’s wars, beefing the campaigns in Afghanistan and Pakistan while removing a token amount of troops from Iraq and replacing them with an even greater number of contractors.

    By attacking Obama for being different to Bush, when in reality he offers not change whatsoever, you keep people locked in the left-right paradigm and ensure that instead of coming to the realization that the whole system is rigged, they will merely vote in another puppet for the new world order in 2012.

    Glenn Beck – you are controlled opposition, you are there to co-opt and ensure the Tea Parties are under control and that they never focus on taking on the real power behind the American economy – the Federal Reserve.

    Bearing in mind that you almost died not too long ago, wouldn’t you rather come to the end of your life, whether that be in one year or 30 years from now, knowing that you stood up for true liberty and freedom? Isn’t that more valuable than your $50 million dollars a year contract? When I was approached ten years ago and offered large sums of money every year to sell out and become what you are today – the new Rush Limbaugh – while accepting tight controls on what I could and could not discuss – I said no and I thank God every day that I made the right decision.

    I appeal to you directly Glenn – think twice about what you are doing, think twice about what you are a part of right now. Try to do what you can to redeem yourself and don’t be a Benedict Arnold, don’t be a traitor that takes legions of good-natured but hoodwinked people down the rat hole with you as America collapses because those who had voices and platforms used them to deceive and distract rather than tell the truth.

    Alex Jones

  24. paulie Post author

    Kubby, Ruwart, TK et al ….formed the Boston Tea Party

    Of the people you name, only Knapp has ever had anything to do with the BTP, which he wanted to be an LP caucus rather than a separate party, and if my understanding is correct he has since resigned from the BTP. Kubby and Ruwart have never been BTP members (even free members, which is all they have) or endorsed it in any way, to my knowledge.

    chaos & confusion. But then, that’s the definition of anarchy, isn’t it?

    No.

  25. paulie Post author

    paulie, @1, my problem with the video is it’s not a video. It is a radio interview. It should be just a link. & Why does it say Lou Dobbs?

    Because that is what it said on Wayne Root’s website, where I copied it from. Dobbs has a radio show too? I’m only aware of the TV show.

  26. paulie Post author

    Milnes,

    I am a member of LRC & I claim to be an anarchist.

    You may as well claim to be a toaster oven. Your platform as posted on your website is not anarchist or even minarchist by any stretch, unless you completely revised it – it’s been some time since I’ve looked.

  27. paulie Post author

    Tom @2, your quote is not accurate. At about 3:40 into the interview, what Root actually says is: “So there’s like five off the top of my head that I think are good Republican conservative [sic] with libertarian leanings, like I am, who don’t believe in bigger government.” He didn’t use Republican as a noun, and his singular on “conservative” shows that he was tripping on his words somewhat. His “like I am” could have been referring to “libertarian”.

    Sounds like Tom’s quote is accurate. Brian’s interpretation sounds like a serious stretch. Yoga master level, even!

  28. paulie Post author

    Unfortunately Stossel just signed a deal with Fox, furthering the misassociation of libertarianism with conservativism.

    What’d be nice is to see some libertarians on MSNBC and/or in the Democratic Party (among those who game the system instead of running 3rd party) to do away with this fallacy of logic.

    I suspect the best case scenario for this will be when/if Republicans are in the white house again.

  29. paulie Post author

    It seems to me Arlen Specter, who ran for president in 1996 as a “fiscal conservative and social libertarian”

    If Specter said that, he was lying.

  30. paulie Post author

    Speaking of David Duke, wouldn’t he be just as good a fit for the LP as Wayne Root?

    Although Root has made some off the cuff comments which can be interpreted as somewhat racist, he hasn’t done anything near making a career of open racism as Duke has, including parading around in nazi uniform while he was a student at LSU and serving as the head of a KKK outfit. There is simply no comparison, and you do a serious disservice to any seriousness with which you may hope your comments will be treated by making it.

    New Jersey libertarian blogger and radio show host Hal Turner should be considered.

    Turner is a nazi. Decidedly unlibertarian.

    These comments are ridiculous.

    Drek, yes; Solomon, not so much.

  31. paulie Post author

    Specter: “(7) to provide strong leadership in international affairs;
    (8) to contain weapons of mass destruction;
    (9) to control terrorism;”

    Code words for militarism. I don’t suppose he is against the drug war either, nor is he likely to be for any serious reduction in entitlement spending, or ending the federal reserve, or any number of other issues which would set him apart from the standard issue major party duopoly establishment herd.

  32. paulie Post author

    Drek_Why are so many LP activists willing to embrace “conservative republicans with libertarian leanings” while ignoring liberal democrats with libertarian leanings?

    LG_ whos ignoring anyone? we need to embrace BOTH types and quit trying to make others always see the same or calling ‘fake-sies on their LP cred.
    theres room for us all

    Agreed with LG, as usual.

  33. Brian Holtz

    Paulie @35, are you saying you (like Tom) hear “good conservative Republicans” where Root clearly says “good Republican conservative”? Better check your hearing.

    It’s silly to suggest that with this interview, Root is saying he considers himself a Republican instead of a Libertarian. Smooth as he is, Root is not above getting tongue-tied. Hell, on my biggest TV interview ever, I accidentally called them “users” instead of “voters”.

    Not a single sentence that Carson quotes from Stossel is unlibertarian. Carson just has his panties in a twist because Stossel doesn’t say the mutualist things that Carson wants to hear. If you want to show that Stossel isn’t hardcore, then try giving us a quote from him that deviates from a 100/100 on my high-precision Nolan quiz. I’ve listened to many hours of Stossel, and I can’t recall ever hearing a single such deviation. Hell, Stossel lauds road privatization, and worries that school vouchers would not be a big enough step toward more freedom in education markets. An archive of his columns is at http://townhall.com/Columnists/JohnStossel/.

  34. paulie Post author

    Paulie @35, are you saying you (like Tom) hear “good conservative Republicans” where Root clearly says “good Republican conservative”? Better check your hearing.

    My hearing is not at issue. I have no way of listening to this video, or audio clip, or whatever it is; see comment #1. I am relying entirely on what you and Tom have transcribed here: “good Republican conservative [sic] with libertarian leanings, like I am.”

  35. Brian Holtz

    @40 Paulie calls fake-sies on Specter’s libertarian cred. Two minutes later @41, Paulie agrees with Debra that we shouldn’t call fake-sies on people’s LP cred. Sheesh.

    Paulie, who since 1971 (besides Ron Paul) has based their major-party presidential nomination campaign on a more libertarian program — and with more libertarian rhetoric — than what I quoted from Specter above? When that happens, we shouldn’t slam such people as “liars”; we should welcome them with open arms and encourage their libertarian growth. Did you ever call Mike Gravel a “liar” for claiming to be libertarian? Of course not, because for all his deviations he agrees with you on your pet issue. We’re the Libertarian Party, not the LitmusTestitarian Party.

  36. robert capozzi

    pc, I seem to recall that Knapp is seeking the 2012 nominations of both the LP and BTP…has that changed? Or do I misremember?

  37. paulie Post author

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/135735.html

    This is nothing new. I recall a rather widely circulated meme after the OKC bombing in 1995 that associated the violence with Limbaugh et al. There was even a widely circulated cartoon that showed a firefighter at the scene mentally damning Limbaugh; unfortunately for the cartoonist, it turned out that the actual firefighter in the photo that was the basis for the cartoon turned out to be a Limbaugh fan.

  38. paulie Post author

    Paulie, who since 1971 (besides Ron Paul) has based their major-party presidential nomination campaign on a more libertarian program — and with more libertarian rhetoric — than what I quoted from Specter above?

    It depends on which issues you find to be most important to your flavor of libertarianism, and how much you trust the promises of major party politicians. Ron Paul has a record in Congress of voting against most of the bipartisan concensus with which libertarians disagree; Specter does not.

    we should welcome them with open arms and encourage their libertarian growth.

    Yes. Although, I don’t recall Specter ever seeking to join the LP. I find his claim to be a libertarian to be about as credible as Bill Clinton.
    The article is meant to be humorous, but maybe we should welcome Bubba C. with open arms too?

    As for Mr. Gravel,

    1) I did not vote for him on any ballot, nor did I think there was any chance he would win the nomination – in fact I was surprised to see him do as well as he did.

    2) Which pet issue? I have many of them.

    We’re the Libertarian Party, not the LitmusTestitarian Party.

    Fully agreed. When Mr. Specter joins the LP, let me know and we’ll revisit the conversation.

  39. paulie Post author

    I seem to recall that Knapp is seeking the 2012 nominations of both the LP and BTP…has that changed?

    Tom will have to address that. At this point, the BTP will have to pick up some new blood if they will be on any state ballots at all next time. Last year, Charles Jay paid me and Andy to get him on in Florida and Tennessee, but I don’t think he’ll run again.

    Since then, I seem to recall Tom resigning from the BTP and many other people doing so as well.

    As for me, I haven’t formally resigned, and see no need to – my “membership” consists of a login account to the website and signing up for several yahoo and facebook groups – but I’ve pretty much lost whatever interest I had in it.

  40. paulie Post author

    Not a single sentence that Carson quotes from Stossel is unlibertarian. Carson just has his panties in a twist because Stossel doesn’t say the mutualist things that Carson wants to hear.

    Readers can judge that for themselves.

    If you want to show that Stossel isn’t hardcore, then try giving us a quote from him that deviates from a 100/100 on my high-precision Nolan quiz.

    I’m fairly certain he would not come out as a hardcore libertarian on Bryan Caplan’s quiz.

  41. Michael Seebeck

    Specter = JFK Magic Bullet Theory, which any ballistics person can tell you is physically impossible.

    If he’s that complicit in covering up the murder of a sitting President in broad daylight (no matter what you think of JFK, it was still murder), then he is untrustworthy in everything else.

    Plus he seems to change political parties more often than Milnes is lucid.

  42. Pingback: Recent Wayne Root Media Appearances | Independent Political Report

  43. Brian Holtz

    Oh no, first 9/11 truthers, now JFK truthers too? I used to have fun with JFK truthers on alt.conspiracy.jfk in the 1990s (see hundreds of postings here, but then Gerald Posner came and spoiled the party with Case Closed. “Magic bullet” complaints remain thoroughly debunked at e.g. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm.

    Paulie, nothing behind your Clinton joke links is anywhere near as libertarian a program as what I quote from Specter above. Wake me when you can quote Bubba hailing Barry Goldwater, advocating flat tax + school privatization + free-market health care reform, and announcing his presidential campaign by calling himself libertarian.

  44. Brian Holtz

    Paulie, nothing behind your Clinton joke links [note the plural] is anywhere near as libertarian …

    And before you throw down with me on the JFK assassination, you might want to check out the 20+ books on my JFK assassination shelf, or browse through my hundreds of alt.conspiracy.jfk postings at http://humanknowledge.net/Correspondence/alt.conspiracy/. Before I joined the LP, that topic enjoyed most of my debating-time budget. 🙂 Oswald acted alone, case closed.

  45. paulie Post author

    Bullcrap, but I have no interest in “throwing down” with you; I think there are far more interesting topics to discuss.

  46. Tom Blanton

    Why doesn’t the LP try to recruit Glenn Beck as its Presidential Candidate in 2012?

    After all, he has a national radio show on 3 hours a day and a national TV show. He’s really not much different than Root. He’s also very rich and his ego is even larger than Root’s (rubes like their politicians to have enormous egos).

    Beck also managed to bring a lot of those people to DC last weekend after pleading with people for weeks to come.

    Just because Beck supports bailouts (well, Bush’s 2008 bailouts anyway), perpetual war in the Mideast, drug prohibition, and a number of other things that most libertarians are against doesn’t mean he’s not a good libertarian. He repeatedly says he is a libertarian at heart.

    The LP wants to go big tent – here is your chance. Throw out those litmus tests and all those old libertarian principles. Toss the dogma once and for all. Political parties are only good for one thing, the common-sense pragmatists tell us, and that one thing is to win elections. Period. Ideology has nothing to do with winning elections. Neither does honesty.

    So, send Redpath to Beck and tell him to get down on his knees and beg Beck to run for President on the LP ticket.

    If Wayne Root is good for the LP, Beck would be even better. Of course, no real libertarian in their right mind would support Beck. But screw them. This about winning. Ideas don’t matter. Right?

  47. Robert Milnes

    Mr. Holtz, @55,”Oswald acted alone. Case closed.” I beg your pardon. I don’t think so. In the very LEAST he was manipulated. & under surveillance on Nov. 22. The confrontation between Oswald & Tippitt closely resembles the outcome of an anymous phone call/tip to police describing the target & location. His rifle could have been stolen & returned unknown to Oswald & used to obtain a near pristine bullet which then could have been planted on the stretcher at Parkland. Oswald claimed to be a patsy. That was the set up. Ruby was a fool who imposed himself. I agree that the single bullet theory is accurate. But what about the acoustic evidence showing a fourth shot by “badgeman” from the grassy knoll that MISSED? Badgeman’s son says his father, a Dallas police officer, admitted firing a shot but deliberately missing. A witness nearby described exactly that. Also why did the first shot miss? That should have been the best shot. & why wait until the target is starting to move away & accelerate? Why not fire directly down on the nearly stopped target rounding a turn? Then fire at will on the presumably wounded target? Part of the answer might be that Oswald’s scope was reportedly off. Somebody who was handed the rifle upon its theft or retheft that morning might not have checked the scope. But being an expert quickly realized the scope was off & compensated. ETC.

  48. Michael H. Wilson

    Y’all want to discuss the JFK murder then check out the book “JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he died and why it matters” by James W. Douglas.

    I have never bought that Oswald did it alone. I don’t know much about the book I mention above and read that it is new, that is just published. History is full of surprises.

  49. Brian Holtz

    Mr. Blanton, tell me how Beck scores on the political IQ test, and I’ll tell you if I think he would be an acceptable LP nominee. I do like it when he says: The argument that we have about left/right in this country is so incredibly stupid because if the guy on the right is the guy who is a racist and a Nazi, a Nazi, then the guy on the left would have to be Stalin. Well, that is an argument between big government and big government. Well, I don’t want either of those and I don’t think most Americans want that, and they will say, well, I’m in the middle. Well, no, you’re not. You’re not in the middle of that. You don’t want those to be your two ends. You want big government at one end and no government on the other end. What is how do you make the case to people now that we are arguing a ridiculous argument, we have been conned into a strawman argument here of big government versus big government. The best kind of government is the smallest. It doesn’t matter. If Germany wouldn’t have had a huge government, you know, and would have rejected framework, they could have had Hitler in, but he wouldn’t have had any power to do anything, you know? It doesn’t matter if Obama is in if he doesn’t have the power to do anything. Doesn’t matter if George Bush is in if he doesn’t have the power to do anything. The smallest government is the one that is the best, but nobody seems to understand the small government idea anymore.

    While I don’t have enough data on Beck, here are some people who I would love to have as the Libertarian presidential candidate:

    • Walter Williams
    • John Stossel
    • Ed Clark
    • David Friedman
    • Thomas Sowell
    • Tom Palmer
    • Ron Paul
    • Larry Elder

    Alas, some of these guys are now too old to run. At the other end of the age distribution, we need to be grooming Nick Sarwark to run when he’s old enough.

  50. paulie Post author

    Why doesn’t the LP try to recruit Glenn Beck as its Presidential Candidate in 2012?

    Shhhhh. Don’t give them any ideas!

  51. paulie Post author

    The LP wants to go big tent – here is your chance.

    A big tent that leans too far to the right topples, which only leaves crushed clowns and dead elephants.

  52. Brian Holtz

    Don’t stabilize our tent by trying to keep it small. Instead, stabilize it by recruiting Libertarians from your lefty/donkey friends. The LP platform and/or official statements have always been anti-war, pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-drug-rights, anti-GOP, anti-bigotry, anti-police-state, anti-empire, etc. None of this has stopped an alleged flood of recovering Republicans from joining the LP, so where are all the recovering Democrats?

    Stop waiting for ex-Republican Libertarians to go recruit your lefty friends, and Just Do It yourself. Don’t make excuses; just roll up your sleeves and prove that it’s possible.

  53. Brian Holtz

    Yeah, anti-war, pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-drug-rights, anti-GOP, anti-bigotry, anti-police-state, anti-empire — that sure smells “right wing”.

    OK, next hand-waving excuse?

  54. Who's Thumbing Who?

    So, send Redpath to Beck and tell him to get down on his knees and beg Beck to run for President on the LP ticket.

    This is wrong on so many levels. First of all, Glenn Beck? Second, if they are going to send someone to get on their knees, can’t they get – well, OK, pay – a good looking woman to do it? On second thought, instead of paying her to get on her knees and beg some dude, maybe they should just pay her to run herself. Maybe Stormy Daniels?

    http://teamstormy.com/

  55. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tom B,

    You write:

    “Just because Beck supports bailouts (well, Bush’s 2008 bailouts anyway), ”

    Um, no. He’s always been very loudly opposed to the bailouts, and gave friendly interviews to Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and others on the subject. Here are some URLs (unlinked so I don’t fall afoul of the two-link monster):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNLPzATGHso

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdGs6Yvg6Bk

    And, in fairness, Wayne Root has always, so far as I know, been loudly opposed to the bailouts too.

  56. paulie Post author

    Tom, see this from Beck…this is from Jones’ letter to Beck quoted in #31

    During your Monday September 22 2008 TV broadcast, you expressed your vehement support for the bailout, stating, “The $700 billion dollars that you’re hearing about now is not only I believe necessary, it is also not nearly enough.” However, as soon as Bush left office and Obama picked up the baton and continued the same financial policy, you changed your tune and routinely attacked the bailout as an example of how socialism was taking over America.

    Did Jones make that up?

  57. Thomas L. Knapp

    * anti-war — after six years of being held hostage by its pro-war and “hold finger in air, try to figure out which way the wind is blowing” factions.

    * pro-choice, pro-gay-rights — Try selling that one to people who know that we nominated Bob Barr last year and Ron Paul in 1988.

    * anti-GOP — Except when GOP has-beens pay attention to us and make us feel important.

  58. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    I don’t know if Jones made that up or not. Maybe Beck did flip-flop. But if I have to take a guess on whether Beck flip-flopped or Jones just made shit up, I’ll go with the historical trend and say the latter.

  59. paulie Post author

    @67

    Looks good on the surface:

    Coming Soon!

    Stormblazer! Stormy Daniels and the Triumph of Responsibility

    The first ever in-depth account of the rise of possible US Senate candidate Stormy Daniels. From her humble beginnings as a child and student in Baton Rouge, Louisiana Stormblazer! charts Stormy’s path to her current status as a highly successful business woman and child protection advocate. Stormblazer! is a must have for Stormy supporters and those who want to learn more about Stormy’s beliefs and what we can do as Louisianans and Americans to keep government out of our lives.

    Then we dig a bit deeper….

    http://teamstormy.com/?p=196

    By Cain Burdeau
    The Associated Press

    NEW ORLEANS (AP) — It’s been a tough week for porn actress Stormy Daniels — complete with a domestic violence charge and a car explosion — as she continues to mull a U.S. Senate bid that could make life uncomfortable for incumbent first-term Louisiana Republican David Vitter, still recovering from a sex scandal.

    Daniels was arrested Saturday on a domestic violence battery charge after she allegedly hit her husband at their home in Tampa, Fla., during a dispute about laundry and unpaid bills.

    Her arrest came two days after her political adviser in Louisiana, Brian Welsh, said his parked 1996 Audi may have been blown up by someone on July 23 outside his apartment in an upscale downtown area of New Orleans.

    ”It’s something out of The Sopranos,” said Edward E. Chervenak, a professor of politics at the University of New Orleans. ”Very weird.”

    In May, Daniels announced that she was interested in a 2010 run for the Senate seat held by Vitter, whose family-values reputation was marred in 2007 when his name was linked to a Washington prostitution ring.

    Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Gregory Clifford, has not officially declared herself a candidate, but has continued to express an interest. She has acknowledged that she hasn’t lived in Louisiana for years and would need to re-establish residency to run for Senate. The 30-year-old Louisiana native kicked off a second ”listening tour” in early July.

    Daniels was arrested Saturday at 3:18 p.m. after her husband, Michael Mosny, reported that Daniels hit him several times, according to a Tampa Police Department report. Police said neither Mosny nor Daniels were injured.

    Mosny told police that Daniels was upset ”about the way the clothes had been done” and then ”got more upset about some bills that had not been paid,” the police report said.

    The police report said Daniels allegedly ”threw a potted plant at the kitchen sink,” hit Mosny on the head several times and ”threw their wedding album onto the floor and knocked candles off coffee table, breaking them.”

    The bad week, though, started on July 23 when her political adviser’s car blew up in suspicious circumstances in New Orleans.

    Welsh, a Democratic adviser and manager of the Stormy Daniels Senate Exploratory Committee LLC., said his Audi convertible exploded into flames around 11:15 p.m. July 23, a Thursday, while he and his wife were walking their dog nearby.

    He said he became suspicious after reviewing surveillance tapes of the street where his car was parked, wedged between other vehicles.

    On fuzzy security tapes that Welsh posted on YouTube, a person in a white shirt can be seen loitering around his car and apparently getting into it shortly before the car explodes in a ball of flames.

    Firefighters responded to a 911 call at 11:23 p.m. and put the fire out by 12:06 a.m., said Michael Williams of the New Orleans Fire Department.

    Welsh’s car was parked Wednesday in the same spot where it caught on fire, on a little-used street near the New Orleans convention center.

    New Orleans police and the FBI did not immediately comment.

    Welsh said he had no suspects, but feared someone caused the explosion.

    ”Maybe there is a reason, more of an intentional reason for the car blowing up,” Welsh said. ”I want to get more facts.”

    Welsh said he was uncertain if the explosion was connected to his work with Daniels.

    ”Clearly, if someone tried to blow up my car, it’s cause for concern; it’s not cause for me to stop doing my job, stop me from talking about the things that are important,” Welsh said. ”If anybody had been walking by when that car blew up, they would have been seriously injured or killed.”

    ”I really wish this had not happened,” Welsh, 38, said. ”I need a car.”

    Hmmm.

    I don’t know.

  60. Erik Geib

    It’s sad how much attention our voyeur society has given Stormy’s bid. She’s not even constitutionally eligible to be in the Senate (she’s too young), but no matter.

  61. libertariangirl

    Don’t stabilize our tent by trying to keep it small. Instead, stabilize it by recruiting Libertarians from your lefty/donkey friends. The LP platform and/or official statements have always been anti-war, pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-drug-rights, anti-GOP, anti-bigotry, anti-police-state, anti-empire, etc. None of this has stopped an alleged flood of recovering Republicans from joining the LP, so where are all the recovering Democrats

    Stop waiting for ex-Republican Libertarians to go recruit your lefty friends, and Just Do It yourself. Don’t make excuses; just roll up your sleeves and prove that it’s possible.

    me__ he’s absolutely 100% right . stop waiting and pointing and just flippin do it.

  62. paulie Post author

    I do.

    Unfortunately, the results are not as they should be, in no small part because of how other people sell libertarianism.

    It isn’t something I make up on my own and sell in any way I want.

    There’s an existing backdrop – what’s on national’s website, what Wayne says on TV, and a million other things.

    But, hey, I’m always open to advice from anyone who’s having better luck at it than me, and willing to offer advice (and help if I’m around) to anyone who wants to try.

  63. Michael Seebeck

    Sorry, Holtz, but Posner is an idiot and ignored simple circumstantial evidence in order to arrive at his predisposed conclusion. You need to read more Mark Lane, who is by far a better expert.

    Next I suppose you’ll say that Sirhan Sirhan actually killed RFK when the autopsy says otherwise.

    Besides, at gun shoots across the nation the 5th-floor window shoot is recreated and far better marksmen than Oswald couldn’t do it–nevermind that there is real eyewitness (A Dallas motor cop and Oswald’s own boss) and photographic evidence (of Oswald in the Depository doorway just before the shots) that Oswald is innocent.

    As for the Magic Bullet, the idea that one unjacketed round could rip through JFK’s throat, hit Connally, change direction in Connally’s body, exit, go through his wrist, change direction again, and lodge in his thigh, while being totally undeformed and intact save 7 grains out of a 157-grain bullet missing is so impossible as to defy explanation. Yet that is the theory in the Warren Report as proposed by Arlen Specter.

    No conspiracy theory at all, just the government whitewash ignoring clear facts.

  64. Aroundtheblockafewtimes

    Been to the book depository and can easily believe a Marine marksman could make the shot.
    Maybe he got lucky too. And my brother had an M-C from the same mailorder place. He easily could fire the same number of bullets in the same time Oswald did (though only by rough-aiming from the second shot on.)

  65. robert capozzi

    rather than recruiting from the right or left, seems to me our ready-made primary constituency are independent centrists. L-ism is ultimately a moderate, peaceful philosophy, so recruiting polar extremists seems contra-indicated.

  66. HumbleTravis

    according to a recent ABC News poll:

    In making their case, both parties face a fundamental challenge: Democratic allegiance has slipped to a two-year low in this poll and Republican affiliation is back near its lowest ever; instead 43 percent of Americans now identify themselves as independents, the most since ABC/Post polls began 28 years ago.

    source: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=8536886

  67. Michael Seebeck

    One correction: the magic Bullet was jacketed, not unjacketed, but that still doesn’t make any sense to be that intact after it”traversed 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of tissue, struck a necktie knot, removed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone.” Oh yeah, and somehow stopped rotating from its rifling at supersonic speed and flip over so that it entered Connally’s wrist backwards. Yeah, right.

    A marksman rating in the military is the lowest one, not the highest (sharpshooter, with expert in the middle). Every basic training grunt has to get at least that to exit basic, so calling Oswald a marksman isn’t what you think it is. Hell, I got a marksman badge in JROTC in high school on the M-16 with my 20-800 eyesight and coke-bottle glasses at the time.

    Oswald himself on his last Marine qualification in 1959 only qualified 1 point above marksman at the time, and later he was court-martialed for shooting himself in the elbow with a handgun. His own drill sergeant characterized his shooting as “poor”. In 1956 he had a higher qualification score (on the M1, which is a different rifle), but as he got older his skills deteriorated to the point that in 1963 it can be assumed his aim was below average and certainly not up to any good target standards. When Oswald tried to assassinate General Walker in April 1963, he hit the window frame in his shot from under 100 feet and missed everyone. That’s not a good enough shot to do in Dallas what professionals have trouble recreating in the 4.6-5.8 seconds that it supposedly took to fire the three shots from the Depository by Oswald, at 265 feet, 19 degrees downward, then have it traverse *upward* through his back, 1.5 inches below the collar line and exit the throat above the collar line. Love to see a bullet make that midair change in direction. And that doesn’t factor in the scope, either.

    And the 1940 model 6.5mm Manlicher-Carcano is a crap rifle, based on an outdated pre-WWI design (1891) that even the Italians replaced with M1 Garands after WWII. I’ve shot one, and the thing had a lousy shoulder kick and a sluggish bolt action, which makes the timing in Dallas almost impossible. American-made Winchesters alone are much better and more easily available, as they were in 1963, as were surplus Garands left over from WWII.

    And that also doesn’t factor in that there were actually FOUR shots, a piece of missing curb taken later with a bullet mark on it, and witnesses who placed Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom not 30 seconds after the shots, and a photo that showed him in the Depository front doorway seconds before the shots.

  68. Steven R Linnabary

    …who since 1971 (besides Ron Paul) has based their major-party presidential nomination campaign on a more libertarian program — and with more libertarian rhetoric …

    Reagan in ’76, Ben Fernandez in ’80, Pierre DuPont in ’88, Pat Buchanon in ’92, Steve Forbes in ’96.

    Libertarian rhetoric is rather commonplace in the republican party. In fact, talk is cheap. All the above (except DuPont) ran later campaigns where libertarian rhetoric was repudiated.

    PEACE

  69. robert capozzi

    I’ve never been attracted to conspiracy theories mostly because they seem to go nowhere. If Oswald didn’t do it; if Cheney masterminded it; if Teddy let Mary Jo die… ultimately, it’s noise. Squabbling among competing statists may well turn nefarious, even diabolical, but it doesn’t affect my commitment to peace and liberty. Some conspirators may cover their tracks well enough to skate, but diagnosing the Truth in the rearview mirror seems counterproductive.

  70. Michael Seebeck

    Robert, as usual you miss the point.

    There’s two ways of looking at so-called conspiracy theories.

    One is the simple doubter like me who doesn’t give a damn about the whodunnit part of it and instead looks at the “official” version of stuff with a very skeptical eye because it defies common sense and known science.

    The other is the full-blown conspiracist who take it a step or twenty further and think that whatever did happen was part of some vast evil government plot orchestrated to enslave us all in some diabolical scheme that is better suited for a B-movie. They take the jumble of facts and concoct a theory to fit their own predisposed views on the subject, disregarding evidence that doesn’t fit their theory. Ironically enough, most “official” government investigations do the same thing without the evil plot mumbo jumbo.

    Unfortunately, the antics of the former cause their opponents to deride them and include the mere doubters, and here we are.

    Looking at the two greatest public crimes of the past 50 years, the doubters think Oswald was innocent but don’t know who actually did it, and that there is no way in hell that a mass kerosene fire can topple three skyscrapers on 9/11 unassisted. The conspiracists think both cases were elaborate government and allied partner crimes executed to protect their interests, whatever they are, and the “official” versions are simply part of the cover-up.

    Call me a doutber. I know Oswald didn’t kill JFK but I don’t know who did, and I know those jets by themselves didn’t cause those buildings to collapse.

    But I’m not going to sit here an concoct a massive conspiracy theory to explain it all either.

    (BTW, as for RFK, the autopsy powder burns on RFK’s ear proves Sirhan’s innocence as well!)

  71. Robert Capozzi

    ms: Robert, as usual you miss the point.

    me: Thanks, Michael, but your post indicates you missed MY point. I’m probably vaguely in the doubter camp as well. But I don’t have a position on various conspiracy theories or, perhaps, alternative explanations of historical events, because I fail to see delving into these issues is likely to yield productive information.

    So…I don’t waste my time. It seems you’ve spent quite a bit on time on the matter…please share with us what your ROI was. I really’d like to know!

  72. paulie Post author

    I’ve never been attracted to conspiracy theories mostly because they seem to go nowhere. If Oswald didn’t do it; if Cheney masterminded it; if Teddy let Mary Jo die… ultimately, it’s noise. Squabbling among competing statists may well turn nefarious, even diabolical, but it doesn’t affect my commitment to peace and liberty. Some conspirators may cover their tracks well enough to skate, but diagnosing the Truth in the rearview mirror seems counterproductive.

    …and that’s why I have no interest in “throwing down” with Brian on this, and am happy to leave that to Seebeck or whoever else wants at it.

  73. paulie Post author

    …who since 1971 (besides Ron Paul) has based their major-party presidential nomination campaign on a more libertarian program — and with more libertarian rhetoric …

    Hmmm, let’s see. Off the top of my head:

    McGovern was better on peace and civil liberties. Sucked on economic issues by and large. Same for Kucinich (and Gravel prior to switching to L).

    Buchanan was the best Republican on foreign policy outside of Ron Paul, and better than most Democrats, but his culture war and economic nationalist nonsense was polar opposite of libertarian.

    Jerry Brown: good on peace and civil liberties, and not altogether terrible on economics. He actually cut government in California after Reagan increased it. I worked on his campaign and don’t regret it too much.

    I also worked on Gary Hart’s. Gary, Hunter T. and other people who knew each other from the McGovern ’72 staff were all promising privately he would end the drug war and the military-industrial complex when elected. Total BS, and he was far too beholden to CFR et al. by that point. This is why he had to take himself out of serious contention; irreconcilable promises to different people. (“Follow me around,” the good ship Monkey Business – not just a name I read in a newspaper – etc).

    Forbes sounded vaguely libertarianish-leaning on economic issues, and was not particularly jingoistic or theocratic for a Republican as far as I can recall.

    Keyes was better on economic issues than a run of the mill duopolist, but was terrible on everything else.

    Of course none of these people got elected. Here’s where the problem really comes in.

    If all we had to judge Reagan on was campaign promises, he was at least better than standard duopolists on economic issues, if nothing else. Reality? Something different entirely. W? Remember “humble foreign policy”? His dad? “Read my lips, no new taxes”? Bubba – “the era of big government is over”? Forgetaboutit.

    I’d say Clinton and Carter were on balance less damaging than any and all the Republicans in the timeframe in question, but not enough so to vote for Democrats again. In reality, it’s SSDD.

  74. Thomas L. Knapp

    I’ve always doubted that Oswald acted alone (assuming he acted at all) in the JFK killing. See Mr. Seebeck’s comments on Oswald’s shooting skills.

    I qualified as marksman (the lowest shooting grade) in boot camp. Later I was able to shoot in the high sharpshooter/low expert range with intensive training (to become a shooting instructor).

    At my very demonstrated best, which was considerably better than Oswald’s very demonstrated best, no, I do not think it’s remotely likely that I could get off three aimed shots, at a moving target 90 yards away, from a scoped bolt action rifle, in 6.x seconds, and hit my target in the head with one of those shots.

    The first shot, of course, one might have plenty of time to aim. The second and third would have each required Oswald to work the bolt, return the rifle to position, find the moving target in the scope again, aim and fire it in a little more than three seconds.

    Impossible? Probably not. Unlikely? Extremely so.

    Of course, suspicion that Oswald either didn’t do it alone or didn’t do it at all doesn’t translate to a coherent theory of who did do it, how or why.

  75. HumbleTravis

    In response to the statement about popular candidates running pseudo-libertarian campaigns, I would add to the list Eugene McCarthy’s 1976 independent presidential run. Like most lefty candidates his economics were hardly free-market based, but he did address privacy, ballot access, police state issues, etc.

  76. Tom Blanton

    Thomas K. – Ummm, per this video of Beck, he was for the bailout in September 2008 and said it should be more:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6C6E6ayh4U

    Here’s another frightful thing – on the 2nd page of this article, Beck is identified as a libertarian. You old-timers are certain to remember when either Time or Newsweek identified Lyndon LaRouche as a libertarian. For 20 years people would say: “Oh yes, I’ve heard of the Libertarian Party. That LaRouche fellow is a libertarian”.

    The LP might as well go ahead and nominate Beck. Maybe Root or Boortz could run as VP – unless Cheney would like the gig.

  77. Tom Blanton

    LaRouche is too old. But there is always Dondildo’s fave mainstream libertarian Ghouliani.

    Glenn and Rudy in 2012! Libertarians you can trust!

    Guns, God and Tax Cuts!

    Throw the Kenyan Marxist out!

    The LP could even change its name to The New Libertarian Party with a new tag line: No Wimpy Peaceniks or Anarchists Allowed!

  78. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tom B,

    I watched the video. It was a series of cut and pastes, at least one of which was from a sarcastic anti-bailout rant of his (I think it was one of the two videos I pointed to earlier).

    Maybe the others weren’t. Maybe he did flip-flop. He certainly has, or in the past has had, some reprehensible views.

    I’ll try to look into it further when I have time (which may be awhile — my copy of Root’s book, courtesy of Jeremy Young, just arrived, and I plan to spend the next few days concentrating on that).

    If I do look into it further, though, Alex Jones won’t be my research guide. He lies — flagrantly, baldly and intentionally — too often for me to waste my time trying to figure out if he just might, for once, be telling the truth this time.

  79. Michael H. Wilson

    re JFK. When i was in New Orleans some years ago word was that it was some contracters to the CIA from organized crime who were connected to Cuba and pissed at the outcome of the Bay of Pigs screw up.

    Seems resonable enuff. They had motive and the ability to hide it.

  80. paulie Post author

    LaRouche is too old.

    Feh. Too old you say? He’s a spry 87. Tanned, rested, and ready.

    And still making waves:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche#2009:_LaRouche_on_Obama

    [edit] 2009: LaRouche on Obama

    LaRouchePAC poster, Alhambra, California, 2009In 2009, during discussion of U.S. health care reform, LaRouche said he supported a single-payer health care policy, as opposed to the plan proposed by President Barack Obama. LaRouche compared Obama to Adolf Hitler, and the proposed health-insurance reform to Hitler’s Action T4 euthanasia program.[141] He said Americans must “quickly and suddenly change the behavior of this president … for no lesser reason than that your sister might not end up in somebody’s gas oven.”[142] The movement printed pamphlets showing Obama and Hitler laughing together, and posters of Obama wearing a Hitler-style mustache.[143] In Seattle, police were called twice in response to people threatening to tear the posters apart, or to assault the LaRouche supporters holding them.[144] During one widely reported public meeting, Congressman Barney Frank referred to the posters as “vile, contemptible nonsense.”[145]

    Giving him further cred, he helped create SDI, and

    “In 1984, Helga Zepp-LaRouche founded the Schiller Institute in Germany, with LaRouche, Amelia Boynton Robinson and Marie-Madeleine Fourcade.[68]

    In the same year, LaRouche was able to raise enough money to purchase 14 television spots. In one of them, he called Walter Mondale, the Democratic Party’s Presidential candidate, “an agent of influence” of the Soviet intelligence services, triggering over 1,000 complaints about the spot, which CBS was legally obliged to air.[69] On April 19, 1986, Saturday Night Live aired a skit satirizing the ads, portraying the Queen and Henry Kissinger as drug dealers.

    There were reports in November 1984 that LaRouche and his aides had been meeting with officials of the Reagan Administration…”

    ….

    LaRouche has […] shown hostility toward a range of targets, including feminism, homosexuality, environmentalism, and organized labor

  81. paulie Post author

    If I do look into it further, though, Alex Jones won’t be my research guide. He lies — flagrantly, baldly and intentionally — too often for me to waste my time trying to figure out if he just might, for once, be telling the truth this time.

    No rush, and I certainly don’t want to distract you from getting to the Square Root (root squared?), but I’d like some details on that. Whenever. No hurry.

  82. paulie Post author

    re JFK. When i was in New Orleans some years ago word was that it was some contracters to the CIA from organized crime who were connected to Cuba and pissed at the outcome of the Bay of Pigs screw up.

    That’s getting real warm.

  83. Tom Blanton

    Well, it took me many minutes of hard work, but I found it. Straight from the mighty pen of the next President of the United States and the Supreme Leader of the New Libertarian Party, Mr. Glenn Beck:

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/beck.bailout/index.html

    He says:

    ” While it took the people in power far too long to recognize it, they are now understanding the same sad truth. This bailout plan is not a good idea — it’s an absolutely terrible idea. It’s just the only idea we have left.

    “Our financial system is like a 747 flying around with all four of our engines on fire. The bailout effort will not stop us from landing hard, but without it, we may simply drop out of the sky.”

    You see, bailouts are a bad idea, but when faced with a major crisis, bailouts are all you got.

    Just like the fact that nobody wants to go to war, but when faced with Islaofascists hellbent on establishing a global caliphate, a nation must embark on a perpetual war and suspend the constitution. Very New Libertarian actually – just ask Dondildo.

    But bailouts and wars don’t matter in the New Libertarian Party because it is not about ideas – its about winning elections. Keep it simple:

    God, Guns and Tax Cuts.

    Enough said. Five words. Truly the world’s smallest political platform.

    So, when are all you LP members going to get on the Beck Wagon?

    Did I mention that Beck can cry at will for his country. I hear that this actually brings conservative women to orgasm when combined with an image of the American Flag waving next to Glenn.

  84. Michael H. Wilson

    Well Tom what can I tell ya. We’re dealin’ with dumb asses. Tonight I’m watchin Jeopardy and Wolf Blitzer gets his ass kicked badly by Andy Ritcher. A comedy guy beats a newscaster. Tells me a lot about what is going on in ‘merica especially when peopple start complaning about how dumb the rest of us are, like in Jay Walkin with Jay Leno. or when people start complaning about we don’t know how much is spent on Foreign Aid, or any number of other issues.

  85. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tom B,

    Thanks for finding that. You cut Beck off before he finished talking:

    —–
    What Congress is attempting is a last-second search for an open field to land this plane with as little damage as possible. With that in mind, I think some kind of action may be a necessary evil, but we must be very, very careful.

    Action for the sake of action, much like change for the sake of change, doesn’t solve problems. It usually inflames them. And what’s worse is that it creates brand-new catastrophes we haven’t even considered yet. Wall Street and Congress have been playing with fire, and now it’s Main Street that’s beginning to sweat.
    —–

    I think that there’s a difference between “Beck supported the bailouts” and “Beck said ‘the bailouts suck, but as for other ideas, hey, I got nothin.'”

    As far as I can tell, his move away from even that much reluctant “support” began before the 2008 election, too, including giving Ron Paul and Peter Schiff positive airtime on the subject, so I don’t think that it’s all about switching sides because Obama’s in office.

    Does that make Beck a libertarian? No, not necessarily. But to the extent that some people believe Bob Barr and Wayne Root are libertarians, I don’t see how those people could say Glenn Beck isn’t one.

  86. Robert Capozzi

    tk, another way to put that thought is that Barr, Root, and Beck identify themselves as L, but we personally disagree with them on some issues for specific reasons.

    One some issues, you and I disagree, too. Hogarth and Montoni probably disagree on some things as well.

    Sometimes the disagreements are deep philosophical or methodological reasons. Sometimes the disagreement is over strategy and tactics, or legal theory.

    None of this should be a surprise. It’s the nature of politics, I’d suggest. Some people and positions we can strongly support, some we can live with, some things we tolerate, and some are non-starters.

  87. Brian Holtz

    I call Barr and Root libertarians because they each score at least an 85/85 on this 20-question libertarian-detector:

    Anybody who wants to suggest they aren’t firmly in the libertarian quadrant needs to show how the detector has malfunctioned in measuring their agreement with the LP platform on both personal and economic liberty. Name-calling doesn’t cut it.

    Similarly, anybody who wants to suggest that Barr or Root aren’t more libertarian than Glenn Beck needs to give us Beck’s answers to the 20 questions. So far, all we’ve learned here is that Beck grudgingly supported the initial bailouts — which Barr and Root stridently opposed.

  88. robert capozzi

    I’d say it depends what one means by “bailouts.” I’m of course against them, but Tyler Cowen has made an interesting argument that some of the moves were the least bad option. Does that mean he should be marched in front of the firing squad, as the Rockwell crowd seems to think?

    Nope, IMO. I would suggest that outright economic collapse would be a setback for liberty.

    Being strident is easy.

  89. Tom Blanton

    Tom K. – I think you have missed my whole point. I don’t consider Beck to be a libertarian. I don’t consider Root to be much of a libertarian either. But, by current LP standards, pretty much anyone who claims to be a libertarian is a libertarian.

    Make no mistake, I would NEVER vote for Glenn Beck. As James Carville might say, I wouldn’t piss down his throat if his heart was on fire.

    Despite my opinion of Beck, I don’t see why the LP wouldn’t love to have Beck as its 2012 presidential candidate. It is odd that those who would tell us the tent is too small and there should be no litmus tests are the first to worry about what quadrant a person is in on the Nolan Test.

    I have never argued that ideas and principles don’t matter, that “education” should be left to other organizations, or that the purpose of the LP is only to elect candidates.

    If Barr and Root is the best the LP can do, why not Beck? If it is all about media exposure of the word “libertarian” regardless of what that may mean, and if it is all about winning, why not Beck?

    The fact that anyone would take my proposal seriously, especially coming from me, astounds me. There is no question that the LP has entered the realm of bizarro world now.

  90. Tom Blanton

    Brian – Beck says he is a libertarian. He is all about God, Guns and Tax Cuts. He is a winner with a big name, big bucks, and a devoted cult of brain dead disgruntled Republicans. What more do you want?

    Robert – Outright economic collapse for zombie banks and investment bankers would be a wonderful thing for liberty. It might also demonstrate to the zombie Americans that there are real consequences to their political decisions other than bankrupting their grandchildren.

  91. paulie Post author

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Glenn_Beck

    Libertarian or Conservative?

    A point was raised by another editor (albeit via an edit summary) that while Beck claims to be a Libertarian, his views are much closer to Conservative on issues like abortion, religion, drugs, foreign policy, and national defense. Others on this page have alleged that libertarian is what conservatives call themselves when they want to appear to not be a conservative. Our main source for calling him a libertarian is his own self-description. However, if he called himself a liberal, an african american or a dog, we obviously wouldn’t be able to put it in the article as fact. I suggest we remove the “fact” that he’s a libertarian from the article, and let the political views section of the article describe his stance on issues. MichaelLNorth (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  92. paulie Post author

    Further:

    Beck: “I’m a conservative, not a Republican”

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/25/beck.conservatives/index.html . So now we have him calling himself both a libertarian and a conservative. CNN also in the same article describes his radio show as “conservative”. This should be sufficient.

    * He refers to himself as conservative http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/25/beck.conservatives/index.html

    * His proponents refer to him as conservative http://www.examiner.com/x-7462-Atlanta-Faith–Family-Examiner~y2009m9d6-Glenn-Beck-Conservative-Talk-Show-Host-Exposes-Czar-Van-Jones

    * His critics refer to him as conservative http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909040049

    * Our common sense, despite being a WP:OR violation, says he’s a conservative

    * His new book is #1 at conservativebookclub.com http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c7501

  93. Robert Milnes

    We can have right libertarians and keep libertarian purity too. With a comprehensive method of defining and measuring libertarianism and requiring LP officials and candidates-only-to “pass”. i.e. anyone can call themselves a libertarian & join the LP-the LP can’t control that. The most important “test” would be peer consensus. Is so and so a libertarian? Maybe a test score above 85/85 is necessary. I’m not sure. But the LP needs to do something asap. Barr, Root & Beck may be able to call themselves libertarians & even join the LP, but I believe a peer concensus would find they are not libertarians. In which case Barr would not have gotten the 2008 nomination. Beck can talk & interview all he wants. Root can campaign all he wants. If peer consensus is required for the nomination, his nomination would be impossible, his campaign moot. The clear hurdle would be for the peer review board to totally override emotional peer pressure & declare a finding that Ron Paul is not a libertarian, which I say he is not & I’m not the only one. Also in this formulation, a consensus finding of anarchist-from the left or right-should automaticly pass. That is MY ticket.

  94. Robert Milnes

    paulie @118, very good. You are doing in Beck’s case what I propose an LP Peer Review Board would do in every case of confirming LP officeholders & candidates.

  95. Robert Milnes

    It is a “jury of peers” for a very good reason. & automatic inclusion of anarchists is a positive on many levels, including getting more anarchist participation in the LP & the political process.

  96. Tom Blanton

    Nobody with a shred of sanity left would identify Glenn Beck as a libertarian. That leaves Glenn Beck and Time Magazine. Don’t forget that there are those who take both seriously.

    Now that Time has opened that door, will others in the media follow?

    When LP poster-boy Smither from Texas was running for congress, he identified himself as a “real conservative”. So, it would appear that LPHQ had no problem with really pushing a self-proclaimed conservative.

    Politics is perception. Many in the media, on the left, and even within the LP make no large distinction between conservatism and libertarianism.

    If there really is a difference between conservatism and libertarianism at this point, I would suggest that the LP has intentionally done nothing but blur the line. There are also plenty of folks outside the LP that have worked hard to blur the line.

    When long-time hardcore LP activists seem to have trouble drawing a line, or even defining libertarianism, how is the general public supposed to understand what libertarianism is all about?

    What is the perception of millions and millions of people who are exposed to “libertarians” like Boortz and Beck on the radio and TV, or read about “libertarian” Beck in Time Magazine? And it doesn’t end there. Barr and Millionaire Republican Root.

    The lesson is that if you pander to disgruntled conservatives, use conservative rhetoric, emphasize issues that appeal to conservatives, never mention issues that might offend conservatives, and remain silent about core principles, don’t be surprised when suddenly nobody can tell the difference between a libertarian and a conservative.

    So, why not Beck in 2012?

    He really is all about God, Guns and Tax Cuts.

    We’re all New Libertarians now!

  97. Brian Holtz

    Tom B., I’ve never said that ideology doesn’t matter, and that non-libertarians are OK as LP candidates. I know enough about the positions of Barr and Root to score them, and they pass. You can either answer my 20 questions for Beck, or you can’t. Which is it?

    Paulie @66, I’m not the one claiming that it’s as easy to find libertarians by looking left as it is by looking right. In my experience, it’s easier to find a tolerant Republican than to teach a Democrat about free markets.

    Tom @70, even I as an LP insider have no idea what you mean by the LP for six years “being held hostage by its pro-war” faction. That’s a lame excuse for saying that you can’t figure out how to use the LP’s decades of unbroken antiwar consistency in its platforms and press releases to show prospects that the LP opposes war.

    It’s also lame to whine about our successes in recruiting defectors from the GOP. You shouldn’t be involved in politics if you don’t know how to use Barr’s DOMA reversal to our advantage. And it doesn’t even pass the laugh test to say you can’t recruit from the left because 20 years ago an LP nominee wanted to leave abortion to the states — which of course makes abortion legal to any American who can afford a bus ticket. It’s equally silly to say the LP isn’t anti-GOP when we’re sending them funeral wreaths and attacking them year-round in press release after press release.

    I repeat: the LP platform and/or official statements have always been anti-war, pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-drug-rights, anti-GOP, anti-bigotry, anti-“police-state”, pro-human-rights, pro-free-speech, pro-separation-of-church-and-state, pro-rights-of-the-accused, and anti-“empire”. To say you can’t recruit Democrats to such a party sounds like an admission that you can’t teach them the merits of free markets. Welcome to the club.

  98. robert capozzi

    tb, I respect that it’s your opinion — which I share — that zombie banks should fail. However there was a point when aggregate bank failures would have far exceeded the FDIC’s obligations. In a short time, that could have led to a collapse of the entire banking system and, by extension, virtually all commerce. Maybe you’re right, maybe such a bloodletting would actually be good for liberty.

    I’d be concerned that such a cataclysm would lead to martial law and chaos, contra-indicated paths to liberty, as I see it. But, then, I’m not a nihilist.

  99. Brian Holtz

    Oswald didn’t have just “6.x seconds” or “4.6-5.8 seconds” to fire his three shots. It’s 8.3 seconds from Z160 to Z313. Watch Penn Jillette get off three aimed shots from a M-C in just 3.5 seconds: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=745248745546892501#

    The first shot was when the target had the highest angular velocity across Oswald’s field of view, and was likely rushed due to the target suddenly starting to disappear behind the oak tree branches — a deflection by which can explain why it missed the limo.

    The spectography of the Tague curb mark showed that, if it came from the JFK shooting, it had to be a ricochet. Posner argues for Tague being wounded by a tree ricochet from the Z160 shot, but I’ve taken pictures form the spot where Tague was hit and a Z313 ricochet lines up better. My qualms were always that Tague might have been shielded from a head-shot fragment by the windshield (the inside top frame of which was dented by another fragment traveling generally toward Tague). However, the analysis here shows that such a ricochet was possible — especially if you question whether the mark/smear was from a Nov 22 bullet.

    The “Oswald” in the doorway is admitted even by many JFK truthers to be Billy Lovelady: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald_doorway.htm

    Officer Marrion Baker encountered Oswald hurrying through the 2nd-floor lunch room door about 1-2 minutes after the shooting. It takes only about a minute to get to that spot from the 6th-floor sniper’s nest. Several lunchroom witnesses contradict Oswald’s story that he was eating his lunch there during the shooting.

    I’ve studied the JFK assassination far more deeply than I’ve studied the RFK assassination. I stopped looking at RFK when when I heard the conspiracy theory: let’s shoot RFK point-blank in a crowded room with the lights on, but then place another shooter a few feet away and have him fire a bunch of shots to distract everybody, so nobody will notice the gun next to RFK’s ear. ROTFLMAO

  100. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian,

    You write:

    “Tom @70, even I as an LP insider have no idea what you mean by the LP for six years ‘being held hostage by its pro-war’ faction. That’s a lame excuse for saying that you can’t figure out how to use the LP’s decades of unbroken antiwar consistency in its platforms and press releases to show prospects that the LP opposes war.”

    What decades of antiwar consistency? No such consistency has prevailed since October of 2001 at any rate.

  101. Michael Seebeck

    Officer Marrion Baker encountered Oswald hurrying through the 2nd-floor lunch room door about 1-2 minutes after the shooting. It takes only about a minute to get to that spot from the 6th-floor sniper’s nest. Several lunchroom witnesses contradict Oswald’s story that he was eating his lunch there during the shooting.

    Except for a bevy of ignored circumstantial and eyewitness evidence–the boxes in the 6th floor, the location of the rifle when it was “found” relative to the stairwell and the sniper nest, the stairwell at the other side of the building from the sniper’s post, a door closer, the layout of the second-floor lunchroom relative to the stairwell, a half-drunk bottle of coke, and Oswald’s lack of sweat and athleticism–all of which make that 1-2 minutes time much longer and indicate Oswald really wasn’t up on the sixth floor in the first place.

    As for RFK, 8 shots, 14 bullet holes, and a powder burn behind RFK’s ear that Noguchi’s autopsy showed came from 3 inches away all exonerate Sirhan of murder. Whether there was a conspiracy or not, I dunno, but he definitely did NOT kill RFK.

  102. Michael Seebeck

    And I have no idea why the italics and plain text got swapped there, but at least it was consistent.

  103. Brian Holtz

    Q: What decades of antiwar consistency?

    A: “the LP’s decades of unbroken antiwar consistency in its platforms and press releases”

    2000,2002, 2004, 2006 Platforms: “The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures”

    2008 Platform: “The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid.”

    Regarding press releases, the LP has been calling for exit from Iraq since March 20, 2003 — the first day of the invasion. Is this somehow news to you?

  104. paulie Post author

    Blanton:

    it would appear that LPHQ had no problem with really pushing a self-proclaimed conservative.

    Politics is perception. Many in the media, on the left, and even within the LP make no large distinction between conservatism and libertarianism.

    If there really is a difference between conservatism and libertarianism at this point, I would suggest that the LP has intentionally done nothing but blur the line. There are also plenty of folks outside the LP that have worked hard to blur the line.

    When long-time hardcore LP activists seem to have trouble drawing a line, or even defining libertarianism, how is the general public supposed to understand what libertarianism is all about?

    Holtz:

    I’m not the one claiming that it’s as easy to find libertarians by looking left as it is by looking right. In my experience, it’s easier to find a tolerant Republican than to teach a Democrat about free markets.

    It’s easy enough to find libertarians by looking left. They tend to be young in many cases. They know they oppose the war, the religious right efforts to dictate theocracy by government force, prohibition, civil liberties violations undertaken in the name of the “war on terror,” and corporate-government collusion. Frequently, they know little and/or care little about economics and are often open minded on economic issues, but are unlikely to be as open minded to people who are allied with the people who oppose them on the issues listed above.

    The problem that the LP has in attracting these people – and that I have in attracting them to the LP – is outlined in the section quoted from Blanton. They look at the LP and see it as Blanton describes it, as allies of or the same as the people they oppose. No sale. That’s not a failing of libertarianism per se, or even of me as an individual necessarily, nor of my audience.

  105. paulie Post author

    And I have no idea why the italics and plain text got swapped there, but at least it was consistent.

    Because you swapped the opening and closing tags.

  106. Brian Holtz

    Recreations of Oswald’s actions, merely at brisk walking speed, only require 80 to 90 seconds. Nobody breaks a sweat going down four flights of stairs. And picking up a half-empty bottle of coke doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve spent the last N minutes doing nothing but drink it.

  107. paulie Post author

    sounds like an admission that you can’t teach them the merits of free markets. Welcome to the club.

    I’ve found any number of former Democrats and Greens who are open to the merits of true free markets when it is made clear to them that it is not the same thing as the corporate-government collusion system we increasingly have.

    Particularly when it is explained by someone who makes it very plain and unmistakable that he/she is “anti-war, pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-drug-rights, anti-GOP, anti-bigotry, anti-police-state, pro-human-rights, pro-free-speech, pro-separation-of-church-and-state, pro-rights-of-the-accused, and anti-empire”.

    Trouble is, the LP spends so much time trying to appeal to people who aren’t any of those things that it makes it extremely difficult to recruit those who are.

  108. Brian Holtz

    Paulie, that’s precisely my point: as strong defenders of property rights, we will inevitably be seen by most lefties as allies of the targets of their hatred and envy. All this whining about Fox conservatives is just a smokescreen. Just inform your prospects that we are demonstrably anti-war, pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-drug-rights, anti-GOP, anti-bigotry, anti-”police-state”, pro-human-rights, pro-free-speech, pro-separation-of-church-and-state, pro-rights-of-the-accused, and anti-”empire”. If your lefty prospect truly is “open-minded” about free markets, then you should be able to close the sale.

  109. paulie Post author

    Brian @134

    I don’t see that as being the same point at all.

    I can’t just inform that we are X, Y and Z when they see scant evidence of it on the LP website (unless they really look, which they won’t), and when it contradicts what prominent people who call themselves libertarians and are called libertarians by others say (Boortz, Beck, etc; Barr and Root to some extent).

    Or rather, I could inform them, but they would not believe me.

  110. robert capozzi

    pc: …as allies of or the same as the people they oppose. No sale.

    me: yes, true enough. If the LP website emphasized meth legalization, unilateral disarmament, late-term abortions, and baby selling, that would turn off right-leaners.

  111. robert capozzi

    pc, point is: political positioning and marketing is not easy. it’s the easiest thing in the world to criticize the LP as being too right, too left, too radical, too moderate.

    My sense is that the presidential nominee gets the most coverage and they have (so far) been candidates who’ve come from the right. It’ll be interesting when we get one who’s coming from the center or left.

  112. paulie Post author

    political positioning and marketing is not easy.

    My point exactly.

    My sense is that the presidential nominee gets the most coverage and they have (so far) been candidates who’ve come from the right. It’ll be interesting when we get one who’s coming from the center or left.

    Good point, but it’s not just that.

    It’s also, as Tom B. explains, prominent people who call themselves libertarians and are called libertarians by others such as Boortz and Beck, the preponderance of items at LP.org, and a lot of other things.

    These are all combining to shift the party over time to the right, making a presidential candidate who is in any way left-leaning less and less likely. We may already be past the point where the party has tilted too far to one side to rebalance to the center, and the only thing left possible is to topple to the side completely. I haven’t concluded that decisively, but it may be the case.

  113. robert capozzi

    pc, my takes quite different. The party’s always been right leaning. Rand and Rothbard were rightists, despite MNR’s weak claim that anyone who’s anti-establishment is left. Just look at the fixation on the gold standard…a rightist issue if there ever was one.

    Over the last three decades, I’d suggest the LP’s pendulum is a swing between pragmatism and a more theoretical approach to politics. I’d say the early 80s LP was MORE pragmatic than it is now, with the Clark campaign and the AK legislature wins. If I recall correctly, Randolph and Fanning were involved in legalizing marijuana there, which I’d submit is a left L issue.

  114. Brian Holtz

    OK, Paulie, if you can’t use the LP’s platform and press releases to make our case to lefty prospects, let’s take a look at that horrible lp.org site that you claim is sabotaging your outreach. What do I see on it right now?

    * 2 of 3 items called “headlines” are about the healthcare debate (no surprise), but the other is about repealing DOMA
    * Of the 6 blog entries linked from the front page, the top one is about gay rights, another attacks the GOP, and a third is about the freedom of labor markets. Two are about party-building, so that leaves only one (about the Sep 12 march) that might be naively construed as right-leaning.
    * A poll calling the GOP “hypocritical”.

    Now let’s roll back the clock, to the last pre-Benedict snapshot of lp.org in the Internet archive. The top 3 out of 4 headlines are antiwar and anti-intervention, while the 4th is about gun rights.

    OK, now let’s look for July 1 and Jan 1 snapshots going backward, or as soon after those dates as the archive contains.

    July 2007: 3 out of 4 headlines are antiwar, as is the poll.

    Feb 2007: two items attack Bush/GOP as big-government, and a blog link attacks nation-building in Iraq.

    Jul 2006: The first non-party-business headline is antiwar, two blog headlines promote medical marijuana, and another attacks GOP “values”.

    Jan 2006: The top story attacks the Bush over mismanagement of 9/11 recovery loans. All three blog headlines are anti-war or anti-war-on-terror.

    Jul 2005: The top headline calls for exit from Iraq; another headline echoes the Downing Street Memo allegations. The poll and top blog entry are also about Iraq.

    Jan 2005: Only three issue links: supporting Bill of Rights, attacking corporate welfare for sports teams, and something about toll roads in Texas.

    Jul 2004: Top two issues headlines: defending “Fahrenheit 9/11”, and protesting the Iraq war at the GOP convention.

    Jan 2004: Only three issue links: taxes, campaign finance, and fathers’ rights.

    Jul 2004: Pledge of allegiance, opposing eminent domain used for corporate welfare, opposing the broadness of disorderly-conduct ordinances.

    Jan 2003: A picture of Bush and a headline attacking his “global warfare” — even before the Iraq war started.

    OK, that takes our sampling all the way back to before the Iraq war. It’s simply bullshit to say the LP hasn’t been antiwar, or that the LP.org site hasn’t disagreed with the Right loudly and often. You guys need to stop making stuff up.

  115. Brian Holtz

    Did you anarchists ever stop to wonder that maybe, just maybe, the whole small-L/big-L branding problem is due to the LP’s historical crypto-anarchism? For every instance you can cite of a conservative trying to call himself “libertarian”, I can cite a leftist dismissing libertarians as believing in zero government. The Green Party is arguably bigger than the LP, but Google finds sixteen times more references to “small-L libertarian” than to “small-G green”. You guys have made sure that the LP distinguished itself from mainstream libertarianism, and now you complain that you can’t control the small-L libertarian brand that you abandoned? That’s rich.

    I quoted Glenn Beck above as saying he opposes both Left and Right and supports smaller government. I dare you to say that’s not a prima facie description of a libertarian. Everybody has views that some libertarian could use to try to read them out of the libertarian quadrant. Take Starchild’s advice, and worry about “libertarian” as applied to positions, not people. So tell us: when has Beck used the word “libertarian” to describe a position inconsistent with neither-Left-nor-Right-but-smaller-government? And again: can you score Beck on my quiz (or the less-precise Advocates’ quiz) as falling outside the libertarian sector? I’m starting to believe you can’t, or else you would have done so by now.

  116. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian,

    You write:

    “Did you anarchists ever stop to wonder that maybe, just maybe, the whole small-L/big-L branding problem is due to the LP’s historical crypto-anarchism?”

    Yes, I’ve wondered that. I’ve dismissed it because I’m in no position to either prove or disprove it.

    Since I hang out with a more left- and anarchist-leaning crowd the ANECDOTAL evidence I get tends to lean in exactly the opposite direction, i.e. most self-identified “small-l” libertarians I meet reject the LP as “GOP lite” versus what they actually want, which is anarchy or something close to it.

    Unlike you, I don’t give in to the temptation to drum up a fake data set out of anecdotal observations and pretend that it constitutes a sound argument.

    The best way to score Beck on your quiz is to convince Beck to take your quiz. My GUESSES at his likely answers put him at 55/75, right on the line between center-right and libertarian, but they’re just guesses based on not nearly as much data as they should be. I haven’t read his books. I only occasionally watch or listen to his show.

  117. paulie Post author

    * 2 of 3 items called “headlines” are about the healthcare debate (no surprise), but the other is about repealing DOMA
    * Of the 6 blog entries linked from the front page, the top one is about gay rights, another attacks the GOP, and a third is about the freedom of labor markets. Two are about party-building, so that leaves only one (about the Sep 12 march) that might be naively construed as right-leaning.
    * A poll calling the GOP “hypocritical”.

    True, it has gotten better the last few weeks. There may be hope yet.

  118. paulie Post author

    The Green Party is arguably bigger than the LP

    Very arguably. The LP is bigger by the vast majority of measures, at least in the US.

  119. paulie Post author

    Google finds sixteen times more references to “small-L libertarian” than to “small-G green”.

    That is simply because the phrase “small-G green” has never been in much use among greens, not because there are more or fewer of them than small l libertarians.

  120. paulie Post author

    And again: can you score Beck on my quiz (or the less-precise Advocates’ quiz) as falling outside the libertarian sector?

    I don’t know all of his positions well enough to do so.

    Are you saying that “his views are much closer to Conservative on issues like abortion, religion, drugs, foreign policy, and national defense” is inaccurate?

    I seem to recall him fairly recently – probably last year – say that Ron Paul and other antiwar libertarians should be investigated for treason, or some such crap.

  121. paulie Post author

    Since I hang out with a more left- and anarchist-leaning crowd the ANECDOTAL evidence I get tends to lean in exactly the opposite direction, i.e. most self-identified “small-l” libertarians I meet reject the LP as “GOP lite” versus what they actually want, which is anarchy or something close to it.

    Same here, as well.

  122. paulie Post author

    The party’s always been right leaning.

    To the extent that is true, it’s the party’s biggest problem. Of course, you’ll have to reconcile that statement with Brian’s apparent insistence that no such leaning exists even now.

    In my experience, it certainly became more right-leaning in the last few years, and from what I have heard anecdotally it was more left leaning in the mid-80s than it was in the mid-90s.


    Rand and Rothbard were rightists, despite MNR’s weak claim that anyone who’s anti-establishment is left.

    Rothbard careened back and forth. From my perspective, he was at his best when he allied with the left and at his worst when he allied with the right. I’d agree with you about Rand, but she was never a fan of the LP and I’ve never been a big fan of hers, although I do like We The Living.

  123. robert capozzi

    pc, when I say “right leaning” I mean they came to L-ism from the right. Most Ls I’ve encountered over the years came from a more conservative R heritage. There are exceptions, like you and Montoni.

    In that sense, MNR was from the left, as he was a red diaper baby.

    He was definitely not a pragmatist.

  124. paulie Post author

    when I say “right leaning” I mean they came to L-ism from the right.

    I believe it is because the LP is mainly marketed in a right-leaning way and to right-leaning audiences. The preponderance of people who came from the right, and in many cases never shed some of those views and attitudes, does not make it as welcoming to people coming from the left.

    In that sense, MNR was from the left, as he was a red diaper baby.

    I’d say that would be less relevant than his later involvement with the Peace and Freedom Party, new left and Black Panthers. In between, he voted for Strom Thurmond and Richard Nixon, so he was quite a ways from his red diaper upbringing long before the LP.

  125. Brian Holtz

    Tom @143, re-read the title of this thread. You just broke my irony meter, since the dispute in this thread is based on nothing more than anecdotal complaints from radicals about Beck at al. invoking the term “libertarian”. I just used a random sample of hard data from lp.org’s history to refute your implication above that the LP hasn’t been consistently antiwar, and you just skated straight past the data to make your ironic charge about “anecdotes”. LOL.

    Your comparison of perceptions about the LP among 1) mainstream Americans and 2) your left-libertarian/anarchist friends reminds me of the line from Homer to Bart: “we could sit here and debate ‘who forgot to pick up who after school’ until the cows come home”. Your mere ability to pretend to dispute my empirical claim doesn’t magically make my claim a 50/50 proposition. My interest is in recruiting from the 13%-20% of Americans who want more economic and personal liberty. It’s pretty obvious to me that radicalism has weakened the potential of the big-L brand in reaching that audience, and I have no interest in recruiting from the left- and anarchist-leaning crowd that you hang out with. That’s your job, not mine. And if you succeed at it, that’s fine with me as long as you folks don’t try to slam the door on people from the 13%-20%.

    Paulie, the reason “‘small-G green’ has never been in much use among greens” is that the GP has been ideologically representative of greens generally. My entire point is that the LP has not been ideologically representative of libertarians generally.

    I’ll agree with Bob that the LP has been right-leaning in the sense that perceptions of it tend to be colored by the fact that many more people have come to the LP from the GOP than from the Left. However, when I ask for actual evidence of this recruiting imbalance making a measurable difference, all I get is people pointing to the fact that an ex-Republican won the LP nomination over an anarchist and a pot activist and a loopy ex-Democrat. It certainly hasn’t made our platform tilt right, and my data above refute your hand-waving concerns about LP.org. So where’s the beef? If a mere 25 delegates had voted differently on the final ballot in Denver, somebody would be whining that the LP leans too far left/anarchist, and you guys would be denying it in between excuses for Ruwart getting only the standard LP vote total. Stop with the “marketed in a right-leaning way” hand-waving, and give us specific evidence. The only lean in my LP.org data above is an antiwar lean.

    I still don’t buy this excuse that Glenn Beck and LPHQ are somehow stopping you from recruiting lefties/Democrats into your local LP affiliates. As for Beck’s positions: I don’t put much stock in random characterizations typed into an IPR text box. I’ve offered a lengthy quote above from Beck that is prima facie libertarian. If people have contrary data on Beck’s views, I’m happy to evaluate it. Until I see more data, I’m guessing that Beck is about a 65/85. That’s not quite in my comfort zone for an LP nominee, and if Tom’s right that Beck is 55/75, then that answers Blanton’s question about why he isn’t interchangeable with Root. QED.

  126. paulie Post author

    Paulie, the reason “’small-G green’ has never been in much use among greens” is that the GP has been ideologically representative of greens generally. My entire point is that the LP has not been ideologically representative of libertarians generally.

    I don’t believe that is the case. Certainly, I know many greens who wouldn’t agree with many aspects of the Green Party platform.

  127. Brian Holtz

    There’s a big difference between 1) eliciting agreement with your entire platform and 2) being ideologically representative of the people who use your party name in the form of a lower-case label. When I went through the GP platform looking for hardcore positions to pull out, I found it very hard to pin them down. They have no smoking guns like personal secession, unpoliced borders, or immediately ending all government authority to collect revenue. I have a quote from Rothbard in the early 80’s bragging that what the LP platform advocates is a stone’s throw from anarchism. You radicals (except for Knapp) don’t complain when Ron Paul calls himself libertarian, so the complaints here about Beck and Root can’t be just that they aren’t anarchists. There is a broad mainstream sense of “libertarian” that is not nearly as radical as the LP has been, and I submit that this is why we see the big-L/small-L distinction. It’s certainly why I used that distinction all through the 1990s.

  128. Tom Blanton

    Brian, how the hell can I answer 20 questions for Glenn Beck? If you need to know, I suggest you contact him. Maybe you could go along with Bill Redpath when he meets with Beck to beg him to run. I think Beck might like you.

    Besides, in the new LP ideas don’t matter, labels don’t matter, litmus tests (or other tests) don’t matter. It’s all about winning. And for that, you need a really big tent.

    What is it you don’t get about God, Guns and Tax Cuts? America was founded on God, Guns, and Tax Cuts – it says so in the Bible somewhere between the lines. If you hate America so much, why don’t you move to California?

  129. robert capozzi

    pc: I believe it is because the LP is mainly marketed in a right-leaning way and to right-leaning audiences.

    me: How’s this for an alternative interpretation: At the core of L-ism is individualism. At the core of leftism is collectivism. At the core of American rightism is individualism (albeit inconsistently applied).

    With this backdrop, we shouldn’t be surprised that self-selecting Ls come from a more right predisposition. It’s the easier sell.

  130. paulie Post author

    bc,

    Way off. Anti-establishment individualism is in fact at the heart of leftism, whereas collectivism – blind obedience to supposed religious authorities, traditions, unthinking nationalism, unquestioning worship of the military and police, etc. – is the heart of rightism.

    See http://mises.org/story/2099. Have you read it yet?

  131. Tom Blanton

    Apparently, Brian forgets about the Iraq Exit Strategy that was in contradiction to the LP Platform at the time in several areas. It was essentially what Obama proposed as a matter of fact – relocate soldiers to Afghanistan.

    Not so noninterventionist.

    Another sad fact is that Ron Paul seems to be more radical and more libertarian than most LP candidates running for federal office on big important issues – like noninterventionism, economics, and the role of the federal government. I say “seems to be” because that is the perception based on what he says. Ron Paul talks about radical ideas in a non-radical way. Many LP candidates talk about non-radical ideas using conservative rhetoric.

    The whole notion of recruiting from the left or right by people in the LP is a waste of resources when half the people in America don’t vote. Instead of focusing on disgruntled conservatives and liberals, it is the disenfranchised non-voter that should be targeted.

    Ever wonder why liberals don’t show up at CPAC conventions to recruit? It is because they wouldn’t expect this tactic to be beneficial. They realize there is a difference between conservatives and liberals.

    Yet, the LPHQ gang thinks they can recruit at CPAC precisely because they don’t think there is a big difference between conservatives and libertarians. And there is (or was).

    By the way, is there anyone here who would like to volunteer to give away samples of bacon at a vegan food festival? It’s obvious that those emaciated lovers of rabbit food need more protein.

  132. paulie Post author

    There’s a big difference between 1) eliciting agreement with your entire platform and 2) being ideologically representative of the people who use your party name in the form of a lower-case label. When I went through the GP platform looking for hardcore positions to pull out, I found it very hard to pin them down.

    I don’t feel like doing it at the moment, but I’ve seen many other libertarians pull out extreme big government quotes from the Green platform, whereas many greens (and Greens) I know are much more small government in their application of the green principles.

    so the complaints here about Beck and Root can’t be just that they aren’t anarchists

    My complaint about Beck is that he is a non-libertarian conservative, and I’ve seen little evidence that his views are not “much closer to Conservative on issues like abortion, religion, drugs, foreign policy, and national defense.” From what I could tell, the wikipedia discussion page was quite vigorous and contentious, with multiple discussion levels any time any of the statements were challenged. I did not see anyone provide evidence to the contrary, and it seems to fit in with what I know about him and his fans.

    I’m willing to give Root more benefit of the doubt, although he does still lean too far in that direction for my comfort.

    There is a broad mainstream sense of “libertarian” that is not nearly as radical as the LP has been, and I submit that this is why we see the big-L/small-L distinction.

    There’s also a large number of radical small-l libertarians that believe the LP is not radical enough; it cuts both ways.

  133. Brian Holtz

    Paulie, in the last decade the GP tops the LP in highest votes received (Nader), registered voters, number of elected officials, and number of higher elected offices won (e.g. mayor, state legislature). The LP’s strength lies less in its popular support than in its organizational strength: ballot access, number of candidates, resulting total number of votes across all candidates, sneaking people into low office (like me). In this last cycle we were ahead in POTUS race donations and probably also national party budget, but their peaks in the Nader years were probably above ours. Even Ron Paul in 2008 would not have gotten the 2.7% that Nader got in 2000.

  134. paulie Post author

    GP tops the LP in highest votes received (Nader)

    First and only time that has happened. The LP came out ahead every other election. About 3x this last time, IIRC.

    registered voters,

    The difference there is small. 255k vs. 240k; and the LP would be in the lead if not for California. http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/120108.html#9

    number of elected officials,

    As far as I know, not the case.

    and number of higher elected offices won (e.g. mayor, state legislature)

    They do have an edge in those.

    LP has more candidates, more dues paying members, more active chapters, better ballot access, higher budget; Greens have had, in effect, Nader 2000 and a very few strong affiliates which elect mayors and state legislators.

  135. Brian Holtz

    Blanton, you remain fact-deficient. The only thing the IES said about Afghanistan was: “Ten thousand troops will be placed in Afghanistan for peacekeeping purposes.” That’s nothing like Obama’s Afghanistan surge. The fact remains: opposition to the Iraq war was by far the most prominent policy theme on the front page of LP.org in my samples drawn evenly from the last seven years.

    You’re the one claiming that Beck’s views are no less libertarian than Root’s. I know Root’s views, but I don’t know Beck’s. Now you admit that you don’t know Beck’s views either. QED.

    Regarding Ron Paul, you’re confusing radicalism with anti-establishmentarianism. When Ron Paul got 30 minutes of network TV news time during his campaign, he pussied out. He denied that he was for abolishing public schools, welfare, Social Security and farm subsidies — and even bragged he was the one who “saved” Social Security. Some “radical”.

    Paulie, I picked one of the issues on your list, and did a search for Beck’s views. The first search result I found quoted him saying this:

    “I’m a libertarian. You want to legalize marijuana; you want to legalize drugs — that’s fine. We have to have a different conversation in America, and that conversation is — hey, America, you know, forget about the whole health care thing, because if somebody is doing heroin, somebody is doing pot and — I mean, pot just rips your lungs up, if you want to do pot, that’s great, but I ain’t giving you any healthcare. And that’s good. I’d rather do that. You can be as high as you want. I ain’t giving anybody healthcare.”

    Another time he said: “I think it’s about time we legalized marijauna. Here me out for a second. We have to make a choice in this country: we either put people who are smoking marijuana behind bars, or we legalize it.”

    OK, you’re turn.

  136. Brian Holtz

    No, Paulie, the GP got 0.71% in 1996, compared to the LP’s 0.50%. In 2008, Nader got 0.56%, which certainly cut into the GP result. Nader hasn’t run as a Green since 2000, but the GP keeps electing mayors and state legislators.

    As of 2007, there were 189 elected Libertarians, but 226 elected Greens. The Greens out-elected us 25-7 in 1996, 47-34 in 2000, 81-43 in 2002, and 71 to at most 42 in 2004 (since the lp.org article was inconsistent about whether the 42 includes appointed officials). The Greens also list 47 election wins in 2005, 65 in 2003, and 64 in 2001. I think you’re confused because the LP often has lumped appointed and elected officials together.

  137. Brian Holtz

    Here’s Glenn Beck’s “9 Principles”:

    1. America Is Good.
    2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
    3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
    4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
    5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
    6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
    7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
    8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
    9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

    I don’t see a single thing on the list that is unlibertarian.

  138. Tom Blanton

    “Blanton, you remain fact-deficient.”

    No, facts don’t matter. Not in the New LP. There are ample facts in existence to prove or disprove anything. It is only perception that really matters.

    “You’re the one claiming that Beck’s views are no less libertarian than Root’s.”

    No, I’m not claiming anything. I’m saying ideas don’t matter. Not in the New LP.

    My perception is that Beck is not a libertarian as I choose to define libertarian. My perception is that Root is not a libertarian as I choose to define libertarian. Root claims to be a libertarian and the LP embraces him. Beck claims to be a libertarian.

    Why doesn’t the LP embrace him?

    Who are you, Brian, to be insisting that someone who claims to be a libertarian take some test you designed? Why do you get to draw some imaginary line of what is acceptable and what isn’t in the LP? Remember, big tents have room for all views, right?

    What is it you hate about winning elections? Why do you want to cling to your dogma and “facts” even if it means losing and turning the LP into a debating society?

    Embrace The Glenn, Brian. In your heart, you know he’s right.

  139. Tom Blanton

    Why did LPHQ put out the Iraq Exit Strategy?

    Because there was the PERCEPTION that the LP was wishy-washy on the war. A perception that was fed by the contents of the LP News.

    Brian – I won’t admit I don’t know Beck’s views. I have listened to his ignorant bigoted rants on the radio for years. He claims he is not a Republican, but he spent 8 years hauling buckets of water for Bush, even when he said he disagreed with him.

    Tom K – you can say that Beck’s position on bailouts was not full blown support, but when the vast majority of actual grass-roots conservatives opposed it, and the bill failed the first time, it was Beck that went to mat, crying about how bad things were, for Bush. You see, special insiders who could not be named told Beck what was really going on. The world would collapse unless Bush got his bailout bill passed. So, they put an additional $100 billion in pork in Bush’s bailout bill and got the damned thing passed. They had to vote for it, you see. Nobody wanted to vote for it, but things were so horrible Beck said, it had to be passed.

    To me, this is worse than supporting it. It was total bullshit. Beck’s insiders went unnamed and the reasons why it had to be passed pretty much went unsaid. It was just an emotion-filled plea to conservatives to go along with it because of an imaginary crisis. Unless you consider AIG being unable to pay off Goldman Sachs (on the bets Goldman Sachs had made against the securities they themselves had bundled) a crisis.

    Bullshit. Beck is a lying sack of shit who flip-flopped on the bailout issue to back up his beloved GOP as they flip-flopped on rejecting a bad bailout bill for one that was even worse. To add insult to injury, the money wasn’t even used immediately – so much for the emergency crisis.

    Let’s not forget that McCain and Obama both left the campaign trail to lobby for the Bush bailout bill.

    Anyway, I still haven’t heard any good reason why Beck shouldn’t be the New LP nominee for president in 2012. Even Mr. Holtz, the tester of Political IQ, seems to think Beck is not unlibertarian. He’s wrong of course, but that has nothing to do with why the New LP shouldn’t nominate Beck – a winner.

    God, Guns and Tax Cuts Forever.

  140. paulie Post author

    “Beck opened up his show segment by inferring that the U.S. military should be used to silence domestic dissent against the war, claiming that those he would later identify as Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and the anti-war left and link with terrorists, were a “physical threat.”
    “When you enlist in the U.S. military, you have take an oath that says you’re gonna support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies – foreign and domestic – we talk a lot on this program about the foreign threats – maybe we should spend some time tonight on the domestic one….the physical threat may be developing domestically as well,” said Beck.

    Beck then goes on to make the absurd insinuation that Ron Paul supporters are a terrorist threat because they are causing disenfranchisement (sic) with the government. His evidence? The November 5th donation drive coincided with a 400-year-old piece of British history and Guy Fawkes plot to blow up the Houses of Parliament.

    Beck then introduces his guests, the great grandson of Winston Churchill, and admitted former Marxist and now Neo-Con ideologue David Horowitz.

    […]

    Ex-Marxist Horowitz and Beck then go on to link the anti-war left, Ron Paul supporters on the right and libertarians like Lew Rockwell, with “Islamofascists” and terrorists.

    Horowitz states, “I think it’s very significant he (Ron Paul) chose Guy Fawkes as an image.”

    This in itself is a complete lie – the Ron Paul campaign did not create the November 5th donation drive, it was created by one individual and the November 5th motif was merely a gimmick to make people remember to donate. To suggest it was a thinly veiled expression of sympathy with a 17th century terrorist is manifestly ridiculous.

    Horowitz then claims, “There are plenty, unfortunately, libertarian websites which are indistinguishable from the anti-American left these days – LewRockwell.com and others like that – they are totally in bed with the Islamofascists and have turned against this country.”

    This is a completely fallacious, slanderous and damaging lie, but Horowitz and Beck are still laboring under the illusion that the American people buy their bellicose smear attacks which are completely devoid of any substance and delivered only with the aid of discredited sound bites and rhetorical clichés.

    During the course of the segment, Beck also repeated the contention that another Timothy McVeigh would emerge from one of the groups he demonized.

    Beck’s diatribe is just the latest in a series of smear attempts to equate 9/11 truthers, Ron Paul supporters and other activists with violence and terrorism, or otherwise discredit them. ”

    National Expositor

  141. Thomas L. Knapp

    “How’s this for an alternative interpretation: At the core of L-ism is individualism. At the core of leftism is collectivism. At the core of American rightism is individualism (albeit inconsistently applied).”

    If by “alternative” you mean “prejudiced by and toward rightism from the git-go,” it’s just peachy.

  142. paulie Post author

    No, Paulie, the GP got 0.71% in 1996, compared to the LP’s 0.50%. In 2008, Nader got 0.56%, which certainly cut into the GP result. Nader hasn’t run as a Green since 2000, but the GP keeps electing mayors and state legislators.

    As of 2007, there were 189 elected Libertarians, but 226 elected Greens. The Greens out-elected us 25-7 in 1996, 47-34 in 2000, 81-43 in 2002, and 71 to at most 42 in 2004 (since the lp.org article was inconsistent about whether the 42 includes appointed officials). The Greens also list 47 election wins in 2005, 65 in 2003, and 64 in 2001. I think you’re confused because the LP often has lumped appointed and elected officials together.

    OK, I’ll concede that you are correct about 1996. In other words, Greens have beaten LP in the presidential race only when they run Nader.

    I’m not sure what the sources on Green and Libertarian elected officials are, or whether either party has an accurate tally (do they include members elected in nonpartisan races? …etc). It may be that the GP tally also includes appointed members, even if it didn’t say so?

    I do think you are incorrect about Nader’s votes translating into a larger Green Party budget than the LP’s in those years. As far as I know, the GP has never had a strong national organization and Nader’s races were never used to build up the party’s infrastructure. In fact he took every opportunity to point out that he was never a Green himself, but an independent who was endorsed by the Greens, and ran his campaign independently of the party.

    By the way the LP conventions also draw more people than the GP conventions, I went to both in 2004 and 2008.

  143. paulie Post author

    I don’t see a single thing on the list that is unlibertarian.

    It depends on how much government force he is willing to allow on behalf of his views on god and family.

  144. Tom Blanton

    I guess David Horowitz doesn’t think Root is one of those evil libertarians in bed with the Islamofascists – he was on Root’s radio show (Week 10) along with famous toe-sucker Dick Morris.

    Of course nobody can accuse libertarian Glenn Beck of sucking on Osama’s toes. He’s been warning of the Islamofascist threat since he learned of it.

    The big difference between Beck and Root is that more people listen to and watch Beck, despite Root’s really good teeth.

    Brian, can you devise a test to determine if Beck is stronger on God, Guns and Tax Cuts than Root?

  145. Brian Holtz

    Mr. Blanton, you get to decide who you support as the LP’s representatives, and I get to decide who I support. It’s silly to suggest that if I don’t share your standards, that means I don’t have standards. I have already said that from very limited data it appears to me that Beck is in the libertarian quadrant but outside my comfort zone as an LP representative.

    If you know Beck’s views, then tell me how he stands on censorship, domestic spying, establishment of religion, gay marriage, abortion, minimum wages, and taxes.

    You ask why Root but not Beck, and I’ve already answered you. Deal with it.

    You satirize the idea that perception is all that matters, but it’s you radicals who are whining here about how the LP is perceived because of alleged misuse of the label “libertarian”. Pick one inanity and stick to it.

    Paulie, if your video reveals any of Beck’s positions on the above issues, please let us know what they are. All I’m hearing is that you disagree with his views on how to defend Americans from foreign-based aggression. I’m pretty sure I already knew that. Please tell us where in that “National Expositor” diatribe we received evidence of Beck supporting force initiation. I missed it.

    Yes, Bob, Tyler Cowen excused the initial bailout as a less-bad government intervention than the “government intervention” of trying to unwind the toxic-mortgage crisis through the bankruptcy courts. He’s wrong, of course — perhaps because he’s spent too much time in his life hearing radical libertarians say that all government action is “intervention”. Government action is not “intervention” if it polices fraud or force initiation, and bankruptcy proceedings are nothing more than prevention of the potential fraud by defaulters treating their creditors differentially. By contrast, bailouts are blatant intervention: stealing from taxpayers, and adding moral hazard to the marketplace.

    So even the brilliant libertarian Tyler Cowen can’t offer a decent excuse for the initial bailouts, and supporting them is enough reason to reject Beck as an LP spokesman — if not permanently, at least while this financial crisis is fresh in our memories. The crisis of 2008 has probably set the progress of free-market ideology all the way back to the 1971 Nixon travesties that were the impetus for creating the LP in the first place. Say what you will about the Iraq war, but no sober analyst would deny that the cause of anti-imperialism remains far ahead of where it was in 1971. I can forgive a libertarian for naively welcoming the overthrow of a genocidal neighbor-annexing war criminal, but I can’t forgive a libertarian for wanting to steal a trillion dollars and use it to compound the government-created moral hazards that have blackened the name of the free market itself.

    Paulie, my data are from LP and GP lists of office-holders. The GP has been far more scrupulous than the LP about excluding appointed office-holders from such lists. I recall that the LP count dropped from over 600 to under 200 when it scrubbed appointees from its list.

    If Nader wasn’t a Green, I’d like to know where — if at all — he disagrees with the GP platform. Try as you might to distinguish them, the fact remains that GP got him onto their ticket even after his rep was made, whereas the LP could not lure Ron Paul back onto its ticket after Paul felt he outgrew us. I count that as GP strength and LP weakness.

    When I said there’s nothing unlibertarian on Beck’s list, I was saying there was zero evidence in the list of him being willing to use “government force on behalf of his views on god and family” — or on behalf of anything other than policing aggression. If you see some such evidence in the list, feel free to quote it.

  146. paulie Post author

    Brian, once again:

    “Beck opened up his show segment by inferring that the U.S. military should be used to silence domestic dissent against the war, claiming that those he would later identify as Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and the anti-war left and link with terrorists, were a “physical threat.”

    “When you enlist in the U.S. military, you have take an oath that says you’re gonna support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies – foreign and domestic – we talk a lot on this program about the foreign threats – maybe we should spend some time tonight on the domestic one….the physical threat may be developing domestically as well,” said Beck.

    Beck then goes on to make the absurd insinuation that Ron Paul supporters are a terrorist threat…”

    If you don’t believe that this represents support for force initiation, we have far less in common than I hereto thought.

  147. paulie Post author

    If Nader wasn’t a Green, I’d like to know where — if at all — he disagrees with the GP platform.

    I don’t know the details. However, I remember him specifically refusing to endorse that platform.

  148. paulie Post author

    “The most used phrase in my administration if I were to be President would be “What the hell you mean we’re out of missiles?”

    -Glenn Beck

  149. paulie Post author

    I find this guy [father of Nick Berg] despicable. Everything in me says that. The want to be a better person today than I was yesterday says he’s a dad, he’s grieving, but I don’t buy that. I’m sorry, I don’t buy it. I think he is grieving, but I think he’s a scumbag as well. I don’t like this guy at all. [1][2]

    * The Glenn Beck Program, May 14, 2004

  150. Brian Holtz

    “Infer” … “insinuate” — FAIL. Either tell us what specific force-initiation you can quote him advocating (like his bailouts), or admit you just don’t like the way he talks about policing aggression. There are waaaay too many government officials brazenly advocating and unambiguously committing ACTUAL force initiation EVERY DAY for me to worry about your “inferences” and “insinuations” about what a talk-show host desires in his heart of hearts.

    You’re right — I may not be as paranoid as you. Sorry. 🙂

  151. paulie Post author

    Would you kill someone for that?…I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore…I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it,…No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus — band — Do, and I’ve lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, ‘Yeah, I’d kill Michael Moore,’ and then I’d see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I’d realize, ‘Oh, you wouldn’t kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn’t choke him to death.’ And you know, well, I’m not sure. [1]

    * The Glenn Beck Program, May 17, 2005
    * Posed question: What would people do for $50 million dollars?

  152. paulie Post author

    * Cindy Sheehan is a tragedy slut.
    o The Glenn Beck Program, August 15, 2005

    * During his February 8, 2006 show, Beck repeatedly referred to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter as “a waste of skin”, adding that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il was not a bigger waste of skin because “[a]t least evil is using that skin.” [3]

  153. paulie Post author

    With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, “Let`s cut and run.” And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, “Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. And I know you’re not. I’m not accusing you of being an enemy, but that’s the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.”[3]

    * The Glenn Beck TV Show, November 14, 2006
    * Glenn Beck to Keith Ellison.

  154. paulie Post author

    Further sourcing on 178:

    The most used phrase in my administration if I were to be President would be “What the hell you mean we’re out of missiles?”

    * The Glenn Beck Program, January 12 2009

  155. Brian Holtz

    Mr. Blanton, I already have a test about “God, guns, and tax cuts”. Those are three parts of my 20-part test. Here are the excerpts:

    How free should you be?
    0 = government decides
    5 = unsure
    10 = full freedom

    * From government religion?
    * To own a gun if you’re an adult?
    * To keep what you earn, produce trade?

    I score Root a 10 on the first two, as I know of no case where he supports government establishment of religion. I give him about a 7 on the third, as I think he wants to replace the federal income tax with ideally nothing (letting states compete on tax buren), and maybe use a flat tax as a transitional reform.

    I suspect that Beck is OK on guns, but I saw some unsettling stuff from him today on school prayer, and I have no data on his tax policy.

  156. Brian Holtz

    Paulie, I never said that anything you’ve quoted from Beck is “my idea of a libertarian”. If you can argue against my actual positions instead of your strawmen, feel free to try. 🙂

  157. paulie Post author

    You asked me whether Beck’s views are compatible with libertarianism.

    I would say no.

    Those views are not compatible with anything that I am.

    If Beck is a libertarian, then I’m not.

    One of us is not a libertarian.

    Feel free to tell me which one, or not.

  158. Tom Blanton

    I do know this much about Glenn Beck – he supports government. Ergo, he supports “force initiation” and he is a collectivist – just like everyone else who supports government.

    Beck is very much against censorship being a shock jock for the forces of evil. He is quite concerned that the Dems will silence right-wing talk radio with the Fairness Doctrine. However, Beck is quite tolerant of Free Speech Zones.

    He does not favor gay marriage and he is against abortion. He loves the Patriot Act because it keeps us safe from Islamofascists (they are his number one worry).

    Beck is all about God, Guns and Tax Cuts, so obviously he is a libertarian – Time Magazine says so. You got a problem with God, Guns and Tax Cuts?

    Jump on the Beck Train before it leaves the station, Brian. Glenn needs clever young men like yourself. Quit worrying about quadrants and labels. Go with a winner in 2012.

  159. Brian Holtz

    Paulie, I asked you about Beck’s positions on the twenty issues in my quiz — i.e. on our platform’s full spectrum of principles for personal and economic liberty. I did not ask you whether Beck holds any opinions that 1) many libertarians would find repugnant but 2) are not a prima facie contradiction of our platform’s principles of personal and economic liberty. Again, if you see such a contradiction, feel free to quote it.

    I didn’t say Beck was a paragon of libertarianism. I just said that he seems to be in the libertarian quadrant. There are plenty of people there who have some views I find repugnant — and that includes you. This is the Libertarian Party, not the Paulietarian Party or the Holtzitarian Party. I have too many enemies who are officers of the nanny state for me to waste time trying to find enemies among those in my quadrant who are fighting the nanny state.

    Nor is this the Anarchist Party. Mr. Blanton, thanks for confirming that you define all non-anarchists as non-libertarians. It saves me the trouble of maneuvering you into that trap.

    Your “radical” Ron Paul “does not favor gay marriage and is against abortion”, too. Were you trying to say that Glenn Beck would have the federal government outlaw both of those? Can you quote him saying that? If so, your “radical” Ron Paul has supported a constitutional amendment banning abortion, and you need to share your dowsing rod that distinguishes good “radical” (and yet non-anarchist!) libertarians like Paul from evil “collectivists” like Beck.

    By the way, supporting government doesn’t necessarily imply supporting force initiation, any more than supporting trials of the not-yet-convicted implies supporting force initiation.

    I’ve already explained why I stand athwart the tracks of the Beck Train. The train I’d like to take would have a name like Williams, or Stossel, or Clark, or Friedman, or Sowell, or Palmer, or Paul, or Elder, or Sarwark. In the meantime, I’ll help the Root Train as long as it is making progress in the direction I want to go.

  160. Tom Blanton

    Oh Brian, you are so cute when you pretend to be angry. Ron Paul is not my radical, but he’s OK for a government guy. I’m glad his Anti-Fed work is going so well. I don’t think I said Dr. Paul was a good radical. I don’t think I even said I liked him. But, I do like having Dr. Paul in Congress despite his faults. I don’t send him any money though. At least his hands aren’t dripping the blood of innocents murdered by the federal government.

    If I was trying to say Beck would outlaw something, I would say it. You asked, I responded the best I could to what I know about Beck.

    Also, I did not define all non-anarchists as non-libertarians. What I did say is that anyone who supports government pretty much supports some degree of collectivism and initiation of force.

    The reality is that because of people like Root and Beck, and Boortz before them, and all these lightweight half-ass libertarians running around proclaiming they are “true conservatives”, I would rather be called an anarchist than a libertarian.

    I can live with smaller government or no government. I just can’t live with being in cahoots with the growing number of libertarian assholes. Notice that I did not specifically name anyone, Brian. However, if you choose to put words in my mouth and claim I am referring to you, I won’t argue with you about it.

  161. Tom Blanton

    Must libertarians support gay marriage now? Is this a new litmus test? How absurd.

    Since when would a libertarian favor people having to get a government license to live together?

    Whatever two or more people do in regards to their living arrangements is none of my business and it is none of the government’s business.

    Of course I don’t support gay marriages, or straight marriages either – go support your own damn marriages. If you need approval, get it from your parents.

  162. Tom Blanton

    “…Ron Paul has supported a constitutional amendment banning abortion…”

    That’s a new one for me. Where did Brian get this from? I’ve only heard Ron Paul say he did NOT favor the federal government’s involvement in the abortion issue.

    I don’t believe this is true, especially considering the source.

  163. Brian Holtz

    Mr. Blanton, I’ve often accused anarcholibs of caring more about their clean hands than about the amount of aggression in the world, so thanks for the apparent guilty plea. 🙂

    I’d ask you why Ron Paul is “OK” when he calls himself “conservative”, but Root is expletive-deleted when he does the same, but I guess I’m just not equipped to understand the answer you’d give. I’m afraid I’m not a sophisticated enough thinker to understand a personal system of ethics that is so relative to who you are in “cahoots” with, how clean their hands are, whether bystanders call them “conservative”, whether they call themselves “libertarian”, etc.

    Instead, I just naively advocate for the institutions I judge would result in the least amount of aggression in society, and I support whatever initiatives that I judge move us most effectively toward that goal. I don’t really invest much time worrying about what mental categories that uninformed people might lump me into, or who will be standing next to me as I push for my goal. As an engineer, I’ve never been accused of trying to be stylish or fashionable or popular, so maybe I just have a congenital resistance to the sorts of concerns about extrinsics that seem to dominate your ethical thinking. To each his own, as we libertarians say.

    Re: “gay marriage” — nice try, but I no more buy into government licensing of pair-bonding (or multi-bonding) than I do into government licensing of baptism. “Marriage” is to me just a special synonym for “contract”, and I have no problem with people filing notice of the contracts they want to be enforced, any more than I have a problem with people notifying the government of the birth of a new citizen.

  164. Brian Holtz

    Mr. Blanton, I don’t write things I can’t defend.

    if you’re going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well. I have a bill in Congress which I would certainly promote and push as President. But it’s been ignored by the right-to-life community. My bill is called the Sanctity of Life bill. What it would do is it would establish the principle that life begins at conception. That’s not a political statement, but a scientific statement that I’m making. We’re all interested in a better court system, and amending the Constitution to protect life–but sometimes that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker. – Ron Paul in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Feb 7, 2008.

    Paul refers to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act, which he apparently didn’t tell his audience would also remove federal jurisdiction over any state law that “protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions”.

    According to his endorser Chuck Baldwin, “Congressman Paul introduced the Human Life Amendment in Congress in his very first term of Congress, a couple of years after Roe v. Wade was first handed down.” I’m reasonably sure that this amendment would have been a federal ban on abortion, but I haven’t yet been able to confirm that.

    In 2008, however, there was widespread criticism of Paul by pro-lifers on the web for allegedly no longer supporting a Human Life Amendment. As near as I can tell, what Paul has done here is some clever triangulation. As a constitutionalist, he genuinely doesn’t want the the federal government to force a uniform national standard for murder laws, which he views as a state matter. In practice, this would legalize abortion nationally for anybody who can afford a bus ticket. Still, it lets Paul oppose Roe v. Wade and appear to support “pro-life” legislation, even though he often says that ending abortion is something that can only happen by reforming society’s morals. Some on the web say he supports sanctity-of-life legislation at the state level also, but I can’t confirm him actually saying that.

    So, once again, we find that the truth doesn’t quite fit on a bumper sticker. Does Ron Paul want the government to restrict a woman’s ability to terminate her pregnancy? The principled/radical Paul seems to deliberately straddle the issue. Whatever Paul believes, one thing is clear: there is not much room for any “radical” Ron Paul fans to criticize other libertarians for being “pro-life”, or for taking a federalist approach to e.g. drugs or marriage.

  165. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home

    Don Lake: my one and only wife was told not to get pregnant again, with possible lethal results. Doctor Paul claims time and time again that with a case file of 30K patients, he has not met ONE WOMAN whom needed an abortion!

    Me, one to one, 100%!

    Paul, 30K, zero percent!

  166. Tom Blanton

    “…Ron Paul has supported a constitutional amendment banning abortion…”

    Brian, you did write that and you can’t defend it.

    The Human Life Amendment, as I understand it, would have established that life begins at the moment of conception. Pretty silly.

    What I wrote about Ron Paul was merely an explanation of why some libertarians like Ron Paul despite his non-libertarian stances on some issues. But, you must admit that for an old Republican, he is pretty good on a lot of important issues. It was in no way an endorsement of every word the man has spoken. You seem to enjoy attributing words and ideas to people that aren’t there – but that’s your problem.

    You must also admit that Republican Ron Paul is as much a libertarian as a great number of LP candidates that run in local and state elections around the country. That’s a real problem – for the LP.

    Finally, why would I oppose libertarians that take a federalist approach to some issues? I’m in favor of abolishing the federal government next Wednesday, as the pragmatists like to accuse anarchists of. Tuesday would be even better.

    Leave everything up to the states, or the cities, or the neighborhoods, or the individual. I’m willing to decentralize as much as possible.

    Which is why supporting a buffoon like Root and his God, Guns, Gambling and Tax Cuts crap is a total waste of time. I would just as soon support Glenn Beck. You’d be better off pissing into a window fan because Root’s message is basically the same old small government conservative rhetoric as Beck’s. His message is designed to cause an emotional reaction in conservatives – it is not designed to move people in a libertarian direction. Tax cuts don’t reduce the size or scope of government, spending cuts do. But, I doubt if Root even gets that, ass clown that he is.

    But why the fuck do you care what I think anyway? Go play with your charts or invent a new classification of libertarian for those who actually give a fuck about Wayne Root and his God.

    See ya in Rubeville, boss.

  167. Robert Capozzi

    bh 175, say Sarwack is elected President in 2024 as an L. Say, like Bush, Sarwack’s predecessor caused a financial panic.

    Even if Sarwack is a “principled” L, he might have to temporarily continue, or even potentially employ, a bailout-type action to avoid a complete cascading system failure.

    Reluctantly, I might accept his temporary measure as the least bad option.

    During late 08, early 09, I was advocating a temporary suspension of mark to market accounting for the toxic assets in question, even though I think that — longer term — mark to market is the way to go. I take this view for technical reasons.

    If Ls ever get elected, I’d suggest we be at least open to Cowen’s approach for very near-term challenges. Disowning Sarwack in this scenario would be counter-indicated.

  168. Robert Capozzi

    tk 171: If by “alternative” you mean “prejudiced by and toward rightism from the git-go,” it’s just peachy.

    me: yes, that’s what I mean. I only offer the individualism/collectivism analysis as an EXPLANATION, not necessarily as a marketing strategy. People ultimately self-select their politics, I believe.

    Frankly, I’m probably more “collectivist” than most Ls, but I’m more moved by peace — foreign and domestic — than I am in economic outcomes. Technically, I’m a voluntaryist, individuationist collectivist. I find the individualist/collectivist argument misses the point in very large measure, though I respect that many view politics through that lens.

    Full disclosure, I guess in my youth I’d have been considered a “rightist,” called myself “conservative,” but was anti-Vietnam, pro-pot legalization, and generally liberal on social and foreign policy issues.

    People evolve. Bob Barr evolved. Root’s evolving. Even Beck seems to be, too.

    Who we should nominate for 2012 will depend on many factors. I assume that we’re all just doing our best, and what will be, will be.

  169. Eric Sundwall

    If one clicks to zero on all the options for the personal freedoms on the ‘test’, one is assumed a hardcore rightist. You basically favor censorship, monitoring, government religion, no political donations, not owning your body, anti-homosexual laws, no adult entertainment, no guns and presumably a ban on all drugs.

    Of course there are no gradients beyond 0,5 or 10, so extreme one way or the other, perhaps neutral are what’s being reflected.

    Censorship: While most people would/should not be in favor of this per se, when confronted with the pitch for the Patriot Act, might in fact favor such behavior in times of war, crisis, whatever. Slippery slope number one.

    Monitoring: Again, against it. But what about when icky terrorists are threatening downtown LA. We need to know and get Jack Bauer on the case. And if you’re not doing anything wrong, why worry ?

    Government religiousness: What exactly does this mean ? Even if some self righteous group succeeded in imposing let’s say Christianity, wouldn’t the denominational splits be sufficient to render any real legislation moot ? Or is government the religion in this case ?

    Donate to any political ad ? Is this a reference to a particular piece of legislation like McCain Feingold ? Wouldn’t party or candidate be a better question ?

    To risk you own body. Is there serious legislation out there maintaining that hang gliding or bungee jumping should be illegal. I can see why people would put zero here if that were the case.

    To marry same gender. Why not to marry at all ?

    Choose procreation ? Again, aside from China who is advocating a ban ?

    Adult entertainment. Does this automatically imply some nastiness or is it a simple pursuit that children wouldn’t otherwise partake in ?

    Own a gun. Yep some liberals would deny that right based on their reading of the second amendment and what they derive militia to mean. Otherwise everyone answers 5 or 10 on this. Ugh.

    Drugs. Assuming illegal ones here, right ?

    Most constitutional conservatives would defer to the individual rather than the government in these decisions, but might otherwise advocate some other personal decision. Ascribing answers to what politicians or other popular figures might answer to these questions is silly.

    Further asserting any rock solid notion of what they should subsequently be labeled only extends the absurdity. No reference to defense or immigration because they represent policy rather than personal or economic freedoms as the test purports to analyze.

    This test is a convenient tool for those seeking to integrate more people into the libertarian cause and party. At least on the surface. In my experience, most people take it and for a bemused moment look at the results and continue to move down the same partisan path they were on.

  170. Brian Holtz

    Mr. Blanton, I indeed wrote “Ron Paul has supported a constitutional amendment banning abortion”. I found the text for the Human Life Amendment: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Human_Life_Amendment. It says: “No unborn person shall be deprived of life by any person: Provided, however, That nothing in this article shall prohibit a law permitting only those medical procedures required to prevent the death of the mother.”

    Yes, I’ve argued repeatedly that Ron Paul is a solid libertarian, albeit not a flawless one. Wayne Root has been criticized as unlibertarian for saying he would end the federal drug war and leave it to the states; I’m glad to hear you don’t share in that criticism. Since you apparently aren’t willing to share your evidence that Beck is no less libertarian than Root, I stand by my judgment that from what little I know of Beck, he’s in the libertarian quadrant but (unlike Root) is not libertarian enough for me to accept him as an LP presidential nominee.

    You’re right to suggest that I shouldn’t care what you think: I don’t. What I care about is marking my positions to market, by answering public criticisms of them. Send me your rants via private email, and they won’t even be opened.

    I’m starting to better understand the psychology of libertarian radicals. In libertarian radical ethics, how good a person you are is a function of how pure and comprehensive is your hatred for the guys in the black hats — the enemies of freedom. Thus, to be a true lover of freedom, not only do you you have to hate the enemies of freedom, but you also have to hate the non-enemies of the enemies of freedom. Of course, when you compute this transitive closure, you end up hating almost everybody, but that’s a good thing: it shows just how morally pure and exceptional you are. It also saves you from a lot of excess thinking — especially if you are selectively sloppy in how you compute your transitive closure e.g. regarding Ron Paul, or the founding fathers, or the LP itself. Severe crankiness ensues when you accidentally notice inconsistencies in your computation of that transitive closure, and so a disproportionate amount of your hating budget is spent on people at the frontiers of your computation: i.e, fellow Libertarians who don’t hate as broad a network of people as you hate.

    In my ethics, how good a person you are is instead a function of the foreseeable results of the principles and policies you advocate. Perhaps unfortunately, this requires a lot of hard thinking and imprecise judgments about counterfactuals. It also has the consequence that most hats are some shade of gray, and so a black-hat-wearer isn’t always immediately available when you have a need to hate somebody. Luckily for me, I enjoy challenging thought problems, and my hatred budget is already claimed by actual aggression in the world. So maybe the reason I’m not a libertarian radical is rooted in my personal psychology, and not in a rational and objective evaluation of the intellectual merits of libertarian radicalism.

    Speaking of mark to market: yes, Bob, I too liked the idea of relaxing the mark-to-market requirement — permanently, in fact. I can live with a requirement to publish mark-to-market-based data, as the absence of such data is arguably fraud. But once that data is public, I don’t think the government should mandate the use of that data in e.g. margin requirements. If your broker lends you too much margin, that’s between you and her, and it’s no business of the government.

  171. paulie Post author

    this requires a lot of hard thinking and imprecise judgments about counterfactuals. It also has the consequence that most hats are some shade of gray, and so a black-hat-wearer isn’t always immediately available when you have a need to hate somebody. Luckily for me, I enjoy challenging thought problems, and my hatred budget is already claimed by actual aggression in the world. So maybe the reason I’m not a libertarian radical is rooted in my personal psychology, and not in a rational and objective evaluation of the intellectual merits of libertarian radicalism.

    I share that approach, and I’m a radical.

  172. paulie Post author

    Paulie, I asked you about Beck’s positions on the twenty issues in my quiz — i.e. on our platform’s full spectrum of principles for personal and economic liberty.

    As I told you, I don’t know what all his answers would be and I don’t think you do either. I do know quite a few areas we have already discussed where he holds very unlibertarian positions, and I have what appear to be undisputed sources saying that he holds others.

    But let’s be careful with that “full spectrum” thing. Someone could score well within the libertarian quintile or quadrant or whatever and have one glaring problem — say, they want to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack on India, kill all Hindus and anyone of Indian descent. Granted that is an extreme example, but would you consider such a person a libertarian?

    There are many issues which are not on any such quiz, and it says nothing about which issues the respondent considers most important. So at best it is a very, very rough guide.


    I did not ask you whether Beck holds any opinions that 1) many libertarians would find repugnant but 2) are not a prima facie contradiction of our platform’s principles of personal and economic liberty. Again, if you see such a contradiction, feel free to quote it.

    Hmmmm, I would tend to think that the desire to murder someone because they hold and express differing views would be somewhat contradictory to libertarian principle. And the notion that anyone who disagrees with your aggressive foreign policy views may well be a traitor and enemy of America and should be dealt with by the military doesn’t sound very libertarian to me. All those missiles he would want to lob if he was president, are those all in defense? Doesn’t sound like it to me.


    I didn’t say Beck was a paragon of libertarianism. I just said that he seems to be in the libertarian quadrant. There are plenty of people there who have some views I find repugnant — and that includes you.

    Which views do I hold which are the equivalent of the quotes from Beck cited above in your view?


    This is the Libertarian Party, not the Paulietarian Party or the Holtzitarian Party. I have too many enemies who are officers of the nanny state for me to waste time trying to find enemies among those in my quadrant who are fighting the nanny state.

    Except when they are trying to increase it, and it seems from what I have read in this thread that is many areas in the case of Mr. Beck. Additionally, for those who would increase government in some areas and decrease it in others, they are far more likely to succeed where they want to increase it, given the nature of government. Thus, the questions should perhaps somehow be weighted to reflect that, although I wouldn’t know how off hand.

  173. Brian Holtz

    I’ve earlier answered some of Eric’s complaints about my test here:

    http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/2009/09/eric-sundwall-gropes-for-disagreement.html
    http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/2009/09/eric-sundwall-calls-my-nolan-test.html

    Yes, the Javascript version of my test currently only implements answers of 0, 5 or 10. This is similar to how The Advocates’ quiz only allows three options, but the printed version of my test clearly allows people to enter any integer score. I of course make no claim that each issue can only have 3 positions (or only 11, for that matter).

    For each issue question that Eric complains about, I issue this blanket retort now instead of repeating it for each issue: if you think you can state the issue in 35 characters or less, and in a way that is useful for LP outreach, and do so in a way that is more fair or insightful than the way I did it, then let’s see your 35 characters. And if instead you think there’s no way to use 10 or 20 short questions to get a rough idea of which standard political label applies to someone, then your complaints are better directed to The Advocates, not to me.

    Censorship: if you think “most people would not favor censorship per se”, you need to get out more. Protecting kids from sex, drugs, and violence in media is enormously popular in America. I admit that “censorship” can suggest a more narrow context of just political/ideological speech, but the point of this choice is to confront people with what you and I agree is the fundamental equivalence of all speech acts. Is that such a bad thing to try to do?

    Monitoring: yep, whether monitoring is acceptable is extremely sensitive to context and to people’s reasonable expectations. So? Doesn’t that just mean that this is a fair question? Are you suggesting that this question cannot help us decide whether someone is left/right/libertarian?

    Religiousness: this was by far the hardest question to phrase. I would have asked about government “establishment of religion”, but I don’t want you to score a 10 just because you wouldn’t have a Church Of England here. I wanted to ask about government using “coercive or monopoly powers to establish, aid, or attack any religion” (as I phrase it in my Free Earth Manifesto), but I couldn’t condense that into 35 characters.

    Donate to any political ad: “campaign” would be better than “candidate” and either would be better than “ad”, but “ad” fits and the other two don’t. “Party” is too narrow. By choosing “ad”, I actually make it too easy to get libertarian points here, contrary to your charge of bias (which I’ve already admitted is not entirely baseless).

    Risk your body: I’m of course talking about helmet laws, seatbelt laws, product safety laws, building codes, etc. etc. I don’t understand your complaint here.

    Marriage: sigh. See my comment @194, and try to read my quiz without your anarchist hat pulled down over your eyes. 🙂

    Procreation: By this I mean cloning, surrogacy, stem cells, frozen embryos, contraception, RU486, etc. I personally think that early-term abortion is a procreation question, while late-term abortion is an infanticide question, but I’m not trying to ask about those here. The point here is to get people to ask themselves: “is there a method or aspect of procreation for which I think the government should override individual choice?” Of course, I can’t guarantee that people won’t read it as superficially as you did, but again: what 35 characters could do a better job?

    Adult entertainment: this phrasing tries to capture all the notorious consensual sex-related commerce, while also keeping children out of it. I don’t think you could seriously claim that my phrasing would trick porn-snatchers into giving a libertarian answer.

    Own a gun: I almost made this “carry a gun”, but I think it’s up to property owners to decide this, and too much property is owned by the government. Now that I think of it, I’ll change this to “own any gun” in the next version, as “own a gun” is indeed too easy to agree with.

    Drugs: the test asks elsewhere about “medicine”, so this is indeed asking about drugs — all drugs. I put this one last, because I tried to order them by increasing difficulty of agreeing with the hardcore libertarian position. Sneaky me.

    It’s silly for you to call it “silly” to try to judge how politicians would answer these questions. Yes, there are limits to how much precision we can achieve in 35 characters, but words do have meanings, and you were able to figure out most of the contexts I was trying to invoke. For an effort to plot each member of Congress on the Nolan Chart, see e.g. http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm and http://www.issues2000.org/Barack_Obama.htm. They analyze about 200 votes to score 20 issues, and ended up plotting Paul and Obama very close to where I plot them. What would be “silly” would be to call this a mere coincidence.

    “Rock solid notion of what they should subsequently be labeled” is just a clumsy strawman. Did you really think I wouldn’t diagnose it, Eric? I’ve never used the numbers from this test without a qualifier like “about” or “roughly”. I don’t see how your complaint here is not something that is already addressed at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-faq.html.

    Immigration and national defense are excluded not because they are “policy”, but because they are policy that is more about franchise than about the personal or economic liberty of those whose franchise isn’t in dispute. Nobody disputes whether the American government should have concern for the rights of Americans who are black or female or Jewish etc. By contrast, there is much dispute over how much concern the American government should have for animals, fetuses, would-be immigrants, victims of overseas tyranny, victims of overseas catastrophe, etc. For more on this, see http://knowinghumans.net/2009/01/extra-nolan-chart-dimensions.html.

    I’m glad you conclude that the test is “a convenient tool for those seeking to integrate more people into the libertarian cause and party”. I certainly don’t claim that the test by itself can divert “most people [from] the same partisan path they were on”. What I claim is that it is the most effective, interesting, fair, and comprehensive analysis+marketing that can fit in those 20 square inches of space for an audience who care about a broad range of issues and who are persuadable that neither Left nor Right is a good fit for them.

  174. robert capozzi

    pc, your point illustrates the limitations of empiricism. We each would weight things differently.

  175. Brian Holtz

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/09/wayne-root-on-the-lou-dobbs-show-91009

    Paulie, if the question here is whether somebody is disqualified as being a libertarian because they are planning the real-life deliberate murder of innocent people for some selfish or bigoted agenda, then my answer is obvious. It also should be obvious why I left that item off my quiz. And if you think that you have evidence that Glenn Beck is planning such a murder, then you should dial 9-1-1 instead of talking to me about it. (By the way, what number do you dial in anarchotopia? 😉 )

    If you quoted Beck as wanting to “increase the nanny state”, I must have missed it. I quoted Beck writing: “I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.” When did you quote him contradicting these statements? The only one I remember is his support for the bailouts.

  176. paulie Post author

    if the question here is whether somebody is disqualified as being a libertarian because they are planning the real-life deliberate murder of innocent people for some selfish or bigoted agenda, then my answer is obvious. It also should be obvious why I left that item off my quiz. And if you think that you have evidence that Glenn Beck is planning such a murder, then you should dial 9-1-1

    Well, he said he’d bump off Michael Moore for $50 million. I’m guessing that either nobody who has $50 million to spare feels that is worth $50 million, or think they could find more qualified help at a more reasonable price if they wanted to do that.

    He also said he’s be lobbing a lot of missiles if he was president, but he hasn’t been elected, so that doesn’t apply. And if he was elected, I don’t think dialing 911 would help.

    I think you are the one who pointed out that he is for mandatory prayer in government schools, a nanny state position if I ever heard one.

  177. Brian Holtz

    Sigh. This is why I don’t trust anything but sourced in-context quotes when listening to accusations of un-libertarianism. What I said was “I saw some unsettling stuff from him today on school prayer”. What I saw was him ridiculing a judge who threw out a moment-of-silence law, and joking that atheist kids spontaneously cry if in a room where praying occurs. That is nowhere near advocating “mandatory prayer in government schools”.

  178. Brian Holtz

    Missiles don’t murder people; murders do. That’s Libertarianism 101.

    If he can make it look like a coronary or, better yet, a kinky self-asphyxiation thing, then where do I contribute toward the $50M? 🙂

    Jokes aren’t aggression. That’s Libertarianism 102.

  179. paulie Post author

    It’s all fun and games until a missile hits your neighborhood. Or maybe until a terrorist blows up your kid on a bus because his village was hit with such a missile. Or your kid grows up and dies fighting in a war against terrorists. etc…

  180. Brian Holtz

    It’s all fun and games until a gun murders your kid. So anybody who jokes about the use of guns must be joking about the murder of your kid.

    Time to re-enroll for Lib 101, Paulie.

    Here’s a preview of the final exam essay question: if a terrorist threatens you or your kids because of collateral damage from your well-intentioned acts of self-defense, does that mean you shouldn’t defend yourself?

    You’re excused from the final only if you bring a note from the patent office sharing your magical invention that guarantees you that your well-intentioned acts of self-defense never cause collateral damage.

    You automatically flunk the exam if you assume that the question is about recent contingent history, instead of about universal libertarian principles. Which are universal. That’s why we call them principles.

  181. paulie Post author

    It’s all fun and games until a gun murders your kid.

    Nice try, but I’m not arguing for banning missiles.

    Suppose you were hiring police officers and the applicant told you “when I get out on patrol, the most common question my partner will have is why are we running out of ammo?” – is this someone you would want to hire?

    if a terrorist threatens you or your kids because of collateral damage from your well-intentioned acts of self-defense, does that mean you shouldn’t defend yourself?

    If a terrorist (say Mr. Bush or Mr. Obama) threatens you or your kids with being bombed because of someone from your country, religion or ethic group caused collateral damage during their well-intentioned acts of self defense (a “smart bomb-plane” attack against a target in the nation which has been waging wars and helping others wage war against your people), does that mean you shouldn’t defend yourself (say with IEDs)?

    You automatically flunk the exam if you assume that the question is about recent contingent history, instead of about universal libertarian principles.

    The exam has been recalled by the dean’s office due to loaded questions. Who’s the terrorist, and why? If collateral damage on one side makes the other side terrorist, wouldn’t the same be true in reverse? Why is one side’s action described as well intentioned self defense and the other side is branded as terrorism (I’m guessing the other side would call their actions well-intentioned self defense, and the first side’s actions as terrorism)?

    These questions might be Lib-101 until you examine the details.

  182. paulie Post author

    “The most used phrase in my administration if I were to be President would be “What the hell you mean we’re out of missiles?”

    -Glenn Beck

    …yep, sounds like “well intentioned self defense” to me, sure….

  183. Brian Holtz

    But I don’t want to get into a debate here about privatizing the entire justice system. Per the draft St. Louis Accord, I’m willing to stipulate that:

    The Party’s ultimate goal is to banish force initiation and fraud from human relationships. The Party does not claim to know how close our society can come to this ideal, but we are united in our conviction that governments must never add to the amount of aggression in the world. Principled libertarians can disagree about whether every function of government can be performed by the free market, but we are united in opposing government’s growth beyond the protection of the rights of every individual to her life, liberty and property.

  184. Brian Holtz

    Paulie, no matter what you say, jokes still aren’t aggression.

    If you’re trying to suggest some kind of moral equivalence between 1) overthrowing a genocidal neighbor-annexing totalitarian and 2) slashing stewardesses’ throats so you can kill 3000 civilian infidels, then I don’t see how that’s supposed to convince me Beck shouldn’t ever criticize domestic support for violence against America.

    By the way, I transcribed what Beck said is his central point in your clip above: “Ron Paul’s supporters are tapping into something that is very real, something that I’ve talked about on this program for a very long time: the rising tide of disenfranchisement in this country. It’s coming from all sides of the political spectrum. If that feeling of disenfranchisement leads to political discussion, then our system works perfectly. But if fringe elements take that disenfranchisement and turn it into violence, we endanger the freedoms we’re supposedly all fighting for.”

    Thus it is pure bullshit to claim that “Beck opened up his show segment by inferring that the U.S. military should be used to silence domestic dissent against the war”. Please think a little more critically before you cut and paste more stuff that leftists simply made up.

  185. paulie Post author

    Brian, I read the whole transcript (which has nothing to do with leftists making anything up – I don’t know where you got that from).

    Beck was clearly talking about the theme that Ron Paul supporters and others against the war might be traitors who should be dealt with by the US military. That was what his reference to “enemies foreign and domestic” was all about.

    He carried the same theme on in another show when he suggested that Keith Ellison, and by extension all those in Congress and elsewhere who oppose the war, are “enemies of America.”

    Being against these wars is not “domestic support for violence against America” and calling those who oppose US government policies “domestic enemies” to be dealt with by the military is not mere criticism.

  186. paulie Post author

    If you’re trying to suggest some kind of moral equivalence between 1) overthrowing a genocidal neighbor-annexing totalitarian and 2) slashing stewardesses’ throats so you can kill 3000 civilian infidels,

    You can characterize the US invasion of Iraq that way if you wish (disputed elsewhere on multiple counts), but if you are an Iraqi living in a village and a bomb drops on your house, or American soldiers rape your mother and sisters in front of you, or your house is knocked down by a tank, or your brother is taken to a secret prison, held indefinitely without charges and tortured, there’s more than a little moral equivalence.

    And why would those Iraqis and Afghanis be “collateral damage” but the stewardesses and 3000 civilians not be “collateral damage”?

  187. paulie Post author

    Paulie, no matter what you say, jokes still aren’t aggression.

    How do you know he was joking? 🙂

    And even if he was, why would talking about killing someone or lobbing missiles all over the place be funny? That’s just weird and disturbing at best.

  188. Brian Holtz

    Glenn Beck said: “If that feeling of disenfranchisement leads to political discussion, then our system works perfectly. But if fringe elements take that disenfranchisement and turn it into violence, we endanger the freedoms we’re supposedly all fighting for.”

    You pasted: “Beck opened up his show segment by inferring that the U.S. military should be used to silence domestic dissent against the war”.

    What you pasted remains bullshit. I don’t debate bullshit. I flush it.

  189. paulie Post author

    Since you insist, here’s the whole transcript.

    Beck: Well, here`s “The Point” tonight. While our foreign enemies are the obvious ones, the physical threat may be developing domestically, as well. And here`s how I got there.

    As I told you last week, Ron Paul raised over $4 million in one day. That`s huge news. His supporters raised the cash on November the 5th to commemorate Guy Fawkes. This guy was a British terrorist who tried to overthrow the government by blowing up Parliament and killing everybody in it. Paul`s supporters called the donations, and I`m quoting, a “money bomb.”

    Fawkes was caught the very last minute, some say with his hand on a torch about to light the gunpowder under Parliament.

    Now, the vast majority of Paul`s supporters take this little metaphor the way it`s intended, as a rallying cry to create a dramatic political shift. It`s really not the way I would go, you know, tying my movement in with a historical terrorist attack, especially in post-9/11 America. But hey, you know, I`m a libertarian at heart. I get it. You raise money however you want, as long as you`re not blowing other people up.

    But America, here`s what you need to know tonight. Ron Paul`s supporters are tapping into something that`s very real. It`s something that I`ve talked about on this program for a very long time: the rising tide of disenfranchisement in this country. And it`s coming from all sides of the political spectrum.

    If that feeling of disenfranchisement leads to political discussion, then our system works perfectly. But if fringe elements take that disenfranchisement and turn it into violence, we endanger the freedoms we`re supposedly all fighting for.

    David Horowitz is the author of “Indoctrination U: The Left`s War Against Academic Freedom.” And Jonathan Sandys, he is a writer and founder of Churchill`s Britain. He`s also the great-great– I`m sorry, the great- grandson of Sir Winston Churchill.

    Jonathan and David, it`s good to have you here.

    Jonathan, let me — let me start with you. Guy Hawkes — or Fawkes, as I understand it, he is basically an old-timey Timothy McVeigh.

    JONATHAN SANDYS, FOUND, CHURCHILL`S BRITAIN: Sorry. Say that again.

    BECK: That he is England`s version in the 1600s of Timothy McVeigh, except his bomb didn`t work. He`s a terrorist. Is he not?

    SANDYS: Yes, yes. Yes, he was a terrorist. Very much so. He had a very clear set of views. He was a Catholic and wanted to return Britain to a Catholic realm. And he was backed by the pope in Rome to blow up the parliament, blow up James I and his government…

    BECK: OK.

    SANDYS: … and overthrow — and then have a Catholic — a Catholic king reinstated.

    BECK: All right. Now, one of his big things, and I think this is where it ties in today. One of his big things was he felt that nobody was listening to him, that the government wouldn`t respond.

    We felt that way, and that`s why we disbanded from the — from Great Britain in the 1700s, as well, because we — we felt like the king wasn`t listening to us. Do you sense at all that this is the same kind of thing that is going on in Great Britain and in America right now?

    SANDYS: Yes, this is a problem we are facing at the moment in Great Britain certainly and also in America. We have governments that are promising an awful lot of things for the voters. But they aren`t delivering on them.

    But nobody is actually asking the people what do you actually want? What is it in education that you want? What is it in life that you actually want? Nobody — nobody cares.

    BECK: Well, David, let me go to you. Because you are a — you were a Marxist in the `60s. You were a radical. You were a guy that was exactly the opposite of where you are now. Winston Churchill I believe said that, you know, when you grow up you get some common sense.

    Is this the same kind of thing, or is this worse than what it was in the `60s with the radicals then?

    DAVID HOROWITZ, AUTHOR, “INDOCTRINATION U.”: Oh, I think it`s much worse. First of all, my parents were communists, and they were part of a vast conspiracy, and it was orchestrated from Moscow and wanted America to lose the Cold War.

    We have a lot of people in this country who think that we`re the enemy. And a lot of them are drawn from the ranks of the old left and the new left, the secular left. But to them has been added a — you know, a whole new constituency of Muslim radicals, of which there are many in this country on our campuses.

    And then the — of Democratic Party leaders out of a very short- sighted desire for political advantage, have defected from a war that they — that they all supported and have denigrated the mission of this war and fueled the — you know, the fires of what you call disenfranchisement.

    BECK: But — let me go — let me take it back the other way, though, David. It`s not just the left this time. It`s also the right. I mean, Ron Paul`s supporters are also the right, and that`s from people saying, you know what? Bush has really not told us the truth, not told the American people the truth on government spending, on the border.

    And even when it comes to the war, you didn`t tell us that we are in the fight of our life. You told us to go shopping.

    HOROWITZ: Well, but he did say it`s going to be a long war.

    You`re right. There`s a strain of isolationism and anarchy in the American tradition which Ron Paul is tapping into. I think it`s very significant that he chose Guy Fawkes as an image.

    There are plenty of, unfortunately, libertarian Web sites which are indistinguishable from the anti-American left these days. LouRockwell.com and others like that. Totally in bed with the Islamofascists and have turned against this country.

    BECK: Jonathan, I met you, what, I think a couple of weeks ago, and we had a conversation. You are as concerned about your country as we are here in America on ours.

    SANDYS: Yes.

    BECK: You`re seeing that it`s being sold out, as well, that it…

    SANDYS: Yes.

    BECK: There`s something beneath the surface that is just washing everything away.

    SANDYS: Glenn, we have had an agreement in this country for many years now that if our allies in America go to war that we will join you in that battle.

    I believe David is completely right in what he is saying, that when George Bush stood up and actually said that we were going to go to war against terrorists and when Tony Blair stood up and said the same thing, both our countries, both our peoples and our governments were behind it — were behind those two leaders.

    In this country at the moment we are now looking at a backlash where everybody is saying we`ve got to get out of Iraq now, and we can`t look at Iran and everything like that. There`s a total loss of traditional values in this country for continuing and finishing what we start.

    BECK: OK.

    SANDYS: Once you`ve begun something, you`ve got to stop it.

    BECK: Jonathan, thank you.

    David, I`d love to have you on the radio program and talk about the history with your family.

    HOROWITZ: Absolutely.

    BECK: And what that was. So maybe we`ll line that up.

    OK. Where am I wrong? The Ron Paul revolution, I think it`s meant to be a catchy slogan, but I fear some of his fringe supporters are taking the word “revolution” too literally. Agree or disagree? Go to Glenn — I`m sorry, CNN.com/Glenn right now and cast your vote.

  190. paulie Post author

    Apparently, this part got cut off the beginning:

    “When you enlist in the U.S. military, you have take an oath that says you’re gonna support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies – foreign and domestic – we talk a lot on this program about the foreign threats – maybe we should spend some time tonight on the domestic one….the physical threat may be developing domestically as well,” said Beck.

  191. paulie Post author

    Let’s recap:

    1) Beck reminds us that the military takes an oath against enemies foreign and domestic

    2) Beck says “the physical threat may be developing domestically, as well. And here`s how I got there.”

    3) He goes on to talk about Ron Paul money bombs and Guy Fawkes being a terrorist.

    Why is it unreasonable to conclude from this that “Beck opened up his show segment by inferring that the U.S. military should be used to silence domestic dissent against the war’? Indeed, what other reasonable interpretation could there be?

  192. Brian Holtz

    Here’s what makes your pasted assertion bullshit:

    This guy was a British terrorist who tried to overthrow the government by blowing up Parliament and killing everybody in it. […] Fawkes was caught the very last minute, some say with his hand on a torch about to light the gunpowder under Parliament. Now, the vast majority of Paul`s supporters take this little metaphor the way it`s intended, as a rallying cry to create a dramatic political shift. It`s really not the way I would go, you know, tying my movement in with a historical terrorist attack, especially in post-9/11 America. But hey, you know, I`m a libertarian at heart. I get it. You raise money however you want, as long as you`re not blowing other people up. […] If that feeling of disenfranchisement leads to political discussion, then our system works perfectly. But if fringe elements take that disenfranchisement and turn it into violence, we endanger the freedoms we`re supposedly all fighting for.

    It’s simply bullshit to say that a discourse including the above is nevertheless about “silencing domestic dissent against the war”.

    100% weapons-grade bullshit.

  193. paulie Post author

    No, it’s cover your ass bullshit by Beck.

    Here he is employing a similar technique with Ellison:


    With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, “Let`s cut and run.” And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, “Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. And I know you’re not. I’m not accusing you of being an enemy, but that’s the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.”[3]

    * The Glenn Beck TV Show, November 14, 2006
    * Glenn Beck to Keith Ellison.

  194. Brian Holtz

    Here’s Glenn Beck on marriage:

    “I don’t have a problem with civil marriages. I don’t understand how anyone could think it’s right that, I’ve got somebody who I’ve been living with my whole life, we’re like a married couple, and I can’t go in — they’re dying, or they’re in the hospital and they were in a car accident — I can’t go in? Excuse me? That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. There has to be some common sense. Now if somebody chooses to live their life a different way, that’s their choice. But that doesn’t mean that we minimize or equate somebody else’s choice in the other direction. It’s OK, it’s OK. The problem really comes in to: if you start changing the definition of one thing, you can’t open the door just a little bit. Let’s say you’re for gay marriage — OK, great, put it in there. Now you’re just defining it that wide. You’ve opened the door. It doesn’t make any sense to not open the door all the way for anybody that wants to define it between any consenting adult [sic]. You can make the case, no, not about children. You can kind of make the case with brothers and sisters, but not if they’re both fixed. You can make the case against animals. But you can’t make it about intelligent consenting adults. You can’t. Now if you’re prepared to open that door all the way, that’s fine. But other than that, your logic doesn’t work. You have to open it all the way, or not at all.” [Beck had minutes earlier mentioned that brothers and sisters produce genetic abnormalities, and that animals can’t consent.]

    Here’s Glenn Beck on the PATRIOT Act:

    “The PATRIOT Act, the PATRIOT Act just by name alone should have been a warning sign. In the PATRIOT Act there are things that we I believe need to allow the federal government to do for a limited time only and in a very limited scope and I was satisfied by the Sunset provision in the PATRIOT Act. However I’m growing more and more leery of that and that’s not because of the Obama administration. That is because of my view on the government and how out of control they are in the last couple of years where I don’t — I no longer trust the government. I think there are — I think there are a lot of good people in government that are in there fighting, but I also believe with an emergency and an awful lot of power, unscrupulous people can use them in unscrupulous ways.”

    He’s still not libertarian enough to be the LP nominee, but the more I fact-check the hyperbolic criticisms of this guy, the better he sounds.

  195. Brian Holtz

    Don’t change the subject, Paulie. It remains a lie to say he was talking about “silencing domestic dissent” when he explicitly said that discussion is perfect but that violence and blowing up buildings is out of bounds.

  196. paulie Post author

    No, it’s cover your ass bullshit, just like when he inserts “And I know you’re not. I’m not accusing you of being an enemy” in the middle of doing exactly that to Ellison.

  197. Robert Capozzi

    tb 197: But why the fuck do you care what I think anyway? Go play with your charts or invent a new classification of libertarian for those who actually give a fuck about Wayne Root and his God. See ya in Rubeville, boss.

    me: In my case, Tom, I respond to your missives more for the lurkers and the vast majority of open-minded, good-will motivated Ls to see how corrosive the “Angrytarian” syndrome can be. Angrytarian missives tend to be one-dimensional and uncivil. The more lucid Angrytarians — which I consider you to be — sometimes make statements about ideology that sound somewhat attractive but which are often delivered with such an edge that some Ls might actually find intimidating on some level.

    Engaging Angrytarians can sometimes be productive in exposing the ad hominem and often simplistic nostrums they are wont to hurl.

    Sometimes.

  198. libertariangirl

    is Beck registered to vote Libertarian? has he paid at least $25 to LPNational?
    if yes on both , he’s a Libertarian.

    If not, then he’s not.

  199. libertariangirl

    at the very least you have to be registered Libertarian . The $25 maybe not so much since soo many distrust national .

    But being registered to vote Libertarian , unless you cant vote , Id say it’s an absolute requirement to be called Libertarian.

    Myself , I find it ridiculous to not pay $25 measly dollars to National In Nv you cant be a delegate if your not at least a basic member of National.

  200. Who's Thumbing Who?

    In a lot of states you can’t register Libertarian.

    Many people prefer to be members of the local and/or state parties but not national as well.

    Also some people register with other parties to be able to vote in their primary, or in some states register independent so they can pick whichever primary they like.

  201. libertariangirl

    so you think you can register with another Party , not pay 25$ to national and still be called a LP member.
    I understand , I guess , not wanting to be a member of Nationa but working with your local party . But for christs sake , dont local affiliates require that you at least dont be a member of another party to be a delegate to that state.

  202. Who's Thumbing Who?

    You are a member of national if you sign the pledge, however, a lot of people disagree as to what the pledge even means and some refuse to sign it on some kind of principle even if they do agree with it.

  203. libertariangirl

    I guess im just overly simplistic .. I pay dues to National and my local affiliate and Im registered to vote Libertarian , ergo I AM a Libertarian:)

  204. Tom Blanton

    According to Brian Holtz and Time Magazine, Glenn Beck is a libertarian. But, he’s not quite as libertarian as Wayne Root. And life is still silly when the erudite debate that up is down.

    Me, I’m just an angrytarian frothing at the mouth, consumed by hatred, and ready to intimidate anyone who is not a radical anarchist, except for Ron Paul and a few dozen other people (for reasons that I am too ignorant to articulate).

    Don’t mess with me or I’ll put your nose between my thumb and forefinger and make it honk.

    God, Guns and Tax Cuts Forever!

  205. George Phillies

    @232

    Is Beck…
    In about half the country, “Libertarian” is not a choice for party registration.

    That ignores the state that does not use Voter Registration at all, let alone registration by party.

  206. Who's Thumbing Who?

    http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/09/acorn-affair-gives-lie-to-glenn-becks.html

    “Exactly how does Glenn Beck the Libertarian get all upset at ACORN representatives for (1) helping a prostitute find some way to launder her money so she can buy a house; or (2) helping said prostitute rip off the IRS?

    Think about it: Libertarians generally hold that women own their own bodies, and that charging people for sex [as long as neither party is coerced] is their business and not the State’s. Since the State insists on the same moralistic, coercive high-ground as Beck, there is no moral or ethical reason not to lie to the State in order to avoid its involvement in your life.

    Likewise: since when did it become a no-no for Libertarians to want to reduce or avoid taxation?

    Ah, but Beck–who is fully willing to use the power of the State to prevent same-sex marriage or enforce any law whatever consistent with his recently adopted Mormon social ethic, as well as willing to support US military interventionism anywhere in the world for pretty much any purpose–has been calling out ACORN in terms that only a good social conservative, authoritarian, State-loving Republican could do.”

  207. libertariangirl

    Um , if I were confronted by an underage prostitute I would try an offer help or services to get her out of the lifestyle .
    Its not like Acorn is a libertarian or independent charity , it receives tax-payer money. ACORN are a bunch of criminals and shouldnt be trusted with ANY tax-payer money. dont forget the many, many accounts of voter fraud by ACORN during the election

  208. Aaron Starr

    Folks,

    You may find this link interesting.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FuEWxTvRGY

    It’s from Glenn Beck’s radio show of September 17.

    Glenn Beck states: “I’m going through a change here. Because the more history I read the more I realize how right the libertarians have been.”

    Glenn Beck seems to be moving more and more in our direction and his comments here indicate he is having an epiphany.

    People grow and change. Almost no one becomes a libertarian in one day. It’s an evolutionary process.

    Raise your hand if you actually believe we can convince people of the merits of our ideas by pummeling them with criticism, as you would a blunt instrument.

    As a general rule, people won’t listen to you if they don’t like you and trust you.

    Focus on creating a friendly and supportive environment, where people want to listen to us enough to consider the merits of our ideas.

    Tell people they are 90% right, rather than 10% wrong. Say nice things about them. Tell them that you appreciate their efforts.

    I’ve used this approach with Wayne Root during the years I have known him. There is a reason why you keep seeing steady improvement from him.

  209. Who's Thumbing Who?

    The Story of My Shoe

    by Mutadhar al-Zaidi

    In the name of God, the most gracious and most merciful.

    Here I am, free. But my country is still a prisoner of war.

    Firstly, I give my thanks and my regards to everyone who stood beside me, whether inside my country, in the Islamic world, in the free world. There has been a lot of talk about the action and about the person who took it, and about the hero and the heroic act, and the symbol and the symbolic act.

    But, simply, I answer: What compelled me to confront is the injustice that befell my people, and how the occupation wanted to humiliate my homeland by putting it under its boot.

    And how it wanted to crush the skulls of (the homeland’s) sons under its boots, whether sheikhs, women, children or men. And during the past few years, more than a million martyrs fell by the bullets of the occupation and the country is now filled with more than 5 million orphans, a million widows and hundreds of thousands of maimed. And many millions of homeless because of displacement inside and outside the country.

    We used to be a nation in which the Arab would share with the Turkman and the Kurd and the Assyrian and the Sabean and the Yazid his daily bread. And the Shiite would pray with the Sunni in one line. And the Muslim would celebrate with the Christian the birthday of Christ, may peace be upon him. And despite the fact that we shared hunger under sanctions for more than 10 years, for more than a decade.

    Our patience and our solidarity did not make us forget the oppression. Until we were invaded by the illusion of liberation that some had. (The occupation) divided one brother from another, one neighbor from another, and the son from his uncle. It turned our homes into never-ending funeral tents. And our graveyards spread into parks and roadsides. It is a plague. It is the occupation that is killing us, that is violating the houses of worship and the sanctity of our homes and that is throwing thousands daily into makeshift prisons.

    I am not a hero, and I admit that. But I have a point of view and I have a stance. It humiliated me to see my country humiliated. And to see my Baghdad burned. And my people being killed. Thousands of tragic pictures remained in my head, and this weighs on me every day and pushes me toward the righteous path, the path of confrontation, the path of rejecting injustice, deceit and duplicity. It deprived me of a good night’s sleep.

    Dozens, no, hundreds, of images of massacres that would turn the hair of a newborn white used to bring tears to my eyes and wound me. The scandal of Abu Ghraib. The massacre of Fallujah, Najaf, Haditha, Sadr City, Basra, Diyala, Mosul, Tal Afar, and every inch of our wounded land. In the past years, I traveled through my burning land and saw with my own eyes the pain of the victims, and hear with my own ears the screams of the bereaved and the orphans. And a feeling of shame haunted me like an ugly name because I was powerless.

    And as soon as I finished my professional duties in reporting the daily tragedies of the Iraqis, and while I washed away the remains of the debris of the ruined Iraqi houses, or the traces of the blood of victims that stained my clothes, I would clench my teeth and make a pledge to our victims, a pledge of vengeance.

    The opportunity came, and I took it.

    I took it out of loyalty to every drop of innocent blood that has been shed through the occupation or because of it, every scream of a bereaved mother, every moan of an orphan, the sorrow of a rape victim, the teardrop of an orphan.

    I say to those who reproach me: Do you know how many broken homes that shoe that I threw had entered because of the occupation? How many times it had trodden over the blood of innocent victims? And how many times it had entered homes in which free Iraqi women and their sanctity had been violated? Maybe that shoe was the appropriate response when all values were violated.

    When I threw the shoe in the face of the criminal, Bush, I wanted to express my rejection of his lies, his occupation of my country, my rejection of his killing my people. My rejection of his plundering the wealth of my country, and destroying its infrastructure. And casting out its sons into a diaspora.

    After six years of humiliation, of indignity, of killing and violations of sanctity, and desecration of houses of worship, the killer comes, boasting, bragging about victory and democracy. He came to say goodbye to his victims and wanted flowers in response.

    Put simply, that was my flower to the occupier, and to all who are in league with him, whether by spreading lies or taking action, before the occupation or after.

    I wanted to defend the honor of my profession and suppressed patriotism on the day the country was violated and its high honor lost. Some say: Why didn’t he ask Bush an embarrassing question at the press conference, to shame him? And now I will answer you, journalists. How can I ask Bush when we were ordered to ask no questions before the press conference began, but only to cover the event. It was prohibited for any person to question Bush.

    And in regard to professionalism: The professionalism mourned by some under the auspices of the occupation should not have a voice louder than the voice of patriotism. And if patriotism were to speak out, then professionalism should be allied with it.

    I take this opportunity: If I have wronged journalism without intention, because of the professional embarrassment I caused the establishment, I wish to apologize to you for any embarrassment I may have caused those establishments. All that I meant to do was express with a living conscience the feelings of a citizen who sees his homeland desecrated every day.

    History mentions many stories where professionalism was also compromised at the hands of American policymakers, whether in the assassination attempt against Fidel Castro by booby-trapping a TV camera that CIA agents posing as journalists from Cuban TV were carrying, or what they did in the Iraqi war by deceiving the general public about what was happening. And there are many other examples that I won’t get into here.

    But what I would like to call your attention to is that these suspicious agencies – the American intelligence and its other agencies and those that follow them – will not spare any effort to track me down (because I am) a rebel opposed to their occupation. They will try to kill me or neutralize me, and I call the attention of those who are close to me to the traps that these agencies will set up to capture or kill me in various ways, physically, socially or professionally.

    And at the time that the Iraqi prime minister came out on satellite channels to say that he didn’t sleep until he had checked in on my safety, and that I had found a bed and a blanket, even as he spoke I was being tortured with the most horrific methods: electric shocks, getting hit with cables, getting hit with metal rods, and all this in the backyard of the place where the press conference was held. And the conference was still going on and I could hear the voices of the people in it. And maybe they, too, could hear my screams and moans.

    In the morning, I was left in the cold of winter, tied up after they soaked me in water at dawn. And I apologize for Mr. Maliki for keeping the truth from the people. I will speak later, giving names of the people who were involved in torturing me, and some of them were high-ranking officials in the government and in the army.

    I didn’t do this so my name would enter history or for material gains. All I wanted was to defend my country, and that is a legitimate cause confirmed by international laws and divine rights. I wanted to defend a country, an ancient civilization that has been desecrated, and I am sure that history – especially in America – will state how the American occupation was able to subjugate Iraq and Iraqis, until its submission.

    They will boast about the deceit and the means they used in order to gain their objective. It is not strange, not much different from what happened to the Native Americans at the hands of colonialists. Here I say to them (the occupiers) and to all who follow their steps, and all those who support them and spoke up for their cause: Never.

    Because we are a people who would rather die than face humiliation.

    And, lastly, I say that I am independent. I am not a member of any political party, something that was said during torture – one time that I’m far-right, another that I’m a leftist. I am independent of any political party, and my future efforts will be in civil service to my people and to any who need it, without waging any political wars, as some said that I would.

    My efforts will be toward providing care for widows and orphans, and all those whose lives were damaged by the occupation. I pray for mercy upon the souls of the martyrs who fell in wounded Iraq, and for shame upon those who occupied Iraq and everyone who assisted them in their abominable acts. And I pray for peace upon those who are in their graves, and those who are oppressed with the chains of imprisonment. And peace be upon you who are patient and looking to God for release.

    And to my beloved country I say: If the night of injustice is prolonged, it will not stop the rising of a sun and it will be the sun of freedom.

    One last word. I say to the government: It is a trust that I carry from my fellow detainees. They said, ‘Mutadhar, if you get out, tell of our plight to the omnipotent powers’ – I know that only God is omnipotent and I pray to Him – ‘remind them that there are dozens, hundreds, of victims rotting in prisons because of an informant’s word.’

    They have been there for years, they have not been charged or tried.

    They’ve only been snatched up from the streets and put into these prisons. And now, in front of you, and in the presence of God, I hope they can hear me or see me. I have now made good on my promise of reminding the government and the officials and the politicians to look into what’s happening inside the prisons. The injustice that’s caused by the delay in the judicial system.

    Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you.

    September 19, 2009

    Iraqi journalist Mutadhar al-Zaidi gave this speech on his recent release. The translation is by McClatchy’s special correspondent, Sahar Issa.

  210. Aaron Starr

    WTW @ 243

    I suspect that many people, including libertarians, were most upset about Acorn’s apparent willingness — no, make that eagerness! — in these videos to assist the filmmaking couple with trafficking underage girls to serve as sex slaves.

  211. libertariangirl

    almost as flabbergasted as I was this morning to hear a fellow libertarian say , he’s opposed to prison for ethical reasons , and the 3 folks that beat about the head , bit all over and raped a 6 month old… well no other fellow humans would have anything to do with them , and we need eachother to survive , so thats enuf punishment.

    dear god , may I never be such an anarchist that I oppose prison for such evil.

    http://media.causes.com/483963?p_id=49946285

  212. Tom Blanton

    libertariangirl – the man that made that post did not identify himself as a libertarian or an anarchist. He only said he was against government tyranny. That is what a lot of Tea Party folks say also. Why didn’t you assume he was one of those?

  213. Tom Blanton

    Everyone should check out Aaron Starr’s link to the Glenn Beck quote above:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FuEWxTvRGY

    It’s from Glenn Beck’s radio show of September 17.

    Glenn Beck states: “I’m going through a change here. Because the more history I read the more I realize how right the libertarians have been.”

    Mr. Starr omits the part where Beck first apologizes for saying he is a libertarian. The real money quote for me is at the very end – be sure to listen to the whole thing.

    Notice that Beck makes no excuses for his past extreme interventionism as he continues to beat the drums for war – this time in Iran.

    As for Root, maybe folks should read his bit on Islamofascism and decide if this is where libertarians are. Has Root evolved or has he just shut up about things most libertarians (or even educated people) reject? Has he ever stated that he was wrong about the things he has said? Has he ever said he was wrong to support Bush in 2004?

    SEE:

    http://www.millionairerepublican.com/blog/index.php?m=07&y=07&entry=entry070723-081824

    Perhaps appearing on Savage Nation after appearing on Beck’s show actually show a de-evolution on Root’s part.

  214. Aaron Starr

    TB @ 250

    He doesn’t even mention Iraq here.

    Yes, everyone here should definitely listen to this link (it’s only five minutes) and then review what I wrote @ 245.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FuEWxTvRGY

    In the beginning, Beck is talking about how great it is that John Stossel is joining Fox. “Another libertarian unleashed.”

    Soon after he states “I am almost horizontal, I’m leaning so libertarian right now.”

    “Pull the troops out of Korea, pull them out of Afghanistan, get them out of Germany. I don’t even know if I want them anywhere else but Texas right now.”

    “I’m going through a change here. Because the more history I read the more I realize how right the libertarians have been.”

    He then talks about how he used to think Ron Paul was a crackpot and it is now time to re-examine the issues he brought up.

    “Our imperialism has caused a lot of problems.”

    He then talks about how the way we influence the world is by setting a good example.

    “We’ve had too much of a swagger around the world.”

    “We cannot afford to do that anymore.”

    He also makes it clear that we shouldn’t be pacifists; we need to respond to those who attack us.

    He makes reference to Thomas Jefferson and how we dealt with the Barbary pirates back in 1803.

    He believes in responding to actual attacks by going in there, getting the job done and getting out.

    In this particular clip, Beck is certainly speaking within the bounds of mainstream libertarianism and we should encourage him to do more of the same.

    If we want to have any hope of moving people’s beliefs towards us, we have to provide an environment where people can safely be wrong until their views change to being right.

    Also, it makes no sense to impose a media embargo on ourselves. We should strive to go on programs where the host disagrees with us.

    By doing so, we may convince some members of his audience we are right. We may even eventually convince the host we are right. If this clip is any indication, this seems to be happening over time with Glenn Beck.

    Let’s win people over by emphasizing the 90% agreement we have with them, rather than harping on the 10% disagreement.

  215. paulie Post author

    Well, maybe Beck really is coming around. I can’t listen to the clip, but maybe I’ll come back to it next time I’m on a computer where I can.

    I think the acid test will be whether he will continue to become more libertarian the next time there is a Republican in the white house.

    Republicans tend to sound more libertarian when Democrats hold the presidency, and vice versa.

  216. Robert Capozzi

    It’s great that Beck is moving L.

    OTOH, his calling Obama a racist is of concern. There’s much to criticize Obama about, but “racism” seems a big-time stretch. I’m concerned that such a move could be construed as “racist” itself.

    We’ll survive any association, but I want a firewall between the LP and haters of all stripes.

  217. Big Tent Bozo

    But Mr. Capozzi, what about racists who score in the libertarian quadrant? Mr. Holtz says “I have too many enemies who are officers of the nanny state for me to waste time trying to find enemies among those in my quadrant who are fighting the nanny state.”

    Are you a true big tent libertarian or aren’t you?

  218. AnarchoMcCarthyist

    I think the problem may have started when we started allowing Big Tent sellouts like Murray Rothbard into the ranks of our comrades…

    http://www.amazon.com/review/R2UPSPLI522A28

    ” On each page, Rothbard comes off as flippant, erudite, jovial and politically sophisticated — in other words, not very libertarian. He courageously praises David Duke, Philippe Rushton, and The Bell Curve; sides with Dan Quayle over his remarks regarding the decision of TV star Murphy Brown to conceive her child out of wedlock….”

    “……In response, Rothbard urges the resurgent Old Right to retaliate in the form of “right-wing populism,” which can best be described as a clarion call to alert the masses that the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes. This political strategy was embodied in the political campaigns of Pat Buchanan and David Duke.”

    Clearly, Rothbard was not a true libertarian.

    The Libertarian Party also went downhill noticeably when it sold out by nominating pro-war, anti-anarchist John Hospers for president in 1972.

    We must restore the Party to the ideologically pure, politically correct stances it held before these impostors took over.

    People like John Hospers, Murray Rothbard, Wayne Root, Charles Murray, Bob Barr, David Duke, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and others with their impure libertarianism and political incorrect views must be kept from expanding the party. We must stick with the unadulterated anarchist positions we held before 1972. All these sellouts and anyone who agrees with them belong in the GOP! PURGE!

    Our slogan must be: Restore the Libertarian Party to its pre-1972 state!

  219. Tom Blanton

    Well, Mr. Starr, maybe the nonpacifist libertarians you know believe that when “we” are attacked the thing to do is to go lash out at innocent civilians in nations that had nothing to do with the attack.

    To me that is totally insane. Yet, that is apparently Mr. Beck’s position. In case you forget, Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. Mr. Beck also feels we can’t leave those places until we have “won” – whatever that means.

    Some libertarians forget the Taliban offered to turn Osama over to a third nation if the US provided evidence that Osama was responsible for 9/11. The whole notion that Afghanistan was providing a “safe haven” for al Qaida was a rather flimsy excuse to start a war over. Jeb Bush was also providing a safe haven and terrorist training in Florida, and no bombs were dropped there.

    I am fully aware that some libertarians are too damn ignorant to know that senseless wars of choice often lead to loss of liberty, economic devastation, unintended consequences, and future national security issues (blowback). Maybe Glenn Beck is this type of “libertarian” – if so, by all means welcome him. The LP needs all kinds of “libertarians”, even lunatic idiots.

    I’m pretty sure Beck is all about God, Guns and Tax Cuts – maybe you can recruit him to run for President in 2012, since he is a libertarian.

  220. Tom Blanton

    I doubt Beck will “come around” – he has saying that he is a libertarian at heart for quite some time – years.

    Beck is a diehard interventionist. He is against nation building – that is the only thing remotely libertarian about his warmongering. Like the neocons, he is aware that some sort of bogus threat must be fabricated in order to build support for wars. He has played this role well and continues to play it for Iran.

    People who actually read are pretty well aware that the IAEA, as well as US intelligence, is pretty sure Iran has no nuclear weapons program, but in talk radio land, Iran is days away from a nuclear first strike on Israel and America.

    For the LP to embrace the likes of Beck, trivializes what libertarianism is all about and is an embarrassment to the wider libertarian movement.

    That Root is to make regular appearances on the Michael Savage show is bizarre – no politician in their right mind goes on that show. If the LP thinks that Savage Nation fans will make a good pool of new recruits, they have truly lost it.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if a time comes when libertarian organizations outside the LP will not only distance themselves from the LP, as many currently do, but will actually denounce the LP.

  221. Big Tent Bozo

    Make up your mind. Which is it?

    David Duke on Ron Paul: “Before I begin my suggestions for the Ron Paul Campaign, let me first say I like Ron Paul’s campaign, and I think it is good for America and the political process. Why do I think so? It is because people such as Ron Paul shake up the system, and Paul takes a lot of correct positions such as opposition to the Iraq War, opposition to foreign aid to Israel and the rest of the world, as well as having unrelenting support for the civil liberties of the American people…….

    In my opinion, Ron Paul has the right position on the Iraq War, foreign interventionism and foreign aid, monetary policy and American rights and freedoms,”

    Hmmm, he just might be in the libertarian quadrant?

  222. Robert Capozzi

    btb, yes, it’s possible that David Duke might be in the L quadrant. I see no point in making enemies of him. I’m not sure where his head’s at these days, but so far as I know, he’s not renounced his racist past.

    But, I would not support him in any way.

    Perhaps you don’t understand my view, but I don’t view the world through the prism of “friends and enemies.” Everyone disagrees with someone on something. So, I support people who hold positions I largely agree with, and don’t support those I do not.

    Some issues, like Duke’s racist past, make me very, very unlikely to ever support him or anyone like him, even if they completely changed their worldview. (To be clear, I’d support Duke’s change of heart, but his history is simply too toxic IMO for me to even consider voting for him. I do hope that he comes to see that his racist views are wrong minded and ultimately corrosive.)

    Some people’s past I’m willing to overlook, and encourage their moves toward liberty. Bob Barr was such an example. I disagreed with him on several issues, but he came far enough toward my views that I supported him.

    On the other side, there are probably some LP radicals who hold the NAMBLA position. That’s another non-starter for me.

    I trust that’s clear, BTB.

  223. AnarchoMcCarthyist

    Nah, we don’t want all those Sonny Landham/Pat Buchanan/David Duke/Sarah Palin/Ross Perot voters in the Libertarian Party. Let’s keep the party small, pure and anarchist!

  224. Big Tent Bozo

    BH @ 263

    I’ve considered that problem. My initial instinct was to be truthful and admit that I have no idea how Dr. Duke would answer many of those questions.

    But then I thought back how, earlier in the thread, people were guessing scores for Glenn Beck, Wayne Root and other people, so I decided I too can pull a number out of my sphincter. I think I will claim, with no basis whatsoever other than my wild ass hair guess that DD scores 75/75.

    After all that is at least as well-researched as the scores claimed for other people up higher.

  225. Lou Novak

    Pull a number out of your sphincter? Why stop there. Pull a whole test out of your ass and answer it on behalf of people as well as political parties.

  226. Brian Holtz

    Political parties publish platforms. Root has taken positions on every topic in my quiz. Beck’s positions on several topics in my quiz have been quoted extensively above, and several other of his positions are well-known.

    But feel free to keep making shit up from behind a pseudonym if that’s the best you can do. I love the smell of surrender in the afternoon.

  227. Big Tent Bozo

    BH

    “Root has taken positions on every topic in my quiz. ”

    Can you quote them?

    “Beck’s positions on several topics in my quiz have been quoted extensively above, and several other of his positions are well-known.”

    Can you specify where you derive the position you ascribe to Beck for ecah question?

    So far I have not seen any effort to do that.

    When/if you (or someone) does, I can attempt to do the same.

  228. Brian Holtz

    Sorry, I don’t perform secretarial errands for people who cower behind pseudonyms. LP insiders have been observing Root closely for a couple years now, and know his positions well. You can search Root’s book, blog, and campaign site for free. If you think Root doesn’t score at least the 85/95 I say he does, then try to find 20 demerits you think you can pin on him. I dare you.

    I didn’t say I know all of Beck’s positions; I explicitly said otherwise above. I’ve quoted Beck on at least seven questions of my test. When you’ve quoted David Duke on seven of the questions, I’ll get you some more Beck quotes. But you won’t even try. Now scamper back into the shadows, little pseudonymous troll.

  229. Big Tent Bozo

    Maybe I’ll try, maybe I won’t. It all depends on how bored I get.

    I don’t know what Root scores, and until you show quotes from him for each of your test questions I don’t see any reason to assume that you do either.

    And seven questions out of 20? I don’t know that even qualifies as a guess. More like a shot in the dark.

    Sorry, I see no reason to assume that you actually arrived at scores for these people until I see some proof that you did.

    Back to the shadows it is, until I get some light shone on the claims people have made here.

  230. Brian Holtz

    Learn to read. I said I’ve given Beck quotes on seven questions. I didn’t say I have zero information on how Beck would answer the other 13. Nor is my information by any means complete. But as I yet I have no reason to doubt Knapp’s estimate that Beck is on the edge of the libertarian quadrant.

  231. Big Tent Bozo

    I say he’s smack in the middle and right at the top. 100/100, or 95/95 at the very least.

    But until you produce this information that you didn’t say you don’t have, how can anyone reading know which one of us is right, if either, or why?

  232. Brian Holtz

    BTB, my thesis is that Beck is on or within the edge of the libertarian quadrant. Since you agree with my thesis, I don’t have anything to prove to you.

  233. Big Tent Bozo

    LOL.

    I’m not the one you have anything to prove to.

    I’m just a creature that lurks under bridges.

    But I gather that there are some people here who don’t agree with us, such as AnarchoMcCarthyist, Blanton, and possibly others.

    I don’t have enough proof for them. I wish I did.

    If you do, your help would be much appreciated.

  234. Big Tent Bozo

    I thought Blanton was a real person.

    Anyway, where did I get out of character? I can always use constructive criticism on character construction.

  235. Robert Capozzi

    tb 277, you’re not. You’re a character in the Matrix. Ponder on that truly radical thought, and call me in the morning. You’ll see that your litmus-testing days (or is that daze) are over 😉

  236. Who's Thumbing Who?

    http://web.archive.org/web/20020605151138/davidduke.com/writings/10policies.html

    Duke Supported Policies

    1. No New Taxes!
    Americans are already taxed too much. What government doesn’t waste on corruption and inefficiency, it uses to burden our lives and take away our freedoms. I solemnly pledge to vote against all tax increases.

    2. Abolish the Income Tax and the IRS!
    A national sales tax could replace the current income tax entirely, eliminating the IRS and all its abuse and waste. Taxes would be low, flat, and fair, based only on consumption and capital gains.

    3. Stop Welfare Abuse!
    I started the political revolution on welfare reform, and I will press it hard until congress follows through on it. We must remove drug sellers and users from welfare rolls and public housing, root out welfare fraud, and require work for every able bodied welfare recipient.

    4. Reduce the Welfare Birthrate!
    The real source of most violent crime, courts and incarceration costs, drug problems, public health costs, and deteriorating schools and inner cities, is the massive underclass that keeps growing through an unbridled and taxpayer supported birth rate. Lowering the illegitimate welfare birthrate must be our number one priority.

    5. Stop Immigration!
    The second greatest source of societal degeneration is the massive legal and illegal immigration that is transforming America into a Third World nation. America must stop immigration and slow down the welfare birthrate, or traditional Americans will find themselves a minority in their own nation, governed by people who cheer the acquittal of O.J. Simpson, and who would elect, if they could, people like Jesse Jackson to the Presidency of the United States.

    6. Equal Rights for All! Discrimination
    against White people must be ended. We must end set­asides in contracting, and stop the massive racial discrimination against Whites in jobs, promotions, college entrances, or scholarships. Whether it is called quotas or “goals” racial preference must be ended: PERIOD!. The only preference must be for the best qualified.

    7. Stop Forced Integration!
    We must openly acknowledge that the forced integration of American education has devastated public education and the fabric of our major cities. I will fight to end the forced integration of our schools through forced busing, and I will defend freedom of choice and freedom of association. I will work for tax credits to increase the choices in education for our children.

    8. Defend Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms!
    I will work tirelessly to repeal federal laws that violate our constitutional right to have firearms, and I will work for Federal legislation that will guarantee that constitutional right to every citizen of the United States, in every state and every corner of America.

    9. Reduce Foreign Aid and Put America First!
    No more meaningless incursions into nations such as Somalia. End Foreign Aid and protect our American industries and jobs from third world, sweatshop imports. All foreign political and trade policies must be based solely on America’s interests.

    10. Reform American Politics!
    PAC and lobbying donations to candidates and parties must be banned. Broadcast media must allot equitable free time for all qualified candidates. Our leaders must be chosen on the basis of issues and ability rather than how much special interest money is backing them.

    How does that rate on the Capozzi/Nolan chart?
    I’m going to guess maybe centrist, tending towards conservative and libertarian? Although in reality I think if he came to power he would be authoritarian.

  237. Tom Blanton

    Hey Bob, I’m not the one with a litmus test I designed. Ask Holtz when he is going to quit his litmus test.

    Meanwhile, Joe Scarborough is busy condemning Glenn Beck for being a jackass, the Holtz chart proves he is a good libertarian.

    http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/scarborough-on-beck/

    And since Michael Savage is close enough to being a libertarian, maybe the LP should offer the Savage Nation listeners a discount membership in the LP – I’m sure most would be considered libertarian on the Holtz chart.

  238. Brian Holtz

    If I have a litmus test, you’ll have to look for it in the draft St. Louis Accord.

    My libertarian rating quiz is only a litmus test if you think the Personal Liberty and Economic Liberty sections of the Platform are litmus tests.

    I only put the gas mileage sticker on the window. You have to make up your own mind if the car is fuel-efficient enough for your taste.

Leave a Reply

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