LP: Wherefore the urge to purge?

IPR reader “Gains” comments regarding the LP of Florida’s motion to boot Wayne Root from the LNC and LNCC:

WHEREAS, we are not able to produce peace enough in our party to act as friends and allies, and

WHEREAS, our petty jealousies, repressed fears, and incapacity for social interaction render us unable to allow charismatic people to leverage their skills for our benefit, and,

WHEREAS, we are unwilling to promote our ideals to the public because, well, we don’t know how to talk to the public, and,

WHEREAS, we are fearful of engaging the enemy and find others circled in the wagons with us much easier targets with which to prove our marksmanship, and,

WHEREAS, socializing others whose understandings are less than optimal is not nearly as fun as using our position in coalition trust to make sport out of destroying others good works, and,

WHEREAS, political activism that is effective is too much work compared to getting together and writing acerbic declarations, and,

WHEREAS, libertarian ethics are easy to corrupt and ignore when a contrived Machiavellian game, or juicy rumor of personal pain piques our appetite for unattained personal power:

NOW LET IT BE THEREFORE RESOLVED, the mote in our eye is nothing compared to the splinter in _____.

Personally, I think that Mr. Root would be better off reaching out and unifying Libertarians. I do not think that any attempt at “redefining” libertarianism is going to work out except to turn into another factional battle leveraging violence and fraud.

I think that the tactic of publicly “redefining” the cause, is in itself an attack on the party. There is no social construct that defines Libertarians that needs adjustment. Most people are simply not exposed to it so to introduce it as needing redefining is a tactical decision to exclude those who hold those tenets dear.

For people to look at this piece and to use it to demonstrate that Mr. Root has an agenda to cut out a large part of the Libertarian ethic for his own will is well put. But, the just actions that are certain to work against that extremely undesirable effect are recruiting, and educating.

Calling for purges and the ousting of elected representatives will only ever shrink the party. It will necessarily and as is shown in our history, inevitably involve force and fraud through the blinders of unrecognized emotion. Worst of all it will shrink the party as both sides take heavy attrition damage.

This sort of internal maneuvering on both sides is irresponsible and if we are going to fight any battles on this issue as members, I would suggest that the focus be on educating divisive people on the etiquette of coalition building, the skills needed to make friends and the natural consequences of internal sabotage.

398 thoughts on “LP: Wherefore the urge to purge?

  1. paulie Post author

    The LP’s purge jobs are not doing the party any good. We need active, capable spokespeople selling the party’s message in different ways to different audiences.

  2. Robert Capozzi

    Paulie, can we adopt Gains’s resolution as sponsored by the Rodney King Caucus? 😉

  3. Robert Capozzi

    Imagine if Gains actually IS our hero of peace and domestic tranquility, the Great Rodney himself!

  4. Single Winner District = Neanderthal Attractor

    The Great Lakes Super-state Parliament Circuit #7
    Indiana, Michigan and Ohio
    http://www.usparliament.org/ss7.htm

    Dave Thayer [United Society of All], Ashley Buck [Independent], Eric Smith [Republican], Joel Harris [Independent], Jeff Herman [Third], Mable Kovach [Democratic], Marie Phillips [Democratic], Dennis Davidsmeyer [Democratic], Michael A. Cluley [America First], Austin Post [Independent], Mark Steele [Discordian], Gigglebear [Pot], Dan Calson [American Pot], Aleah Smith [Pot], Nick Watson [Pot], Paula Leikari [Democratic], Patricia Grimmett [Independent], Paul Marcel-Rene’ [LDS], Ed Blythsly [Pot], James Tipton [Pot], Cody Allen Jenkins [Pot], Katherine Nivens [Republican], Cody Priest [Pot], Pamela Brett Albers [Republican], Nate Wien [Pot], Luke Pfister [Pot], Joyousone [Democratic], Shawn Brown [Pot], Arthur Miller [No Illegal Alien], Roberta Gottlebe [No Illegal Alien], Anonymous [Republican], Michal McKay [Pot], Erica Wells [Pot], Jeremiah Freedom [Michigan Top Rep.], Casper Leitch [Independent], Michael Davis [Communist]

  5. Michael H. Wilson

    Having been thru this urge to purge before I must disagree with this.

    Disagreeing with Mr. Root is one thing. Being disagreeable is another entirely.

  6. AroundtheblockAFT

    This is nothing new. The major parties do this crap all the time, from the White House to the local courthouse. The difference being, of course, that it really matters because they are capable of electing people who wield power over millions of people. The LP is kids in the sandbox arguing over whose castle is better.

  7. Robert Capozzi

    around,really? I can’t think of a recent instance of the Rs and Ds pulling a “full repudiation” of a prominent party member of late. Please help us understand what you mean.

  8. Jose C

    around,really? I can’t think of a recent instance of the Rs and Ds pulling a “full repudiation” of a prominent party member of late. Please help us understand what you mean.

    This happened in the last election where some in the Republican Party establishment were defeated (told to take a hike) in the primaries by “Tea Party” candidates.

    Examples of prominent Republicans kicked out of the party include Charlie Christ and Arlen Spector.

  9. Single Winner District = Neanderthal Attractor

    …I say throw W.A.R. out of the democratically illegitimate N.L.P., and we’ll take him over here on Normandy Beach.

    Are you afraid of him being one unit in a list of consecutively ranked units, with plenty of consecutively ranked units as back-up?

    The problem with the purge, is that both sides are still democratically illegit, and there doesn’t seem to be any structure or desire to leave that position. They’re both losing positions, and maybe there is a third way.

    After all, The USA Parliament, Inc. uses the most ultra conservative voting system known, where few (or no) votes gets wasted, because we don’t liberally throw the votes away.

    You’d think as a “conservative”, he’d like our system, don’t you?

    Are you scared?

    Come on, tell me I’m wrong, someone! Any neanderthals out there? All ye, all ye neanderthals, in free!

    Have W.A.R. join the Frees…opposite gender #1.
    We’ll be glad to count the votes, to find #s 1, 2, as well as 3 to 100, or as many as the rules guide us to elect.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    Free Parliamentary
    Free Marijuana
    Free and Equal

    “Why do you think they called it Google?”

    http://www.usparliament.org/potparty.htm

  10. Jill Pyeatt

    Gains says: “I would suggest that the focus be on educating divisive people on the etiquette of coalition building, the skills needed to make friends and the natural consequences of internal sabotage.”

    Many people have tried to communicate with Root in a constructive manner over a long period of time. He simply isn’t willing to stop his innappropriate behavior.

    Some behaviors require a purge, when the offending person is causing harm to the Party.

  11. paulie Post author

    This happened in the last election where some in the Republican Party establishment were defeated (told to take a hike) in the primaries by “Tea Party” candidates.

    Being defeated in a primary and being purged are different things.

    For example: Wayne Root was defeated for LNC chair and for the presidential nomination – he wasn’t purged.

  12. Robert Capozzi

    jc13, losing a primary is different, IMO, than a state party’s excomm “fully repudiating” a member of the national party’s natcom. Losing a primary simply means that the rank and file preferred another choice to stand for office.

  13. Robert Capozzi

    jp: Some behaviors require a purge, when the offending person is causing harm to the Party.

    me: Perhaps. It depends on what one means by “harm.” Here in VA, we’ve had a candidate for congress announce that there’s a “right” to private nukes. He wasn’t repudiated. That, IMO, was harmful, as it sounds like rantings overheard in the psych ward.

    I sometimes disagree with things Root says, but he’s not harming the LP, IMO. He’s raising money; getting exposure, and spreading the word…sub-optimally, but then, aren’t we all?

  14. AroundtheblockAFT

    #12, Mr. Capozzi you need to get out more.
    How about Guiliani attacking Ron Paul on national tv? Those in the RP campaign encountered (and participated in) all sorts of machinations in trying to get their delegates elected and seated. I remember conservatives after Goldwater engaging in whispering campaigns against prominent Sen. Hugh Scott as to his, shall we say, sexual orientation. Go to any YR convention and see what goes on behind the scenes as nasty rumors and lies are spread, delegations are packed, reputations destroyed.

  15. Thomas L. Knapp

    “losing a primary is different, IMO, than a state party’s excomm ‘fully repudiating’ a member of the national party’s natcom.”

    And being a member of somkomol is different than being an advocate for proletkult at gosplan.

    But some of us speak English, not apparatchik.

  16. Thomas L. Knapp

    @26,

    Giuliani attacking Paul in a debate was not a “purge.”

    However, there were GOP purges in several states when leadership refused to seat or count the votes of Paul delegates at lower-level conventions.

    Removal of Root from the LNC for ideological or competitive political reasons would, indeed, be a purge. The only thing to really be said for it is that it would at least be an honest purge, unlike the trumped up attempts from “the other side” over the last couple of years.

    The last purge national level LP purge I recall seemed to be mainly financial in nature. While the victim (Gene Cisewski) wasn’t technically removed from the party, he was eventually driven from an active role in it through frivolous and malicious litigation.

  17. George Phillies

    It is good to see that people are coming out in defense of Angela Keaton and the effort to purge her from the LNC, and the effort to drive Rachel Hawkridge off the LNC.

    Perhaps someone who can read the perhaps-offending quotes — they are a tad small on my screen– would care to report for review what was actually said?

  18. paulie Post author

    #30 Mr. Root was quoted as saying, “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.”

  19. Robert Capozzi

    tk: But some of us speak English, not apparatchik.

    me: Hmm, sorry you feel this way…I could spell out executive committee and national committee if you find that helpful, but you’ll note that my comments often have abbrev.s., for ex., L, IMO, etc.

  20. Thomas M. Sipos

    Root needn’t be purged from the LP.

    Rather, Root’s views should be repeatedly and publicly denounced, censured, etc., until the media knows that Root speaks only for Root.

    The goal should be to remove Root’s “de facto spokesperson of the LP” status.

    Once the media and public realize that Root is only speaking for Root — that he does not represent libertarian principles or the LP — then he will be seen as just another right-wing, hack, gasbag.

    As just another gasbag media clown, with no official or de facto “leadership status,” Root will no longer be harmful to the libertarian philosophy or party.

  21. Erik G.

    If I were any older, I’d attempt to counter-punch this asshat in the media. :/

    Hopefully by the time I’m old enough, there’ll still be an LP worth representing.

  22. Robert Milnes

    Sipos,again, you are in the ballpark but lame.
    Very few should be purged from the LP. & that is not what LPF called for. Removed from leadership, & I would include party office & candidacy.
    Rightists are always going to tend to rise in the party heirarchy. & dominate & seek to lead-mislead & educate-miseducate. & those that have been elected in the reactionary system of dems & reps will use that as cred/leverage e.g. Barr & Paul. & the MSM is reactionary, so why do you seek to earn its cred?
    Root enjoys about 40% support in the LP. He will always be able to parlay that with the MSM as defacto leadership unless officially removed.

  23. Robert Capozzi

    eg38, ya know, the LP’s demise has also been predicted many times. Could happen. Still, the idea of liberty is a strong one, and people will want to express it in some form. Don’t want to get spooky, but many believe we are entering a historic phase in which titantic change could happen.

    I came upon this, fwiw, on IMdB, which is a leading tool for researching film and TV:

    “Allison Taylor: Most likely Republican or possibly Libertarian (unconfirmed)”

    This was about the show 24, and the fictional presidents portrayed on it….the storyline spans many administrations. More tangentially, I’ve been surprised just how interesting and nuanced the show is. While I can see why paranoid right wingers are drawn to it, watching it through L eyes has been interesting for me. It certainly shows the government, even with all its resources, as profoundly corrupt and often inept.

    I’ve not watched this season through yet, but I’m watching for why President Taylor might be L. She does seem to have a lot of integrity, so there’s that!

    You may often disagree with Root, but is calling him base names really necessary?

  24. LP Pragmatist

    Agree with # 16.
    Does Florida have anything better to do?
    Like maybe helping their candidates and strategic planning for 2011 and 2012.
    There is very limited time in a volunteer organization.
    Maybe LP of Florida are all retirees with plenty of time.

  25. Gains

    Jill @18: “Many people have tried to communicate with Root in a constructive manner over a long period of time. He simply isn’t willing to stop his innappropriate behavior.

    Some behaviors require a purge, when the offending person is causing harm to the Party.”

    Let me start with telling you how much I disagree with Root’s message. I think that his attempts at reshaping the core values of the party are wholly inappropriate.

    I do not think that his recruiting only from the “right” is especially healthy in the long term.

    Personally, I have found him to be a bit of a jerk.

    I think that for him to act as a spokesman for the party and to denigrate those tenets is irresponsible, and a breach of trust.

    There are two major problems to how his detractors have handled the problem as illustrated in the Florida resolution. It has nothing to do with liking Root, and everything to do with ethical conduct and healthy social mores.

    Winning an election is not destructive behavior.

    Speaking your mind is not destructive behavior.

    Being imperfect is not destructive behavior.

    Advancing your personal agenda is not destructive behavior.

    Making a lot of friends is not destructive behavior.

    Being disliked is not destructive behavior.

    Having more resources or skills than the next fellow is not destructive behavior.

    I have yet to see any action by Root in this case be anything that one could justly call “destructive”. There is some hint that he might be… He does after all seem to want to engage in a philosophic purge himself when he expresses that he would like to remove half of our canon. He does not call for one though.

    There could be one serious breach of ethics by Root in this. But it hardly seems like an offense worthy of purgation.

    IF he is in a position where wholly representing the views of the party are his stated duties;

    IF while he is in that position he fails to perform those duties with fiduciary responsibility;

    THEN it would be appropriate to go through a course of progressive discipline, or find someone better for the position.

    I would suggest starting with resolutions that condemn the actions, not the man. Then if those resolutions are ignored, seeking official censure stopping the behavior. If those official edits are ignored we would be ethically bound to call for an investigation by neutral members to find the truth of the matter, and a long but neccessary consideration of that evidence with the rules of due process fully observed in presenting a trial.

    Removal from office is so utterly drastic is is incomprehensible that anyone with any responsibility to themselves, much less someone responsible to others as a representative, would consider it without trying everything else in the book.

    People, who deserve just as much representation as you, voted for Root to be in that office. You, me, and the other guy over there have no rightful authority to try and subvert that vote without dire cause.

    If you are going to call for Roots ouster, you need to cite your authority to do so. You also have a duty to follow due process. Otherwise, I would interpret your calls for a purge as far more dangerous to the party than some nitwit spouting his under-evolved personal political goals.

  26. Thomas M. Sipos

    Gains: “If you are going to call for Roots ouster, you need to cite your authority to do so. You also have a duty to follow due process.”

    No — because the goal of “calling for Root’s ouster” is not to actually oust him.

    The goal is to show the media and public that Root does not speak for many Libertarians.

    This chips away at the perception that Root is an official spokesperson for the LP…which lessens his “de facto” spokesperson status…which lessens his invites to represent the “Libertarian view” on TV…which lessens the problem of him misrepresenting the LP and turning off potential antiwar/pro-civil liberties recruits.

  27. Jill Pyeatt

    For the record, I don’t believe ouster is the only solution. Censure from The LNC would be a good start in letting Mr Root know how unhappy many of us are. People who know him tell me he does listen to his critics, for a while anyway. Perhaps formal censure would let WAR know the Libertarian party is very unhappy with his misrepresentations, enough so that he will work on stopping them.

  28. Be Rational

    The only way to “chip away” or reduce or replace Root as the “de facto” spokesperson for the LP is to find someone better as a Libertarian Party representative, get them a series of media gigs, and let them develop a following and an ongoing string of repeat appearances.

    In fact, limited attacts could actually enhance Root’s credibility since it shows that people inside the party listen and care what Root has to say. Without controversy, Sara Palin would never have gotten as big as she is either.

    So, what Libertarian Party member has a nice smile, some nice clothes, a winning personality, is well groomed, speaks well, entertains while being respectful, has a hook to attract attention, presents the libertarian message from a more central position and has some position or office to use for credibility, and is willing to put in the time and expense of becoming a second spokesperson, with the possibility, over time of becoming the goto spokesperson for the media when they want an LP voice on the air?

    We do need to find such an LP member to get on the media circuit. Even if we agreed with Root 100%, one spokesperson is not enough.

  29. Gains

    Thomas @43: “No — because the goal of “calling for Root’s ouster” is not to actually oust him.

    The goal is to show the media and public that Root does not speak for many Libertarians. ”

    So the call to oust him was fraudulent?

    Was it t was public hyperbole in official dress?

    Are resolutions vehicles for prankmanship or brinkmanship?

    I interpret extreme escalation in internal politicking is destructive behavior.

    If you are on the “liberal” side of things as described by Root, or feel that you are, you would be a fool to want to keep him as a representative. But if you blow a chunk of the party off by your tactics to change the situation, you will have done worse harm than you could claim that he has.

    I can count a dozen examples of straight out fraud in the posts under the several articles on this issue by people who do not like Root. It also feels like I could easily demonstrate how those bits of fraud, each of them, are a far bigger breach of libertarian ethics than Roots misguided messaging.

    I think that Be Rational @45 makes an excellent point and suggestions. Positive competition is the correct and ethical route to challenging Root’s influence. This mess, is skulduggery.

    The “left” Libertarians need to organize into something cooperative that does not rely on shock, anger, or petulance to motivate them. Because this lack of trustworthy competition against their rivals, is going to constantly get turned against them and it will consistently happen from within.

    We must adopt social mores as an organization that reflect the values that we propone.

    We must also adopt social mores as a society that respect the values we propone, and promote them through example and deed not threats, and pernicious sapping.

  30. Robert Capozzi

    gains: I interpret extreme escalation in internal politicking is destructive behavior.

    me: Yes, destructive, but it lines up with the absolutist Rothbardian worldview. Near as I’ve been able to put together, MNR took the example of the abolitionists and attempted to apply that model to all political discourse. The abolitionist cadre of the 1860s — a small number of activists — staked out the extreme position on one issue. Over time, others moved in their direction. In some ways, the extreme negotiating position worked out for the abolitionists, since slavery was ultimately abolished, though many died in the process.

    MNR and those who follow him (consciously or unconsciously) tend to apply the extreme negotiating tactic to anything vaguely political. In this case, they want to reign Root in, but rather than approaching the issue in a civil, reasonable way, they claim that removal is appropriate, knowing full well that it ISN’T appropriate, as TMS admits. They just want to damage Root in the hopes Root will bend to their plumb line.

    Like other dysfunctional thought and behavior, Rothbardians are often not even conscious of how this habitual thought process appears to others. They become blind to their own zealotry, often using sanctimony as a defense mechanism.

    Interestingly, MNR liked to justify their desire to “hold high the banner” as the “honest” approach, yet, when negotiating with them, it strikes me that the extreme negotiation approach is NOT honest. Perhaps they think the ends justify the means….

  31. Thomas L. Knapp

    Gains@46:

    “I can count a dozen examples of straight out fraud in the posts under the several articles on this issue by people who do not like Root.”

    Then please do so.

  32. Gains

    Thomas @48:
    This small sample is from:
    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/11/lp-of-florida-says-lnc-lncc-should-boot-wayne-root

    “Root is not a libertarian.”

    “The LP is an educational institution, and Root is miseducating.”

    “Sipos says Root miseducates. I say he misleads. He actually does both.”

    Stating opinion as fact is fraudulent.

    “That same principle applies to both Obama and Root.”

    Obama is not a member of the Party who associates with you with presupposed trust in coalition. The equation in the context of the posts is most certainly unequivalent.

    Intentional use of fallacious argument including ad hominem is fraud.

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud:
    “In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent.”

    Some have pointed out that the intention behind the resolution was not to actually do what it said but rather coerce Root through fear. In my book that is violence as well as fraud.

    A term that might be interesting for people to look-up or consider is “Sharp Practice”.

    Just because you are technically inside the rules, does not mean that you are not fraudulent. Distortion, fear mongering, and partial representation are also fraudulent activities.

    It is too easy to do, if you are not diligent and too easy to believe if you are not vigilant.

  33. Jill Pyeatt

    Gains says:

    “Stating opinion as fact is fraudulent.”

    –I say that’s quite a stretch, Gains. This IPR forum is almost always opinion. To state that someone’s opinion is fraud because they don’t implicity state ‘This is my opinion’ is absurd.

  34. Gains

    RC @47:

    I am aware of the Rothbardian synergy in this. But he is long gone. While understanding where this cultural hobgoblin was born is helpful in understanding why many of us are unconsciously inundated by it, it also feels like the history of it is a fetter that keeps us anchored to it.

  35. paulie Post author

    Hopefully by the time I’m old enough, there’ll still be an LP worth representing.

    You’re already old enough. Let’s make it happen.

  36. paulie Post author

    the idea of liberty is a strong one, and people will want to express it in some form. Don’t want to get spooky, but many believe we are entering a historic phase in which titantic change could happen.

    Yes. Be the change. We are change.

  37. paulie Post author

    Like maybe helping their candidates and strategic planning for 2011 and 2012.
    There is very limited time in a volunteer organization.

    Yep…

  38. Gains

    Jill @50:

    These are light examples*. It is not my intention to start fights with people that are going overboard by escalating things even more by going overboard myself.

    Since the conversation is in the context of institutionalized skulduggery, all of these casual exclamations add up to more than just opinions (at least in my opinion). It is a demonstration, as asked for by TK @48 that fraudulent behavior is rampant in our culture not damnation of those individuals.

    The unlinked and unreferenced examples are only meant to demonstrate that point. The principles in the demonstration are relevant in broader application and I think we would all benefit from considering that principle as we interact with our nominal allies.

    *If you really want some juicy examples of fraud in the party and in these forums, we can arrange more private communication. Such discussion in public is vulgar to the extent that I do not want to increase the evil in this world by repeating them in broadcast.

  39. Alan Pyeatt

    Thomas @ 37: I would not assume that the lamestream media does not know this already. I don’t think the MSM has much in common with the free press as Jefferson depicted it, especially since the CIA’s efforts at mind control via the media are well known (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird).

    Maybe I’m just paranoid, but I think we have to consider the possibility that there is a bona fide, Orwellian attempt to “redefine” the liberty movement out of existence. As Saul Alinsky pointed out, any organization that attempts social or political change WILL be infiltrated at some point. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies in Amerika still use COINTELPRO strategies, and while I am not accusing anyone, I think it would be a mistake to discount the possibility that WAR is (whether willingly or not) being used to achieve that purpose.

  40. Robert Capozzi

    g51: While understanding where this cultural hobgoblin was born is helpful in understanding why many of us are unconsciously inundated by it, it also feels like the history of it is a fetter that keeps us anchored to it.

    me: I would suggest that the Inception point is where we can best slay our “dragons.” If you’re suggesting that dredging up ancient history to continue/keep alive an long-running feud is unhealthy and counter-productive, then I agree.

    As a Randian/Rothbardian in recovery myself, I’d like to think I have some insight into how one can proceed from a deontological, absolutist thought system to a stern, us vs. them, take-no-prisoners mode of communication and behavior. That thought stream casts a pall on the LP and LM generally, IMO.

    Checking one’s premises — REALLY checking them — might uncover the root causes of our family’s dysfunction. I am open to alternative theories, however.

    I weary of the demonization cycle. It doesn’t work. There MUST be another way!

  41. paulie Post author

    The only way to “chip away” or reduce or replace Root as the “de facto” spokesperson for the LP is to find someone better as a Libertarian Party representative, get them a series of media gigs, and let them develop a following and an ongoing string of repeat appearances.

    In fact, limited attacts could actually enhance Root’s credibility since it shows that people inside the party listen and care what Root has to say. Without controversy, Sara Palin would never have gotten as big as she is either.

    So, what Libertarian Party member has a nice smile, some nice clothes, a winning personality, is well groomed, speaks well, entertains while being respectful, has a hook to attract attention, presents the libertarian message from a more central position and has some position or office to use for credibility, and is willing to put in the time and expense of becoming a second spokesperson, with the possibility, over time of becoming the goto spokesperson for the media when they want an LP voice on the air?

    We do need to find such an LP member to get on the media circuit. Even if we agreed with Root 100%, one spokesperson is not enough.

    Excellent point. I’ve already talked to two people who may be interested in pursuing such a possibility (plus Erik G, although he says he is too young now). If anyone else wants to talk about it I’m at 415-690-6352. We need to get several people out there.

    I have a few ideas that might help you if you want to get started. Give me a call.

  42. Thomas L. Knapp

    Gains,

    You write:

    “Stating opinion as fact is fraudulent.”

    Even under the broadest definition, it’s no such thing unless the opinion itself is dishonestly held.

    Now, really — do you or do you not have any evidence of any actually fraudulent attacks on Root?

  43. paulie Post author

    I think that Be Rational @45 makes an excellent point and suggestions. Positive competition is the correct and ethical route to challenging Root’s influence. [..]

    The “left” Libertarians need to organize into something cooperative that does not rely on shock, anger, or petulance to motivate them. Because this lack of trustworthy competition against their rivals, is going to constantly get turned against them and it will consistently happen from within.

    We must adopt social mores as an organization that reflect the values that we propone.

    We must also adopt social mores as a society that respect the values we propone, and promote them through example and deed

    Good ideas.

  44. Robert Capozzi

    ap56: Intelligence and law enforcement agencies in Amerika still use COINTELPRO strategies, and while I am not accusing anyone, I think it would be a mistake to discount the possibility that WAR is (whether willingly or not) being used to achieve that purpose.

    me: THIS is quite a bombshell. Any evidence?

    I’ve heard some doozies, but this one is extraordinary. Personally, I never discount ANY possibility. It’s also possible that the government sends abolitionist L agents to discredit the LP by agitating for extreme stances, as part of an intricate plan to stunt the growth of a major 3rd party dedicated to advancing the cause of liberty.

    I’d never assume any of these possibilities. I assume that our members sincerely believe in what they say until I have confirmation that they don’t.

  45. paulie Post author

    Speaking of Florida resolutions, I may or may not have mentioned this yet, from state chair Vicki Kirkland:

    The Libertarian Party of Florida voted on their Sunday night, November 14th State Executive Committee phone conference to endorse Dallas, Texas as the site for the 2012 Naional Convention. The vote was unanimous.

  46. Robert Milnes

    Thank you Thomas for in effect defeding me (& Sipos) against Gains’ illogic.
    When I say Root is not a libertarian, first of all that is not a fact. It is clearly an opinion and/or a conclusion. It is clearly honest unless proven otherwise. Plus I have clearly longstanding & repeatedly stated my evidence & rationale for same in IPR comments.
    I am now suspicious of your motives here, Gains.

  47. Robert Milnes

    RC @61 re: AP@56 I was going to comment in agreement with him.
    Evidence?: The Age of Surveillance by Frank J. Donner.
    I have long ago stated my suspicions about Root as possible agent, CI and/or dupe. I would be amazed if the LP, IPR comments etc. were NOT under surveillance & infiltrated.

  48. Alan Pyeatt

    Robert @ 61, if I had specific evidence, I would be much closer to making an accusation. My intent is to get people to think broadly about the possibilities here, because any logical conclusions (e.g., strategic decisions) based on faulty assumptions are likely to be faulty.

    The MSM can certainly has made some questionable decisions about news coverage that would lead one to question their true motives. I’m sure you can find plenty of examples without my help.

    Please note that the possibility I have raised about Mr. Root being used to destroy the LP as a tool for freedom neither requires nor discounts his knowledge or participation. Look at it this way: the LP’s mission threatens some very large cash flows. If the recipients of that money don’t have an interest in stopping us, then we’re not really doing our job very well, are we?

  49. Robert Capozzi

    ap: Please note that the possibility I have raised about Mr. Root being used to destroy the LP as a tool for freedom neither requires nor discounts his knowledge or participation.

    me: This could easily read: Please note that the possibility I have raised about [any LP member] being used to destroy the LP as a tool for freedom neither requires nor discounts his knowledge or participation.

    I’m about as supportive of “people thinking broadly” as a human being can be. What I don’t understand is why you fill in the blank with Root, over, say, Phillies, Dickey, or Hinkle?

    I’ve got no problem with thinking out loud. Pondering who and who is not an agent provocateur feels directionally like McCarthyism, however.

  50. Robert Milnes

    I have emailed Vicki Kirkland asking her to consider vp position on my Independent fusion ticket, assuming she meets Constitutional requirements e.g. age.

  51. paulie Post author

    ap: Please note that the possibility I have raised about Mr. Root being used to destroy the LP as a tool for freedom neither requires nor discounts his knowledge or participation.

    bc: This could easily read: Please note that the possibility I have raised about [any LP member] being used to destroy the LP as a tool for freedom neither requires nor discounts his knowledge or participation.

    p: I’ve long suspected that I’m being used to destroy the LP as a tool for freedom, but I can’t find any solid proof, so I’ll keep doing the best I can in the meantime… 🙂

  52. Robert Milnes

    Robert Capozzi, you might add my name to that list.
    An abolutionist L/l -I prefer radical- would have to be under extreme duress to participate in such a betrayal of the LP/movement.
    Whereas a rightist is not really a libertarian. Hence far more agreeable to same for various reasons/motives. Money, fame, power, ego etc.

  53. JT

    Robert: “If you’re suggesting that dredging up ancient history to continue/keep alive an long-running feud is unhealthy and counter-productive, then I agree.

    As a Randian/Rothbardian in recovery myself…”

    If you really think that’s “unhealthy and counterproductive,” then why do it? You reference Rand and Rothbard (which you’ve done repeatedly) and imply that those who agree with one or both of them are ill, since you’re in “recovery.” You seem to be perpetuating your own “feud.”

  54. JT

    Milnes: “I have emailed Vicki Kirkland asking her to consider vp position on my Independent fusion ticket, assuming she meets Constitutional requirements e.g. age.”

    Please let us know how that turns out.

  55. Robert Capozzi

    gp62: Mr. Karl Dickey, who wrote the Florida resolution, has transmitted to the LNC a detailed defense of his position.

    me: Care to share it?

    Interesting word choice, btw: “defense,” rather than “case for.”

  56. Robert Capozzi

    jt73, well, I’m with Mark Twain when he said “”When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.” I do, however, feel less mad (and angry!) since I stepped out from the Randian/Rothbardian thought system(s).

    If behavior today seems heavily influenced by the two Rs, then I trace it back to the source, as best I can. Perhaps I’ve not connected the dots exactly right, and in fact I’m sure I haven’t! Taking the red pill doesn’t, however, reverse years of blue pills.

    I would strongly assert with almost complete certainty that those who disagree with Twain are not paying attention. 😉

  57. paulie Post author

    paulie @69, LOL!
    I’d say you areat least more of an asset

    LOL…Thanks

    BTW, if you haven’t sent the computer to the Alabama LPHQ yet, send it to the DC national LPHQ, I’ll be in the vicinity there soon.

    assuming she meets Constitutional requirements e.g. age.

    LOL, yeah, I’m pretty sure she met those a while back…

    http://www.lpf.org/photos/vicki_kirkland.png

    An abolutionist L/l -I prefer radical- would have to be under extreme duress to participate in such a betrayal of the LP/movement.

    Since you have allegedly read up on the history of cointelpro etc., you should already know that agents provocateurs often pose as the most extreme members of any organization they infiltrate, pushing it in a direction that isolates it from being taken seriously by the establishment or mainstream and where talk of terrorism/violence becomes plausible.

    Hence far more agreeable to same for various reasons/motives. Money, fame, power, ego etc.

    Those are universal, and so is blackmail-type pressure. Basic police procedure.

  58. George Phillies

    Meanwhile, the LNC is hard at work being presented with another proposal for gaining ownership in a building in the belly of the beast, it has I gather yet to receive a complete budget for next year, etc.

  59. JT

    Robert: “I do, however, feel less mad (and angry!) since I stepped out from the Randian/Rothbardian thought system(s).”

    First, what Randian/Rothbardian thought system? They didn’t share a philosophy. They did share some political positions, but those aren’t a thought system.

    Second, maybe you feel less mad (and angry!) because you didn’t really understand what you thought you did (don’t tell me you were around such-and-such for a long time; that doesn’t prove understanding). If you think both of them shared a thought system, then you definitely didn’t.

    Third, given your response, you really don’t think that what you said before is “unhealthy and counterproductive.” You may just think so in certain contexts when it suits you.

    Also, I disagree with Twain on pretty much all of his foggy philosophical musings, that included. And there’s no “almost complete certainty.”

  60. Observation

    rc @ 75: Interesting word choice, btw: “defense,” rather than “case for.”–I agree.

    I know at least one state party’s leadership is freaking out and asking their members NOT to write a similar resolution. THAT is interesting (and creepy).

  61. Gains

    TK @59 & RM @64:

    Gentlemen, especially Mr. Milnes, in no way was I trying to demonstrate that you or anyone else was nefariously fraudulent in my examples. I was specific in not linking names or posts for that reason and explained my actions.

    Those examples were in response to Mr. Knapp asking for them; and he asked in the context of a discussion on the general dysfunction of using fraudulent argument that is endemic to our organization. It is a cultural more I am questioning not your character.

    I, myself, indulged in a sharp practice. The post I made was far more definitely worded than I had in my mind when I wrote it. For that I need to apologize to everyone. I think it was too much coffee and too little food for that late in the day for me. Please forgive me.

    Intentionally trying to hurt someone even just with sharp practices if not technically lying, is fraudulent behavior in my book and in some cases borders on violence when it is meant to evoke fear in the target or the reader.

    It seems to me that we all do this crap, we should all do it a lot less; especially with our allies. It is this light that I am trying to frame all of my points.

  62. paulie Post author

    Meanwhile, the LNC is hard at work being presented with another proposal for gaining ownership in a building in the belly of the beast

    The belly of the beast can be a great place to …(start @ 2:50)

  63. Alan Pyeatt

    p: I’ve long suspected that I’m being used to destroy the LP as a tool for freedom, but I can’t find any solid proof, so I’ll keep doing the best I can in the meantime… 🙂

    I like that plan!

  64. Robert Capozzi

    jt79: First, what Randian/Rothbardian thought system?

    me: Both were deontological absolutists at root. I agree they often didn’t agree with one another.

    jt: Second, maybe you feel less mad (and angry!) because you didn’t really understand what you thought you did…

    me: Agree. Possible. I also quit the Catholic Church when I was 12 and I was in no way ready for the priesthood then or now, but I’d like to think I get the basic idea.

    jt: Third, given your response, you really don’t think that what you said before is “unhealthy and counterproductive.”

    me: No. Sharing ideas is well within bounds, if indicated. Attacking the essence of others has never been indicated, to my knowledge.

    jt: You may just think so in certain contexts when it suits you.

    me: Yes, I’m a relativist. Mea culpa!

    jt: Also, I disagree with Twain on pretty much all of his foggy philosophical musings, that included. And there’s no “almost complete certainty.”

    me: For me there is…emphasis on “almost.” I’d say we live in one crazy world and if you don’t, then by most indications that I observe, you’re not paying attention. It’s a world driven by fear and fearful people who, admittedly, are not always consumed with paranoia and anger, but enough of the time that I count my lucky stars that we’ll muddle through tomorrow.

  65. Tom Blanton

    Short of bugging his car, home and office, tapping his telephones, monitoring his bank accounts, and conducting 24/7 surveillance on him and his accomplices, how would one obtain evidence that Wayne Root is a operative for an individual or organization that seeks to redefine libertarianism?

    Of course, just because there are private and governmental organizations, as well as wealthy industrialists, that routinely spend millions of dollars to achieve marginal political results, doesn’t mean they would actually do something to harm the LP. After all, that couldn’t really happen, right?

    Right?

    Right?

  66. Robert Capozzi

    80 and 85, my point seems to’ve been missed. If Dickey et al believe in their charges, they should make them WITHOUT defense. What’s to “defend”? If the FL ex comm speaks the truth, it should be apparent that the truth needs no “defense.”

    If they overstate for effect, I guess I get that…intending censure instead of ouster.

    I do wonder whether they tested their charges against the Golden Rule or some equivalent…if the situation was reversed and they’d said what Root found out of bounds, would they want HIM to call for THEIR ouster? Goose/gander sorta thing, ya know.

    My guess would be No, but I can’t speak for the FL ex comm. It remains extraordinary to me that they feel the need to press for ouster over more tame, less harsh, remedies available to them.

    Of course, if this is simply GP’s alliterative interpretation that in no way captures Dickey’s state of mind, well, never mind!

  67. Robert Capozzi

    tb: …how would one obtain evidence that Wayne Root is a operative…

    me: To borrow a tactic from Knappster

    …how would one obtain evidence that [Tom Blanton or anyone else] is a operative…

  68. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @89,

    You write:

    —-
    If Dickey et al believe in their charges, they should make them WITHOUT defense. What’s to “defend”? If the FL ex comm speaks the truth, it should be apparent that the truth needs no “defense.”
    —–

    Keep in mind the two letters (Dr.) that Phillies carries in front of his name, or the three (Ph.D.) behind it.

    Every Ph.D. or doctoral candidate in the world “defends” his or her thesis.

  69. George Phillies

    @86

    The words “detailed” and “defense” begin with the same syllable. They rhyme at the front end.

    Mr. Capozzi’s whining about my use of a classic English rhetorical device shows he is one of those Nattering Nabobs of Negativism.

    @92

    Thank you for trying to get across the point. Perhaps you will succeed. Every assertion in a claim is defended, as had been true for the last half-millennium. Unless, of course, you are a functional illiterate or a troll, or both, in which case the matter is beyond your comprehension.

    You, Tom, are neither illiterate nor trollish.

    Professor George D. J. Phillies, D.Sc.

  70. George Phillies

    Meanwhile, a resolution has been presented to the LNC by Mr Nolan for possible insertion in the agenda. I am told that it reads

    “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 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.”

  71. Jill Pyeatt

    Wow, thanks for posting that, George. I’m glad I had a chance to see it before I write to my rep tonight.

  72. Gains

    GP@94:

    In my opinion that resolution is an in-bounds response. It deals entirely with behavior. The trick may be in presenting it with some perspicacity. The word “always” in the last sentence should be better considered in my opinion.

    None the less, the article and Root’s own words seem to have been a clear shot across the bow to the non-Reagan Libertarians. The Florida resolution was what I call escalation and that is unfortunate because it could very well turn this resolution into a perceived personal attack and that could limit genuine negotiation.

    If Root were smart, the easiest pivot on this is to call for a roll call vote and vote yes himself. Reaching out to people in Nevada with a Reagan-lite message is not dumb; reaching out to the LP with a message embracing both sides is smart.

    BTW my non-Reagan lite friends, here are some tips on finding the wins in Roots messaging:

    It is probably not so easy to do with the elderly ones, but these Reagan-lites do have money for those that do activism. Protesting taxes with the rich old people to pay for your favorite peeve with the poor ones is not bad strategy. Interestingly enough it brings balance to your local Party if you make them your friends and partners in pursuing freedom.

    You should remember that Nevada is mostly the old west in disposition and many of these guys are far more libertarian in private than they put on in public. But those who are high-falutin’ enough to want to be political keep a level of …ah-hem… propriety. I recommend that you respect that, whacking on the prudes is just rude; you don’t always know what you are touching when you yank an old person out of their safe zones.

    You should also know those Nevada fogies love it when you regale them with stories. I bet you have better ones than Root does. Find someone who knows how to tell ’em and get to fund raising.

  73. Robert Capozzi

    Professor George D. J. Phillies, D.Sc.: Mr. Capozzi’s whining about my use of a classic English rhetorical device shows he is one of those Nattering Nabobs of Negativism.

    me: OK, I’m sure you get that I get alliteration, and that the alliteration is yours, not Dickey’s. It’s more than understandable, given how people with your title communicate with one another, and that that mode of communication leaked into your reportage.

    What we DON’T get is your narcing to the FEC against your own party. Now would be as good a time as any for you to explain the narcing in ways that we non D. Sc.’s might possibly comprehend. Humor us unwashed doctorates.

  74. Robert Milnes

    paulie@77, yes, I’ve read up on it-cointelpro-& got some first hand experience. e.g. I was snitch-jacketed in a half way house. There was very nearly a brawl in the living room!
    Root is clearly not a radical or anarchist & doesn’t say he is. So if he is up to something, it is not radicaler than thou provocateur.
    Most likely he is a buffoon & dupe.

  75. Alan Pyeatt

    Gains @ 98: “None the less, the article and Root’s own words seem to have been a clear shot across the bow to the non-Reagan Libertarians.”

    Me: With all due respect, that sentence is redundant. I appreciate your attempt to find common ground (and funding), but if you lie down with dogs, you are going to get fleas.

    The “Reagan libertarian” contradiction is a large part of my objection to WAR’s overall message, especially when he and his minions try to position him as “the de facto libertarian spokesman.” We need BRAND DIFFERENTIATION from Reagan’s murderous covert wars in Latin America, illegal arms sales to Iran, war on drugs, etc., etc. Just as I’m willing to work in coalition with leftists on Prop. 19, etc., I’m happy to work with conservatives on common issues. But I don’t think it serves us, nor our mission of establishing a free society, to allow ourselves to be mistaken for conservatives.

  76. Gains

    AP @106:

    “I appreciate your attempt to find common ground (and funding), but if you lie down with dogs, you are going to get fleas.”

    If you train your dog with a shock collar you are going to get your neighbor’s kid eaten. You can’t keep these people out. You can’t keep Root from recruiting. You can only out perform him.

    Now, as for common ground. “Reagan libertarians” SELF-identify with Reagan, because he is as close as they get to freedom in the GOP. For them to transform takes socialization.

  77. Alan Pyeatt

    Gains, I agree with all your points @ 107. But I don’t think they negate mine, and I repeat that we need brand differentiation from conservatives, not confusion with them.

    I also think that for the more rational Reagan fans, it’s helpful to acknowledge our common ground first. Then, as they get used to us, move on to the reality behind Reagan’s policies, as opposed to the mythology. I definitely agree with your emphasis on socialization. Group identification is very important.

  78. Pingback: David Nolan proposes resolution for LNC consideration | Independent Political Report

  79. Thomas M. Sipos

    Robert: “they claim that removal is appropriate, knowing full well that it ISN’T appropriate, as TMS admits.”

    I did not “admit” that ouster wasn’t “appropriate.” I offer no comment on the appropriateness of the matter.

    I believe that ouster is neither doable nor necessary. Calling for an ouster is enough to send a message to the media and the public.

    Nor is it “fraudulent” to call for an undoable ouster. Political groups, left and right, (and unions, and activists, etc.) often demand more than they can get.

  80. Robert Milnes

    Gains, I have to agree with TK @91. This is’t wishy washy softball. The dems & reps are playing VERY hardball & the issues are up to & including life & death.
    I believe when a third baseman throws to the first baseman for the out, he’s throwing as hard & fast & straight as he can.

  81. Thomas M. Sipos

    Gains: “You can’t keep Root from recruiting.”

    Not true. Any faction can prevent another faction from recruiting — not by barring anyone from joining the LP, but simply by creating an “offensive” presence within the LP.

    Root is doing just that, intentionally or not. Root’s statements offend “libertarian liberals.” Disgusted by Root and the pro-war faction, libertarian liberals don’t join the LP.

    Likewise, some “libertarian conservatives” have expressed disgust by the mere presence of the LP’s antiwar faction, and have thus left or not joined. Larry Elder famously left the LP because, he said, he so disagreed with the LP’s antiwar stance.

    So you’re wrong. A LOUD antiwar, “liberal” faction within the LP CAN prevent Root from recruiting.

    Just as a LOUD Root/pro-war faction prevents antiwar libertarians from recruiting.

    This is something that Root, Starr, and Republican Lites understand very well, though they’re smart enough not to openly say so. They usually issues the acceptable boilerplate talking points about “growing the party” and “winning elections.”

    But their actions reveal that they know very well that creating a specific image for the LP attracts one kind recruit, and repels another.

  82. Pingback: Brent McMillan: ‘Overcoming the Crabs in a Bucket Syndrome’ | Independent Political Report

  83. Tom Blanton

    Political groups, left and right, (and unions, and activists, etc.) often demand more than they can get.

    Ah, perhaps so in some political circles, but within the Reagan-Libertarian friendly Raging Moderate Caucus, one never demands anything. One merely hints at less than they might like to get.

    While it might be desirable to obtain a 1% cut in the federal budget, the common sense moderate approach would be to quietly suggest limiting the growth of government to the rate of inflation plus the rate of population growth.

  84. Gains

    AP @108:

    “…I repeat that we need brand differentiation from conservatives, not confusion with them.”

    Branding for who? Old people? Ever met a “Reagan Anything” who is now younger than 35? Therefore I would also not recommend trying to teach an old dog new tricks. I would instead change the command “sit” to “standing vote for supporting imperialism”.

    Do you really think they know anything about Reagan’s policies? Because I think most of them fondly remember the rhetoric and don’t have a clue about policy and could not be made to care. The only other thing they remember is his brave stance against enemies abroad.

    Why whack on people’s icons? Tell them the libertarian way, leave out their icon’s hypocrisy, move on and let them move up in wisdom. Allegorically, you don’t have to first make a christian into an atheist to get them to learn math, nor for them to grok organic chemistry.

    Want to win friends with the truth in Reagan’s policies? Talk to progressives. They will eat it up. Throw in something nice about Carter and the Corporate War on Poor People and it might win you a few minutes of getting some real philosophy in their ear.

    “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”

    Soon no one will be alive to worship the memory that is Reagan but only the object that Reagan will become. At that time all the policy arguments attached to him become demonstrable without personality getting in the way, but no one will care except historians.

    I would just the sorts that Root attracts good economics from scratch which they sorta understand, and why war is wrong and how the evil statists (communists… whatever… how precise do you need to be with someone who thinks that Reagan was a libertarian?) are turning us into an imperial power to destroy us and our freedoms.

    I think that you gotta make friends before you can teach principle. If you make your principles at odds with their mythologies, you have a much harder task than if you find allegory that fits them.

    Sipos @113:

    I know… I recognize the offense by Root. There are better ways of handling it. I don’t think that we run a high risk of losing the Nevada progressive vote here.

    RM and TK:

    I have been meaning to adderss TK @91 and the RK jabs. Call me a wuss again later if I fail to address the “you aint in grade school no more” argument.

  85. Thomas L. Knapp

    Gains,

    It’s not about whether you’re a “wuss” or not.

    You claimed to be able to count fraudulent attacks on Root.

    I asked for details.

    You first played the “redefine fraud until anything negative about Root constitutes fraud” card, and when that didn’t work you played the “don’t want to attack anybody” card.

    I’m not going to try to make you put up or shut up — I wouldn’t shut you up even if I could — but I am going to keep trying to get you to put up. Do you have the goods or don’t you?

  86. George Phillies

    Tom,

    Arguing with people who are ashamed of their own name can be a bit challenging. It reads to me as though ‘fraudulent attacks on Root’ may be a time coming as a list. Perhaps, recognizing that humans are fallible, it would be adequate for someone to generate a list of attacks, and ask G**ns whether he thinks that each of these is or is not fraudulent.

    What one views as appropriate grounds for removal is variable, though some respect for our rules and good sense might be a positive piece. Having a friend pay your dues was in essence an accusation against Lee Wrights. Telling the truth was viewed by some as an accusation against Angela Keaton. The most recent LNC meeting was seen by some as including accusations against a member who was not specified.

  87. Robert Capozzi

    dfn via gp 94: …the libertarian principles of self-ownership and non-aggression.

    me: I have a quibble with this last phrase, but The Nolan’s resolution seems far more appropriate to me than FL’s ex comm’s resolution. I’d be surprised if Root even disagreed, per se. This is not even a direct censure, but more a rather obvious statement.

    Personally, I’d prefer to delete “the” and end the words after “principles,” since the platform doesn’t use the terms “self-ownership” or “non-aggression.” I find both terms meaningless. Thankfully, those terms are at least preferable to the pronouncedly loopy-sounding (to me and likely most of humanity) “cult of the omnipotent state.”

    tms110: I believe that ouster is neither doable nor necessary….Nor is it “fraudulent” to call for an undoable ouster. Political groups, left and right, (and unions, and activists, etc.) often demand more than they can get.

    me: Where I come from, when something isn’t “necessary,” it’s “inappropriate.” Could be that you come from somewhere else, and I have to respect that difference in perception.

    Personally, I’d not use the word “fraudulent,” either, esp. with an L crowd, as that triggers a more legalistic, specific meaning than Gains seemed to use it. “Disingenuous” seems closer to the sought after meaning, possibly “duplicitous.”

    And, yes, special interest groups (SIGs) DO “demand” more than they think they’ll get. Generally, they do ask for or demand things that are in the realm of the possible, however. Demanding impossible things makes them look ridiculous except, perhaps, for the most ardent zealot. Hence, I’m not an abolitionist L, as I’d prefer Ls to not look ridiculous in the public square, e.g., a congressional candidate calling for the right to private nukes!

    Calibrating negotiating positioning is more art than science. Not unlike children, SIGs sometimes do make over-the-top win/lose demands to make a point or to play to their less-sophisticated memberships.

    Negotiating theory has evolved in recent decades. To my knowledge, most professional negotiators learn how to propose win/win situations. Think about it: When someone comes to negotiate with you and they propose a win/lose solution in which you lose, what is your likely response? Might you consider their proposal to be filled with ill will? I do.

    Negotiation is often hard work, patience, and a low time preference. When we demonstrate we understand the other side’s position, we at least pay them respect. That builds trust, where a real meeting of the minds is possible.

    This is why arbitration is on the rise. Sometimes, parties recognize that they reach an impasse, in part due to their inability to understand, much less agree with, the “other” side. Rather than litigate, many choose the less contentious arbitration route.

    I’d like to see Root do more of this — show that he at least understands L abolitionism. I suspect we get where he’s coming from pretty well, but I don’t see evidence that he gets where abolitionist Ls are coming from.

    Children say: “He started it” when adults break up a fight. Maybe, just maybe, cooler heads can prevail.

  88. Thomas M. Sipos

    Robert “Where I come from, when something isn’t ‘necessary,’ it’s ‘inappropriate.’ ”

    Really? You think necessity is a requirement for appropriateness?

    An outcome may not be necessary, yet still be desirable, or moral, or beneficial, or possess any number of other positive attributes that render its call appropriate.

  89. paulie Post author

    Interesting comment by Pete Healey on the Green Party thread relating to this topic:

    “An alternative translation of the “crab in the bucket” story is that , for ALL the crabs to get out of the bucket, at least ONE of them has to be strong enough to hang on to the edge of the bucket while others climb over his back and out of the bucket altogether. So if you’re hanging on to the edge of the bucket and someone grabs at your tail, hold tighter.”

  90. Gains

    TK @120:”You first played the “redefine fraud until anything negative about Root constitutes fraud” card, and when that didn’t work you played the “don’t want to attack anybody” card.”

    That is not how it went. Every post I have made has alluded to setting social mores for coalition building. I spoke too strongly when I said “outright fraud”. So congratulations on jumping on the strawman; you win the forensic portion of this debate while ignoring my point.

    If you don’t mind, I want to get back to building an understanding because Occam’s razor means very little when dealing with people and subjective maps of relationships. There is nothing objectively defined when you are tallking about complex maps. To concentrate on the specifics when the general is illustrated, you argue fallaciously.

    In context the frauds are small, hyperbole abounds ubiquitously. The frauds don’t stay small however and the social construct of encouraging such ascerbic competition above cooperation and coalition is destructive. Worse, there is so little social construct discouraging the behavior that it often runs an extreme course and results in a smaller party.

    The Democrats and the Republicans play these games all the time. I propose that the Democrats and the Republicans are losing their base because they have internally resorted to these games for so long that they have forgotten how to make new friends, grow their base and anchor people to an ideology. That had they not the force of government protecting their oligarchies, their games would broken them apart faster.

    As evidence I point at the growing number of people that refuse to register with any party. The body of voters increasingly choose not to identify much less join the Republicans or the Democrats. The “major parties” have forgotten how to build coalitions and maintain trust internally.

    Emulating their destructive behavior, is like an abuse victim emulating the behavior of their abuser. It is a natural progression, but a wholly unhealthy one. Unless there is intervention, the victim becomes the victimizer.

    These little frauds manifested in comments on IPR are illustrative of the default behavior in the LP. Attack your rival, spare no quarter, despite the fact that you NEED THEM ALIVE to prosper. It is insane. It also seems like the only tactic that many know how to pursue. We see that in these comments. In effect the argument seems to have become: Well, when individual or group recruits from the right because that is where they have their own most refined message, they are not recruiting from the left and therefore to maintain balance, we must destroy them… never mind the collateral damage.

  91. Robert Capozzi

    tms124, sorry, I meant to say if something is neither doable nor necessary, I call that inappropriate, yes.

  92. paulie Post author

    Hey folks, I’m packing for the road so I won’t be posting here near as much for an undetermined period of time, but I’d like to say….enough purge, let’s splurge!

    On that note, I got this in the email from the Advocates for Self Government….


    Great news: there is a revolution brewing on America’s campuses! Today’s students are inspiring an explosion of interest in libertarianism.

    To jump-start libertarian campus growth right now, the Advocates launched our Campus OPH program — offering our acclaimed OPH (Operation Politically Homeless) outreach kits FREE to libertarian student groups.

    So far, the results have been fantastic!

    And you can help make them even better. Please click here to sponsor a campus group.

    We’ve already sent more than 150 FREE kits to campus organizations this year. And more requests are coming in daily. With your support, I’d love to reach 200-plus kits distributed in the coming months.

    These numbers mean amazing things for the future of the Liberty Movement.

    Don’t take my word for it. Let these student libertarian leaders tell you in their own words what the Advocates’ free OPH kit program means to them.

    “One of our leaders, Kevin Duewel at George Washington University, used OPH to attract students during a student organization fair. He found it to be incredibly successful and attracted over 60 new students to his organization, 15 of whom he identifies as potential ‘core leaders’ for the future. Thank you so much for the support you have given SFL and the groups in our network — you are making a huge difference on campuses across the country.”– Peter J. Neiger, Internal Operations Manager, Students For Liberty

    “Operation Politically Homeless wildly surpassed all my hopes and expectations. It is the most powerful recruitment tool in the Liberty Movement.” — Clint Townsend, University of North Texas

    “The Pepperdine College Libertarians used the OPH kit yesterday. It was amazing! We had 20-plus students realize they were libertarians and signed up to get information about our meetings because they want to learn more about the ideas of liberty! It was incredible! It was the most successful tabling we have ever done. Thank you so much!” — Michelle J Fields, Pepperdine College Libertarians, Malibu, CA

    Let’s look closer at these OPH numbers.

    If the 150 kits we’ve given away are used the minimum three times, we’ll see 450 OPH events in the coming months. (Many student groups will, of course, do many more than three.)

    If each of the 450 OPH events identifies 30 students who score in the libertarian quadrant of the Quiz (a reasonable estimate based on past experience), that’s 15,000 libertarian-leaning students discovered!

    And if half of them get involved in student activities, that’s 7,500 new liberty activists in just one year!

    It is my goal to distribute 200 FREE kits this year — and potentially discover 10,000 or more new student libertarian activists!

    Each of these kits costs the Advocates $65 — a very worthwhile investment in the future of the Liberty Movement that is more than worth the expense.

    But I need your help to make sure we can continue to supply these students with the best outreach tool in the Liberty Movement.

    You can make a difference to these students by donating $65 dollars today to sponsor an OPH kit for their campuses.

    The student Liberty Movement is rapidly growing. This is exciting news! An entire generation is waking up to Liberty. And these libertarian students want to be active. They want to make a difference on their campuses and in the world.

    Every dollar you give helps equip these students to make a difference today and in the future.

    Thank you for your help and dedication to empower these libertarian students to grow their organizations on campus.
    Yours for Liberty,

    Sharon Harris
    President
    Advocates for Self-Government

    P.S. And of course, these kits can be used year after year, as new students arrive on campus.

    With your help, we’ll continue to refill the contents of these kits. We’ll also provide our acclaimed communication and outreach training for these new libertarians, so they can become ever more effective at spreading the ideas of liberty.

  93. Thomas L. Knapp

    Gains,

    Normally a strawman is something that one builds and then knocks down one’s self.

    You seem to be saying that you built the strawman, accidentally, and that I should therefore not bother to knock it down.

    Sounds reasonable … as long as you’re willing to dismantle it yourself.

    If you’re going to keep it standing there (“In context the frauds are small,” etc.), though, I’m going to keep hammering at it, if for no other reason than that in nearly 100% of “can’t we all get along” encounters I’ve seen in the LP, the “can’t we all get alonger” is actually saying “yes, yes, put your knife away … move a little to the left, please … yes, right under that anvil hanging from a rope, if you don’t mind too terribly much.”

    You’re alleging fraud, or you aren’t.

    If you aren’t, stop talking like you are.

    If you are, prove it.

  94. Robert Capozzi

    gains: Emulating [R & D] destructive behavior, is like an abuse victim emulating the behavior of their abuser. It is a natural progression, but a wholly unhealthy one. Unless there is intervention, the victim becomes the victimizer.

    me: Agreed. While I continue to suggest dropping the word “fraud” when communicating in this context and with this audience, the bigger picture — I’d suggest — is that this vicious circle of victim > victimer > victim is in no one’s interest, yet we keep doing it. It’s nothing new, really, but I find it very disappointing, since I in some ways agree with Emanuel that crises do represent an opportunity, if seen aright.

    Some Ls expect the imminent collapse of western civilization, so, with that premise, the need for coalition-building and civil intra-L relations and seeking win/wins generally doesn’t play with catastrophizers. Much of the bluster is probably on some level a case of blowing off steam, coupled with sincere application of deontological absolutist thinking, sometimes with amazing sophistication within the construct. There is a resistance to testing the construct at its foundation, as it can appear to have a profound level of internal consistency. Even if it doesn’t actually work, it seems to on paper.

    If one assumes blood in the streets any day now, communicating with others who share some of your views but not others need not be productive. Frightened people can be vicious. Making others “wrong” becomes a blood sport. Stocking up on bullets and freeze dried foods becomes the first order of business. The aperture of the lens narrows, and the ability to consider alternative ideas wanes.

    It’s understandable that a mind consumed with pre-apocalyptic preparations would say: Non-violent communication when we’re on the eve of destruction? Are you kidding me?

  95. Gains

    TK @129: “Sounds reasonable … as long as you’re willing to dismantle it yourself.”

    Crud, man, I have already expressed my mistake twice. Is nit-picking so important to you that you are willing to throw the entire conversation away for concentrating on it?

    Perhaps as you expressed, similar pleas in your experience are traps. This past experience projected on my arguments, is reasonable, but not rational. The deflection of the conversation is telling though. I never pretended to want to expose a specific instance of fraud but illustrate how it is rampant as a strategy.

    Do you want juicy bits of fraudulent behavior? Well, true to my premise, I am not willing to hand you or anyone else destructive ammunition. My claim is not against one, it is against all… including myself.

    I will take a different tack in illustrating my position: For anyone that is vocally denouncing Root’s outreach to the right, when was the last time you reached out to the left with the same fervency?

    I see complaints about how Root is driving away the opportunity to recruit from the left… Where is that recruitment effort being spoiled?

    Interestingly enough I can point to it, I reach out to the left constantly and am successful at it. I reach out to the right as well. Best of all, I and others who share the same productive attitude are not waging a war of attrition to bring the balance, but provide a bridge between; to not only bring the balance but bring both sides closer to the anti-statist view.

    So, please, indulge me: When was the last time you registered a dozen people in a day, how about 200? When was the last time you manned a table for a left cause, as a Libertarian ally? When was the last time you organized a table for a left cause and had progressives show up to help you? Who was the last former Democrat you got to sign the NAP and become an LP member?

  96. Robert Milnes

    Gains, I am proceeding from the belief that only libertarians should be LP party officials or candidates.
    Anarchists get an automatic cred.
    Rightists/non libertarians in coalition is way too onesided.L-Libs give, they take. Wherewithall, votes, volunteers etc. Usually the beneficiary is the GOP. Sometimes the CP. Ron Paul eventually endorsed CP Baldwin in 2008.
    MSM will not allow real libertarian publicity. But Root gets some-usually in known rightist circles e.g. Fox. This usurps the LP message.
    Libs are getting tired of this.
    There is no fair coalition with rightists.
    Maybe an outcome of this could be merger or coalition with LP & BTP. & GP. Now THAT has possibilities for party building & recruiting.

  97. paulie Post author

    When was the last time you registered a dozen people in a day, how about 200? When was the last time you manned a table for a left cause, as a Libertarian ally? When was the last time you organized a table for a left cause and had progressives show up to help you? Who was the last former Democrat you got to sign the NAP and become an LP member?

    Done all the above more than a few times. Not real good with keeping up with dates when this happened or that happened. Just had a business associate yelling at me for not keeping track of dates. Oh well, some people are better at some things than others….

  98. Gains

    Paulie @133:

    In posts previously I do not see you specifically attacking Root. Did I miss something?

    RM @132: I hear you making the same complaint as TK above, at least in principle: The right-leaning side of the LP is unfair in coalition, that they are all take and no give?

    In my experience I am bound to agree with you on that in principle. In return I am not going to propose doing the same. I think that their strategy has an inherent weakness that the left side has yet to exploit because they are too busy playing that same game; but with fewer resources and less cohesion.

  99. paulie Post author

    In posts previously I do not see you specifically attacking Root.

    Speed reading, need to pack. I missed the part about attacking Wayne.

    Going on the road tomorrow AM, may not have much access to internet for a while. 415-690-6352 if anyone wants to stay in touch.

  100. Alan Pyeatt

    Gains @ 119: “Do you really think they know anything about Reagan’s policies? Because I think most of them fondly remember the rhetoric and don’t have a clue about policy and could not be made to care.” Thank you for making one of my points for me.

    “Soon no one will be alive to worship the memory that is Reagan but only the object that Reagan will become. At that time all the policy arguments attached to him become demonstrable without personality getting in the way, but no one will care except historians.” No. Reagan is well on his way to becoming “historical proof” of the effectiveness of policies that he never implemented, in the minds of people who worship him but have no clue about what he really did. See FDR and Abraham Lincoln.

    “Want to win friends with the truth in Reagan’s policies? Talk to progressives. They will eat it up.” No kidding. Of course, if we allow ourselves to be mistakenly identified with Reagan, “progressives ” (I always put this term in quotation marks) will think they already know what policies we advocate, and won’t be as willing to work with us on issues of common interest. And then we have the uphill battle of re-educating them about what we’re really for and against. There’s very little to be gained here, and much to lose.

    “I think that you gotta make friends before you can teach principle.” Yes. I have never advocated anything else. I won’t reply to all the other arguments you attempted to refute, which I never said.

    “Branding for who?” O.k., so you don’t understand the concept of brand identification. The idea is that we distinguish ourselves from other parties, so that they have a reason to vote for our candidates. The Republicans have several advantages over us, so if voters don’t see a significant difference, they will vote for Republican candidates instead of ours. In order to give libertarians a reason to support us, and attract others to our philosophy, we have to distinguish our party from the others, and push our advantage: the personal benefits (and morality, for those who might be persuaded by it) of a consistent program of libertarian policies.

    Hope that helps.

  101. Thomas L. Knapp

    Gains,

    You write:

    “Crud, man, I have already expressed my mistake twice.”

    Yes … and gone right back to making it.

    You want me to stop addressing your claims of fraud, while you continue to reiterate those claims with an “unimportant — I’ll make them, but nobody else should address them” disclaimer.

    If you want to withdraw your claims, withdraw your claims. If you don’t want to withdraw them, why should I stop questioning them?

    As to the rest of your argument, it’s not particularly relevant to me. I don’t object to Root “recruiting from the right,” nor am I interested in countering him by “recruiting from the left,” because I’m not interested in recruiting for the LP at all.

    I’m pressing you on the point I’m pressing you on because it’s the point that I find interesting.

    A good deal of the time, when someone accuses a Root detractor of fraud, I’m that detractor, probably because I’m the Root detractor who has, up to this point, been most assiduous in exposing and irrefutably documenting Root’s own frauds (lying about his Better Business Bureau record, lying about his McCain-Lieberman endorsement, etc.).

    So, as a reasonably prominent Root detractor, I take a personal interest when someone publicly asserts that Root detraction is an enterprise rife with fraud.

    And I’m probably going to keep asking “whaddaya got?” until you either say what ya got or admit ya got nothin’.

  102. Gains

    Alan @136:

    Not only do I make one of your points for you, I embrace your concern fully. What we disagree with is what to do about someone recruiting people from the right.

    I do not care that Reaganites are old and not able to learn new tricks. I think the tricks they have are plenty fine with new packaging.

    I do not care that Reagan is getting re-branded for advancing liberty when he didn’t, liberty is being promoted. Reaganites move from the oligarchy of the GOP to the LP where they get real exposure to liberty. How is that bad?

    Progressives could not give a crap about Root, or his newspaper article. It is not even a blib on the screen to them nor the GOP.

    I understand brand identification plenty. The LP should be branded as the best of both worlds to the uninitiated, and the sanctuary of freedom to the wise.

    Without the influx of those who are not yet 100/100 on the Nolan Chart, there is little chance for socializing them which we both seem to agree is the best teacher.

  103. Alan Pyeatt

    Gains @ 126: “In effect the argument seems to have become: Well, when individual or group recruits from the right because that is where they have their own most refined message, they are not recruiting from the left and therefore to maintain balance, we must destroy them… never mind the collateral damage.”

    Me: I really don’t think you understand the objection some of us have to someone who really does not share our philosophy coming in, portraying himself as our spokesman, and then misleading the public about our philosophy and policy prescriptions while admittedly trying to “redefine” us as something which we are not, and don’t want to be.

    Example: your statement @ 131: “For anyone that is vocally denouncing Root’s outreach to the right, when was the last time you reached out to the left with the same fervency?” I don’t know anyone – and I do mean ANYONE – who is denouncing Root for reaching out to the right. We WANT him to reach out to the right. We do NOT want him to misrepresent us, nor to reinvent us as conservatives. We fully intend to remain a party of principle, “based on the moral principle of self-ownership” (http://www.lp.org/introduction/what-is-the-libertarian-party).

  104. Gains

    TK @137:

    For what you are looking for, I have nothing to expose publicly at this time. I am sorry that the point that I am trying to illustrate does not fall into what you are really interested in. I humbly apologize for distracting you with an poorly worded assertion.

  105. Gains

    AP @139: “I really don’t think you understand the objection some of us have to someone who really does not share our philosophy coming in, portraying himself as our spokesman, and then misleading the public about our philosophy and policy prescriptions while admittedly trying to “redefine” us as something which we are not, and don’t want to be.”

    Sir, I do understand!

    I tried to illustrate that all along. I have made posts that claimed that Roots tone and tenor was escalation. The circle of escalation is my entire complaint.

    Trust me, I get it. My question is, how does it end. Right now I see the radicals getting trounced in both production and ablation and this gambit is more of the same.

  106. Alan Pyeatt

    Gains @ 138: Sorry, I didn’t see your post before posting mine @ 139. I agree that we see much of this alike. But there are still a couple of significant points of disagreement: Reagan is not being “re-branded for advancing liberty.” That was his message all along, and good LP candidates like Ed Clark were calling him on it. But because the MSM wanted people to think of him that way, they ignored all the people who were pointing out his inconsistencies. As a result, the general public was confused (I would even say, “conned”) into accepting him as a liberty candidate. If we allow Root (or anybody else) to stamp the misconception of the “Reagan libertarian” in the general public’s minds, it will be far harder for us to implement pro-freedom policies.

    I disagree with you that “progressives” don’t care about Root. When they hear his “Reagan libertarian” line they WILL care, just as they cared about Barr. Maybe you know different “progressives” than I do, but that has been my experience.

    The good thing is that you seem like a person who can discuss differences of opinion without holding a grudge or turning it into a personal disagreement. I try to live up to that standard of conduct too, because it’s the only way we will ever be successful in achieving our common goals.

  107. Robert Capozzi

    ap139: We do NOT want [Root] to misrepresent us, nor to reinvent us as conservatives.

    me: Root cannot reinvent “us” as conservatives, if “us” means you and me. I KNOW I’m not a conservative, and I gather you’re not one, either.

    Misrepresentation is another matter, a serious one. When a congressional LP candidate in my area advocated the right to private nukes, I felt misrepresented. When Ron Paul and Bob Barr stated they were pro-life, I felt misrepresented.

    However, I voted for and enthusiastically supported both Paul and Barr. The private nuke candidate: No.

    I’m sure there are many, many other Ls who you feel also misrepresent the LP. It strikes me that the move to oust Root is not so much a function of the positions he takes, but that his noise machine is among the loudest the LP has ever seen.

    Is that fair?

    It seems if a plumb line is to be maintained and enforced, those advocating censure, full repudiation or expulsion should have some guidelines. Were I to ever run for office, I’d want to know that I can expect venomous, hysterical denunciations IF I were to advocate a green tax shift AND my views were picked up in a newspaper with circulation of 200K or more; a radio station with market share exceeding 3%; a network-affiliate TV station ; etc. This would give guidance to other Ls as to where the lines for denunciation are drawn.

    Or, is deviation policing to be enforced on a case-by-case basis.

    Clarification on this matter would be helpful….

  108. Alan Pyeatt

    Robert @ 143: “It strikes me that the move to oust Root is not so much a function of the positions he takes, but that his noise machine is among the loudest the LP has ever seen.

    Is that fair?”

    Me: I don’t know, because I’m not part of that movement. My objection to Root is not that he’s getting press, or appealing to conservatives, or any of his views. My objection is that he is misleading the general public about libertarian philosophy.

  109. Thomas L. Knapp

    “It seems if a plumb line is to be maintained and enforced, those advocating censure, full repudiation or expulsion should have some guidelines.”

    Obviously there should be guidelines for ANY uniform policy … but you seem to be under the impression that such guidelines haven’t been suggested. They have, pretty much as follows:

    1) The party urges candidates or other de facto party spokespersons to disclose their differences with the party’s platform when they take a public position that disagrees with that platform (e.g. “I believe that abortion should be restricted after the first trimester because [etc., etc.]. Let me make it clear that my personal position on this issue is not my party’s position”).

    2) If a candidate or de facto party spokesperson takes a public position that disagrees with the platform and doesn’t make such a disclosure, and the party’s leadership notices this or has it brought to their attention, they issue that disclosure themselves (“while we’re proud and supportive of all our candidates, etc., we do feel it necessary to point out that when the gentleman from Wisconsin calls for preemptive nuclear strikes on Iran, he is not speaking for the Libertarian Party”).

    3) If a candidate or de facto party spokesperson takes a position that disagrees with the party’s platform and falsely asserts that it DOES agree with the party’s platform, stronger measures (denunciation, dissociation, repudiation, censure, etc.) might be called for.

    Beyond ideological “plumb lines,” there are also matters of party loyalty, fiduciary duty, etc. that might also call for response, and that response might be more of a specific practical nature. For example, if an LNC member is urging state affiliates not to run candidates for public office and endorsing/applauding Republicans in the races he’s urging the LP to sit out, it might be appropriate to get him off the body that disposes of campaign/candidate support funds at the national level.

    Ideological conflicts may have gray areas. Partisan politics at the organizational/operational level doesn’t. You can’t play quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers while simultaneously playing linebacker for the Oakland Raiders, in a game where the two are competing against each other.

  110. Gains

    AP @142:”The good thing is that you seem like a person who can discuss differences of opinion without holding a grudge or turning it into a personal disagreement. I try to live up to that standard of conduct too, because it’s the only way we will ever be successful in achieving our common goals.”

    If it wasn’t for finding wins for as many people as possible, I would call the entire game fruitless. I derive no pleasure from beating others down, and all the joy in the world in gaining a new friend.

    You give a lot of credit to Wayne Allyn Root. I have yet to meet a progressive that has heard of him. Heck, most don’t even know Barr. Not one word to me during No on 8 in 2008.

    I never have had a progressive bring either of them up in conversation nor debate. I try to keep my conversations pointed to principles or action over discussions of personality or fine points of disagreement.

    I think if any progressive claimed that Root and I had the same ideology, I would remind them that Reagan was a progressive once, and I wasn’t so rude as to hold that against them… Then I would immediately try to steer the conversation back to action or principle.

  111. Robert Capozzi

    ap144: My objection is that [Root] is misleading the general public about libertarian philosophy.

    me: Hmm, I don’t recall Root representing the “L philosophy,” has he? Surely he represents himself as a L and what HIS views are, but I’ve not seen him say “the L philosophy says X, which means that we Ls believe Y,” or anything like that.

    Part of the challenge here is that there IS NO L philosophy. There are people who say they are L and express their philosophIES, yes? And certainly those philosophIES have much in common.

    Some contend that their personal philosophy is THE L philosophy, but invariably I disagree with at least some “canon” that another L claims is the “correct” position. Don’t you?

    If the person who claims to’ve codified the L canon is correct, then it follows that you and I are NOT L, correct, since we disagree with parts of the doctrine laid down by the Master L.

    Now, it is true that the LP has a platform, which may be something close to a canon. While I generally support the platform as being close enough to my views, it surely doesn’t capture my views entirely. My sense is that observers of political parties would not expect every member to worship/bow down to/accept as gospel every word in the platform, either. Platforms are imprecise outlines of what a party’s membership generally believe in. Most adults would not expect the platform to be a political Bible, sacrosanct, revered and obeyed in lock step.

    I’m pretty certain that even some of our most literalist abolitionist L brothers and sisters disagree (vehemently!) with some of language in the current platform. I do, too, although vehemence is not my personal practice.

  112. Robert Milnes

    Gains, I’m getting bored with you. Who the hell are you, anyway? I don’t recall your name & I’m a regular here with a pretty good memory. You may have posted previously but I don’t recognize your style. I do not have access to IPs.
    Are you a newbie to IPR? Are you a newbie to EVERYTHING?
    As far as issues involving libs, IPR,Root, rightists, BTP etc, Tom & I are virtual AUTHORITIES. Been around. You are taking up space & wasting our time.
    Put up a link.

  113. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You write:

    “Hmm, I don’t recall Root representing the ‘L philosophy,’ has he? Surely he represents himself as a L and what HIS views are, but I’ve not seen him say ‘the L philosophy says X, which means that we Ls believe Y,’ or anything like that.”

    Anarchists may be fellow travelers with us libertarians in the sense that they want to cooperate with our efforts to dramatically reduce the size of government, but where we part company is in their desire to eliminate the state altogether.

    Wayne Allyn Root, May 2008

  114. Robert Milnes

    Gains, no link. You come in here out of nowhere with some sort of self righteous attitude & start talking about fraudulant posts. You’ve already insulted me.
    I think you are some sort of disruptor.
    I say shun Gains at least until there is a link.

  115. JT

    Robert: “Part of the challenge here is that there IS NO L philosophy. There are people who say they are L and express their philosophIES, yes? And certainly those philosophIES have much in common.”

    If there’s no “L” philosophy, what do you think differentiates L from not L? Is everyone L? Can L apply to, say, Nazis? If not, then you’re saying there IS an L philosophy, though perhaps a very expansive one.

    It would be good if you answered this straight and not with stream-of-consciousness nonsense. I won’t hold my breath.

  116. JT

    Milnes: “I say shun Gains at least until there is a link.”

    Half the posters on this thread have no link, myself included.

    How did he insult you personally?

  117. Rene Douglas

    @Burris #

    When you stop verbally fellating every used car salesman you and Rutherford rescue from the reject pile.

  118. Gains

    Mr. Milnes the tradition of speaking anonymously is a time honored to avoid the ad hominem that is pretty consistent on IPR. @49 I stepped myself into a stupid rhetorical trap and I offended you by referring to your post as “fraud” while I was trying to demonstrate my meaning as broadly illustrative.

    You were misused and an unintentional implication made. In an attempt to characterize a practice that escalates, I went too far and caused escalation. I do not accuse you of fraud and retract anything I have said that implies in any way otherwise in this thread about you or anyone else in that manner.

    It was thoughtless and I apologize sincerely.

  119. paulie Post author

    Who is Gains? Who is Publius? Who cares?

    Back to packing my bags for me, and more of the same for y’all. About which, one more song…

  120. George Phillies

    Meanwhile, the LNC will also be discussing: Launching a separate building fund so the LNC can own rather than rent a DC office.
    Passing a budget, or perhaps not.
    A discussion of the Oregon affair.
    The secret LNC Email list — well, one of them, anyhow.

    Place and date for the 2012 Presidential nominating convention: The discussion is being run by Alicia Mattson, in some part because COC chair David Nolan — if I am not out of date on COC membership composition–apparently is not attending the meeting.

  121. Thomas M. Sipos

    Root: :Anarchists may be fellow travelers with us libertarians …

    Many anarchists are libertarians. Root doesn’t sound very “Big Tent.”

    Anarchists, minarchists, (and yes, many Rob Paul supporters) are all libertarian. Many types of libertarians — though none who apologize for imperialist wars (e.g., liberventionists, neocons, Statist Lites, Republican Lites).

    I suspect my Tent is bigger than Root & Co.’s.

  122. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Thomas Sipos:

    “Many anarchists are libertarians.”

    The word you’re looking for is “all.”

    All anarchists are libertarians. It’s conceivably possible that some libertarians aren’t anarchists.

  123. Jill Pyeatt

    ” I don’t recall Root representing the “L philosophy, has he?”

    Omigod, that’s all his does. I’m not even going to bother to post examples, because all you have to do is go to his website or Facebook page and he absolutely says he represents Libertarians as he condescendingly explains our platform (which is, of course, usually his platform, with sometimes little resemblance to our real platform.)

    This is why so many people are so passionate against him. If he would have the courtesy to qualify what he says as his opinion, he might really go somewhere in the party.

  124. Thomas M. Sipos

    Thomas L. Knapp @ 164

    I’d say that only some anarchists are libertarians.

    Other anarchists regard themselves as socialists. I don’t understand anarcho-socialism, but I don’t see how it can be libertarian.

    Jill Pyeatt @ 167

    Not only does Root claim to represent Libertarianism, but his minions (e.g. Starr) have been saying for two years that Root is the de facto face of the Libertarian Party.

  125. Jill Pyeatt

    Agreed, Thomas. Again, that’s why I’m so passionate against him, and I suspect many agree with me.

    As hard as Wayne works to spread his beliefs, I do, too. For someone to show up and threaten what I consider my life’s work is very serious. I’m never in my life been so publicly against someone, but over and over again, he earns my wrath. I suspect I’m not alone in this.

    I’m speaking strictly as an individual here, but I’m one of the small-business owners Wayne is convinced completely agree with him.

    Well, I don’t.

  126. paulie Post author

    Hey, late night people. I’m up a little earlier than usual today. Still got some packing to do, I’ll be headed out in a couple of hours…

    Meanwhile, the LNC will also be discussing: Launching a separate building fund so the LNC can own rather than rent a DC office.

    As Marc Montoni pointed out on previous threads, one problem with that may be that a future LNC will be tempted to raid the fund and divert it towards something else. I’m not really sure whether adequate safeguards can be built in.

    Place and date for the 2012 Presidential nominating convention

    Since apparently some people are reading this thread and not the other ones

    From phone conversation with one of my regional reps he said it is still up in the air as of this time, but Las Vegas or San Francisco are probably in the lead with Dallas as the least likely possibility, although it’s close and many LNC members are not firm in their vote yet. Dallas and Vegas are the two first choices of most committee members, but both also have the strongest negatives, so San Francisco could win because not a lot of people are strongly against it.

    If you feel strongly about any of the cities being selected you should contact http://www.lp.org/leadership as soon as possible. Bear in mind that they will be hitting the road soon (some have already), so you may wish to leave both an email and a phone message where both are available.

  127. paulie Post author

    All anarchists are libertarians.

    Anarchists who oppose all private property ownership rights can be described as libertarian, and some describe themselves that way. However, I don’t think that view point is what most people here mean by the term.

  128. paulie Post author

    It’s conceivably possible that some libertarians aren’t anarchists.

    While it is possible to define libertarianism so narrowly as to exclude even the most minimal-government of minimal government supporters, I don’t think it’s useful for our purposes here to take that approach. Of course, as someone who has now (r/d)enounced electoral politics, you are more free to take it without making your coalition too narrow to be effective.

  129. paulie Post author

    George, you say The Nolan is not attending the meeting?

    I said it much earlier in the day. You need to pay attention more, lol 🙂

    What will become of The Nolan Resolution?

    Probably a non-starter. My guess was that it wasn’t going anywhere from the get go, and without Nolan there it will almost certainly not make it onto the agenda, or be tabled. Of course, it’s possible someone else may introduce it, but I don’t think it will pass given the context.

    If I happen upon a computer I can borrow at the meeting, I will keep y’all updated.

  130. Robert Capozzi

    tk152, yes, that was a somewhat exclusionary, divisive statement. As a TAAAList L, I have deferred my final choice on the path toward liberty to the day when I consider the question meaningful. Short of a Mad Max scenario happening sometime in the next few decades, I’ll likely never have to decide between a preference for nightwatchman state or insurance-company heaven.

    Certainly Root is also acknowledging that anarchists and HIS def. of Ls are fellow travelers, as perhaps you seem to @ 164: “All anarchists are libertarians. It’s conceivably possible that some libertarians aren’t anarchists.” Your statement is appreciably more inclusive than Root’s, IMO.

    But, yes, this technically qualifies as Root “representing the ‘L philosophy,” with him being one and anarchists not. Good find, thanks. I’m curious whether he makes a habit of this. My sense is his focus is on what might be called the latest incarnation of Frank Meyer fusionism.

    I recall noted abolitionist Hogarth publicly denying that I am a L but rather a “fellow traveler.” I disagree with Root and Hogarth on these matters.

    jt155: If there’s no “L” philosophy, what do you think differentiates L from not L? Is everyone L? Can L apply to, say, Nazis? If not, then you’re saying there IS an L philosophy, though perhaps a very expansive one.

    me: OK, well, I’ll try not be offer you a nonsensical answer. 😉 It’s not up to me who’s is L and who isn’t. No, a Nazi is a Nazi. A L is someone who say he or she is L. IMO, a more useful (for me!) way to look at it is that there are several reasonably discernible strains of L-ism. Some create their own, generally hybrids. I count my primary political thought influences as Lao Tzu and Hayek.

    I have no need to create thought silos, I wonder if you think one does! If so, why? In matters political, my default position is to respect the opinions of others whether I agree with them or not.

    As a convenience, people ID themselves by their party or philosophy or nation of origin or gender. If someone tells me that he/she is L, I assume that means they value individual liberty and less government. I’ve coined the term “lessarchist” to capture what I use as a rule of thumb, to the extent I need to make a quick decision whether I’ve encountered a like-minded individual. If someone believes smaller government is indicated tomorrow, they give every impression of being on Team Lessarchist. Great!, is generally my reaction, unless they display offsetting attitudes.

    The Ls I encounter offer their opinions, and in my experience, I generally agree with other Ls on most things most of the time. I disagreed with Root’s view of Cordoba House. I disagree with Phillies that his narcing to the FEC was justified. I disagree with Root and Barr on abortion. I sometimes disagree when Knapp’s analysis becomes highly deontological, absolutist, and technical. This doesn’t mean (FOR ME!) that any of them are not L and I am. It means I sometimes disagree with others who call themselves L. That’s it!

    I might support nominating any of these folks and I might vote for them. I DID in the case of Paul and Barr.

    They’re all brothers in my book. It appears you have a problem with my more flowing approach to such matters, and my lack of litmus-testing, us-vs-them perspective. Your approach sounds more in line with Rand and Rothbard’s more dogmatic approach. I don’t find those approach(es) helpful any longer, but since I used to, I get the idea, I think…more or less.

    On a daily basis, I do, however, check my premises! Consider really giving that approach a try! You might be surprised how fulfilling it is to NOT be filled with judgment and condemnation every moment of the day!

  131. paulie Post author

    Other anarchists regard themselves as socialists. I don’t understand anarcho-socialism, but I don’t see how it can be libertarian.

    Voluntary anarcho-socialism can be libertarian, and can peacefully coexist with free market anarchism. Violent anarcho-nihilism that opposes any individual right to own property is a different story. Of course, it’s also possible to define it as super-localized tyranny rather than as anarchy.

  132. paulie Post author

    You never know. They may surprise me. I may act like a know it all but that’s just to mask deep seated insecurity, lol…

    (That, and the years of hardcore drug abuse…just imagine how smart I would have been if I hadn’t scrambled my brain like the proverbial eggs in the anti-drug TV commercials. If I had started out with average intellect, I would have been at best a drooling vegetable by now. )

  133. Robert Capozzi

    jp169: For someone to show up and threaten what I consider my life’s work is very serious.

    me: This is IMO a mouthful. Threaten? Really? If you feel “threatened,” consider looking inward instead of outward. Consider being confident in your life’s work, regardless of what others think of it.

    jp: I’m never in my life been so publicly against someone, but over and over again, he earns my wrath. I suspect I’m not alone in this.

    me: I am truly sorry to hear that. Others may well share your wrath, but your wrath is never justified. Why not assume that Root disagrees with you as much as you disagree with him, and then ask yourself: Do I deserve HIS wrath? Consider reading up on psychological projection, and I think may conclude that your anger is your own invention. People do what they do. You do what you do. That’s it. That’s all. The perceptions and judgments you make are yours and yours alone. Own that. Be responsible. Your choosing to think your thoughts…Root is not “making” you do anything, he’s just speaking his truth as best he can.

    jp: I’m speaking strictly as an individual here, but I’m one of the small-business owners Wayne is convinced completely agree with him.

    me: Complete agreement? Gosh, I hope not for his sake! That would be height of grandiosity! Very unhealthy attitude!

    IMO.

  134. Thomas M. Sipos

    Milnes: “Sipos, if there was a Peer Review Board & they declared Ron Paul to be not a libertarian…what would you do?”

    I already answered that. Here it is again: There already is a Peer Review Board. It’s called the convention.

    Furthermore, I have my own beliefs. I wouldn’t change it for some LP officer, nor for an LP convention, so I don’t why I’d change it for some Peer Review Board.

    Really, Milnes, what a silly question. Why would any libertarian give a damn what some Peer Review Board told us to think?

  135. Robert Capozzi

    rm: …if there was a Peer Review Board & they declared Ron Paul to be not a libertarian…what would you do?

    me: I’d probably laugh! 😉

    Then I might ask the “peers” by what authority did they believe they could sit in judgment of a brother or a sister? In rendering their judgment, did they feel in some way “superior” to Dr. Paul? Did they really believe this was the best use of their limited time here on the third stone from the sun?

    After a while, they might storm off, raving that I must be a “statist” and they’d check their computer or their copy of Roberts Rules or their copy of INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY to reread the “A=A” section, feeling safe and somehow filled with a sense of superiority that they had all the answers.

    And they’d be incorrect, again — unwilling to really check their premises.

  136. Gains

    JP @169:”For someone to show up and threaten what I consider my life’s work is very serious.”

    I still contend that the only just way you can beat Root at this game is to our perform him. All the posting and complaining in the world will not help you when he shows up with a delegation larger than yours at the convention.

    If you or others maneuver to prevent him from seating delegates, the action will send signals to others that are good libertarians that they will also not be treated with fairness.

    Take the California Floating Convention as an example. A lot of people enjoyed the cruise. But, the exclusiveness of the convention, the cost, the legal issues it presented, and the fact that no one could join in late or leave early according to their life’s needs rendered it ultimately inaccessible.

    The exclusivity of the event was leveraged by the very people, who in a position of trust, planned it out and executed it. Many people felt that they used it to ramrod their own agenda through. That perceived breach of trust caused members to leave the party.

    One of the best defenses for chicanery is forthrightness especially when the game is one with a rule set based on ethics.

  137. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    You write:

    ‘While it is possible to define libertarianism so narrowly as to exclude even the most minimal-government of minimal government supporters, I don’t think it’s useful for our purposes here to take that approach. Of course, as someone who has now (r/d)enounced electoral politics, you are more free to take it”

    Except that I don’t. In point of fact, my statement that you were replying to took exactly the opposite approach, that some non-anarchists may, in fact, be libertarians,

    Thomas S,

    You write:

    “I’d say that only some anarchists are libertarians.

    “Other anarchists regard themselves as socialists. I don’t understand anarcho-socialism, but I don’t see how it can be libertarian.”

    The first political usage of the word “libertarian” was to denote communist anarchism (prior to that it was used as a religious term relating to free will versus predestination).

    That usage continues to this day. It’s the other kinds of alleged libertarianism, including whatever variant you subscribe to (as well as the one I subscribe to), that are contingent/provisional/suspect newcomers.

  138. JT

    Robert: “No, a Nazi is a Nazi. A L is someone who say he or she is L.”

    A Nazi says hes libertarian. Is he? George W. Bush or Barack Obama says he’s libertarian. Is he?

    Robert: “I have no need to create thought silos, I wonder if you think one does!”

    What do you mean by thought silos? Hypotheticals? You do that all the time here.

    Robert: “If someone tells me that he/she is L, I assume that means they value individual liberty and less government. I’ve coined the term “lessarchist” to capture what I use as a rule of thumb, to the extent I need to make a quick decision whether I’ve encountered a like-minded individual.”

    So less government is your standard. About anything, to any extent? If so, then pretty much all people are libertarians; pretty much everyone knows something they want government to do less of. Or about net government? If so, then some people who want more government on any array of issues are also libertarians, if they want much less or none on a few others.

    Robert: “It appears you have a problem with my more flowing approach to such matters, and my lack of litmus-testing, us-vs-them perspective. Your approach sounds more in line with Rand and Rothbard’s more dogmatic approach.”

    Your declared extreme subjectivism aside, you do litmus-test, obviously. And I don’t agree about them having a dogmatic approach. Dogma is something not accepted by reason but by faith. That may what you did in error.

    Robert: “On a daily basis, I do, however, check my premises! Consider really giving that approach a try!”

    You’re not checking them well enough.

    Robert: “You might be surprised how fulfilling it is to NOT be filled with judgment and condemnation every moment of the day!”

    Excuse me? Why do you think I’m full of condemnation every moment of the day?? That’s a (false) judgment of me. How judgmental of you.

    Rigid intrinsicism and “flowing” subjectivism are a false dichotomy. But sometimes people will swing completely from one end to the other because don’t grasp that. It’s still their philosophical mistake (or false premise).

  139. JT

    A couple of missing words above:

    “That may be what you did in error.”

    “…because they don’t grasp that.”

  140. Robert Capozzi

    jt: A Nazi says hes libertarian. Is he? George W. Bush or Barack Obama says he’s libertarian. Is he?

    me: They may SAY they are L, but if they take the positions they are, but I would not vote or support them if their views remain Nazi, Obaman or Bushite. I don’t feel the need to tell them or others: No, you’re not L. I might tell them (if it’s indicated/seems appropriate), To me L means you want to advance liberty and peace. Based on X, Y and Z, I believe you do NOT want to advance liberty and peace. I cannot support you or your cause.

    JT: What do you mean by thought silos?

    me: I mean narrow-minded, reflexive thinking.

    jt: So less government is your standard. About anything, to any extent?

    me: Yes, less government, all things considered. I might support someone if I thought that on balance he or she would represent me and advance peace and liberty, even if they advocated some things I thought were not indicated. I’ve voted for pro-lifer, for ex., even though I’m not one. I did not support the private nukes L candidate because I thought his position hurt the cause of liberty, all things considered.

    jt: Your declared extreme subjectivism aside, you do litmus-test, obviously.

    me: Hmm, well, I’ve not claimed to be perfect, and I’m sure I’m not! If the private-nukes L realized later that his position actually was injurious to liberty, however, I might support him later. And I am open to the possibility that the private nukes position actually advances liberty! Indeed, I once — for about a week — used Rothbardian logic and concluded that it was the “correct” position. Thankfully, I quickly recognized that I’d been mistaken!

    jt: And I don’t agree about them having a dogmatic approach. Dogma is something not accepted by reason but by faith. That may what you did in error.

    me: Fair point. When I use the word “dogma,” I mean that one is not open to and genuinely interested in respectfully hearing alternative viewpoints. Dogmatists often seem to display a desire to make others wrong to demonstrate that they are right. Personally, I simply no longer buy the reason/faith dichotomy. “Reason” assumes perfect information and untainted perceptions. If not, then there’s “faith” in reason, since the person using “reason” assumes he or she has “enough” information and that he or she is processing that information correctly. Neither premise is correct, near as I can tell.

    jt: Excuse me? Why do you think I’m full of condemnation every moment of the day?? That’s a (false) judgment of me. How judgmental of you.

    me: My sincere apologies. I was projecting (and overstating) my own experience and observations of (former) fellow deontological absolutists. For all I know, you’re Lao Tzu! My bad!

    jt: Rigid intrinsicism and “flowing” subjectivism are a false dichotomy. But sometimes people will swing completely from one end to the other because don’t grasp that. It’s still their philosophical mistake (or false premise).

    me: I’d like to hear more…truly.

  141. Robert Capozzi

    jt, following up, why do feel the need to label who is L and who isn’t? What does that labeling do for you?

    I’d really like to understand the penchant for certifying who’s L. One sees it played out very often on IPR and on LewRockwell.com, for ex. I don’t find it a productive practice, but maybe it is!

    Help me understand the practice, please.

  142. Thomas L. Knapp

    “why do feel the need to label who is L and who isn’t?”

    You work in a factory. One of your co-workers is putting mustard in bottles labeled “mustard.” Another one of your co-workers is putting strychnine, lye and yellow food coloring in bottles labeled “mustard.”

    “Why do feel the need to label what is mustard and what is not?”

  143. Thomas M. Sipos

    I know it’s pointless arguing with you Milnes, as nothing ever sinks in. But I have some time this morning…

    What if this Independent Peer Review Board says that Root and Palin and Bush and Rudy Giuliani and John McCain are true libertarians — and that Phillies and Ruwart are not.

    What then, Milnes?

    Do you demand an Independent Peer Review Appeals Board to oversee the Independent Peer Review Board?

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

    There is of course the issue that Thomas Knapp (among others, I suppose), previously raised.

    What make you think, Milnes, that the same convention delegates who chose Barr would also have chosen Independent Peer Review Board members to remove Barr.

  144. Gains

    I would rather than multiple quality control efforts were directed at that deadly bottle of mustard.

    The last thing I want is a QA board that looks just at the packaging and ignores the content, the strychnine would still get through. If poisonous mustard were somehow profitable , it wouldn’t be long before there were regulations requiring them.

    A single peer review board may get so haughty that the only thing they will call mustard is grown and processed in Dijon.

    What if at convention Barr just didn’t get the nomination because you have enough principled people to run a principled candidate and win?

    What if convention goers were steeped in a tradition of not voting for anyone that they hadn’t gotten to know?

    Centralized control mechanisms to not enhance libertarian principles nor the social mechanisms necessary to actualize them.

    ###

    It has always seemed to me that the ones quickest to call someone else not-libertarian, had the most odious of practices contradicting libertarian thought. Sure, even a tape recorder can spout canon and dogmatic rhetoric. But to really live with the presumption that everyone else is as free as one’s self, takes a natural sense of tolerance, and fair play.

  145. Robert Capozzi

    tk, thanks. That analogy doesn`t work for me. Mustard is a tangible product. A candidate A

  146. JT

    Robert: “They may SAY they are L, but if they take the positions they are, but I would not vote or support them if their views remain Nazi, Obaman or Bushite.”

    Yes. And that contradicts what you said before: “A L is someone who say he or she is L.”

    Robert: “I mean narrow-minded, reflexive thinking.”

    My thinking isn’t “narrow-minded” or “reflexive.”

    Robert: “Yes, less government, all things considered.”

    So you view “libertarian” as “less government overall.” Even if, as I said before, that means someone wants much more government in an array of areas.

    Robert: “Hmm, well, I’ve not claimed to be perfect, and I’m sure I’m not!”

    It’s not a matter of being perfect. It’s a matter of you saying you don’t litmus-test when you do. So does everyone to some extent or another.

    Robert: “When I use the word “dogma,” I mean that one is not open to and genuinely interested in respectfully hearing alternative viewpoints.”

    Both Rand and Rothbard considered alternative positions on many issues, but they concluded that some were true and some weren’t. When you use the word “dogmatic,” you’re referring to “thinking alternative views on X contradict facts and aren’t logically justified.” And that’s not what “dogmatic” means.

    Robert: ““Reason” assumes perfect information and untainted perceptions. If not, then there’s “faith” in reason, since the person using “reason” assumes he or she has “enough” information and that he or she is processing that information correctly.””

    This is more evidence that you didn’t really grasp what you thought you did. Not going to wade deep into epistemology here though.

    Robert: “I was projecting (and overstating) my own experience and observations of (former) fellow deontological absolutists. For all I know, you’re Lao Tzu! My bad!”

    I’m not. I think moral condemnation is justified (and necessary) sometimes, just as moral praise is. But I’m not doing so “every moment of the day,” and I’m not walking around constantly feeling angry and hostile, as evidently you were.

    Robert: “I’d like to hear more…truly.”

    About what? Intrinsicism vs. subjectivism or about some people swinging from one all the way to the other? If you’ve read a lot of Rand and understand what she wrote, then you already know. You’re a great example of it.

  147. Kate O'Brien

    Love it. These purges would be turning us into a laughing stock, if we had any media leverage (if we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs if we had some eggs)

    Forty years. Sheesh

  148. Robert Capozzi

    jt:Yes. And that contradicts what you said before: “A L is someone who say he or she is L.”

    me: No, actually, I don’t agree. I might vote or support someone who DIDN’T say they were L, too, if I thought it was indicated. For ex., I considered voting for Obama in 08 as a means to express my view that McCain was unfit to have access to the nuclear football. (VA was a swing state in 08.) Had the LP nominated someone who I thought hurt the cause of liberty and peace, I might have actually done it. Barr’s views were in line enough with mine, and I thought Barr the most credible candidate the LP has ever nominated, so I enthusiastically voted for Barr. What I did NOT do was to access whether Barr passed a series of litmus tests of how “L” he was, since I don’t HAVE such a precise test; yes, if you believe “in line with” and “credible” are litmus tests, then I take your points. I don’t think they are litmus tests as I understand the concept.

    jt: My thinking isn’t “narrow-minded” or “reflexive.”

    me: Excellent! Hope that’s working for you.

    jt: So you view “libertarian” as “less government overall.” Even if, as I said before, that means someone wants much more government in an array of areas.

    me: Not exactly. I consider someone who’s views point to a reduction in the net incidence of government coercion to be a more or less in line with my views. If someone advocated something that I strongly felt hurt the cause of liberty, I might not support that person. I respect anyone’s right to label themselves as they see fit. There are some who call themselves L would who’ve taken positions I don’t support or find so tone-deaf that, at this time, I would not support. For ex., I find Hancock’s approach to politics to be too over-the-top for my tastes. Unless I saw significant change of heart and behavior, I would not support him. Or, Dondero. His hawkish views are too severe for me. I would not support someone like him at this time.

    jt: It’s not a matter of being perfect. It’s a matter of you saying you don’t litmus-test when you do. So does everyone to some extent or another.

    me: Yes, people make assessments and act on them. 24/7 navel gazing — while appealing to me on some level — doesn’t seem indicated for me. Sometimes, I make mistakes in my assessments and actions. My guess is you would offer the same report on your experiences of your own views and behavior.

    jt: Both Rand and Rothbard considered alternative positions on many issues, but they concluded that some were true and some weren’t. When you use the word “dogmatic,” you’re referring to “thinking alternative views on X contradict facts and aren’t logically justified.” And that’s not what “dogmatic” means.

    me: YES! That they thought that their thoughts were “true” is precisely the dysfunction I point to. All we can do here is compare notes, and — maybe if we’re fortunate — learn a thing or two. Truth is ineffable.

    jt: This is more evidence that you didn’t really grasp what you thought you did. Not going to wade deep into epistemology here though.

    me: OK, I respect that. But that’s YOUR truth, not mine. It’s MY truth that I’d agree that, yes, I’m not the world’s greatest expert on either of the Rs, if that’s what you mean.

    jt: I’m not. I think moral condemnation is justified (and necessary) sometimes, just as moral praise is.

    me: Your truth, not mine. I respect that, but at the moment, I’d suggest such an approach is contra-indicated.

    jt: But I’m not doing so “every moment of the day,” and I’m not walking around constantly feeling angry and hostile, as evidently you were.

    me: Hmm, when I bought the R’s thought system(s) in sequence, I can’t say I knowingly felt angry and hostile; rather, I’d say that they taught a worldview that tended to create an angry, separated emotional state. My report is that I was pretty effective in suppressing this emotional state, and I could often be quite jolly. There’s a reason why someone coined the term “angrytarian,” though, and my experience is that a lot of Ls are seething with anger. Perhaps your experience is different….

    Robert: “I’d like to hear more…truly.”

    jt: About what? Intrinsicism vs. subjectivism or about some people swinging from one all the way to the other?

    me: Sorry, I’d like to know why you think “Rigid intrinsicism and “flowing” subjectivism are a false dichotomy.”

  149. JT

    Okay, I’m gonna wind this down because you keep contradicting yourself and not acknowledging it, which is contra-indicated.

    Robert: “No, actually, I don’t agree. I might vote or support someone who DIDN’T say they were L, too, if I thought it was indicated.”

    You don’t agree with your own words? Who you’d support wasn’t the issue. You said “A L is someone who says he or she is L.” Then you said otherwise about a Nazi, or Bush or Obama.

    Robert: “Excellent! Hope that’s working for you.”

    What? Not being narrow-minded or reflexive? Okay…thanks.

    Robert: “If someone advocated something that I strongly felt hurt the cause of liberty, I might not support that person.”

    Again, this isn’t about who you’d support. The issue is being libertarian.

    Robert: “I respect anyone’s right to label themselves as they see fit.”

    Obviously, people have a right to label themselves as they fit. That doesn’t mean they really are what they call themselves. I have the right to call myself an octogenarian, but I’m really not one.

    Robert: “Yes, people make assessments and act on them. 24/7 navel gazing — while appealing to me on some level — doesn’t seem indicated for me.”

    You now go from making judgments to “24/7 navel-gazing.” That’s quite the leap there.

    Robert: “”YES! That they thought that their thoughts were “true” is precisely the dysfunction I point to.”

    It’s not a “dysfunction” for someone to think a thought he or she has is objectively true (consistent with facts). It would be a dysfunction to think none of your thoughts were.

    Robert: “Truth is ineffable.”

    I don’t think you’re using that word correctly. But if you believe nothing is objectively true, then you’re basically saying communication with you is futile. So continuing in this vein would be contra-indicated.

    Robert: “It’s MY truth that I’d agree that, yes, I’m not the world’s greatest expert on either of the Rs, if that’s what you mean.”

    You’re not “the world’s greatest expert on either of the Rs”, and I’m not either (again, they didn’t share the same underlying philosophy, even politically, so the fact you lump them in together is telling). But you’re not even well-informed.

    Robert: “Your truth, not mine. I respect that, but at the moment, I’d suggest such an approach is contra-indicated.”

    That moral judgment is necessary sometimes in life? I’d suggest that you do that as well as everyone else. You’re doing it with disparaging comments about Rand and Rothbard, for example.

    Robert: “Hmm, when I bought the R’s thought system(s) in sequence, I can’t say I knowingly felt angry and hostile; rather, I’d say that they taught a worldview that tended to create an angry, separated emotional state.”

    No. It’s indicated that was your problem.

    Robert: “Sorry, I’d like to know why you think “Rigid intrinsicism and “flowing” subjectivism are a false dichotomy.”

    Did you read anything AR wrote on this? I guess not given your current perspective. To very simply summarize them and then answer the question: a rigid intrinsicist looks outward at an authority for absolute truth and the good, while a “flowing” subjectivist looks inward at one’s own emotions for relative truth and the good. They’re a false dichotomy because there’s another distinct option: objectivity, which entails looking outward at reality and inward at one’s rational mind for universal truth and the good.

  150. Robert Capozzi

    jt, too bad you want to wind it down because I think we’re getting to the “good” stuff.

    jt: Again, this isn’t about who you’d support. The issue is being libertarian.

    me: The issue for YOU might well be who and what is L and who or what isn’t. I don’t especially care about what someone else labels oneself. My concern is to advance peace and liberty, as I think we need a lot more of those relative states of being. Less government is preferable to more until, perhaps, the day comes when it’s not.

    jt: Obviously, people have a right to label themselves as they fit. That doesn’t mean they really are what they call themselves. I have the right to call myself an octogenarian, but I’m really not one.

    me: Yes, you’re making Knapp’s argument in a different way…mustard and octogenarian are reasonably discrete things…actually, octogenarian is more definable. If we all agreed that means 80 up to 90, and that one’s birth certificate is accurate and available (Obama!), we can do base 10 math and arrive at a result. Mustard may be agreed to if it has X, Y and Z ingredients, but if we add enough mayo to the mustard, at some point many would no longer call it mustard. Even mustard and octogenarian depend on a series of abstractions…numbers, words, which language is used, etc….

    A political philosophy (or any philosophy) involves multiple abstractions, symbols and constructs. The interpretations widen out because the ingredients are intangible.

    We are more likely to get universal agreement for a tangible product with a few ingredients than we are for an intangible concept with many, many components. I’d think you agree.

    jt: You now go from making judgments to “24/7 navel-gazing.” That’s quite the leap there.

    me: Sorry, I was being colorful and non-literal. My point is that one could ATTEMPT to do absolutely nothing in the perceived world, but we’d quickly perish. Instead, I’d suggest that humans go through the world on a daily basis with imperfect knowledge, biased and often twisted perceptions and a severely limited knowledge base. We do the best we can, despite those limitations.

    jt: It’s not a “dysfunction” for someone to think a thought he or she has is objectively true (consistent with facts). It would be a dysfunction to think none of your thoughts were.

    me: I guess we really are watching a different movie, then. When I observe the world, I see people making mistakes about what THEY are perceiving and acting on all day long. Of course, more often than not, each individual isn’t one long mistake machine. I assume you make mistakes too, JT, I know I do. (At least, what appear to be mistakes!)

    Based on results, instead of viewing “objective truth,” I’d suggest it’s more serviceable to say that we view time and space as best we can, and do the best we can to act in time and space according to our values, which were arrived at through a very complex series of lessons we learn through our lifetime. At the moment of decision, the combination of our perceptions and our value systems are synthesized, and an action is taken or words are spoken. Those decisions differ from person to person.

    Consider two economists: Krugman and Cowen. Both might look at the same “objective” fact set and reach very different conclusions as to what action is indicated. Importantly, both will blend both their value systems with a selection of data points behind the “objective” fact set; both read economic history very differently, too.

    jt: I don’t think you’re using that word correctly. But if you believe nothing is objectively true, then you’re basically saying communication with you is futile. So continuing in this vein would be contra-indicated.

    me: Hmm, well, you may think it’s futile for you, but communicating with you is enjoyable for me! We humans are perceiving/value-assessing machines that cannot know exactly what another human is thinking or feeling. We can only get a sense of the totality of what it is to be in another’s shoes. We communicate to share notes, to gain perspective, to test our own values and perceptions.

    I think I’m finally getting why the idea that “patience is a virtue” is such a powerful one. Since there is such a wide range of perception and values, and since humans are mistake prone, patience does seem to be indicated.

    jt: That moral judgment is necessary sometimes in life? I’d suggest that you do that as well as everyone else. You’re doing it with disparaging comments about Rand and Rothbard, for example.

    me: Truly sorry if it comes off that way. While I do have my (fallen) moments, no, I don’t morally judge the Rs. I question their assumptions. I don’t buy into their assumptions. I admire both Rs for giving it the good ole’ college try. I don’t think either cracked the code of Truth, however. I know I haven’t, either! Nevertheless, I agree with the Rs on the importance of maximizing liberty in human behavior. That sounds like a party to me!

    jt: Did you read anything AR wrote on this? I guess not given your current perspective. To very simply summarize them and then answer the question: a rigid intrinsicist looks outward at an authority for absolute truth and the good, while a “flowing” subjectivist looks inward at one’s own emotions for relative truth and the good. They’re a false dichotomy because there’s another distinct option: objectivity, which entails looking outward at reality and inward at one’s rational mind for universal truth and the good.

    me: Decades ago I read all Rand’s books and some of the newsletters. My memory is imperfect. I’d say looking outward at the world and looking inward toward one’s conscience is what we all do. Both are prone to error…perception and conscience. Both are prone to disagreement, for the individual and among individuals. I seem to be the same person, but something I wrote 10 years ago might seem off to me today. I suspect many/most others have a similar experience. Krugman perceives and assesses, so does Cowen, and they disagree.

    Is Krugman “objectively” “wrong” and Cowen not? Are both “wrong”? Both “right”? Am I “wrong”? Can “right” or “wrong” be “proven” in some unalterable, metaphysical sense? Humbly, my opinion is No.

  151. JT

    Robert: “jt, too bad you want to wind it down because I think we’re getting to the “good” stuff.”

    This is the “good stuff” for you? Okay. I’m getting more bored realizing that rational discussion with you–at least on this thread–is futile. I’ll end it here because continuing on is contra-indicated.

    Robert: “The issue for YOU might well be who and what is L and who or what isn’t. I don’t especially care about what someone else labels oneself.”

    Oh, I do. That word–like any–has a definition that allows for meaningful communication between people–just like you think “lessarchist” does.

    Robert: “When I observe the world, I see people making mistakes about what THEY are perceiving and acting on all day long. Of course, more often than not, each individual isn’t one long mistake machine. I assume you make mistakes too, JT, I know I do. (At least, what appear to be mistakes!)”

    Of course I do. But how do I know they’re MISTAKES? Because I then see objective evidence that the truth isn’t what I initially thought it to be. The fact that people aren’t omniscient and infallible doesn’t mean there isn’t any objective reality or truth; it’s only BECA– USE there’s objective reality and truth that people can even know they’ve made mistakes at all.

    Robert: “While I do have my (fallen) moments, no, I don’t morally judge the Rs. I question their assumptions. I don’t buy into their assumptions. I admire both Rs for giving it the good ole’ college try.”

    Admiration is a form of moral judgment. Pesky contradictions.

    Robert: “Consider two economists: Krugman and Cowen. Both might look at the same “objective” fact set and reach very different conclusions as to what action is indicated…

    …Is Krugman “objectively” “wrong” and Cowen not? Are both “wrong”? Both “right”? Am I “wrong”? Can “right” or “wrong” be “proven” in some unalterable, metaphysical sense? Humbly, my opinion is No.”

    People sometimes come to different conclusions about the same set of facts. You (falsely) assume that must be because each are merely injecting different emotional biases into the process.

    You don’t acknowledge that one may be using valid logic, while the other isn’t (or both may not be). Logic isn’t automatic; you have to repeatedly check whether your conclusions are properly inferred from the relevant facts. Sometimes people–including academics–don’t.

    Robert: “Decades ago I read all Rand’s books and some of the newsletters. My memory is imperfect.”

    That’s the understatement of the day. Or should I say: it might be true for you that you read all that material decades ago. But for me the truth is that you never even read anything she wrote.

    One more thing: Even your (annoying) usage of the labels “indicated” and “contra-indicated” contradict your espoused subjectivism. When you use them–just like the medical practitioners from whom you picked them up–you’re affirming the existence of an objective reality and attempting to draw a logical, objective conclusion from some facts of that reality.

    I rest my case. Have the last word.

  152. Robert Capozzi

    jt: Admiration is a form of moral judgment. Pesky contradictions.

    me: Again, for you it is. My assumption is that we are all brothers and sisters. When a brother or sister does something that seems extraordinary, I note it. Morally, our essence is equal. Our behavior is not.

    jt: People sometimes come to different conclusions about the same set of facts. You (falsely) assume that must be because each are merely injecting different emotional biases into the process.

    me: Not only emotions. Perceptions and selection of facts as salient or not gets closer to my view.

    jt: You don’t acknowledge that one may be using valid logic, while the other isn’t (or both may not be). Logic isn’t automatic; you have to repeatedly check whether your conclusions are properly inferred from the relevant facts. Sometimes people–including academics–don’t.

    me: Yes, logic is certainly not automatic. Krugman believes his conclusions are logical, as does Cowen. Choosing the relevant facts is a judgment call. If there is one correct way to do so that everyone agrees to, I’d like to hear it.

    jt: That’s the understatement of the day. Or should I say: it might be true for you that you read all that material decades ago. But for me the truth is that you never even read anything she wrote.

    me: Hmm, well, it may be your truth, but if you were watching my Truman Show, you’d see me voraciously reading Rand in the late 70s-early 80s. Or, you could drop by my crib and see that I still have copies if that helps you see that your facts were incorrect! 😉 If it contributes to your peace of mind to believe otherwise, then carry on as you were.

    jt: One more thing: Even your (annoying) usage of the labels “indicated” and “contra-indicated” contradict your espoused subjectivism. When you use them–just like the medical practitioners from whom you picked them up–you’re affirming the existence of an objective reality and attempting to draw a logical, objective conclusion from some facts of that reality.

    me: Actually, I picked them up from an author named Jed McKenna. And he uses them as I do: to suggest that decisions are neutral things we make based on our attempt to perceive properly, assess the appropriateness of the choices available to us, and to listen to what might be called one’s conscience. You are projecting your interpretation of my intent. But I am sorry you find it annoying. I’ll continue to use it, though…if indicated! 😉

  153. JT

    Robert: “Hmm, well, it may be your truth, but if you were watching my Truman Show, you’d see me voraciously reading Rand in the late 70s-early 80s. Or, you could drop by my crib and see that I still have copies if that helps you see that your facts were incorrect! ;-)”

    So you’re saying my truth is objectively wrong??
    Can’t be, because there’s no objective truth, so mine can be different than yours. Contradicted.

    Moving on…

  154. JT

    Oh, read what AR said about “the anti-conceptual mentality.” Then look in the mirror. Amazing her insight into some people.

  155. Gains

    Thus spake whats-his-name: “Paleopuritanism and Neopuritanism …As psychologist Theodore Schroeder pointed out, “obscenity” is the modern form of “black magic.” Both concepts are operationally meaningless; there is no instrument which, pointed at a book or painting, will tell how much “black magic” or “obscenity” is in it. These things are in the nervous system of the observer. Attributing them to books, art, ideas, etc., in the external world, and seeking to punish the perpetrators, is the same kind of hallucination that produced the witch-hunts in which nine million innocents were killed.”

    Dare it be said: “I know non-libertarianism when I see it.”

  156. Robert Capozzi

    jt: So you’re saying my truth is objectively wrong?? Can’t be, because there’s no objective truth, so mine can be different than yours. Contradicted.

    me: Nope. I’m trying to convince you that on that point you don’t have your facts correct. I don’t find the concept of “objective truth” to be useful, no. In this particular matrix of time and space, if there was a camera following me, it would record my reading AR. It would see my book collection includes her works. I’m confident that you — if presented with this record — would agree on this fact set. If you didn’t, I’d be a bit concerned for you, but even then — anything’s possible. Life is but a dream, or, as the Hindus say, Maya.

    If you don’t believe I’ve read her, then, as far as you are concerned, it’s false. Were this fact that you denied important IMO, I might intervene in some way to help you see your error, if so indicated. In this case, how I spent my time 30 years ago seems trivial, so I’ll allow you to labor under a false assumption.

    Thanks for the anti-conceptual mentality reference…I do believe I’d read that, too. I would agree that I believe “everything is the given: the passage of time…” Time and space just are, or appear to be this way or that.

    “Why?” and “What for?” are excellent questions, one that I ask all the time, perhaps too much!

    “…fear to resentment to stubborn evasion to hostility to panic to malice to hatred…” would be far more a description of my emotional state when I was reading AR. Can’t say I never experience those states, but most of the time I experience peace of mind.

    “To understand and to apply them requires a long conceptual chain…” I recognize as an assertion. As I recall, this long chain popped out that Rachmaninoff and Vermeer were “objectively” the “best” composer and painter, respectively. And, if I have my timing right, MNR got the whole “fetuses are parasites” thing from AR.

    I guess that means that a long conceptual chain is only as strong as its weakest link? 😉

  157. Cerebro

    RE 202 : Krugman believes his conclusions are logical

    How do you know this? How do you know Krugman isn’t just bullshitting you and just lying? Can you read Krugman’s mind? Are you a telepath?

  158. Robert Capozzi

    c, I don’t know, and I can’t know. Actually, I do assume that Krugman believes what he says, but most of the time, I disagree with him and his conclusions. I assume Cowen is also sincere, and most of the time I agree with him.

    Do you have a preferable approach?

  159. Robert Capozzi

    g205: Dare it be said: “I know non-libertarianism when I see it.”

    me: Close enough for me! For me, it would be: idea that does not advance liberty? Near as I can tell, this one does and this one doesn’t.

    And, sure, a set of ideas may seem to advance liberty or not. Near as I can tell, several sets of ideas — Rothbardianism, constitutionalism, Nozickianism, Taoism — all advance liberty. Some seem more likely to succeed than others.

  160. Gains

    While we are on the topic of obscenity, perhaps can we discuss the term “Vulgar Libertarianism” or how about Povertarian?

  161. Robert Capozzi

    g210, I’d not seen the term “vulgar L” until just now, so thanks for that.

    Carson coined and defined it: “Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term “free market” in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get the standard boilerplate article in The Freeman arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because “that’s not how the free market works”–implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of “free market principles.”

    I think he has a point. Rhetoric needs to match up with experience reasonably well, and I’d agree that “capitalism” as practiced and the notion of “free market capitalism” are different things. Calling this confusion “vulgar” would not be my choice, however, even though its first meaning is generally “lacking sophistication.”

    Indeed, I’m not sure this deserves a label, per se.

    As for “povertarian,” I think it simply refers to Ls with limited financial means. I don’t use this label, either, as Ls probably have a range of wealth like other parties and ideologies.

    What’s your take?

  162. Gains

    I tried to pick two pejoratives that are common memes in the L community. Apparently Vulgar L isn’t one you have seen yet, so I don’t know how widely it is held or understood, I’ve seen it in a couple of places.

    They too are illustrative devices I evoke as I poke around the understanding of the culture of cannibalism I contend that we are fettered by. Imperfection can be found in just about any way possible, and man’s instinct to define “one of us” will cast itself about in just about any form to satisfy the need to identify a tribal identity.

    The Vulgar L label, was coined by a voluntaryist to identify imperfect market anarchist compliance. The label is specifically derogatory, an attempt at a mimetic device to exclude libertarians that do not fit a mold. There is a little hubub within some that coin the phrase as to where vulgarity begins and where it ends.

    Likewise, a different group I have observed seems to think that another mold of libertarian needs to be ameliorated. There are those who think that activists and other unwashed types that contribute labor rather than money should be excluded from strategy decisions or party steering. They are identified in a cultual meme “Povertarian” that is popular amongst some different set of elites.

    These are but two memes going about our society out of many, but what get me scratching my head is that these are all adverse memes. Off the top of my head I cant think of one cultural meme in our society that recognizes efforts, successes or common identity in the “tribe”.

  163. Robert Capozzi

    Yes, agreed, using pejorative labels is contra-indicated, if we want to foster a sense of mutual respect if not total acceptance of the generally minor differences among the broader lessarchist community.

    Labels can be useful in facilitating communication. Or they can promote miscommunication. For ex., some Ls like to refer to themselves as “radical” Ls. They are generally either anarchists or nightwatchman Ls who want to advocate a rapid (I’d say risky, dislocative) change in the state of political affairs. That would be fine, except “radical” also refers to “striking the root” or asking the most fundamental questions.

    As one who endeavors to ask the most fundamental questions, too, but as I also advocate far more moderate positions in the public square, I do not cede the “radical” label to the former group. To differentiate, I could use pejoratives (extremist or impatient) to describe them, but I choose to refer to them as “abolitionists,” which has a more positive association.

    If someone made a good case that “abolitionist” was too provocative, I’d find a better word!

    I would like to see our tribe(s) adopt a more civil tone.

  164. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The Vulgar L label, was coined by a voluntaryist to identify imperfect market anarchist compliance.”

    Actually it was coined by a mutualist to identify persistent practitioners of the error of conflating “the free market” with “capitalism.”

    “The label is specifically derogatory”

    “an attempt at a mimetic device to exclude libertarians that do not fit a mold.”

    It doesn’t exclude — it specifically alludes to those whom it describes AS “libertarians.” If Carson wanted to exclude them, he wouldn’t use that term for them.

  165. Robert Capozzi

    tk, when Gains uses the word “exclude,” I take it to mean something like “distance and otherwise ring-fence (in this case) ‘vulgar’ Ls from ‘real’ Ls.”

    One common example of this use of distancing technique is when the Rockwell crowd criticizes the work of Cato or Beltway Ls and refers to them as “libertarians.” My take is they do this to — in effect — say that these “Beltway Ls” are not actually Ls, but rather faux Ls. I further infer that this convention they use implies that they, the Rockwell posters, are “real Ls.”

    Am I misreading their intent to “distance” or “exclude”, do you think?

  166. Gains

    TK @214:”Actually it was coined by a mutualist to identify persistent practitioners of the error of conflating “the free market” with “capitalism.””

    If exclusion is not the end (I cannot speak to motivations) why the need to point out “persistent practitioners” of anything or to use a derogatory word like “vulgar”?

    I cannot say that the person who coined the phrase meant it to create a divide. I cannot say that they are naturally divisive. I would argue that the culture we are all steeped in creates a whole lot of derogatory minded action and not a whole lot of productive action and these phrases illustrate that culture.

    Can we point to similar “more inclusive” memes used to tie our society and efforts together? I am finding it hard.

    Freedom Fighter? Friend in Liberty? I’ve heard a few, but a survey of our um… heh… collective blogs would probably find many more instances of making exclusive distinctions over inclusive invitations.

    How does a coalition grow from that? How do you gain access to politically minded people to educate and learn from if you do not invite them in?

    BTW can we single out the guy who coined “Povertarian” too please, I would not feel complete if everyone on each side were not individually offended now that we have gone down that road.

    I hope Mr. Carson, whom I do not know, forgives my mixing of tribal identity, and singling out his coined phrase. I should retract that sentence and rephrase the next to acknowledge that the phrase “seems to be exclusionary”.

  167. Thomas L. Knapp

    Gains,

    You write:

    “If exclusion is not the end (I cannot speak to motivations) why the need to point out ‘persistent practitioners’ of anything or to use a derogatory word like ‘vulgar?'”

    Perhaps by way of admonishing them to correct their errors so that they don’t need to be excluded?

    There’s a difference between “you are not a libertarian” and “you are a libertarian who’s making a huge mistake.” The first is exclusionary, the second is not.

    You also might want to look up the term “vulgar.” I’m not sure it means what you seem to think it means.

  168. Robert Milnes

    Sipos @191, come on. Do you really think a Peer Review Board would declare McCain or Palin etc. libertarian?
    I don’t see any problem with an appeal process.
    As far as Barr is concerned, a PRB would have prevented his candidacy. & Root’s.
    & Ron Paul’s LNC draft by Barr, opposed by George.

  169. Thomas L. Knapp

    “As far as Barr is concerned, a PRB would have prevented his candidacy.”

    To repeat/rephrase Thomas Sipos’s question: Why do you believe that a peer review board chosen by the same convention delegates who nominated Barr would have “prevented his candidacy?”

    For the same reason that you believe less than one plus less than one equals more than 34, I guess.

  170. Gains

    What would have prevented Barr’s candidacy was 50 more people showing up wearing Steve Kubby TShirts.

    TK @219:
    Vulgar: That which is obscene to the elite

  171. Thomas L. Knapp

    Gains,

    That’s one definition. There are others. And you might consider the possibility that there’s a joke hidden in the usage.

    In any case, x [where x is any term] with “libertarians” following is an inherently inclusive usage — it’s including the members of class x in a type, as a sub-type. You’re correct that the intended meaning is derogatory, but calling someone a weak point guard is not the same thing as saying someone isn’t a basketball player.

  172. Gains

    TK @221:

    Lets take your basketball analogy. My question is not, “why do we jostle for position on the court?” Duh. My question is not, “Why is there posturing and maneuvering during practice?” My question is not, “why is there pecking order?”

    Duh, we are human beings.

    My question is, “why is there no team spirit holding it together?” All that rambunctious jock talk, and all the horseplay with no pulling it together for the game, does not make a team. It makes for a stadium where none of the players want to use the showers.

    Culturally the Libertarians do have a nice foundation in place. One side concerned about image, the other about ideology. A nice factional duality for a political party based on principle. If it were functional it could hone some real winners.

    But, who in this party is allowed to win?

  173. Thomas L. Knapp

    Gains,

    I think that for the most part there IS team spirit holding the LP together.

    Most of the time, most party members support the LP’s candidates, whether those candidates were the ones they wanted to see nominated or not.

    There are some outlier members in any given cycle (I was one in 2008; in 1996, 2000 and 2004, I supported the ticket even though my preferred candidates lost). That just goes with the territory.

    There are occasionally some outlier candidates. That goes with the territory, too. I recall hearing white supremacist Tom Metzger say (on a TV talk show) that he ran as a Libertarian for state legislature in California once. That was before my time, but I’m willing to bet that he got no support from the California LP or his local area LP.

    That problem is not unique to the LP — remember David Duke’s capture of a GOP nomination a decade or two back? The GOP promptly and properly disowned him.

    Most LP members support most LP candidates. Most LP members who feel that they can’t support most LP candidates eventually decide not to be part of the LP any more.

    There are probably 100-200 people on the face of the earth who are intensely interested in the LP’s internal affairs on a continuous basis, and another 1-2,000 who show intermittent periods of intense interest, e.g. to the level of being a national convention delegate or whatever. Don’t mistake their activities and sentiments for a snapshot of the whole party’s activities and sentiments.

  174. Robert Capozzi

    tk: I think that for the most part there IS team spirit holding the LP together.

    me: Agree, as far as it goes. Yet, one would hope that Ls are pointing to truth more than the Rs and Ds. If we assume that more true should over time prevail than less true, then over time Ls should start “winning” in some way. (I would say “winning” in this instance meaning “ideas prevailing”.)

    Starchild in another thread noted that in some ways liberty is winning. These “wins” mostly involve equal rights for minorities or lifestyle liberalization. My assessment is that Ls had very little to do with those wins. Those were wins of the Left, with Ls perhaps lending a helping hand. Most of those wins were set in motion in the 60s prior to the emergence of a self-conscious LM.

    Your Metzger and Duke ex.s are good ones. There are Ls who wander way too far off the reservation to be tolerated, too. Sunny Landham comes to mind.

    IMO, Root is no Landham or Metzger, but the FL LP ex comm proposed he be treated as such.

    It’s an interesting question about what to do when someone high-profile like Root wanders off the reservation enough to make the tribe uncomfortable to not so much as to do serious damage to the LP’s brand.

    A case could be made that this IS the job of the LNC and LPHQ. Putting out a press release, for ex., outlining the L response to this situation could serve as a check (or to immunize) the broader LP from collateral damage. No reference to Root would be necessary, of course.

    gains: One side concerned about image, the other about ideology. A nice factional duality for a political party based on principle. If it were functional it could hone some real winners.

    me: I see how and why you’re framing it, but this is a highly incomplete duality, IMO. Those more interested in presenting a positive image do so to advance an agenda of ideas, not just to “look cool.” Those who seem more interested in ideology seem deeply invested in the image of “principled,” and often bristle when they believe that image is being tarnished or threatened. I’d also maintain that there are WAY more than just 2 sides.

  175. Robert Capozzi

    ack…this…to make the tribe uncomfortable to not so much as to do serious damage to the LP’s brand.

    should read more like:

    to make the tribe uncomfortable — but not seriously damaging the LP’s brand.

  176. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 224,

    I agree that Root is no Landham or Metzger.

    I disagree with you on “brand damage,” though. IMO, Root has done far more damage to the LP brand than Landham or Metzger ever could.

    Obvious counterfeits don’t do much damage at all. People can tell they’re counterfeits and therefore don’t buy them and don’t identify them with the brand.

    It’s the non-obvious counterfeits that do the real damage. They’re convincing enough that the naive buy them, take them home, and throw them in the wash with the real thing — where they promptly disintegrate and leave all the non-counterfeit items colored with their cheap dye — then blame the brand for the fact that they got ripped off.

  177. Robert Capozzi

    tk, I take your point. However, anyone could say that about you, me or Dondero. If any of us were to have the drive and resources that Root does, and we started to get the sort of media traction that Root does, those who disagree with us strongly might say we are “counterfeit” and we must be stopped from doing our brand damage.

    I see no real solution to this. Yes, I agree, there are people who could be off the reservation enough and effective enough to cause even me to join in a chorus to reel them in. I’ve done that to some extent with Root, too. I try to be constructive and fair when I do so, but alas I’m a work in progress.

    In this case, though, I’d like to see Root critics be more civil in their critiques, and to push forward other personalities with different perspectives than Root has.

  178. Robert Capozzi

    more..

    Let’s keep in mind that I came to L-ism from Rand to Rothbard to Crane Machine. I later discovered Lao Tzu and Hayek.

    We’re adults. We might see Root reel someone in, only later to discover that Konkin is the bomb.

    I’d rather have more gateways than less.

  179. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You write:

    “tk, I take your point. However, anyone could say that about you, me or Dondero.”

    You, maybe.

    Dondero’s counterfeit isn’t very convincing, and I’m no longer attempting to represent, sell or in any way promote the LP brand at all.

    I left the LP with no hard feelings toward it — not because I objected to its brand deterioration, but because I personally concluded that a political party isn’t the product that will achieve my purposes.

    I do, however, consider that brand deterioriation very real. Matter of fact, for all practical purposes, I consider the LP to have died with its founder.

  180. Robert Capozzi

    tk, sorry, I should have used different, non-specific ex.s. If an abolitionist, lessarchist, and a hawkish L had Root’s drive, he/she could be viewed as a threat to the brand by other Ls.

    However, the hawk may attract a future Konkinite; the abolitionist might attract the next Lao Tzu-ist, etc.

    I respect your decisions for yourself. Myself, I think the LP was stillborn at birth, or perhaps on life support from the get go. Years seem to have elapsed, but this whole thing is a level 2 or 3 INCEPTION dream, so things could turn around
    rather quickly in real time!

    What INCEPTION brilliantly illustrated, a foundational misunderstanding led to a highly dysfunctional outcome. Once the misunderstanding was fixed, the world “righted” itself.

    This is my jihad. IMO, the LM is largely based on a deontological absolutist premise that I happen to believe doesn’t work. Whether that can be “fixed” like a misperception seems grandiose; adjusted or counteracted seems my best bet.

  181. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    I don’t get the “Inception” references, not having seen the movie yet.

    When Nolan called for formation of a Libertarian Party, he had (and set forth in plain language) certain goals for it to accomplish.

    Over the years, the LP’s focus has drifted away from those goals.

    Nolan spent a good deal of time over the last few years trying to get it back to its original focus.

    As long as he was alive, his continued participation in the LP could be taken as his endorsement and as a sign that he believed all was not lost and that his original vision for the LP could be restored, perhaps even was in progress toward restoration.

    Now he’s gone, with that project incomplete. The current LP is not the LP he founded, and it never will be again.

    Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of opinion.

    My opinion is that it’s a tragedy in some respects (his vision was intriguing and inspiring), and a clearing of the way in others (now that it’s an irretrievable failure in a way that can’t be ignored, perhaps libertarians will pursue more productive projects).

    My opinion is also that if the LP is honest, it will change its name as it continues in its new direction. To a symbol, perhaps, so that it can be called “the party formerly known as Libertarian” when discussed in print. Is there a Chinese character for “man with thumb up ass?”

  182. Robert Capozzi

    tk, yes, the LP has evolved/changed. I would think that would have been predictable at the outset, since all institutions do so.

    I like the idea of a name change, actually, and prefer Liberty Party, which is arguably a shortening of the name. Apparently, this is no easy task. Some believe that “libertarian” is a discrete, narrowly defined political ideology; since I don’t, I would prefer different branding, all else equal.

    I’m no help on Chinese characters, though I do have a double-happiness symbol tie. 😉 It could easily be “woman sucking thumb,” though, don’tcha think? 😉

  183. Hardcore libertarian

    Preamble

    As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

    We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

    Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

    In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

    These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.
    Statement of Principles

    We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

    We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

    Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

    We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property — accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

    Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

  184. JT

    Tom: “My opinion is that it’s a tragedy in some respects (his vision was intriguing and inspiring), and a clearing of the way in others (now that it’s an irretrievable failure in a way that can’t be ignored, perhaps libertarians will pursue more productive projects).”

    You’re basically saying it’s obvious, but why is it an “irretrievable” failure now? How is it much different now than it’s been for the past few years while you were still active? I don’t even think the Platform change in 2006 changed the LP very much from what it was years before that.

  185. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT,

    You write: “why is it an ‘irretrievable’ failure now?”

    That claim is based on this previous language in the post you’re replying to:

    —–
    As long as he was alive, his continued participation in the LP could be taken as his endorsement and as a sign that he believed all was not lost and that his original vision for the LP could be restored, perhaps even was in progress toward restoration.

    Now he’s gone, with that project incomplete. The current LP is not the LP he founded, and it never will be again.
    —–

    Regards,
    Tom

  186. JT

    Oh, I guess what I was asking is why is it an irretrievable failure now that David Nolan has passed? Why will the current LP never be again the vision by which he founded it? His passing may be a blow to that effort, but I don’t see how it’s fatal in and of itself. Things can change or be changed.

  187. Robert Capozzi

    tk: Now [Nolan]’s gone, with that project incomplete.

    me: “Incomplete” because Nolan has passed, or “incomplete” because the project he started didn’t accomplish some specific goal?

    If the goal was to “seek a world of liberty,” it strikes me that the operative word is “seek.” The goal as stated was not to “seek to achieve a world of liberty in our lifetime,” as — even in the heady days of 1971 — I seriously doubt any of the LP’s founders expected to live to see the day when the State had bee shrunk to a mere nuisance, much less completely smashed.

    Perhaps it’s about the journey, not the destination!

  188. JT

    Tom: “There seems to be a subject clarity problem here. Mea culpa.”

    You don’t need to apologize, Tom, but I honestly don’t understand what you mean by “subject clarity problem.” You did say in post 231 that it can’t be ignored that the LP is an “irretrievable failure” and the current LP isn’t the LP Nolan founded and never will be again, right? So, I asked why you concluded those things.

    In post 235 you copied what you wrote, implying it’s because Nolan isn’t around anymore. But I don’t understand how that would mean the LP will never again be the party he founded or why you think it’s obviously an “irretrievable failure” which can’t be ignored. I guess it’s possible you don’t want to explain it for some reason, but I do think I followed what you originally said. It seemed pretty clear to me.

  189. Purge Baby Purge

    I am so thankful we have people in The Libertarian Party with so much free time on their hands, that they can expose Wayne Allyn Root for the evil person he is. I can tell they have devoted a great amount of time and effort building a dossier of WAR’s atrocities.

    I am so thankful the Libertarian Party doesn’t need to register more voters, the LP is flush with cash and we are about to achieve majority party status in 2012. Because, now we can devote all of our time and effort to purge our party of the Evil Wayne Allyn Root and his minions.

    I want to personally thank Thomas M Sipos, Jill Pyeatt, Alan Pyeatt, Robert Milnes, George Phillies, and Thomas L Knapp for exposing the traitor to freedom in our midst.

    Have you heard the lastest, Wayne Allyn Root was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Maybe he was the second shooter on the grassy knoll? You never know. Purge Baby Purge.

  190. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT,

    You write:

    “You did say in post 231 that it can’t be ignored that the LP is an ‘irretrievable failure’ and the current LP isn’t the LP Nolan founded and never will be again, right?”

    No. At least that’s not what I thought I said, which is why I perceive a subject clarity problem.

    What I thought I said is that Nolan’s project to re-ground the LP in his vision for it is an irretrievable failure.

    I guess I could have thrown in “unless we assume the resurrection of the dead and their continued interest in the things that interested them when they were alive,” but I considered those assumptions too marginal to warrant inclusion.

    PBP,

    You write:

    “I am so thankful we have people in The Libertarian Party with …”

    … and for some reason you include me on your list. FYI, I’m now just a visitor at the zoo, not a keeper.

  191. Michael H. Wilson

    # 241 I am brokenhearted that I didn’t make your list. ‘Course I never got chosen for the kickball team in the third grade either. 🙁

    Please put me on the list.

    For gawd’s sake put me on the damn list!

    Do I need to get a Big Crayon! Put me on the Damn List!

  192. Jill Pyeatt

    It is interesting to me that so many Root supporters are too cowardly to use their real name. At least I have the guts to identify myself.

  193. Robert Milnes

    @241, LOL asshole.
    The implication is that to purge Root & minions would make the LP less well off.
    No, quite the contrary. Root et al will mislead the LP in exactly the wrong direction. & usurp its resources.

  194. Robert Capozzi

    tk: … and for some reason you include me on your list. FYI, I’m now just a visitor at the zoo, not a keeper.

    me: PBP is, I think, writing tongue in cheek. I don’t think he’s commenting on your status as “visitor.”

    If it turns out that the LPF “resolution” was never approved, but was a rogue operation by Dickey, does that not give you ANY pause? Or do the ends (such as they are) justify the means in this case for you? Or, does your disagreement with Root’s words justify any sort of fabricated attempts to purge him?

  195. Unlabeled person

    241 on the $.

    248 poses a good question.

    According to Paulie and Aaron Starr, FL chair Vickie Kirkland specifically claimed that the LP FL did not authorize the language in question.

    See comments 109 and 126 here:

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/11/libertarian-presidential-convention-will-be-may-4-6-2012-in-las-vegas/

    On the other hand, George Phillies, without stating any source, claims at

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/11/lp-of-florida-says-lnc-lncc-should-boot-wayne-root/comment-page-2/#comment-286894

    “And the LP Florida did indeed pass this resolution, on a roll call vote, after amending the text to what you have seen here.”

    Can anyone provide further clarification?

    Are Starr and Paulie lying? Was Vicki Kirkland lying? Is Phillies misinformed? What are his source(s)? Can anyone else from the Florida LP exec comm be reached to comment on this?

  196. Gains

    TR @249:

    Why does it really matter who said what or did what when. The LPFL will need to sort it out when they vote on leadership next time, but from our end… who cares. I have found that it is far more productive to concentrate on the problem action rather than the problem person.

    Clearly there is a some misdirection going on. I don’t really appreciate that. What I do appreciate was that a totally artificial “crisis” went down in flames before getting too far off the ground.

    Now if a few states wanted to, in contrast to Root’s faux pas, pass wholly wholesome resolutions stating their commitment to drawing from the whole populace’s political spectrum it could be done in a constructive manner.

    What will move Root, is when he tries to move the party, the party, with a smile on its face, without invitation to argue, cajole or leverage, simply moves a little to the other side and gives him an expecting look. He is a social person and will move with the society when it is clear that they will not move with him on the current course.

    Put him in competition/rivalry/attack mode and his vision and capacity to engage new ideas will necessarily narrow.

  197. Robert Capozzi

    g, yes, misdirection. Yes, I don’t appreciate it, either. Yes, it need not be a witchhunt, but a fact-finding mission.

    Unlabeled, it would be wonderful if George would elaborate on how he knows what he claims to. I’ve asked for elaboration and support in the past when he’s made accusations — those requests were left unanswered. It seems to me that — after a while — the chicken-little syndrome comes into play.

    The good news is that today offers another potential to promote understanding over misdirection, to put the hidden agendas aside.

    Alternatively, LPF’s leadership can straighten this entire matter out rather easily. Good will CAN be restored with some truth-telling. It seems to be the simplest thing in the world, but apparently it’s not so easy for reasons that escape me.

  198. Purge Baby Purge

    First, my mistake for including Thomas Knapp @ 241. He actually makes some good points.

    It seems some of the people I mentioned @241 don’t get the point. Instead of wasting our time on The LP version of The Salem Witch Trial, we need to be registering voters, raising money and working to grow the LP.

    Let me make myself really clear, YOU SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON IPR WRITING AND OBESSESING ABOUT WAYNE ALLYN ROOT. YOU CALL YOURSELVES ACTIVISTS? IF YOU WOULD — USE YOUR TIME FOR MORE PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES SUCH AS VOTER REG, FUND RAISING AND GROWING THE THE PARTY, MAYBE THE LP COULD ACTUALLY SUCCEED AND ELECT LIBERTARIANS TO OFFICE.

    Unless, that is not your goal?

    Are you one of the Libertarians that is afraid of winning?

    Are you one of those Libertarians that wants to keep the LP an exclusive debating society?

    Are you one of those Libertarians that demand all party members must 100% ideologically pure or purge them from the party, like was done in Mao’s China or Stalin’s Russia? That sounds really Libertarian.

  199. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    PBP; “Are you one of the Libertarians that is afraid of winning? ”

    No.

    PBP; “Are you one of those Libertarians that wants to keep the LP an exclusive debating society?”

    nO!

    PBP; “Are you one of those Libertarians that demand all party members must 100% ideologically pure or purge them from the party, like was done in Mao’s China or Stalin’s Russia?”

    NO!

    Now, do we get a discount? Yes!

    All commenters on IPR gets a discount of 50% of GoNott Advertise, when you mention you read it here on IPR.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1

    “GoNott Advertize is better than Google’s ads,
    are Google ads really worth it to your goals?
    Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    Draft A Female/Nott for President!
    A female #1, and Nott #2
    (for male voters)

    Everyone is invited to the party,
    the programmer is Nott!
    We’re Nott Libertarians!

    See the ad “Draft Nott/A Female for Prez/VP in 2012”, a coalition for Libertarian Party females on the USA Parliament’s web page; http://www.usparliament.org/

    Go Free Soil Party,

    Free Ireland!

    In Coalition with;
    MP Don Grundmann [Constitution] for US Senate in 2012, PLUS at least one US Senate Candidate in every state/super-state state.

    Get the Swing vote in 2012!
    MP Gary Swing [Green] for Senate in CO!

    MP Don Grundmann [Constitution] for US Senate in 2012!
    http://www.truthusa.org

    * * *
    GoNott our ad for 2014;
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html

  200. Robert Capozzi

    pbp: Are you one of those Libertarians that demand all party members must 100% ideologically pure or purge them from the party, like was done in Mao’s China or Stalin’s Russia?

    me: This is the nature of absolutism. There is no difference between Root-style conservative Lism, Maoism, Stalinism, Obamaism, etc. They are all the same, all statists, all “evil.” To the absolutist, there can be no shades of gray, no cross currents, no trade-offs.

  201. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 248,

    You write:

    “If it turns out that the LPF ‘resolution’ was never approved, but was a rogue operation by Dickey, does that not give you ANY pause?”

    Pause in what?

    “Or do the ends (such as they are) justify the means in this case for you?”

    What end is it that you imagine I’m seeking?

    “Or, does your disagreement with Root’s words justify any sort of fabricated attempts to purge him?”

    You must have me mixed up with someone else.

    I haven’t endorsed the Florida resolution or any other “attempt to purge” Root from the LP or the LNC.

  202. Thomas M. Sipos

    Re @ 252

    Ever since the 1990s, I’ve heard so much about all those many Libertarians who “are afraid of winning.”

    I’ve heard so much about all those many Libertarians who “want to keep the LP an exclusive debating society.”

    I’ve heard so much about all those many Libertarians who “demand 100% purity or purge.”

    Curiously, I have yet to meet any Libertarian who fits any those above descriptions. But they must be out there. I hear so much about them.

    Surely they’re not straw men? Or fabricated delusions of a paranoid mind?

  203. Lies and the lying liars who tell them

    “Are Starr and Paulie lying?”

    Is there something about these right wing Republican stooges’/tools’ past track record that makes you think they wouldn’t lie?

    The Florida resolution is on their website. It is the official resolution passed by the state executive committee.

  204. Robert Capozzi

    lies: The Florida resolution is on their website.

    me: Who’s the webmaster of that site? Is it not possible that a miscommunication happened here?

    btw, I have an email from the Chair of the LP FL saying it wasn’t voted on, only discussed in concept. So, the question is out there. Hopefully, it’ll be cleared up, one way or another.

    IPR seems reasonably closely monitored by LP leadership, and thus far this question has not been directly addressed. That alone leads me to wonder whether the “resolution” is authentic.

    Someone has fabricated something, either the original resolution or the reports that it was never voted on by the excomm.

  205. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    In plurality elections, more power is gained from fighting. So I could see such a resolution planted, so as to make a fight to enhance some one’s stature.

    For example, do you think Google Inc. minds that the European Parliament is investigating them? I doubt it, they probably like the free publicity.

    Like they say in advertising; “Bad publicity is good publicity.”

    Do you think the Ds and Rs care if there’s a law suit for ballot access? I doubt it, their lawyers probably need the overtime pay, and their candidates appreciate the good bad publicity.

    That makes therm stronger.

    There is one thing better than good bad publicity, and that’s good good publicity.

    Some day, The USA Parliament, Inc. will get good good publicity, and our stocks will go higher. Each of the 100 members owns one share.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1

    “GoNott Advertise is better than Google’s ads because we’re owned by The USA Parliament, Inc. a multi-party (and independents) “All Party System”.

    Are Google ads really worth it to your goals?
    Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    Draft A Female/Nott for President!
    A female #1, and Nott #2
    (for male voters)

    Everyone is invited to the party,
    the programmer is Nott!
    We’re Nott Libertarians!

    See the ad “Draft Nott/A Female for Prez/VP in 2012″, a coalition for Libertarian Party females on the USA Parliament’s web page; http://www.usparliament.org/

    Go Free Soil Party,

    Free Ireland!

    In Coalition with;
    MP Don Grundmann [Constitution] for US Senate in 2012, PLUS at least one US Senate Candidate in every state/super-state state.

    Get the Swing vote in 2012!
    MP Gary Swing [Green] for Senate in CO!

    MP Don Grundmann [Constitution] for US Senate in 2012!
    http://www.truthusa.org

    * * *
    GoNott our ad for 2014;
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html

  206. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 252 PBP writes; “Let me make myself really clear, YOU SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON IPR WRITING AND OBESSESING ABOUT WAYNE ALLYN ROOT. YOU CALL YOURSELVES ACTIVISTS? IF YOU WOULD — USE YOUR TIME FOR MORE PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES SUCH AS VOTER REG, FUND RAISING AND GROWING THE THE PARTY, MAYBE THE LP COULD ACTUALLY SUCCEED AND ELECT LIBERTARIANS TO OFFICE.”

    Fist being angry doesn’t count. Use the lower case letters.

    Secondly you have no idea what I am doing and I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts you don’t have any idea what many of the others are doing either.

    So Mr. Wizard what’s this project I have sitting on this desk? Go ahead guess!

  207. Robert Capozzi

    tk255: What end is it that you imagine I’m seeking?…You must have me mixed up with someone else….I haven’t endorsed the Florida resolution or any other “attempt to purge” Root from the LP or the LNC.

    me: Fair point. I do, however, recall that in this period you have been reiterating your case that Root is a “liar.” As the issue of Root’s veracity, character, and alleged ideological “leaky-ness” and “grounding” have been a big part of this discussion, your opinions about him have had some affect in how others perceive Root — at least, that’s my perception.

    Am I surmising that because you are not in the LP any longer, you believe your comments about Root at this time are just coincidence? You see Root and the FL “resolution” discussed, and you simply feel the need to express your opinion that he’s not to be trusted or believed?

    Please be more explicit, then. Why do you attack Root?

  208. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @262,

    Back in the days when I attacked Root, I did so for purposes of prevailing in intra-party conflict.

    As for my participation in this conversation, see my comments @137. I do have a backward-looking interest in LP affairs to the extent that I’m interested in defending my own record/history when it seems to be under attack.

    I also have a general interest in helping create an environment characterized by accuracy of information — it’s just a hang-up of mine. So, while I really don’t give a damn one way or another what the LP does with or about Root, I do give a damn about whether it does whatever it does on the basis of full and factual information, or incomplete and false information.

  209. Robert Capozzi

    tk263, fair and I’d say high-minded of you.

    And I agree, full and factual information (as best we can surmise) facilitates understanding if not agreement.

    This is what I meant when I said at 248: “…does that not give you ANY pause…” regarding the authenticity of the alleged LPF “resolution.”

    If it proves to be a fact that there never was a “resolution,” only discussion of possibly doing one, my take is MUCH contentiousness followed on from the false “fact” of a “resolution.” Bad information may have led to bad “karma.”

    If I were a supporter of ostracizing or ousting Root, if the “resolution” proves to be a “gun jump” by ONE person, my inclination would be to question my premise.

    Gee, I’d think, this entire affair was a colossal waste of my time. Maybe I’d still not like Root’s approach, but at least I would be wary of disinformation coming out about his doings. I might even wonder whether Root’s views might serve a useful purpose in advancing liberty. I’d look inward at my own motives.

    Others may have a different approach. For ex., a Root detractor might say that, yes, the “resolution” may well have been a false-flag operation, but Root is a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, a HUCKSTER, a CORRUPT business person. It may not have been fair to waste my time with false information, but given that the subject was Root, I’m OK with this misdirection. It served the purpose of knocking Root down.

    I don’t find this latter approach to be helpful or ethical.

    I await patiently to see if we get confirmation on whether the FL “resolution” is real or not.

  210. Lies and the lying liars who tell them

    “If it proves to be a fact that there never was a “resolution,” only discussion of possibly doing one, my take is MUCH contentiousness followed on from the false “fact” of a “resolution.” Bad information may have led to bad “karma.”

    What if it is proven that Paulie, Aaron Starr and anyone else claiming that the resolution is fake is a right wing Republican plant and a Root toadie/sycophant? Does anyone who is not a barely disguised Republican Root supporter deny the obvious fact that the resolution was considered and passed?

    Isn’t the “bad karma” on the Root shills/pro-WAR Republican infiltraitors?

  211. Robert Capozzi

    lies, I’m hopeful that Dickey himself will man up and correct this alleged error. Short of that, I’d hope LP FL leadership will correct the alleged error.

    Paulie as R is provocative, possibly laughable, btw.

    IMO.

  212. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob@264,

    I have no more information than you do — less, probably, in fact — on the subject of whether or not the Florida LP’s executive committee actually passed the resolution in question.

    I agree that if the resolution was not passed, the backlash against reports that it was passed will prove damaging to Root’s opponents, and possibly beneficial to Root’s supporters, in intra-party contention. It would be a failure in both ethical and tactical terms.

    Latllwtt@265, I don’t really have words to describe how unlikely I consider the possibility that Paulie is a right-wing Republican plant. Stacking some indeterminate but very large number of “veries” before the word “unlikely”
    is the best I can do.

  213. George Phillies

    I asked the Florida State Committee members whether or not they passed the resolution in question.

    The full texts of their answers are in the latest Liberty for America, now going up at Liberty for America.com.

    “The motion passed with less than 5 minutes of deliberation and was actually a watered down version of the first proposed version. Any one who says or in anyway indicates that it is.was a hoax is either sick or intentionally lying.” is representative of the sourced comments.

    In addition to the notorious newspaper interview, Floridians were disturbed that Root had supported Schiff in Connecticut and discouraged Snitker in Florida. It is reported that Schiff has agreed to be Root’s campaign Treasurer.

    @264 “If it proves to be a fact that there never was a “resolution,” ”

    It proves to be an out and out lie.

  214. Lies and the lying liars who tell them

    Thank you Dr. Phillies for confirming what we already knew.

    Now that the facts have been once again confirmed, everyone should know better than to believe (not so) stealth Republican Root operatives such as Capozzi, Paulie and Aaron Starr in the future…just in case you had any doubts.

  215. Lies and the lying liars who tell them

    Known associates of “Paulie”: Ollie North Republican Steve Gordon and John McCain Republican Stewart Flood.

    People “Paulie” has given access to IPR management include Israel First right wingers Starr, Holtz and Cohen.

    Where did this “Paulie” come from? Alabama, allegedly, so he is probably a white supremacist as well.

    He claims to have some kind of shadowy business dealings in Central America in the 1980s. Possibly a CIA plant. We know he avoided prison for his felony conviction, so maybe someone is pulling strings for him in exchange for cooperation as an informant/infiltraitor.

    Ask yourself why he is spreading lies about what happened in Florida along with Starr and Capozzi to cover for Root. What is their real agenda?

  216. Thomas M. Sipos

    Paulie had asked me if I’d like to be an IPR editor, so it’s not like he’s trying to suppress antiwar radicals.

    I haven’t taken him up on his offer, if that’s what it was. Too busy right now.

    Paulie is no white supremacist.

    Based on his past comments, I gather that he’s a Siberian Jew whose family immigrated to the U.S. while he was still a child, and Communism still ruled the USSR. They came as refugees.

    I think Paulie is generally regarded as an antiwar anarchist.

    Perhaps he tries especially hard to be nice to Starr’s faction because he’s biased in the other direction. He was a Kubby campaign worker in 2008.

  217. Lies and the lying liars who tell them

    Oh so he’s an AshkeNazi? Well, that would explain why he’s buddies with Root, Starr and Cohen. But as for his thick as thieves friendship with Gordon, Flood, Capozzi and Holtz…well, I guess pachyderms of a feather flock together, eh?

    Now, let’s look at who does NOT associate with him anymore:

    Angela Keaton

    Michelle Shinghal

    Sean Haugh

    ElfNinosMom

    Chris Bennett

    Jim Davidson

    disinter

    I think I see a pattern…you should ask them why they dropped him like a dirty condom, perhaps. And as for the rest of you, if you are not so quick to catch on, back to this:

    Why is he lying about the Florida resolution on behalf or the Starr-Root cabal? Hmmmm?

    Helllooooooooooooooooo….

  218. Robert Capozzi

    GP AND LIES, well, it could be that the LPF resolution is solid. I’ve never said it isn’t. I assure you I have an email that says it is not, but I readily admit the email could be a hoax itself.

    I’m doing some more digging. My sense is the email is real, but it may not be.

    If LIES thinks I’m an one of several “stealth Republican Root operatives,” that’s his/her business. He/she can believe whatever he/she wants. My frequent critiques of Root’s approach would, I’d think, not lead someone to that conclusion, but I’ll leave that for others to draw their own conclusions.

  219. Observer

    Where has Paulie been lying? He has barely been on this thread. I don’t see him aligned with Starr/Mattson etc. at all. Are you thinking of someone else?

    Also, all those supposed Root haters aren’t on this thread anymore. So, what’s going on here?

  220. George Phillies

    I believe Paulie was quoting what someone said to him, and I believe that what he reported is what the same person has said elsewhere.

    Having said that, I continue to hear statements from Florida. The two gentlemen who viewed the amendment as watering down and strengthening the resolution are, in my opinion, agreeing with each other about the direction as opposed to whether or not they agreed with it.

  221. Thomas L. Knapp

    @273,

    “why are Susan Hogarth and Jason Seagraves no longer writing here, but Starr, Cohen and Holtz are?”

    Presumably because Hogarth and Seagraves decided to stop writing here and Starr, Cohen and Holtz didn’t (although it’s been awhile since I’ve noticed anything from Holtz).

  222. George Phillies

    Meanwhile, has anyone else noticed the Wikileaks event? It seems not to have been mentioned here.

    Among other things, the Library of Congress is blocking access to the wikileaks site. There decision is the electronic equivalent of book-burning.

  223. Michael H. Wilson

    George where did you read or hear that it was the Library of Congress doing the blocking?

  224. George Phillies

    Talking Points Memo

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/library_of_congress_blocks_access_to_wikileaks.php?ref=fpblg

    As covered on Daily Kos.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/4/925626/-Wikileaks-blockedheres-how-to-find-it.

    Also
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/3/925294/-The-Wikileaks-Scare-and-the-return-of-McCarthyism-%5BUPDATED%5D

    says it was reported on talking points memo

    And note

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/4/925635/-Screw-PayPal.I-just-donated-to-WikiLeaks.

    This appears to be a super opportunity to reach out top left civil libertarians and split them from the Democratic Party. Indeed, DailyKos regular GrannyDoc, who is very widely respected, just did split from Obama.

  225. Thomas L. Knapp

    Just to be clear here, the Library of Congress isn’t responsible for “blocking” access to Wikileaks for everyone. If you try to find it through LoC servers (which their staff and, if they have any, their patrons might use) it has designated Wikileaks a “malicious” site on par with sites that install viruses on visitors’ computers and such.

    George,

    You write: “This appears to be a super opportunity to reach out top left civil libertarians and split them from the Democratic Party.”

    Yup. And it’s an opportunity that SHOULD appeal even to “right-leaning” libertarians.

    To wit, the diplomatic cables Wikileaks have brought out so far implicate a top Democrat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in an identity theft scheme that’s pretty much a cross between Watergate (from a domestic point of view) and the Zimmerman Telegram (from a foreign point of view).

    Pitch to the left AND pillory Hillary. What’s not to like?

  226. Robert Capozzi

    I would agree that WikiLeaks creates opportunity for Ls. Diplomats being ordered to spy by both R and D administrations illustrates just how corrupt and arrogant they are.

    OTOH, I’m not sure it’s a gamechanger. It’s complex, and there are some “national security” issues at play that might be overplayed by Ls.

    I’m not seeing it as a wedge issue, but if it IS, I’d like to hear how it is.

    Of the recent “hot button” issues — Cordoba House, TSA, and WikiLeaks — I’d say TSA is our best one. It too can be overplayed by advocating packing on planes.

  227. Robert Capozzi

    gp281: …there was a roll call vote on the matter.

    me: The reports I have concur. The question in my mind is whether the FL Excomm approved the final language, or whether they approved of the concept of a resolution. From what I know at the moment, this may have been a gun jump, not a “hoax.” It’s easy to understand disappointment with some of Root’s words in Seven, as I share that sentiment. Ousting him over them I don’t share.

    The email I have COULD be a hoax. Why anyone would generate such a hoax would be “sick.”

  228. paulie

    Someone emailed me about this. Not sure why. “Lies” (appropriate name) is not really worth responding to, but as many people know I have a hard time not replying to anything (the precise reason why I had to cut myself off from reading most of your comments or posting new stories the last few weeks).

    1. I said LPF chair Vicki Kirkland said in person that the LPF Exec comm did not vote on the language of the resolution, only on authorizing Karl Dickey to write a resolution. I said this because someone asked me to confirm the fact.
    Several other people were present when she said this, and apparently she said the same thing to at least one person over email.

    I have not spoken to any other LPF exec comm members, and apparently George Phillies has and got a different story. I haven’t seen the quotes he has from them, but if the state chair is going around misstating the facts, it would be interesting to know why; as it would also be interesting to know if several other committee members are saying something different.

    My interest is to see that the truth is served as best I am able. I am not pursuing a factional agenda. I am an LP radical, but I also am seeking (although sometimes fail at achieving) intra-party civility. In New Orleans, both Wayne Root and Lee Wrights said they like my writing here and believe I make an effort to be fair. That is indeed what I try to be.

    The idea that I am any kind of Republican type is pretty silly to those who know me personally or have spent any significant time reading what I write here. As supporting evidence, “Lies” cites comments from Dondero that say I am a far left soviet style communist. That is equally silly.

  229. paulie

    As for who has chosen to be on friendly terms or not be on friendly terms with me – that’s their choice and they are entitled to it. There are people of all so called factions that are friendly to me, and others who are not. With very few exceptions, I seek to be on friendly terms with all.

    The same holds true for who has chosen to post or not post at IPR. I have extended invitations to many people; some have taken me up on it, some have not. Some have, but have not posted in many months. There’s only so much I can do.

    Thanks to several people for pointing these facts out above.

    I haven’t lied about anything here. Everything I have said is readily verified.

    I think that’s really more than enough on that particular issue, so, if anyone has additional questions or comments, you can reach me at 415-690-6352. Sorry, it will be at least weeks and quite possibly months before I have time to regularly read comments here.

  230. Robert Capozzi

    paulie, did VK say the FL excomm authorize Dickey to write AND DISTRIBUTE the resolution, or to draft a resolution for their consideration? Did she specify whether Dickey was authorized to send out the resolution under her name without seeing the final language?

  231. Kimberly Wilder

    Hello, Robert,

    I hope Paulie sees this. Though, to let you know, he said he might be mostly off-line for a little bit. He had mentioned here, I think, that he is not able to read all the comments right now.

  232. Robert Capozzi

    lies, you seem to believe that that article is definitive. I don’t.

    I’m curious why you do believe it’s definitive?

  233. George Phillies

    @282

    The Library of Congress on its blog says they are blocking Wikileaks.

    I quote from the blog

    “The news media are reporting today, accurately, that the Library of Congress is blocking access to the Wikileaks site across its computer systems, including those for use by patrons in the reading rooms.

    I wanted to provide here the same statement we’ve been giving to reporters and patrons who are asking about it:

    “The Library decided to block Wikileaks because applicable law obligates federal agencies to protect classified information. Unauthorized disclosures of classified documents do not alter the documents’ classified status or automatically result in declassification of the documents.””

    I make no claim that the article on Florida is definitive except as an accurate quote of what each of the quoted people gave me as their statement.

    With respect to ‘the facts’ I urge readers to watch the Kurosawa film ‘Rasho Mon’ which may disabuse them of a fixed belief in objective reality accessible to all.

  234. Andy

    “Now, let’s look at who does NOT associate with him anymore:

    Sean Haugh”

    LOL!!! Nobody in their right mind would want to associate with that asshole.

  235. Aaron Starr

    Paulie is a good guy. Anyone who states otherwise has zero credibility as far as I’m concerned, especially when that someone posts pseudonymously.

  236. Robert Capozzi

    tk, sorry, I thought it was clear that I was referring to the more-ripe IMO TSA issue, vs. WikiLeaks, which has some cross-currents to it, as I see it. Packing on planes doesn’t seem moderate nor realistic to me.

  237. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    I’m not sure how old you are.

    I’ve been assuming my age (44) or older.

    If that’s the case, then “packing on planes” has, during your lifetime, been the standard policy.

    Why is it not “moderate” or “realistic” to support a policy that people can remember having lived under without any dramatic down side to?

  238. Robert Capozzi

    tk, 52. Moderation is a relative thing. Packing on planes happened back when airline traffic was lower. With deregulation, more people are able to fly. If you asked today’s flyers, would you support packing while flying, my strong suspicion is that large majorities would oppose. Skyjacking and 9/11 pushes the “issue” off the table and to the fringes, in my judgment.

  239. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    I guess we’re on that whole “flow” thing again.

    The goals I’m interested in achieving are upstream, not downstream.

    “Going with the flow” takes me further from them, not closer to them.

    If the center’s not where you want it to be, “moving to the center” is not the solution. Moving the center is.

  240. Robert Capozzi

    tk, yes, the opportunity to reverse the flow’s direction is at hand, IMO. Moving the center would be a wonderful thing, something I support.

    The question is: does advocating packing on planes actually move the center? Or does such advocacy repel the center, or cause the center to dismiss not only the position, but anything the Flying OK Corral-o=philes advocate?

    My sense is the latter.

  241. Robert Capozzi

    OK, back to the FL “resolution”…thus far, I’m getting further confirmation that it was a gun jump by Dickey, although I’m not yet able to divulge confidences.

    However, I note that the “resolution” is off the LP FL website. Notice that LIES258 notes that it was on the website. LIES248 was posted 12/3. I observed the “resolution” earlier today, 12/5.

    I believe my inquiries set in motion today’s LPF decision to take down the erroneous “resolution.” It’s my understanding that some in FL believe this is “old news,” and I agree.

    As this little saga is shaping up, however, it’s looking more and more like a cautionary tale. It’s looking like a few zealots can disrupt and provoke the LP through disinformation.

    If my working theory proves correct, I would again call on Dickey to heal this wound. I don’t know Dickey, and it’s entirely possible that he may not even be a zealot, just someone who got carried away, jumped the gun, and exceeded his authority.

    I’m watching this space….

  242. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You write:

    “It’s looking like a few zealots can disrupt and provoke the LP through disinformation.”

    Please don’t tell me you’re just now figuring that out. I seem to recall that you were part of precisely such an operation in 2006.

  243. Robert Capozzi

    tk, no, I don’t recall my use of disinformation in 2006. If you’re referring to Portland, I’d say the LRC was very up front about its intentions. That about 3/4s of the delegates voted to strike “cult of the omnipotent state” tells me that we were far more than a few zealots.

    But, even if we stipulated that that’s what happened in Portland, I would still be an advocate for stopping this sort of insane, dysfunctional behavior.

    For lack of a better term, it’s my contention that 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Mojo, counter mojo, counter counter mojo…oy, such an energy drain!

  244. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 304,

    I’m not trying to excuse whatever happened in Florida (if it’s something that needs excusing — it’s not something I’ve taken enough of an interest in to follow up on).

    I’m simply saying that the idea that “a few zealots can disrupt and provoke the LP through disinformation” is definitely “dog bites man” rather than “man bites dog” in terms of being novel or surprising.

    With respect to Portland, I’d consider the 3/4 of the delegates who voted to gut the Statement of Principles as the provoked, and the LRC as the few zealots who did the provoking with disinformation.

    Mind you, I’m not saying that LRC had any monopoly on the use of disinformation. It’s a pretty routine thing in the LP, and not just on any one side of things.

  245. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You write:

    “does advocating packing on planes actually move the center?”

    Does well-done advocacy for good policy (e.g. packing on planes) pick the center up and relocate it in one swell foop?

    Of course not.

    It peels a few people off of the center and moves them to you.

    Over time, it creates a large enough mass where you are that where you are becomes the new center. I’m an incrementalist, man.

    Chasing the existing center merely adds to its mass, strengthening it and making it even harder to move.

    I am unaware of any scenario in which your prescribed methodology has ever achieved significant change.

    If Lenin had used it, Tsar Nicholas the 14th would be making state visits to DC today.

    If Gandhi had used it, his descendants would still be begging the British for a 5% decrease in the rate of revenue growth generated by the salt tax.

    If Martin Luther King, Jr. had used it, I still wouldn’t be able to have dinner with friends at most restaurants in my area.

    It’s like Hightower said: There’s nothing in the middle of the road except a yellow stripe and some dead armadilloes.

    As a practical matter, your philosophy of political action is a guarantee of failure, every time.

  246. Robert Capozzi

    tk, I repeat that I don’t know of any disinformation used in 2006, by myself or anyone else. That the LP operates on disinformation is not acceptable to me. I’m using FL (if my working theory is correct) as a teachable moment. And some of GP’s communication tactics, which is not comfortable for me, as it probably sounds personal to him and others, but it isn’t.

    The difference between Lenin, Gandhi, King and, say, MNR, is that they were advocating achievable events in their lifetimes. MNR wanted a stateless society, even though there are some VERY big details he just dismissively waved his hands at, nuke stockpiles, for ex.

    I’d say my principled engagement approach is largely untested on one level, but it LOOKS like edgy mainstreamism. The mainstream works most of the time, as it is what it is. So, we don’t agree here.

    Occasionally, opportunities arise that call for even more outside-the-box thinking. One may well be approaching in the next few years…we’ll see.

    Peeling away cadre in a quixotic effort I don’t get. Religions operate that way, as they are trying to win souls. Political movements, however, are attempting to change the state of worldly affairs.

    All just my opinion….

  247. Robert Capozzi

    Oh, yes, Hightower’s model I don’t buy. I view L-ism as a hover craft that stays near the middle but above the fray.

    L-ism is neither right nor left, IMO, so, again, his metaphor doesn’t work for me.

  248. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You write:

    “I repeat that I don’t know of any disinformation used in 2006, by myself or anyone else.”

    One man’s obviosity is another man’s disinformation.

    Among LRC’s disinformational products, I’d include their attempts to portray the platform as having been an impediment to the party’s political success, as well as the whole “anarchy next week” canard.

    You may or may not have noticed, but I’m not MNR nor am I particularly heavily influenced by MNR.

  249. Robert Capozzi

    tk, IMO the platform has been somewhat of an impediment. The root impediment is a deontological absolutist worldview that shoots through or undergirds most of the LP’s foundational documents. And I’d say the platform did and still does (to a lesser extent) lend itself to easily being interpreted as a call for anarchy (or near anarchy) next week.

    These opinions may not be OBVIOUS conclusions, but they are mine. It’s not disinformation in my book, just opinions based on my reflection of 30 years pondering all (many) things L.

  250. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    If I’m understanding you correctly, what you’re saying is that you (and LRC) were/are not dishonest, merely ignorant of history and naive as to political reality.

    I can buy that. I’ve never assumed that my opponents are necessarily evil.

  251. Be Rational

    John Hightower is correct about the middle of the road. Most individuals who actually care enough to vote hold a mix of extreme views. It only appears that they are “in the middle” when those views are viewed and plotted as a whole. Issue by issue they tend to fall at various extreme points.

    At the same time, those people tend to actually care about only a small portion of the issues during any election cycle. They vote based on their extreme views on a select group of issues.

    Candidates need to identify with a winning coalition on the hot issues and stay mum, if possible, on other issues which are only important if they are emphasized enough to turn voters away.

    The LP candidates need to use the “hot” issues to draw supporters to us and not discuss every issue from a libertarian viewpoint, even though we are, of course, correct in our pure, absolute, Rothbardian views.

    We should treat all of our members, donors and supporters, and candidates present and past, with respect and dignity – including Root and Barr. They give us credibility and help us draw new LP members, donors, supporters, candidates and voters and give us a chance to show that we are better – caring, mature, educated leaders with solutions for the problems we face now and in the future, and to educate our new LP family members to move toward our pure viewpoints.

    Our key problem is that we often miss out on the “caring and mature” part and the whiners, complainers, nitpickers, Roberts Rules obsessed, and other nut factions distract, attack, and worse, actually take over from time to time.

  252. Thomas M. Sipos

    Capozzi: “The difference between Lenin, Gandhi, King and, say, MNR, is that they were advocating achievable events in their lifetimes.”

    I’m sure their political goals did not appear to be achievable when they first set out. But they didn’t let that stop them.

  253. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    BR @312 wrote;
    “[The Libertarian Party] key problem is that we often miss out on the “caring and mature” part and the whiners, complainers, nitpickers, Roberts Rules obsessed, and other nut factions distract, attack, and worse, actually take over from time to time.”

    The USA Parliament, Inc. is small tiny compared to the LP, but we are diverse…and we’ve never suffered from these problems as far as I can tell. We have always had a satisfaction level of 99% plus 100 votes since August 1st, 1995.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1

    “GoNott Advertise is better than Google’s ads,
    because it’s owned by The USA Parliament, Inc.;
    A coalition of Americans united for the purpose of establishing truly representative government.

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    Draft A Female/Nott for President!
    A female #1, and Nott #2
    (for male voters)

    Everyone is invited to the party,
    the programmer is Nott!
    We’re Nott Libertarians!

    See the ad; Draft Nott/A Female for Prez/VP in 2012
    A coalition for females on the USA Parliament’s web page; http://www.usparliament.org/

    Go Free Soil Party,
    Free Ireland!

    In Coalition with;
    MP Don Grundmann [Constitution] for US Senate in 2012, PLUS maybe at least one US Senate Candidate in every state/super-state state.
    http://www.truthusa.org

    Get the Swing vote in 2012!
    MP Gary Swing [Green] for Senate in CO!
    * * *
    GoNott our ad for 2014;
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html

  254. Michael H. Wilson

    Cheezus Capozzi here you go again with the nuke issue and you know damn well and good the time zone issue is what is going to through everything off.

    Nobody will know how to set a watch and they damn nukes will never get airborne.

  255. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    R 314; Well…er…I forgot about Swing in ’95(?). Yeah him, it might be the same as “King as Swing”…anyway, once he quit enaging me with voter registration, he was not elected as secretary. That was back when we had one secretary and one prime minister, and he was one of the early secretaries…and he took over right around when he helped the Pizza Party get elected as the 2nd Prime Minister in 1996;

    Former US Parliament Prime Ministers
    1st PM Marcus Denoon [Pot] – 1996
    2nd PM John Renna [Pizza] – 1996
    3rd PM Daniel Brockman [Environmentalist] – 1996
    4th PM Steve Michael [AIDS Cure] – 1996 to 1997
    6th PM Rob Elliott [Independent] – 8/12/2004 to 10/22/2005
    7th PM George Nelson [United Veterans Rights] – 9/7/2004 to 10/20/2005
    5th PM Igor Chudov [Libertarian] – elected in 1997 to 4/8/2007
    9th PM Victor Cantu [Democratic] – elected in 10/22/2005 to 8/21/2007
    11th Prime Minister Charles Stewart [Green Libertarian] – 8/21/2007 to 8/26/2007
    12th Prime Minister George Nelson [National Veterans Freedom] – 8/26/2007 to 9/6/2007
    13th Prime Minister Ted Brown [Libertarian] – elected 9/6/2007 to 4/6/2008
    14th Prime Minister Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian] – elected 4/24/2008 to 5/30/2008
    15th PM Ned Roscoe [Libertarian] – elected 10/20/2005 to 8/14/2008
    10th Prime Minister Robert Elliott elected 4/9/2007 to 10/19/2008

    Former Secretaries
    1st Secretary – James Ogle [Labor] 2005-2006
    2nd Secretary – Gary Swing [TAOAF] 2006
    3rd Secretary James Ogle [Free Parliamentary] – elected 2006 to 4/6/2008
    4th Secretary Michael Badnarik [Libertarian] – elected 4/6/2008 to 7/22/2008
    5th Secretary David Olkkola – elected 7/22/2007 to 9/30/2008
    6th Secretary Vanessa Morley [Defender of the Republic] – elected 4/24/2008 to August of 2009
    7th Secretary Mikki Tenj [Phreak the Fourth] – elected 8/30/2008 to 9/30/2008

    Current Secretaries
    8th Secretary David Olkkola [Democratic] – elected 9/30/2008
    9th Secretary James Ogle [Free Parliamentary] – elected in August of 2009

    Current US Parliament Prime Ministers
    16th Prime Minister Mary J. Ruwart [Libertarian] – elected 5/30/2008
    17th Prime Minister Gail Lightfoot [Libertarian] – elected 8/14/2008
    18th Prime Minister Hoffmann [Democratic-Republican] – elected on 10/19/2008
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1

    “GoNott Advertise is better than Google’s ads,
    because it’s owned by The USA Parliament, Inc.;
    A coalition of Americans united for the purpose of establishing truly representative government.

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    Draft A Female/Nott for President!
    A female #1, and Nott #2
    (for male voters)

    Everyone is invited to the party,
    the programmer is Nott!
    We’re Nott Libertarians!

    See the ad; Draft Nott/A Female for Prez/VP in 2012
    A coalition for females on the USA Parliament’s web page; http://www.usparliament.org/

    Go Free Soil Party,
    Free Ireland!

    In Coalition with;
    MP Don Grundmann [Constitution] for US Senate in 2012, PLUS maybe at least one US Senate Candidate in every state/super-state state.
    http://www.truthusa.org

    Get the Swing vote in 2012!
    MP Gary Swing [Green] for Senate in CO!
    * * *
    GoNott our ad for 2014;
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html

  256. Robert Capozzi

    tk311:…what you’re saying is that you (and LRC) were/are not dishonest, merely ignorant of history and naive as to political reality.

    me: In my case, I’m aware that the LP has experienced disinformation campaigns through time. I find that approach unacceptable. For me, means and ends need to be shot through with integrity. I don’t subscribe to the “any means necessary” approach. Even if you win, you lose if you win through misdirection.

    I think Milsted generally took the same approach. There may well have been LRCers who didn’t, though I’m unaware of any misdirection in Portland. Odds are high there was SOME misdirection.

    In my case, you may have noticed that when I make an error in fact, I cop to it rather quickly, generally after confirming my facts are incorrect.

    My view is a “radical” one. It’s my observation that misdirection requires more energy than to stand up for what I believe and let the chips fall where they may. Telling little, “righteous” lies requires one to operate with guilt and loathing that one’s lies might be found out. I don’t have the energy for such nonsense.

    The theater of politics DOES require positioning and sound-bite argumentation. This does start to get awfully gray, since positioning often entails being VERY selective about the salient facts. I see this as different from misdirection and disinformation. I do engage in positioning, especially in outreach activities.

    tms313: I’m sure [Lenin, Gandhi, and King’s] political goals did not appear to be achievable when they first set out. But they didn’t let that stop them.

    Me: Interesting. How are your sure?

    I’m no a scholar on any of them, but I’d think they thought the time was ripe. Lenin lived in revolutionary times. There had been a revolution in 1905 that failed. Another revolution started in 1917, and he led a piling-on effort that led to his forces winning the day.

    Gandhi and King were spiritual leaders, as I see them, who engaged in campaigns to reverse injustices. With Gandhi, the Brits had been de-colonizing elsewhere, so it seems hard to imagine that Gandhi didn’t see an opening to include India on the list. King was addressing an injustice (the vestiges of slavery and Jim Crow), but was no revolutionary or nationalist. While important, his was a rather narrow cause. He apparently dabbled in expanding his cause to a broader one — a remaking of the civil order. ATC, though, I’d say he wanted to reverse discrimination in voting and public accommodations.

    However, Sipos, I would like to hear your take on these three and your interpretation that they did NOT calibrate their efforts to the opportunities they were presented.

  257. Robert Capozzi

    br312: Candidates need to identify with a winning coalition on the hot issues and stay mum, if possible, on other issues which are only important if they are emphasized enough to turn voters away.

    me: I largely concur with your comment. Two areas where we may not agree:

    1) Ls have a propensity to ID with “hot” issues, and then take the most extreme position on that issue. For ex., some Ls take the view that the TSA issue is best resolved by abolishing TSA, and to return to the salad days of packing on planes. I respect the view, I think I understand it, but to me it may do more damage to the LP. In this context, the prospect of Flying OK Corrals is unattractive except for a very few.

    Or, people don’t like high taxes. Some Ls like to exclaim “Taxation is theft.” Again, I understand the view; again, I find it theoretically challenged and a failure in application.

    2. I’m not convinced that most people hold a mix of extreme views. They may hold one or two. They may hold a few more, but recognize that their extreme view is not implementable, so they are incrementalist on most things.

    Ls sometimes want to hold high the banner of extreme views that are associated with either hard right or hard left AT THE SAME TIME on different issues. Publicly holding extreme views on different positions in different directions makes Ls look confused, all over the map, to the public. This positioning serves to alienate the vast majority.

    Politics is a short time-horizon game. Holding high multiple extreme positions necessarily takes one out of the game of politics and puts one in the game of theorizing. Nothing inherently “wrong” with theorizing, but let’s not kid ourselves….it ain’t politics!

    IMO.

  258. Lies and the lying liars who tell them

    “Aaron Starr // Dec 5, 2010 at 11:53 am

    Paulie is a good guy. Anyone who states otherwise has zero credibility as far as I’m concerned, especially when that someone posts pseudonymously.”

    So it is fair to say that “Paulie” is a Starr pupil?
    LOL. For those of you who did not read Liberty for America, or have really bad reading comprehension:

    Vicki Kirkland, LPF Chair: Our resolution was not a hoax. I don’t know how such a ridiculous rumor got started. You can certainly quote me on this.

    John Wayne Smith, Leesburg, Florida Well, for a change it was not me that made the motion. I did second it. The members of the LPF Excomm rightly felt that it was way out of line. I have been working with the Libertarian Party since 1974 and have been a member of Libertarian National since March 1980. I am a Libertarian, not a fake Libertarian like Wayne Allyn Root or members of the Reform movement. I served on the 2004 Platform Committee and despise what
    has been done since even though I did serve on the 2008 Platform Committee. It is time that real Libertarians speak out about the destruction of the Libertarian movement, which Mr. Root is at this time the leader of. The motion passed with less than 5 minutes of deliberation and was actually a watered down version of the first proposed version. Any one who says or in anyway indicates that it is.was a hoax is either sick or intentionally lying. Wayne Allyn Root should be expelled from the LNCC
    as well as asked to resign from the LNC.

    John R Thompson: We voted on the resolution concerning Mr. Root and I abstained on the measure. The vote is recorded in our state minutes. It was overwhelmingly for passage. For
    my part I abstained because while I believed Mr. Roots actions warranted a censure they did not yet rise to the level of out right removal. Clearly most of my colleagues here in Florida felt otherwise. Whatever happens with Mr. Root I hope he is successful in growing the Libertarian Party and peoples appreciation of liberty but I also hope he maintains the principles of our Party.

  259. Robert Capozzi

    lies320, how do you explain that the “resolution” has been taken down from the LP FL site, then?

    And are you familiar with the concept of GIGO…garbage in, garbage out.

    If Kirkland was asked, was the resolution a “hoax,” her answer makes sense. The misdirection here is that the QUESTION is a based on a false premise. The contention on the table is not that it was a “hoax,” but a usurpation, a gun jump, by Dickey. He was authorized to DRAFT

  260. Robert Capozzi

    continuing…

    …a resolution, not to transmit it.

    Is the Liberty for America article another misdirection? We may never know.

    Is the “resolution” a gun jump for certain? I’m still not sure, but it’s looking that way to me.

    Would ID have followed on without FL? Can’t say for sure, but likely no.

    Would Nolan have drafted his more tame, civil resolution? Maybe, this we’ll likely never know.

    Was this all a tragedy of errors? Looking like it.

  261. Lies and the lying liars who tell them

    “how do you explain that the “resolution” has been taken down from the LP FL site”

    Probably it was replaced by more current items after a period of time. How long do they have to leave it up? If someone had “jumped the gun,” wouldn’t they be trumpeting that? Duh.

    How is this unclear? “The motion passed with less than 5 minutes of deliberation and was actually a watered down version of the first proposed version. Any one who says or in anyway indicates that it is.was a hoax is either sick or intentionally lying. Wayne Allyn Root should be expelled from the LNCC
    as well as asked to resign from the LNC.”

  262. Robert Milnes

    Sipos@283, Paul is on Fox with Judge Napolitano. Fox regularly has Root too. Napolitano has long been understood as a rightist. I guarantee you will very rarely if ever see a leftist or radical on Fox.
    Evidently Paul was mostly referring to wikileaks & the fed, his pet peeve. Evidently rightists have a few commonalities with leftists. So far you have latched on to antiwar & free speech. These when reactionaries are in power.
    I suspect that rightists ‘ true colors would show if leftists got power or they got power.

  263. Robert Capozzi

    Lies, I made a phone call yesterday. Another phone call was made. Within an hour, the “resolution” post was taken off the site.

    The quotes seem damning. They are not the whole story, according to my sources. It’s my understanding that a watered-down version was DISCUSSED, but Dickey misunderstood and posted his version. Regardless, he was SUPPOSED to run the language back past the FL ex comm, and didn’t.

    Thus far, my sources are telling me that FL wants this whole thing to go away. I respect that. However, if my operative theory is correct, I’d like to get someone to go on the record, unfiltered, as to what actually transpired.

    I hope to get a direct source to post here in the coming days to make this a small but powerful teachable moment.

  264. George Phillies

    @323 Indeed, you are quoting John Wayne Smith, who is on the Florida ExComm and says he voted for it.

    None of my sources in Florida agree the more interesting of Mr. Capozzi’s claims.

  265. Thomas M. Sipos

    Capozzi, I don’t have time to teach you history in depth.

    That the tsar would fall was not at all obvious in 1914. Absent World War I, there might never have been revolution, much less a Bolshevik Revolution.

    Lenin was in despair when the tsar abdicated in early 1917 (February or March, depending on which calendar you use). Lenin was in exile and worried that he’d “missed out” on the revolution.

    The tsar was replaced by a democracy, led by Kerensky. Not by the Bolsheviks.

    Again, it was by no means obvious that the Bolsheviks would overthrow the Social Democrats the following October. And had Kerensky not continued Russia’s involvement in World War I, the Bolsheviks may never have come to power.

    As for King, if you’d told any American in 1950 that — within their lifetimes — blacks and whites could freely marry, and a black would be elected president, they’d think you were completely insane.

    Likewise, if you’d told any American in 1970 that someday gays would be allowed to marry, they’d think you were insane.

    The LP used to be about fearlessly advocating ideas that appeared “insane” at the time.

    Today, the LP is increasingly about not offending anyone, lest it “lose votes.”

    The LP wants to emulate the Demopublicans by “selling out” for votes, while at the same time being perceived as a “party of principle.”

    The LP can’t be both. It can’t sell itself for votes, while insisting that it’s the “party of principle.”

  266. Thomas M. Sipos

    Milnes, who cares if Paul is “rightist” or “leftist.” “Rightist” and “leftist” each have dozens of different, contradictory meanings. It all depends on the context; on what you mean by those terms.

    Some antiwar people are perceived as “rightist,” others as “leftist.” It’s all good.

    Some prowar people are perceived as “rightist,” some as “leftist.” It’s all bad.

  267. Robert Capozzi

    tms327, hmm, nothing you say contradicts my view, so I’m not sure why you think you need to lecture me.

    I can’t imagine not “offending” anyone, actually, when engaged in the political arena. Someone will always disagree with something.

    Politics involves some calibration. I want the LP to be edgy, not fringey. I can’t say with precision what is edgy and what is fringey, but I prefer edgy positions.

    Even abolitionist Ls admit to this. They don’t lead with their most extreme positions…anarchy now, fetuses are parasites, etc. etc.

    It’s my view that as the founders of the LP are starting to die off, their calibration was more fringey than edgy. Lenin and Gandhi saw their efforts bear fruit, although Gandhi was quickly assassinated. King was assassinated.

    I surely don’t wish to see Ls assassinated, but to my knowledge none have been, in part because our ability to change the status quo is limited, SINCE we are easily dismissed as a fringe movement. Being on edge movement is riskier in this sense, but I contend we’d be more effective closer to the center.

    It’s easy to dismiss Lyndon LaRouche, for ex., since he seems to most people to be a fringe player — kooky, even.

    We can carry on safe and secure as fringe players, earning an asterisk in the history books. Our pure “principles” may make us feel good (sanctimonious, even), but thus far this positioning has not been effective in rolling back the State.

  268. Paulie

    It’s my own fault for my lack of self control in responding here when I have things I need to be doing, but I wish the person who keeps emailing me about this would stop, as the following is not the best use of my time.

    289 BC: paulie, did VK say the FL excomm authorize Dickey to write AND DISTRIBUTE the resolution, or to draft a resolution for their consideration? Did she specify whether Dickey was authorized to send out the resolution under her name without seeing the final language?

    I’m sorry, I don’t recall her exact words. It was clear to me and the others present that her intention was to convey that Mr. Dickey had jumped the gun in publishing the language he did, and that all he was authorized to do was to draft language. If she worded things cleverly to create an impression different from the facts, or misrepresented the sequence of events, or inadvertently worded things in such a way as to be misunderstood, I don’t know.

    I’ve communicated the extent of my knowledge and recollection, and done my best to truthfully represent what I know. I don’t know what actually happened in Florida, only what I have heard various people say about it. I am not pushing any agenda, despite what someone apparently thinks. My only agenda is to truthfully report to the best of my ability what I know. If you want to know more, please inquire directly with the Florida LP, as subsequent comments show you are already doing.

    291 Lies,

    See remarks from Vicki Kirkland and others. So much for “paulie’s” credibility.

    Ms. Kirkland says the resolution was not a hoax. No one I know of has claimed it was a hoax. Everyone agrees that a resolution was passed in Florida, as far as I know. There appears to be some disagreement over whether the resolution that was passed was the language that was published or one that merely authorized language to be drafted. As I understood what Ms. Kirkland said in New Orleans, it was the latter. That understanding, I believe, was shared by everyone else present. If I misunderstood her, my apologies.

    296 AS

    Paulie is a good guy. Anyone who states otherwise has zero credibility as far as I’m concerned, especially when that someone posts pseudonymously.

    Thank you.

    320 Lies,

    So it is fair to say that “Paulie” is a Starr pupil?

    The fact that Aaron and I can say good things about each other does not mean that we agree on everything. Rest assured that there are any number of things on which we continue to disagree. The biggest difference, I think, is that I believe younger and/or left-leaning people near or barely within the libertarian quintile represent the best untapped opportunity for libertarian growth and outreach, whereas he thinks our best prospects tend to be older, wealthier and more conservative leaning.

    Nevertheless, I respect Aaron’s hard work as a Libertarian volunteer. People can disagree without being disagreeable.

    And regardless of how much we disagree on internal matters, I’m sure we agree far more than either of us does with the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans. I sure we also probably agree that there are (or could be) opportunities for the LP to appeal to much larger numbers of “both” groups I mention above, too. A difference in emphasis is not a reason to consider a fellow Libertarian to be an enemy.

    322 BC,

    Would Nolan have drafted his more tame, civil resolution? Maybe, this we’ll likely never know.

    Whatever led to it, I’m glad he did, and I’m glad that Mr. Knedler introduced it and that it was passed by the LNC. I think it was an apt and timely reminder that we need to appeal to a broad spectrum of near-libertarians, regardless of where each of us thinks the best opportunities are.

    Speaking of which, it is well past time for me to get off here and get out in the “real world.”

    415-690-6352 if anyone has additional comments or questions.

  269. Robert Capozzi

    Assange is edgy, IMO. Ron Paul is edgy. Ralph Nader is edgy. Cindy Sheehan is edgy. Jesse Ventura is edgy, although he dabbles toward the fringes.

    L. Neil Smith is fringey. Chuck Baldwin is fringey. Cynthia McKinney is fringey, having once been edgy.

    Just my takes off the top of my head. They are all doing the best they can here in the Matrix 😉

  270. Be Rational

    RC @319

    Regarding the “hot” issues: Sometimes L candidates may be too extreme on hot issues, but other times, it may be just not recognizing what the hot issues actually is.

    The TSA, for example, is not currently a gun rights issue. Rather, a large group of people, larger than usual, although not a majority, seem to agree with Libertarians that the state is going to far in using its strip searching viewers and intrusive, groping pat downs.

    So, this an issue we can run with and promote for a while. That the Federal Government is out of control and violating our rights. It has gone to far in the name of security and we are losing our rights, our liberty and our security as a result.

    The most extreme L solution that actually responds to this “hot” issue is privatization of the security services and abolishing the TSA. This view is not too extreme at this time. It would allow airlines and airports to take the lead. They have an interest in being safe without alienating their customers. They can make resonable security arrangements without being draconian. We could also expect some variations in treatment, which would allow customers to choose their level of tolerance for intrusiveness.

    It seems clear enough to me that the airlines, if allowed to choose their own security, would not choose to allow their passangers to carry weapons, so this is a moot point that only alienates potential supporters who also object to allowing all passengers to carry weapons.

    And since we are Libertarians and we believe that the decision should be up to the airlines, then we have no need to mention the right of the airlines to allow passengers to carry weapons, since no airline today would choose such an option.

    If, however, the TSA is abolished, and the airlines take over their own security, and they choose to allow passengers to carry and wish to change government rules that prevent such action, then it would be a proper L strategy to take up that banner – as that would be the correct time to present that L view since it would then be a gun issue.

  271. Robert Capozzi

    br, yes, well framed, IMO. I’m more than OK with an L taking the narrow, TSA has gone too far. I strongly support it. I’m also OK with talking about abolishing the TSA in favor of returning the function to its proper place, the private sector, though this point would need to be made deftly, probably vaguely.

    As for whether an airline could allow packing while flying, I doubt any would. If the day comes where TSA could be abolished, if the State required the skies to be a no-pack zone, I’d have some ambivalence, but I’d make that deal in a NY minute. As we’ve seen, jets can be commandeered to do severe damage to those on the ground and in the jet.

    If that’s too much of a “sell out” for others, so be it. It’s my view. I’d rather Ls didn’t openly advocate flying while packing as the solution, but that’s THEIR view. If some believe that flying while packing is a strict 2A right — even on private property, or while flying in common space — I’d hope they’d agree to disagree on that one.

  272. Be Rational

    RC, I think we agree on this.

    The LP and LP candidates can take clearly principled, edgy views on hot issues by framing our positions carefully.

    We can abolish the TSA and privatize security without disturbing the prohibition on guns by passengers on airlines. The airlines would, of course, be able to provide for armed security through some means as we now have armed federal officers on some flights.

    We need to help our candidates to take care to select issues and frame their L responses to be appropriate, respond to important hot issues, and show how principled L solutions can have a positive result.

    We can be edgy without being fringy, and we can build our party, gain ballot status and even win elections if we do so consistantly with attractive, credible candidates in targeted campaigns.

  273. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    @337 BR writes; “[…]We can be edgy without being fringy, and we can build our party, gain ballot status and even win elections if we do so consistantly with attractive, credible candidates in targeted campaigns.”
    * * *

    I disagree, without teamwork from all types of people, no political movement can win elections.

    There is no free press that’s going to start promoting your so-called “attractive, credible candidates” . Do you think that suddenly everyone is going to hear or see them speak? And who decides on who IS good?

    It’s obvious that no third party is going to gain power under single winner districts, especially under plurality elections.

    The Libertarian Party itself is pretty much run by arrogant single winner district power grabbing egotists, who think that they will win as a third party in single winner districts.

    Fortunately, The USA Parliament, Inc., has a free system in place that is like a tool for all parties and independents to work together under voting on a single ranked ballot.

    If you are an elected member on one of the three levels, the national, super-state or mini-state, we welcome your vote on the executives and rules.

    If you’re not a member, then we welcome your name.

    Can you believe it, a coalition of US voters based on votes cast as proof?

    It’s true. Your vote elects and guides the group under pure proportional representation.

    The “power” is from the information that people are working together from all parties, and independents.

    Not elitist intellectuals who are hand picked from fat cat party bosses who are selfishly grabbing for power in single winner districts.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1

    “GoNott Advertise is better than Google’s ads,
    because it’s owned by The USA Parliament, Inc.;
    A coalition of Americans united for the purpose of establishing truly representative government.

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    Draft A Female/Nott for President!
    A female #1, and Nott #2
    (for male voters)

    Everyone is invited to the party,
    the programmer is Nott!
    We’re Nott Libertarians!

    See the ad; Draft Nott/A Female for Prez/VP in 2012
    A coalition for females on the USA Parliament’s web page; http://www.usparliament.org/

    Go Free Soil Party,
    Free Ireland!

    In Coalition with;
    MP Don Grundmann [Constitution] for US Senate in 2012, PLUS maybe at least one US Senate Candidate in every state/super-state state.
    http://www.truthusa.org

    Get the Swing vote in 2012!
    MP Gary Swing [Green] for Senate in CO!
    * * *
    GoNott our ad for 2014;
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html

  274. Middle Aged Anti-Federalist

    If you can’t stop spamming IPR with your BS, can you at least please get rid of the long signature?

  275. George Phillies

    As found on Gold America Group. A purgative was once an agent to cleanse the body of its ills, and sometimes purging is healthy. Note the following, namely that the LP of North Carolina has seceded from its LNC Region:

    To: Representatives of Region One of the Libertarian National Committee
    CC: State Chairs of Region 1; members of LNC

    This is to inform you that the Libertarian Party of North Carolina Executive Committee voted on Saturday, November 20, 2010 to withdraw from Region 1.

    We believe it is the duty of the regional representatives to keep the region chairs informed regarding LNC meetings and any important matters that might affect our state. Region reps should proactively seek input from the members of the region. Since the 2010 convention, we have received exactly one communication from just one of our alleged representatives – a request for comments on the 2012 convention location. Further, this is a continuation of a historical pattern of virtually nonexistent communication between us and our regional representatives. We no longer feel that this is adequate representation, and thus are withdrawing from the region effective immediately.

    Barbara Howe
    Chair, Libertarian Party of North Carolina
    919-690-1423 (h)
    919-475-2371 (c)

  276. Michael H. Wilson

    George Call them back right now! They can’t do that. it is in violation of somethin’.
    I’ll find it and if I don’t I’ll make it up.
    Keep doin’ this and we’ll have a flood on our hands and that’ll create quite a stew.
    😉

  277. Gains

    The Florida Resolution is real; it is not real; it is real. So and so is on so and so’s side; no they are not; sometimes they are… Does it matter?

    Can we not recruit a balancing faction and grow instead of attack and ablate?

    Is there nothing here that resembles cutting off your nose to spite your face in all of this action?

  278. Robert Milnes

    No, paulie. Nolan’s original resolution put the burden of representing libertarianism& LP platform accurately on party officials & candidates.
    Somehow it was run through a remotetransportation device/think tank & turned into its’ awful opposite.
    Kind of like starting with a man & ending with a man/fly.

  279. Gains

    RM #343: “@341, yes Gains, it matters.”

    When was the last time you replaced any of the numbers of people you recommend purging?

  280. Robert Capozzi

    g341, in this particular Bohemian Rhapsody, “nothing really matters.” How we treat each other is the ONLY thing that matters, as far as I’m concerned.

    Calling for a purge is IMO not something that should be done for light and transient reasons. If Ls cannot have tolerance internally, it’s my contention that we will not be persuasive externally. L-ism (in its various forms) generally is a tolerant political philosophy. The lack of tolerance in inter-personal relations is an easily seen through hypocrisy.

    That’s my hard-headed assessment.

    I believe state chairs don’t vote on excomm matters. Had I been chair, I surely would have stepped down in protest. I would not want my name associated with a McCarthy-ite witch hunt.

    If my name was used in an improperly approved resolution, I would set the record straight.

    If one can’t stop bad karma from being released, the next best thing is to fix it after the fact. Or, reap what you sow.

  281. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    @342 Milnes…oh at 338…that was probably one of my recent pisk ups of a female presidential candidate as far as I can tell.

    There’s a small message in this, and basically it boils down to the fact that she likes my idea, “opposite gender #1”, but I’m not a psychologist so it’s hard to tell for sure.
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1

    “GoNott Advertise is better than Google’s ads,
    because it’s owned by The USA Parliament, Inc.;
    A coalition of Americans united for the purpose of establishing truly representative government.

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

    Draft A Female/Nott for President!
    A female #1, and Nott #2
    (for male voters)

    Everyone is invited to the party,
    the programmer is Nott!
    We’re Nott Libertarians!

    See the ad; Draft Nott/A Female for Prez/VP in 2012
    A coalition for females on the USA Parliament’s web page; http://www.usparliament.org/

    Go Free Soil Party,
    Free Ireland!

    In Coalition with;
    MP Don Grundmann [Constitution] for US Senate in 2012, PLUS maybe at least one US Senate Candidate in every state/super-state state.
    http://www.truthusa.org

    Get the Swing vote in 2012!
    Draft MP Gary Swing [Green] for Senate in CO!
    * * *
    GoNott our ad for 2014;
    http://usparliament.org/drafts/coalition7CA2014.html

  282. Entrepreneur

    If you can’t stop spamming IPR with your BS, can you at least please get rid of the long signature?

    Like you did in 348.

    As in, get rid of the stuff below the first set of *** in 347.

    It makes it harder to scroll past your spam/nonsense to find legitimate comments.

    Thanks in advance.

  283. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    The Libertarian Party will go nowhere in 2012 without a larger democratically legitimate coalition.

    I brought the proposals before the CA Libertarians in 1997 when MP Aaron Starr [Libertarian] was chair, with the help of former Prime Minister Ted Brown [Libertarian]. That’s correct, that was my proposal that came up for a vote to support multi-winner districts and proportional representation over single winner districts and plurality elections.

    It was defeated.

    So now, most Libertarians still won’t have any idea what I’m talking about.

    If legitimacy is based on votes cast as proof, then there you have it. I legitimately lost with that proposal.

    There will have to be another way, and I’m interested in finding that other way.

    I’m not approaching the bunker as a single prez/VP team, I’m set up to approach as an elected 100-member team, with #1 as prez, #2 as VP, and #s 3-100 as elected free and equal units.

    The LP is set up , thanks to MP Starr, as business as usual. The best way to improve the situation, is to use The USA Parliament’s paper ballot.

    But today we’re losing 2500 “soldiers”. We know that “Battle of the Bulge” is 150,000 years in the future at current pace.

    OK, I took out the “* * *” and the sig. Now what does that do for the team? Does that mean I don’t keep getting censored? I apologize, I must be such an inconvenience to you!

  284. Robert Capozzi

    Not entirely. Thus far, most of LPF’s leadership seem to be sticking to the “we passed it cleanly” line. Interestingly, some of them think the issue is dead. This fascinates me, since my reading of the resolution is that the LPF *still* want Root purged. It was an open-ended, perpetual resolution, after all.

    Precisely where the misunderstanding or miscommunication arose in this game of telephone, I can’t know with precision.

    I’m hopeful this doesn’t set off a wave of state LPs calling for purges of out-of-state Ls. Establishing precedent for a state LP to serve as judge, jury and executioner of fellow Ls seems astoundingly unwise to me. How that could possibly be justified mystifies me, actually.

  285. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    @350 Sorry, meant to say the 2007 CA LP convention…not 1997.

    It was the 2007 CA LP state convention, that MP Aaron Starr [Libertarian] helped defeat the resolution to support multi-member districts and proportional representation over single winner districts and plurality elections.

  286. Thomas M. Sipos

    Of all the third party silliness out there, is there a less relevant organization than the U.S. Parliament?

    The U.S. Parliament just a form of political Dungeons & Dragons.

    They hold fantasy elections, then organize a fantasy government, then more fantasy elections, and more fantasy governments…

  287. JT

    Milnes: “Especially not relevent-anything having to do with dinosaur prick fossil Ron Paul, counterrevolutionary chameleon.”

    Ron Paul is more respected and supported by most Libertarians than you’ll ever be. I love how that just burns you up.

    Burn, baby, burn!

  288. Thomas M. Sipos

    Ron Paul irrelevant, Milnes?

    Paul holds a higher political office than any LP, GP, or CP elected candidate.

    Paul gets far more respect (and is treated more seriously) than any LP, GP, or CP official.

    Paul gets far more media exposure than “de facto face of the LP” Wayne Allyn Root.

    Paul raised $35 million for his last presidential bid.

    And were Paul to announce another candidacy for president, the media, political leaders, and voters would again take Paul seriously.

    Whereas only Milnes takes a Milnes candidacy seriously.

  289. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    @359 Thomas Sipos, re: Paul [Republican]

    We should give Honorable MP Ron Paul [Republican] a phone call, maybe he’ll run for president in 2012 and work as a team like in 2008 when MPs Bob Barr [Libertarian] was a candidate?

    Then, when we elect him as Prime Minister, maybe he’ll rank the Cabinet nominees like MPs
    Lightfoot [Libertarian], Morley [Defender of the Republic], Olkkola [Democratic] and Hoffmann [Democratic-Republican] have done.

    Then we can have a coordinated team effort like in years past, behind those who start working together.

    Then we’ll have something to build on in 2016.

  290. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    …and we can rotate some better cabinet members in, when MP Ron Paul [Republican] ranks all the nominees and the rankings are averaged. That’s because we have the tool to work as an “All Party System” (and independents) team.

    We get PM Paul [Republican] to give the “parliamentary go-ahead”, and any new names automatically get a #1 ranking by all executives, so we keep getting new people. (#12 twelve ranked Cabinet name then drops to #13, so they then become “Ministers awaiting higher rankings”)

    http://www.usparliament.org/cabinet2.htm

    That would unite us with the American Libertarian Party nominee, if he were to give them a high ranking, and we’d also gain a Communications Minister.

    I’ve been doing it for fifteen years, it’s a cinch!

  291. Thomas M. Sipos

    Gee, Ogle, or maybe if Paul becomes the next Dungeon Master, he’ll form a Magical Coalition with the Brotherhood of Libertarian Trolls, the Green Elves Association, and the League of Constitional Wizards. Then they can call off the war with the Great Eastern Warlord.

    But I prefer that Paul focus on the U.S. Congress and try to raise awareness of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  292. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    We are a voter registration drive.
    Approximately 10% of the voters in The USA Parliament, Inc. also register to vote, or update their current information on the federal voter registration form which is also attached to our paper ballot.

    So say Willie Nelson [Teapot] registered to vote on our ballot, plus wrote his own name in, or maybe ranked names to represent him.

    Well, then the Teapot Party would win a percent of the seats, and each member could vote on our executives.

    The executives are able to elect Cabinet members and all this makes for teams which work together.

    For example, I work with the Free Parliament Party on the BBQ (I’m with the Free Parliamentary, a different faction), and I
    also work with all parties, of course.

    And our Communications Minister, Zachary Scott Gordon [American Libertarian] works with different parties too, like MP Jim Doyle [Republican] or MP Aarde Atheian [Libertarian].

    He is an eloquent speaker and a screen writer.

    So, it’s just a way to coordinate, and find people who are cool, who like to work as team members…each elected with 1/101ths of the vote.

    And most of the single winner district power grabbing egotists, they don’t bother, because they don’t like to work together as teams.

    So one of the benefits is we attract cool people.

    And we don’t attract jerks. So it makes for a much more fun and satisfying voter registration drive. Because cool people of all types like it.

    How do you like it, JT? We can have your name join, just give me the nod. We are in need of ministerial nominees in Central California and you don’t even have to be present to coordinate.

    We’ve already had a few nominees today, including a mayor of a town.

  293. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    […] Communications Minister, Zachary Scott Gordon [American Libertarian][…]

    I apologize, I am always making typos….Gordon is a “Minister in Waiting”, ranked only #13. Only the top twelve get elected, so he’s not a full minister himself.

    But he is a very cool person…and American Libertarian…he used to be an American Centrist and he switched. He lives near Chicago and is very interested in politics. He was our prez candidate nominee;

    Gordon/Lightfoot [American Libertarian/Libertarian] for Prez/VP!

    He’s probably still interested…he’s very cool.

  294. JT

    Ogle: “How do you like it, JT? We can have your name join, just give me the nod. We are in need of ministerial nominees in Central California and you don’t even have to be present to coordinate.”

    Thank you, but no thank you. I still don’t get what it is. Many people register many other people to vote, but they don’t also have a mock “parliament” and “ministers.” The whole thing strikes me as bizarre. I think Thomas may be accurate with his Dungeons & Dragons reference, and I’m not really much for role-playing games like that.

  295. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    No problemo, JT, anytime. The pleasure in mine.

    Still don’t understand what The USA Parliament, Inc. is? Well, the simplest explanation, is that it’s a political party, where everyone in the party may self categorize with any party/category they wish.

    It was started by the Environmentalist Party in Usenet in 1995, and the Env Party members are still elected annually as one or more of the 100 members in the national, state and county levels, based on votes cast as proof.

    I know others don’t do this. And of course we’d like to work with them to improve. It’s called the “All Party System” (and independents).

    We use the population balanced super-states and mini-states.

    I’ve already gotten two new members just since my last post; a Greenpeace activist for the email list, and a Economics Minister nominee from the LT Party Movement (whatever that is) for the Central California Parliament.

    I know, we get a lot of strange characters…but they are voters too. In the U.S. of America, everyone is free to vote when they are 18 or older.

    As far as Thomas’ analogy, I’ve never actually played D&D myself, so I really can’t make a comparison to D&D.

    I really appreciate the interest. Please do feel free to post any questions if you have any. It’s a great way for people to work together, elect the “BoD’, and make decisions as a team.

    I wish we could make the LP adopt this system real fast.

    I guess I should clarify, we have both cool people, and …well, not cool people. We accept everyone, no strings attached. Except we don’t allow slanderous or hate for party names, like NAZIs. They are categorized as Anarchist Party.

    We’ll be having a lot of improvements on The USA Parliament’s web site, and it’s owned by the 100 members…so if IPR sells, you can alway use our forum. True, it’s not as nice as IPR’s but at least the “BoD” is accountable to the members.

    In fact, if the owners of IPR want to join the USA-PAR, we’d be happy to welcome them and merge with them too.
    http://www.usparliament.org/forum

  296. Robert Milnes

    Sipos, do you support Rand Paul?
    What is your explanation for Rand? Counterrevolutionary tendencies are genetic? Run in families?
    Of course Ron will run in 2012. There is another 35 million to be suckered out of libertarians & misguided progressives at stake. & Gordon needs a steady supply of Surf & Turf & champagne & caviar& cigars & liqueur & limos & fine threads.
    But we need not worry about Gordon. His wife is a doctor so as long as people get sick, he has a mealticket.

  297. Gains

    RC @372: “$35MM got us: “I don’t know” who wrote those passages in my newsletter?”

    Don’t forget Hannity being beaned with a snowball.

    The shadow convention that dwarfed the GOP convention was a nice touch along with a massive fissure forming in the GOP.: I would say it was $35M well spent.

  298. JT

    Robert: “$35MM got us: “I don’t know” who wrote those passages in my newsletter?”

    I think it got us a little bit more than that. Like more national exposure for libertarian ideas than any current LP member, including Wayne Root, has received.

  299. JT

    Ogle: “Still don’t understand what The USA Parliament, Inc. is? Well, the simplest explanation, is that it’s a political party, where everyone in the party may self categorize with any party/category they wish.”

    So it’s an alternative political party comprised of people affiliated with many different political parties and polar opposite views on a wide range of political issues? Okay, makes sense.

  300. Robert Capozzi

    g, the snowball incident was bush league IMO, but the $35MM campaign can’t be held responsible for rabble around it. The shadow convention was a reasonably smooth move, but I’m skeptical that Paulistas represent a GOP fissure…could be, though. I see Dr. Paul as a one-off in the GOP. The Tea Party *may* represent a fissure in the GOP, and Paulistas may be a leading-edge splinter of the Tea Party.

    At the moment, however, I see Paul as pretty much on an island by himself, with Rand possibly being on it with him. The unwillingness to consider trade-offs — coupled with NewsletterGate — render him an important but ultimately isolated figure in US politics. Props to him, however, in creating a reasonably strong noise machine, generally pointed toward liberty.

    I remain deeply disappointed by NewsletterGate. If he does actually seek the GOP nomination, make book on the hate being put back in the spotlight.

  301. Robert Capozzi

    jt375: I think it got us a little bit more than that. Like more national exposure for libertarian ideas than any current LP member, including Wayne Root, has received.

    me: Yes, it did. And while I’m the first to say that you need to take the “bad” with the “good,” some bad is toxic, possibly to the point of being counter-productive. Paul is certainly playing on a larger stage than Root is. Both net out for me as a net positives, and the NewsletterGate material was at the time fairly well contained, mostly because the MSM liked Paul as a kind of R outcast.

    I just hope that those seeking an ideological home don’t get the wrong idea about what it means to be L from the hate in those newsletters.

  302. Thomas M. Sipos

    Ron Paul’s $35 million put the “empire” and its foreign policy on the table.

    When Paul stood before national TV, and blamed U.S. foreign policy for 9/11, that was the equivalent of saying the emperor has no clothes.

    Tens of millions of Americans suddenly realized that they were not alone; nor part of a fringe minority.

    Seeing a Republican Congressman say on national TV that U.S. foreign policy has blowback made tens of millions of Americans realize that they were “normal” for thinking so. They were not “unpatriotic.”

    Until then, maybe they thought that only readers of The Nation, or NPR listeners, or readers of The American Conservative, or street protesters, felt that way.

    But when Ron Paul said it on national TV, tens of millions of Americans realized — I’m right! I am not alone! Tens of millions, of normal, patriotic Americans are thinking the same thing, just like me!

    And when Giuliani tore into Paul, Paul did not blink. He held his ground.

    It was like when Yeltsin refused to blink in 1991 — and the Soviet empire began to crumble.

    Not as strong in the U.S., not yet. But the first fissure.

    Ron Paul stood up to the empire, and the empire blinked.

    This is Paul’s strength, and Root’s weakness. Paul cares nothing for approval of his views, whereas Root craves adulation.

    Another difference: Paul is humble, yet we see how great he is. Root is always telling us how great he is, yet it only makes him look smaller and more pathetic.

  303. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    @ 376

    JT, glad you understand now. We even have a “ruling coalition”, the largest majority of members (MPs) who approved the rules.

    Here’s how that works;

    Each elected MP votes for the rules, and their vote is linked to the main page.

    (rule #1 got the most rankings, and the sum of those rankings was lower than any other rule, so that’s why that rule is #1)

    –As each rule gets ranked in order, the one rule with the highest numbers of rankings is the #1 rule.

    — Any ties are broken by adding up the rankings, or “tics”. In ties, the lowest sum of combined tics, being the better ranking.

    –And then each rule garnering 50% plus one vote of voting MPs, is consecutively ranked in order as the approved “set of rules”.
    +++

    The number of tics received, and the lowest sum of all tics, is the criteria for determining the order of the rules. Those individual rules meeting the criteria are rules that get ranked as the set of rules.

    This is how the ruling coalition is united, based on the rules that were approved.

    If you see a way to improve the rules which unite us, any suggestions are always appreciated.
    I’ll be glad to try to run your suggestions by the ruling coalition, if I think your suggestions are worthy.

    Thanks, I do appreciate your interest!

  304. Gains

    RC @377: “I remain deeply disappointed by NewsletterGate. If he does actually seek the GOP nomination, make book on the hate being put back in the spotlight.”

    I was disappointed too but I hardly foresee gloom and doom.

    No one on the street that I have spoken to has ever brought up NewsletterGate. The only circles I only heard it mentioned was in the LP and discussion in RP forums.

    Digging 20+ year old dirt is really very weak especially since it is only circumstantially connected to him. If that is all they can hold against his character, I don’t think that it is anything to predict failure through.

  305. Thomas M. Sipos

    They already threw Newsletter Gate — and everything else they had — at Paul in 2008. It didn’t stick.

    Those issues won’t get stronger with age. They’ll just get more stale by 2012.

  306. Robert Capozzi

    hmm, we were watching a different movie, then. When “they” threw NewsletterGate out there, Paul 08 imploded. It was toward the end of the primaries-that-mattered season, as I recall. Paul went from rising star to neutered overnight.

    If he runs in ’12, it will be brought back front and center. UNLESS, of course, Dr. Paul comes up with a credible answer. “I don’t know” won’t cut it, IMO. Someone who wants to be president and has an unknown ghostwriter who spews hate under his name…c’mon. For real?

  307. George Phillies

    383

    Got that one right. Paul already admitted writing them, and said they were out of context…we have now seen the context.

    381

    Racist hatemongering will sell even less well in 2012 than it did in 2008, and the record is that there was no changing of minds. When George Wallace changed his mind, he was applauded, but no one ever thought it made him eligible for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

  308. Thomas M. Sipos

    “we were watching a different movie, then. … Paul went from rising star to neutered overnight.”

    I hope you enjoyed your movie.

    I was watching the news, and I didn’t see that at all.

  309. Robert Capozzi

    tms385: I hope you enjoyed your movie.

    me: No, the film started out reasonably inspirational and uplifting, but then turned into a tragic horror film 3/4s of the way through. Paul, for me, went from flawed hero to a cross between Andrew Dice Clay and Don Knotts.

  310. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    I remember at some point when he said something to the effect of selling off the national parks or something, that sort of hurt him with environmentalists.

    It just goes to show you, the “tic” system the Environmentalist Party uses, is a much more effective tool than anything MP Paul [Republican] and the Libertarians are using.

    In our system, we don’t have any of those controversies which totally shoot you down.

    To tell you the truth, both MP Paul [Republican] and Root [Libertarian] look terrible without “opposite gender #1”.

    You are all currently heading down a *losing path*! The inertia is already taking you down.

    The LP’s bylaws and structure has you tied to concrete blocks, and you’re going to be taking a swim in the the Pacific Ocean somewhere between Hawaii and Alaska. You guys are funny, just biding you’re time…and every year passes, it’s like one minute on Normandy Beach.

    But you can’t figure it out. While I can see through that, it’s as clear as glass.

    W.A.R.’s statement doesn’t address this at all. The key words for this index page are Obama and Root.

    Opposite gender #1!

  311. Gains

    Ogle @387:

    Do you find that insults and odd metaphorical non-sequitors are an effective path to communicating goals and in gaining allies in pursuing them?

    RC @386:

    Talk about judgmental, man. Almost 400 posts in this thread alone from you promoting more tolerance of imperfection and then this? Your level of disappointments seems disproportionally high.

    GP @384:

    Are you really equating Ron Paul with George Wallace?

    You also seem to be trying to say that Ron Paul sells racist hate mongering. Though I think I know what you meant to say, I think that this sort of hyperbole in casual illustration is what often makes your opinion hard for me to absorb; at least with the fairness that I would like to.

  312. George Phillies

    388

    Let me say it again. The Ron Paul Survival Report, which he admitted writing, constained more than enough racist hatemongering — perhaps it should be brought back to remind people — to make him unacceptable. I am not using hyperbole, I am saying that his published writings which he did not repudiate were racist hatemongering. There was also his New Hampshire immigration ad, with the dark of skin man swimming across the border (which also ignored that illegals so called in New Hampshire are fair of skin and speak French.)

    Equate Ron Paul with George Wallace? No. George Wallace was eventually the better man. He clearly and unambiguously repudiate the things he had done in the 1960s, and said he apologized for them. Ron Paul on recycle one tried to blame his staff for the contents of the newsletter produced with his name on it and other family members on the staff.

  313. Thomas L. Knapp

    The material that inspired the “Newslettergate” scandal was bad, but it was really somewhat secondary in terms of effect. The real problem for Paul is that his handling of it exposed him as just another typical lying, opportunistic politician.

    In the late 1980s and early 1990s, he was happy to make money — and build future fundraising lists — by putting his name on racist garbage.

    When it was brought up in a campaign context in 1996 — a time period in which the GOP was being fairly openly racist — he admitted authorship and gave a weak “context” justification.

    When it came up in 2007 — a time period in which a different racial political dynamic was working — he denied authorship, tried to lay it off on an unnamed ghost writer he hadn’t even mentioned in 1996, and pandered shamelessly — and in a manner utterly unbelievable to anyone not already submersed in and literally breathing the Paul 2008 Kool-Aid — to the legacy of Martin Luther King.

    The accounts he gave were mutually exclusive — he was lying in 1996, or he was lying in 2007, or both.

    Some politicians can be successful even after being caught lying, because it’s something that’s apparent in their character and comes with a wink and a nudge (Bill Clinton, for example).

    But a politician who makes his reputation as an atypical truth-teller is not going to advance much on that reputation after being outed as exactly the opposite.

  314. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    Gains @ 388
    “Ogle @387: Do you find that insults and odd metaphorical non-sequitors are an effective path to communicating goals and in gaining allies in pursuing them?”

    Did you mean non sequitur?
    + + +

    I find that the voting system of ranked voting for elections and decision making is far more effective.

    Look at Time Magazine today; It’s Sarah Palin, and a good team that could beat Obama would be a Palin/Root [Republican/Libertarian] team.

    The problem with that, is that they aren’t the legitimate elected team.

    Take MP Vanessa Morely [Defender of the Republic] for example, and maybe a name like George Phillies [Libertarian]. How would they match up to them.

    We’ll never know until we hold the election.

    It could be Morely/Milnes [Defender of the Republic/Libertarian], or one of many combinations.

    But us three to four males aren’t going to find out, unless we work together. And not under the Libertarian system. Under The USA Parliament, Inc.’s system.

    We’ve gained a half dozen new members in the past 24 to 48 hours. Possibly a Green Party male politician, who is also a mayor of a small town.

    We can change the course and history of this nation. First all of, us males must start to agree.

    We have to agree to elect a female for president or vice president. Including our own names, of course. We need team work, and no females are going to go for this. Or very few that is. I do have Moreley’s support, and she is a US citizen, and older than 35. We run her with W.A.R.; Moreley/W.A.R. [Defender of the Republic/Libertarian] for males, or another female/your name/Moreley/W.A.R.
    for males.

    Or maybe your name/Moreley/W.A.R. for females.

    It could be “our name (a male)”/Morely/W.A.R. for females. Or another female’s name/your name/Moreley/W.A.R. for males. Which one will it be? Which one do you like? I think we should start working on this today. People under 35 too…and if their name is elected and they aren’t under thirty five…their name is automatically eliminated and the next highest ranked name is automatically elected in their stead.

    It’s “The All Party System” and independents. Including those who are Nott Libertarians. How do you like it?

    Email me, and I’ll put your name on the list. I’ll have a sign up form added to the USA Parliament site by mid week next week.
    Meanwhile, please just try to sign up on the existing page. I’ll be making the big announcement on 1/1/2011.

    We invite everyone, and that’s the way we win full representation for all parties and independents.

    For the good of the all. That’s the most effective way I see, as a team. And fortunately we’re on the rise.

  315. Robert Capozzi

    g388: Talk about judgmental, man. Almost 400 posts in this thread alone from you promoting more tolerance of imperfection and then this? Your level of disappointments seems disproportionally high.

    me: Could be I’m being judgey in my deep disappointment with Paul. Thing is: I don’t expect perfection from him — I just found his political skills profoundly not prime time after the NewsletterGate episode. At the time, I suggested to a Paul staffer to blame it on a dead guy…talk about plausible deniability! My counsel was not heeded, sadly 😉

    Still, short of my Penny/Cuban 2012 prayer, if Paul decided that he’d once more run for Prez as an L, I’d likely support that. As an L, he’d probably not have to deal with NewsletterGate, but I’d certainly like to see a better answer than “I don’t know.”

    Paul is notorious in his refusal to be handled by staff. This is charming on some levels, but I’d say is ultimately arrogant. Staying on message is not easy, so winging it leads one into traps and blind alleys.

    I consider winging it to be unwise.

  316. Gains

    RC @392:

    As I said earlier, I did not see any backlash on the streets. I am just as obnoxious about speaking my mind on social philosophy and government IRL as I am on IPR. I used to show money bomb graphs to co-workers, talk about Ron Paul in line at the grocery store and not once, not even the “I told you so guy” at work came back with the newsletter thing.

    I remember Ron Paul doing something brilliant in response when the newsletter thing came out. He talked about Martin Luther King. I call it brilliant because that did get noticed by my peers, and it gave me the chance to talk about why the civil rights act has made us all second class citizens.

    Regardless of any past or future faux pas Paul may or may not have done or will do, when he ran in 2008 the word “libertarian” got more media attention than probably all the previous 20 years together (no offense to those who worked hard for media attention in the last 20 years, but Paul got the brand out there a LOT). Since that time, to say “libertarian” in mixed company, does not any more knock my fellow conversants into a circle of blank stares. I take that WIN away as one of many and find little to complain about in Paul’s campaign.

  317. Robert Capozzi

    g393, yes, it didn’t seem to become a BIG issue, I suspect for — at the time — McCain pretty much had it wrapped up. Paul and Huckabee stayed in the race a few more primaries. The media mostly were OK with McCain, so the focus turned almost entirely to Obama v Clinton.

    It might be that the “street” thought “I don’t know” who wrote the hate was a sufficient answer. My strong suspicion is it will not be in 2012 if Paul goes for the R nomination.

    I did happen to catch Paul on a CNN show at the time. Blitzer almost apologized to Paul for even asking about NewsletterGate; he said something like, “This is how it works, Congressman.” After that, we didn’t see Paul much on MSM. He was old news. Beating up on Paul — the guy the media loved for his anti-war stance and, more importantly, for his maverick stance relative to the GOP — was not necessary.

    Yes, until NewsletterGate, I was reasonably enthusiastic about Paul 08, too. It was bringing L ideas to the center of the public square for consideration. It had some influence. The StormFront association seemed somewhat well handled, though it foretold that Dr. Paul had over the years attracted some haters to him. NewsletterGate made that plain.

    Paul will not get a pass in 2012. Not only will the media re-open the matter, but the other contenders will, too. The media can’t not cover such a controversy…they’ll thrive on it.

    The Texas Monthly story that Phillies and Knapp refer to was only about ONE quote, as I recall. TNR found a LOT of them in a LOT of issues. That Paul changed his story, I can buy, all things considered. He was embarrassed by one quote, but he took responsibility, hoping the matter would go away. When ALL the quotes came out, I think we got further toward the truth, which is that a ghostwriter was involved, and the ghost was a hater.

    It’s possible that I made and make too much of this, I concede. Perhaps the masses buy “I don’t know.” Perhaps the media will consider the issue dead. I don’t buy it, though. I consider it wishful delusion to think the matter stands up to increased scrutiny of another presidential cycle. Even if Paul runs as an L as his swan song, he’d need to address the quotes in a plausible, forthcoming manner, IMO.

  318. Robert Capozzi

    more….

    Paul is a helpful lesson for us all. Being “principled” is not enough. We are all flawed and we all make mistakes. Communicating our ideas requires a recognition that HOW you say it is at least as important was WHAT you say. Politics is different from philosophy.

    One simple (simplistic?) principle might be a good base to start with, but we should not expect others to think and perceive as we do.

  319. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 395,

    I think that the matter is more nuanced than you’re crediting it with being — and that the nuance is more damaging to Paul than the content of the newsletters themselves.

    It’s about narrative. It’s about branding.

    Here’s how Ron Paul is talked up:

    – He’s a straight talker who tells it like it is.

    – He’s a man of strong convictions who doesn’t back down from unpleasant facts.

    “Newslettergate” made him look like Bill Clinton, only with less spine.

    Clinton got caught lying, but nobody expected any different. He lied all the way up the political ladder and laughed it off and winked at the public and it was all good.

    Paul’s reputation is in large part based on a perception that he’s fundamentally honest. When he gets caught telling two different, mutually exclusive versions of the same story, that’s a problem for him.

    Clinton was always willing to throw an underling under the bus to save his own ass, but at least he had the balls to lift a finger, point at and name that underling.

    Paul wanted the benefit of passing the buck, but he was unwilling to pass it to an identifiable person (my guess is that that’s because the “ghost writer” is still someone he’s prominently associated with and/or who was working on his campaign at the time the scandal broke).

    He didn’t want to stand by the material in the newsletters, but he didn’t want to repudiate it either, until he had to. When it was going out under his name and making money for him he was fine with it, but later on when it was no longer all up side, he wanted it to be someone else’s problem.

    That’s not Ron Paul [TM] brand behavior.

    Additional nuance:

    So what if it was a “ghost writer?” A ghost writer is someone you hire as you, to express thoughts that you then take credit for … and therefore assume responsibility for as well.

    I’ve been a ghost writer for several candidates, including one LP presidential nominee.

    I can think of several occasions when those candidates were attacked for statements they made.

    Not a single one of them said ever tried to pass the buck to me. They either stood by their statements or retracted/apologized, but either way they took responsibility.

    Those newsletters had Ron Paul’s name on the banner and the masthead, and the articles in question had his name on them as author.

    They were printed and disseminated by a company he owned, and they produced both immediate income for him and lists of names/addresses that he could hit up for contributions to get back into Congress and, eventually, to launch a presidential campaign.

    He was more than happy to accept the benefits of owning and publishing those newsletters.

    He was more than happy to solicit campaign contributions from individuals who had read and apparently agreed with the material in them.

    But when those newsletters were put in his face in a negative way, all of a sudden he had nothing to do with them and it was all some anonymous malefactor’s fault.

    Ron Paul passed the buck, and he did so in a very unconvincing way. And ever since Truman, that doesn’t play well with voters.

  320. Robert Capozzi

    tk, yes, it’s nuanced. Yes, Paul did damage his brand. What exactly happened, we don’t know.

    I’d say your analogy doesn’t work. If he made those statements in a speech while running for office, the ghostwriter defense would not ring true. But this was a different situation, and I can buy that he was disengaged from the newsletter, only lending his name to it, to be used by advisors.

    Remaining associated with the ghostwriter after the fact seems like REALLY poor judgment. If the ghostwriter is deceased, he could say “I knew the writer, but he’s dead, and I don’t care to drag his name through the mud.”

    If he’s alive, he could say, “I am no longer associated with the writer in any way, but I agreed to not name him to resolve the situation.”

    “I don’t know” makes Paul seem like a fool or a dupe.

    Paul is an imperfect person. That I can get over. I think he should set the record straight in a credible way. He can apparently get re-elected to Congress with this blot on his record, but national office: no. I think he’s not electable as President, but I think he might be able to run once more like he did in 08, if he’s up for it.

Leave a Reply

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