David Nolan’s Final Resolution

On Sunday, November 21, the Libertarian National Committee considered a resolution proposed by David Nolan (and introduced by Kevin Knedler in his absence).

I was in attendance. During the meeting no one in attendance was aware of our co-founder’s passing earlier that day.

The proposed resolution after amendment read as follows:

WHEREAS the Libertarian Party can grow only by attracting new members and supporters, and

WHEREAS libertarianism is a unique political philosophy, distinct from both contemporary liberalism and contemporary conservatism, and

WHEREAS we need the support of both former liberals and former conservatives who have come to realize that libertarianism and the Libertarian Party offer a better path to achieving a just, humane and prosperous society

The Libertarian National Committee hereby reaffirms that the Libertarian Party welcomes individuals from across the political spectrum who now accept the libertarian principles of self-ownership and non-aggression.

The final amended language was adopted without opposition.

The original language proposed by David Nolan was identical to the above except the last paragraph, which read as follows:

The Libertarian National Committee hereby resolves that our party, its representatives and staff should always state clearly and unequivocally that we welcome individuals from across the political spectrum who now accept the libertarian principles of self-ownership and non-aggression.

225 thoughts on “David Nolan’s Final Resolution

  1. Michael H. Wilson

    I prefer the original. It put the responsibility on those representing the party to present the ideas appropriately.

  2. Aaron Starr

    I was in attendance at the meeting and watched the debate.

    For the most part, LNC members saw this as a “mom-and-apple-pie” type of resolution, however there were some concerns voiced about possible unintended consequences in the implementation of the original language.

    One member asked if passage of the original language would result in our requiring Starchild to spend half of his activism time attending GOP meetings.

    Another asked how it would be possible that someone “always state clearly and unequivocally” anything, especially when delivering a sound bite to the media.

    Would every press release from staff, state affiliates and party members need to have a disclaimer stating “we welcome individuals from across the political spectrum who now accept the libertarian principles of self-ownership and non-aggression?”

    There was also a concern raised that some might want to use the passage of the original motion as a bludgeon in various intra-party battles.

    The only one who I recall speaking out against the amendment was Mary Ruwart.

  3. Robert Capozzi

    Always? Clearly and unequivocally to whom by who’s standards?

    The LNC improved an important reminder from the late Mr. Nolan, IMO. Thanks to all, especially Nolan, whose swan song was to defuse an incendiary, potentially self-immolative, situation.

  4. Robert Capozzi

    v: Does that mean it would be okay for people to run as Green/Libertarians?

    me: One can dream! Actually, there are many green Ls, and some do run for office. Some of us would interpret a “just, humane and prosperous society” as including a respect for our shared environment, and believe that pollution is aggression.

  5. Kevin Knedler

    The intent and spirit of the resolution is still there in my opinion. As I reflect on the day, I am so glad this was brought before the LNC board. KJK

  6. JT

    Vaughn: “Does that mean it would be okay for people to run as Green/Libertarians?”

    Why would the resolution mean that? Libertarians believe self-ownership and non-aggression includes private property.

  7. Robert Capozzi

    jt 8, care to rephrase and elaborate? Vaughn appears to be a Green interested in whether there’s overlap between Greens and Ls,without a discussion of PLAS, thankfully. I’d venture to say that what “self-ownership” and “non-aggression” specifically mean is open to a fairly diverse interpretation, even among the LP’s rank and file. And, as you know, most of the Earth’s surface and all the atmosphere are not considered to be “private property,” so it becomes challenging on both a theoretical and practical basis to describe what non-aggression means in this context.

    IOW, in your opinion, is it possible for a L to run with some form of a green agenda?

  8. JT

    Robert: “IOW, in your opinion, is it possible for a L to run with some form of a green agenda?”

    As long as it also involves taxing everyone less, regulating everyone less, spending less on social welfare, then yes. That’s not what any Green I’ve heard of supports though.

  9. Robert Capozzi

    JT, agreed, although I have met a few Greens who seem open to net aggression reductions in concert with environmental considerations. Certainly there are many Ls who do.

  10. Tom Blanton

    Perhaps the LNC should have sought to eliminate internal conflict between libertarians and the hyphenated libertarians with this wording:

    The Libertarian National Committee hereby reaffirms that the Libertarian Party welcomes individuals from across the political spectrum who now accept the libertarian principles of self-ownership and non-aggression, or has $25.

  11. MP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    #4
    You may run your name, or any-one’s name, as any party/category you wish, in the “all party system” (and independents).

    If you or anyone wishes to do so, please feel free to contact me, we have many positions that are open. We are preparing for a coordinated effort beginning on 2/1/2010 and all names are welcomed to participate in the Central California Parliament Election of 2011.

    Read more about it in The USA Parliament, Inc.’s latest bulletin “GoNott Search Team” at;
    http://www.usparliament.org/forum/

  12. MP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    I wrote; “We are preparing for a coordinated effort beginning on 2/1/2010 and all names are welcomed to participate in the Central California Parliament Election of 2011.”

    Sorry, meant to write; “…beginning on 2/1/2011…” as in February 1st, 2011.

  13. Robert Capozzi

    tb: …or has $25

    me: The language could read: …has $25, and is certified L by a peer review board consisting of Blanton, Davidson, and Hogarth, who will grill all prospects for a minimum of four hours on whether they have the “correct” position on, at minimum, copywrite and intellectual property laws, drunk-driving laws, unilateral disarmament, an appropriate description of fetuses, among others. 😉 Membership will be subject to random ideological checks by BDH throughout the year.

  14. Michael H. Wilson

    Capozzi you left out establishing time zones and weights and measures. Get with it fer gawd’s sake.

  15. Robert Capozzi

    mhw, my bad! In a world of 7 billion Nonarchy Pods, it’s whatever goddamn time I say it is! 😉

    As a mere mortal, I can’t pretend to be as attuned to the One Correct Position In The Sky as BDH are. I humbly kneel in everlasting awe at how high and deftly they hold the banner. Perhaps another decade of intensive schooling at their feet will remove all my equivocation and doubt that The Black Path will reveal the Holiest of Grails: The Button of Instant, Unrefined, Pure Liberty. 😉

  16. JT

    Robert: “JT, agreed, although I have met a few Greens who seem open to net aggression reductions in concert with environmental considerations. Certainly there are many Ls who do.”

    If by “net aggression reductions” you mean the usual Green approach of more government aggression on economic issues (other than corporate welfare), as well as less government aggression on social issues and in foreign affairs to a greater degree, that’s not good enough IMO for Libertarian candidates. I don’t agree with anyone who thinks it’s positive for Libertarian candidates to call for increasing violations of rights in any area as long as they also call for decreasing them more in others. Not only is that wrong in my view, but it also doesn’t help create a clear Libertarian brand identity when different candidates are calling for less and more government on a cross-section of issues. That just sows confusion.

  17. Gene Trosper

    Self-sustainability is appealing to greens and increasingly, I’m seeing an interest among libertarians as well. Alternative housing (rammed earth buildings, straw bale, etc), backyard gardening, co-ops, and similar initiatives are very much green issues that libertarians can support.

    I tell libertarians to pick up an issue of Mother Earth News and page through it, looking for projects and issues that are not just earth-friendly, but support a sustainable lifestyle. Combine a concern for the environment, along with an emerging interest in self-sustainability due to the economy, and you’ll see an LP with greater appeal and less of a “cold hearted” reputation.

  18. Tom Blanton

    I think the term “net aggression reductions” when used by most Raging Moderate Extremists means that things most libertarians want to see stopped or eliminated should instead be reduced by marginal amounts.

    For example, instead of ending warrantless wiretapping, assassination of suspects by drones, or jailing minors for victimless crimes, the government should cut back by 1% annually for a period of 20 years or so.

    Tax cuts or spending cuts should never exceed more than 2% in any one year. No more than one or two military bases in foreign countries should be closed in a given year.

    In other words, NO crazy radical changes! But only on the side of reducing government. It is acceptable for large radical increases in budgets, deficits, wars, regulations, etc. to occur. However, it is unacceptable to most Raging Moderates to protest such increases because protesting in itself is too radical.

    Moderates like working within the system and “doing real politics” requires that there be no animosity between the ruling elite and Raging Moderates. The ruling elite simply considers people who advocate radical change as not being “serious” people.

    Rather than demonize war criminals and politicians that accept bribes from thieves, Raging Moderates believe in working with these public servants in order to affect change over many decades.

    Moderates are eager to point out how well this has worked over the last 100 years.

    And by golly, who can argue with the success they have demonstrated using the strategy of moderation and working within the system?

  19. Robert Milnes

    Aaron Starr, who are you trying to bullshit? The Nolan Resolution has been gutted. It was specificly directed at “…our party,its representatives and staff…”.
    Now it is a generalization ABOUT THE LP-that it be BIG TENT i.e. accept rightists.
    EVERYBODY REJECT THIS.
    It is a well known truism, paraphrasing-one should be very careful when changing ANYTHING written or said by an originator of something unique. Especially one who is deceased.
    Accept The Nolan Resolution EXACTLY as written.
    Or reject it.
    Who amended it? Mattson, a known righist.
    Who objected to the amendment? Ruwart, a known radical.
    I propose The Milnes Resolution: All LP party officials and candidates must be judged genuine libertarians as defined in addition to other mechanisms in place. Definitions and judgements tobe made by a Peer Review Board.

  20. Jill Pyeatt

    I agree with Mr Milnes that the change made to the resolution has substantially changed it, and I’m very disappointed.

  21. Robert Milnes

    I’ll go further. This amendment is ingenious. I don’t think Mattson, Starr et al could have come up with this good an amendment on such short notice.
    This went through a government/GOP think tank.

  22. Catholic Trotskyist

    Agreed with Robert Milnes at 25.

    I will now take a break from posting at IPR for 7 days out of official mourning for The Nolan.

  23. Thomas L. Knapp

    I’ve watched Mattson, Starr, Carling et al come up with well-crafted amendments in minutes, from a standing start with no possible advance notice, at conventions. Starr and I actually wrote a motion together at the 2008 convention (although we ended up not introducing it). It took about five minutes, and that was as the convention was doing business and we were standing for votes, etc.

    Why should I believe that given several days’ notice of the content of Nolan’s resolution (which he included the text of in his request that it be put on the agenda), they couldn’t come up with good, i.e. competently written, language for amending it?

    As far as having him killed goes, that one’s easy to dispose of. Even if Starr et al were that evil, they’re not that stupid.

    While Dave’s death diminishes us all, any use of it in internal LP realpolitik will redound to the benefit of whatever faction(s) can plausibly claim to have inherited his mantle, and to the detriment of whatever faction(s) can’t.

    Regardless of any personal feelings, positive or negative, they may have had toward Nolan, any cui bono aspect of it will operate in exactly the opposite direction from that in which your speculations point.

  24. Horrifiedathepossibilities

    I must say that the possibility of this being a hit did occur to me. It would be nice if someone makes sure that Mrs. Nolan has an autopsy done.

  25. Robert Milnes

    Tom, objectively, the circumstances of this resolution & Nolan’s death are REAL suspicious.
    Who said anything about Starr et al -your “…junta…” killing Nolan? In order to do that & get away with it requires a lot more wherewithall than they have.
    I like The government. Or the GOP.
    You don’t get it. Starr is already in IPR whitewashing the whole thing. He uses the words “…our founder…”. Already in the process of claim to Nolan’s mantle.
    As far as spontaneous amendments, this one completely turned around the meaning. You are talking about fairly simple germaine amendments, changing little.
    You are CONSISTENTLY far too easy with rightist bastards & you really have evidently little idea of how powerful & purvasive & potentially evil the government is.
    I’ve been in the belly of the beast. Including FCI Butner, North Carolina.
    I guarantee the LP is under LONGSTANDING secret persecution by the government.
    Taking over my campaign website,shooting Duensing, making Nolan too sick to attend the LNC meeting, etc. are all logical moves and well within possibility & capability of the government.

  26. Aaron Starr Post author

    Here is a wonderful video by Libertarians Penn & Teller on conspiracy theories.

  27. Alan Pyeatt

    F.Y.I., in my capacity as an at-large member of the California LP Executive Committee, I made the following 3 motions to the 8xecutive Committee this past Saturday, for a vote by email. I had originally included all 3 actions as a single motion, but divided them at the request of the CALP Secretary.

    “Motion No. 1:
    “I hereby MOVE that the following Resolution be adopted:

    “WHEREAS, the worldwide libertarian movement has a long, proud history that traces its roots back to the natural rights theorists of the 17th century and beyond, which has been developed and refined by some of the greatest political thinkers in history, including John Locke, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill, Albert Jay Nock, Ayn Rand, Murray N. Rothbard, and many others; and

    “WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party is the political arm of the libertarian movement in the United States of America; and

    “WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party has been advancing the cause of liberty in the United States for almost four decades by running candidates for political office, supporting libertarian policies, and educating the public about libertarianism; and

    “WHEREAS, the Platform and the Statement of Principles of the Libertarian Party are the official documents which outlines the principles, policy stands, and political goal of the Party; and

    “WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party bylaws clearly state that the Platform and the Statement of Principles may only be amended by delegates at a Regular Convention; and

    “WHEREAS, Article 8 of the Libertarian Party Bylaws requires the Libertarian National Committee to establish and oversee an organizational structure to implement the Statement of Principles; and

    “WHEREAS, the members and officers of the Libertarian Party hold diverse views and advocate a wide range of political goals, strategies, and tactics, some of which may vary from the Party’s platform; and

    “WHEREAS, diversity of thought is desirable in a free society; and

    “WHEREAS, Mr. Wayne Allyn Root is currently an At-Large Member of the Libertarian National Committee and Chair of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee; and

    “WHEREAS, Mr. Root has been represented as a spokesman for the Libertarian Party by himself and his supporters; and

    “WHEREAS, Mr. Root has expressed some views in the news media which are contrary to the Libertarian Party platform; and

    “WHEREAS, Mr. Root openly admires at least one former elected official from another political party whose policies were often contrary to the Libertarian Party Platform and Statement of Principles, who was never a member of the Libertarian Party, and who ran against Libertarian Party candidates in general elections; and

    “WHEREAS, Mr. Root has repeatedly identified with said former elected official in the media and upheld him as representing one type of libertarian (i.e., a “Ronald Reagan libertarian”); and

    “WHEREAS, Mr. Root has openly stated that he intends to “re-create” libertarianism;

    “Now therefore be it RESOLVED:

    “That the Libertarian Party of California encourages diversity of thought among its members, and welcomes those who may not agree with every part of the Platform; and

    “That the Libertarian Party of California supports the further development of the libertarian philosophy by a collaborative process, and not by any single individual without the consent of his or her peers; and

    “That the Libertarian Party of California considers any knowing and willful misrepresentation of the Party’s philosophy, political goals, or platform to be unethical; and

    “That the Libertarian Party of California calls on Libertarian Party members, candidates, officers, official or de facto spokespersons, and staff to exercise due diligence when speaking to community organizations, the general public, members of the news media, and groups where members of the media may be reasonably expected to be present or whose proceedings may be reasonably expected to be reported to the news media or any group’s membership, to distinguish between their own views and the Libertarian Party’s Platform and Statement of Principles whenever the two are at variance.

    “Motion No. 2:

    “I move that the preceding Resolution (in Motion No. 1) shall not be considered an action for removal from office, censure, or suspension of a Party officer, Operations Committee member, Executive Committee member, Libertarian National Committee representative or county or State Central Committee member, or reinstatement of a County Central Committee member.

    “Motion No. 3:

    “I move that within 15 calendar days of adopting the preceding Resolution (in Motion No. 1), the Chair, Secretary or staff provide a copy of the Resolution and notice of its adoption to all officers and at-large members of the Libertarian National Committee, Seven magazine of Las Vegas, Nevada, and all other appropriate news media.”

    As you can see, this wording removes Aaron Starr’s concerns @ 2 by requiring due diligence instead of “clear and unequivocal” statements. It does not include any enforceable rules, nor does it eliminate the need for common sense. But it does provide general guidelines that we all can understand for how to handle the situations where our individual views vary from the LP’s stated guidelines.

    Part of my intent was to generate support for David Nolan’s resolution to the LNC, and I had sent the resolution to him in a Facebook message. I was awaiting a response from him when I heard of his death. Voting will close on November 25 at 7:27 PM.

  28. Alan Pyeatt

    After the motions were seconded, I sent an e-mail to all members of the Executive Committee in support of the motions. This e-mail mail said, in part:

    “First, even though I disagree with many of Mr. Root’s positions, I think he has every right to share his personal opinions. In fact, I would NOT vote to remove him from the LNC or the LNCC as the Florida LP has done. However, he has intentionally positioned himself as the unofficial spokesman for the LP, and his supporters openly proclaim this (see, for example, http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/11/wayne-allyn-root-cover-story-on-libertarianism-in-las-vegas-magazine/#more-21911). And that would be fine if he were consistently speaking in favor of libertarian positions, but he doesn’t. He jumped on the “9-11 mosque” issue and said it should be stopped, and didn’t rule out government force until he was called on it publicly. He supports interventionism in the Middle East, especially continuing foreign aid to Israel. And he continually presents Ronald Reagan to the general public as an example of libertarianism despite a host of unlibertarian policies: escalating the War on Drugs, preserving Carter’s draft registration system, deploying the Marines to Beirut where 200 of them were killed, bombing Libya, invading Grenada… When Mr. Root – or anyone else – presents these things to the public without distinguishing, and also claims to be a spokesman for the LP, how is the public supposed to know what our party really stands for? Isn’t he actually DRIVING AWAY those who are opposed to foreign intervention? Whether intentional or not, this has the potential to seriously handicap our recruiting efforts.

    “And it’s totally unnecessary. How hard is it to distinguish between one’s personal views and the party’s statement of principles? It isn’t hard at all! So, the proposed resolution encourages anyone who represents the LP to make that distinction, if they are different. It doesn’t censure or reprimand anybody. It creates no enforceable rules. But it does provide a general guideline that I think we can all agree on, and it expresses the will of the Executive Committee that our leaders should follow that simple guideline.

    “Another thing this resolution does is remind our leaders that the libertarian philosophy has been developed and refined over several centuries, by some of the finest political thinkers in the history of the world. Further, our party’s principles have been debated by some of the best “persuasive speakers” in our party, and adopted in convention by hundreds of delegates. It would be extremely arrogant, if not downright duplicitous, for any single individual to take it upon himself to change our principles, whether we want to change them or not. And yet, that is exactly what Mr. Root is trying to do. In fact, he said so himself in his recent interview in Seven magazine: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/tn.pdf. That’s why Motion No. 3 calls for a copy of the resolution to be sent to Seven magazine, to re-affirm that we control our own principles, not Mr. Root.

    “We can speculate on Mr. Root’s motives, but that’s not the point. His statements are potentially driving off new members, and his attempts to re-create our party are understandably meeting with resistance among our current membership. Anybody who’s seen his Facebook debates with the late David Nolan or others knows what I’m talking about. Some of Mr. Root’s supporters have claimed that those who oppose him are just jealous because he gets media attention. But that isn’t it at all; most of us are very happy when somebody like Steve Kubby or Mark Hinkle gets publicity for our party. No, my complaint is that when he gets media attention, Mr. Root misrepresents our party. There’s nothing in this resolution to prevent Root or anybody else from expressing their personal views. But when they represent themselves as speaking for the party, they need to be clear and accurate about what our party stands for when that differs from their personal views.

    “I hope you’ll agree with me.

    “Yours in Liberty,

    “Alan Pyeatt”

  29. Horrifiedathepossibilities

    So, is that why Aaron Starr was so prominent at the LNC meeting, even though he’s no longer on the committee? So he’d have an alibi?

  30. Robert Milnes

    Aaron Starr @30, bullshit. Who had this counter-conspiracy video at the ready?
    So, Penn picks a couple of shakey conspiracy guys to debunk ALL conspiracy possibilities? EXCEPT the conspiracy of the terrorists themselves.
    MY MENTOR, the recently deceased Dr. McFarland of Boulder, was a troofer & also believed Pearl Harbor had a fishy smell.
    Good enough for me.
    Everybody-make sure David Nolan is not vaporized(cremated).

  31. Robert Capozzi

    tb21, in my case, I use net aggression/coercion reductions as a kind of litmus test. I can wholeheartedly support a pro-lifer who passes that test, even though I happen to believe on that position the pro-lifer is pointing away from liberty.

    As I do believe I’ve explained to you before, you are caricaturing my view. If a L wants to call for abolition of several government functions, I not only support that, I encourage it.

    I favor Ls being “edgy.” I think that’s the optimal positioning for L politics. I think that “fringe” positioning is sub-optimal. Interestingly, most abolitionist Ls would seem to agree with me. They tend to not articulate their REAL, undiluted view during campaigns, advocating more moderate positions.

    Bear in mind, when I advocate my moderate approach, it’s not out of a sense that I believe that I am “right” and abolitionists are “wrong.” It’s simply my assessment of what’s most likely to advance liberty using L politics. Again, no one has yet challenged my assertion that politics is a numbers game, and so for L-ism to be influential in moving government to a diminishing control of people’s lives, we would want to see more and more people agreeing with us.

    It’s entirely possible that my premise is incorrect or that my general approach is offbase. Thus far, your comments don’t seem to register any of this, which I find disappointing. Either I’m not making myself clear or you are refusing to at least listen.

  32. Carol Moore

    New York Times Obituary of David Nolan published today ends with the original version of Nolan’s resolution: “It said, “The Libertarian National Committee hereby reaffirms that the Libertarian Party welcomes individuals from across the political spectrum who now accept the libertarian principles of self-ownership and non-aggression.” Take that all you Born Again Christian Gamblers who would kick “liberal” views out of the LP. Nolan gets his last licks in big time!

  33. Robert Capozzi

    cm, hmm, the NYT obit doesn’t include the “…representatives and staff should always state clearly and unequivocally…” language. Unless I severely missing something, the obit includes the amended resolution, not the original version.

    While I am not a “Born Again Christian Gambler” (or any part of that tortured equation…not that there’s anything wrong with any of it), nor would I “kick ‘liberal’ views out,” there is no “that” to “take.” I prefer the amended language, and I honor Nolan’s memory that he proposed something that was a helpful reminder to all Ls.

    You might want to confirm your error to maintain your credibility. This may be a case where you were perceiving what you wanted to perceive, rather than that which is there in b/w. We all do that all the time, but when we’re mistaken, I’d suggest it best to take responsibility for your error and move on.

    Or, perhaps, continue to declare illusory “victory” and remain alienated from those who see an entirely different picture of reality. Your choice.

  34. Carol Moore

    Frankly, I haven’t figured out the difference between two versions, so it must be too nitpicky to matter.

    Come on, Born Again Christians don’t go around making a living from Gambling. Ask Root’s “birther” buddy Alan Keyes: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/creech/041206 (“Christians who gamble commit a grievous sin”)

    At least they both pulled out of the big birther press conference per the May 24th story at this site. Birthers, ooooo… real credibility there…

    But I think Root WOULD be a credible representative for radical decentralist secession. Then he could honestly say: “I want to secede to my community of Gambling Born Again Birth Christians and live happily ever after.” (Don’t get me wrong; I actually like Wayne. He doesn’t annoy me half as much as certain other polluters of the freedom faith who have walked among us.)

    Credibility? Who needs that when there’s so much trouble to be made for “credible” apparatchiks out for fame and fortune and minute control. “Don’t touch my junk.” There’s some credibility for you.

  35. Carol Moore

    Of course, I’ve only seen Wayne on TV at his best. I haven’t met Wayne nor seen him in action when he was blathering (or sending other people to blather) about all the pedophiles trying to beat him in the race for prez or chair… Or for prez in 2012. So that opinion COULD change…

  36. Robert Capozzi

    cm, I’m sorry, but what you are doing here is known as “deflecting,” IMO. I suspect that many/most of those who share your obvious disdain for Root would see that that’s what you’re doing. You’re changing the subject.

    Let me help you see why…I’ll break it down for you.

    First you claimed “…original version of Nolan’s resolution.” I brought to your attention that it was NOT the original version, but the amended one.

    Then, you deflect, claiming: “I haven’t figured out the difference between two versions, so it must be too nitpicky to matter.” You say this even when I SUPPLIED YOU with the words that were deleted during the amendment process.

    The resolution was passed. Near as we can tell, Root supports it. There is no gotcha here…you’re imagining things.

    To complete your “deflection,” you start grasping at straws, somehow connecting “Don’t touch my junk” to this resolution…a powerful statement, I agree, but what it has to do with Nolan’s resolution and legacy is beyond me.

    I would hope that Root makes some course corrections, and I credit Nolan for having the wisdom to offer the (obvious) reminder that the cause of liberty needs support from both former conservatives and liberals.

    It appears you have some sort of severe animus toward Root. What I guess you’re not getting is that your wild and false accusations are actually hurting your case. McCarthyism worked for a while, but McCarthy’s wild accusations undermined his credibility. (Apparently, there actually WERE communist agents in the government.)

    Go that path if you choose to, but know that it is highly unlikely to get you where you want to go.

  37. Tom Blanton

    I’ve noticed that Raging Moderate Extremists, especially those of the Absolutist variety, have a penchant for mischaracterizing those who disagree with them even as they accuse those same people of mischaracterizing them.

    They even bristle at being mocked with obvious exaggerations even as they exaggerate the “extremism” of anyone outside the Raging Moderate camp and expect to be taken seriously.

    Of course, the humor factor would be greatly reduced if they behaved any other way.

    I find it especially entertaining that after dozens of people have clearly explained on dozens of occasions exactly why they dislike Wayne Root, there are certain people who pretend that it is a great mystery why people don’t like Root and why he is so divisive.

    In fact, they pretend that it is not Root that is divisive, but rather the multitudes of libertarians who find him to be an embarrassment.

    Elections come and go, issues wane and flow, but silly season never ends for the Raging Moderates.

  38. Robert Capozzi

    tb: I find it especially entertaining that after dozens of people have clearly explained on dozens of occasions exactly why they dislike Wayne Root, there are certain people who pretend that it is a great mystery why people don’t like Root and why he is so divisive.

    me: This moderate understands why some don’t like Root’s positions. I don’t quite understand why they don’t like him personally, only because I view all as a brother or sister. My best guess is that the personal dislike seems to be a matter of fear and psychological projection, near as I can tell.

    In my case, I disagree with many of Root’s positions. I just don’t care to put bad karma out there…when I do, that boomerang comes back and hits me upside the head. Others may have a different experience.

    Again, in my case, I understand why Root’s views can be divisive for some — perhaps dozens, perhaps most of humanity…I don’t have a gauge to measure such a thing. I hope he adjusts his behavior going forward, as I believe he could be a more effective exponent for liberty if he adjusts and grows. However, the Garden Party of politics does entail not pleasing everyone. So far, no one has pulled that trick off, and I see no evidence that anyone will.

  39. Hmmm ...

    “WHEREAS, Mr. **** openly admires at least one former elected official from another political party whose policies were often contrary to the Libertarian Party Platform and Statement of Principles, who was never a member of the Libertarian Party, and …
    ; and

    “WHEREAS, Mr. **** has repeatedly identified with said former elected official in the media and upheld him as representing one type of libertarian

    *
    *
    *
    *
    *

    … damn, no more praise for Mr. Jefferson …

  40. Daniel Wiener

    I’m not sure why people are trying to turn this into a controversy, or into some kind of pro-Wayne Root versus anti-Wayne Root conspiracy battle. This was not a controversial resolution. Indeed, the only dispute was whether to call it a “mother and apple pie” resolution (my description) or a “chocolate” resolution (which others suggested, and I had some sympathy for).

    I (and most members of the LNC) voted for the amendment because we thought it improved the wording and better expressed the meaning and intent of the resolution. The resolution then passed unanimously. End of story.

  41. Jill Pyeatt

    Since you don’t see much of a difference between the two resolutions, Dan, perhaps the committee can consider going back to the original wording as a tribute to Mr Nolan. It seems to me that you might be able to do that through email.

  42. Robert Capozzi

    dw, yes, but that does seem a bit of a disingenuous take. We don’t know for sure what motivated Nolan to draft the resolution, but it does seem very likely that he did it in response the FL LP’s call for Root’s ouster.

    The resolution had intent behind it. I seem to recall Nolan posting here on IPR that FL had gone too far, but that he didn’t appreciate some of the statements Root made in that recent Vegas magazine article, as well as many past ones.

    My take is the resolution was a non-specific, soft censure of Root’s behavior. I have ambivalence personally whether even that was warranted, but I think that Nolan’s resolution brilliantly disarmed a ticking bomb of intra-party, counter-productive intrigue.

    My hope is that as Root hones his craft, he learns to increasingly meet his objectives while at the same time not alienating/inflaming his L detractors. Tightrope? Yes. Easy? No. Not to be done without a net!

  43. Gene Trosper

    Jesus. And you people wonder why you can barely elect someone dogcatcher? Now people are arguing over a resolution after the author has passed on.

    Let it rest.

  44. Horrifiedathepossibilities

    My comment above @ 34 was meant as a joke, but I see this morning it doesn’t seem very funny. I apologize.

  45. Jill Pyeatt

    Okay, this is turning into a bigger deal than it needs to. What Tom Blanton says @ 42 is true: complaints about Root are generally very well articulated. He insults half our party, and half our potential membership by insulting the left. Does this have to be part of his schtick? Out of respect for other activists, why doesn’t he stop doing it?

    Just think how effective he’d be if he’d stop alienating people!

  46. MP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    To: Subject: Greetings!

    Greetings! I am a Nott Libertarian, registered to vote with the Free and Equal and proclaiming to be Free Parliamentary.

    I am inviting you and/or names who represent you, to a presidential/vice presidential campaign for the U.S. of America 2012 national elections.

    We shall elect one president, one vice president as #1 and #2, and we shall also elect #s 3 through 100, with plenty of consecutively ranked names as back-ups. Though I prefer 1000 names, our current rules guide us to 100 names.

    This isn’t for everyone. But those who can pat their head and rub their stomach simultaneously are the types who excel.

    We start by practicing in 2011. But your name (or anonymous) must be on our ballot, for you to win. To win, that means you get one of the 100 votes that elect our executives and rules.

    It is possible for you to win 1% as a write-in, but it could be more difficult as a write in name.

    Therefore, you should self nominate your name now.

    We are nominating names now for the Central California Parliament, and we already have one name nominated; David R. Henderson [Libertarian], professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School, in Monterey County, California. He was nominated by Secretary Jane Heider [Libertarian], a very kind person who is married to our national Economics Minister Lawrence Samnuels [Libertarian], who is also very kind.

    Our system attracts good people like MP Aaron Starr [Libertarian], Prime Minister Mary J. Ruwart [Libertarian] and Central California Prime Ministers Don Grundmann [Constitution] and Chelene Nightingale [Constitution].

    Single winner district power grabbing egotists are not attracted by our teams of one hundred.

    I think we can build around our 4th of July BBQ in Monterey and it is not imperative that you attend to win. Again, it helps to have your name on our team though.

    Thank you for your consideration. And again, our condolences to the friends and family of David Nolan.

    Many of our members, both conservative, liberal, Constitutionalists, Environmentalists, and people of all types are in favor of his writings. We have a way to work together with all his supporters, friends, and you, by ranking multiple ideas. We are a representative democracy, where the 100 elected members represent the voters.

    Then as quickly as the elected members can rank the ideas with consecutive numbers beginning with the number one, we can agree on many things, make decisions and work together as a single coordinated unit, to take down the roadblocks. And to find a third way where a larger majority can form that is bigger than either of the two parties which currently exist.

    In fact, the two current establishment parties would probably shrivel into a minute entity, under the system where every-one’s liberty for free speech in self categorization is promoted and protected.

    Inclusive of the Raging Moderate Extremists, Gambling Born Again Birth Christians, Garden and Free Parliamentary Parties.

    Thank you for your consideration, I look forward to report any new self nominations in our newsletters. Every little bit helps. We are like an army on Normandy Beach which is being decimated very rapidly. One minute is like one year, and we expect 2500 casualties within the next 24 hours. So we need to work fast to speed up our moment of victory, the “Battle of the Bulge”. At current pace, our vicotory is not expected until about 150,000 years in the future, and we are barely fifteen minutes past 0600 on D-Day, June 6th 1944.

    I apologize that we are war-like and that our ranked voting is like an automatic sub machine gun which fire hundreds of consecutively ranked numbers, but this is our only edge. And the time frame gives you a more realistic assessment of our situation.

    Thank you for your consideration and we eagerly look forward to your name’s (or anonymous) participation.

    Best,

    MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    Volunteer Vote Counter
    Central California Mini-state Parliament
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss11-6.htm
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    * * *
    http://www.usparliament.org/
    * * *
    Ad for GoNott Search!
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html
    *Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted*

  47. Gains

    What strikes me as horrible and ironic, is that the man who created one of the Party’s best devices for branding and identity marketing; a man who was accomplished in so many positive ways; a man who brought people together to create a party; that his last action would be to draft a resolution to smooth out some petty divisive bullsh!*

    That he was concentrating his time on internal matters rather than reaching further out in his educational efforts, makes me sad. That people would continue to bicker over this, make wild conspiracy accusations, and leverage our loss for advancing their “credibility” makes me feel disappointment.

  48. Alan Pyeatt

    Hmm @44: Are you comparing Reagan with Jefferson? Seriously?

    Because otherwise, I don’t get the point of your post.

  49. Michael H. Wilson

    re Daniel Wiener @45. Since I was foolish enough to kick off the comments here I think I should elaborate a bit.

    I did not intend to question the motives or actions of anyone. I do believe that the original read as if it was intended to encourage those who speak for the party in public to do so in a manner that reflects the platform. The watered down version does not do so. This is something of a management issue. Somewhat similar to a manager telling the employees to do one thing while he does another. Nothing sinister was intended.

    Lots of people in the LP need to develop a broader view of the ideas.

  50. Alan Pyeatt

    Dan @ 45: I agree that people have focused far too much on one single individual. Instead, we should focus on this question: How do we handle the situation when an individual’s views are different from that of the Party’s views?

    We had that problem long before Wayne Root showed up, and unless we find some satisfactory way to resolve it, we will have that problem long after he is gone.

  51. Alan Pyeatt

    Gains @ 52: I think you’re looking at this in an unnecessarily pessimistic way. Internal processes are always important. One of the positive things about Mr. Root’s presence is that he has brought an issue that hasn’t been resolved to the forefront, so we will have to deal with it. David Nolan saw an internal problem and he put together what he saw as a solution. Nothing sad about that. In fact, it’s a testament to his dedication.

    As for our continued “bickering,” the fact that we’re having this discussion shows that the issue still has relevance. The real question is not so much whether we have differences of opinion, it’s how we go about resolving our differences.

  52. Gains

    AP @55:”How do we handle the situation when an individual’s views are different from that of the Party’s views?”

    You out perform them or you lose. All your negative corrective maneuverings WILL result in you doing harm. Don’t believe me? Ask members of your local LP about their experiences with leadership following the rules of due process and the real effects of irresponsible use of positions of trust.

    But that is how they do it in Cali, right?

    @57

    I do not solve my differences with a spiked baseball bat. Matter of fact, when it comes down to it, when there is a schmuck overreaching my default behavior is to let them hang themselves. They have a much better chance of learning and correcting the behavior themselves if the blow back is real and not contrived, exacerbated, or conflated by their perceived rivals.

    If the issue is conflated, then rivals have turned a learning experience into a travesty of half truths, lies and bent perceptions where in no learning or growth can happen. Instead the target spends their time countering, combating and concentrating on the falsehoods and maneuverings.

  53. Alan Pyeatt

    So Gains, you think the resistance to one individual’s attempts to “re-create” the LP are contrived, and not real?

    Wow. I guess we’ll just have to disagree on that.

  54. Robert Capozzi

    ap, the contrivance is that, to my knowledge, Root has not said that left Ls are not L, while the very real attacks on Root are saying HE’s not L and HE should be removed from the LNC and LNCC.

    I would like to, in a sense, “re-create” the LP, too. Anyone who wishes any change to the LP wants to “re-create” it.

    If Root had taken off the gloves and said, “Any LP member who doesn’t agree with me that we should tack right should leave the party or be thrown out of leadership,” at least there would be symmetry. FL LP’s ex comm DID take the gloves off by calling for Root’s ouster. That’s asymmetrical and IMO disproportionate.

  55. Hmmm ...

    @53

    No. I’m not comparing Reagan and Jefferson.

    I’m merely pointing out that your attack on Root for saying Reagan was a libertarian could be used with your own words against those who have often pointed to Jefferson as a libertarian … perhaps even yourself.

    I deleted Mr. Root’s name and the rest of the words are your own.

    You aren’t the first to have been hoist with a petard of his own creation.

  56. Gains

    AP @59:

    You and I both believe strongly what Root’s motivations are and they are not good for wither of us nor most of the libertarians we work with. BUT suspicion is not proof.

    There is nothing nefarious about someone trying to move something they are a part of in a direction they want to go.

    The fact that it is not where you or I want to go is reason for us to endeavor to move the party in a different, better direction with our own good works NOT to wage war on our nominal allies.

    The fact that Root states that he wants to remake the party with less “liberalism” could be used as evidence in considering a real breach of trust later. Were Root to be caught doing something that actually prohibited social issue oriented Libertarians from joining the party, it could be used to strongly illustrate motive and to make obvious a clear and present danger.

    This newspaper article was not that damning act nor was it a specific breach of trust. It was someone whom you do not like, getting more attention for their (disappointing) endeavors than you or I have been able to manage with our current tactics.

    To conflate it, to make it worse than it really is, to try and solve the “problem” by redefining it into an accentuated half-truth, renders it less potent when a real issue, should it arise (and I think both you and I think it will) may be dealt with.

    I think that in the end, this crap is going to strengthen Root if it is harped on further. To try and attach Mr. Nolan’s final memory to it not only seems a little sick; not only does it feel like the least of those things that he should be remembered for; it seems like a recipe for failure for the radical and left leaning members of our coalition and perhaps the coalition as a whole.

  57. S

    Once this purging business starts, “who’s next”.
    There won’t be anyone left in the room but a handful of people. The party will be dead and where will the candidates go? The public at large and media will forget us. We will go to the dustbin of history. But, there will be plenty of libertarian books in the library, collecting dust.

  58. Hmmm ...

    You see Mr. Pyeatt, I don’t think Jefferson was libertarian enough. So, those who call themselves Jefferson Libertarians, or support him or sing songs about him should be kicked out of their LP leadership positions ….

    right?

  59. Alan Pyeatt

    Well, I knew that people would nitpick my reasoning and get off track instead of focusing on the real issue of how we handle dissent in a positive way. Maybe that’s why so many people post on IPR anonymously, instead of using their real names.

    First of all, Florida called for Root’s removal from office. (I hear the Idaho LP just adopted a similar resolution, but I haven’t seen it yet.) My proposed resolution does no such thing. It points out a problem and a solution. It also affirms our support of diversity in thought, even for Wayne Root.

    The proposed resolution also affirms that the development of the LP’s principles (as expressed in the Statement of Principles) is a joint effort. It wasn’t drawn up on a cocktail napkin last night, it was developed over several centuries by some of the greatest thinkers in history. And of course any LP member has a right to try to change those principles, but we have an established procedure for doing that. The correct procedure is to convince enough people that your proposed revisions are desirable, have those people show up at a National Convention, and vote in the new principles. Positioning yourself as a “de facto spokesman” and proclaiming a neo-Libertarian philosophy is not the correct procedure.

    Likewise, I have the right to resist those revisions, and what I consider to be misrepresentation of our Party, whether intentional or unintentional, through the Parliamentary procedures in our Bylaws. That is what I am attempting to do, and that is what I believe the delegates who elected me want me to do. If I am wrong, they can vote me out at the end of my term, as David Crockett’s constituents did to him.

    Gains @ 62, your inference that I oppose Root’s actions because I’m jealous of his press attention is just plain wrong. I already stated @ 33 that this was not the case. If you have some evidence to the contrary, please present it. Otherwise, people need to stop making this unsupported accusation. Repeating it does not make it true.

    “Accentuated half-truth”? No, I identified a problem, gave examples, and proposed a solution. Period. And no, it is not “sick” to point out that David Nolan was also trying to improve the internal workings of our Party. Nice attempt to “poison the well,” though.

    S @ 63, I assume your post was not directed at me, since I have not advocated purging anyone here. In fact, I stated @ 33 that “even though I disagree with many of Mr. Root’s positions, I think he has every right to share his personal opinions. In fact, I would NOT vote to remove him from the LNC or the LNCC as the Florida LP has done. ”

    Hmmm @ 64, you’ve missed the point. Whether Jefferson or any of the other individuals listed were libertarians is not the point. The point is that all of those people contributed to the libertarian philosophy. Let’s use the economist Richard Cantillon as an analogy. Even though he was not part of the Austrian school of economics, his theoretical developments most definitely contributed to the Austrian school. As far as kicking Mr. Root out of his leadership positions, I can’t tell if you missed my post @ 33 or if you’re intentionally trying to make a strawman argument.

    There sure seem to be a lot of anonymous posters who missed the point that I have NOT called for Mr. Root to be removed from office. THAT might make you go “Hmmm…” Maybe Mr. Root doesn’t have as much support as it seems.

  60. Thomas L. Knapp

    Whether or not Root is an “L” is a related, but different question from whether or not Root represents the LP a) accurately and b) well.

    There’s certainly h to be said for the “if you don’t like him, out-compete him” school of thought, but there’s also a point at which that becomes inapplicable — such as the point at which his representations of himself as “the leader” of the LP are a) at least bordering on fraudulent, and b) enabled in that characteristic by the machinations of an insular party clique.

    For example, as when he failed of election to the chairmanship of the Libertarian National Committee, and that clique bought him the chairmanship of a similarly named committee, and he then publicly postured that chairmanship as the equivalent of the chairmanships of the GOP and Democratic counterparts to the LNC rather than the LNCC.

  61. Robert Capozzi

    ap65: The proposed resolution also affirms that the development of the LP’s principles (as expressed in the Statement of Principles) is a joint effort. It wasn’t drawn up on a cocktail napkin last night, it was developed over several centuries by some of the greatest thinkers in history. And of course any LP member has a right to try to change those principles, but we have an established procedure for doing that.

    me: I’d not realized that John Locke used the phrase “cult of the omnipotent state”!

    I’m sorry, but your characterization is not credible. Some young guys (maybe later some gals) angry at Nixon wrote the SoP. They were inspired, perhaps, by their interpretation of centuries of thinkers. To say the SoP “was developed over several centuries by some of the greatest thinkers in history” is simply not accurate. Care to rephrase?

    Approx. 3/4s of the Portland convention attempted to take some of the most bracing language out of the SoP. In their youthful exuberance, the 20 year olds placed a booby-trap on their “masterstroke,” requiring a 7/8ths vote in convention to make adjustments. Many would view your not mentioning that highly relevant fact as a sin of omission. (Me, I don’t do the sin thing, but I find your post misleading.)

  62. paulie

    Thanks to Kevin for introducing this, it was an unexpected and welcome surprise. I hope everyone in the LP takes David’s idea in this resolution to heart.

    Sorry I have not been able to read everyone’s comments.

    Unfortunately, while I was on the long trip up here to a new job, I found out David passed away.

    Really bummed about that. See

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/11/david-f-nolan-1943-2010/comment-page-2/#comment-282976

    Not much internet access here, there’s a computer in the lobby but just one for the whole motel, and the college here no longer has internet for non-students (they did last time I was here).

    Would appreciate hearing from all the people I correspond with here at 415-690-6352.

    Sorry, I will not be reading most comments or posting articles at IPR for an unknown length of time.

    Hope everyone else keeps the conversation going.

    As David realized almost exactly 40 years ago, our country and world sorely needs alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans and to what most people think of as the political left and political right.

    Now more than ever.

  63. reality check

    Liberalism = Communism Nazism, TSA is one example. Because of the liberals. The TSA is in place. Like it or not.

  64. MP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    David Nolan [Libertarian] was trying to bring conservatives and liberals into the Libertarian Party which is good. But US candidates are free to use any word to self-categorize, and Libertarians happen to not make up 100% of the candidates.

    So take the concept a bit further to helping all people, liberal or conservative, no matter how they wish to self-categorize.

    It’s a free market competition of ideas to attract voters while the voter is within the voting booth.

    The voter doesn’t always know everything about the candidates on the ballot, so the party name/category helps to inform the voter.

    Re; Root, what I perceive as a problem with the strategy of Wayne Root [Reagan Libertarian] is his attacks on Obama, which is like free publicity for Barak Obama [Democratic].

    Were he to promote all parties and independents working together, he would be more helpful to the good of the all.

    I have been in communication with the establishment press, several dozen reporter contacts have been on The USA Parliament, Inc.’s email list for many years.

    IMO, the news reporters were waiting on news about where third parties and independents are working together as a team for the good of the all. Not continually attacking each other.

    2010 was a big letdown for the establishment media, as well as for all parties and independents involved.

    That’s because while The USA Parliament, Inc. functions as a tool for many diverse individuals to work together, in reality the information about the operation wasn’t readily available to the candidates themselves who had accessed California state’s election ballot.

    So the night when the primary ended, and the final 42 ballot qualified candidates were known; all candidates from the six parties, for the seven state-wide offices for partisan offices (not including US Senate, a national office), there was a break down from the get-go.

    Is that your strategy? A selfish, purposeful, breakdown in communication, attacks on your foes and allies, and not coordinating for the good of all voters?

    Or do we wish to see a coordinated approach, where all parties and independents are working together as we approach the bunker from the left, right and center?

    D-Day is currently underway, and we have the tool. It has been and still is functioning at this moment.

    But do you choose to stall and delay, again and again, thus assuring that victory for the All Party System is delayed because you did not engage this tool; a stack of ballots cast as proof?

    This stack that I speak of, can be observed by you for your verification and validation. But when individuals persist in their desire to dictate, instead of working as a team of 100 of equal units, each with the liberty to self-categorize as they wish, this causes strife and self destruction.

    There is no more perfect voting system than pure proportional representation, 100 names elected with 1% of the votes each (technically it’s 1/101ths or .99%, plus one vote each).

    The mathematical equalition hasn’t been improved since the mid 1800s.

    By practicing censorship of individuals you may think you have control, but actually you hurt the team at-large when even 1% of the 100 is excluded.

    It’s still 0600 hours on Normandy Beach on June 6th, 1944, and our numbers are only beginning to reach shore. Every second is important and we need your coordination immediately…as in yesterday!

    Your delays are actually harmful to the good of the all.
    * * *
    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    * * *
    Ad for the GoNott Search Team!
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html
    *Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted*

  65. George Phillies

    @65

    Your understanding of the Idaho state party appears to be correct. The resolution as forwarded to me is:

    A RESOLUTION

    TO REMOVE AND REPLACE WAYNE ALLYN ROOT FROM THE LIBERTARIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND THE LIBERTARIAN NATIONAL CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE.

    WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party of Idaho Executive Committee is committed to the platform of the Libertarian Party; and

    WHEREAS, Libertarian National Congressional Committee Chairman and LNC at Large Member, Wayne Allyn Root, made the undisputed quote, “I’m kind of re-creating libertarianism. I’m just not going to follow the traditional roots. I’m a Ronald Reagan libertarian. Traditional libertarianism mixes in too many things that are liberal.” in the November 11-17, 2010 issue of weekly magazine Vegas Seven; and

    WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party of Idaho Executive Committee finds Mr. Root’s comments above will confuse the general public as to what the Libertarian Party’s official positions are; and

    WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party of Idaho Executive Committee finds Mr. Root’s comments highly offensive and in direct contrast to the Libertarian Party’s message and platform; and

    WHEREAS, Mr. Root has frequently made similar and consistent comments to the above noted; and

    WHEREAS, Mr. Root’s comments have clearly illustrated that he is philosophically opposed to essential first-principles of the Libertarian Party, or if not so opposed, shows a serious lack of understanding which makes his position of leadership in the LNC and LNCC harmful to the Libertarian Party; and

    WHEREAS, Mr. Root has supported Republican candidates for public office while in his position on the Libertarian National Congressional Committee

    NOW THEREFORE

    BE IT RESOLVED by the Libertarian Party of Idaho, THAT the Libertarian Party of Idaho fully repudiates Mr. Root’s comments as described above and strongly feels Mr. Root should be removed from his position in any official capacity with the Libertarian National Committee, inclusive of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee, and replaced. We would encourage Mr. Root to examine our basic moral opposition to conservatism and any other forms of initiated force, and insist that he remain ineligible for leadership until such time as he demonstrates a working knowledge of, and embraces the philosophical practice of, the non-aggression principal.

  66. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Liberalism = Communism Nazism, TSA is one example. Because of the liberals. The TSA is in place. Like it or not.”

    The TSA was created by a Republican US House of Representatives and a US Senate split 49-49 between Republicans and Democrats (and a Republican VP presiding), and was signed into law by a Republican president.

  67. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @67,

    Yes, the early organizers of the Libertarian Party — its original “owners” — placed some highly restrictive covenants on it prior to passing it along.

    At the time they did that, it was their prerogative to do that, just as, and for the same reasons as, it’s my prerogative to sell an acre of land to someone only on the condition that they don’t put a rusty trailer home with no skirting on it.

    You’re correct that libertarianism is not narrowly or restrictively defined by/for everyone.

    The foundational doctrines of the LP, however, are so defined.

    Those who don’t like it should seek or invent another product which confirms to their desires instead of constantly bellyaching about this one. Neither its doctrines nor the high barrier to amending those doctrines is or ever has been a secret.

  68. Alan Pyeatt

    Robert @ 67: No, I don’t care to re-phrase. Libertarian principles have been developed over several centuries, and the Statement of Principles is the LP’s embodiment of those principles in written form. If you think the statement can be improved, fine. We have a process for doing that. And if you don’t like the bylaws that were adopted in Portland, we have a way to change them, too.

    As for John Locke, it makes no sense to say that my logic is wrong because he never used the phrase “cult of the omnipotent state.”

  69. Michael H. Wilson

    Question if I may. Mr. Root describes himself as a Reagan Libertarian. Well why? What is so great about Reagan or am I reading the wrong history books? Yes he had a great P.R. team, but that seems to be about all.

  70. Robert Capozzi

    tk72: Those who don’t like it should seek or invent another product which confirms to their desires instead of constantly bellyaching about this one. Neither its doctrines nor the high barrier to amending those doctrines is or ever has been a secret.

    me: From a highly technical, legalistic perspective, I take your point. Whether there was fraud, a case could be made, but I’d not want to make it. Whether I can live with the SoP, I do, despite its sub-optimal phraseology. Whether I might read it differently than an abolitionist, I likely do. Whether I have a party that generally tracks with the LP better than the LP, I certainly have no better options. Whether I have the resources to start one that more closely aligns with my (and probably millions more people’s) values, I surely don’t. You tried, and I applaud the effort, but as you’ve left it, it apparently didn’t work out too well for you. Whether many Ls were unaware of the 7/8ths trap when they signed up, my guess is most don’t, but pressing a fraud case seems not worth the effort and is probably not actionable.

    ap73, IF the SoP is effectively invioble because it builds on centuries of thought, I challenge the premise. Locke, for ex., is claimed by conservatives and some liberals as in their tradition. I agree there’s a L tradition — that a thought stream was honed over time. I find the idea that that thought stream was frozen by a few people and made (effectively) unassailable in 1971 strikes me as highly grandiose. Apparently we disagree on the matter…fair enough.

    We’re living with that grandiosity, and most Ls are probably not fully aware of the full, millstone-like implications of the SoP. Thus far, the Bible — which some allege to be the word of God! — is more easily adjusted than the SoP.

    I’d think putative “individualists” would find that notion itself highly offensive, actually. The gall!

    Yet, we soldier on.

    And, no, it’s not a matter of “logic” that you seem to use Locke as justification for the existence of this “SoP” and some of its more challenging terms, like “cult of the omnipotent State.” It’s, rather, a question reasonable judgment. I don’t dispute that there’s OVERLAP between Locke’s thinking and the young-dudes-in-the-early-70s’s thinking. Just as they didn’t agree with everything Locke wrote, I don’t agree with everything they OR Locke wrote. Ah, such is life!

    I am, however, as I said, living with it, feeling very weighed down, in truth, by it.

  71. Robert Capozzi

    Idaho’s resolution as reported by GP: …the non-aggression principal.

    me: At the risk of sounding like a nitpicker or a (typo-machine) hypocrite, they might consider a spell checker prior to launching official resolutions…

  72. @67 Correction

    Liberals = nazism, and you mentioned Republicans. How about. RINO’s who really are Liberals using the Republicans name that belongs with the Dumcraps and Greens who are in the same catagory..

  73. If Wayne Root goes

    This party has come further than it ever has been, If Wayne Root goes from this party, you can kiss this party good-by. This party should have been in capital hill considering we have things like TSA happening here in this country. You people have missed the boat. If you lose Wayne, this party will be left behind even further than it ever has before. Don’t believe me. Find out for yourselves.

  74. George Phillies

    @66

    The LNC and LNCC do have legal parity, so far as I can tell from Federal regulation.

    There appears to be some legislation without thought here, on the part of Congress, the opposite of progress.

  75. @80

    You may not have much of a party anyways if I see what coming. TSA is only the beginning. The LP may cease to exist.

  76. Alan Pyeatt

    Robert @ 76: “I find the idea that that thought stream was frozen by a few people and made (effectively) unassailable in 1971 strikes me as highly grandiose.” I have no idea how you can read my posts and conclude that I said anything remotely close to that.

    And as for Locke, contribution =/= justification. You’re really reaching here. Maybe it’s time to just let it go.

  77. Tom Blanton

    This party has come further than it ever has been, If Wayne Root goes from this party, you can kiss this party good-by.

    The laughs keep on coming.

    I suppose the donors who have contributed millions of dollars because of Root will want their donations returned, the thousands of people who joined the LP because of Root will quit, and the hundreds of candidates that were elected this month because of Root will be booted from office if “Wayne Root goes from this party”.

    Maybe if the LP erected a gold plated 900 foot statue of Root in Vegas, he would not go from this party.

  78. Jill Pyeatt

    If Wayne @ 79: Tell me again what Root’s accomplished. Is our membership way up? Contributions up? Is the party moving toward the common goal of non-aggression and individual liberties?

    I’m afraid that the party will cease to exist if Wayne stays. But then there’s a third option: Wayne can stay, continue what he’s doing, but stop DELIBERATELY INSULTING THE LEFT. This is behavior he does not have to engage in, yet inexplicitly continues to.

  79. Michael H. Wilson

    Jill this is confusing the issue. Here I am trying to find out what a Reagan Libertarian is. After all Reagan raised taxes about 12 times and wanted Volker to expand the money supply. Can we do one thing at a time? Some of these sock puppet guys like” if Wayne goes” @ 79 aren’t capable of multi-tasking. let alone answering a straight question. 😉

  80. Tom Blanton

    The reason Root deliberately insults the left is because he is a typical low-rent right-winger seeking to rouse the right-wing rabble. Much of the right has no consistent ideology other than being against the left. The same can be said of much of the left. We can look at the general sameness of Obama and Bush and see that there is little substantive difference in principles. Rehashing right-wing talk radio talking points and bashing liberals is what Root uses to identify with his targeted audience. It’s basically all he knows.

    Root also insults the intelligence of any principled person, left or right, outside the libertarian movement and he insults the intelligence of most libertarians, both inside the LP and otherwise.

    His base within the LP is much like the cultish fans Neal Boortz had within the LP. Lots of boastful and arrogant talk about all the wonderful things their cult leader would do for the LP with no substance.

    At the end of the day, there were fewer members in the LP overall and more members who were merely disgruntled right-wingers that enjoy lashing out at libertarians, RINOs, and people they think are leftists.

    Frustrated that they can’t win elections, these neolibertarian nit wits assume it is libertarianism itself that prevents them from electing what they often call “true conservatives” as libertarian office holders. Hence, they seek to remake libertarianism into some type of talk radio conservatism.

    The LP is pretty much doomed as an organization that can promote any sort of recognizable form of libertarianism effectively.

    However, if you have a twisted sense of humor, there are plenty of laughs to be had under the LP banner – especially at IPR.

  81. Gains

    AP @65:”your inference that I oppose Root’s actions because I’m jealous of his press attention is just plain wrong. I already stated @ 33 that this was not the case. If you have some evidence to the contrary, please present it. Otherwise, people need to stop making this unsupported accusation. Repeating it does not make it true.”

    I made no such inference. I talked about why attacking is a weak move. A better move is to out perform Root in people.

  82. Robert Capozzi

    AP83: I have no idea how you can read my posts and conclude that I said anything remotely close to that.

    me: Easily, when one sees that a tiny number of folks in the early 70s deigned it appropriate to include the 7/8ths protection. More so, when one closely reads the language in the SoP. It’s false, for ex., to refer to something non-existent, i.e., “the cult of the omnipotent state.” There is no cult — no blind worshipers — and I can’t say I know anyone who wants an omnipotent — all powerful — state. Larger and more intrusive, yes. Omnipotent, no.

    As for letting go, generally good counsel, thanks. The same could be said to the Root-a-phobes. However, there are times to directly address a fundamental error from which all other dysfunction springs. That radical notion was illustrated brilliantly in the film INCEPTION. Fix (and forgive!) a fundamental mis-perception and the present fixes itself.

    Strike the root and all that!

    Clinging to and defending that error, and taking — in effect — hostages in the process, only serves to perpetuate the cycle of dysfunction.

    Now seems an excellent time to address the fundamental flaw. Undo that flaw, and move forward, is my strong suggestion.

  83. Tom Blanton

    Out perform Root in what respect?

    In grossly misrepresenting general libertarian principles?

    In offending certain segments of the population?

    In creating divisiveness within the LP?

    In promoting bigotry?

    In recruiting warmongering crackers that think Bush was a great President but Obama is a Marxist from Kenya?

    In making wild claims and promising unprecedented success and not delivering?

    In terms of shameless self-promotion and general hucksterism?

    Root is a tough act to out perform in these areas. I’m not sure it can be done. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to. Most of all, I don’t understand why anyone would want someone claiming to represent them to do so.

    But as Root is fully aware, there’s a sucker born every minute.

  84. Tom Blanton

    I’m pretty sure that both Bush and Obama favor an omnipotent state. This seems to be implicit in the unitary executive theory of presidential power. Many of their followers do, in fact, appear to be members of a cult that blindly follow their leaders and condone all types of outrageous behavior.

    When the leader of the “sole super power” claims the authority to perform extrajudicial assassinations of American citizens merely suspected of some undefined crime against the state, it just doesn’t get much more omnipotent than that.

  85. Robert Capozzi

    tb95, interesting take. I would take “omnipotent” to mean “all powerful,” not that wrangling over the powers that the State has, as is the case with the “unitary executive power” addresses, a theory I generally disagree with, btw.

    And, yes, ordering assassinations would be “omnipotent” over ONE person, as is the use of the death penalty, for ex.

    So, yes, I might buy that there’s a “cult” who supports the death penalty. If that’s what that clause means, then I support it. But I don’t buy it. I and I suspect fair-minded readers would take it to mean government control of ALL aspects of ALL people’s lives…something beyond even Orwell’s 1984 regime. That dystopia no one that I’m aware of supports. Even if there are outliers who do, a conscious “cult” doesn’t exist to my knowledge. All ears here if there is one.

    Hospers’s words may have sounded neat to the small group of founders, most/all of whom were Randians and predisposed to wild and paranoid terminology, or perhaps — charitably — hyperbolic overstatement for effect. Frankly, the words sounded right-on to me in 1980. I’m sharing that they definitely no longer do, and odds are high that many — perhaps millions — who resonate with the ideas of liberty do not see a “cult,” which undermines the LP’s credibility with large subsets of the population.

    If we want to speak in code amongst ourselves, carry on.

  86. Thomas L. Knapp

    “It’s false, for ex., to refer to something non-existent, i.e., ‘the cult of the omnipotent state.’ There is no cult — no blind worshipers — and I can’t say I know anyone who wants an omnipotent — all powerful — state. Larger and more intrusive, yes. Omnipotent, no.”

    [T]he British parliament had, hath, and of right ought to have all power and authority to legislate for the colonies in all cases whatsoever. — Declaratory Act, 1766

    Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato (Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state). — motto of Mussolini’s Partito Nazionale Fascista

    Are you serious? Are you serious? — response of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to the question “where specifically the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health mandate?”

  87. Robert Capozzi

    Hmm, thanks for the Mussolini quote. The other two don’t point to an omnipotent state IMO, but Benito’s does!

    Is there a “cult” these days that believes the dead dictator’s words?

  88. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    If you don’t regard a state empowered “in all cases whatsoever” and unrestrained by any constitutional limitations as “omnipotent,” then I’d say your definition of “omnipotent” is rather narrow and exclusive.

    In any case, here’s the thing:

    “Cult of the Omnipotent State” did not just magically appear out of some vacuum. Like most LP verbiage, it has historical context.

    When Nolan called for formation of a Libertarian Party, he named three specific groups which comprised the existing libertarian movement and which he hope to mobilize behind a new party: “Randists, Miseists, and elements of the old ‘radical right …'”

    The “cult of the omnipotent state” is just as clearly a reference to Ludwig von Mises’s Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War as the ‘initiation of force” language in the pledge was a reference to Ayn Rand.

    The language fits the purpose of the party as its founders intended that purpose.

    I suppose those founders could have handed the party down to those who followed them without encumbrances, but they felt strongly enough on the point of retaining “cult of the omnipotent state” and such that they decided to put up a high barrier to dumping it.

    That may or may not be a good thing, but it doesn’t appear to have been especially damaging. I’ve never, ever, ever encountered an individual who’s said “I won’t join the LP because it has ‘cult of the omnipotent state’ in its statement of principles.” 100% of the people I’ve met who waste time pissing and moaning about that language are people who joined, and have for the most part remained in, the LP. The whole thing is probably less important, as a practical matter, than the placement of commas in the bylaws.

  89. Gene Trosper

    Question: has anyone from the “left” or radical side of the LP sat down with Wayne and discussed differences with him? I’m of the mind that such a summit hasn’t happened (I would hope I’m wrong) and that both camps basically keep to themselves, satisfied with generally annoying and prodding each other.

    Why does Wayne insist on “insulting” those of the leftist persuasion? From my viewpoint alone, it could be simply due to the shitty reception he recieved from left Libertarians back when he first announced his presidency campaign. Psychologically, people don’t like admitting errors in thought or deed, so perhaps his continual dissing of the left is merely an emotional reaction. Just a wild guess on my part.

    I’ve never met Wayne, never talked with him, and wasn’t a delegate for him. Honestly, the whole ongoing Root controversy didn’t interest me a whole lot, just writing it off as part of the perpetual LP pissing match it seems intent on.

    Now that I’ve become a “free agent”, no longer being an LP member/activist, and having changed my registration to “independent”, I have no direct interest in the factional wars and am taking no sides. However, I *am* interested in having a choice in November 2012, therefore, whoever the LP nominates as its candidate *does* interest me. If Root runs for nomination and wins said nomination, then I’d like to ensure he has full support from your party and is a candidate that doesn’t require me to hold my nose on election day.

    If Wayne would have me, I’d be happy to sit down with him and discuss this entire situation. I’d be more than happy to make the 4.5 hour drive from my home to Las Vegas and I’d be more than happy to present a handful of the main points of centention left Libertarians have, since most LPer’s I know and are friends with come from the left.

  90. Sane LP member

    Gene # 101 you are so correct. From Day # 1, Mr. Root has been bashed, insulted and his family involved with confrontations . He’s not perfect and does come from the Right, but I know people that have sat down with him and had productive one-on-one coversations with him. Why he stays in this nuthouse, is beyond me.
    From a so-called party that I thought was more “open tent” to ideas and dialogue, not the “purity test”. As a Libertarian, I reject the “purity test” as much as I do being touched by a TSA agent.

  91. Robert Capozzi

    tk100: …then I’d say your definition of “omnipotent” is rather narrow and exclusive.

    me: Great discussion! Thanks. Yes, it is the narrow understanding of the word. My critique with the SoP is mostly about the 7/8ths bar, followed by “cult,” followed distantly by “omnipotent.”

    tk: “Cult of the Omnipotent State” did not just magically appear out of some vacuum. Like most LP verbiage, it has historical context.

    me: Yes, I agree, although the “cult” word seemed to’ve come from Hospers’s mind, although I seem to recall Rand using it in a different context. (Of course, Rand was and is often accused of running a cult herself!)

    tk: When Nolan called for formation of a Libertarian Party, he named three specific groups which comprised the existing libertarian movement and which he hope to mobilize behind a new party: “Randists, Miseists, and elements of the old ‘radical right …’”

    me: Yes, and I am grateful for his efforts. If I were in his shoes and I was in my 20s, I’d probably have been a signatory to those words. I might have even agreed that 7/8ths was an appropriate bar, especially since I was a deontological absolutist in my younger years, so I might have convinced myself that that clause and the entire SoP was a masterpiece. Today, I’d say I made a mistake back then, one of many I’ve made.

    tk: The language fits the purpose of the party as its founders intended that purpose.

    me: Yes, I agree. The 7/8ths requirement probably did, too, although a REAL absolutist might take the view that the SoP was unamendable!

    tk: That may or may not be a good thing, but it doesn’t appear to have been especially damaging.

    me: In isolation, I’d agree. If “cult” were dropped, for ex., I doubt the LP’d be any further along today, basically stuck in the mud on the fringes of American politics. What the SoP DOES do is it allows the deontological absolutists in the LP to use the SoP (and allied Randian and Rothbardian thought) to isolate and otherwise stigmatize non-deontological absolutists as somehow “unprincipled.” That, IMO, is the nub of the problem. Unfortunately, some non-abolitionist Ls also do what I consider to be dysfunctional things, such as using parliamentary maneuvering and right-wing footsie playing. I have some tolerance for all these tactics, but I surely don’t see any of it advancing the cause of liberty…so I comment on IPR!

  92. Thomas M. Sipos

    Sane LP: “As a Libertarian, I reject the “purity test” as much as I do being touched by a TSA agent.”

    I don’t know of any libertarian who advocates a “purity test.”

    Milnes does, sort of, but he’s not a libertarian. That’s why he’s seeking a libertarian woman “running mate” to “balance” his PLAS ticket. Milnes sees himself as the “progressive half.”

    “Purist” is a straw man. Everyone’s always pontificating about how they’re “so sick of all these purists.” It’s nice to argue against something that has no defenders.

    The divide is not between anarcho-purists vs. Big Tent libertarians.

    The divide is between anarchists, minarchists, incrementalists, and many other types of libertarians on one side — vs. Neocons/Statist Lites/Republican Lites on the other.

    Libertarianism is a Big Tent. That does not mean that Obama or Palin — or Root — qualify.

  93. Robert Capozzi

    tms: The divide is not between anarcho-purists vs. Big Tent libertarians. The divide is between anarchists, minarchists, incrementalists, and many other types of libertarians on one side — vs. Neocons/Statist Lites/Republican Lites on the other.

    me: Hmm, I can see your point, especially using your anti-war prism. If we need to categorize divides, there probably are most than the 2 you ID. Any 2 people will have some form of a divide. My guess is SCM have divides; Phillies/Hawkridge probably disagree now and then; Ruwart/Wrights likely have some awesome disagreements. Rothbard/Evers had a HUGE falling out….

    Focusing on these areas of divide to the exclusion of finding areas of A-greement doesn’t seem especially productive to me.

    ADR, but your drumbeat of “Root is a neocon huckster” strikes me, at least, as a classic demonization technique. Protesting too much has long been identified as an ineffective tactic.

    Consider adopting the assumption that Root is doing the best he can and that he sometimes makes mistakes or that sometimes you disagree with him. Give it a try, if only for a moment.

    These constant personality assaults bore me. We can assess for ourselves what we think of Root’s positions, thank you very much.

  94. Gene Trosper

    @103 When I joined back in 1990, the LP seemed much more “open tent” and willing to engage in internal education than it does now.

    These days, the LP appears to my eyes as becoming increasingly Balkanized: constitutionalists, leftists, rightists, radicals, moderates, anarchists, minarchists, etc. What ever happened to just being ‘”libertarian”?

  95. Thomas M. Sipos

    Gene: “@105 Just curious: could Root EVER qualify?”

    ANYONE can qualify. Obama can qualify — if he came close enough to libertarianism in the positions he advocated and implemented.

    But Root isn’t even trying. He’s constantly telling everyone how great he is, and how fantastic he is for the LP — but beating your own drum, or amassing party titles, or using the word “libertarian” are not qualifications.

  96. Thomas M. Sipos

    “These days, the LP appears to my eyes as becoming increasingly Balkanized: constitutionalists, leftists, rightists, radicals, moderates, anarchists, minarchists, etc.”

    No, anarchists, constitutionalists, minarchists, radicals, incrementalists, and certain left and right libertarians, are all on the same side — and they know it.

    It’s only the statist lite/neocon party hacks with their Roberts Rules that are the problem.

  97. Robert Capozzi

    gt108: [T]he LP appears to my eyes as becoming increasingly Balkanized.

    me: Easiest explanation? The Internet. Anyone can pop off at any time about anything with equal ease.

    This makes the “narcissism of small differences” far easier to express, with no editor! Our inner-control-freak impulse is then free to run rampant.

    Never discount the human condition of wanting to make others “wrong” (and ourselves “right”) as a means of self-validation. We, myself sadly included, are addicted to this dysfunctional cycle.

    Or something.

  98. Michael H. Wilson

    G.T. @ 101 ask; “Question: has anyone from the “left” or radical side of the LP sat down with Wayne and discussed differences with him?”

    Not sure I fit, but I do take the civil liberties issue pretty seriously. I have tried to contact him through his website a couple of times. So far no reply. I have also sent material to him through those he communicates with. Again no direct reply.

  99. Gene Trosper

    @110 Absolutely agreed about Roberts Rules. I gave away my copies recently in order to exorcize my home of those demonic texts.

  100. Gene Trosper

    @111 I am sadly guilty at times as well. I can be a pretty passionate person at times and that definitely shows during my less-than-stellar moments. Still working on improving that situation.

  101. Gene Trosper

    @113 Wayne ignores Libertarians at his own peril, if indeed he is purposely ignoring them.

  102. Robert Capozzi

    gt, if we view Root as a politician of any skill, I seriously doubt he’s not at least familiar with some of his critic’s views. Surely you don’t expect him to reply to every L’s feedback. I’ve seen no evidence that he listens to mine, either, and I’m OK with that (though I admit I think he should!).

    The leaked LNC emails gives me a sense that he does hear the other side(s) to some extent. My guess is that he only has some much time to integrate and assess alternative takes on things. I also get the sense that he sincerely believes his view that tacking right is the way to go.

    My view, however, is he overplays that card to this own detriment. Ron Paul plays it a bit more effectively on another level.

  103. Alan Pyeatt

    Once again, Thomas Sipos understands and explains the situation very well.

    Several people have tried to talk to Wayne in a respectful way, but he’s not particularly open to re-evaluating his positions. I will give him credit for curbing some of the militarism he advocated in 2008. I think he realized that he would never be nominated to anything in the LP if he didn’t change that.

    It may be that some people haven’t been very diplomatic when speaking with him. OTOH, it was pretty arrogant of him to show up in 2008 asking for our presidential nomination, but obviously without knowing anything about our principles.

    MHW @88: You’ve heard the quip that Libertarians are pot-smoking Republicans? A “Reagan Libertarian” is a Republican on PCP.

  104. Michael H. Wilson

    Alan @ 118 I actually thought it was someone who skipped Galt’s big speech ( was it 60 pages?) in Atlas Shrugged.

    Maybe the read the Cliff Notes version of the book. 😉

  105. Gene Trosper

    @117 I’m sure he’s aware of some of his critics and that’s why I personally believe he may be poking his finger in their eyes just to spite them because of the manner in which he was initially treated (and continues to be treated) by some segments of the LP. I understand why the critics of Wayne say the things they do: they are very passionate in their beliefs, as am I. However, I deviate from them in thinking he’s the Devil Incarante or some “plant” by the GOP. From what I have heard, Wayne is a generous, dedicated family man, not the face of evil. A GOP plant? Doubtful, as the LP is no significant threat to their power base. Why should they bother? Certainly, he comes from a conservative point of view, but I’ve also known many LPer’s who came from the conservative camp as well….and the world kept turning, the birds kept chirping, and the flowers bloomed regardless.

  106. Jill Pyeatt

    What is it exactly that Wayne has accomplished? More members? More contributors? Positive movement toward our non-aggression principles, and self-government?

  107. Robert Capozzi

    jp122, good question. He should be credited with helping to resuscitate the LNCC, and its contributions to candidates, to be fair. Associating new members with his media work is difficult to prove on a 1:1 basis, but I’m sure you agree that that’s the nature of media work.

    Real political results are not on the list, as none of us has cracked that code as yet.

  108. Jill Pyeatt

    I’ll agree that he succeeded in raising some money for some candidates, which is indeed a positive move forward.

  109. Gains

    JP @122:

    What have you accomplished?

    What have I accomplished?

    What has Mary Ruart accomplished?

    I am not sure that I or Root or anyone else is in a great position to know. It is an excellent question to ask before you vote or not vote for someone, not a very fair question when he or she is under attack. It is what you call: A loaded question.

    Since you are seeking discipline or at least further action on a disciplinary track, wouldn’t it be wise to start applying a little due process to the prosecution?

  110. Jill Pyeatt

    Gains @ 122: Every day I ask what I’ve accomplished. If everything I accomplish is threatened and/or wiped out due to another’s actions, I’ll address that other person’s actions. If no middle ground is reached, then I’ll go elsewhere, where I can accomplish something.

    This is why I say the Libertarian Party itself is at risk. If too many activists decide to stop wasting their time, then The Libertarian Party will become the Republican-Lite Party that Root seems to be seeking.

    I know what you’re able to accomplish, Gains, and that’s actually admirable because I know you’ve had some challenges yourself. You also know that I have been accomplishing things for the party. My issue with Mr Root is to stop destroying what I’ve accomplished. Truly, I have no interest in destroying what he accomplishes. I don’t marginalize or mock the right. Asking for similar respect from him is more than reasonable.

    Also, can you point to where I’ve asked for discipline for Mr Root? I really haven’t. California’s resolution, which I voted for, simply asks that he be required to state which views are Root’s, and not consistent with the Libertarian platform. I really haven’t called for his removal from office like the Florida and Idaho resolutions do. I’m simply wanting some accountability.

  111. Robert Capozzi

    jp126, I hear you. Consider this thought experiment: Say tomorrow the LP is brimming with Root-a-holics, Republican Litists, neocons, statist warhawks, and their ilk. The sorts of Ls that you prefer are nearly extinct. But you stand strong, holding high the banner of non-aggression and self-governance as best you can.

    The Root-a-holics write similar things about you that you write about Root here and now. They use the sorts of rhetorical devices Sipos uses against Root against YOU.

    What would be your reaction to that (sorry) state of affairs? Would you bend to the will of the Root-a-holics? Or might you double-down on your commitment to your truth?

    Walk a mile in another’s shoes to see how IT feels.

  112. Alan Pyeatt

    Bruce Cohen calling Jill a “poison activist”? Now that IS rich!

    Apparently, you didn’t read the resolution I proposed, which clearly protects free speech (even for Wayne Root) and diversity of thought within the LP. I guess you don’t have much ammo left in your belt, if misrepresentation of the facts is all you can come up with.

    Once again, the same old tired lie that Jill defended an individual, when he knows full well that any action had to occur during closed sessions that he DID NOT ATTEND.

    “Dishonest, rude and lazy”? I have to call bullshit on all of that! Once again, Bruce is talking out his azz. Which is odd, because Bruce seems to know rudeness very well.

    BTW Bruce (since you brought it up), you were not proven innocent, the ajudicating body said that the charges against you weren’t proven conclusively. That’s not the same thing, so it seems to me that YOU are the one who’s being dishonest.

    But it’s no surprise that you give Jill short shrift, since you don’t know anything about her outreach, as Chair of California’s Region 63 and in her personal life.

    Surely WAR can come up with a better attack dog than you. A person might get peed on, but I don’t see much danger of being bitten.

  113. Best We Can Do? [Lake]

    Jill Pyeatt // Nov 24, 2010:

    Everyone, ignore Bruce.

    [Lake: Done and done! He has be ‘spammed’ from my private email for months. He cares not for the dead and dying on the non combatant USS Liberty. His main moral compass points to the government (what ever at the particular time in space) in Jerusalem rather that the wants and needs of the American citizen. *personal experience*]

  114. Gains

    JP @126:”Every day I ask what I’ve accomplished. If everything I accomplish is threatened and/or wiped out due to another’s actions, I’ll address that other person’s actions.”

    Threatened is a term that I think needs a little more discernment. There are direct threats and there are competitive threats. Of course any one action may have elements of both. Certainly actions may have emotional overtones to also contribute to a perception of threat also.

    To me, there is a separation between a direct threat and a competitive one. A direct threat to your work, would be narrowed to work that you can wholly own. Your household affairs are fully yours; your business dealings; in the political realm; what is “yours” or “mine” is very minute.

    Lets say that someone from outside starts interfering in your household. That would be a direct threat to your work. I know I am being extreme, the thought that Root or his cohorts would actually reach into your personal life and wreck havoc to improve their position is almost unthinkable in how far it crosses the line. That would be an example of a real “my work” threat.

    Root showing up at your county meetings with a bunch of people would conversely also be a threat to your work if you were mustering only enough to maintain the status quo. But no one has the ability to claim ownership of the status quo.

    You cannot, with justice call being a part of a status quo reason to call something yours. Socially, this is what we humans do as a default behavior: Maintain our position of status quo and seek to improve our influence or more often for general humanity “power”.*

    Showing up with enough people to change the status quo is part of the endeavor of politicking. The action is fair game even if they bring people you are not happy with with a message you do not approve of.

    A resolution cannot change that gambit. It is a waste of time because there is no authority for changing the behavior unless it is worth figuratively killing someone over. The only thing you can really do to combat it is to recruit more people that will maintain the status quo.

    Asking Root to be more inclusive is certainly in order, rallying people of a like mind is also in order to put people you like better into those positions. Using a position of trust to rally people in a factional fight, is precisely what Root is accused of doing; returning the same volley is a little hypocritical.

    “Also, can you point to where I’ve asked for discipline for Mr Root? I really haven’t. California’s resolution, which I voted for, simply asks that he be required to state which views are Root’s, and not consistent with the Libertarian platform.”

    This is the murky realm of understanding human reactions. What you have to realize is that as soon as someone overreaches with a position of trust, all parallel actions are associated to that overreach. Every official action that is even tangentially associated with calls for discipline, will also be calls for discipline.

    To Root, to the people that like him, and to everyone that casually watches, all attacks are in the same group. The California resolution, is indistinguishable from the others.

    I think that criticism of Root’s actions is well warranted. I think that recognizing them as a threat to half of the Party’s principles is warranted.

    I also think that this is a distraction. In terms of the leadership of those states that have passed or are considering resolutions on this matter, I am willing to bet that there are organizational issues that need serious consideration. When this sort of flurry happens in the party, I am far more likely to stop, look around and find the issue that the drama is obfuscating.

    I remember the drama that obfuscated the floating convention plans in California a while back for instance.

    “I know what you’re able to accomplish, Gains, and that’s actually admirable because I know you’ve had some challenges yourself. You also know that I have been accomplishing things for the party. My issue with Mr Root is to stop destroying what I’ve accomplished. Truly, I have no interest in destroying what he accomplishes. I don’t marginalize or mock the right. Asking for similar respect from him is more than reasonable.”

    I hope you understand that the personalization I made: You , me, Root, Ruart were all generalized.

    I think our party is full of people that can accomplish things… just not enough. We do not have a viable base yet. I think that we are out of balance and skinny. Through that, all of this drama, not only keeps us there, not only takes us there, but is also a manifestation of being there. When the stakes are low, the politics get more nasty.

    The circular feedback nature in that works in reverse. When we fill our numbers, the stakes become higher, and our attention to internal matters is better taken up with keeping infrastructure in place. But in order to do that, we have to deescalate so that larger stakes can be trusted by those that put them forward.

    There are better ways of dealing with Root, they involve out performing him and letting him choke on stage. The more people he pisses off, the easier the job. If he sees success he will emulate it. If he perceives attack, as you do, he will escalate as many others have done.

    * In this context I semantically use “power” to refer to institutional or relational positions in which force can be applied to motivate cooperation; and I define “influence” to refer to positions where no force can be used for motivating cooperation.

  115. Alan Pyeatt

    “The California resolution, is indistinguishable from the others.”

    If so, then people REALLY need to work on their reading comprehension.

  116. Tom Blanton

    Capozzi, you are apparently so wrapped up in being the self-appointed moderating influence at IPR that you have no time to be informed about the world you live in.

    I referenced the fact that the Obama regime asserts the prerogative to assassinate American citizens with no due process merely for being suspected of undefined crimes against the state.

    Somehow, Capozzi, you equate that with some people who support a death penalty. This indicates you are totally ignorant of the case Al-Aulaqi v. Obama and don’t have a clue what I am talking about when I wrote:

    When the leader of the “sole super power” claims the authority to perform extrajudicial assassinations of American citizens merely suspected of some undefined crime against the state, it just doesn’t get much more omnipotent than that.

    Bring yourself up to speed, Capozzi:

    http://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-obama

    Opinions should really be based on the way things actually are in the world as opposed to how things are in the absence of information.

  117. Jill Pyeatt

    Gains @ 133 says:

    “To Root, to the people that like him, and to everyone that casually watches, all attacks are in the same group. The California resolution, is indistinguishable from the others.”

    I find this an odd thing to say. I can’t help it if people don’t pay attention to who’s saying or writing what, and instead lumps everything into the same category. I can only behave as I deem appropriate to the circumstances, which is what I believe I’m doing.

    Speaking of that, the talk on this thread makes it sound like I’ve done terrible thigs to Root. Huh? I blog on Facebbok and call him out on behavior here sometimes. Big deal. I don’t write articles about him, nor did I show up at the Convention to prevent him winning as chair. I am probably a bit of an annoyance to him (I certainly hope), but I certainly fill my days with plenty of other things than Wayne Allyn Root.

  118. Tom Blanton

    You know what, if Wayne Root can’t take the heat, he can get the hell out of the kitchen. Same with the Root People.

    His supporters seem to think nobody has a right to criticize this bozo. Some talk of “competing” with him. Well, calling him out on his fantastic claims, delusions of grandeur, right-wing fantasies, bellicose statements, general demeanor, and apparent lack of appreciation for libertarian principles IS competing with Root in the marketplace of ideas.

    The Root People can whine and complain about purity police, purges, and all the other canards they can dream up. Why can’t people who disagree with Root and find him to be doing a disservice to the libertarian movement complain?

    All the strawman arguments thrown out such as jealousy over Root’s so-called popularity are bullshit and the insistence of disgruntled right-wingers to impose culture wars and an idiotic right-left paradigm within the LP is destructive to the party they joined.

    It is obvious that the vast majority of these clowns don’t understand that libertarianism isn’t liberal or conservative. The repeated use of phrases like “true conservative” and “Reagan-Libertarian” indicates they see no real difference between conservatism and libertarianism. This goes beyond mere opinion – this is demonstrative that many of the Root People are just ignorant about the ideology they profess to adhere to.

    Fundamentally, it breaks down to the fact that political opportunists expecting to win elections are too naive or ignorant to understand that no magic combination of words, or trashing of long held principles, is going to change the fact that third parties face nearly insurmountable odds that prevent winning elections.

    The notion that the purpose of the LP is to win elections to the exclusion of all else drives much of this insanity that goes on. It has gotten to the point where the LP is a disgrace and an embarrassment to the entire libertarian movement. Not because of squabbling but because of the message.

    LPHQ has gotten much better, but they fight an uphill battle. This constant drift towards the mushy middle or towards conservatism dilutes the libertarian message and the answer is not to move in a more liberal direction to “compete” against the conservatives within the LP who dislike libertarianism. The answer is to move in a libertarian direction. Period. Simple.

    While some people are worrying about the use of the word “cult” combined with the phrase “omnipotent state”, it seems that nobody notices that there seems to be a cult of personality growing in the LP – that being the Root People that can’t intellectually defend their anointed one, but instead lash out against anyone who criticizes him.

    If libertarians are holding back the fabulous Mr. Root, then maybe the Root People should quit the LP and take their cult leader with them. If he’s so damned fantastic and is articulating the message that will put him in the White House, he would have an easier time doing it as an independent.

    By breaking away from a political party that holds so many views that he finds abhorrent, he would be doing himself and his followers a big favor by freeing himself from those constraints. He would also be doing libertarians a favor because he would then have to state what libertarians actually stand for in order to distance himself from those beliefs and articulate how his beliefs are different.

    As an independent candidate, Root would be free to set forth a platform and he would own it. Root and his cult members could no longer blame libertarians for his lack of success. He has already done much to position himself firmly within the Tea Party movement – perhaps he should grab that banner and run with it.

    If it is all about winning elections and the dynamic and omnipotent political genius of W.A.R. knows exactly how to win the hearts and minds of Americans, it would seem his devoted followers would encourage him to excel to his highest potential without the burden of libertarianism chaining him down.

  119. Be Rational

    @137
    You still don’t get it.

    Many people here are not Root supporters. But, we can see that you, Mr. Blanton, contribute far less to the cause of Liberty than Mr. Root.

    Wayne Root is out in the world bringing people in to the libertarian movement. He introduces the ideas to a subset of the population on their wavelength and pulls them in our direction. This is quite useful. Of course, we have to continue to pull them toward a more “pure” definition of what “libertarian” means. But, if you have no one to educate, you have nothing to do and you can never change anything.

    But you, and the other whiners, are facing inward. You are not competing with Root. You are reaching out to no one at all. You do nothing to bring in new members or find new people that are leaning in a libertarian direction and need gentle education and guidance to join us. IN FACT, you are chasing people away, attacking those who are doing something and having a negative effect on the movement for liberty. You are playing a self-defeating game of king-of-the-mole-hill and if you can finally get enough people to quit, you can crown yourself king. Or you can create a splinter like BTP and then shrink it until you are king of a dust speck. This is what Milnes and the Parliamentary guy have succeeded at – each is king of a party of one and still they spend their time on IPR whining.

    What we all need to do is stop wasting time whining and complaining to and about each other. We need to build organizations that do effective outreach, educate and encourage members, increase our membership and donor base, increase our annual fundraising and then, do it again. Our primary mission should be to spread our message and grow until we can win.

    To win, we have to remember that we are on the same team, even Wayne Root and his few actual supporters, and that we need to work together, facing outward, to build the Libertarian Party.

    It’s harder to go out and face the world and build the party than to fight on the inside. It’s even harder when those who are facing outward and working hard for liberty are stabbed in the back by critics on the inside who do nothing but attack people who are doing the actual hard work for liberty, and trusted their fellow libertarians to protect them when their backs were turned.

    We have to be team players, work together, support the team, and help our fellow team members to play better. The whiners spend their time fighting in the locker room and never even get into the game. Their only achievement is to keep some of the real players, the true activists working for liberty, from taking the field at all.

  120. Tom Blanton

    @138

    “Be Rational”, another nameless Root Person, offers numerous bromides, platitudes, and unsubstantiated claims. Typical of nameless Root People.

    But, in fact, what I do get is that there was a time when many intelligent liberals and conservatives had some respect for libertarians based on intellectual consistency, honesty and fair mindedness.

    I also get the fact that there are many now who view libertarians as extreme right-wingers thanks to people like Neal Boortz, Glenn Beck, Wayne Root, and the multitudes of confused people calling themselves libertarians who can’t articulate the difference between libertarianism and conservatism, and believe it is simply grand whenever the word “libertarian” is spoken in the media, regardless of the context.

    “Be Rational” is condoning the duplicitous tactic of bait and switch by attracting certain groups of individuals using one message and then “educating” them to another. Hardly a good way to promote any ideology or achieve having a non-dysfunctional organization.

    Sports analogies and accusations of back stabbing or whining aren’t arguments for dishonesty and attempts to subvert an ideology by remaking it. It seems to me that the Root People are the ones constantly whining that others aren’t bowing before the fabulous W.A.R. and his unsubstantiated accomplishments.

    At some point, LP members will have to decide whether they wish to promote libertarianism or talk radio-style conservatism. They need to decide whether it is to their advantage to alienate a large number of libertarians (note the small “L”) that already view the LP as a waste of time and energy, but haven’t made the leap to viewing the LP as a political enemy and a distraction to moving society in a more libertarian direction.

    So far, nameless Root Person, you’ve offered no argument as to why people should abandon their beliefs and support a clownish huckster and self-promoter who embraces intellectual dishonesty and subversion as sales tools.

    If the goal is merely to have an organization called the LP, I suppose Root is doing his part. If the goal is to promote libertarianism, he fails miserably. Then again, if you are so ignorant to believe that Reagan was a libertarian, perhaps you think Root is worthy to preside over his little cult of personality.

  121. Jill Pyeatt

    Thanks, Mr. Blanton for taking the time to articulate so well what I’m thinking. The Root people know darn well it’s them not playing nice. I tried on many occasions to get Mr Root to explain why he continued to vilify the left when so many active Libertarians were so upset about it. All I ever got from him were his oft-repeated talking points (this is why the LP hasn’t gone anywhere in 39 years, you questioning me is confusing everyone who thinks I’m the Face of the Libertarian Party, yada, yada, yada.)
    It’s curious that he never answers our legitimate concerns but yet freaks out that we continue to ask why.

    But, enough of that. I have Thanksgiving baking to do. I’m thankful tonight that at least we have a party and the leisure to discuss its inner workings. I’m hoping that next year we’ll be a little closer to our Libertarian ideals. Personally, I think our message of self-government and non-aggression is pretty wonderful, and I’ll continue to spread the message as often as I can.

  122. Thomas M. Sipos

    Tom Blanton: “The notion that the purpose of the LP is to win elections to the exclusion of all else drives much of this insanity that goes on.”

    “Winning elections” is merely the excuse that Root and his top supporters use to promote Root and stifle antiwar.

    Root promotes the neocon views because he’s an opportunist, and right-wing punditry is “where the money is.” Also, he’s sincerely pro-war.

    Root’s top supporters are likewise sincerely pro-war.

    But they can’t say this openly. So Root and his supporters use “winning elections” and “building the party” and “big tent” as excuses for their neocon-friendly views.

    Some of the newer and/or lower-ranked LP members may sincerely believe that Root will help “win elections.” They’re new and don’t know any better.

    ==========================

    Isn’t it interesting that Root has been mostly silent on civil liberties these past few years.

    Only now, after right-wing radio bashes the TSA, does Root dare to join in bashing the TSA.

    Root is no leader. He waits to see which way his Tea Party/Fox News base goes before he dares take a position on anything.

    Of course, in typically shameless, huckster fashion, after Root sees which way his customers are moving, then he issues loud and “bold” statement in support of his customers’ views, as though it were his position all along. Never mind that he’d held back on criticizing the war or the TSA until he felt it safe to do so.

    By contrast, Harry Browne opposed invading Afghanistan on 9/12. Ron Paul opposed the war before a crowd of Republican warmongers, and stood his ground despite the boos.

    Root only courts cheers. He’s anti-gay marriage as a Republican, then pro-gay marriage in a 2008 San Francisco pride parade, then flip flops to states rights when he’s before another crowd.

    Root is prowar in 2007, then in 2008 claims to have done “a 180 degree switch” when he discovers prowar is unpopular with LP delegates (his then current customer base), then he starts rattling the saber again before another crowd.

    Whatever Root claims to think of the TSA, I don’t trust that it represents his real views. He may not even have any.

  123. Jill Pyeatt

    For the record, I asked Wayne last Thursday the 18th on his Facebook fan page if he would please speak out against the TSA abuses. He deleted my question without comment. Now, early this week he speaks out about it. Maybe he read some polls and learned what most people were thinking.

  124. Thomas M. Sipos

    I’m sure Root was reacting to the polls and whims of his base of right-wing talk radio/Tea Party fans.

    It may also be that he deleted your post because he didn’t want a record of you giving him the idea of looking at the TSA issue.

    Although Root follows the polls, he also tries to create an image of being an “ahead of the curve” leading thinker.

  125. Robert Capozzi

    tb135, thanks for the link. I had not heard about that particular usurpation, true. I do believe I agree with your point on that matter. I do NOT agree that that’s a case for the existence of an “omnipotent State,” however. Rather, it’s one of many examples where I believe the State clearly overreaches.

    Had you been more explicit the first time, I would have addressed your specific point in my comment. Yours was too vague for me, since I was not aware of the development.

    As for your time-management counsel, thanks for that, too. It’s true that I am not up on current events as much as you probably are. It’s true that I enjoy sharing my ideas about a moderate L approach to the public square. I trust that my views don’t offend you, as yours don’t offend me. I prefer to focus on the big picture and fill in the details as I go. Perhaps you revel in detail. Nothing “wrong” with either approach; it’s just another example of comparative advantage at work.

  126. Robert Capozzi

    tms: “Winning elections” is merely the excuse that Root and his top supporters use to promote Root and stifle antiwar.

    me: This may well be how you connect the dots, as you don’t have a current smoking gun, yes?

    I get concerned about another when they speculate and seem to proceed in earnest and certainty when alternative explanations are just as plausible.

    Why do you feel the need to call out others who want to win elections when you don’t? Why not try to convince them of their folly? Why ascribe the worst of intents to those you disagree with?

    Root and his top supporters are not ignorant about the state of play, near as I can tell. They are well aware that developing the LP into a competitive electoral force is no easy task, and that it will not happen in one cycle. For the most part, they chose to tack right. In the process, Root seeks to make a living as a pundit. I don’t have a problem with any of that, although the tacking pretty much exclusively right part seems sub-optimal.

    If you want to validate your mind-reading abilities, may I suggest that Kreskin is getting on in years, and filling the niche he created may be a great opportunity for you! 😉

  127. Thomas M. Sipos

    Robert: “This may well be how you connect the dots, as you don’t have a current smoking gun, yes?”

    Smoking gun? I’ve been writing about this for years, and believe I’ve proven my points many times over.

    But if you just dropped in on the years-long discussion of what’s been happening to the LP, I don’t have time to bring you up to speed.

  128. Thomas M. Sipos

    Robert “If you want to validate your mind-reading abilities…”

    I’ve already been accused of “claiming to mind-read” Root in years past, and I’ve addressed that issue repeatedly.

    I’ve repeatedly given examples of how I correctly predicted of Root’s actions, years in advance.

    As I’ve repeatedly said, I don’t claim to “mind read” Root. Rather, Root is transparent. He’s easy to read. Many have done so, not just I.

    What I don’t know is whether you are being disingenuous — feigning ignorance by repeating questions that I’ve repeatedly answered — or have simply not followed the years-long discussion, by many Libertarians, regarding changes in the LP.

    If you have been paying attention, you should know that all your objections have already been repeatedly addressed.

  129. Robert Capozzi

    tms, yes, at this point, you’re repeating that you’ve repeated it. While I’m not an absolutist, I can say that I cannot think of a case in which the Golden Rule (or the Bad Karma Boomerang) is not proven to explain attacking behavior. I simply find your defensive protests to be some sort of cover, for I cannot imagine that — if the situation were reversed — that if the situation were reversed that you would want to treat you as you are treating him.

    You may well be the exception to the Rule. If you are, then — believe me — I would love to hear more, specifically how you’d want Root to speak ill of you like you speak of him. I’m always looking for holes in the theory! (Some form of masochism might explain it in part, but then we’d need to delve into the root of the masochism.)

    Root could tomorrow announce that he’s going back to the GOP. He could announce his support for attacking Iran. And these things would not “prove” your point, because your main point, as I see it, is to attack Root as a person, to tell all near and wide that he is not to be trusted, that he’s a huckster, etc.

    What you don’t seem to get is that when someone engages in character assassination, you isolate yourself except, perhaps, from those who share your paranoia on the matter. Why would anyone not firmly in your “camp” want to place trust in you when they know that at any moment, they too might become a target of your venom?

    Perhaps you don’t care, feeling safe in the knowledge that you, Thomas Sipos, have corrected diagnosed and predicted the “huckster” in our midst. Consider the possibility that your perceived “safety” is only a booby prize.

  130. Tom Blanton

    I prefer to focus on the big picture and fill in the details as I go.

    How does one focus on the big picture when one doesn’t see the big picture?

    When the leader of the state has the power to assassinate any citizen with no due process and without even revealing the reason for the execution, all other powers of the state are trivial.

    This goes far beyond not allowing gay marriage, arresting people for victimless crimes, requiring people to buy health insurance, etc.

    The right to liberty and property is meaningless without the right to live. There is no minimizing aggression when it comes to murder. The state can’t partially kill someone.

    Obama seeks to establish legal precedent for the state to execute people at will without even providing an explanation.

    If this isn’t omnipotency, I don’t know what is. When the issue is the state’s authority to murder its citizens, how does moderation work. Is it enough to merely minimize the number of victims? Is it enough to have more transparency?

  131. Thomas M. Sipos

    Well, Robert, I don’t want to repeat that I’m repeating myself, but you gave me no choice.

    If you sincerely want to learn more of my reasons for believing as I do (as opposed to merely trying to score debating points), please go to my blog, go to the very first post in 2007, then read every following post through to the end.

    After you’re finished, you might try and find my every post on IPR and study those.

    But I don’t have time to repeat and repeat and repeat to those who may very possibly not even be interested in learning.

  132. Robert Capozzi

    tb: If this isn’t omnipotency, I don’t know what is.

    me: (Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state). — motto of Mussolini’s Partito Nazionale Fascista, is in my book desiring the power of omnipotency. The particular instance you point me to is certainly a wildly disproportionate overreach, IMO, and a precedent that causes me to have grave concern. It’s profoundly unwise on every level I can think of, but not “Everything in the state.”

    We seem to disagree about the big picture and the need to discern proportionality when taking a view of the big picture.

    tms: …please go to my blog, go to the very first post in 2007, then read every following post through to the end.

    me: I may take you up on that, but I have read many of your IPR posts, so I think I get the cliff notes.

    Somehow, you evade and deflect my main point @149. I often agree with your assessment of Root’s positions. I cannot imagine how you might justify the character assassinations, often delivered spitefully and angrily.

    Rejecting Root’s POSITIONS are fair game; I do it all the time! Condemning his character is out of bounds. IMO.

    Apparently, you disagree. It appears that you don’t feel the need to have a civil conversation, at least when it involves Root.

  133. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Rejecting Root’s POSITIONS are fair game; I do it all the time! Condemning his character is out of bounds. IMO.”

    That’s an interesting proposition.

    So if Bernie Madoff shows up when he gets out of jail, proclaims himself the de facto leader of the Libertarian Party (he’ll have no problem getting on Fox, I expect), claims he’ll lead the party to victory if it juss follow him, etc., it will be just hunky dory to attack him for his position on the Lunar Treaty, but impermissible to mention that he bilked investors out of $18 billion. Right?

  134. Robert Capozzi

    tk, no. It’s a fact. Mentioning facts is in bounds. It would also be in bounds to suggest that Madoff’s criminal history is not in the LP’s interest, as I would should this happen.

  135. Kevin Knedler

    Interesting. All people that support Wayne Allyn Root are “Pro War”? Interesting.

    I tend to agree with Country Joe McDonald’s tune from 1969. It still applies today.

  136. Robert Capozzi

    kk, has someone said that, exactly? Sipos, for ex., has said ““Winning elections” is merely the excuse that Root and his top supporters use to promote Root and stifle antiwar.” If you’re referring to that, he might argue that you are not a “top supporter,” only SCM are. Or he might acknowledge that you are sort of a “top supporter,” but you are a tool — a pawn in Root’s nefarious, huckster hustle.

    It does appear to fit Sipos’s narrative: “The divide is between anarchists, minarchists, incrementalists, and many other types of libertarians on one side — vs. Neocons/Statist Lites/Republican Lites on the other.” Anyone lining up with Root is either a neocon or a tool for a neocon.

    I hope my assessment is incorrect, but it seems fair to characterize the Sipos one-dimensional narrative as: for or against Root, there can be no in between.

    “Interesting” it is.

    Country Joe is great, btw!

  137. Carol Moore

    I haven’t read too much further past #47-Capozzi: “My take is the resolution was a non-specific, soft censure of Root’s behavior.”

    But let me say, you are correct, Sir! Take that Root-Toot-Tootie! 🙂

    Girls just want to have fun; I’m just getting into the spirit of all the fun Wayne Root has during his TV interviews, of which I’ve watched a number.

  138. Thomas M. Sipos

    Robert Capozzi: you evade and deflect my main point

    I evade nothing. I’ve repeatedly and directly answered your “point” in other threads.

    I won’t do it again. My answers to your precious “points” are all over IPR. Many of Root critics have answered your precious “points” all over IPR.

    For instance, last September, you accused Starchild of being a “mind reader” toward Root.

    Back then, I interjected that while I’d repeatedly explained why Root’s critics dislike Root, I would stoop once more to answer your disingenuous question: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/09/wayne-root-citizen-revolution-one-nation-under-tea-party-revolt/

    I know it won’t satisfy you. You’re intentionally obtuse. No answer would satisfy you. Upon every answer you’d claim evasion or mind reading.

    Root’s defenders repeatedly act perplexed as to why anyone dislikes Root. Root’s critics repeatedly give their reasons.

    Then Root’s supporters ignore all that, and on another thread, scratch their heads and again wonder why anyone dislikes Root.

    You don’t want answers, Robert. You want to play schoolyard debating games. What’s next? “I know you are, but what am I?”

  139. Robert Milnes

    I must say I agree about Robert Capozzi. I’ve seen numerous convoluted & protracted exchanges between he & others esp. Tom K.
    Tom has the patience of a saint.

  140. Robert Capozzi

    Tms: I interjected that while I’d repeatedly explained why Root’s critics dislike Root…

    Me: Actually, no, you haven’t. You HAVE explained why Root’s critics don’t like some of his VIEWS, not why they dislike Root. Why make it personal?

    I don’t like many of Root’s views, either. I would strongly prefer he never mention Obama and his Columbia days. I would strongly prefer he lose the Reagan Libertarian thing, although I can kinda see that one. I believe his take on Cordoba House was wrong-headed. I would strongly prefer he step up his critiques of R views, rather than position Ls as Rs, only better. I’m OK with his approach to focus on right-leaners, although that is not the way I’d go personally.

    Do I “dislike” Root because I disagree with him, sometimes strongly so? No. I appreciate his efforts and his essence, while I do wish he’d make some adjustments to his words and actions. Hating Root or Obama or Kim Jung Il doesn’t do me any good that I can see. I challenge the very notion that “disliking” another person is ever justified. For you to actually address this point, you’d need to explain why hating another IS justified.

    Perhaps you’ve not noticed: Hate only hurts the hater, not the hated. This is a psychological/spiritual point, not a political one…maybe that hint will help you understand my meaning.

    Somehow, my point isn’t registering with you. So, try addressing this: Justify hate.

  141. Kevin Knedler

    Robert # 156. I am nobody’s “tool”. I am nobody’s zombie. I came up thru the LP ranks in Ohio and on the LNC the old fashioned way: I earned it. I have friends and acquaintances all over the political spectrum. Bottom line for me: Driving the LP brand, growing the party, getting LP candidates elected, and changing the course of this country before it is too late. What other choice do I have? To do nothing but talk and read books?

  142. Lifeboat Ethics

    Suppose you are in a lifeboat. It is taking on water. You are paddling to shore.

    One guy is paddling far more vigorously than everyone else, but he is causing the boat to go at an angle, not straight for shore. You are worried that he will cause the boat to capsize before it reaches shore, or to get caught up in a current and drift out to sea.

    Do you

    1) Redouble your effort to paddle harder towards shore and do whatever is needed to make as straight a course as possible

    2) Redouble your efforts to scream at the guy paddling the hardest to stop going at an angle, even as he continues to ignore you

    Sincere question

    ….Not a Root Person nor a Root Hater….

  143. Robert Capozzi

    kk162, sincere apologies if you read my post to mean that I think you’re a tool or anything like that. I don’t. I admire the work you’re doing.

    I was illustrating my experience and observation of what those who demonize others do. One tactic that is often used is to make W statements like: “You’re either with us or against us.” I find that mentality to be the stuff of comic books, not adult, respectful conversation. Mine might be overstatement for effect, but, then again, it might just nail the phenomenon.

    Lifeboat, my answer is #1. IMO, demonizers often engage in #2. There is, however, a case for strongly suggesting that the other paddler adjust his behavior. Or, to at least understand why he wants to go at an angle…perhaps he sees something I don’t!

  144. Lifeboat

    The amount of time and energy I have are very limited. Any energy I apply to getting the other guy to adjust his angle is energy I do not have for paddling.

    So what should my mix of energy applied to 1 and 2 be? He is not listening to me, and not too interested in spending a lot of time convincing me why he is correct in the angle he’s taking…after all, he’s too busy padddling.

    Time is short.

    What to do, what to do…

  145. Robert Capozzi

    lb, OK, if I accept those terms, again, #1.

    There is such a thing as multi-tasking, e.g., paddling and talking! Talking need not be screaming, correcting, or otherwise castigating the other paddler, btw. False dichotomy, IMO.

    If time is really THAT short, we’re toast. If so, point me to the nearest opium den where I can get comfortably numb. 😉

  146. Thomas M. Sipos

    Capozzi: “Somehow, my point isn’t registering with you. So, try addressing this: Justify hate.”

    You’re just too cute, Capozzi.

    If you want to justify hate, go ahead.

    As for myself, I disagree with your premise that I or other Root critics are “haters.”

  147. Carol Moore

    Hey, Mr. Sipos!! You gotta feel sorry for guys Like Capozzi who act like democrats and accuse libertarians of being hate mongers; but it’s probably PROJECTION of the hate they feel inside.

    Anger, annoyance, ribald enjoyment of others buffoonery, maybe negative emotions; but true hate is a at the far of the spectrum where irrationality really rules. I don’t think any of us HATE Root enough NOT to celebrate if he suddenly GOT hard core libertarianism and started spouting it all over the media in an effective manner. Unless of course they were green with envy of his success.

    But there are LOTS of successful/powerful/well connected people out there – most of them statists. Should we welcome them all in and change the philosophy to accommodate them? Babra Steisand, Newt Gingrich, come on in! The LP will adapt to your needs. (NOT.)

  148. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    @170

    What you need to do (as a Libertarian) is find “good” Democratic and Republicans to work with.

    I am trying to help find a solution, and I’ve thought of one better combination than the Wayne Root [Reagan Republican] idea.

    That is a Guinier/Nott [Republican/Libertarian] ticket.

    You’d have an ultra-conservative black female Law professor (Yale?), and combined with a Nott for Vice president, would give you a kick-ass ticket.

    I’ve met Lani myself, and I can tell you she is cool. A sweet person. She signed my book at her book signing, even though it wasn’t even the book she wrote. It was written by Douglas Amy.
    She would be very dependale.

    I know she may not wish to run for prez, but it’s a good idea to try to recruit her under the “All Party System”.

    Plus, that fits my scenario for opposite gender #1.

    I wish I could figure a good combination for you Carol, I thought about the Nott/Moore and Root/Moore combinations, but I am a male and not in favor of a male #1.

    The Moore/Obama [Libertarian/Democratic] sounds good, but Obama is not a member.

    Carol, can you please help? Moore/Root is OK, but I don’t think a Libertarian/Libertarian is a good combination.

    I could go with a Libertarian/Constitution combination, a Moore/Nightingale.

    But to tell you the truth I really admire Ruwart, and would like to star her name somehow.

    I think a Ruwart/Nightingale [Libertarian/Constitution] combination would be a strong one. But we’d really need to start moving more faster. 😉

    Guinier/Ruwart [Republican/Libertarian] would be a powerful ticket.

    I’m working as fast as possible, but nobody else is doing anything to help.

    I wasn’t quick enough to counter W.A.R.’s attacks on her book, but the book I have _Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression_ is dynamite. It just simply appeares to me that W.A.R. was wrong, in his attacks on her.

    The primary reason he is wrong, is that we should be for opposite gender #1, people working together, and that wasn’t within my idea of working together. But PM Ruwart [Libertarian] isn’t doing anything to coordinate either. Can’t you talk to her and get her to somehow vote as an executive or something?

    Maybe if I emailed the ballot to you, can’t you get her to look at it?

    Peace,
    –James

    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    Free Ireland!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    * * *
    http://www.usparliament.org/
    * * *
    Ad for GoNott Search!
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html
    *Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted*

  149. wolfefan

    I’m not sure in what universe Lani Guinier is considered an ultra-conservative Republican…

  150. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Yeah, I know. I guess it was a stupid idea…saying she was ultra conservative…I still lilke her, she’s cool.

    How about;

    Moore/Root [Libertarian/Reagan Liberarian]
    (for males)
    vs
    Nott/Moore/Root [Libertarian/Libertarian/Reagan Libertarian]?
    (for females)
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    Free Ireland!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    * * *
    http://www.usparliament.org/
    * * *
    Ad for GoNott Search!
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html
    *Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted

  151. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    After thinking about it, we’d need pro and anti Obama tickets, for males and females. So we’d need four slates.

    Pro-Obama;

    Nott/Moore/Obama [Libertarian/Libertarian/Democratic]
    (pro-Democratic males)
    vs
    Moore/Obama/Ruwart] [Libertarian/Democratic/Libertarian]
    (pro-Democratic females)

    and anti-Obama;

    Moore/Root/Guinier [Libertarian/Reagan Libertarian/Republican]
    (pro-Republican males)
    vs
    Root/Nott/Guinier [Reagan Libertarian/Libertarian/Republican]
    (pro-Republican females)

    That pretty much sums it up, for the tickets that aren’t *exclusively* third-parties and independents.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    Free Ireland!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    * * *
    http://www.usparliament.org/
    * * *
    Ad for GoNott Search!
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html
    *Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted

  152. Buck Turgidson

    The California Resolution against Wayne Allyn Root was defeated. Motion 1 and 3 failed. Motion 2 did pass. Although with the failure of Motion 1 made motion 2 and 3 a moot point.

    Next weekends California Executive Committee will be very interesting.

  153. Robert Capozzi

    cm: …Like Capozzi who act like democrats….

    me: Thank you!

    cm: … and accuse libertarians of being hate mongers; …

    me: A few Ls, please! Do you have a more accurate description than “hater”?

    cm: …but it’s probably PROJECTION of the hate they feel inside…

    me: Ya know, that’s possible, since a lack of peace of mind is always a projection and a choice. Encouraging civility can also be viewed as helping a brother out, and maybe even a bit of tough love.

    Like you, Carol, I’m a bit of a John Mackey L, who reminds us to “Criticize by creating.”

    Tearing someone like Root down personally doesn’t strike me as creative, more like destructive. If you have a creative, constructive perspective on why character assassination IS creative, I’m all ears.

  154. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    The 2010/2011 USA Parliament, Inc.’s Plan;
    Rank the #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, etc., etc., the more the better…for left leaning and right leaning Libertarians. (OK to put your name #1)

    For those who are left leaning and anti-Root;

    Nott/Moore/Obama/a female/Ogle/write in* [Libertarian/Libertarian/Democratic/Info. Not Avail./Free Parliamentary/write in*]
    (for pro-Democratic Party females)
    vs
    Moore/Obama/Ruwart/Ogle /write in*[Libertarian/Democratic/Libertarian/Free Parliamentary/write in*]
    (for pro-Democratic Party males)

    And for those who are right leaning and pro-Root;

    Moore/Root/Guinier/Ogle/write in* [Libertarian/Reagan/Libertarian/Republican/Free Parliamentary/Info. Not Avail.*]
    (for pro-Republican Party males)
    vs
    Root/Nott/Guinier/Ogle/write in* [Reagan Libertarian/Libertarian/Republican/Free Parliamentary/Info. Not Avail.*]
    (pro-Republican Party females)

    *=write in your name or someone to represent you, and their party/category if known.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    Free Ireland!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    * * *
    http://www.usparliament.org/
    * * *
    Ad for GoNott Search!
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html
    *Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted*

  155. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Version 1.5 (No “anti”-s I’ll get this right yet…)

    The 2010/2011 USA Parliament, Inc.’s Plan;
    Rank the #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, etc., etc., the more the better…for left leaning and right leaning Libertarians. (Just a suggestion, you may actually vote in any order you wish and OK to put your name #1)

    For those who are left leaning and more pro-Obama;

    Nott/Moore/Obama/a female/Ogle/write in* [Libertarian/Libertarian/Democratic/Info. Not Avail./Free Parliamentary/write in*]
    (for pro-Democratic Party females)
    vs
    Moore/Obama/Ruwart/Ogle /write in*[Libertarian/Democratic/Libertarian/Free Parliamentary/write in*]
    (for pro-Democratic Party males)

    And for those who are right leaning and more pro-Root;

    Moore/Root/Guinier/Ogle/write in* [Libertarian/Reagan Libertarian/Republican/Free Parliamentary/Info. Not Avail.*]
    (for pro-Republican Party males)
    vs
    Root/Nott/Guinier/Ogle/write in* [Reagan Libertarian/Libertarian/Republican/Free Parliamentary/Info. Not Avail.*]
    (pro-Republican Party females)

    *=write in your name or someone to represent you, and their party/category if known.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    Free Ireland!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    * * *
    http://www.usparliament.org/
    * * *
    Ad for GoNott Search!
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html
    *Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted*

  156. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Version 1.6 (No “anti”-s, I’ll get this right yet…)

    The 2010/2011 USA Parliament, Inc.’s Plan;
    Rank the #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, etc., etc., the more the better…for left leaning and right leaning Libertarians. (Just a suggestion, you may actually vote in any order you wish and OK to put your name #1)

    For those who are left leaning and more pro-Obama;

    Nott/Moore/Obama/a female/Ogle/write in a female* [Libertarian/Libertarian/Democratic/Info. Not Avail./Free Parliamentary/write in a female*]
    (for pro-Democratic Party females)
    vs
    Moore/Obama/Ruwart/Ogle /write in a female*[Libertarian/Democratic/Libertarian/Free Parliamentary/write in*]
    (for pro-Democratic Party males)

    And for those who are right leaning and more pro-Root;

    Moore/Root/Guinier/Ogle/write in a female* [Libertarian/Reagan Libertarian/Republican/Free Parliamentary/Info. Not Avail.*]
    (for pro-Republican Party males)
    vs
    Root/Moore/Nott/Guinier/Ogle/write in a female* [Reagan Libertarian/Libertarian/Libertarian/Republican/Free Parliamentary/Info. Not Avail.*]
    (pro-Republican Party females)

    *=write in your name or someone to represent you, and their party/category if known.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    Free Ireland!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    * * *
    http://www.usparliament.org/
    * * *
    Ad for GoNott Search!
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html
    *Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted*

  157. Carol Moore

    to Mr. Ogle Parliament. If you want me to run for Prez, help me increase my personal fortune by $2 million bucks – and I’ll think about it. I assume Root has at least $1 million in the bank already, saving up for his 2012 campaign? That he could only raise a few thousand bucks for other candidates in the 5 months he was head of LNCC doesn’t bode well. Media judge credibility for Prez candidates different than for opinionators. If you are a former Representative like Paul/Barr you have a lot of credibility. If you are a minor opinionator with a $500,000 budget you mostly spend on air travel and nice hotel rooms and a scheduler or two, you aren’t going to impress major media that much. (Unless of course you promise them to gut the LP as a peace party, in which case the pro-war media will stand up and Salute You!!)

    As for Mr. Capozzi saying I’m tearing down Mr. Root. Have I alleged anything about him supporting pedophilia or pedophiles?? I’m just criticizing a) his attack on the libertarian philosophy and b) his big promises that he isn’t as capable of fulfilling as he is deluded to think he can.

  158. Robert Capozzi

    tms169: As for myself, I disagree with your premise that I or other Root critics are “haters.”

    [and yet…]

    tms158: …I interjected that while I’d repeatedly explained why Root’s critics dislike Root…. Then Root’s supporters ignore all that, and on another thread, scratch their heads and again wonder why anyone dislikes Root.

    me: TMS, oh, I see. Do I have this correctly: Merely because you “dislike” Root does not qualify you as a “hater.”

    That’s fair, I guess. Where I come from, “dislike” seems like a mild form of “hate.” I could use the term “disliker,” but the term of art these days is “hater.” Surely you saw BORAT!…playa hater and all that.

    Regardless, you make your criticisms of Root personal. You demonize and use character assassination tactics against him.

    Consider stopping. Address the substance of your disagreements with him. You might find that your critiques are MORE persuasive that way.

  159. Robert Capozzi

    cm182: As for Mr. Capozzi saying I’m tearing down Mr. Root. Have I alleged anything about him supporting pedophilia or pedophiles??

    me: Not that I’ve seen. If he did support those things and you felt that his position was germane, that would be in bounds, IMO. @ 157, you said: “Take that Root-Toot-Tootie!” Perhaps not as much as Sipos’s character-assassination campaign, but I seem to recall other violent and/or childish attacks by you on Root’s character, vs. Root’s views. If you haven’t, my bad! My critique of intra-L dialog is not about any one person’s violent communication techniques — although Sipos seems to be an esp. teachable moment, as he seems to expend an enormous amount of energy tearing Root down. Carol, you might consider using a non-violent communication approach, too.

    Broadly, I think Ls could REALLY differentiate from Rs and Ds if we dropped their demonizing ways. If we REALLY want to be about peace, maybe we could start by being peaceful and respectful toward one another. Spirited discussion about ISSUES seems well within bounds. Personal attacks, no.

    IMO

  160. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You write:

    “Address the substance of your disagreements with him.”

    You seem to think that this is separable from character issues.

    With some people, it can be. With others, it’s not.

    With Root, it’s generally not because he is exceptionally, for lack of a better descriptive term … Clintonesque.

    If he launches an unjustified attack on someone and it backfires on him (e.g. Ruwart), he’ll throw a staffer under the bus as the real author of the attack rather than confront the substance of the issue he brought up when that substance is going against him.

    If he takes a position and later finds embarrassing (e.g. his late 2006 endorsement of a McCain/Lieberman 2008 ticket), he’ll just lie about it when confronted with it.

    Hell, sometimes he changes his positions so fast that it’s hard to keep track of them at all, and arguing “substance” becomes impossible. If you address the X that he said on Fox last week, he’ll just come back with the opposite of X that he said last night at an LP fundraiser, or the orthogonal to X that he threw out in a radio interview this morning.

    How do you talk “substance” on a guy who goes from strong supporter of the Iraq war to weak supporter of the Iraq war to “Iraq was the wrong war, Iran is the right war” to allegedly anti-war over the course of a few months?

    How do you peg the “substance” of someone who goes from “Ron Paul is an old guy with some decent ideas but bad on foreign policy” to “I’m Ron Paul on steroids!!!” so fast he leaves skid marks and takes out a couple of telephone polls making the U-turn?

    It’s impossible to tell what the “substance” of Root is from one day to the next — or, at any given moment whether that substance is the real thing or just another pitch to get over on the rubes.

  161. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    @182

    “to Mr. Ogle Parliament. If you want me to run for Prez, help me increase my personal fortune by $2 million bucks – and I’ll think about it.”

    Good idea. I have taken out an ad, your name for vice president at http://www.usparliament.org and I will try to raise the money.

    What we’re trying to do is the scenario as written @181, but there wasn’t enough room.

    I will take out another as for IPR so people can find the conversation.

  162. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Nott/Moore/W.A.R. for President

    The 2010/2011 USA Parliament, Inc.’s Plan;
    Rank the #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, etc., etc., the more the better…for left leaning and right leaning Libertarians. (Just a suggestion, you may actually vote in any order you wish and OK to put your name #1)

    For those who are left leaning Libertarians and more pro-Obama;

    Nott/Moore/Obama/a female/Ogle/write in a female* [Libertarian/Libertarian/Democratic/Info. Not Avail./Free Parliamentary/write in*]
    (for pro-Democratic Party females)
    vs
    Moore/Obama/Ruwart/Ogle /write in a female*[Libertarian/Democratic/Libertarian/Free Parliamentary/write in*]
    (for pro-Democratic Party males)

    And for those who are right leaning Libertarians and more pro-Root;

    Moore/Root/Guinier/Ogle/write in a female* [Libertarian/Reagan Libertarian/Republican/Free Parliamentary/write in*]
    (for pro-Republican Party males)
    vs
    Root/Moore/Nott/Guinier/Ogle/write in a female* [Reagan Libertarian/Libertarian/Libertarian/Republican/Free Parliamentary/write in*]
    (pro-Republican Party females)

    *=write in your name or someone to represent you, and their party/category if known.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    Free Ireland!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    * * *
    http://www.usparliament.org/
    * * *
    Ad for GoNott Search!
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html
    *Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted*

  163. Robert Capozzi

    Tk186: You seem to think that this is separable from character issues. With some people, it can be. With others, it’s not. With Root, it’s generally not because he is exceptionally, for lack of a better descriptive term … Clintonesque.

    Me: Yes, we all change positions and tactics over time. You and I certainly have. Whether one views that as “evolution” or “fickle opportunism” is a fair question. Embedded deep in the L thought stream, there seems to be an inordinate desire for “consistency”…I’d go so far as to say Emersonian FOOLISH consistency. I’d prefer to see leaders and candidates in the LP with a core of consistency, but a willingness to make adjustments based on a change of heart or with additional data revealing itself. Taking positions solely based on polls – the Clintonesque way – seems to lack * enough of* a core consistency for some in assessing whether one wants another to hold a leadership position. That seems a fair – if subjective — standard.

    Tk: If he launches an unjustified attack on someone and it backfires on him (e.g. Ruwart), he’ll throw a staffer under the bus as the real author of the attack rather than confront the substance of the issue he brought up when that substance is going against him.

    Me: Hmm, I’d not heard this accusation before. Is there proof?

    Tk: If he takes a position and later finds embarrassing (e.g. his late 2006 endorsement of a McCain/Lieberman 2008 ticket), he’ll just lie about it when confronted with it.

    Me: This is out of bounds, IMO. If you catch someone in a smoking-gun lie once, that’s to be expected, since I’ve not met the person who has not lied. If there is a pattern of proven lying, I would say that such a person is someone I’d not want in a leadership position. It’s in-bounds to cite proof of the pattern of lies, as well as how someone has evolved. Personally, harping that someone is a “liar” strikes me as counter-productive, since everyone IS a liar. If someone exhibits a pattern of small and white lies, I’d say that’s different that one who tells big lies. IF Root unambiguously was supporting the notion of a McCain/Lieberman ticket for 08 in 06, I’d want to see the context to discern whether this is a permanently disqualifying lie, i.e., so bold a lie that I would have a difficult time ever supporting him. On its face, it isn’t one, especially since it’s widely known that he has been in an evolutionary process, from conservative R to L. If he’s been evasive on the subject, I’d suggest that he drop it. Like the Phillies-as-FEC-narc incident, in my book contrition goes a long way. ‘Fess up and move on seems a more attractive MO than deny/evade/deflect. But that’s just me, I guess. I may value humility in considering who I’d like to see in leadership positions more than most, admittedly. It seems inescapable that we as individuals won’t incorporate our impressions about a candidate’s character into account. For me, that’s not character assassination.

    Tk: How do you talk “substance” on a guy who goes from strong supporter of the Iraq war to weak supporter of the Iraq war to “Iraq was the wrong war, Iran is the right war” to allegedly anti-war over the course of a few months? How do you peg the “substance” of someone who goes from “Ron Paul is an old guy with some decent ideas but bad on foreign policy” to “I’m Ron Paul on steroids!!!” so fast he leaves skid marks and takes out a couple of telephone polls making the U-turn?

    Me: Sounds like a man in metamorphosis! Generally in my direction! But I take your point. If Root wants to be the LP’s standard-bearer and is, for some, de facto spokesperson, I think enough in the LP would like to get a better sense on what is behind his position shifts. I’d like to hear something like: “I used to be a Kool-Aid R, believing that the US is the sole super power that must be projected to ensure democracy. But, in making my transition to L, I’m increasingly convinced that Cold War model is wrongheaded and counterproductive. To be clear, I’m not a pacificist. I believe that a strong national defense is necessary. Etc. etc.” I don’t watch Root as closely as some do, but I do think this sort of approach would generate more goodwill than perhaps he realizes. He of course cannot please everyone, and he shouldn’t try to. OTOH, it seems very reasonable that prospective supporters would want to get a sense of where he’s coming from, where and why he’s made adjustments in his thinking…not a public confession, just a context reset.

  164. Thomas M. Sipos

    Robert Capozzi: “Whether one views that as “evolution”…

    I’ve repeatedly shot down the idiotic argument that Root is “evolving.”

    I’m sure you’ve read it many times on IPR, but I’ll repeat it again. Please don’t forget it this time.

    Root is not evolving. Evidence?

    Evolution implies a consistent move in a particular direction. But Root flip flops back and forth, back and forth, depending on his audience.

    He’s pro-Iraq War, then anti-Iraq War but pro-Iran War, then antiwar across the board, then pro-Afghan surge, then (when Obama orders an Afghan surge) Root is anti-Afghan surge, but then at Tea Parties he’s implicitly pro-war again.

    Root was anti-gay marriage, then pro-gay marriage, then he pulled back and was pro-states rights on gay marriage.

    Root does not evolve in any direction. Rather, Root flip flops back and forth, back and forth.

    I’m really tired of having to repeat the same answers to the same Root talking points. Please don’t make me do it again.

  165. relapse is a part of recovery

    @190

    I think there is a more innocent explanation for the phenomenon you observe. It is not unnatural to try to relate to one’s audience, especially when there is some ambivalence on a given issue.

    Everyone’s growth has bumps along the way. It’s not abnormal for Christians to “backslide,” for recovering addicts to relapse (it is actually considered a part of the recovery process), for adults to regress into adolescent or childish behavior at times.

    So, even if you are completely correct that Root relapses/backslides/regresses to his former positions, or something closer to them, at times, that does not necessarily mean that he is dishonest in undergoing a process of evolution in his views.

    Maybe he’s trying to find the right balance for him, and is under influences from different directions.

    Have you ever undergone an ideological evolution? Have you ever undergone one over a period of time, maybe with some bumps along the way? If not ideological, can you relate to some other aspect of your life – say, the process of growing up, or the process of building a career, or a relationship that may have had its ups and downs, as most do?

  166. Thomas L. Knapp

    @191,

    You write:

    “Have you ever undergone an ideological evolution?”

    Yes. Most people have.

    Most people have not, however, done so live to print journalists, in front of hot mics on radio and live cameras on talk radio, etc., while posturing as the leader/de facto spokesman of a political party, claiming to be “re-creating” that party’s ideology, and seeking that party’s presidential nomination, then its chairmanship, then its presidential nomination again (maybe — what’s his line on that this week?).

    Speaking of which, Root doesn’t limit his flip-flopping to ideological matters. I don’t know why anyone’s surprised that his line on the LP’s 2012 nomination keeps changing. In 2007 he announced (in May), un-announced (in July), and re-announced (in November or December) for the LP’s 2008 nomination, with considerable smaller vacillations in between.

    Bob @ 189,

    I’ve publicly and irrefutably documented multiple lies from Root. If you don’t discern a pattern, I suggest you consult a neurologist.

    Yes, there is some reasonable question as to whether his obviously deep-set habit of lying is calculated, casual or congenital … but any of the three would suffice as plausible reasons to call into question his fitness to lead or speak for a political party.

  167. LP watcher

    From these threads it seems that a person nearly has to be BORN a libertarian, to qualify as one. If a person comes to the LP and evolves into “more” of a libertarian, is that all bad? I know a lot of people in the LP who are “works in progress”.

  168. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    @182 Carol Moore [Libertarian] wrote;

    “to Mr. Ogle Parliament. If you want me to run for Prez, help me increase my personal fortune by $2 million bucks – and I’ll think about it.”

    Carol…after thinking about this, I believe we need to communicate …I tried calling your phone number and it’s disconnected.

    What we did in 2010, I want to repeat with you in 2011/2012. I am working with people who believe in votes cast as proof, as a tool for multi-party (and independents) coordination.

    I know you think it’s important to have a few million in the bank, but I believe information is powerful enough to overcome lack of money.

    During the last state elections in California, I emailed and called all 42 candidates (even a larger number, before the primary) for state office, and of those several voted as a team and they elected seven candidates as a team for the seven state offices.

    Just click the link below, and there are links to the actual “eballots”. Among those who participated were Libertarians, Peace & Freedom, Green and Constitution & American Independent Party candidates.

    So I have a plan for 2012 US Presidential elections that I am going to help guide, and that’s to create a multi-party team of three;
    US President, Vice Presidential and US Senate candidates, elected and working as a team in every state.

    MP Don Grundmann [Constitution], a candidate for US Senate in California is already interested in working again as a team player.

    Several other influential people, like MSP Chelene Nightingale [Constitution], a candidate for CA Governor in 2010, Nathan Johnson [American Independent] as candidate for Governor in 1998, and myself James Ogle [Free Parliamentary] a candidate for Governor with the Green Party in 1994 are among the current participants.

    Along with candidates for office in other states.

    So the plan is that we coordinate, despite the many party bosses and meanie men and women who want to dictate, and not work together as a team of 100 based on ballots cast as proof.

    What we do is vote on a set of rules to guide us.

    So to coordinate, I need to email you, to get your permission for your email address to be on my email list. Please contact me by emailing or calling my email address/number as listed on The USA Parliament, Inc.’s web page.

    As you know, I am working with Libertarians for Peace, and we are planning something this year in Monterey County.

    Unfortunately, many of the participants said “no”, that they would organize a team by themselves, without working as a team of 100 which is open to all parties and independents.

    They caused delays and malcontent, and conflict.

    On the other hand, there were/are a few people who like the idea, but the USA Parliament is powered by votes. Not by money votes, nor by one person dictating. It takes votes cast to create the pure proportional representation 100-member committee, and then those 100 also must vote on decisions.

    So if you (or anyone) would like to work as a team of 100 on the national level, we are the only “All Party System” operation that has been functioning since 8/1/1995 when the first 100 were elected in Usenet from 125 names.

    It’s like 0600 hours on Normandy Beach, and at current pace, “Battle of the Bulge” is more than 150,000 years in the future. If you want to coordinate as an army, with information as the weapon, then you are invited.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    Free Ireland!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    See the ad “Nott/Moore/W.A.R. in 2014”, a Libertarian Party coalition on the USA Parliament’s web page; http://www.usparliament.org/

    * * *
    Ad for GoNott Search!
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html
    *Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted*

  169. Robert Capozzi

    tms190: Please don’t make me do it again.

    me: Care to rephrase? Who’s “making” you? What exactly are those apparent voices in your head saying?

    tk192: I don’t know why anyone’s surprised that his line on the LP’s 2012 nomination keeps changing.

    me: Hmm, do you think you’re the strongest exponent to make this point? Aren’t you the guy who first was seeking the LP and BTP nod, then just LP, then neither, then out of the LP?

    As for my neurology, thanks for the concern. It probably could be better, but the mind and politics are often nuanced things, if you haven’t noticed. I think Relapse 191 offers a reasonable alternative to the one-quote-proves-the-totality-of-thought that you and Sipos seem to cling to.

  170. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You write:

    “Aren’t you the guy who first was seeking the LP and BTP nod, then just LP, then neither, then out of the LP?”

    No. You added an extra step in there. But even if that was the case, all of those moves are in the same direction.

    I was in — not just for president in 2012, but for various offices as both a candidate and a campaign worker, for 13 years — then I was out, and out I shall stay.

  171. Starchild

    Robert @183 – I agree with Tom Knapp’s response @186 to your comments here.

    When the root (pardon the pun) problem with someone is character issues, how do you *not* make disagreements personal? Tom is right — in W.A.R.’s case, the substance of my disagreements with him is inextricably related to his character.

    However, I wouldn’t say I dislike Root, let alone hate him. As odd as it may sound, I actually feel a little bit sorry for him. I don’t see him as malicious, and compared with the average person on the street he’s pretty libertarian, although not enough so for me to want him participating in making LP policy decisions or representing the party as a candidate.

    The main problems I see with W.A.R. are his inflated sense of self-importance, his obsession with winning such that he puts it ahead of everything else, and the raw ambition behind it. My feeling a bit sorry for him is based on the fact that I find it difficult to believe these qualities make him a very happy person.

  172. Michael H. Wilson

    One of the things a lot of Libertarian don’t seem to realize when they run for these big name federal office is that they are not going to win and watering down the message to go from 5% of the vote to 7% does no one any good. We end up in a situation where we seem like a watered down version of the fearmongers if we don’t stay on message.

  173. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    @198

    Yes I know exactly what you mean, and Libertarians aren’t the only ones who can come across as fear mongers.

    What happens is that once the long, long election cycle starts, the candidate is very cocky, and biting on the bit. Then as the cycle wears down to the last few days and the (third party or independent) candidate realizes they aren’t going to get a fair shake, they get desperate.

    The establishment media has pretty much harvested their ideas and turned them over to either the D or Rs, and so the candidate sort of turns into a meanie man/women.

    So that’s what you see (or what the media sees) when the campaign gets down to the last stretch.

    However, The USA Parliament, Inc. isn’t like that (hopefully) because as a team of 100 we know who the cool people are – the ones who work as a team and elect the “specialists”. So everything is calm (as we lose).

    But at least we aren’t looking like the “fear mongers”, like the single winner district power grabbing egotists, who are attracted to single winners district elections.

    Those types really get bent out of shape and come across negatively because they’re trying to prove they are better than everyone else around.

    Lots of them actually think they have to put others down to make themselves look good.

    It is difficult situation, I mean look at me, I guess maybe I’m doing the very same thing?

    The difference is that as a team of 100, I can confidently “stand down” for #1 and #2 because I have the ballots cast as proof. But selling the idea to others is difficult if not near impossible.

    But I really believe it’s the most mathematically perfect system, 100 seats elected with 1/101th (or .99%) plus one vote each. So I can invest everything into it, because everything else is corrupt in comparison.

    And so what if things are happening slow and small time? The results are perfect, we can bide our time and relax.
    * * *

    Lightfoot/Paul [Libertarian/Republican] in 2011!

    Grundmann [Constitution] for US Senate in 2012!

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    See the ad “Nott/Moore/W.A.R. in 2012?, a Libertarian Party coalition on the USA Parliament’s web page; http://www.usparliament.org/

    * * *
    Ad for GoNott Search!
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html
    *Volunteer Beta Testers Wanted*

  174. Thomas M. Sipos

    Capozzi: “Who’s “making” you? What exactly are those apparent voices in your head saying?”

    Your dishonesty is showing, Capozzi.

    When one says, “stop making me,” it’s often not meant literally.

    I’m sure you know this. But you like word games. You ignore the context of my usage, and inject “voices in one’s head.”

    You’re a dishonest fellow, Capozzi. A dishonest “debater.” But then, dishonesty is common among Root’s defenders.

  175. Robert Capozzi

    sc197: The main problems I see with W.A.R. are his inflated sense of self-importance, his obsession with winning such that he puts it ahead of everything else, and the raw ambition behind it. My feeling a bit sorry for him is based on the fact that I find it difficult to believe these qualities make him a very happy person.

    me: I see that on some levels, too. I’m pleased that you agree that making it personal is unwise.

    I also agree that (the perception of) character counts. I certainly can report that sometimes when watching or reading Root, I cringe at his words. But, at the same time, I do admire him for his efforts. Maybe he could be a promising horse in the stable who be trained to run Triple Crown races. Or he might just be another horse destined for the woulda, shoulda, coulda file.

    Regardless of his prospects, I’d say this ongoing dialog has careened well past concerns about character and consistency into character assassination. I’d like to see critiques slide away from the vicious attacks and back toward fact-based observations.

  176. Robert Capozzi

    tk 196: I was in — not just for president in 2012, but for various offices as both a candidate and a campaign worker, for 13 years — then I was out, and out I shall stay.

    me: Yes, your choice. I’ve seen the critique of Root that he’s tried to leave the farm leagues too early, that he needs to deepen his understanding of “L-ism” and pay his dues more. I hear that and respect that.

    Let’s say someone of REALLY great means decides he wants to get into politics in a big way. Say it’s someone like Mark Cuban…deep pockets, already L-leaning. He jumps in in a big way. He makes mistakes early on, but his already high-profile and big checkbook catapults him to a leading L role quickly.

    I’d love to see this happen, despite the perceived errors Cuban might make. If we’re going to grow and grow fast, I’d suggest we need to learn how to better tolerate deviations from the mean.

    Or, we can prepare ourselves to character assassinate Cuban, too…he’s an even GREATER risk than Root is!

  177. Robert Capozzi

    tms: When one says, “stop making me,” it’s often not meant literally.

    me: Thanks for clarifying. No, I guess I missed the usage you employ for “making.” I believe in free will.

  178. Robert Capozzi

    tms: A dishonest “debater.”

    me: If it’s a debate you want, you win!

    tms: But then, dishonesty is common among Root’s defenders.

    me: Yes, I could imagine that someone who sees the world as you apparently do — us vs. them, neocons vs. antiwar, black-and-white, no grays, no room for alternative perspectives — anyone who doesn’t line up with your “truth” would seem “dishonest.” You have found THE TRUTH, therefore anyone who has not must be imbued with lies, falsehoods, and dishonesty. Am I warm? If so, consider checking the premise.

  179. Thomas M. Sipos

    No, Capozzi, you’re not “warm.”

    You’re dishonest because you know very well what people mean in their posts, yet you ignore the substance, take words out of context, then try to distort it into something absurd so you can respond with a cute retort.

    But you already know that.

    (That’s your cue to respond with: “Oh, Sipos says I already know that! Sipos is a mind reader!”)

  180. Gains

    Back from Thanksgiving with family; having caught up on the thread, I would like to share a song:

    What did they do
    Just when everything looked so dark?
    “Man” they said,
    “We better
    Accent-tchu-ate the positive,
    E-lim-my nate the negative,
    Latch on
    To the affirmative,
    Don’t mess with Mister In-between.”
    No, don’t mess with Mister In-between.

  181. Robert Capozzi

    tms: (That’s your cue to respond with: “Oh, Sipos says I already know that! Sipos is a mind reader!”)

    me: It’s my practice to put it in the form of a question! You might well BE a mind reader! 😉 Anything’s possible!

    Notice that I’d asked, not asserted, “Who ‘making’ you?” It looked like a “tell,” a tipping of your hand as to what’s really going on with you, but I wasn’t sure. So I asked, I didn’t assert.

    Now that you mention it, though, parents sometimes will threaten a child with punishment by saying, “Don’t make me do X to stop you from doing Y.” That always struck me as ineffective rhetoric, and a perpetuation of a mindset that I find dysfunctional. The child can easily see through that idea, responding, in effect, “I’m not MAKING you do ANYTHING. I just want to do Y. Buzz off!”

    You are not our parent, Thomas, and you’re certainly not Root’s parent, not Root supporters parent, or those of us who are ambivalent about Root’s parent. Even if you were, your parenting skills seem very old-school to me.

    Consider making an adjustment to your approach. You might be surprised that your persuasiveness might actually improve!

  182. Robert Capozzi

    fair point. You`re not my parent, and I doubt you are the parent of virtually all those who don`t share your Root antipathy, which appears to me to be highly disproportionate and bordering on the hysterical.

  183. Thomas M. Sipos

    Capozzi, first you pretend that I called myself your parent, then you shoot it down.

    You like arguing with straw men, I see.

    As I said, you hate discussing substance. You prefer playing games.

  184. Robert Capozzi

    tms, hmm, not literally a “parent.” More like “an authority figure,” in this case, self-appointed. Now, to be fair, I’m a bit of a self-appointed “authority” figure in the sense that I challenge you for cutting brother Root down, often unfairly and with a zeal that makes no sense to me. I respect that it makes sense to you that you do what you do, but since I don’t see how anger or hate (dislike) is ever justified, I remain perplexed by your behavior. Our roles on this stage feel different to me, but I’ll leave that for others to decide.

  185. Sane LP member

    all this hub bub about Root and whatever. Meanwhile, we slip more quickly toward tyranny. The enemy are the R’s and D’s.

  186. Gains

    When you find yourself motivated by messages of fear, change the message.

    Fear is the mind killer.

  187. Gains

    TMS @208: “Who’s “our”? I was speaking solely to you.”

    FYI, there is no “you and me” in a public forum. It is easy to forget; but your argument is absorbed by everyone reading it. I mention it not to show a forensic win, but it is illustrative of the short sighted and unhealthy communication paradigm that attack resolutions for philosophic steering engender.

    Everyone not spearheading it, projects the resolutions intent and the gestalt upon themselves. That includes your potential allies who view the attack as potentially pointed at them next.

    RC @211:

    Brother Root?

    The LP as a monastic order… While I think that there is a relevant joke in there somewhere… I am not sure that that meme is going to go around the mulberry bush. 🙂

    As a fraternal order? If I catch your drift correctly, I would say that if enough people adopted some of the trappings of fraternity, we would probably be a happier society, and a more principled one.

    We would have to learn how to make friends while also learning how not to tell each other how to live, speak, or associate. Fraternity like any partnership does not live in relationships defined by language that mimics that of a parent and child.

  188. Robert Capozzi

    gains: We would have to learn how to make friends while also learning how not to tell each other how to live, speak, or associate.

    me: Yes, and the fraternity starts with one (or is that One?). The fraternal approach seems to work best when it’s recognized as its own reward.

  189. Gains

    RC @215: “The fraternal approach seems to work best when it’s recognized as its own reward.”

    Let me see if I can’t come up with a few game theory reasons why the fraternal approach has its own rewards:

    More friends means more people fighting with you when battle is called for… against the enemy.

    More friends keeps the more people out to make sure that battle is not called for upon you.

    More friends means more people voting with you.

    More friends means your vote stops being crazy and weird.

    More friends means more donations to your pet group.

    More friends means more people showing up at your favorite meeting meaning more people show up and come back, meaning more people show up…

    More friends means more people willing to explore the deeper depths of philosophy with you; honing both of your understandings… whether you wind up agreeing or not.

    More friends means more people who still call you back after a rousing discussion.

    More friends means more people talking about your efforts at the water cooler.

    More friends means more people at your conclaves and conventions.

    More friends means more people buying your books.

    More friends means more people reading your blogs.

    More friends means more people manning booths which turns into more booths.

    More friends means more people dedicated to the stability of the organization and to success of the message.

    Less friends means less of all of these things.

  190. Robert Capozzi

    Gains, not quite. Those things are likely results of the “reward,” which is peace of mind. Goes something like this: Look out on the world and see enemies, and one tends to be eternally suspicious if not vicious.

    Look out on the world and see friends/”brothers”, and one tends to be inviting, gracious, welcoming, friendly, open-minded.

  191. Gains

    RC @217:

    I get it, I also get the impression that the rules lawyers need a different explanation.

  192. Robert Capozzi

    g, same here. The challenge is that a rules lawyer is inclined to protest, saying, “but I was friendly and open minded…I was polite, etc.” Often, they can go through the motions of civility. Matters of the heart cannot be quantified, but the heart is where the change needs to happen. Rules lawyers are in their heads, near as I can tell. I confess that was my experience.

  193. Gains

    RC @219:

    Going through the motions is enough. I don’t think that you can change a person’s life strategies. You can only set a good example. Their heart changes when life’s experiences show them understanding in a new light and they have new strategies in hand.

    We need the rules lawyers; just pointed outwards. If they want to practice their people skills. I say encourage it. But beating on your nominal allies is just bad game play and it seems like the default strategy to me.

    I think that we would benefit from a pool of neophytes, so that when our masterminds identify a poignant issue there is juice to work it externally. Internally, I hope that they can start moving those Machiavellian wheels towards figuring out how to support scale while keeping people together and on message.

    The strategy of, “be on message or we will chop your [thumbs] off,” is just unethical in my book.

  194. Robert Capozzi

    g, I think I understand, and I think I largely agree. People are where they are. I’m not sure I quite agree that we “need” rules lawyers, but some seem to use that approach, an alternative example may be helpful to them on their chosen path.

    Staying on message seems effective; accepting deviations on the theme seems practical; chopping thumbs feels like a threat of continued flogging until attitudes improve, i.e., an unwise strategy, near as I can tell.

  195. If we act like asses...

    all this hub bub about Root and whatever. Meanwhile, we slip more quickly toward tyranny. The enemy are the R’s and D’s.

    …maybe we can ignore the elephant in the room….

    (Besides, other libertarians are within swinging reach of our foam bats, while the leadership of the bigger parties is not).

  196. Robert Capozzi

    “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

    -Pogo

    Maybe the “enemy” concept is the first mistake….

Leave a Reply

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