Wayne Root: TSA: The Three Worst Letters in the English Language

 Privatize and Profile: Two Simple Solutions to Solve the TSA National Security Mess.

 By Wayne Allyn Root, former Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee and Best-Selling author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold & Tax Cuts.”

 Usually creeps go to prison for feeling up women and young children. It’s called “sexual assault” or “child molestation.” But now our own government calls it legal if done by TSA agents in the name of “national security.”

 Just more proof that virtually everything government does, they fail at miserably. Make no mistake about it, the TSA is Exhibit A for how to muck up both national security and the privacy and civil liberties of American citizens. TSA can’t stop suicide bombers, or underwear bombers, or shoe bombers…but these “brave heroes” of government sure are great at feeling up grandma and grandpa. Not to mention how talented they are at traumatizing little children, radiating pilots, roughly molesting fliers with hip or knee implants, and embarrassing cancer survivors with breast implants, or the infirm with colostomy bags. Ding, ding, ding- we have a winner! Give the award for “Awkward, Strange, Creepy, Bumbling Idiots and Perverted Order-Takers of the Year” to our TSA.

 There is a citizen revolution smoldering in the hinterlands. Americans don’t want overpaid government goons and perverts, with far too much authority, touching their junk….or grandma’s junk…or our children’s private parts. Something has got to give — unless our government wants mass chaos, massive citizen protests, civil disobedience, more economic carnage, higher unemployment, and the bankruptcy of the airline industry.

 There are two simple solutions to this TSA mess. First and most importantly, hand airline security over to the private sector. Let airlines manage their own security, with their own private security forces. Get government out of the way. Government isn’t the solution, they are the problem.

 We must put Delta, American, U.S. Air, Southwest and all the other airlines in charge of their own security — just like all other private sector companies. That puts incompetent bumbling idiots, creeps and perverts, aka TSA agents, on the sidelines. It also ensures the usual private sector success. American business usually gets it right. Businesses will weigh the right amount of security versus customer privacy, civil rights, and satisfaction. And if they fail we as consumers can simply stop using that airline and choose another. The ones who get it right will succeed. The ones who don’t will fail. That’s called free markets. Capitalism works. Perhaps the U.S. government should allow for it sometime.

 Privatizing airline security will automatically save taxpayers a bundle. After all, who are among the lowest paid employees in the free market? Security guards. In most cases, they are paid minimum wage or slightly higher. But when government gets involved, we take a job that any robotic order-taker could do, give them a badge and put a fancy TSA patch on their shoulders, and hand them bloated union wages, obscene pensions, and health care for life.

 All of these TSA agents are costing America billions of dollars we cannot afford. Are you aware the U.S. Postal Service is bankrupt? And that reduced service and incompetence by this government agency still loses $8 billion per year? Or that we have TRILLIONS in unfunded liabilities for U.S. Postal Service pensions and healthcare liabilities? Well it didn’t start out this way. Once upon a time, postal employees were young. Today postal service retirees are helping to bankrupt America. TSA will become another government employee nightmare 20 years down the road. It will lead to an unstoppable “too big to fail” bureaucracy and the fleecing of American taxpayers with more unaffordable pension obligations. We must end it now, before it becomes another bureaucracy too big to kill. Turn it all over to the private sector.

 The simple Part Two of this solution is to end political correctness — private airlines can best prevent terrorism by adopting the Israeli model of PROFILING. No, not racial profiling, but rather “terrorist threat profiling.” No need to argue — it works to perfection. Israel has the safest airports and the safest airline (El Al) in the world. There has NEVER been a successful terrorist attack at an Israeli airport or airline. Why? Because their security experts rely on profiling, not political correctness. They ask a series of rapid-fire questions of all passengers. There is no time to lie. If you try to lie, it is easy to detect inconsistencies in your story. At that point you are pulled aside for a more detailed screening or body search. But everyone does not need to endure the health threat of major radiation, or the privacy violation of intrusive cavity searches. It is time to leave grandma and my baby daughter alone, and look for real terrorists.

 America must place airline security in the hands of the private sector and adopt the Israeli profiling system. This is a simple two-step solution that ends this national nightmare immediately. Result? No more trauma for children and grandma; no more violation of privacy and civil liberties for average law-abiding Americans; and no more successful terrorist attacks. This is a powerful one-two national security punch. But hey, I’m just a little ‘ole, common-sense, small businessman. Why listen to me? Let’s keep listening to government. You know- those guys who bankrupted a $100 million brothel in Nevada and ran gambling (OTB) into bankruptcy in New York. Ronald Reagan once reminded us of the nine worst words in the English language: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” I’m beginning to think the new mantra might be, “the three worst letters in the English language: T.S.A.”

85 thoughts on “Wayne Root: TSA: The Three Worst Letters in the English Language

  1. Michael H. Wilson

    Wayne if when you write; “infirm with colostomy bags” you are referring to the gentleman who was recently in the news his pouch was a “urostomy” and not a colostomy . There is a big difference. And he is not infirm. Just a cancer patient.

  2. Profiling is Racist

    Root: “private airlines can best prevent terrorism by adopting the Israeli model of PROFILING. No, not racial profiling, but rather ‘terrorist threat profiling.’ “

    Really? And “terrorist profiling” will not take a person’s race, ethnicity, or religion into consideration? Really?

    Root: “Just more proof that virtually everything government does, they fail at miserably… “

    Isn’t the Israeli government also involved in airport security and “terrorist profiling”? Why does Root imagine that the American government always fails miserably, but not the Israeli government?

  3. Thomas L. Knapp

    “There has NEVER been a successful terrorist attack at an Israeli airport or airline”

    If Root won’t hire a fact-checker, he could at least learn to use Google or Wikipedia. Here are a couple of relevant search terms to make it even easier:

    “Lod Airport Massacre”
    “El Al Flight 426”

  4. Rob

    El Al Flight 426 was in route *to* Israel, not from. Not sure how you would expect Israeli ground security to stop that one. Anyways, it happened well over 40 years ago.

    Christ, if you’re going to bash people for not doing their research, you might want to spend two minutes and do some yourself.

  5. Kimberly Wilder

    Israel is not a model anyone should use for civil liberties. The Israeli government has a history of expediency over human rights.

    And, specifically…

    If each American traveling had to go through an array of questions about what they were doing and where they were traveling, that would include any scholars or political activists having to share their business with the US government.

    Since, over the years, the US government has unfairly targeted: Civil Libertarians, people with Ron Paul stickers, animal rights activists, peace activists (including “Quakers”), and others, I don’t think that the people here should like the government being allowed to demand the answer, “What are you doing?”

    The x-ray scanners have to go. Touching women’s breasts and men’s testicles on a routine basis has to go. Though, we should think more about what to replace it with. And, not look mostly to the Israeli Government.

    I am sure that there are a variety of models and strategies that could keep us safer. And, also, consider that the chances of being on a bombed airplane are miniscule. So, why should we make the chances of being affected by terrorist fear – the chances of being fondled or given radiation by security – so high.

  6. Kimberly Wilder

    Thanks to Michael Wilson (at comment #1) for pointing out an important concern with Wayne Root’s language.

    While we try to protect the rights of our fellow citizens, it is important to see them as whole people, and not label them with words like “infirm”.

    There is a tension, in writing about injustice, to try to show that the bullies are attacking the vulnerable. But, somehow, you must still describe the victims properly, especially when it is a specific person, such as the man with the pouch that TSA security harmed.

  7. Robert Capozzi

    Rob, you’re obviously not seeing how this works. Technically, Root’s statement is false, therefore the critique is true. Root would had to’ve properly qualified his statement for it to be “bulletproof.”

    He didn’t.

    Still, I again would suggest Root not use this right-wing talking point. US air traffic dwarfs Israel’s, and Israel is not a model for how the US should go forward. It’s in a state of perpetual war, and has adopted many police-state tactics we should not emulate, IMO.

    I don’t pretend to be an expert in airline security, so I don’t have a view on whether “terrorist profiling” is the way to go. Critiquing the TSA as a more insidious and expensive USPS seems to be a great point. Throwing out the Constitution…not a great point.

    Privatizing TSA has merit, but can you spell Blackwater?

    Being on-board with the pushback on the body scanners seems like a winning L view. Critiquing the Bush and Obama administrations for hatching this intrusive garbage…winner.

    Being in the Rush Limbaugh amen corner…no.

    IMO.

  8. Thomas L. Knapp

    Rob@6,

    The statement was “There has NEVER been a successful terrorist attack at an Israeli airport or airline.”

    El Al is an Israeli airline, and the attack on it was “successful” to the extent that the terrorists were able to take over the plane and hold it for (if memory serves) 40 days while they negotiated their demands with the Israelis.

    That attack and its success led directly to El Al’s adoption of the passenger screening procedures (worldwide, not just at Israeli airports) that have thwarted subsequent hijacking attempts and that Wayne is specifically advocating for.

    If you’re advocating a particular system and citing that system’s history as a reason for advocating it, the history is something you might want to get right instead of wrong.

  9. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Privatizing TSA has merit, but can you spell Blackwater?”

    That’s true — but Wayne does seem to be on the right track here.

    The privatization he’s talking about is REAL privatization — the airlines take responsibility for their own security, and bear the consequences (including dealing with customer dissatisfaction/catering to customer demands).

    The faux “privatization” that tends to develop into Blackwater-like situations is the “privatization” currently allowed by Homeland Security: “You can hire approved private companies to enforce the same government schemes that you have TSA enforcing now.”

    That false kind of “privatization” may nominally reduce some costs, but it also distorts liability/accountability issues in a big way, letting government and the “private” firms toss blame for problems back and forth without ever having to actually solve those problems.

  10. Robert Capozzi

    tk, yes, in theory I support the idea that the airlines — really, their customers — should provide security. Getting from here to there is easier said than done.

    And, yes, on some level, government is the problem, in that their actions tend to CREATE terrorists. In a more immediate sense, however, the terrorists are the problem. Taking reasonable steps to stop the rare instance of terrorist acts before they happen in general has merit, IMO. There have been enough of them over the years, and the dramatic form they take, creates a situation that government exploits.

    Whether this is a part of a grand design to install an “omnipotent state,” count me skeptical. Whether this is a nanny-state impulse run amok, count me as buying as an operative premise.

  11. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    For the most part, I discount “grand design theory.”

    There are certainly explicitly “grand design for an omnipotent state” schools of thought, e.g. fascism — and the historical existence of those schools, as I point out in another thread, informed the language in the LP’s Statement of Principles — but in the main the move toward omnipotent statism tends to be a sort of periodic, instinctive lurch in the direction of least resistance, punctuated by periods of inertia in which the existing state gains mass (making for more momentum on the next lurch).

    To wit:

    1) For every “problem,” real or imagined, some constituency springs into being for a “government solution.” That constituency may be honest/dishonest, scared/opportunistic, etc., and is probably usually combinations of many motives, with “grand design” types definitely in the small minority.

    2) These constituencies tend to be willing and able to concentrate effort — in the form of lobbying, campaign contributions, persuasion outreach, etc. — on getting their “government solution.” The general public, and even “smaller government types,” of course, aren’t as focused. At best, we’re juggling opposition to a bunch of these “government solution” efforts.

    3) Implementing the “government solution” is that lurch in the direction of the omnipotent state.

    4) Once that solution has been implemented, it has a new constituency, those employed or contracted to service it. That new constituency will work assiduously to ensure that it continues to be seen as necessary and, over time, as more and more necessary. It will feel entitled to continue existing, and to grow.

    Rinse and repeat in perpetuity. Not always by design (although historically sometimes by design, and probably usually in at least small part by design — there ARE omnipotent state cultists; if you don’t believe me, you obviously don’t live in a city with a Maoist International Movement affiliate), but that’s how things tend to go. It’s a pattern of incentives and reactions that seems to be well entrenched in the set of ongoing actions we think of as “human civilization.”

    Given the likelihood that Bostrom’s Simulation Hypothesis is correct and that we’re living in someone else’s simulated/created reality, I suppose it’s possible that this set of incentives is inherent in the hardware or inextricably woven into the operating system.

    On the other hand, the occasional success of radical political experiments gives me hope that that set of incentives is in fact part of the code generated within, rather than by, the simulation, and that we sims can generate different and better code with sufficient effort.

    Or, maybe we’re not living in a simulated reality, in which case I choose to operate on the premise that that pattern is “software” rather than “hardware,” and therefore plausibly modifiable.

  12. Robert Capozzi

    tk, I think we largely agree. I’m not sure statists necessarily exploit the points of least resistance, though. Yes, they can be highly opportunistic, like in the crafting of the Patriot Act. When my mind goes to conspiratorial places on (rare) occasions, I do sometimes wonder if they do sometimes also go to places of great resistance, e.g., attempting to regulate what we eat through manipulating fear exploitation.

    I happen to be a big believer in Hayekian social change, so I am also an advocate for restoring liberty through the path of least resistance. I don’t see how taking on the State head on will work. I’d rather start rolling it back where they are weakest through evolutionary counter-exploitation. I think we may not agree here.

    Whether this is a giant simulation, I can’t say. At minimum, it allows us to think outside the box, perhaps seeing opportunities where others see obstacles.

  13. Scott Lieberman

    Is it legally okay for totally private airline security firms to use any kind of profiling they want if the airlines think that is what is needed to keep their planes safe?

    In other words, in Libertopia, will it be legal for airlines to tell certain people ” you can’t get on our airplane”, even if YOU think the airline is discriminating against someone for say, their religious beliefs?

    Or is that too libertarian for you?

  14. Robert Capozzi

    sl, at the moment, that would not be legal, as I understand public accommodations laws.

    Thought experiments about what Libertopia MIGHT look like might serve their purpose on getting clear on one’s intent, but I’d suggest one kids oneself if one advocates his/her discovery of the One True Way in an unvarnished, absolutist manner.

    As Ls engaged in the public square, we see many, many hornet’s nests — complex, nettlesome situations that require a range of considerations. It seems sensible that we recognize that different Ls will select different aspects of the situation to focus on and address.

    It seems unlikely that if we Ls generally don’t take practical and constitutional (as currently interpreted) matters into account, we run the risk of sounding fringey. If we select today’s take du jour that is associated with an existent ideology, we sound like me-too-ists. If we are thoughtful, we run the risk of seeming ambivalent, indecisive or weak.

    Given those choices, I prefer thoughtfulness. In this case, citing being against the scanners because of a lack of efficacy and because it affronts our liberty seems within bounds. Pointing to alternative approaches without suggesting that these alternatives are the ONLY solution seems within bounds.

    Advocating a private system that effectively creates a hostile-to-all-Muslims regime — even if private? Out of bounds, IMO. Flying potential OK corrals? Out of bounds, too.

  15. Gene Trosper

    @15 Scott, I wouldn’t call it libertipia, but rather, a common sense solution to allow private airliners to determine the appropriate level of security they use and they type of security they employ.

    Frankly, I’d want at least some minimal security, such as a metal detector, armed guard (on ground at the gate and another in the air), and locked cockpit. I’m not overly scared of terrorism, but I certainly am averse to experiencing it firsthand.

    If people wish to be groped and zapped with radiation, god bless’em, but it isn’t for me. I’d rather have the choice and i’m convinced that much of the current TSA controversy would be minimized if air travelers were allowed the choice instead of forced into a situation they don’t want. Therefore, libertarians can *support* intrusive measures as a means of allowing people to feel safe flying if it’s choice, and not a mandate. If they don’t like it, then they can fly on a different airline.

  16. John Jay Myers

    @15, I would argue that it would be okay.

    The simplest analogy would be that let’s say I wake up tomorrow and put a sign on the front door of my business that say “No blacks allowed”.

    Not only would I lose half my customers on the first day. (I live in a largely minority neighborhood).

    I would lose at least 49 of the other 50 percent of my business once they saw the sign.

    No one is going to buy products from an openly racist company.

    This is the 1964 argument all over again, but the point is that we had laws back then that forced segregation, they weren’t Jim Crow ideas…. they were Jim Crow laws, and these laws needed to go.

    But I still do not believe the government, especially the federal government has the right to tell people who they can and can not serve.

    Taken a step further, I hope the screen printing shop next to me puts up a sign that says “no blacks allowed”. Because then I will make a bigger sign that says “ClearSky24 .com we LOVE black people!”

    It would mean the shop next to me goes out of business, and that I or another shop that may be owned and operated by black people actually succeeds.

    Instead of rewarding racism which is what the Federal laws do.

  17. John Jay Myers

    In regards to this article, Wayne should consider the idea that terrorists can send their message to Israel… right in Israel.

    It’s not worth their time to blow up a plane. Seems like a hassel when walking down to the corner cafe is so much easier. Which is why they have so many check points.

    So the article should address the main reason we have the TSA….. our foreign policy, which I suppose would give him an opportunity to bring up Israel.

    He also misses that even if we had 100% safe airlines, that would just mean the terrorist would need to target theatres, once we secure all of our theatres we would need to secure our burger joints, and then check points are just inevitable…..etc.

    Overall this wasn’t a horrible article, but it misses the point.

  18. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Flying potential OK corrals? Out of bounds, too.”

    Passengers were allowed to go on airplanes armed before, and for longer, than they’ve been forcibly disarmed. And nothing even approaching the scope of 9/11 happened when that was the case.

  19. Darryl W. Perry

    As a former airline employee, I suggest not only “requiring” airlines to provide their own security – by getting the federal gov’t out of airline security; but also simply installing AND USING deadbolt locks on cockpit doors.

  20. Be Rational

    Wayne,

    This is a great outreach editorial for the LP. Some posters above have made valid critiques regarding careful fact checking on some minor points, but otherwise this is well done.

    The bulk of the critics would do well do stop wasting their time whining on IPR and instead do some outreach of their own.

    Wayne’s piece definitely reaches out to an audience that remebers and respects Ronald Reagan, and this is a good approach.

    Now, if only one of the whiners would do the same reaching out to civil libertarians with a more left-side approach and someone else with a straight down the middle Libertarian message.

    Ah, but useless whining is much easier, it makes one feel important, it gives such a jolt of pleasure endorphins of superiority, and it avoids the potential pain of failure from getting zero coverage or attention.

  21. Robert Capozzi

    jjm: I would argue that it would be okay.

    me: And I would strongly suggest you not say that in the context of a campaign. The potential for massive misunderstanding and an opening up of severely tarnishing the L brand would be massive, with almost no upside.

    I certainly take your point that overtly racist businesses could be hurt in the marketplace. Sadly, even now, they could be helped economically.

    There are hornet’s nests to challenge, and others to leave alone. Challenging public accommodations laws is def. in the latter category, IMO.

  22. Darryl W. Perry

    @Be Rational
    Your statement “Now, if only one of the whiners would do the same reaching out…” implies that no one is attempting to also get media coverage.
    Paulie had been posting everything I submit to IPR (which also gets sent to many media outlets), though his ‘net access has been limited lately – hopefully one or more of the other IPR contributors will see fit to include news & articles I submit in Paulie’s absence.

  23. John Jay Myers

    @Robert, I think we are seeing societies acceptance to all sorts of crazy laws because no one steps up and says, “actually this is wrong”.

    We are too scared of the media misrepresenting us. That means we really do have our work cut out for us.

    The truth is the truth.

    I was dissapointed that Rand Paul backed down on this issue. But the attack dogs of the media were sent out.

    If I was ever granted an interview on this subject… I would however take every opportunity to shift the conversation to one of four topics:
    Our foreign policy, cronyism, unsustainable government ponzi schemes, or our monetary policy.

    I get your point about not making this THE issue but is an issue, and someone brought it up.

  24. Be Rational

    @Darryl W. Perry
    I’m not sure, but aren’t you seeking coverage on bahalf of the Boston Tea Party? Or are you also working for the Libertarian Party?

    Now, I know that some people think that forming a splinter of a splinter – the BTB Party – is a good idea, but I do not. Sure, I probably agree with the BTB most of the time, but IMO it would be better to remain in the LP and lead and build the LP into a larger group that can actually win elections.

    We need people reaching out on behalf of the LP.

    And, just how many regular TV and radio appearances are you getting for your efforts ? … How many print publications pick up your press releases and editorials?

    The best people need to outcompete Wayne Root, on behalf of the LP, in reaching out and attracting members, donors and voters to the LP.

    The BTB should merge back into the LP.

    We need to concentrate our efforts, support each other, work together, focus our limited resources on those efforts that can yield significant returns with the greatest likelyhood of success.

    Bashing Wayne Root, worring about changing the statement of principles, forming ever smaller splinters, and attacking Rand or Rothbard etc … yah, all are contra-indicated, (“contra-indicated” is more annoying than “cult of the omnipotent”), and a waste of time, energy, money and all of these things help to divide and minimize the possibility of reaching the consciousness of the general public.

    Meanwhile, Wayne Root is reaching out effectively and positively, even if I don’t agree with him entirely. He’s doing more than nearly all of the other posters here.

  25. Robert Capozzi

    tk21: Passengers were allowed to go on airplanes armed before, and for longer, than they’ve been forcibly disarmed. And nothing even approaching the scope of 9/11 happened when that was the case.

    me: Surely you don’t go so far as to say “therefore, lifting the ban on packing heat on jets would ensure that 9/11-type events won’t happen.”

    Skyjackings happened fairly frequently until guns were banned, then they largely stopped. 9/11 brought a new form of skyjacking that was far more shocking to the general public than “take me to Cuba.”

    In theory, there may well have been better solutions available to skyjackings and 9/11. If one wants to open oneself up to ridicule, I’d say advocating the flying OK corral will be at the top of the list for doing so — quite quickly, would be my guess. (I’ve shared some of my other examples of ridicule-inducing positions…perhaps far too many times!)

    Perhaps being the target for ridicule is indicated in your mind. Or perhaps you don’t think such a view would trigger massive ridicule.

    My opinion stands until I see enough evidence to indicate otherwise…it’s simply my current read of the current bounds.

    Personally, I’d rather spend my limited time advocating things more likely to attract — not repel — others to the cause of liberty and peace.

    I am definitely NOT a “no particular orderist.” I’m an ROI-type of hombre.

    It’s all good, ultimately.

  26. Robert Capozzi

    jjm: The truth is the truth.

    me: Yes, on some abstract level, I’d agree. Whether we imperfect bi-peds can know the truth with certainty, count me skeptical.

    My humble perspective is that, yes, SEEK the truth, by all means. If you find it and can codify it in minute detail, please do share.

    Perhaps when I stop making mistakes, I too will be ready for the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Until then, I seek.

  27. Robert Capozzi

    br27: …(“contra-indicated” is more annoying than “cult of the omnipotent”)…

    me: Interesting. Why? CI is a very neutral statement, COTOS is highly charged, near as I can tell.

    Why do you find neutrality over histrionics annoying?

  28. Robert Capozzi

    br31, hmm, arrogance is def. not what I’m going for. Thanks for your candor.

    Help a brother out with alternatives, please. Would wise/unwise work better?

  29. Be Rational

    “wise, unwise, preferable, not the best choice, not the best option, seek a better solution, seek a better option, go in another direction … ”

    There is a huge list of alternatives.

    It seems to me that the use of such”three-dollar” words should be limited to 5 or 10 times each per lifetime – unless one is a very prolific writer. This includes “supercilious” which I will try not to use again for a long time.

  30. Best We Can Do? [Lake]

    Be Rational, you are a picky picky person, and perhaps a libertarian / Libertarian and probably one of them ultimate debaters.

    Dying on the way to my old pharmacy in Tucson, I suspect Mister Nolan would not approve, but fully understand.

    Any one else notice that David Nolan pulled the automobile off to the SIDE of the road, probably saving other drivers?

  31. Best We Can Do? [Lake]

    Rob // Nov 24, 2010:

    Christ [Knappster], if you’re going to bash people for not doing their research, you might want to spend two minutes and do some yourself.

    [Lake: Robbie, it takes a while, but you just need to take the time to under stand the ‘Delusionaries Warrors’ like Quirk Boy, Doctor Phillies, Don ‘Matrix’ Grundmann, W. A. R. and others of the ‘Making It Up A We Go Along Tag Team’! The Democans and the Republicrats are laughing at us.]

  32. Bruce Cohen Post author

    I’m thinking Wayne was making the point that El El has never had a hijack or successful bombing, etc… AFTER they started profiling.

    And yes, the Israeli model would work fine in the USA.

    If each Airport was individually responsible for their own security…
    If the US Air Traffic Control System encouraged cooperation and was bottom up, not top down…

    If only.

    But yeah, Wayne’s point stands.
    The Israeli model of Airline and Airport Security TODAY is the best in the world.
    It does work, and we all could learn from it.
    Especially the TSA could.

  33. Robert Capozzi

    br, thanks, again. It’s the neutrality of indicated that leads me to use it as much as I do. Ls tend to be a passionate lot generally, which may explain why it’s tonally off for this crowd.

    I agree that $3 words should not be overused. I would consider “indicate” to be maybe a $2 word, but this is just another in a series of learnable moments that constitute this dream of a life.

  34. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You write:

    “Skyjackings happened fairly frequently until guns were banned, then they largely stopped.”

    Actually, hijackings were in acceleration as of the passage of the guns on planes ban, and continued to accelerate for awhile thereafter.

    Then they dropped dramatically.

    The reason they did so had nothing to do with banning guns on planes, because the primary culprits in the hijackings were governments. The vast majority of hijackings at the time were of one of two sorts:

    1) CIA-backed hijacks of Cuban planes; and

    2) Cuban intel-backed hijackings of US planes.

    When Nixon ordered a stop to (1), Castro ordered a stop to (2).

  35. Robert Capozzi

    tk, I’m unfamiliar with this CIA/Cuban-intel matter, but I find it to be a sideshow.

    Do you believe that someone advocating lifting the gun ban on airliners is ripe as an issue (i.e., one that will likely resonate with large numbers of people), or do you think an advocate of that view is likely to be ridiculed (or ignored) by the vast majority of the population?

    If you agree with me that it’s the latter, but that it’s STILL a position that Ls should advocate as a matter of “principle,” why so?

    As a general proposition, do you think that advocating the most extreme (for lack of a better word) prescription for perceived political ills, regardless how bracing or shocking that position is likely to play?

    Do you recognize, or do you reject, the notion that the public square has what might be called “bounds,” and that if one goes OUT of bounds, one is likely to be discredited or ignored? If you accept that there’s broadly such a thing as out of bounds, why go there…publicly, at least?

  36. Michael H. Wilson

    Planes or not something some where will always be subject to hi-jacking.

    Back in the 1980 there was the Achilles Lauro, a ship that was seized and help captive for some time. And there was the USS Cole bombing. Can you imagine what the re-action would be if some group sank a cruise ship loaded with passengers in the middle of the ocean.

    Recently thee have been a number of pirates operating out of Africa and this seems to be spreading.

    The politicians don’t seem to get it. That as long as they go around the world sticking their noses into other people’s business then others will be subject to acts of violence. This is the message we, the LP types, should be hammering.

    Group A, the politicians, butt into group B’s business, then group B take revenge on Group C. Some of us old farts taking a cruise or a plane to somewhere for a vacation end up dead.

    Stop butt into others business when we have little or no understanding of what in the hell is going on and if we do understand then stay out then as well.

    That should have been Root’s message.

  37. Robert Capozzi

    mhw: Planes or not something some where will always be subject to hi-jacking….That should have been Root’s message.

    me: Or some variation on that theme, agreed. Thousands of OK Corrals in the sky daily, no, that’d be unwise. Odds are low that the airlines would want that, anyway, and possibly lower that most customers’d want that. Reasonable security measures, we can talk about. Body scanners? Beyond ridiculous, except, perhaps, that these fools are actually doing these insane things.

  38. wolfefan

    I don’t think the Israeli model is scalable to the degree that it would need to be to be practical in the US. Almost all international traffic goes through one airport, which carries about 10-12 percent of the traffic that just the Atlanta airport does. As a practical matter, it would probably all end up being handled by two or three large contractors. It would be difficult to get the data to properly profile absent some large central databases.

    FWIW, the TSA grew out of frustration with the kind of airport-based model people are talking about here. Some airports may do it better, but some would certainly do it worse. That was the case with the transition to TSA and would be the same going back to the old system. That’s not an argument one way or the other – just an observation.

  39. paulie

    Haven’t read the whole article, or the comments, due to time constraints but I’d just like to say much thanks to Wayne for addressing this topic.

    The title sounds good. That reaches more people than the fine print.

    At the LNC meeting one of my public comments was that I hope to see a lot more from the LP on this issue. Wayne delivers! Hopefully, many other LP spokespeople will send out their take on the issue as well.

    I probably won’t be able to see any further responses, but feel free to call 415-690-6352 to discuss further.

  40. You guys

    Soo worried about how Root word things or how something is said. Got news for everyone of you, including me. WE GOT BIGGER ISSUES TO WORRY ABOUT>

  41. Be Rational

    BTP or BTParty, right, why BTB, dunno, guess it’s a shift key thing … didn’t notice … you see, the BTP is so small and inconsequential that even people who follow third parties don’t notice it and don’t notice if it’s spelled correctly or included at all.

    Splinters of splinters are ineffective. Members of the BTP should jump back into the LP and help lead, using the gentile approach of the Rodney King Caucus and showing common courtesy and respect for all other members in an effort to creat a winning, big-tent LP.

    This means that we don’t quit, start splinters, stop donating, or refuse to support our fellow candidates just because they don’t follow our own personally perfect political positions 100% of the time.

  42. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    “Do you believe that someone advocating lifting the gun ban on airliners is ripe as an issue (i.e., one that will likely resonate with large numbers of people), or do you think an advocate of that view is likely to be ridiculed (or ignored) by the vast majority of the population?”

    I believe the latter.

    And I believe the latter is territory you go through to reach the former.

    The problem with your Taoist “go with the flow” thing is that the flow goes in only one direction — downhill. If that’s not where you want to go, then there’s no alternative to paddling against the current.

  43. Darryl W. Perry

    @Be Rational, I’m also a life member of the LP – I believe that many parties are better. I will never blindly support a candidate simply because he waves a certain banner.

  44. Tom Blanton

    Fun Facts

    ICTS International is an Israeli firm based in the Netherlands that develops products and provides consulting and personnel services in the field of aviation and general security. It was established in 1982, by former members of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency, and El Al airline security agents.

    The firm and its subsidiaries specialize in aviation security services, operating airport checkpoints and electronic equipment, such as x-ray screening devices and manual devices, and verifying travel documents.

    ICTS’ subsidiary, Huntleigh, shared security duties at Boston’s Logan Airport on September 11, 2001, where two of the four planes hijacked for use in the attacks originated. According to Logan Airport officials, the company provided gate and baggage security services for United Airlines. Huntleigh faced multiple lawsuits for alleged screening failures by its workers at Logan Airport, but denied any liability for those cases.

    ICTS was also responsible for security at the Charles de Gaulle Airport where Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber”, boarded American Airlines Flight 63 in December 2001.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICTS_International

  45. Tom Blanton

    Does the nameless Root Person known as “Be Rational” actually believe that there is anyone who doesn’t support candidates just because they don’t follow our own personally perfect political positions 100% of the time?

    Actually, I’m not even sure what this means. Does it mean that we should support candidates that support “our” positions sometimes, just not all the time?

  46. Robert Milnes

    Be Rational @47, no, that is not my hope/plan for BTP, that it jump back to LP.Because if LP’s ballot access goes to Root or some other rightist, it will be lost.
    Rather BTP could get enough ballot access to win & then nominate a fusion ticket & actually win, lifting many LP & Green candidates to victory on its coattails.

  47. Robert Milnes

    yes, paulie, let’s thank Root for his counterrevolutionary conservative claptrap.
    & let’s also face Ron Paul, then about face & bend over to accept his dinosaur fossil prick without lube.

  48. Robert Capozzi

    tk: The problem with your Taoist “go with the flow” thing is that the flow goes in only one direction — downhill. If that’s not where you want to go, then there’s no alternative to paddling against the current.

    me: Yes, that’s a fair point. Here’s my response: The flow is the flow. All things considered, everything tells me that the flow is “going south,” which is not the direction of north — in this analogy, the virtuous direction.

    We can avoid the flow entirely, opting out. That can take a variety of forms, including avoiding the flow; monitoring the flow from a safe distance; standing on the river bank complaining, perhaps even haranguing those in the flow about the direction they are going in; even staying on the very edges of the flow, perhaps attempting to break off a tributary with other like-minded individuals.

    Obviously, the analogy’s not perfect, but I happen to believe that the most effective place to be is near the center of the flow. That’s the place of most influence. It’s not a comfortable place to be, especially if we sense that the flow is hurtling toward a waterfall!

    The idea, though, is that we remain in the flow near its center as a means to turn the flow around. Our intent has to be clear, yet our actions need to be take into account where others are in the flow. It’s a challenging place to be to maintain integrity. One can be critiqued from the sidelines, and be called hypocrite or sell-out, for ex.

    I’d say the turbulence is in some ways greatest in the center, but it’s beneath the water’s surface. The center is at once the most difficult place to be, but is also the most (potentially) effective place to be. From an operative perspective, I tend to tack center-right or center-left, depending on the issue at hand and the opportunity for change as they present themselves.

    So, that’s my approach. If we go off the cliff in a waterfall, if I survive, I’ll assess things at the bottom!

    It’s not the “right” place to be. Other places are fine, too. It really is all good. Paradoxically, I’m at once a fatalist and a consequentialist. But I’m increasing becoming comfortable with paradoxes, which abound, in my estimation.

    I’d hope that you can respect that there are different approaches to how to address the flow, and that no one has a monopoly on truth or the One Correct Way.

  49. Robert Capozzi

    more…feeling expansive this X-giving morn…

    One of the great challenges of being in the flow is the lure of grandiosity. Near as I can tell, humans desire validation, to have the marks we make be attributed to our efforts. Playing the part of “unsung hero” deflates us. We want our cake and to eat it, too. We want credit, dammit!

    From at least Rothbard, many Ls have cited the Tao as a cautionary tale. Much of the second half of the book counsels “leaders” to remain humble — that this impulse for validation is, paradoxically, not in their ultimate interest. Vanity — believing one’s own press clips! — leads them away from virtue. They lose focus, and attempt to impose their will on their followers, even when their will has become wrapped up in their counter-productive, base desires. I observe this behavior at all levels of human intercourse, from families to businesses to organizations to nations…things often start out in a virtuous direction, but a leader becomes corrupted and starts making decisions without regard to virtuous peace promotion.

    The first half of the Tao implores us to remember that virtue is always available to us, moment by moment. Doing the right thing is what seems most in line with virtue in the context that arises. Ethical constructs may be helpful in discerning what the “right thing” is, but ultimately it’s about one’s relationship with one’s own conscience, for lack of a better word (the book calls it the Eternal Tao). To use more contemporary terminology, it’s all about situational and relative ethics.

    Hence, I frequently critique deontological absolutism, not because I believe it’s “wrong,” but because it misses the opportunity to practice virtue in the here and now, as best we can.

  50. Robert Capozzi

    tk: And I believe the latter [the most “moral” position, in this case, lifting the gun-on-airlines ban] is territory you go through to reach the former [where the “moral” position becomes ripe in the public square].

    me: Finally, to address this…when we’ve talked about this subject before, I seem to recall that you don’t believe it is IMPERATIVE that a L advocate the former. You PREFER that former approach, for you find it inspiring. Do I have that right?

    Is it your view that taking the latter position (as I do) disqualifies one as a L?

    Does your model allow for ANY calibration for where the public square currently is? If not, do you project your “no calibration” rule onto others (like myself), or is it simply your opinion that you prefer to always articulate the “moral” opinion, regardless of its practicality or prospects for influencing others?

    In short, is it your contention that a “moderate L” is an oxymoron?

  51. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob@56,

    You write:

    I seem to recall that you don’t believe it is IMPERATIVE that a L advocate the former. You PREFER that former approach, for you find it inspiring. Do I have that right?”

    I don’t believe that it’s “imperative,” but neither do I prefer it merely because it’s “inspiring.”

    “In short, is it your contention that a ‘moderate L’ is an oxymoron?”

    Not at all. My problem with “moderate Ls” is not ideological, it’s practical. I don’t see them as “not Ls,” I see them as Ls who are ineffectual and, for whatever reason, hell-bent on staying that way.

  52. Be Rational

    Tom Blanton // Nov 25, 2010 at 12:58 am

    Does the nameless Root Person known as “Be Rational” actually believe that there is anyone who doesn’t support candidates just because they don’t follow our own personally perfect political positions 100% of the time?

    **

    YES.

    RIGHT HERE:

    Darryl W. Perry // Nov 25, 2010 at 12:08 am

    @Be Rational, I’m also a life member of the LP – I believe that many parties are better. I will never blindly support a candidate simply because he waves a certain banner.

    **

    The BT Party and other fractions and splinters drain resources away from the movement for liberty. These efforts are derived from petty differences and the vanity of the primadonna personalities involved – whose desires to be king or the hero or the leader exceed the logically obvious necessity to work together as a team, to accept some differences, and to be a follower more often than the leader, in order to actually succeed.

    **

    Ah but now that Milnes has endorsed the BT party as part of PLAS, we can see the value of the never ending splintering movement toward nothingness … eventually Milness and the PLAS movement will take over the BTP which will merge with the parliamentary nut play group and together they will still have multiple, diverse personalitites, but only one member, and garner zero votes, but perhaps get one nice write up on the campaign …

    … under “Personality Disorders” in Psychology Today.

  53. Robert Capozzi

    tk: I see them [moderate Ls] as Ls who are ineffectual…

    me: Bridging from that great L Bill Clinton, it depends on what you consider ineffectual is. 😉

  54. Gene Trosper

    @50 for those who believe that Israel knew beforehand of the 9-11 attack and chose to do nothing about it, your post provides more evidence to back that allegation.

  55. Tom Blanton

    The nameless Root Person, who proclaims to support liberty, believes that one should blindly support a candidate simply because he waves a certain banner.

    This would seem to indicate that the nameless Root Person doesn’t even understand the nature of liberty and is instead enthralled with the notion of regimented collectivism.

    Further evidence of this includes his statement:

    The BT Party and other fractions (sic) and splinters drain resources away from the movement for liberty.

    This notion seems to reveal that the nameless one regards the LP to be the movement for liberty. This Root Person must be unaware that a far wider libertarian movement exists and that it includes many organizations and individuals not affiliated with the LP.

    Back when W.A.R. was rooting for Bush, Lieberman, the war on terror, and the security state, there were more than a few libertarians (the vast majority of which were not part of the LP) arguing far more eloquently and intelligently against the TSA than Root can probably comprehend.

    The Root People also seem to be unaware that many serious and dedicated libertarians are published in venues that reach a much wider audience than Root reaches in Newsmax and right-wing talk radio. These writings tend to present actual libertarian positions as opposed to presenting what their authors perceive that their audience wants to hear.

    It is authors like Sheldon Richman, Anthony Gregory, James Bovard, Robert Higgs, Jacob Hornberger, and others that relentlessly present strong libertarian positions to audiences ranging from the left to the right, from Alex Cockburn’s CounterPunch to Alex Jones’ Prison Planet to the Christian Science Monitor and other newspapers.

    It is certainly not Wayne Root or the LP that is promoting libertarianism on this scale – even if you believe that Wayne Root is presenting libertarianism.

    Root and the Root People who blindly follow him don’t seem to get that the world of politics, as well as the marketplace of ideas, extends far beyond talk radio, cable news channels, and tea party confabs.

    Even the anarchist writers at C4SS seem to be getting wider distribution than Wayne Root.

    The notion that Root leads the “movement for liberty” is not only false, it is absurdly ridiculous. That anyone not blindly following this self-promoting multi-level marketer is a detriment to achieving liberty is simply asinine. That the LP coddles Root and his cult of personality demonstrates a profound failure on the part of the LP to capitalize on the excellent work done by a number of serious libertarians who have demonstrated the ability to reach a wide audience.

  56. Darryl W. Perry

    @Be Rational – you write “eventually Milness and the PLAS movement will take over the BTP which will merge with the parliamentary nut play group and together they will still have multiple, diverse personalitites, but only one member, and garner zero votes, but perhaps get one nice write up on the campaign …”

    I’d give that about a zero percent chance of happening.

  57. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Even the anarchist writers at C4SS seem to be getting wider distribution than Wayne Root.”

    I’m not sure I’d go that far — but we’re working on it.

    Anyone know the circulation of the Tehran Times? They ran one of our pieces this week, but I can’t seem to find numbers for them.

    Exclusive of the Times, I’d guesstimate our print reach at about 100k so far this week.

  58. Be Rational

    The BT Party and other fractions (sic) and splinters drain resources away from the movement for liberty.

    “Fractions” is correct as their combined efforts add up to less than enough to be considered one whole “faction.”

    You need to learn to comprehend the intended meaning of the written word.

  59. Robert Capozzi

    br, I’m not sure I agree, though I hear you. Since our numbers are so small, schisms seem to deflate any critical mass we might attain.

    In truth, when Knapp founded BTP, I half-hoped it’d have been a home for those Ls who only have an interest in educating people about abolitionist L-ism, and that the rest of the LP would be for those interested in running increasingly “real” campaigns as a means to either actually win office or at least serve as a vessel to pressure the Rs and Ds to co-opt L ideas.

    That hasn’t happened. Instead, the BTP serves more like the Conservative Party of NY, which is effectively a faction in the NY GOP, attempting to keep the GOP as a “conservative” party. I see the BTP as largely a pressure group in the LP, and to a lesser extent, a kind of relief valve that allows the more abolitionist-minded in the LP to give their spin of politics.

    At this stage, both are largely inconsequential political think tanks. The LM has many flavors of policy think tanks that seem to do OK separately. It’s hard for me to imagine LvMIers at Cato, or vice versa! Both serve fairly distinct sub-constituencies, although both promote liberty in their own way.

    I don’t see the BTP harming the LP; we have enough internal contention to keep us dysfunctional in perpetuity!

    IMO.

  60. Thomas L. Knapp

    “In truth, when Knapp founded BTP, I half-hoped it’d have been a home for those Ls who only have an interest in educating people about abolitionist L-ism”

    That seems a rather perverse hope, given that the BTP’s platform is more “big-tent lessarchist” than the LP’s.

  61. Robert Capozzi

    tp, I see your point. However, people are more important than platforms, IMO. The BTPers known to me were abolitionist Ls. I know LP members who are not abolitionists, though some surely are.

    As the founder of BTP, for me you set a certain abolitionist tone to your creation.

    I would, however, agree that the words in the BTP platform align more closely to my values than the LP’s does.

  62. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    To the best of my recollection, I’ve never met an abolitionist who wasn’t also a de facto incrementalist/lessarchist.

    I’ve also yet to meet a self-proclaimed non-abolitionist who more than nominally answered to the incrementalist/lessarchist description.

    One of my purposes in founding the BTP was find out whether or not the loudest incrementalist/lessarchist voices were for real. I was a little disappointed, but not especially surprised, when 100% of my monitoring sample (yourself, Carl Milsted and Brian Holtz) went completely to pieces when confronted with an actual incrementalist/lessarchist platform that lacked loopholes allowing the books to be cooked with “net aggression” witch-doctory.

  63. Robert Milnes

    Be Rational, no, the splintering ends at BTP>PLAS.
    It began, in recent times, with LP>LRC/Milsted.
    Poor Carl=Dr. Frankenstein.
    That led to Big Tent>Barr/Root.
    BTP was in the works in 2008, but Barr/Root gave it much more rationale.
    2012-100 years after TR failed, we will succeed.
    BTP>PLAS.

  64. Robert Capozzi

    Tk: To the best of my recollection, I’ve never met an abolitionist who wasn’t also a de facto incrementalist/lessarchist. I’ve also yet to meet a self-proclaimed non-abolitionist who more than nominally answered to the incrementalist/lessarchist description.

    Me: Yes, in my mind what distinguishes an abolitionist from other lessarchists is that the abolitionist feels to need to express his/her desired endstate or long-term goal *with specificity*. A lessarchist might advocate bringing troops home from Germany. (This week, I’d wish we’d have been successful in bringing them home from SK long ago!) An abolitionist might, too, but only as part of a grand plan to turn abolish standing armies. In my case, I’m not hostile to the notion of abolishing standing armies, I just don’t see the idea as tenable in the here and now, and it only serves to alienate those who’ve not yet drunk from the cup of abolitionist Kool-Aid!

    Tk: One of my purposes in founding the BTP was find out whether or not the loudest incrementalist/lessarchist voices were for real. I was a little disappointed, but not especially surprised, when 100% of my monitoring sample (yourself, Carl Milsted and Brian Holtz) went completely to pieces when confronted with an actual incrementalist/lessarchist platform that lacked loopholes allowing the books to be cooked with “net aggression” witch-doctory.

    Me: Self reporting here, but I was sincere when I said I like many aspects of BTP and its platform, and I hoped that the BTP could actually become a healthy development. I didn’t go to pieces, I assure you. I do find the BTP platform too restrictive, yes, unwisely so. I’d like to see more flexibility built in. For ex., I happen to believe that a green-tax shift makes a lot of sense on a lot of levels. As I read the BTP platform, that’d be verboten. It would not allow a new form of tax even if overall tax revenues and spending were cut. I also happen to believe that – in broad strokes — a green-tax shift could appeal to left-leaners.

    IMO, if we’re going to do politics and not just political theory, we need to play it as it lays. That involves recognizing realistic trade-offs, the zeitgeist, history, aspirations, while at the same time keeping our eyes on the prize: liberty and, for me, peace. Reducing human action to a simple, digital formula does have appeal, but I don’t find it captures the essence of how the world works. Multiple opportunities arise along with challenges. We sort them out as best we can, assigning them to levels of importance as best we can. Some things we table for future consideration, others we address right now.

    Milsted was (and may still be) toying with putting his upper-left theory into practice. It also appeals to me, but the obstacles to doing “real” third-party politics from scratch appeared to me to be insurmountable. Despite the LP’s legacy dysfunctions, it has carved out a reasonably sustainable business model, one that could still be scaled up.

    The Bast Proposition is not beyond the realm of possibilities in my mind. http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/17130/June_2005_A_Libertarian_President_Dont_Laugh.html

    Obviously, his timing was off, and it may not unfold in the sequence he points to, but that the electorate is more like four camps than two strikes me as a reasonably sound working premise, based on Boaz’s observation.

    I would say that doing real politics requires a higher tolerance for disagreement than the LP seems to currently exhibit. Hence, my “campaign” against absolutism. And against Rothbardian Leninism. In the current zeitgeist, I don’t happen to believe that a small cadre of absolutist zealots works in a networked world…the chess board has millions of pieces spread out across myriad surfaces.

    IMO.

  65. Eric Sundwall

    rc:what distinguishes an abolitionist from other lessarchists is that the abolitionist feels to need to express his/her desired endstate or long-term goal *with specificity*

    es: there’s a correlating essay somewhere about the machismo moment for libertarians right ? Don’t buy this, here’s why;

    1. One can clearly make a case for the non-legitimacy of the state without producing an end game scenario. The ‘ideological process’ need not be in play.

    2. If one accepts the current role of the third party in American politics (ie one of protest ) convincing others of an ‘end state’ is also unnecessary.

    3. The lupen-abolitionists may have been a particular personality type in the days of LP yore for Mr. C, but they seem happier outside the electric fence of electoral politics at the moment.

    rc: if we’re going to do politics and not just political theory, we need to play it as it lays. That involves recognizing realistic trade-offs, the zeitgeist, history, aspirations, while at the same time keeping our eyes on the prize: liberty and, for me, peace.

    es: Agreed. But this does not negate the proper moments when to lend political theory it’s due course. Frequently for me, it tends to be the off the record discussion held with journalists and media types. This lends itself to future credibility, in my experience. I have had lengthy discussion on air with AM radio personalities that did no harm to the party or people’s understanding of it.

  66. Robert Capozzi

    es: One can clearly make a case for the non-legitimacy of the state without producing an end game scenario.

    me: Hmm, I’m all ears! I’ve never seen this done. It strikes me that the uninitiated need quite a bit more meat on the bones…how would this work, exactly? Which leads to the insurance-company black hole of disbelief.

    Did Redlich do so in your most recent effort?

    (Regardless of whether he did or did not, I hear ballot access still may be had. Good work! Even if y’all fall short, considering the obstacles — wacky lawsuits, Kristin Davis, Stone dirty tricks, and the King of Political Theatre, Jimmy McMillan — Warren and you should take a bow.)

  67. Eric Sundwall

    Robert: Sartwell does in fact this in against the state, he’s not political by any means. Asking how it would work is what I consider the ideological process. You don’t have to supply a solution to something that is already wrong.

    Warren is not an anarchis and he was able to work with one . . . Imagine that. 🙂

    Yes, there were many more obstacles that I don’t dare speak of, but we’re close to 50K with the recanvass just finished, there’s still hope. I’d add that the tea party infatuation with Mr. Paladino also cost us some supporters/votes.

    Considering we were under $20K for the whole campaign and got results that exceeded the last four attempts by 11K votes, I’ll take the compliments with appropriate measure.

  68. Eric Sundwall

    ok rc, I’ll take the bait. Here’s some more meat on the bone. I’ve got some time today.

    Let’s say the LPNY gets ballot access this year. Let’s also say I don’t care to cash in on the phenomenon and just want to run for local office ( my assumption is that this thread has jumped the Root already and that RC and I are exchanging a ‘moment’ here – and my damn blog needs maintenance before I get back in that game again . . . ).

    In my case, the registered libertarians probably include my family and friends I’ve convinced over the years, thus ballot access would be more or less assured for this all too many times bumped candidate. I’m sure the GOP would figure out a way in Kinderhook too. So now we have the perfect storm for the reformista – cursus honorum – run local races. Fact checkers will see the slight of the truth in such a statement.

    I’m certain I could win by running a good guy stop waste scenario. My dad served for eight years, everyone knows me at the sports events and parades. Now unless I switched affiliation or took a fusion situation, it’s doubtful I would go any higher. I could spend ten years getting re-elected because I cut the recreation budget, eased zoning restrictions that everyone hates and maybe even make better automation in the local town hall based on professional experience and insight. All well and good though, right ? Maybe some other politico dynamo could change an upstate horizon or two.

    But I wouldn’t do this. Besides the fact that I’d rather talk about the wars, immigration and the nature of money- as an ‘abolitionist’ I should be more concerned about eliminating government. And that would be my platform at local level. If we simply eliminated the venerable Town of Kinderhook, not only would taxpayers save approximately 4 million dollars annually, all the services they perceive they need (half the budget is roads) would likely be picked up by the county or state. At first the recreational soccer league’s absence might incense the parents who never coach anyway (ahem – I coach), eventually they would inform club like structures that already exist.

    Less or no local government might increase my day to day freedom too. With limited county and state resources to serve (ie police) the former locality without cops anyway, the man would be a distant spector in Albany or Washington, but not the happy place that Matty Van grew up in after the Revolution.

    But it’s doubtful the local abolition campaign (think – local gone, big state still there) would win, I would wager that I would though. Does this not fit a possible abolitionist scenario that you require within the context of real politics ?

  69. Robert Capozzi

    es, shedding a layer of government seems a reasonable position to me. Less government seems to be advanced by that position.

    While I`m not an abolitionist, I would think the LP should be home for you. I don`t support abolitionism at the party level because I don`t support it and because abolitionism is easily misunderstood.

  70. Michael H. Wilson

    Too frequently we are told we shouldn’t being promoting extreme ideas. Well here is an example that worked to some extent.

    The TSA problem has been around for some time. A couple of our guys promoted their websites which have a message about shutting down the damn scanners.

    They may not have won but their work along with that of a couple of other folks and some bad incidents have brought attention to the problem.

    Instead of rolling over, they acted!

    Great work.

  71. Johncjackson

    I guess I would be profiled based on my health, which would make it pretty much impossible to get through rapid fire questioning and whatever other stuff they do to see if someone looks/acts “suspicious.”

  72. Robert Capozzi

    mhw, my feedback is that opposition to the latest TSA scanners is hardly an extreme idea. I’d say it’s mainstream. Opposition to TSA itself is perhaps edgy. Ending the gun ban on airlines IS extreme.

  73. Carol Moore

    So what does the LP have to add to this plank to make it clear to Root – and evidently some Libertarians reading this – that the govt can’t force you to answer a lot of personal questions in order to allow you to fly. Hey, here’s an idea, let the airlines make their own policies. They don’t want their planes crashed by terrorists or to pay a lot of big insurance bills because they get crashed. The delusion the government is “protecting” us just lets airlines be sloppy.

    LPPlatform: 3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

    “The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government’s use of secret classifications to
    keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the
    government has violated the law.”

  74. Robert Capozzi

    cm, interestingly, I know of no constitutionalist Ls who oppose this plank 3.2. Yet, the Constitution says: “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

    I’m not a constitutionalist. If HB is to be suspended, I’d like that spelled out as a matter of law and procedure, at minimum.

    I don’t care to characterize the airlines as “sloppy,” but I think I see your point. You seem to be inferring that the “airlines” collude with the government and TSA, yet I am unaware of whether the “airlines” would like to completely pick up that function. It IS likely, though, as they seem to reap the benefits while avoiding direct responsibility.

  75. Carol Moore

    The other point is that in a free market some airlines would be more “lax” than others, if they don’t care about insurance costs. Some even be owned by, say, the Palestinian Authority or Hamas and terrorists might not want to mess with people theu’re sympathetic with. Of course, if PLA wanted to take down a Hamas plane… But the bottom line is people only attack a nation if they think you are sh*tting in their back yard and that’s what US has to stop doing and promise never to do again if really wants to be safe. Of course, the elite imperialists won’t, which is why secession/radical political decentralization is the only real option for Libertarians and libertarians.

  76. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    The national LP staff is bragging about its 2010 vote totals MSP Pamela Brown [Libertarian] garnered.
    (See below article copied from LP.org)

    They should not be boasting, and I’ll give you two reasons why;

    #1 MSP Pamela Brown [Libertarian] was the ONLY female candidate out of six Lt. Gubernatorial candidates. If she was in a field of six female candidates, would her totals be as high? I doubt it.

    #2 The California Libertarian Party and MSP Pamela Brown [Libertarian] are not a team players and they’re not reliable for taking the LP much further until they becomes a team players.
    * * *

    I know first hand, because she, like many other single winner district power grabbers, had unsubscribed from an email list hosted by the USA-PAR that was a rather high traffic list with emails from third party and independent candidates, of which Democratic and Republican candidates were also invited.

    Even though we elected her name in the “Coalition of Seven” (see link below) and even though she still has a vote on the coalition through 2014…she rejected such an arrangement.

    So if you believe that the Libertarian Party is going to win any state partisan elections with her at the wheel, I thing you’re dreaming.

    I would not be boasting and bragging if I were the national LP, because in the next election there just might be better female candidates who do want to work as a team by casting ranked ballots for multiple third party and independent candidates.

    But as far as I can tell, she isn’t one of them.

    And I’m talking about working as a team today, on December 4th, 2010. Because the proportionalist teams, the USS Central California, USS Northern California, USS California and USS Parliament are all losing, and the the LP is there boasting, and we expect 2500 casualties today alone. And they’re boasting!
    * * *

    From LP National Web Page;

    Libertarian candidate Pamela Brown gets historic vote total
    posted by Staff on Dec 01, 2010
    Pamela Brown was a candidate in the November 2, 2010 election for Lieutenant Governor of California. Currently, the California Secretary of State’s website shows her receiving 573,114 votes. That is the second-highest vote count in history for a Libertarian running against both a Republican and a Democrat. (The highest was Ed Clark’s 1980 presidential candidacy. He received about 921,000 votes.)

    * * *

    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 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

  77. Thomas L. Knapp

    James,

    Let me see if I have this right:

    You claim that a candidate won’t do well in the real world unless he or she participates in your incomprehensible simulation?

  78. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    […] And they’re boasting!

    And furthermore, the LP meetings in California that I know about…in the San Francisco Bay area, have pretty much dried up into nothing.

    All last year leading up to November they kept getting smaller and smaller to 3 to 8 people at the most, and many don’t even meet anymore.

    So if California is a guage, it doesn’t look good at all. In the past, almost every meeting I’ve ever been to, there is no all party system (and independent) spirit anyway. The psychology is exlusionary, not open ended groth.

    There is no multiple parties and independents trying to work together and make decisions as multi-member district teams, and very little movement in that direction by the California Libertarian Party.

    Is that the direction for 2012? Is that where the LP staff are guiding them? A continual lie, that there are only three political parties who exist, the Ds, Rs and Ls?
    * * *

    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 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

  79. MMP James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]

    TK @ 83
    Tom K. asked;
    “You claim that a candidate won’t do well in the real world unless he or she participates in your incomprehensible simulation?”

    First of all, what I do is real. Real preople voted to make the results. It’s just as real as say, electing at a party’s convention, but there are no road blocks on who may vote.

    Thanks for your interest. Yes, I’ve been working on this a long time (since 1995), and there are maybe 20 to 30 news reporters who know about it, who get at least one email a month about recent activities which grow especially during elections.

    They know that the 3rd parties aren’t working together, because they get my email. They got my email all during last year from day one when the candidates were known and the candidates were added to my email list too.

    I’ve got about 30 to 60 candidates from over the years, for state or national elections…like Congress seats in LA, or executives on state political committees including Democratic and Republican.

    In a single winner district election, third party and independent candidates aren’t likely to succeed unless they try to coordinate, as in a ruling coalition or parliamentary coalition, in a disproportionately large number of tries.

    The one I promote happens to be be based on votes cast as proof, where the seats are distributed under the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system.

    Perhaps there is or will be another parliamentary coalition that will be bigger than this one? Could be.

    But the fact remains, a third candidate party isn’t going to talk their way into winning an election in a partisan single-winner district election, unless it can be demonstrated that there is something bigger going on than just them alone.

    And how many female Gov/Lt Govs have there ever been elected in California? Or Prez/VP?
    Zero. I can’t speak for other states, but in a state as large as California it would be unlikely that a third party would win without some sort of unifying plan.

    So I’d have to say “yes”, I doubt anyone from a third party can win a state-wide election, without being part of a multi-party, all inclusive (and independents) open-ended system like The USA Parliament, Inc.

    It doesn’t look good for 3rd parties and independents in 2012.

    And BTW, I’m sorry you can’t comprehend how it works. It involves ranking choices #s 1, 2, 3, 4,..etc. etc. ,the more the better.

    Is that too complex for you to understand?
    * * *

    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 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

Leave a Reply

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