John Jay Myers: The Libertarian Party of Nevada…Has Issues

On Thursday, May 5th I sat in on a conference call where the Libertarian Party of Nevada, with recent addition of Wayne Allyn Root, voted to take their functioning counties and dissolve them. Merging them in with the state.

This is the exact opposite of what a state party should be trying to do. I would suggest it is the opposite of liberty. There is no logical reason to believe it is a good idea from a political stand point,or from a party stand point. I can only imagine that those people who are behind this believe it will give them more control. Obviously that is antithetical to freedom.

The bylaws of the Nevada Party state “Members voting to revoke affiliate status must state their reasons in writing.” They seem to have bypassed this, I would argue that they should have to do that for each county. This mass dissolution is a travesty.

No one would speak for the motion, though a few people spoke against, yet the cowards voted for it without defending it.

For the record, they wouldn’t even allow some good faith observers to chime in. Unfortunately for Libertarian Party members in Nevada it seems they would be better off joining the storm trooper party.

If Libertarians across the country do not speak out about this loudly, you will continue to see members of the “43 laws of Power” gang, Rutherford, Root etc, try to rig these types of things across the Country.

“First they came for the Nevada libertarians……”

So Jospeh P. Silvestri – Chair, Wayne Allyn Root (W.A.R.) – Vice Chair, Kris McKinster – Secretary, Michael McAuliffe – Treasurer, Irv Hopkins – At Large, Chris Roberts – Southern Region, shall we be expecting your reasons for disolving these counties in writing soon?

395 thoughts on “John Jay Myers: The Libertarian Party of Nevada…Has Issues

  1. Tracy Daniels

    Well I would say it’s a good idea, if they’re trying to dismantle the party. If they care about the party, it’s just stupid.

  2. Pingback: John Jay Myers: The Libertarian Party of Nevada… has issues · Hammer of Truth

  3. Eddie

    Why aren’t the Libertarians up-and-arms on this issue like they are with miniscule bullshit “birth certificate” or other meaningless things. The best way to grow the party is from the bottom-up. You’re right that they shouldn’t be dismantling local counties, who are the real bread-and-butter when tit comes to Libs putting in local work to grow the party. I thought you guys were for a decentralized government? Until the party has grown substantially, you cannot expect to do everything from the top-down.

  4. David Colborne

    For what it’s worth, Eddie, I’ve never been “up-and-arms” about the whole Birther issue, beyond period expressions of disdain and annoyance over the whole thing. I’ll also note that we are most certainly agitated over the actions of the LP Nevada’s Executive Committee, which is why there are two articles about the subject posted right on top of each other here, to say nothing of various correspondences exchanged over Facebook.

    We have not yet begun to fight.

  5. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    David, if you’d like to write an article about the LP NV, I’ll be happy to post it.

    In fact, here’s my email address, if anyone has something you might think would be good to post here: stone@altrionet.com. Of course, I’m also easy to find on Facebook.

  6. Starchild

    Since this thread has its own article/page now, I’ll repost here what I said about this in another unrelated IPR comment page, along with some additional thoughts.

    I strongly agree with John Jay Myers, David Colborne, and Debra Dedmon that the disaffiliation of Nevada county parties by Wayne Allyn Root and others at the state level is a reprehensible act — but not a particularly surprising one, at least to me.

    The dangerous trend in the Libertarian Party toward top-down governance and the disempowering of grassroots activists is something I’ve been talking about for years now. The name of the Grassroots Libertarians Caucus and the first of its Five Key Values (see http://www.groups.yahoo.com/groups/grassrootslibertarians ) were drafted with an eye toward opposing this slow destruction of our party’s accountability to its local activists.

    These two sentences from John Jay say volumes:

    “No one would speak for the motion, though a few people spoke against, yet the cowards voted for it without defending it. For the record, they wouldn’t even allow some good faith observers to chime in.”

    If nothing else, I hope this unfortunate development in Nevada will cause more Libertarians to wake up to the reality of the top-down trend, and join the fight to actively oppose it. We need to keep the folks in the Root/Starr faction who are pushing this kind of thing out of party leadership as much as possible, and realize what many of the incremental and seemingly harmless bylaws changes they are constantly proposing add up to.

    It’s also past time more Libertarians realized that practices such as lack of transparency, discouraging participation by ordinary members at committee meetings, etc., help enable these kinds of shenanigans. Here are some specific reform ideas to address these problems and keep the LP a bottom-up party of the people as opposed to a top-down party of a small elite:

    • Any LP member ought to be able to attend the meeting of any local, state, or national LP committee, sit at the table with the committee members, and fully participate in the meeting in all ways short of making parliamentary motions and voting.

    • Any LP member ought to be able to subscribe to and post to any email list used by any official LP committee.

    • All votes taken, whether in person or via email, should be roll call votes, with each committee member identified by name and his or her vote recorded.

    • Detailed minutes should be kept of all meetings, covering not just what votes and actions were taken, but the conversation and debate that led to those votes and actions. The point of minutes is to preserve a record of what *really* happened at a meeting, and to help people who weren’t there understand the proceedings as if they had been there.

    • All committee meetings at the state level and above should be videotaped. Both video and written minutes should be promptly posted online and announced to party members via various lists, newsletters, etc.

    • Any LP member should be able to subscribe to distribution lists for the video and written minutes of any official party committees whose proceedings he or she wishes to follow.

    While I applaud the sentiment behind David’s comment @6 that “We have not yet begun to fight,” the comment can be read in more ways than one!

  7. S. Rowan Wilson, MBA

    It is incredibly disheartening that the small contingency in Clark County continues to cause mayhem let alone dismantle the organization(s) in any way shape and form that doesn’t agree with their manipulative intentions centralizing power. We should have known this was coming after the shocks experienced at our state convention in January.

    Beware fellow patriots, this can and will sweep across the country touching your local chapter. We are very concerned about the next meeting on Sunday, May 29, the Memorial day weekend holiday and subsequent actions taken by a power-hungry, elected few. We will publish the call-in information so all may listen and form opinions accordingly – because of course, no one else is allowed to speak even if an elected officer not on the state Excom such as myself.

    Watch your backs, express your outrage to national and continue forward patriots.

    In Liberty,

    S. Rowan Wilson
    STILL the NVCLP Treasurer

  8. David Colborne

    While I applaud the sentiment behind David’s comment @6 that “We have not yet begun to fight,” the comment can be read in more ways than one!

    Yeah, that was intentional. If we did our jobs going into the January convention, none of this would’ve happened. Instead, we happily assumed that, due to our Chair’s low popularity, we’d be able to push forward a more progressive Ex Comm without any real effort. Little did we know that he and Wayne had hit the phones, hit their contact lists, and politicked their asses off to get the 50%+1 they needed to turn the LP Nevada into a personal fiefdom, stacking the Executive Committee and the Judicial Committee from top to bottom.

    Incredible stuff, really.

  9. S. Rowan Wilson, MBA

    It is sad that we have 2 to 3 other counties here in the north with registered Libs that can be activated shortly formally affiliating, GROWING our party. Should the disaffiliation attempt hold, (which I and several can’t honor according to our bylaws) the new and only growing areas of the state let alone with active, lobbying members during the current NV Legislative section here in Carson city, will become even stronger against the Root et al group.

    SRW

  10. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I had a feeling we “dodged a bullet” in the CA state covnention last month. Rumor had it a certain someone was told he couldn’t attend, and was so furious he put other plans into action. I think we managed to thwart that other plan.

  11. Erik G.

    This kind of crap is one of the many, many reasons I was opposed to letting Nevada host the 2012 national convention.

  12. Michael H. Wilson

    S.R.W. MBA @ 9 writes; “Beware fellow patriots, this can and will sweep across the country touching your local chapter.”

    This is not new. Similar events happened in Oregon over a period of time that began about 15 years ago. It is real easy to connect most of the people involved.

  13. David Colborne

    @12: California’s way too big for something like this to happen to them. They’d probably just cripple you guys through more subtle means, like putting in a team in the Ex Comm that will guarantee prohibitively high convention charges and the like. Besides, now that the trigger has been pulled in Nevada, everybody that’s paying attention will be on guard for similar tactics.

  14. From my view

    Next, Let’s go clean up the Texas LP. Maybe Mr. M will focus on his own state and not interfere in other state issues.
    Once again, the LP poster “children” are a bunch of losers.

  15. John Jay Myers

    From my point of view, there is a reason you are anonymous.
    Because no Libertarian can defend what Nevada did.
    And better yet, Wayne even went out of his way to say this was about Central planning… seriously?

    Isn’t that what he hates about Obama?… oh… it’s okay if Wayne centrally plans.

  16. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    David @ 16: That was definitely what was planned–getting Root supporters in the Ex Com. With a few exceptions, the ExCom of California is filled with principled, hard-working radical Libertarians. I expect great things!

    Rumor has it that someone asked the young man running for chair if he was doing it to get Wayne Root delegates for the 2012 national convention. He didn’t win for chair, although he is now northern vice-chair.

  17. C. Michael Pickens

    Jill @ 19: You we’re the one that asked me if I was recruited by Wayne to get him delegates for the 2012 national convention. I answered no and I will stick to that answer. I do not approve of Wayne dismantling the county parties and I have not pre-chosen Wayne as the 2012 nominee.

    I did win Northern Vice-Chair and I have been working hard to help grow the party. I spoke last Thursday at a Santa Clara county meeting and just spoke at a Nevada county LP meeting earlier today. I also spent yesterday canvassing Sierra College in Grass Valley with fliers for today’s meeting.

    I will continue to work hard to grow the party and work with anyone regardless of who in the party they support. For me, it is all about spreading the message of Liberty.
    But thank you for your opinion anyways.

    Michael

  18. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I have since met some people who are familiar with Mr. Pickens, and he is indeed working hard to further the party.

  19. Cody Quirk

    What’s ironic is that the National AIP started having the same exact problems during the 70’s, and it lead it its national collapse from such fighting.

    But at least I’m glad this crap isn’t going on in the IAP.

  20. Boot Root

    It’s long past time to rid the LP of the Starr/Root control freaks.

    Until then, one may as well vote Demopublican. No difference.

  21. George Phillies

    For those of you who wonder what the You tube links appear to say, with no claim that the youtube links as posted are what they are claimed on youtube to be, and with the warning this is a draft set of remarks on which corrections would be welcome of an occasionally difficult audio segment, and with the further aside that I have edited errs, pauses, etc so this is a draft of prepared remarks not a draft transcript :

    Secretary call roll.

    All right, let’s roll. First item on the agenda is the Treasurer report,

    So Michael give us what we have in the state funds account, the fed account, the non-fed account

    As of today the state funds account has 629.76. and that ??? so we are going to have just over 200 dollars in the Fed Funds account and in the non fed account we are going to have just over 98 dollars.

    The next item is the move to consolidate

    Irv: I have a motion for you: I move that we have three Libertarian Party of Nevada membership levels. These levels would also maintain national sustaining membership status as defined in (?): level 1 $50 annually, level 2 $213.12 annually, and level 3 which would be $1776 annually.

    (Person making motion is invited to speak and does not.)

    This is Dave Colburm. Out of curiosity, are we actually allowed to do this? Our bylaws leave membership fees to the local affiliates presently.

    I don’t know. Irv do you want to address this?

    Irv: I’m not aware of any bylaws. It wouldn’t change our bylaws so it wouldn’t change our qualifications for membership according to our state bylaws.

    This is descriptions of donor levels. We’re not really changing our state bylaws. That’s all it is, just establishing three different levels , we can come up with names later. Basic membership, just the fifty to force the uh (unintelligible), the next level equates to 17.76 per month, and the last level is the 1776 for hopefully new members, big bucks ( big deep pockets).

    Colborne: So, just as a question, would this override the local membership program or would it be on top of the local membership program. It just establishes three different names for the three different levels, that’s all.

    Colborne: Well the problem here is that and I hate quoting bylaws here but according to them any affiliated areas under to article 3 section A all members of an affiliate party in Nevada are members of the LPN provided that the region has joined the local membership program, which basically requires forwarding ten dollars to the executive committee for each member registered in the affiliate. I personally have no problem, , the 1776 brigade and things like that, accepting member ship levels beyond whatever the affiliates currently have. I just want to make sure that those who live in Clark County and Nye County where they don’t have dues or have dues that are considerably lower than fifty dollars are still members of state. I just want to be sure that is cleared up.

    I can answer that. Nothing we do as an executive committee changes our bylaws, and I’m sure you’re aware of that. Our Bylaws and our constitution do not create ant kind of donor level or membership level. This just establishing a description rather than as establishment who is a member or not. Right we now we have membership as just as you quoted,that’s what governs our body so I don’t see this as a conflict. Nothing we do can change our bylaws. We have to do that at a state convention.

    Colborne OK. Mostly I wanted to make sure that was clear to the entire body. I’ve got no problem with raising some extra money and having some extra donation levels. That’s fine.

    Would anyone else like to speak on this.

    Chris would you please call the roll?

    Wayne? I vote Aye. (Rest is harder to understand, but I heard only affirmative votes.)

    Chair: The next item on the agenda is the move to consolidate.

    Irv: Yes I would like to make that motion I move to consolidate the Libertarian Party of Nevada by revoking the affiliate status of all Nevada county chapters including the Libertarian Party of Clark County, The Capitol Libertarian Party, and the Nye County Libertarian Party thereby folding them into one organization until such time as membership levels (?) have reached (?) rechartering of county organizations.

    Colborne: I was expecting Irv to speak in favor of his motion before chiming in.

    Irv: I really don’t have anything to say. This thing speaks for itself. I just think it’s a good time for consolidation.
    (short problem with background noise)

    Colborne: Why are we doing this? I guess that would be my first question.

    Chair: David, are you speaking for this or against this? I guess that could be my first question.

    All right, Ill go ahead with this and I’ll speak against it. Assuming we go though we this and assuming that you vote in favor of this, which I have a sneaking suspicion you probably will, you are talking about requiring all perspective candidates from (list of counties) to go down to Clark County to be even considered on their local ballots. I really think this is inappropriate. I don’t believe this will help grow the Libertarian Party of Nevada. I fail to see how this will increase activism, increase donations, or otherwise improve the functioning of our state especially since the largest most successful state parties in the country namely the libertarian Parties of California and Texas have heavily relied on local and county affiliates and the Republicans and Democrats as much as you may dislike their ideologies win elections using local county and even precinct level organizations, so I think it’s kind of unfortunate that we’re talking about moving away from that direction.

    This is Sandy Darby. I’m not quite sure, my phone kind of went out. What do you mean moving to consolidate.

    Motion is read again.

    I would like to speak against that. In Nye County we’re growing pretty rapidly. I think that if we consolidate you’ll ruin what we’re starting here.

    (Rowan?) I would like to comment,.

    Chair: You are not recognized. This is an executive committee meeting.

    Joe, we also have two elected libertarian officials in our county. We meet once a month. We had more people in our region than we’ve ever had before. That’s not going to happen if we consolidate.

    OK thank you Sandy.

    Colborne? I move to allow Rowan to speak for five minutes. Sandy Second

    Transcriber: This is a motion to allow someone to speak in defense of her organization, on a motion to revoke (for cause) the affiliate status of the group. Observe that a majority votes against permitting a defense. AN Aye vote is a vote to permit the defense.

    Wayne Aye; Chris Nay; Michael Aye; David Aye; Sandy Aye; Chris Nay (someone else) Nay The Chair votes. I vote no.

    Rowan: You realize you’re shutting out two counties and we have real members here. There’s fifteen of us.

    The Nays have it. This is a tie vote and in event of a tie the motion fails.

    Voice: Bylaws Article 7B says you have to put your reasons in writing if you have cause to revoke affiliate status.

    (who spoke?) (This is Gene? Nunley?)

    Chair: You’re not an officer.

    Wayne: Aye. Secretary: Aye. Mike Aye. David No. Sandra No. Chris Aye. Irv Aye Chair(?) Aye. The motion achieves the 2/3 vote required.

    Mr. Chairman I have one more motion.

    The next motion is to authorize spending of funds. I move to authorize the chair to use up any LPNV funds for certain functions: campaigns, fundraising, and annual convention.

    Is there any discussion from any officer.

    Hearing none we move to a vote

    Wayne Aye. Sec No. Michael Aye. David No. Candy No. Chris Roberts Aye, Irv Aye, Chair I believe it passes — abstains. Passes 4-3.

    Time for next meeting Sunday May 29th at noon.

    Meeting adjourned.

  22. George Phillies

    AN important question to any candidate for Party office, such as LNC office or our Party’s Presidential nomination, is whether or not they support building local organizations.

    Mr Root’s vote on the second motion shows that he is against such organizing, namely he just tried to liquidate the three functioning county/city groups in his own state.

  23. John Jay Myers

    It’s even douchier when you read it, I didn’t remember hearing someone mentioning how they were in direct contradiction with their by-laws, I wouldn’t doubt it.

    But I was too busy wondering how this was happening in a Libertarian meeting…. then I remembered Root was there.

    It also caused me to remember that when I went to Washington I mentioned how we have over 50 active counties in Texas, and Randy Eshelman kind of poopooed that during his remarks, saying we don’t do much with counties in Nebraska, which I took to be just ignorance.

    But now I realize they took that as a selling point.

  24. wolfefan

    Hi – I’m not an LP member – just an interested observer, so I have no stake in the outcome of this issue. Saying that, I’m wondering if either Wayne or some of his supporters would like to join in here to explain some of the reasoning behind this decision. I know that Wayne spends a lot of time doing media appearances, writing columns, etc. in addition to his family responsibilities and myriad other jobs, but I do hope that he could spare a little time to give us some insight on what is going on in Nevada and how his efforts there would translate to what he would like to see happen on a national level.

  25. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Yes, Mr. Root, what the heck was the reasoning behind this?

  26. LibertarianGirl

    Debra,

    You have you taken this wrong. The Nevada LP is failing badly. BADLY. It needs to be run from one central location and have one coordinated message. That’s how all great companies and organizations are run. I’m a small business CEO. And a very successful one. The LP is a very badly run small business. If we were a business, we’d be run out of a crumbling building in a terrible neighborhood downtown and facing bankruptcy after hanging on for 40 sad declining years. That has to change. We need a beautiful new exterior. We need to change locations to a gleaming office building on the Strip. We need new leadership that knows how to win. We need new employees with fresh positive attitudes. It’s either change, or go out of business. I choose to make a change.

    We need to organize…we need discipline…we need leadership…we need a fresh new attitude…we need everyone rowing in the same direction…and we need people who are all repeating the same message. 40 years of failure is enough. We are simply TRYING to change all that.

    What I did for your baby cousin’s cancer is CONNECTED to what I’m trying to do for LP. The people who have failed this party for 40 years are all talk, no walk. Or as they say in Texas– all hat, no cattle. They yak and yak…but take no action…attract no money…donate no money…elect no one. Wait, it actually gets worse…they don’t just do nothing, they in many cases repel others from every joining our party with their extreme out of mainstream radical message and dysfunctional attitudes. They purposely want the LP to fail…so no one ever wins office, therefore the LP stays small, therefore they can be big fish in a small pond. That is dysfunctional thinking. That is disgraceful. That is what has killed freedom and liberty in this country. I hold them more responsible than Bush or Obama. Because the old guard of the LP allowed this to happen to us. They retarded progress…so they could remain big fish in a small pond…while progressives continued growing government bigger and bigger, and took more and more of our freedoms away.

    That is the only thing last night was about…trying to shape the LP into a winning organization. If you want to come along, you are welcome. So are others. We are building a BIG TENT party. But to build a big tent, you first have to change the culture of losing and dysfunction. Anyone that wants to enter the tent has to work hard, donate, find donations, expect to win, change their attitude, look professional, and follow the rules. All the things that make up great organizations that win and produce results- from Microsoft to Wynn Resorts to the Navy Seals.

    And whenever someone tries to do all this…to make changes…to rip up a losing organization and rebuild a winning one…at first…guess what ALWAYS happens? Screaming and threatening from the “old guard” that desperately wants to hold power…even in a losing and dysfunctional organization. These are the final screams of defeated people who hate change…and see their world ending…even if it’s been a world of 40 years of painful, dysfunctional, humiliating losing. Even if they’ve been doormats with no voice for 40 years. They desperately want to cling to the little tiny bit of power they have.

    They can only do that…if they stop change. It’s that fear of success…and fear of change…and fear of winning that has ruined this wonderful freedom party for 40 years. We’re just trying to change that. It isn’t easy to revamp an entire losing culture. But we took it on. Now we have a tough job to do. Wish us luck. You and everyone else should root for people (excuse the pun) willing to take on daunting jobs like this…for FREE!

    But guess what happens after someone succeeds in changing a losing culture and rebuilding? For the first time you see progress and success. And then many hundreds or thousands or millions of voters see the same thing and join the movement…because everyone likes a winner and wants to join in. Change is good.

    It doesn’t happen overnight unfortunately. It takes years to rebuild the damage built by the negative and dysfunctional people with extreme views and nasty attitudes that frightened away good people that would have written checks and worked hard to win elections. But eventually, little by little, progress comes with the new fresh positive attitude. Then money follows, then one breakthrough victory, then the dam breaks open…and then you have a whole new culture of winning.

    That starts TODAY. It is a beautiful new morning.

    What you yourself said to me in your email this morning is the key to the puzzle. I am so sad for your baby cousin. I will say a prayer. BUT…I don’t know her, and I barely know you. Yet I sent the biggest donation to a complete stranger. Why?

    A) Because I’m a good person.

    B) Because I always try to do the best I can to help others in need to succeed.

    C) The LP is just like your baby cousin. It has been sick. It needs care. It needs money. It needs help from someone who knows how to attract others with organization and communication skills.

    And why did none of your radical LP friends in Nevada send a donation like I did? Not because they are bad people. They are not. But because they just don’t know how to succeed. No one ever taught them about success. They don’t know how to win…how to help others…how to help themselves…how to organize…how to be disciplined…how to help the LP. They don’t know how to communicate a winning message. I do.

    It’s time to put the people with communication skills…and people skills…and business skills…and leadership skills in charge and see the difference. It will take 2 to 5 years…but in 5 years you will see a political success story just like my parents’ party, the New York State Conservative Party- which elected scores of candidates- including a U.S. Senator as a third party candidate.

    There is nothing bad happening here. No conspiracy- although the conspiracy nuts will come out of the woodwork to rationalize their loss. You know I’m a good person who gives 180% to the LP…you know I have unlimited energy, passion and communication skills…the LP of Nevada Team is more important than me. I trust this management team. I’m working on national LP. They will be the force for change in Nevada. I know every one of them wants success and victory for the Nevada LP. They all are hungry for change. These are good people with very positive intensions…who are sick and tired of losing…trying to organize this party and instill discipline…and a winning message. Nothing more, nothing less.

    But let me make a final point…NO ONE COULD POSSIBLY DO WORSE, OR MAKE MORE OF A DISASTER THAN THE NEVADA LP (or the national LP) for the past 40 losing embarrassing years. We have nothing to lose. We can only go up from here. Change is not something to fear. Change is necessary…desperately necessary when you have been a doormat for 40 years. You MUST try a new direction.

    To not change would be the sin. To accept being a doormat for even one day longer would be dysfunctional. To keep the same losing message and repeat the same direction for 40 years (and counting) would be “Groundhog Day.” To stay disorganized, confused and undisciplined would be tragic. To not learn from our failures would be ignorant. To try something new is the only way to go.

    Today we start moving in a new direction- a positive one. One that aims for signs of progress…even small progress…and our voice to be heard. Not 20 different radical directions all looking like “Hail Mary” one-in-a-million suicide runs…that all lead to zero progress towards freedom.

    We don’t need to “go for broke” anymore. We need to move forward slowly and surely. We need to take one step at a time. We will aim for little victories. And we know as the ancient Chinese proverb goes…A journey of one thousand miles begins with one positive step. We have taken it.

    I hope in the near future…when you see some progress…to see you fight alongside us!

    I will say a prayer right now for your baby cousin.

    God Bless,

    Wayne

  27. LibertarianGirl

    particularly disturbing to me is his comparison of what he did last night to donating money to my neices team for Candlelighters a youth cancer group

  28. LibertarianGirl

    The Libertarian Party of Clark County is valid due to the bylaws violation , the remaining members have elected Angela McKinster Chair . Congratulations Angela:)

  29. casual observer

    I have no dog in this hunt or skin in the game.

    But, some of you fools best do a google search of ” Two party consent” laws on recording. Nevada is one of the states. Too funny.

  30. I just Read #30

    I don’t see a problem. I actually have to agree with Wayne. It is true. If the party was really doing well, we would have someone elected a long time ago. I am sorry the egos that get in the way are the ones who continue to hinder getting the LP in a bigger better situation.

  31. Boot Root

    Root: “The Nevada LP is failing badly. BADLY. It needs to be run from one central location and have one coordinated message.”

    And that message is: WAYNE ALLYN ROOT — MEGA-MEDIA STAR, BEST-SELLING AUTHOR, AND LEADER OF ALL THINGS LIBERTARIAN! — FOR PRESIDENT/LP CHAIR/FOX NEWS HOST, OR WHATEVER OTHER COOL GIG IS AVAILABLE!

    lg: “particularly disturbing to me is his comparison of what he did last night to donating money to my neices team for Candlelighters a youth cancer group”

    Root has a bagful of tearjerker stores:

    How he raced to NY to speak to his dying parent (forget which one), who clung to life and died only minutes after telling Root (I forget what). He trotted that one out at the convention.

    How he was bullied by blacks until he fought back, and thus ended up with a bevy of black friends who loved and respected him and did something or other for him (I forget what).

    Like Trump, “the blacks” love Root, despite his insinuations that Obama got into Harvard due to affirmative action.

    Root’s told some other tearjerkers. I forget the details, but I don’t believe him. His tearjerkers are too “perfect” — too full of coincidences and perfect timing and perfect lessons and too reflective of Root’s wonderfulness.

    I don’t trust Root, or anything he says.

  32. David Colborne

    @33: I was quite well aware of that. However, this was a public conference call whose information had been widely disseminated, at which regular minutes were being held. Consequently, there could not have been any expectation of privacy. Furthermore, it was a political meeting, which could fall under Nevada’s open meeting laws.

    Even if none of these conditions were true, however, I would relish witnessing officers of a state Libertarian Party chapter sue someone who had the temerity to record and publish the audio of an LP meeting. That’s the sort of man-bites-dog story that media types love.

    So, put another way, for all you lawyers reading it:

    Bring it on.

  33. Michael H. Wilson

    I have been in the party for more years than I wish and every few years someone comes along with the same song and dance. Ya know what? They have always fallen flat on their asses.

    Take one look at the Oregon party and you’ll see the results. Tonie Nathan did a great job of building it up and the so called professionals blew it up. Membership in Oregon today is about where it was 15 years ago and maybe lower.

  34. John Jay Myers

    I still think it is funny how no one who isn’t acting anonymously will support the action. I would like for at least one of them to come forward.

    Anyone with the finger on the current political environment knows “top down” or “centralized” movements do not work.

    See examples in the Tea Party and Ron Paul as movements that did work through grass roots.

    Their goal here is obviously manipulation, it has no place in rational modern politics, especially in terms of third parties with limited resources.

    But the worst thing is that Nye county with 3 elected libertarians, is an anomoly, destroying the county just seems nuts.

  35. Starchild

    Wow. W.A.R. @30 is beyond clueless. What he fails to realize in talking about “the past 40 losing embarrassing years”, is that the reason we haven’t done better is not because we haven’t been doing things his way, but because *we’ve already been following that model too much*, long before he came along!

    As Michael Wilson sagely points out @37, W.A.R. is hardly the first person to show up to the LP and start preaching the gospel of “professionalism”, “marketing”, “winning”, “better management” and so on, although he may (I hope) be the nadir.

    We’ve had that crap in spades, and it hasn’t worked. On the contrary, it’s held us back, demotivated lots of good activists, and undermined our message of freedom and our claim to be a grassroots party of the people.

    Boot Root, indeed!

  36. Starchild

    George Phillies @24 – Thank you for your work in attempting to transcribe the Nevada LP ExCom teleconference.

    John Jay Myers @26 is right — it does sound even douchier when you actually read it!

  37. George Phillies

    @40 You are most kind, but kindly note that I transcribed what I heard on two youtube videos. I was not on the reported teleconference, and only have access to what the internet press — youtube — is reporting.

  38. Thomas L. Knapp

    Wayne @30,

    “And why did none of your radical LP friends in Nevada send a donation like I did?”

    I rather doubt that’s the case. I’m not from Nevada, but I’m a radical who made a donation and promoted the effort.

    You’re a real douchebag, Wayne.

  39. LibertarianGirl

    actually 34 , Nye county has 2 elected Libertarians and Wayne just unaffiliated. know what your talking about before you open your mouth

  40. LibertarianGirl

    plenty of my radical friends sent donations , as did WAR and Starr . actually when i was fundraising it was one of our better moments as a cohesive group . PLUS THE AMMOUNT NEVER MATTERED $5 OR $500 made no difference to me , i was touched by all of them

  41. Such Ungrateful people

    I don’t expect to get through to people who has this way of thinking but I am going to say what I am going to say anyways.

    TO LP GIRL. You are a nasty ungrateful person. To put it mildly. Wayne didn’t have to do anything to help your person with cancer in need. You SIN in the eyes of G-d as far as I am concerned.

    The rest of you who insult Wayne. He actually care about what is happening in this country from a big picture scale. Unless you actually can see what the big picture is you won’t know what will hit you until it’s too late.

    Wayne is actually sharing what he knows, his success, the things he actually doing to bring this party in a better light. DO YOU PEOPLE really think if this country wasn’t on the path that it is, he would want to really waste his time doing this, when he could be more involved with his family and better things than to fight about to get the LP party in a situation so that it can really win.

    It takes a lot of courage and confident to actually make the changes that is needed.. How many of you can do what Root has done. How many of you has been on the TV shows and Radio that he has done. Under the LP Name. He could choose any other name.

    ALL you guys can do is chit chat, talk talk talk. insult and do a lot of nothing. You are happy being dysfunctional because that is what you know. that is all you know.

    Now since you have nothing better to do but what you do best. I expect insults hurled at this posting and nick pick and whatever. So be it. But anyone who has any intelligent at all will see who the complainers are and who are actually the doers are.

  42. Starchild

    @45 – I wish W.A.R. *would* choose some other name when appearing on radio and TV shows, because most of what he says is not doing the libertarian movement or the Libertarian Party any favors. He’s mostly about promoting Wayne Allyn Root.

    As for “Libertarian Girl” allegedly being ungrateful, I’m sure it’s frustrating for you as a Root supporter when people whose allegiance you think has been bought fail to remain loyal! But in my book she deserves credit for not signing off on Wayne & company’s harmful, top-down “consolidation” of the Nevada LP just because he wrote a generous check for a good cause she was promoting.

    While he deserved (and got) her thanks and appreciation for that donation, he didn’t deserve (and thankfully didn’t get) her unquestioning, eternal support.

  43. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    As far as Wayne’s letter to Debra @ 30:

    1. Truly good people don’t have to keep telling everyone they are a good person;

    2. Comparing last night’s travesty to Debra’s sick cousin is crass beyond words. Good people don’t exploit sick children.

    3 Speaking of enormous egos, obnoxious personalities, and the state of Nevada,has Wayne Allyn Root ever met Chuck Geshlider?;

    4 Exploiting sick children is digusting beyond words. This negates however much money Wayne sent to the cancer fund.

  44. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    It’s been a little less than a year since Wayne was NOT voted in as LP chair, despite spending more money than the other candidates combined. Since then, he’s infuriated more and more Libertarians with his neocon views (in case you forgot, the opinion about the non-mosque that isn’t at Ground Zero; telling SEVEN magazine that he’s going to re-make the Libertarian party, and so on). Does he REALLY think this type of behavior is mending fences? Again I’ll ask where all those big donors and new Libertarians are. He’s gonna need tons of them, considering how many Libertarians despise Wayne.

  45. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I just can’t get over Wayne exploiting that sick little girl. What a horrible, hateful , clueless man.

  46. Republican National Committee

    See examples in the Tea Party and Ron Paul as movements that did work through grass roots.

    Well John, you might have noticed that the Tea Party was very disorganized before we saw the parade. And being leaders, we got in front of that parade and led it.

    Wayne has been very good at evangelizing on our daily talking points. And we see that the LP is in the ascendancy, and we like winning. This is one minor part of our plan to keep on winning.

    It seems to be working, because Root gets lots of media…with Republican talking points.

  47. Michael H. Wilson

    Jill I was not going to say anything about point # 1. I had to nail my hand down to keep it off the keyboard. Damn that was way to obvious. Maybe I should say; Damn that was Wayne to obvious. 😉

  48. Don Wills

    Maybe this is a good thing. Maybe this scuffle will cause the final battle to happen, with the result being that the winning side wins the war and gets the LP as spoils, and the losing side is vanquished.

    It really doesn’t matter whether the radicals win or the squishy moderates win. The bottom line is that this is what the LP will look like in twenty years if the war isn’t ended by a decisive victory by one side or the other.

    It appears that, with this move, Wayne’s cadre has just won the battle for Nevada. Ohio is also controlled by Wayne cadre. I assume Florida is controlled by the other side given their unanimous resolution to boot Wayne out of the party. Maybe someone should put up a map of which side controls which states, then we could follow it like we follow sports. 🙁

    Anyway, it’s time for resolution. The constant battles are a major reason for the failure of the LP. One side needs to win. The other side needs to be tossed out of the party. For good.

  49. S. Rowan Wilson, MBA

    Whoa folks…

    1) The most active section of the party in NV are NYE and Northern Nevada, NEITHER of which have grown with any help from the Southern Nevada contingency and certainly NOT Wayne Root.
    2) Elected Libertarian officials are at local levels in NYE county. They did it on their own, no help from Clark or a ‘central steering’ w/ a big costly office building.
    3) Two to three other counties are ready to come on w/ existing registered Libs; Storey, Lyon and Churchill.

    and yet again, this has been organized let alone initiated by local folks as the Southern ‘tards continue to run people off. We wouldn’t even be reorganized up here if it weren’t for a small group of committed people.

    SRW

  50. Steven R Linnabary

    As of today the state funds account has 629.76. and that ??? so we are going to have just over 200 dollars in the Fed Funds account and in the non fed account we are going to have just over 98 dollars.

    And this is several months AFTER “millionaire” Root became active in the Nevada LP? WTF??

    PEACE

  51. Boot Root

    DO YOU PEOPLE really think if this country wasn’t on the path that it is, [Root] would want to really waste his time doing this

    YES. Root doesn’t care about “the country.” Root only cares about Root.

    I’m sure that by 2007, Root saw that sports betting business was on its way to bankruptcy. He needed a new gig. A new set of rubes to fleece.

    Getting the LP nomination was a way to reinvent himself, from Gambling Expert to Libertarian Expert — opening the door to a whole new set of potential book deals & paid TV/radio gigs.

    Root’s using the LP as his own personal booster rocket, to blast him to media stardom.

    Why do you think he wants the 2012 convention in Vegas? So the LP convention can become the KING OF LAS VEGAS/WAYNE ALLYN ROOT SHOW!

  52. Robert Capozzi

    54 dw: Anyway, it’s time for resolution. The constant battles are a major reason for the failure of the LP. One side needs to win. The other side needs to be tossed out of the party. For good.

    me: I hear this. I don’t think there’s just 2 sides, however…that oversimplifies. There might sort of be 2 sides in an operational sense: Be a real party or be a debating society.

    A cleansing of that might just be the way to go.

    While I’m a “real” party advocate, I don’t see why this action in NV was done precipitously. Reaping economies of (some) scale might well be optimal, but this feels like Irsay moving the Colts outta town in the middle of the night. It doesn’t feel “straight up” to me.

    There’s slick, and then there’s oily.

  53. Robert Capozzi

    jjm: Obviously that is antithetical to freedom.

    me: Guess we’re watching a different movie. The LP is NOT the government, it’s a private, voluntary organization. How it organizes itself has nothing to do with the exercise of freedom, any more than a business that is organized as a corporation or partnership or a DBA.

    This is, sorry, absurd.

  54. Kevin Knedler

    OK, I will take the bait.
    This is insane.
    There has always been room for BOTH sides, if there are two sides. The key is to get people into the correct positions because of their skill sets. This is nothing new. If I have a tooth ache, I don’t go to a auto mechanic and if the fuel pump on my car acts up, I don’t take the car to the dentist. But, it takes a good leader at any level to recognize this and build the team. PLUS, it takes all involved to check the ego at the door and get in the same boat and start to row in the same direction.

    @ Don Wills. Ohio is NOT some “Root” camp. There are members of the Ohio team that have other opinions. Yes he is respected, but he has shown respect to us also.

    As for what we did in Ohio back in 2007-2008. YES, we nearly gutted the entire organization and its bylaws and constitution. Yes, it appeared that the LPO was being top-down driven. And I would AGREE. It was for a time. We had to clean up the operation at the top level, so we could not only effeciently operate, but then start to build the local teams at the county and region level. We also put candidate campaigns on the back burner for a bit. Today we are constantly asking for people to step up at the local level and showcase their talents. And now we are focusing more on campaigns.
    There is NO way a top-down only party can be effective with local politics. Heck, I don’t know what is going down on the other side of my township, let alone my county or state.
    But, a good state party needs BOTH a solid state organization and county affiliates that are all working together as a team. It is a BALANCING ACT.
    The state party in Ohio focuses on state-level issues, promoting our brand, ballot access, and getting candidates to run for higher level positions. The counties are the “boots on the ground” that make it happen.
    I have noticed the tendancy for people to scream and shout, yet when it comes time for them to start a local party, they run for the exits.
    My observations.
    And BTW. I have no “dog in the hunt” with the Nevada situation. I aged 5 years with the Ohio transition. That was enough for me. I like results and Ohio is working. It took us about 3 years to reboot. Time will tell on what other states do.

    Ohio Executive Committee Chair
    LNC At-Large.

  55. Sane LP member

    @ 57
    2012 convention in Las Vegas.
    What is your point dude?
    There was an LNC vote in New Orleans late last year . I believe there were 16 to 17 people in the room voting. It wasn’t like WAR was the only guy voting. Get a grip on reality. There were not that many cities that submitted a bid from what I hear.
    I hear that there are over 30 bids for 2014 already! Maybe advance planning instead of waiting till the last minute has something to do with it.

  56. John Jay Myers

    @59 Robert, no it is absurd to think that you can go in and dissolve parties that people have worked years setting up. Counties that actually have elected libertarians, that were elected through grass roots.

    Also, if Texas (who I work for) told Dallas (where I grew the county to 250 active members) that they were being dissolved…… I would say that was antithetical to freedom.

    To state otherwise is, sorry, absurd.

    Lastly, in Texas the state biggest goals are maintaining ballot access, making sure the counties are up and functioning and putting people on the ballot (most of this happens on the county level).

  57. John Jay Myers

    I love me some Don Wills, so I am going to tread lightly.

    What is wrong with Don’s comment is that I believe in having a functinoning, professional party that works hard getting people elected and people on the ballot… but I am not like Wayne and his ilk, so apparently there are more than 2 sides.

    I joined this party because it most closely matched my ideals, I knew that it would be a long hard road, but through education, and selling principles over selling out, we could get people to come on board, and hopefully grow in the same way the Ron Paul movement or the Tea Party did.

    But the key ingredient we are missing is someone who carries the torch, someone who really speaks to our philosophy well. Since our intial base must be the libertarian activists, like Ron Pauls. We need to appeal to those types of people.
    Wayne makes those types of people gag.

    He is listed as the number 1 reason those people don’t trust this party, that and Barr. No offense to Bob, but he comes with a lot of baggage, and people can’t get over that.

    Ron Paul raised another 1 million dollars in one night the other day, Waynes Nevada LP has $600.

    This party would be fine if we skimmed the top of the “neo-con” branch, or the 48 Laws of Power gang. Honestly there are only like 10 of these people.

    There is definitely room for professional politics, and hardcore activism, but both need to be done in the name of LIBERTY.

    What Wayne has done here should serve as a giant wake up call that Wayne’s interest is Wayne. And that instead of everyone working together, Wayne wants everyone working for Wayne.

    This party will never grow, if divided into either of Don’s sets. But if we could prove we really represent liberty, it would grow like a weed.

  58. Boot Root

    Capozzi: The LP is NOT the government, it’s a private, voluntary organization. How it organizes itself has nothing to do with the exercise of freedom,

    What a bizarre concept.

    Private organizations — like those of the government — can be run in either an open, inclusive, egalitarian, democratic fashion, OR in a secretive, elitist, authoritarian fashion.

    To say that the LP can behave in an anti-freedom fashion, yet not be anti-freedom because it’s “private,” is another example of cultish libertarian thinking.

    Cultish, as in “Libertarianism is a unique Thing with its own rules, language, and culture, unconnected to the Outside World, and hence not subject to Outside Rules and Reality.”

    The non-cultish view is: Libertarian principles apply to everyone — yes, even to libertarians!

  59. Robert Capozzi

    62 jjm, ill-advised? Perhaps. Antithetical to freedom? I cannot begin to guess how you can reach that conclusion. This is a matter of contracts, and if the contract empowers a state party to exercise its fiduciary duties in this manner, I would think all Ls would agree that contract law is consistent with freedom.

    Do you disagree? If so, please share your alternative view of contracts.

    Note that I stipulate that freedom WOULD allow members of a voluntary, contractual association to resign and form a new association. Or, they certainly can remain in the association and agitate for a reversal of policy.

  60. Robert Capozzi

    64 br, yes, the bylaws can be voided and the LP could become a Meet Up with no rules or procedures.

    Seems like a dysfunctional idea, although it could be colorful if chaotic. For example, anyone could add anything to the platform at any time.

  61. John Jay Myers

    @65, Sometimes debate with you is fun… in this instance it is just ridiculous.

    They had no right and no reason to do what they did, they did it purely for their own power over other people.

    It is pointless to continue debating past that point. Even if in their opinion they thought they were doing what is best, it is still the opposite of freedom.

    And obviously pissed off the people they were trying to manipulate, again I could bring up the idea of Dallas County in Texas.

    I am not going argue the word semantics here, the point is that they did it to be douche bags, now they are caught red handed and none of them are willing to put their head on the chopping block and debate this issue. I have a few more arrows in my quiver on this one, I just need one of them to pop their head up.

    Since none of them appear to be putting their “reasons” in writing, it’s a moot point because what they did is null and void.

  62. LibertarianGirl

    so Wayne is pretty upset with me over posting his email . I need to clarify for the sake of fairness to him and the whole situation. I sent him an email first which im begging you all not to make public, here it is :

    First I wanted to let you know , because you gave the biggest donationI received to Candlelighters that I thank you and want to inform you that my baby cousins cancer came back after 6 weeks in remission , She has 2 months to live.

    second , you voting to unaffiliate 3 active counties is a disgrace. You have lost all my support and I am going to do everything in my meager power to make sure you never get the LP Pres nomination , You do understand we can all get added as delegates to other states and will right? Wayne why on earth would you do that? Im ashamed I ever thought you were different.

    good luck

    debra

    anyways he didnt pull the analogy out of his ass I imagine he wouldnt have mentioned it had I not first.
    He asked e “to undo the damage” and clarify my remarks , so I just have.
    There ya go…

    Id like to add a big thank you to wayne , TK , the Pyettes , Starchild and all the many other people that donated. It truly was one of my proudest moments being a Libertarian when you all came thru for me.
    blessed be

    debra

  63. LibertarianGirl

    oh and in true Libertarian fashion , we are moving forward and ignoring the deaffiliation , all 3 counties.thankyou and GOOOOOD MORNING!

  64. LibertarianGirl

    I jst wanna toot Clark Counties horn for a moment , The only reason we have been inactive is because Chair Kris McKinster made it so. Now I know wh , he knew this was coming. Members Angy McKinster , myself and others literally have sent dozens of unanswered emails concerning planning events among other things. Not 1 was answered. Kris intentionally killed the party down here and now we know why.

  65. Thomas L. Knapp

    The bad news is that the LP Nevada’s bylaws don’t seem to provide for an emergency convention to depose the evil-doers.

    The good news is that there’s nothing to stop the illegally disaffiliated county parties from continuing to operate, or from getting together and choosing new de facto LPNV leadership to serve until the de jure state leadership can be deposed at a regular convention.

    Let the current “leaders” have their $600 and recognition from an ever-more-ineffectual LNC. They’ll piss the former away pretty quickly and the latter is as much albatross as anything.

  66. Andy

    “Again I’ll ask where all those big donors and new Libertarians are.”

    This is an excellent point. Wayne Root talks a big game, but what are the results from doing things his way? The Barr/Root ticket was only the 4th best vote total for an LP Presidential ticket, behind Ed Clark from 1980, Harry Browne from 1996, and Ron Paul from 1988. Where are all the Wayne Root Libertarians? I’ve yet to meet one person who says that they joined the Libertarian Party because of Wayne Root (or Bob Barr for that matter). I’ve met plenty of people who have told me that they joined the Libertarian Party because of Harry Browne or Ron Paul or some other candidate, but I haven’t encountered one person who told me that they joined the LP because of Root (and I meet a lot of people). Wayne Root has made plenty of media appearances, but how many inquiries to the Libertarian Party have these media appearances garnered? I remember back when Harry Browne was making media appearances that it lead to more inquiries to the Libertarian Party and to more people joining the party. Where is all of the big money that Root’s efforts have raised for the party? I’ve yet to see any evidence that Wayne Root has grown the Libertarian Party.

  67. LibertarianGirl

    Tom dont forget they stole and squandered around 2,000 from the cark county LP before they tried to kill us , not to mention we footed the large portion of the state convention incuding room rental , food , desssert advertising and trinkets which all members were sposed to get and none have.

  68. Don Wills

    JJM – In true libertarian fashion, you prefer conciliation to confrontation. Good for you. However, when conciliation fails, what do you do?

    I’ll repeat myself – “The bottom line is that this is what the LP will look like in twenty years if the war isn’t ended by a decisive victory by one side or the other.”

    Those who deny that there are two diametrically opposed sides in the LP War have their heads in the sand. The two sides are –

    1. constitutionalists who believe taxation is moral and necessary, and that limited government is the best organizing principle for mankind

    2. anarchists who believe taxation is immoral and is theft, and that government itself is immoral and should completely replaced with voluntarism

    These conflicting, most basic philosophies cannot be reconciled. It’s either one or the other.

    Until this conflict is resolved, the LP will remain an impotent irrelevancy.

  69. Robert Capozzi

    67 jjm, no reason…maybe. I’m agnostic on the advisability of this move. On its face, it strikes me as hasty at best.

    No right? Make the legal case.

    Citing how this might go over in TX is simply not germane that I can see.

    Your opinions are as valid as any, but confusing opinions with bylaws seems deeply invalid.

  70. LibertarianGirl

    That is not what happened in Nv. Lets be honest ok. Nye County was unaffiliated mainy because Jim Duensing is Vice Chair , and State Chair Joe Silvestri cant stand him and Wayne is afraid he will embarrass him next year. The Northern affiliate was killed because David and others have the nerve to vote against things that Joe proposes so Joe calls that “a group he cannot work with” . Clark County was killed because we have a grup of new folks all of which Joe doesnt know and doesnt like. They had the audacity to sit at a table with Duensing at convention , anways these folks were poised to get voting rights and the balance would have been shifted to NOT ABLE TO BE CONTROLLED by Silvestri.

    this has nothing to do with inactivity or craziness. Duensing may well be on the fringe but the rest of the team in Nye arent his followers. They have a well rounded successful , growing team and it was just stupid to kill it.

  71. completely inappropiate

    @68. Libertarian Girl: Very inappropriate. Basically you have just exploiting your little girl. You mentioned not to post your letter public, when it is public as of right now, from your own doing.

    @51. Jill Pyeatt Wayne didn’t exploit anything. He did something to help which was a very generous thing, something he didn’t have to do.

    Yea Root out for Root. Thats why he gave money to help a person in NEED> You people are idiots.

  72. REPEAT and CORRECTIONS

    The decisions were not done by ROOT. It was done by a TEAM that were elected to make decisions for Nevada.

    I REPEAT!!!!

    The decisions were not done by ROOT. It was done by a TEAM that were elected to make decisions for Nevada.

    Comprenda!!!!!

  73. LibertarianGirl

    @77 i did it because wayne asked me to clarify jack ass , how else could i explain why he mentioned my cousin if not to show you i mentioned it first it was done to get him off the hook you mental giant you

  74. LibertarianGirl

    Joe Silvestri is far more to blame than Wayne . In fact , id bet that Wayne knew little if anything of the plan that was obviously planned for some time. But going along with the team is no excuse.

  75. John Jay Myers

    Don I disagree, there are plenty of people from the two camps you listed that are willing to work together.

    So the difference I see is between:
    1. Egomaniacs who with a small group of friends want to centrally plan the LP, in every way, thus diminishing our popularity in the freedom movement, but increasing that persons ability to get on TV, and promote himself.

    2. Those who understand we can achieve smaller government by working together, and by starting a grass movement, like the successful ones we have seen already.

    One of my best friends is an anarchist, but he believes in less government as do I, so we will ride the train together until it is time for me to get off.

    But the LP serves more than just 1 role, as a 3rd party we have to, more on that later, I have to go give a speech at an event here in Dallas.

  76. Party of Principle, or Results?

    Rather distracting, mouthy, ungrateful, nasty, pathetic spider, aren’t you, LG? What meaningful results have you achieved in the entirety of your life for the LP, that you cannibalistically attack fellow Libertarian WAR? You don’t get it, do you?

    The LP cannot be your private little club of social misfits, if the LP is to ever achieve a measure of political influence. The Party must appeal to a significant sector of the public at large. The energies of the Party cannot be dissipated in useless mutual arguing, carping, criticizing, partying, time-wasting, fiddling, etc. etc.

    In fact, if you were assigned the task of perpetuating the political non-significance of the LP, you could hardly do a BETTER job than that which you now do, ostensibly under the guise of “helping” the party. Your distractions, your personalization, magnification, and highlighting of petty personal differences serve to waste precious time and energy, with no bottom line results at election time.

    Meanwhile, the country mutters about future pat downs in shopping malls, Big Sis reads your emails, the currency is a year or two from going asymptotic, while you worry that a party with no present or past record of electoral success on a national level and precious little local success might just implement changes that would get it off the ground.

    Like most dysfunctional people, when called on your dysfunction, you get defensive, angry, and childish. Grow up, and if you can’t, please don’t obstruct those who would move the LP off the political starting line.

  77. LibertarianGirl

    ” What meaningful results have you achieved in the entirety of your life for the LP, ”

    me_ huh? dude i campaigned for the most sucessful LP candidate ever James Dan. I was his volunteer coordinator and recruited people to walk his district which we did entirely.I was very active in the UNLV Libs. Ive stayed up all night stuffing envelopes , Ive attended many a protest , Ive ran for office , organized and attended fundraisers , walked districts , worked booths , I was instrumental in passing out 90,000 pieces of literature by hand. Ive organized new affiliates , traveled all around NV trying to do so and been on the excom for my entire 10 years. Not to mention donated $1000s of dollars in stuff to be auctioned and give away at raffles etc.
    You may remember the lsla conference here in NV with the awesome Pres. debate.Every mic, every camera every cord , te sound board everythingwas my doing. That evernt would not have been as good as it was w/o my direct help. I could go on and on with shit ive done but suffice to say
    Ive been a consistent and intergral part of the ClarkCounty and LP nevada for a decade.

    am i as high profile as Wayne Root? no , not even close. everybody to their talents like someone mentioned previously. My biggest talent is being a welcoming face to new members and a hands on activist. Waynes biggest talent is doing media and much higher profile stuff.

    Id wager that he regrets ever taking on being on the excom in NV.

  78. LibertarianGirl

    this may come as a surprise to you anonymous chicken-shit , but the LP in all 3 counties has existed and done well and not so well over the last few decades. we dont have a social club for misfits , the vast majority of us are normal , smart folk that love hanging out with eachother and keeping our party going and trying to attract new folks.

    I was the first person in the LP in NV to like Wayne. In fact I cnvinced Joe Silvestri to trust him. I liked Wayne because he was good at what he did .

    Its just untrue that we’ve had no success and need a sweeping purge and complete new direction for success. Its just not true.

  79. OH REALLY

    On a National Level, How many Libertarians have been elected?
    National Level. such as Congress, Senate, President.
    Secretary of State.

    enough said.

  80. LibertarianGirl

    none. and how is that the fault of 3 counties in NV? if anything its a national problem . We need to elect local Libs first and prove to people we can win before anyone will ever consider electing us on a level tht large. Ground up , not top down… duh!

    p.s we have 2 elected Libs in Nye county and they we’re just deaffiliated. that makes sense right?

  81. Thomas L. Knapp

    There are many ideological and practical divides within the LP.

    A few people on each side of each divide are convinced that the divide they’re obsessed with is the only one that really matters, the One Big Thing upon which the party’s past failures rest and upon resolution of which its future successes rely.

    All of them are likely wrong.

  82. LibertarianGirl

    no shit! who gives a rats ass about ideological divides . All ive ever cared about is who is willing to do actual work. I gaurantee you the LPNevada will not be doing much if anything in the coming year because they havent done anything yet.

    the new excom is apparently very good at saying how badly weve been doin, but ive heard not 1 word about what they plan to do. Theyve got a pretty good new website and a new membership program but no plan for attracting new members , and now no county events for people to attend. How do you get new people to show up when theres nothing to show up for?

  83. Here is a radical idea

    @63 JJM

    OK who are the infamous “10” that need thrown out and banished from the LP?
    Let’s name them!
    Root – yes
    but who else ?
    Let’s start the purge.
    Let’s throw out all the so-called “professionals” and leave nothing but “pure” anarchists in the LP.

  84. David Colborne

    @79: Though I could be wrong, I think the vote totals might have been different if the current members of the Ex Comm were up front about their plan. At no point did any of them come forward and say, “Hey, we’re going to eliminate all local affiliates. Who’s with me?” Instead, they ran on a platform of “plans” and “ideas”, then went quote for five months while they got to work planning the elimination of all local organization in Nevada. This would be like the GOP getting elected on a platform of “growing the economy”, then watching them nationalize everything and raise taxes to 90%. It was a bait and switch.

  85. David Colborne

    @88: How many Libertarians are elected at the local level? Realistically, most people aren’t going to take a chance on some unknown from an unknown political party when they vote for the “seats that matter”. For better or worse, we need to prove ourselves at the local level, show everyone that we can govern responsibly and win elections, then they’ll let us play with the big boys in Washington.

    So, how does wiping out all local organization help us win local elections, hmm?

  86. George Phillies

    JJMs claim that the opposite of professional is anarchist is well, mistaken. There are honest, competent people — let’s not be picky about if they are on the LNC — who are nearly conservative, or antianarchist, or think Republicans are much better than Democrats, who think that blowing money on staff is a bad way to go.

  87. Steven R Linnabary

    On a National Level, How many Libertarians have been elected?
    National Level. such as Congress, Senate, President.
    Secretary of State.

    There is no point to “winning” if it means selling out core beliefs. Otherwise “Big Tent” Libertarians would have succeeded with Lisa Murkowski last year in Alaska. Big Tenters still have a chance to welcome Richard Lugar in Indiana from what I hear. Let’s hope that sanity and principles prevail.

    The LP long ago in 1974, recognized that we were very diverse and came up with the “Dallas Accord” in an attempt to avoid schisms such as this.

    Purges do not work, the perpetrators always pick up and leave. Meanwhile victims (long time activists) are usually left to pick up the pieces, if they stay around.

    JJM said it best in 82 above: One of my best friends is an anarchist, but he believes in less government as do I, so we will ride the train together until it is time for me to get off.

    PEACE

  88. Boot Root

    Don: “The two sides are –

    1. constitutionalists who believe taxation is moral and necessary, and that limited government is the best organizing principle for mankind

    2. anarchists who believe taxation is immoral and is theft, and that government itself is immoral and should completely replaced with voluntarism

    Nope.

    You’re right about there being two warring factions, but you got the factions wrong.

    I’m a Constitutionalist who believes taxation is not always immoral, is often necessary, and that limited government is probably the best organizing principle for mankind — AND I welcome anarchists in the LP — and don’t mind if the public see the LP as an anarchist party.

    The differences between TRUE Constitutionalist/Minarchists and Anarchists is so slight as to be insignificant. One wants to reduce govt by 90%, the other by 100%. Since we have a long way to reach 90% (and likely never will), it’s a moot point.

    The REAL DIVIDE is between…

    1. Constitutionalists/Minarchists/Anarchists on one side, and…

    2. Statist Lite/Neocon/Liberventionist/Warmongers on the other, who merely wish to trim govt by 5%.

    The Statist Lite Warmongers keep trying to drive a wedge betweeen TRUE Minarchists and their natural allies, the Anarchists.

  89. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Boot Root @ 97: Very well said about the two sides dividing us. HIARI @ 92: This argument really isn’t being made by “pure anarchists”. Who on this thread is a pure anarchist? If you’re going to argue, it helps if you don’t just repeat one of Root’s talking points.

    Obviously Wayne knows about this argument. So, why isn’t he here explaining himself? Why isn’t someone simply explaining why this bizarre power grab happened?

    And as far as Root being upset his letter to Debra was made public, you can’t have it both ways. If you set yourself up as the LP’s spokesman, one of the “the party’s greatest thinkers” (your words, certainly not mine), you’re gonna have to accept that you’re being scrutinized. Duh.

  90. Don Wills

    BootRoot – So you do agree that the LP War is a battle being fought over principle? Do you agree that it must be won by one side or the other before the LP can become an effective political force? I assume by your pseudonym that you will work to throw Wayne out of the party. Is that what LP members want? John Jay? Kevin?

    Think about this –

    Would Wayne be chastised by the radicals for self-promotion, for being responsible for the dissolution of NV county parties, for being an all around heinous individual IF he was an anarchist?

    I doubt it.

    WRT JJM’s comment about being able to work with an anarchist – that’s a meaningless anecdote. Obviously, many, if not most, LP anarchists can’t work with a significant part of the LP. For you deniers that say Barr and Root don’t represent a significant chunk of the party, HOW DID THEY GET NOMINATED FOR PRES AND VP?

    How can anyone deny the existence of the LP War?

    As I’ve repeated, I believe the only way to resolve the LP War is for one side to toss the other out of the party. In the end, it’s the get-along folks, who don’t want to have the final definitive battle because they’re afraid of the consequences, who will be judged responsible for the continued irrelevance of the LP.

  91. LibertarianGirl

    “Would Wayne be chastised by the radicals for self-promotion, for being responsible for the dissolution of NV county parties, for being an all around heinous individual IF he was an anarchist?

    I doubt it.”

    me_ your wrong , ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY HE WOULD HAVE . ANYONE WHO DID WOULD HAVE

  92. LibertarianGirl

    all the people in the booted counties were not anarchst , maybe a cpl at best. this has to do with principles and people that wouldnt vote as Joe Silvestri told them too and nothing to do with ideology. how many times do i have to say this…

  93. Michael H. Wilson

    One of the reasons for this is, and this is not the first state where this type of mismanagement had happened, is the lack of expectations for officers and incentives for growth.

  94. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    In my experience, LG, Wayne’s people don’t really discuss. They just continue throwing out their talking points. Perhaps if they could really talk about an issue, instead of throwing silly accusations, maybe we could get somewhere.

    This isn’t about left/right. This is about a complete power trip–certain individuals doing what they can to be in charge. Anarchists aren’t the people who created this problem. If this had been done, and the people doing the dirty deeds had been anarchists throwing out the neocons, it still would have been wrong.

  95. George Phillies

    @100 if it had been you, I would have spelled your name out.

    And going back to find JJM, to learn who this other fellow was, I find that I misread, and #92 is actually

    “Here is a radical idea // May 7, 2011 at 12:19 pm
    @63 JJM”

    Here is a Radical Idea, and not JJM at all.

    My apologies to Here Is a Radical Idea and to JJM for tangling which of them got the credit for the words in question.

  96. David Colborne

    The divide has nothing to do with ideology. It’s all about strategy. Basically, it’s between people who are looking to create a political party, with a decentralized, messy organization based on broad ideological principles that’s run at the local level, and those who wish to run the party as either a religion or a business (end effect is the same), with a top-down “pure” organization that’s consistent to the letter.

    On paper, religions and businesses sound great – everyone is unified in purpose and gets things done. It’s the allure of central planning – if you have an enlightened leader giving hood direction, anything is possible, at least on paper. Anything, that is, except get significant vote totals, because people aren’t industrial tools – they’re people, with imperfect information and disparate individual interests. If most people don’t agree with your consistent message, and it’s too consistent to be flexible, you will be rejected by the electorate.

    What’s nice about locally run organizations is they can focus on the issues in their area that win support, without unduly affecting other organizations from doing the same. Centralized, “coherent” organizations, on the other hand, will either water the message down to nothing to avoid offending anyone but also sacrificing the ability to inspire anyone, or they’ll provide a message that’s inspiring to a few people but abhorrent to just about everyone else.

  97. Just asking

    why was an employee of the Texas LP involved in this to start with? Just asking. Did the Texas LP authorize him to get involved and make statements? Again, just asking.

  98. Robert Capozzi

    108 dc: Centralized, “coherent” organizations, on the other hand, will either water the message down to nothing to avoid offending anyone but also sacrificing the ability to inspire anyone, or they’ll provide a message that’s inspiring to a few people but abhorrent to just about everyone else.

    me: I thought this was on point until this passage. I don’t think centralized operations necessarily will “water down” to the point of being uninspirational. If Root is an ex. of a “centralizer,” he says things all the time to provoke and offend non-Ls. Heck, Mr. Chill, aka me, even offends on occasion, and I’m generally in favor of centralizing the LP’s effort on, at least, many things.

    Politics requires marshalling resources to maximize impact of a message. OTOH, I am not a control freak (at least I’d like to think not), and so some devolution of organization and resources is also appropriate. Calibrating the centralization/devolution is an art, not science.

  99. David Colborne

    Robert, I agree that there does need to be some central organization. There’s a difference between that and eliminating all local affiliates while giving the Chair unlimited power, including the ability to fill all committee positions and spend funds at will, like the LP Nevada just did.

    Something tells me we are going to look back on this with extreme regret in a year or two.

  100. John Jay Myers

    @109 I will get involved with whatever I like and say whatever I like, because this is a free country, not one run by sniveling anonymous rats and manipulators.

    I am more likely to tread lightly on things that involved Texas… then to tread lightly when I see a complete sham in progress.

    Also, why not argue the legitimacy of the statements? Instead you just try to grasp at anything you can like an anonymous rat on a sinking ship. I prefer the light of day.

    I am not going to reply to anonymous posters after this.

  101. Darryl W. Perry

    When Root says (or writes) things such as “It needs to be run from one central location” it shows how little he really understands libertarianism…

  102. JT

    Darryl: “When Root says (or writes) things such as “It needs to be run from one central location” it shows how little he really understands libertarianism…”

    Libertarianism does NOT prescribe any way that voluntary organizations should be run. It’s a social-political philosophy rooted the principles of individual rights and the non-initiation of physical force–not one rooted in completely decentralizing everything. You can think this is a terrible move for a state party to make for pragmatic reasons, and perhaps that’s true. But anyone who says someone who supports it must not understand libertarianism, doesn’t understand libertarianism.

  103. Tom Blanton

    Do I detect rising animosity for Mr. Wonderful?

    How can this be after all he has done for the LP?

    Certainly all his supporters could not have been wrong about his greatness. After all, he has said the word “libertarian” on talk radio many times.

    Surely it is possible that his critics, the nattering nabobs of negativism, are merely jealous of his teeth, his dynamic personality, and his unparalleled success.

    I’m sure Mr. Wonderful knows what is best for the LP and for his supporters and they must stand with him through the centralization process and resulting purges in order to bring about his vision.

    For any supporter to abandon this great libertarian thinker at this time would be like admitting Mr. Wonderful is a jackass and that the supporter has been a fool.

    Don’t give up on Mr. Wonderful. He has just begun.

    Perhaps LNC, Inc. should sell the LP to Mr. Wonderful and he could become National Chair, CEO, and Perpetual Candidate for President for the rest of his life. That way he could control everything and ensure complete success. Forever.

  104. Darryl W. Perry

    “Libertarianism does NOT prescribe any way that voluntary organizations should be run”… and the Nevada LP decided that certain members of that voluntary organization should no longer be allowed to organize they way they wanted…

  105. George W. Bush

    There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — [pauses] — shame on you. Fool me — [pauses] — You can’t get fooled again.

  106. JT

    Darryl: “… and the Nevada LP decided that certain members of that voluntary organization should no longer be allowed to organize they way they wanted…”

    Do you not understand there was no physical force or theft involved here, Darryl? Therefore, there’s no violation of individual rights. If you’re pissed about the Nevada LP executive committee’s ability to do what it did and think it’s an awful choice, that’s fine. But it doesn’t prove the officers don’t understand libertarianism.

  107. George Phillies

    Good news. The market is going to be allowed to decide!

    The Nevada State Committee is apparently going to go on its way.

    The County Committees they excommunicated for cause without giving them a chance to defend themselves are apparently going to go on their ways.

    And it appears the each side, short term, is going to have to live with this.

    But they get to compete in the political marketplace. They get to see who elects more people to office. Who raises more money. Who does more outreach. “Who does more local organizing” is sort of a nonstarter, since one side is totally opposed to doing that.

    We had this problem in Massachusetts. Based on experience, those County Committees will win, and at start are ahead of where our counterparts here were.

  108. Chuck Moulton

    Personally I favor a bottom up approach. Based on everything we know about economics, Hayekian knowledge problems, and spontaneous order, grassroots activism will always be more effective than central planning.

    That said, I recognize the benefit of 50 laboratories of strategy. If a group of people believe the top down approach will work, go try it and show us.

    The really sad part here isn’t the newly implemented central planning in Nevada… it’s the clear abuse of process. I’m not on the ground in Nevada, but from the evidence posted here it seems that the executive committee ignored the bylaws provision requiring written reasons, tricked some people to vote for new membership levels based on the explicitly voiced assumption that county memberships would be intact only to disaffiliate all counties a few minutes later, and refused to listen to contrary arguments.

    There growing contingent in the LP which believes the ends justify the means; a contingent which believes it’s okay to warp bylaws, Robert’s Rules, and other processes to disenfranchise people who disagree with them and implement the organizational structure they desire. I fundamentally disagree with such an approach.

    The experiment of substantially raised dues and centralized control may be worth trying. But do it above board. Come to the convention with a clearly articulated plan, give notice to everyone well in advance, make your case, confront contrary viewpoints honestly head on, and let the delegates make a real choice.

  109. Darryl W. Perry

    JT, I never said there was physical force, nor did I say there was theft – I also never said crack was smokes, coke snorted or heroin injected, I never said any member of the Nevada LP sacrificed babies or that any member stood on their head while reading Robert’s Rules of Order backwards or anything else you will come up with to make me look silly and to justify how what was done was the “libertarian thing to do”.

  110. Mark Axinn

    Wow.

    I don’t know what went on in Nevada and why it happened, but as a State Chair, my aim is to add chapters and members throughout my state and not to hinder local activism.

    New York has nine county and region-wide chapters and I am currently working with activists in three more counties to establish local chapters. We need outreach and candidate recruitment at every level.

  111. Kevin Knedler

    @ JJM on # 63.

    Hey, let me know if I am on your purge list of 10. I could share it with my Ohio team.
    LOL

  112. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    All the anonymous posters are from 2 different people only. I certainly don’t know why no one from the Nevada Ex Com has come here to explain why they did what they did. I’d like to issue an open invitation to anyone who voted “yes” to disaffiliate, to come here and explain why.

    We’d certainly appreciate it.

  113. John Jay Myers

    Oh Kevin, you know I have a special place just for you.

    How could I forget the thoughtful way I was treated at your State convention during the LNC chairs race, we will always have those memories.

  114. Michael H. Wilson

    Here’s some ideas on unmanagement enjoy.

    Wayne and company if you are reading this I will suggest, as I believe I have done before, that those of you who are skilled management professionals take a look at W.L. Gore for a lesson or two on how it is done.
    http://blogs.wsj.com/management/2010/04/02/wl-gore-lessons-from-a-management-revolutionary-part-2/

    Here’s another piece on them.

    “In a study published in Organizational Dynamics, Greg Stewart, a management and organization professor at the University of Iowa’s Tippie College of Business, and two colleagues found the company’s success stems from its unique management structure.

    Or, or more accurately, lack of one.”
    http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2009/september/091809stewart-gore-tex.html

    You may also wish to read the book “Up the Organization”

    I realize that I am probably wasting my time, but…

  115. Andy

    Chuck Moulton said: “Based on everything we know about economics, Hayekian knowledge problems, and spontaneous order, grassroots activism will always be more effective than central planning.”

    BINGO!

  116. Robert Capozzi

    123 cm, I agree with the upshot of your comment about process abuse, but if you are equilibrating the Hayekian insights and how the LP is organized, I would like to hear more. You’ve read more Hayek than I have (and more recently!), but I don’t believe he was talking about private organizations, especially non-economic players like the LP, which is not a business.

    Organizing an association of like-minded folk can take many forms, and the association can adopt many terms and conditions to advance the association’s ends.

    Businesses can have “top down” rules for shareholders and employees. Did Hayek ever say otherwise?

    The spontaneous order is bounded by the rule of law.

  117. Robert Capozzi

    more on “bottom up”…

    fwiw, on its face, I kind of like the LNCC as a model. A national PAC can bundle money more efficiently to provide candidate support for the “best” legislative prospects across the nation. I think a case can be made that we need another PAC for strategic ballot access support efforts.

    I see the LNC as an umbrella for party business and high-level recruitment. State and possibly local parties would focus on local recruitment.

    We Ls are reflexively drawn to a “decentralist” mindset. However, we should keep in mind that the focus of coercion is at the higher levels of government. For us to challenge that coercion, we need to get in the game, i.e., appear on the ballot. Next, we need a few more effective candidates vs. a lot of paper ones. Pooling limited resources seems a better way to get in the game, and focusing those resources on sterling candidates who are more likely to gain recognition.

  118. Starchild

    Robert Capozzi @134 writes, “the focus of coercion is at the higher levels of government”.

    I’m sure that will be news to many people living in poor neighborhoods across this country who routinely see friends, neighbors, family members, or themselves subject to warrantless searches and other property rights violations and abuses, or have been tased, assaulted, shot, arrested without cause or even killed by ordinary cops on the beat.

    For us to challenge *that* coercion, we need more passion and righteous outrage, the kind that comes from radicalism and an activist perspective.

  119. Hookers 4 Root

    Wayne Root is a god. He has steared tens of thousands of bucks to Hookers in Vegas. We have a big ROOT party every year. 50 of us will be parading with Root Masks around the Libertarians covnetion in our big tittie big ass constumes to show support for him whatever he does. You libraterian men bring lots of money to Vegas, you heer? Spend it on hookers, not gambling… We’ll pleasure YOUR root…

  120. Robert Capozzi

    more to sc….

    We can chase ants around the house, or we can root out the nest. This is not to say that local outrages are not outrageous; I prefer to address the source, the cause, not the effects. Strike the root and all that….

  121. Sean Scallon

    “we need everyone rowing in the same direction…and we need people who are all repeating the same message”

    I think you just contradicted you’re party’s reason for existence with this statement.

    If politics is a business as some claim, explain to me how a bankrupt Republican Party somehow managed to do so well in the 2010 elections? To me this is a perfect example f how politics and business acumen go together like oil and water. Politics sometimes goes a lot deeper than balancing the books.

  122. JT

    Darryl: “JT, I never said there was physical force, nor did I say there was theft – I also never said crack was smokes, coke snorted or heroin injected, I never said any member of the Nevada LP sacrificed babies or that any member stood on their head while reading Robert’s Rules of Order backwards or anything else you will come up with to make me look silly and to justify how what was done was the “libertarian thing to do”.”

    No, you didn’t say there was any force or theft. You did say the officers don’t understand libertarianism based on this decision. Since libertarianism merely bars the initiation of physical force and theft, your conclusion makes no sense.

    Of course, I never said what was done was the libertarian thing to do–and your use of quotes as if that’s what I said is grossly dishonest.

  123. Darryl W. Perry

    @JT – I also didn’t say they “don’t understand libertarianism” I did say “it shows how little he really understands libertarianism…”

    @LG – well said, thanks
    they all acted in an authoritarian , UNLIBERTARIAN FASHION….

  124. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Good morning! I see no one stopped by last night to explain the reasoning behind Thursday’s events by the Nevada LP. What a shame, although, of course, I’m not surprised.

  125. LibertarianGirl

    Jill , joe silvestri never comes here but Wayne and Kris McKinster do , often. but i woldnt hold your breath they didnt give their reasons to the other excom members and gallery , to their members so i would bet they never say a word about it. Thats the most disgusting thing about the tape , not 1 of them has balls to explain why. at least wayne gave it an attempt in his emailto me….silly reasoning that it was

  126. LibertarianGirl

    carol , several different avenues . This is gonna be there fatal mistake , they shoulda pulled this out next year , and in retrospect Wayne should have never let himself be talked into being on the LPNevada excom . He shoulda stayed out of it and remained friendly with as many folks here as possible , that woulda been the smart thing to do. Im certain he’s regretting his decision to take this on. its gonna be his fatal mistake as well…

  127. JT

    Darryl: “@JT – I also didn’t say they “don’t understand libertarianism” I did say “it shows how little he really understands libertarianism…””

    The degree doesn’t matter, Darryl. If there’s no initiation of force or theft, then it has nothing to do with libertarianism. It has to do with the set-up of an organization.

    LG: “what he meant to say , and WHAT IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH , is that they all acted in an authoritarian, UNLIBERTARIAN FASHION….”

    “Unlibertarian” means violating individual rights through physical force or theft. Did anyone do that? If not, then you’re flat wrong with that accusation.

    From what I know, I think the decision was a bad one strategically. And I understand being upset with how it was made. Calling attention to it and condemning it publicly is justified. It’s not unlibertarian. It disturbs me to think that some libertarians believe the term applies to how a voluntary organization is set-up.

  128. JT

    And what exactly is an “unlibertarian fashion”?

    If that means state officers making a decision regarding affiliate county parties in an executive committee meeting–something they’re able to do under the bylaws–then that doesn’t qualify as unlibertarian. Libertarianism doesn’t hold that it’s wrong for an organization’s central board to make such decisions. That’s like saying it’s unlibertarian for the central board of a company to decide to close individual stores.

    Again, from a strategic standpoint, the decision does seem like a boneheaded one to me. And I understand why some people would feel sneak-attacked given the circumstances.

  129. Robert Capozzi

    dwp, apparently, the county affiliates are subsidiary to the state party.

    If a corporation integrates a subsidiary into the parent company, is THAT “unL”? If so, how so? If the LP is different than a corporation, how so?

    Emotional reactions or political assessments are quite different from moralistic pronouncements.

  130. Darryl W. Perry

    If a corporation integrates a subsidiary into the parent company, is THAT “unL”? If so, how so? If the LP is different than a corporation, how so?

    1) I don’t know of any corporations that are designed to promote libertarian ideals… invalid question.
    2) The LP is a political party and not an entity given a corporate charter by a government with a purpose of making a profit.

  131. Robert Capozzi

    dwp, I guess we have to go further back, then.

    Can a L organization have rules for behavior? Can a L organization have processes and procedures regarding its organization?

    Or, IYO, must a truly L organization be a free for all, where anyone can say or do anything on behalf of the organization?

  132. Darryl W. Perry

    Can a L organization have rules for behavior? Can a L organization have processes and procedures regarding its organization?

    Sure they can, though such rules should be mutually accepted and no person (or group of persons) that is a party to the agreed upon rules is “more equal” than anyone else. That is, those given positions of “power” are as bound by the rules as those that aren’t in positions of power.

    That being said, if the rules hinder local groups from doing outreach/activism for the party, the rules are flawed and should be changed.

  133. Michael H. Wilson

    Maybe you are looking at the wrong example. There are lots of fraternal organizations and religious ones that are decentralized and work quite well.

    As to the Nevada issue I would expect that since the members pay dues and do the work that they expected at least some discussion on the issue. Otherwise their money is being taken from them and they are being cut out. Sounds to me like a lack of integrity to some degree.

  134. Robert Capozzi

    dwp, I see. So, if I join the BTP, and I don’t like the platform or the bylaws, can I just change them? If I cannot change them, then some others in the BTP are then some “more equal” than I am, yes?

    Thus far, I’ve seen no evidence that the NV LP officers have exceeded their authorized power.

    Near as I can tell, those officers believe this move ENHANCES outreach/activism. Nothing is stopping local LPers from forming county organizing committees that I can see. This merely appears to be a organizational restructuring.

    It may well be a bad idea on the NV Ex Com’s part. I’m agnostic on the matter. The process surely looks hastily done to me.

    Conflating ideological positions with organizational structures seems way off the mark, however.

  135. Robert Capozzi

    mhw, yes. Perhaps the NVLP should organize by block or zip code or latitude/longitude grids. It’s not obvious to me which is optimal.

    Again, I again agree that HOW this move was done was ham-handed, IMO.

  136. LibertarianGirl

    RC_Near as I can tell, those officers believe this move ENHANCES outreach/activism.

    me_no they dont , they want people in place that they can contro , THEY KNO IT WONT ENHANCE ACTIVISM , sorry but thats total bullshit. you dont enhancesometing by killing it and reinventing the wheel. the activism wa sstrong , too strong in fact to be controlled so they killed it , PERIOD , quit trying to figure something you kno nothing about. i kno without a doubt ,period

  137. Marc Montoni

    Seems to me that if the LPNV has $600 in its bank account, and the Clark County affiliate and the others that were disaffiliated had thousands in theirs…

    Well, let’s just ask the question: does the state LP now get to claim all of the money in the locals’ bank accounts?

    I have to admit that if Root is so convinced of his net positive effect on the LP (including, as he said above, with regard to fundraising), it seems quite curious the state LP only had $600 to its name.

    While I agree that all state parties have the authority to disaffiliate their locals — there are in fact a few locals that need to be disaffiliated across the country (I also agree that national has the right to disaffiliate state parties) — the way this one was done was just plain dumb.

    On it’s face, this seems a lot like the typical overreach by the Starr-Carling-Root-reformer faction. These folks can’t seem to apply the “incremental” dogma they preach for the LP as a whole to their own internal maneuvering — they always try to beat one out of the park and end up striking out, when four patient, well-placed, and gentle bunts would have gotten them the ‘home run’ they wanted except with the tacit assent of the people they oppose.

    These guys keep bringing up the ‘debating society’ myth, but it is usually their own actions that foster debate. Meanwhile, the party they are ‘creating’ is less politically active than when they started to gain control (say, 2002-2003).

    We have fewer elected officials, fewer appointed officials, fewer candidates, fewer members, less money raised, fewer monthly pledgers, fewer media hits, and so on, compared to 1998-2002. Root’s media hits don’t really count: every time Harry Browne was on a TV or radio program, calls and emails would start coming to LPHQ, and some of those inquiries would subsequently join. That’s simply NOT HAPPENING with Root’s appearances.

    I admire Root’s persistence and energy, but the fact is that he’s simply not answering any of the questions the voting public has for us.

  138. LibertarianGirl

    Marc , yes and no, wre received a email immediately following the meeting from our county chair kris mckinster saying he was wewere null and void , he was shutting down the list and ordering our treasurer to transfer all funds to the LPNevada. we have not complied yet

  139. Robert Capozzi

    163 LG: no they dont , they want people in place that they can contro , THEY KNO IT WONT ENHANCE ACTIVISM ,

    me: If this is so, please present your proof that this is their intent. Have they stated as such? If it’s so, then I would say that this is a serious breach of fiduciary duties, and I would suggest exercising any and all legal remedies.

    If this is your conjecture — as I suspect it is — then I would suggest you consider thinking this one through. To say that JS does not want to enhance activism is quite the charge, given his long history of activism.

  140. LibertarianGirl

    i know what i know , the counties , particularly Nye and Washoe had higher activism in the last year then in the last decade . Joe S didnt like them because they would not vote the way he wanted. this was not about enhancing activism but was about as Wayne puts it “making sure the message is the same across the board”. Translation , only the message they want. and we will be pursuing every avenue. and since Joe became chair of the state his activism has been nill. he organized the conv. and thats it. he hasnt done 1/10th the activism Duensing did and he and cant stand eachother so im not playing favorites here. joe didnt even answer emails , organize any events he went almst 9 months w/o an excom meeting and has been an abject failure t chair of the state. He was , however , an excellent county chair some time ago

  141. LibertarianGirl

    Joe Silvestri has been harping about having a “team he can work with” since Ive been involved. His bossy and my way or the high -way attitude has been turning people off since i can remember. Inevitable , people grow weary of of his antics and start not follwing him as which point they becaome his enemy. Then he starts hollering about how he needs a team he can work with and we start the process all over again . the thing is HE IS THE COMMON DENOMINATOR IN ALL THE UNWORKABLE TEAMS. and this much i know as soon as any 1 of the new team including Wayne , decides he doesnt know everthing and challenges his “vision” they too will be a problem for him .its just the way it is. I was his best friend tilli ignored his orders to say anything about the Duensing shooting , then we became friends again sometime later only for him to tell me i wasnt his ally because i was a “neutral like tim”.

  142. Robert Capozzi

    lg, you know what you think you know, but none of these comments rise to the level of proof of sabotage, which is your charge, in effect.

    Wanting a team one can work with seems like an abundantly reasonable view…don’t we ALL prefer that?

    Imputing motives is a dangerous business. Has anyone ever falsely accused you of some motive that you didn’t have? I certainly have. It feels bad for me, and injust, and dysfunctional.

    Consider separating out your guesses on motive from your view that this was not in the interests of the LP or liberty. Making wild accusations hurts your case…

  143. LibertarianGirl

    ok RC , belive what you want , ive made not 1 “wild accusation” , ive based me assessments on 1sthand knowledge and 10 years of observations, what are yours based on?

  144. LibertarianGirl

    exactly how does one expect greater acticism by ending the greatest activism the counties have ever seen?
    can u explain that to me please?

  145. Robert Capozzi

    lg, mine are based on your words. Most of your conclusions are based on inferences. It is a wild accusation to say that the NV excom “KNO[W]” that their action “WONT ENHANCE ACTIVISM.”

    I’m sorry, but that is mind reading. You are accusing them of purposeful sabotage, in effect.

    If the situation were reversed, how would you feel if you were similarly accused?

  146. whatever

    You are accusing them of purposeful sabotage.
    Are you alleging something different? What is your evidence for doing so? Have you been in telepathic communication with Wayne Root?

  147. Starchild

    rc @139 – If you want to “address the source, the cause”, it is the statism that is prevalent in society. *That* is what the phrase “strike the root” is addressing, not who’s in power in Washington.

    Addressing that requires radical education, which your faction tends to denigrate in favor of trying to win elections by not going outside the comfort zone of the “mainstream”.

    I’m not suggesting we ignore national politics or don’t run presidential candidates or anything of that sort — large-scale campaigns and actions are useful for building enthusiasm and solidarity and manifesting our existence as a mass movement. But simply changing the people at the top would not solve our problems, even were we in a position to accomplish it.

    I’m sure you’re aware of the adage that “all politics is local”. Comparing standing up for people’s freedoms and basic human rights on the ground, where they live, to chasing ants around the house is — well, I’m going to keep this civil and not use the words that come to mind!

    We need to place more trust in our activists, and less in professional political consultants and their ilk. We need to inspire them with radical speakers and messages, not talk down to them with boring “candidate training seminars” and admonitions to “wear business attire”.

    Yes, libertarians do have a bias toward decentralism (rc @134) — and there’s good reason for that. It’s more compatible than is a top-down model with the kind of world we’re seeking to create.

    As Gandhi said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” To paraphrase Marshall McLuhan, “The organization is the message.”

  148. LibertarianGirl

    You dont get it do you? Im not saying this as an outsider who doestnt know what she’s talking about. Ive been Silvestri’s closest cinfidant until around a cpl years.

    yours arre based on inferences from words you have read on a blog , I have 10 year of 1st hand experience and observation . you cannot possibly be implying your take on the events are more logical or likely. Thats ridiculous

  149. peace and love

    The “team” joe has will allow him to send the state party to hell in a hand basket with the exception of two sane members . once he runs out of all the hard earned money the once affiliated counties worked to raise He is going to conspire to do yet another under handed dirty trick . but, in his head he thinks this is helping the party with him as chair the state has not done a single event in over 2 years. making no attempts to hold state meetings unless it is addressed to him and refuses to correspond with anyone out side of his” closet Team ”

    As for clark county I have plans on taking the proper steps to move forward in the process of becoming an affiliated county once again with hope the other locals will support me in this process.

    Angela Mckinster

  150. LibertarianGirl

    and im not saying the purposely sabotaged us to be evil but i am saying they purposely sabotaged us because they-he thinks they are always right-that they own the LP in Nevada.
    if i was similarly accused , I WOULD BE LOUD IN MY DEFENSE ,I WOULD OFFER REASONS I WOULD DEFEND MY STANCE.

    let the complete silence speak for the excoms motive , they offer no defense because they have none.

  151. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 161,

    You write:

    “Thus far, I’ve seen no evidence that the NV LP officers have exceeded their authorized power.”

    The audio and transcript of the meeting, and the LP of Nevada’s bylaws, are both readily available.

    The actions in the former appear to not meet the requirements of the latter with respect to the matter of written statements of cause.

    IF LG at 167 is correct, that would also appear to be a case of NV LP officers exceeding their authority. There’s no provision in the bylaws requiring disaffiliated county organizations to turn their treasuries over to an organization they’re no longer associated with, nor would such a provision seem to be reasonably construable as binding if in fact it did exist.

  152. Carol Moore

    Knapp: “There’s no provision in the bylaws requiring disaffiliated county organizations to turn their treasuries over to an organization they’re no longer associated with, nor would such a provision seem to be reasonably construable as binding if in fact it did exist.” Heee heee heee – that’ll teach them. Of course they could use their $600 to sue to get it. Ha ha ha

  153. LibertarianGirl

    Flag this message[LPCC Excomm] LPCC DissolvedThursday, May 5, 2011 8:29 PMFrom: “Kris McKinster” View contact detailsTo: “Debra Dedmon” The LPNevada Executive Committee has voted to revoke our affiliate status,
    effectively disbanding our organization. The Treasurer will close all
    LPCC accounts and forward all funds to the LPNevada Treasurer. All assets
    will be dispensed to the LPNevada.

    This email list is now closed to new posts.

    Kris McKinster
    kris@lpnv.org

    “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants
    thereof.” -Leviticus 25:10

  154. Robert Capozzi

    178 sc: Addressing [statism] requires radical education, which your faction tends to denigrate in favor of trying to win elections by not going outside the comfort zone of the “mainstream”.

    me: I respect that that’s your opinion. My opinion is that we are more likely to be influential at the EDGE of the mainstream. I see the LP as a retail operation, and I recognize that there is and will be a range of L approaches, none of which is provably optimal. To the extent the LP is an “educational” vehicle, it is my opinion that the “education” happens by fielding articulate candidate who can make a compelling case for L solutions in a retail manner.

    All politics is local is a truism that is serviceable in the sense that an L candidate in SF can and should emphasize issues designed to attract that constituency. An L candidate in Tuscaloosa should emphasize a different set of L issues.

  155. Robert Capozzi

    179 lg: Ive been Silvestri’s closest cinfidant until around a cpl years [ago]. yours arre based on inferences from words you have read on a blog , I have 10 year of 1st hand experience and observation .

    181 lg: and im not saying the purposely sabotaged us to be evil but i am saying they purposely sabotaged us because they-he thinks they are always right-that they own the LP in Nevada.

    [and yet]

    163 lg: they want people in place that they can contro[l] , THEY KNO[w] IT WONT ENHANCE ACTIVISM….

    me: Putting this all together, it sounds like you were once “close” to JS, but broke with him in some form. Perhaps you find aspects of his behavior to be on the “control freak” side of things. And I might have the same impression if I knew the man…but I don’t.

    Regardless, it’s still an impression. We can’t read mind, except perhaps for the rare individual.

    In 163, you make a damning accusation of outright sabotage. In 181, you back off the accusation, lowering the “charge” from sabotage to control freak-ism.

    I don’t find it productive to tear down our volunteer state chairs or LNC members. They make mistakes, as we all do. This one’s looking like a mistake, at least on how it was handled procedurally.

    You may not have appreciated how the Duensing shooting was handled, but I must say that one was a potential PR nightmare. Attempting to control the message is what a good chair would and should do for such an extraordinary event.

  156. Robert Capozzi

    182 tk, if they exceeded their authority, then this decision should be reversed. I trust that cooler heads will prevail.

  157. LibertarianGirl

    you dont find it productive to tear down a state chair but they can tear down and eliminate longtime activists and county parties, LOL , its pretty obvious that you side with a side and ignore all which is presented. I know what I know , I KNOW its the truth and thats really all that matters to me:)

  158. peace and love

    @187 well for a person with first hand experience then you understand how un-rationale his thought process truly is . And you also understand his most successful talent as chair is to push away as many people as possible .

    Angela Mckinster

  159. Starchild

    rc @187 – Yeah, the shooting of Jim Duensing *was* a potential PR nightmare — for *the police*!

    Aside from the basic decency of standing up for our own when they are victimized by the State in such a horrific manner, we should be prepared to seize on such incidents to advance the message of freedom.

    *Not* side with the oppressors, whether explicitly, or implicitly by acting like the injustice committed against Jim was something that *we* should be embarrassed about or afraid of the public hearing about!

    “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
    — Bishop Desmond Tutu

  160. Robert Capozzi

    189 lg: its pretty obvious that you side with a side and ignore all which is presented.

    me: Hmm, and which “side” would that be? Can you read MY mind, too?

    Scan my comments, and you’ll see that I suggest that this action was AT BEST a hasty one. From what I can tell, it was foisted quickly with little to no discussion. Not cool, in my book.

    I’ve said several times that I’m agnostic on the matter of whether NVLP should be consolidated or not. I suspect a good case could be made for and against the idea.

    I opposed moves for “purging” Wrights and Root. Both moves were off-the-hook uncool.

    Please don’t put me in some “enemy” box because I don’t entirely agree with you. The only “side” I’m on is advancing liberty’s side, and figuring out the best ways to do that is an art, not science. Art is subjective, for beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

  161. David Colborne

    I find it interesting that ideology and strategy is getting conflated. I have seen more than a few anarchists that gleefully cheer these sorts of actions against their chosen “other” and I’ve seen several moderate libertarians (like myself) that find these tactics reprehensible. Again, it’s not a matter of ideology – it’s a matter of methodology.

    Here’s the deal – no political party EVER has improved through addition by subtraction. Not one. The Democrats went down that hole after Gore lost in 2000, let themselves get absorbed by Bush bashing and MoveOn.org activities, then found themselves in the wilderness for half a decade. Where the GOP decided to push their moderates aside like discarded trash and ran dogmatic candidates (Sharron Angle? McDonnell?), they were soundly beaten. At no point did either side advance their agenda by acting like politically aware toddlers or by acting like one faction’s path was the only true path and everyone else could take a hike.

    In our case, the LP is not a large organization, especially in Nevada. We had slightly over 60 listed members and under 1% of all voter registrations. Heck, Washoe County (Reno) has been disaffiliated twice now in the past ten years. That’s ridiculous, and there’s no good excuse for it. Worse yet, nobody has bothered to even give a formal excuse for doing this. Personally, I think that, if Joe and Wayne wanted to take the party in a more moderate direction, they could have done so without doing this. I know we were at least willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if they were willing to afford us the same courtesy up here. Instead, it looks like they activated a plan that they put together in December to sell everyone a plan on “increased membership” so they could get (re-)elected, only to reduce membership by 2/3 at the stroke of a pen.

    Is that unlibertarian? I have no idea. Is it dishonest? I think very much so. But your mileage and opinion may differ.

  162. Robert Capozzi

    192 sc: *Not* side with the oppressors, whether explicitly, or implicitly by acting like the injustice committed against Jim was something that *we* should be embarrassed about or afraid of the public hearing about

    me: I hear that, I really do. It’s also the case that JD is a rather strident 9/11 Truther, IMO. He also has a propensity to say things that many, perhaps most, Ls might find highly embarrassing.

    It’s a tough call, I submit. You may not. You may find his story SO compelling and believable (didn’t resist arrest, had heart condition, had to run to avoid being tazed, etc.) that the ancillary risks were worth taking.

    I only met the guy once, and he seemed interesting, and was at the time supportive of the good work we did in Portland to delete the “private nukes” clause and other excesses in the platform. I’m sure his Trutherism is sincere, but I’m not sure I’d want to actively make a martyr out of Truther. Seems risky. Distance seems like a good idea, all things considered.

    You may feel otherwise.

    Ah, life.

  163. Starchild

    rc @193: “I’ve said several times that I’m agnostic on the matter of whether NVLP should be consolidated or not. I suspect a good case could be made for and against the idea… Please don’t put me in some ‘enemy’ box because I don’t entirely agree with you. The only ‘side’ I’m on is advancing liberty’s side”…

    Knowing your own oft-expressed philosophy (e.g. @186 “an L candidate in SF can and should emphasize issues designed to attract that constituency. An L candidate in Tuscaloosa should emphasize a different set of L issues”) why shouldn’t we assume that you’re simply practicing what you preach, by spinning your views here in an IPR discussion forum where sentiment is clearly on the radical/grassroots side, in a manner which you think will go over better with that majority?

    Or should we assume that you have one standard for internal party politics, and another standard for external politics?

  164. David Colborne

    Regarding whether this was procedural appropriate or not, I think that’s a secondary issue. Just because you can or are allowed to do something doesn’t make it right or good to do so.

  165. Robert Capozzi

    195 dc, well put. I can’t say the ends NEVER justify the means, but they rarely do. If an L pulled a sleazy move that directly led to, say, the State being rolled by, say, 20%, I’d likely applaud the sleazy move.

    A sleazy move over 60 people? Hello! Really?

  166. LibertarianGirl

    yes really …and we we’re just starting to do better , ecsp in Nye and the Northern affiliate. and yes really , they just tried a sleazy move to stop them dead in their tracks.

  167. David Colborne

    @RC 196: I don’t agree with a lot the comes out of Jim’s mouth, nor do I necessarily agree with the bulk of his actions or ideas. None of that, however, means I think he should shut up or go away. It just means that, if I don’t want to be in a political party that shares his more eccentric views, I either need to bring in more people like me into the party I belong to, or I need to join a different party. The idea of rules lawyering him out of a voice, even if I possess the procedural authority to do so, goes against my beliefs and personality. Believe it or not, this even applies to Silvestri and Root today.

    Simply put, if you don’t like what somebody is saying, find someone else to talk to. It’s that simple.

  168. LibertarianGirl

    RC_
    It’s a tough call, I submit. You may not. You may find his story SO compelling and believable (didn’t resist arrest, had heart condition, had to run to avoid being tazed, etc.) that the ancillary risks

    me_ or if you assume he may have resisted arrest , you can say to yourself , “why the fuck would somebody ever be under arrest for a unpaid traffic ticket?”

  169. Starchild

    P.S. to my post @197 –

    This illustrates the problem with counseling Libertarians to “tailor your message to your audience” rather than simply speak the truth as you understand it.

    If Robert assures us that he isn’t spinning his comments here to come across as more neutral and open to our perspective than he really is, I may be persuaded to take him at his word.

    But will voters or members of the public who learn that a candidate or Libertarian speaking to them believes in a marketing approach, watering down what we stand for to make it more palatable, etc., will *they* take such a person at his word? Or, not knowing that Libertarian as well as we may, will they be justifiably mistrusting and assume they’re just being fed a line of crap?

  170. Robert Capozzi

    197 sc: …why shouldn’t we assume that you’re simply practicing what you preach, by spinning your views here in an IPR discussion forum where sentiment is clearly on the radical/grassroots side, in a manner which you think will go over better with that majority? Or should we assume that you have one standard for internal party politics, and another standard for external politics?

    me: Since you ask, my “standard” is no standard, except love, light , liberty and the eternal Tao, for lack of a better term. I’m not a fan of this move by NVLP excom.

    I don’t do deontology; I find it boring and lacking salience. This was not a good move, based on what I’ve seen so far. It MIGHT be a good move if I saw reason to believe that it might lead to a step-function increase in liberty. At the moment, I don’t.

    Did I mention I don’t do deontology? 😉

  171. Robert Capozzi

    202 lg: or if you assume he may have resisted arrest , you can say to yourself , “why the fuck would somebody ever be under arrest for a unpaid traffic ticket?”

    me: Yes, although that’s not my view. It IS my view that people who are “hot-headed” can make mountains out of molehills, bringing unnecessary drama into their lives. Is that what happened? Dunno. Wasn’t there.

  172. Starchild

    I had to look it up to make sure…

    deontology (n) – “the branch of ethics dealing with duty, moral obligation, and moral commitment”

  173. Starchild

    rc @206 – “It IS my view that people who are ‘hot-headed’ can make mountains out of molehills, bringing unnecessary drama into their lives…”

    Applying this view to cases of State oppression is blaming the victim.

  174. Robert Capozzi

    201 dc: Simply put, if you don’t like what somebody is saying, find someone else to talk to. It’s that simple.

    me: Hmm, the LP over the years has had its share of neck-vein-bulging firebrands. We’ve had candidates advocating the right to private nukes, NAMBLA sympathizers, and any number of eccentric people call themselves L.

    Most of my views are fairly conventional, yet I also appreciate free thinkers. When free thinking, however, drifts into notorious waters, my sense of protecting the greater good swamps my desire to protect the free thinkers among us.

    This may exasperate Starchild, but I have not codified my standards in this regard. My standards are fluid, based on my sense of notoriousness and acceptability at any point in history. For ex., 30 years ago, I was cool with the idea of gay marriage, but I kept my own counsel on the matter. Today, it’s edgy, but not off the hook.

    Yep, I pick my battles…silly me! 😉

  175. Robert Capozzi

    208 sc: Applying this view to cases of State oppression is blaming the victim.

    me: Sorry, SC, Taoists don’t do blame, either. Near as I can tell, the cops used excessive force on JD. Did JD escalate the situation? Dunno. Wasn’t there. In my experience, are hot heads prone to escalating situations? Yes. Did JD “deserve” to be shot? No.

  176. Robert Capozzi

    lg, I find it archaic, too. There’s a lot of archaic going around.

  177. Robert Capozzi

    sc, deontology is dependent on rules, a (pathetic, rigid, IMO) attempt to codify ethics.

  178. Starchild

    rc @215 – Your assertion that “…an L candidate in SF can and should emphasize issues designed to attract that constituency. An L candidate in Tuscaloosa should emphasize a different set of L issues”

    — sounds like a rule to me! But if you wish to append “but only if it situationally seems like a good idea to the candidate at that time — if it situationally seems like a good idea to come across as a flaming anarchist, they should do that too” to the end of what you wrote above, then I’ll be more prepared to grant you the title of resident moral relativist that you seem to be angling for. 🙂

  179. Robert Capozzi

    216 sc, I’d not quite append as you did, but, yes, you get the idea. That example is not intended as a “rule,” but as an illustration. And while I’d cop to being a “moral relativist,” politics is a function of selling consequential ideas that are informed by one’s sense of virtue. Why do politics in a quixotic manner? Why bother? Even if it’s only to “educate,” why not lead with issues that resonate with the audience? Why alienate with the offensive stuff? To shock? To exercise some egotistical sense of sanctimony and superiority?

    217 mhw, yes. The “trick” is to do nuance internally while appearing forthright and clear. How that shows up will be something akin to open-minded rectitude, or something. I believe X, here’s why vs. zealous, self-righteousness.

  180. Robert Capozzi

    more to 195 DC, so, yes, there’s ideologies, procedures, and what we might call “form” or “style.”

    This Nevada Experiment of the 60 might be neutral in ideology, procedurally in bounds, and yet poor form, as it was done in haste without due deliberation and consideration, with no obvious significant upside.

    Why dis, say, 25 in the name attempting to gain economies of scale for 60?

  181. Randy Eshelman

    @ JJ #26- John, you misunderstood my comments in D.C. I think it’s absolutely great that LPTX has 50 active county affiliates. Good for Texas. I did state that in Nebraska, we’re just not there yet. We are organized at the state and Congressional District right now due to levels of funding and manning. We’re growing and are certainly optimistic about the future of the LP here, but for right now, we do not have county or precinct-level affiliates. Just facts, not ignorance.

  182. Robert Capozzi

    more on

    197 sc: …by spinning your views here in an IPR discussion forum where sentiment is clearly on the radical/grassroots side, in a manner which you think will go over better with that majority?

    me: First, I don’t know what the “majority” on IPR believes. It may well be read by lurkers, some of whom might be new Ls or Ls who are recognizing that Randian/Rothbardianism has, well, some holes, some weak premises that need to be challenged. Liberty is a wonderful concept, but how we achieve something approaching liberty is unlikely to happen with spouting simplistic, absolutist constructs and bumpersticker slogans, IMO.

    Also, I think “radical” Ls are not radical at all. THE MATRIX…now that’s radical. The Tao is radical. Hayek is radical. These are the red pills. Absolutist constructs are blue ones.

    If you don’t believe me, check your premises! Watch them fall apart in your mind, Mr. Anderson.

    Unplug!

  183. David Colborne

    RC, for what it’s worth, I’m not particularly fond of the loonitarian wing, either. Watching an LP candidate dress themselves in a Confederate battle flag while extolling the virtues of NAMBLA-inspired policies and decrying the flouridation of our water is neither entertaining nor useful to our cause, in my opinion. My solution to that problem, however, is to either run against the loon at the convention or vote “None of the above” if nobody is able to run against the individual. At no point does the idea of permanently disenfranchising this individual, along with anyone that lives within the same county as this individual, cross my mind.

  184. Robert Capozzi

    “Momma says stupid is as stupid does.”
    -Forrest Gump

    LG, the world is one big swirling cacophony. People make mistakes. When one wags a finger at another, saying they are “wrong” and “stupid,” it makes the mistake worse.

    They put up defenses, rationalizing and justifying dysfunction in an attempt to avoid humiliation.

    Have you ever been accused of doing something wrong or stupid? How did you react? Defensively? Perhaps morbidly?

    I’m going to suggest that when others make a mistake, by all means, call them on it. Making it personal, however, will only make a bad situation worse 9 times outta 10.

    IMO.

    As DC say, “permanently disenfranchising” them doesn’t work for the good.

  185. LibertarianGirl

    “permanently disenfranchising” them doesn’t work for the good.

    me_ Iwould assume this goes both ways ya? meaning them disenfranchising us is no good either

  186. Robert Capozzi

    lg, nothing to be sorry about! This is not a “radical” competition. Where you are is where you are. It’s all good.

    I don’t doubt you’re calling it like you see it. I am, however, suggesting that making it personal is toxic.

    And, yes, it does go both ways. I recall when a “Radical” Caucus leader suggested that, in her opinion, I was not L, but a mere fellow traveler, my first reaction was to laugh. I could have spewed back at her, but I chose to take the high road.

    I did, however, suggest that her idea that the LP Platform should have a plank on unilateral nuclear disarmament was not a good idea, for a lot of reasons.

    It can only get personal if both/all sides make it so. My suggestion is to stick to the facts and state your opinion without making the other side “wrong” or “stupid.”

  187. LibertarianGirl

    how am i making it personal by telling it like it is?personal would be calling people names , saying i knw why people did something when i do is not getting personal RC

  188. Robert Capozzi

    lg, first you accused them of sabotage. Then you cited past behavior and assumed ill-motivation. If this is ONLY about “control,” then you’d need a fact to cite, not a past event. Speculating about motive is an attack, IMO.

    I can think of a poster here who has done things that seemed to injure the LP. I asked him repeatedly what his motive was. His answer was not credible, IMO.

    It’s in bounds to ask the question. If you meet a stonewall, or are given a non-credible answer, it’s in bounds to say, hey, you know what, I’m not buying your explanation.

    I would suggest being open to the possibility that the MOTIVE was reasonable EVEN IF the METHODS were not. I agree with you that the methods were not. Given that we’re talking about 60 people and mouse-nuts money, the motive may well make some sense…perhaps consolidation is in order.

  189. Tom Blanton

    It should come as no surprise that moderate absolutists don’t do deontology. They don’t do a number of things like localized knowledge, facts that refute their opinions, and holding themselves to standards they hold others to.

    However, the radical centrist moderates have no problem disenfranchising others who don’t self-censor any idea that is more radical than what mainstream statists already believe.

    The entire reform movement has been based on classifying and catagorizing people based on their beliefs and then demonizing them. If that isn’t disenfranchisement, I don’t know what is.

    And when the so-called reformers disenfranchise others, it is merely a mistake and the disenfranchised are told to keep an open mind. Once you have been disenfranchised, you must forgive and stay in your place – the place you have been assigned to – while those with the wisdom and cooler heads prevail. Nor should the disenfranchised quit, but rather follow and obey the wise and erudite moderate reformers.

    Never ask them to demonstrate results or success. Be silent as to membership numbers, elections won, money raised, or goals never achieved. The place of the so-called radical is to carry the weight for their betters and to keep quiet. Otherwise, you are another Timothy McVeigh giving away heroin to the child prostitutes you are pimping to raise money to build nukes in your tool shed.

    The so-called radical libertarians and bomb-throwing anarchists must accept the half-baked ideas forwarded by reform minded moderate extremists with an open mind, as their favored ideas are unacceptable and should never be exposed to the public.

    These all-knowing moderate absolutists use their advanced mind-reading techniques to develop the dynamic rhetoric required to recruit supporters from the general public. They actually claim to support radical ideas, but they say the general public is not ready to hear these ideas.

    So, it’s time for all these radicals to shut up, advance the moderate agenda, shut up, send the moderates your money, shut up, work for moderate candidates, shut up, do what the moderates tell you, and shut up.

    This is what freedom is all about.

  190. Hmmm

    …while those with the wisdom and cooler heads prevail.

    And you know that Capozzi is one of those “cooler heads” because he always emits a thoughtful “Hmmm” because saying anything.

  191. Robert Capozzi

    231 tb: The entire reform movement has been based on classifying and catagorizing people based on their beliefs and then demonizing them. If that isn’t disenfranchisement, I don’t know what is…..Otherwise, you are another Timothy McVeigh giving away heroin to the child prostitutes you are pimping to raise money to build nukes in your tool shed.

    me: Ya know, if someone took your McVeigh/heroin/child prostitute/private nukes view here, I would not say they are not L. I would suggest that those are not politically sellable ideas, now and probably never. I would not support that person’s candidacy, though.

    A person who advocates these things is not a “demon,” however. He or she may well be (way) ahead of his or her time.

    I would like to see how a “fact” can possibly “refute” an opinion. How does that work? Opinions are built on facts generally, but shifting facts around can’t “refute” an opinion. It may make the opinion less persuasive, though.

    For ex., my opinion is that the welfare state is counterproductive and non-virtuous ultimately. Someone can offer a fact that Country X has no welfare state, and life expectancy there is, say, 45. Would that fact shake our presumably shared opinion? It doesn’t for me.

  192. Robert Capozzi

    232 Hmm: And you know that Capozzi is one of those “cooler heads” because he always emits a thoughtful “Hmmm” because [before?] saying anything.

    me: Hmm, really. Always? Really? Scan this thread, and I’m highly confident that most of my comments do NOT include “Hmm.”

    Hyperbole much? 😉

    FYI, I use “hmm” when someone says something challenging that caused me to reflect on what they say, even though I generally don’t agree with the opinion.

    If that somehow(!) offends you, I am sorry. I do, however, reserve the right to employ “hmm” now and then, so brace yourself.

    [Are you Sipos, btw? I get the sense he isn’t enamored with hmm, either.]

  193. JT

    It’s very difficult to get most people to do something other than what they’re accustomed to doing. That applies to politics as well. If many millions of people have voted Democrat or Republican for years, then getting a large percentage of them to actually vote Libertarian instead is very difficult. Ditto for people who don’t vote (of which there are also many millions of people in the U.S.).

    So how can Libertarians overcome that? Is it more likely that Libertarian candidates will do so by proposing minor changes to the status quo or major ones? The latter doesn’t necessarily mean abolishing the government or even reducing it to just police/courts/military. It does mean proposing measures that are starkly different from what Democrats and Republicans propose (save perhaps Ron Paul on most issues).

    Legalizing marijuana only for medical conditions, cutting current income tax rates, drawing down troops slowly in Iraq and Afghanistan, rejecting Obamacare, and such don’t clearly differentiate Libertarians. They don’t move people who are accustomed to not voting to register, get themselves out to the polling places, and vote Libertarian. They don’t move people who are accustomed to voting Democrat or Republican to stop doing that, forget about the dreaded Wasted Vote Syndrome, and vote Libertarian. Those ideas might not repel a lot of people–but they don’t attract them either.

    So even from a pragmatic, consequentialist standpoint, I don’t see how it makes sense for Libertarians to take that approach. I do see how it makes sense for Libertarians to focus primarily on issues that may resonate better in their respective districts or states–without anything to do with private nuclear weapons (which can easily be rejected by pointing out how such weapons can’t be used without affecting innocent people).

  194. Robert Capozzi

    235 jt: [These incremental issues]…don’t clearly differentiate Libertarians. They don’t move people who are accustomed to not voting to register, get themselves out to the polling places, and vote Libertarian.

    me: Not sure what this has to do with NV, but….Possibly. I’d say it’s unknowable what would cause a shift in party affiliation. The GOP is the only other example I can think of, and in the 1850s, their agenda was pretty incrementalist. The Whig’s increments were in the wrong direction for a lot of voters.

    I think it’s possible that the GOP could implode, mostly between the social and fiscal cons. A “L” party could fill the void, especially on the coasts and suburbs. Given winner-takes-all structure, I don’t see a viable 3rd party emerging alongside the Rs and Ds.

    How much of a differentiation is an interesting question. A Blantonesque McVeigh selling heroin to child hookers to fund private nukes LP seems too much differentiation. An insufficiently JTesque medical marijuana/end ObamaCare only may be too little. Obviously, I’m shaded to the latter, and I can’t tell you what the optimal answer is. It’s my opinion that posing as modern-day McVeighs is not the way to go.

    I would say the MIX of issues is just as important (and perhaps MORE important) than the magnitude of differentiation on any one issue. There are a lot of people who want low taxes, smaller government, and are OK with same-gender marriages. Very few are OK with a one-year plan to abolish 90% of government in one year and humans marrying horses!

    At least, to my knowledge! 😉

  195. Robert Capozzi

    otoh, Jimmy McMillan may build a groundswell movement for humans marrying shoes! 😉

  196. Robert Capozzi

    more

    aside from the 1850s GOP, Perot came close to breaking through. My sense is his support came from distrust for the major parties and a sense that DC lacks any sense of fiscal discipline.

    His amplitude of differentiation is far less than LP’s current center of gravity, which is the next order of magnitude past Ron Paul.

  197. Doug Craig

    Has the Libertarian party move to the right or left over the last 10 years? Which way has membership moved? How did membership do when we ran with a more main stream candidate for president last time ? What were we doing when we had our highest membership ? Maybe its our job to push as hard as possible for freedom all the time . I am not looking to be the watered down version of the GOP. Do I want to win elections ? If anyone knows me and the campaigns I have worked on you know the answer.but the main reason I do what I do is to move freedom forward in any way possible . Can I work with the right leaning Libertarians? Hell yes I can but I will not sell a watered down version of freedom to get there to that point.
    I do believe we all want freedom to move forward I just believe some in our party believe some people are not ready for it that they can not handle our message or RAw freedom . I disagree I believe they are begging for it . I hope to one that puts out that message the freedom is worth being a radical over.

  198. Robert Capozzi

    240 @239, not sure what yer referring to, but post 239 isn’t intended to be comprehensive.

    241 dc, I guess it depends on what you mean by “beg”, how many are begging, what freedom is, and how fast the beggars want freedom. As to reviewing what has worked, I’d be interested in seeing what the AK LP was doing in the early 80s. Other than that, no amount of analysis would be particularly valuable since the LP has always been tiny and inconsequential.

    Is that surprising, given these machinations over 60 people?

  199. JT

    Robert: “Not sure what this has to do with NV, but….Possibly. I’d say it’s unknowable what would cause a shift in party affiliation.”

    It doesn’t. I was referring to earlier posts about deontologism and consequentialism.

    Robert: “Given winner-takes-all structure, I don’t see a viable 3rd party emerging alongside the Rs and Ds.”

    Fair enough–many people don’t. Though I wonder why some of those people are in the LP. They might think the party can replace one of the old parties. Or maybe they don’t care about votes, and they see the party as a protest organization. I don’t know.

    Robert: “A Blantonesque McVeigh selling heroin to child hookers to fund private nukes LP seems too much differentiation. An insufficiently JTesque medical marijuana/end ObamaCare only may be too little.”

    There’s a large space between child hookers and private nukes (both of which can easily be opposed from a libertarian perspective) and the stances I mentioned above. That’s just a false alternative.

    Robert: “There are a lot of people who want low taxes, smaller government, and are OK with same-gender marriages.”

    Yes. But as I tried to explain above, that doesn’t mean a lot of votes for Libertarians.

    Robert: “Very few are OK with a one-year plan to abolish 90% of government in one year and humans marrying horses!”

    Again, a false alternative.

    JJM: “@JT at 235 that was an excellent post.”

    Thank you, John. That does mean something to me, coming from a dedicated, intelligent Libertarian such as yourself 🙂

    Robert: “Perot came close to breaking through. My sense is his support came from distrust for the major parties and a sense that DC lacks any sense of fiscal discipline.”

    Yes, but Perot was a multi-billionaire who pledged to put $100 million into his own campaign. His candidacy–announced on Larry King Live–quickly ignited a firestorm in the media. Perot and the LP aren’t analogous.

  200. LibertarianGirl

    60 DUES PAYING MEMBERS, not 60 people and ctivists. for instance i quit paying dues the business meeting previous when the CCLP decided to let the Chair send our money to the state at will and let the state decid to let joe spend it on outreach at will. sooo i am not included in tha # and so arent many others.

  201. LibertarianGirl

    @230 , consolidation was NOT in order. Nye and the Capitol affiliate were doing well and growing. Youdont add by subtracting UNLESS you only want to add those that will follow and agree all the time, which those 2 counties did not do for Mr Silvestri. they WERE GROWING , with new people that opposed the state excom… they were growing, they were growing , they were growing. how many times do i have to repeat it?

  202. Robert Capozzi

    243 jt, on “replace,” “protest,” “educate,” or “pressure the majors,” my interest in the LP is in all of them except “protest.” I’d like to see the LP and its candidates run as if they could win. I’d like to see the majors adopt L ideas. And I’d like to be prepared for a seminal, realigning event when a liberty party takes the place of the Rs, or possibly Ds.

    Re: Blantonesque vs. insufficienly JTesque, I would think it’s clear that I’m establishing a range of positionings.

    RE: Perot, regardless of the specifics of his candidacy, it did appear to challenge the majors. There does seem to be a nascent desire for another way in American politics. His relative success showed that to me. You may find that event less compelling than I do.

    Most important, I am very disappointed that you do not address my MAIN point, which is that the mix of issues is itself a differentiator. Amplitude on any one issue misses the Gestalt of the zeitgeist. IMO. Perhaps you’ll be kind enough to address my point at some point.

  203. Robert Capozzi

    244-5 LG, from a fiduciary perspective, a chair’s job is to represent his constituency. His specific constituency is 60 people. He may have other considerations, including NVans who are associated with the NV LP. What is that number…120 people? No matter how you slice it, those are mouse-nuts numbers…ADR.

    It’s grand that a county grew from, say, 10 to 15. Sorry, but that’s still mouse-nuts.

    You live in a state of nearly 3MM folks. Best case, low triple digit membership is tiny by any measure. So is mid double digit membership. One health club has more members, fer chrissake!

    I said PERHAPS consolidation is in order. It’s none of my business, of course, I don’t live there. It strikes me that IF 60 can become 600 or 6000 or 60,000 through consolidation, that’d be a good thing. 6 going to 10 is a push, despite it being a big percentage.

    But, ok, you think consolidation is a bad idea. Fair enough. Your Excomm felt otherwise. Are you irrefutably “right” in your judgment? Are they irrefutably “wrong”? I have no particular opinion, except that it seems disproportionate to even suggest that there’s anything close to irrefutability when we’re dealing in, sorry,
    mouse nuts.

    Again, the style your Excomm employed seems abundantly uncool to this observer, so there’s that….

  204. LibertarianGirl

    grew from 0 to 20 or more , grew from no events to regular ones , grew from no candidates to one getting 42% in the election . grew from no elected Libs to 2. that is substantial and verifiable growth .

  205. LibertarianGirl

    RC_It strikes me that IF 60 can become 600 or 6000 or 60,000 through consolidation, that’d be a good thing.

    me_ im no math major but how does 60 become 600 or 6000 by becoming 20??

  206. Robert Capozzi

    Lg, this assumes that a) Excomm is unaware of your stats or b) they are disregarding your stats or c) they are saboteurs. This all may well be a horrible idea…I dunno. It IS a horrible idea to assume that your Excomm is sabotaging the NV LP. My goodness, did y’all make a mistake in selecting them, if so. I hope it’s not C.

  207. Robert Capozzi

    mhw, are you serious? 40 to 45 is “big”. Is 0 to 20 bigger?

    Or is this all mouse nuts?

  208. Hmmm

    Capozzi: “If that somehow(!) offends you, I am sorry. I do, however, reserve the right to employ “hmm” now and then…

    Now he reverts to that childish “I reserve the right” stance.

    Childish, because it’s a cheap way of changing the subject.

    Capozzi knows full well that his “right” to say “Hmmm” was never challenged, was never at issue.

    As others have noted, Capozzi has a way of arguing with straw men and red herrings, never quite focusing on what was said, but rather, arguing against phantom statements of his own invention.

  209. Michael H. Wilson

    RC @ 252 I was more curious what kind of comments that would generate. The idea of making membership growth financially beneficial seems like an extreme idea, but only moderately so.

  210. Tom Blanton

    Hmmmm, its sort of a straw herring/false red phantom sort of L-BS thing, IMHO.

    But, it’s time to move on from this retrograde debate charade and secure votes through old fashioned lies and deception.

    It should be obvious to pragmatists that voters want sex, violence and cash – not necessarily in that order.

    More importantly, voters want white men with white teeth to deliver the goods. Nevada’s own Mr. Wonderful fits that bill.

  211. JT

    Robert: “I’d like to see the LP and its candidates run as if they could win. I’d like to see the majors adopt L ideas. And I’d like to be prepared for a seminal, realigning event when a liberty party takes the place of the Rs, or possibly Ds.”

    We’d like to see the same things happen then.

    Robert: “Re: Blantonesque vs. insufficienly JTesque, I would think it’s clear that I’m establishing a range of positionings.”

    Well, it’s not clear. Your MO is to contrast a perspective that endorses views that are currently popular such as small tax rate cuts and legal marijuana for cancer patients with a perspective that includes private nukes, child hookers, and marrying horses. I can’t remember reading anything you’ve written that shows you recognize a range.

    Robert: “RE: Perot, regardless of the specifics of his candidacy, it did appear to challenge the majors. There does seem to be a nascent desire for another way in American politics. His relative success showed that to me. You may find that event less compelling than I do.”

    I find that event compelling. But you can’t say “regardless of the specifics of his candidacy” when we’re talking about the LP. Those “specifics” are what make the two not analogous.

    Robert: “Most important, I am very disappointed that you do not address my MAIN point, which is that the mix of issues is itself a differentiator. Amplitude on any one issue misses the Gestalt of the zeitgeist. IMO. Perhaps you’ll be kind enough to address my point at some point.”

    Don’t feel disappointed. The “mix” of issues you gave was an example of “amplitude.” You contrasted “low taxes, smaller government, and same-gender marriages” with abolishing 90% of government in one year. “Marrying horses” falls into the category of my previous answer.

    As for the “mix” of issues, that’s important too. Which issues Libertarian candidates focus on should reflect where they’re running and for which office. Regardless, the magnitude of their proposals must be great enough to clearly differentiate themselves given that the LP is a small, alternative political party.

    MY main point was that there’s a pragmatic argument to be made for Libertarians not simply positioning themselves along the edge of center. It’s about motivation, and what it takes for most people to change ingrained habits and take the alternative actions you’d like them to take.

    I think a good example is the Social Security reform proposal put forth by President George W. Bush. Not long ago, he proposed allowing workers to put only 2% of the 12.6% Social Security tax into “private” accounts–accounts that would have a slew of strict mandates and oversight by the government, of course. Administration officials and members of Congress traversed the country determined to rally public excitement for this prudent, responsible plan. What happened with it? We know.

  212. Michael H. Wilson

    We gotta remember that if the gov. says it is all right to invest part of your soc. sec money in the market then that will drive the market up and help create the returns needed to support government pension programs. Just as today’s QE2 is driving the market.

  213. Robert Capozzi

    258 tb: I can’t remember reading anything you’ve written that shows you recognize a range.

    me: I’d think my comment 236 does just that:

    A Blantonesque McVeigh selling heroin to child hookers to fund private nukes LP seems too much differentiation. An insufficiently JTesque medical marijuana/end ObamaCare only may be too little. Obviously, I’m shaded to the latter, and I can’t tell you what the optimal answer is. It’s my opinion that posing as modern-day McVeighs is not the way to go.

    “Shaded” and “optimal answer” suggest a range. If that doesn’t work for you, I’ll make it even more explicit now. There’s a range of L thought. There’s a range of L positioning. I trust that clears it up for you.

    jt: It’s about motivation, and what it takes for most people to change ingrained habits and take the alternative actions you’d like them to take.

    me: I trust that you’d agree that we don’t know “what it takes.” More specifically, we don’t know “what it takes” to get a LOT of people changing their ingrained voting habits. Apparently, it took opposition to the expansion of slavery into the territories and managed trade policies in the 1850s.

    The half-million or so who vote L may want a certain amplitude of differentiation on all issues to vote L. Even there, we don’t know whether that number would increase or decrease if the amplitude were to be cut. You personally might sit on your hands if an L candidate was positioned on the edge vs. in the fringes. I respect that as your right.

    If you find humans not having the “right” to marry a horse or Jimmy McMillan’s notion of the “right” to marry a shoe as being a L issue, consider this: What if a L candidate was asked “Do you support polygamy?” Would you not vote for the L candidate if he or she said, “No.”?

    Let’s stipulate that polygamy involves consenting adults.

  214. Robert Capozzi

    more to JT 258:

    Just because Bush’s half measure failed proves 0. LP candidates have proposed a range of 3/4 to full-monty measures. They failed, too.

    Politics is a marathon. A lot of stuff is thrown against the wall. Most of it doesn’t stick.

  215. Robert Capozzi

    255 Hmm [increasingly likely Sipos]: As others have noted, Capozzi has a way of arguing with straw men and red herrings, never quite focusing on what was said, but rather, arguing against phantom statements of his own invention.

    me: I am sorry you feel that way. I feel I’m very on point, although I sometimes use extreme examples to illustrate. The only thing I’ve not addressed of yours from 232 is the idea that MY “cooler head” will prevail in this NV dust up. And, yet, I thought I made it clear I have no real position on the matter, as I don’t have enough information and I don’t live there. Based on what I’ve read here, it seems to have been hastily decided. Raising dues seems questionable to me, but I have no visibility into NV’s finances. On the notion of consolidation, that may make sense, particularly given the small numbers involved.

    I have shared that I assume that NV’s Excom means well with this move, as we all do all the time, even when we’re unkind. This one looks unkind to me, and hasty, and poorly executed.

    I trust that clears things up for you.

  216. JT

    Robert: ““Shaded” and “optimal answer” suggest a range. If that doesn’t work for you, I’ll make it even more explicit now. There’s a range of L thought. There’s a range of L positioning. I trust that clears it up for you.”

    Perhaps in future posts you’ll acknowledge that, rather than merely contrasting your views with anarchism, owning private nuclear weapons, child prostitutes, and the like.

    Robert: “I trust that you’d agree that we don’t know “what it takes.””

    There has been research done on motivational psychology. I also think it makes intuitive sense from a marketing standpoint that you need to very clearly differentiate a product from its competitors to attract a large percentage of market share.

    Robert: “You personally might sit on your hands if an L candidate was positioned on the edge vs. in the fringes. I respect that as your right.”

    One more time, it’s not a matter of “the edge” vs. the “fringes.”

    Robert: “If you find humans not having the “right” to marry a horse or Jimmy McMillan’s notion of the “right” to marry a shoe as being a L issue, consider this: What if a L candidate was asked “Do you support polygamy?” Would you not vote for the L candidate if he or she said, “No.”?”

    I wouldn’t refuse to vote for a Libertarian candidate if he or she didn’t support polygamy. I personally don’t consider that a pressing matter.

    Robert: “Just because Bush’s half measure failed proves 0. LP candidates have proposed a range of 3/4 to full-monty measures. They failed, too.”

    It shows that a man who had the backing of many wealthy political donors, many influential members of Congress, and all the right-leaning think tanks–all of which blanketed the media with their prudent argument and plan that contained stipulation after stipulation after stipulation just to put 2% of the tax into “private” accounts–couldn’t generate the public enthusiasm they needed to reform the program their way. So why should we think Libertarians could?

  217. Robert Capozzi

    263 jt: I also think it makes intuitive sense from a marketing standpoint that you need to very clearly differentiate a product from its competitors to attract a large percentage of market share.

    me: Coke, Pepsi, RC Cola. McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s. Pizza Hut, Domino’s, and Papa John’s. Levi’s, Lee, and Wrangler. Your intuitive sense and mine appear to differ, because I don’t see a whole lotta differences in the marketplace.

    jt: …couldn’t generate the public enthusiasm they needed to reform the program their way. So why should we think Libertarians could?

    me: At the moment, I don’t think Ls can enact anything. None are elected at the Federal level. The LP runs candidates who promote liberty in a range of ways. Some Ls want to do so by advocating “solutions” that have no chance for passage in the near or intermediate term. Other Ls assemble a range of issues that they promote that are in the zone of plausible enactment. Both approaches amount to “signalling,” attempting to persuade others to join our cause, presumably with the hope that the zeitgeist will shift and these ideas come into favor.

    Our conversation seems to be about where on the continuum of edgy to fringy should the LP’s center of gravity be.

    Other Ls seem more interested in speaking about a theoretical L construct. These people often start their answer to a question, “In a L society,…”

    My positioning seems more in line with contemporary approaches to marketing and branding…at least, as I see it.

  218. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 264,

    When it comes to brand differentiation, the analogs you’re using are very different from politics.

    In politics, whoever gets 50%+ “market share” in a jurisdiction gets a monopoly in that jurisdiction.

    It’s like having everyone vote, and if McDonald’s wins, Burger King can’t put any franchises in that town. So there’s a different dynamic at work there.

    BUT … even given the imperfection of analogy, you’re still not really seeing the big picture.

    McDonald’s and Burger King are (as of 2008 numbers, which are what I found) the top 2 fast food companies in the US, fighting over a specific piece of the fast food market.

    The third biggest fast food company is competing with them — and outperforming others in their specialty — by differentiation. That third company is Subway.

    The fourth is Taco Bell.

    5th place is back to burgers, Wendy’s.

    Then it’s KFC, Pizza Hut, Arby’s and Dairy Queen to round out the top 10, with “other” in spot #9.

    So there’s some differentiation for you: 30% burgers, 10% subs, 10% Mexican, 10% chicken, 10% pizza, 10% roast beef, 10% ice cream.

    If any of the bottom 8 ever break into the top 2, it probably won’t be by deciding to make burgers, fries and shakes, any more than that’s how they broke into the top 10.

  219. Robert Capozzi

    tk, this illustrates the limitations of analogies. Generally, when one wants pizza, you choose among fast pizza places. A burger, burger joints. A sub, sub shop.

    Also, McDonalds is expanding its menu in a Subway direction.

    While fast food has made somewhat of the healthier food push, it’s generally junk food. To my knowledge, fast food macrobiotic organic vegan hasn’t caught hold. It narrowcasts to vegans.

    The LP narrowcasts even narrower than that, IMO!

  220. John Jay Myers

    @265, have you made those statistics into a sharable article?

    If not…. you need to, and if you are not going to, may I?

    Those are great thoughts that we could use.

  221. John Jay Myers

    And funny enough, I would even use #267 in my article, to help complete the reasons to vote Libertarian, because if Mcdonalds didn’t have competition coming from Subway, they wouldn’t be expanding their menu in a Subway direction.

  222. Michael H. Wilson

    RC the LP need not be narrowcasting. There is no reason to be doing so. The massage we have can and should include everyone. It is just a matter of tailoring.

  223. Warm Glass of Milk

    @270 MHW, I agree. The LP needs to tailor itself to appeal to all. Maybe that’s just what they’re doing in Nevada?

  224. John Jay Myers

    I saw a great conversation between comedians Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock and Ricky Gervais, the other night, they were talking about how they were always in competition.

    Gervais said that he wasn’t, he just did what he did, and people came to him. He didn’t change his comedy, he just did a good job of selling his comedy…. and when people came to the show, they found him to be really funny.

    I think that is a good analogy for the Libertarian Party.

  225. Robert Capozzi

    273 jjm, ya know, I’ve never heard of Gervais, but I like the attitude on one level. I don’t think the LP should be “competing” with the Rs and Ds, worrying about their message.

    Gervais, I assume, is concerned about what THE AUDIENCE will like, not necessarily what the “want.” Our positioning — if we want to be influential — should be thoughtful and not corrupt. Respectable, but NOT pandering. Reasonable, yet with a clear sense of direction.

    Of course, politics has to be played on the field of soundbites, high-impact rhetoric that attracts people. Passionate, but not zealous. Clear, but not simplistic. Crisp, and definitely not long winded, legalistic, or highly theoretical or obscure.

  226. Tom Blanton

    Hey, the way to win elections is to tell voters what they want to hear. That’s not a big secret. Politicians have been doing it for generations.

    Some libertarians like Wayne Root get it. You carefully tailor your message to your audience and tell them what you think they want to hear. The only hard part is figuring out what they want to hear.

    It’s just lying. That’s why the best liars, like Bill Clinton, are highly respected by other politicians. The more shameless you are, the better.

    What the LP needs is more liars if the real goal is merely winning elections. If the goal is to move society in a libertarian direction, then putting out a libertarian message is what you would do.

    But, to win elections, lie a lot. Big lies. Promise voters the things they want. Never let on that you have no intention to deliver the goods, but promise. Americans want to hear lies. They reject the truth like it is poison.

    Americans want sex, violence and cash. Especially cash – they can always buy sex. They don’t give a shit about freedom. They don’t know what that is. But they love violence. Wars, aggressive cops, torture, prison abuse – better than football.

    Promise them crackdowns on people they don’t like and plenty of spending money. Surround yourself with scantily clad models – blonds with silicon enhanced hooters wearing red, white & blue bikinis. And lie. Never stop lying.

    Once elected, LP candidates will have had practice doing what governance requires – more lying.

    First, the LP needs to buy a platform to lie from. Sell favors to whoever will fork over the big bucks.

    Let the lies begin. Winning elections will follow. Sell more favors, lie, rinse, lie some more, repeat. That’s what “doing politics” really is in America. Talking about freedom and morality is for losers.

  227. John Jay Myers

    Actually, from the conversation, his concern is that he likes it, and believes it to be funny, and by doing it well, others come to him and find him to be funny…. because he is.

    So though I agree with a bit of what you are saying, what I am taking from of it, is more of a principle thing, do what you believe in well, when other people see you doing it, they will like it.

    If you are going to sell out, they might as well go to a different show.

  228. Robert Capozzi

    275 tb: the way to win elections is to tell voters what they want to hear.

    me: Right. Like I said in 274, one way to go is to be “concerned about what THE AUDIENCE will like, not necessarily what the “want.””

    Huge difference! Tell the truth. In your bones, America, something has gone very wrong. Let’s roll up our sleeves and move in the direction of liberty.

    Not: Here’s the “principle,” this is the near-ideal utopia, the “moral” construct. That attracts very few, who assess this positioning as utopian posturing that is simply not going to happen. Why waste time drawing up obscure constructs that so few want to hear and don’t believe are possible, much less desirable?

  229. Robert Capozzi

    jjm, right, the difference between Gervais and the LP is that what Gervais “likes” many others do, too.

    He makes a living doing what he does.

    For me, the LP hits its head against the wall over and over again, capping our members in the 10-30K range and half a million or so votes. Not, IMO, a “living.” Very few are buying. Perhaps it’s time for a fundamental reassessment….

  230. Thomas L. Knapp

    JJM @268,

    No, there’s no article by me on it — that was just a quick bit of Googling and som off-the-cuff analysis. Feel free to run with it if you like!

    In my view, there are two kinds of marketing phenomena:

    1) Going toe-to-toe with similar products/services and trying to differentiate on quality (BK touts “flame-broiled” and “have it your way” to dog McDonald’s, for example, but they both remain “burger, fries, shake” outfits); or

    2) Offering a different product. Subway, Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut don’t try to compete with McDonald’s and Burger King by selling the same things they sell. Instead, they sell something different.

    There are also smaller outfits (In and Out Burger, for example) which are happy to turn a “niche” profit offering a slightly upscale product in a slightly different environment. They don’t feel the need to compete for major market share outside of their local areas.

    If fast food was politics, each of those different food offering types would be a party, and the competing branches of same-food-types would be factions, more or less.

    The big difference between fast food and politics is that American politics is winner-take-all. In fast food, 10% of market share is a successful business. In first-past-the-post politics, it’s a failed concern.

  231. Robert Capozzi

    279 tk: The big difference between fast food and politics is that American politics is winner-take-all. In fast food, 10% of market share is a successful business. In first-past-the-post politics, it’s a failed concern.

    me: Completely agree. It’s my contention that TODAY there are districts where a candidate who stands for lower taxes, less spending, war aversion, takes civil liberties seriously, and green leaning could “take all.”

    It is also my contention that that are NO districts where a candidate who wants to “smash the State” could win. Nor are there districts where a Nozickian nightwatchman state candidate can win.

  232. LibertarianGirl

    and in other news the LPNevada excom de-affilited 3 AVTIVE , SUCCESSFUL counties for no reason they’d care to share , its gonna be a blessing cuz man, nothing has fired up Nevada activists like this ass-f****ng in a LONG , LONG TIME.

    Can anyone say” no votes for Wayne Root from NV , that can’t be right?”

    yes they can!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  233. George Phillies

    @281
    I imagine that your outcome is determined by a simple question: Who chooses the Nevada delegates, given your new dues, and who are the delegates?

  234. LibertarianGirl

    the LPNevada at convention chooses , we prob. would have been 1/2 split pro and against War , but now whether we get on in NV as delegates is strictly cosmetic , we will get on in other states and the outcome will be the same…

  235. Tom Blanton

    It’s my contention that TODAY there are districts where a candidate who stands for lower taxes, less spending, war aversion, takes civil liberties seriously, and green leaning could “take all.”

    Capozzi, that may be true, but that candidate would not belong to a third party and none of the things that candidate stood for would actually occur after that candidate arrived in Washington – even if that candidate wasn’t lying about those issues to win in that district.

    Besides, how many districts such as you describe do you honestly believe exist? Four? Seven?

    People want massive tax cuts, high-paying jobs, cheap gas, executions of evil-doers, more cable channels, and boozed up babes. Leaning green? Nobody gives a shit about that. When people start caring about that, they will give up their cars.

    People want to drink and yell USA, USA, USA! People want cars big enough to have threesomes in the back seat. Americans want to buy shit with no money down and no credit checks.

    When LP candidates start promising Americans the things they really care about, then they might have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected if they can sell enough favors to get the cash they need to pay for ads and limos.

    You LP goo-goo freaks must think you’re living in a fucking Frank Capra movie or something. This is America, baby!

  236. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 280 RC sayz; “me: Completely agree. It’s my contention that TODAY there are districts where a candidate who stands for lower taxes, less spending, war aversion, takes civil liberties seriously, and green leaning could “take all.”

    Robert over the years I’ve been told first we get elected then we tell them what we are all about.

    I’ve also been told we need to avoid the drug war, support public education, wars in the middle east, government run urban transit, sales taxes, etc. I could take every thing other libertarians tell me we need to support and build the best socialist society on the planet. Of course the whole idea of supporting this stuff was to liked enough to have the vote total go from 5% to 10% so that someone could claim a 100% increase. Only problem was no one in the public got any idea about alternatives to the government way of doing things.

  237. Robert Capozzi

    285 tb: …that candidate would not belong to a third party and none of the things that candidate stood for would actually occur after that candidate arrived in Washington – even if that candidate wasn’t lying about those issues to win in that district.

    Me: Glad we have some agreement. My point is that there are places in this nation TODAY that are L leaning. That’s something to work with. A L message could resonate with majorities in some places.

    Tb: Besides, how many districts such as you describe do you honestly believe exist? Four? Seven?

    Me: I’ve never tried to do a demographic analysis. My guess it’s much higher…perhaps 10% of districts, with another 10% where that positioning would be competitive. The first place to look is on the coasts and the major cities. Also possibly the mountain West, places like WY. New England is especially fertile, as the GOP is especially weak there.

    Tb: People want…

    Me: It’s not about what they “want.” It’s what they aspire to! What I’m suggesting is that a congressperson who is a fiscal conservative/social liberal/war averse/cleaner environment is someone, in broad strokes, who could win today. As for green, not everyone is a pig. We don’t recognize how much attitudes have changed. Have you watched the TV show MAD MEN. Set in the early 60s, a character will occasionally just toss trash in a park. I’m old enough to remember that. People’s consciousness has been raised where that’s no longer acceptable behavior. Some still do it, yes, but there is at least an awareness that keeping the Earth clean is worthwhile.

    Tb: You LP goo-goo freaks must think you’re living in a fucking Frank Capra movie or something.

    Me: Brother Blanton, have you been hanging out with Sipos? Do you read minds, too? Actually, I still observe a lot of fearful Americans, acting like frightened children. OTOH, I’ve also noticed a lot of attitude changes since the 70s. People are skeptical about government “solutions.” War is not nearly as romanticized since Vietnam. Minorities, gays, and women are not considered second-class citizens like they were in the 70s. I almost never hear the N word, except from African Americans! Large numbers would be OK with legalizing weed. No, people are generally not open to machine guns in subways, but L attitudes are SLOWLY on the march, I suggest. It’s hard for even me to notice the change because it’s so slow.

    286 mhw: R obert over the years I’ve been told first we get elected then we tell them what we are all about….Only problem was no one in the public got any idea about alternatives to the government way of doing things.

    Me: Right. Again, what I’m suggesting is tabling theory and constructs. In my case, I’m not “all about” some of the most extreme implications of the NAP. Those are interesting ideas. They are not politics. Politics is the art of the possible. Telling people about “alternatives” means telling them about an alternative DIRECTION, not positing abstract constructs.

  238. Tom Blanton

    Tb: You LP goo-goo freaks must think you’re living in a fucking Frank Capra movie or something.

    Me: Brother Blanton, have you been hanging out with Sipos? Do you read minds, too?

    So, Capozzi, you are admitting my observation is correct. You DO think you are living in a fucking Frank Capra movie!

    I thought so, but I was just guessing. I don’t do mind reading tricks anymore – it’s too much like conducting an anal probe. I’ll leave that stuff up to the pros.

    Anyway, sending Mr. Smith to Washington to do the people’s business is fine entertainment when taking place on the silver screen, but in real life nothing good will ever come of it.

    I take it your memories of the seventies come from sitcoms and political myths as opposed to any sort of real interaction with actual people.

    Today, war is so romanticized that the media doesn’t cover any real ramifications of war. The real antiwar movement in the sixties and seventies that had mobs in the streets had no romantic illusions about war.

    The zero tolerance mindset had not taken hold in the seventies and neither had the surveillance state. Drugs were sold and used quite openly on the street and you only had to worry about the cops beating you up at confrontational protests – the pepper spray and taser weren’t routinely used.

    I don’t know of anyone who pretended women were second class citizens in the 70s outside of Norman Lear maybe, but then network TV sitcoms have always been many years behind the times. Now, many younger women seem to believe they are second class citizens in that they are only valuable as sex objects.

    There is a retro Mad Men cultural zeitgeist going on now also. Twenty-something guys cluster in business districts across America wearing the retro clothes and hairdos drinking cocktails. They seem to think they are pretty cool.

    Now, I don’t recall machine guns in subways, but I do remember going to an urban school where carrying weapons was tolerated as a means of self-defense. But don’t interpret that to mean that pulling a gun out for amusement or to threaten people would have been OK.

    At that same school, there were openly gay students and teachers. There were also teachers that smoked pot with students. Popular culture mocked politicians and most people, left and right, had little use for the government. These days, not so much. The right and left mock each other while libertarians fear mocking the left or the right, thinking it will alienate the little stinkers.

    While some worry about positing abstract constructs, it might pay off to realize that people are actual individuals as opposed to being an abstract collective entity that thinks in unison.

  239. Starchild

    rc @218 writes, “…politics is a function of selling consequential ideas that are informed by one’s sense of virtue.”

    I disagree that politics is necessarily about “selling”. That’s the view from within the marketing paradigm; there are other ways to look at it. In any case, a statement that amounts to “politics is about ________” strikes me as a rather rigid, rule-oriented formulation that seems at odds with your expressed philosophy.

    On your notion of political ideas being informed by a sense of virtue:

    People who approach politics from an ideological perspective indeed base political action on political ideas, which are informed by a sense of what is right (“virtue”). But people who approach politics from an ambitious perspective (seeking to acquire money and power) do not rely on political ideas except insofar as they can be used to justify political action. For them, political action is based on their estimation of what will best advance their ambitions.

    Of course I am here dividing people broadly into two distinct groups for the sake of clarity; in reality, many people are motivated by some mixture of ideology and ambition.

    I grant that some ideologically motivated people may sincerely believe that downplaying ideology is the best way to achieve a virtuous outcome. However because downplaying ideas and looking at politics on a situational basis clearly suits the methods of the ambitious, making it easier for them to pay lip service to ideas while actually pursuing power, this point of view should be regarded with deep skepticism.

    rc @218 further asks, “Why do politics in a quixotic manner? Why bother?”

    “Quixotic” is of course an allusion to Don Quixote, the madman of Cervantes’ novel who jousted with windmills, believing them to be giants. Libertarian radicals, however, are not jousting at windmills — the problems we see in the world are real, and the solutions we propose would, if implemented, generally make the world a much better place. I think you will concede that much.

    So your question above strikes me as being based on a fundamentally false analogy.

    You go on to ask, “Even if it’s only to ‘educate,’ why not lead with issues that resonate with the audience?”

    My dictionary gives several definitions of “resonate”:

    1. to resound or cause to resound; reverberate
    2. (of a mechanical system, electrical circuit, chemical compound, etc) to exhibit or cause to exhibit resonance
    3. to be understood or receive a sympathetic response: themes which will resonate with voters
    4. to be filled with: simple words that seem to resonate with mystery and beauty

    You are obviously referring to definition #3. Libertarian radicals, however, might be more interested in definitions #1 and #4.

    A call to reduce taxes by 10% may receive a sympathetic response from voters, but it is unlikely to “resound” or “reverberate” (echo, reecho, reflect many times).

    The “shot that was heard ’round the world” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_heard_around_the_world ) referred to a radical act that *resonated*. Firing a water pistol, or a gun that produced a banner with the word “Bang!” written on it, might have been more sympathetically received by the audience, but would not have reverberated in the same manner.

    Meanwhile, the Non-Aggression Principle (or Sacred Non-Aggression Principle, as it has alternately been called), fits the meaning of definition #4, above: “You have the right to live your life as you choose, so long as you do not initiate force or fraud against others.” Simple words that resonate with a sense of beauty and the profound.

    You go on to ask, “Why alienate with the offensive stuff? To shock? To exercise some egotistical sense of sanctimony and superiority?”

    First of all, describing radical libertarian ideas as “offensive stuff” is a formulation that implies they are, in fact, offensive, i.e. that the statist view is reality, when we know (or should know) otherwise. A better formulation of your question would be, “Why alienate with ideas that offend many non-libertarians?” An even better formulation, that acknowledges both the reality that the ideas offend *and* the reality that statists are misguided, would be, “Why alienate with ideas that offend many non-libertarians due to their lack of understanding and/or appreciation of freedom?”

    Certainly the reason to do so is *not* in order to “exercise some egotistical sense of sanctimony and superiority”, although I admit that radical libertarians being human, and therefore subject to emotions like frustration and anger, we may not succeed in rising above such base motives 100% of the time.

    The short answer to the question, from a personal/spiritual point of view, is that practicing politics with integrity means speaking the truth as we see it, and doing so consistently.

    From a strategic point of view, there are a number of reasons why we should not avoid libertarian ideas that many will find difficult to accept.

    You have mentioned one of your standards being “the eternal Tao”. Consider that eastern religious masters are famous for imparting spiritual truths and lessons in ways that are difficult for others to accept. For instance this (from http://zenbananas.com/category/classic-zen/):

    The merchant Umeza decided to donate some money to the master Seietsu so that he could build a bigger school.

    Umeza brought a bag full of coins and placed it before Seietsu, who was meditating. “This is for you to build a new school,” he said.

    Seietsu opened his eyes, nodded, and went back to his meditations.

    Umeza was a bit perturbed and he remarked, “There is enough money there to pay a year’s wages for 50 men.”

    Seietsu opened his eyes and said, “So do you want me to thank you?”

    Umeza said, “Well, isn’t it the least I should expect?”

    Seietsu said, “Why should I? The giver should be thankful.” And he resumed his meditation.

    Now I am not suggesting that we should view ourselves as Zen masters, or make the above story a model for our interactions with donors! However, I think it illustrates that the “shock” of seeing a perspective most people would find extreme, treated as perfectly normal, can cause people to reexamine long-held assumptions and beliefs in ways that milder approaches might not.

    Libertarian sci-fi writer L. Neil Smith has a number of pithy quotes that suggest other good reasons for taking radical positions:

    • “If you’re not a little bit uncomfortable with your position, it isn’t radical enough. How can you be too principled? Take the most extreme position you can—you’re claiming territory you won’t have to fight for later, mostly against your ‘allies'”.

    • “‘The perfect is the enemy of the good’, you say? I say that if nobody ever insisted on the perfect, there’d never be any good.”

    • “Let the other guy offer compromises. Think of them as rungs on a ladder. Keep your own goals fixed firmly in your mind and make sure you never move any direction but upward.”

    • “Once you’ve taken a public stand you know is right, never back down; anything less than a rock-hard stance will allow your enemies to nibble you to death.”

    • “If you can avoid it, never play on the other guy’s field, by the other guy’s rules, or with the other guy’s ball. He didn’t design his system to give you the advantage.”

    • “Go straight to the heart of the enemy’s greatest strength. Break that and you break him. You can always mop up the flanks and stragglers later, and they may even surrender, saving you a lot of effort.”

    • “The shortest path to victory is a straight line. He who remains most consistent wins.”

    And this last one I think is particularly relevant for moderate libertarians:

    • “Tell me what you think, not what you think other people think. If you voted in terms of what you’re ready for, instead of what you’ve convinced yourself others are ready for, we’d have had Constitutional government, a Libertarian society, and eradicated socialism half a century ago.”

  240. Robert Capozzi

    288 tb: So, Capozzi, you are admitting my observation is correct.

    Me: Sorry, I said: “Actually, I still observe a lot of fearful Americans, acting like frightened children.” Fear seems to grip our social order in palpable ways. Frank Capra movies were generally idyllic and cheerful. Now is not a happy time, by and large. Fear, as you know, is the opposite of love, and my strong preference.

    In some ways, your memories of the 70s as being freer I can see. Some things have gotten worse in the sense that in the 70s, there was that initial late-60s burst of liberation from the old, restricted, Leave It to Beaver mentality. The 70s gave way to late 70s malaise, then the bounce-back to some Cleaverisms in the 80s.

    And, yes, political correctness overcompensated in some ways. And, yes, some women allow themselves to be sex objects. And certainly the surveillance state has more tools at its disposal than it did decades ago.

    Still, overall, I would maintain that on balance women, gays and minorities can live as they choose to far more easily than they could in decades past compared with white dudes. Unfortunately, the State is far more intrusive than it was even then. These are more “anything goes” times that I can recall from a cultural perspective.

    As for minors carrying guns in your urban school, I cannot say I knew anyone who did so in the 70s in my exurban experience. I’m pretty sure that minors cannot carry weapons legally today in schools, and I support that. You may feel otherwise. Perhaps Columbine did not cause any sort of rethink on your part. Where your thought process goes in that regard, I cannot imagine…handguns given to a newborn in the hospital? 😉

    You didn’t address my point that environmental awareness is FAR higher than in the 60s. From throwing trash to the banning of leaded gas (not necessarily my preferred way to deal with a very real problem), people are not nearly as cavalier about what they dump into nature.

    Tb: Today, war is so romanticized that the media doesn’t cover any real ramifications of war.

    Me: I see this. BIG difference between Vietnam and now. The end of the draft and weapons technology have made modern wars – horrible as they are – much smaller operations from the perspective of bodies, at least American bodies. While we’re a war-weary nation, the numbers of Americans dying is much smaller, and therefore more tolerable, for most Americans. I take no solace from this, but I can see why Iraq/Afg/Libya have not led to Vietnam-type protests.

    Tb: I don’t know of anyone who pretended women were second class citizens in the 70s outside of Norman Lear maybe…

    Me: As we’re dudes, I’m not sure we have the same experience as women. By the numbers, women populate the professions at MUCH higher rates than they did in the 70s. Women were steered into homemaking and pink-collar jobs back then at far higher percentages than they are now. Nothing “wrong” with homemaking and pink-collar jobs, but I see progress in this regard. African Americans are now “middle class” at much higher rates than they were in the 70s. Openly gay people live and work far more freely than they did back in the closeted days; your HS experience I would suggest was an anomaly.

  241. Robert Capozzi

    SC, thanks for the thoughtful comments. In my case, I don’t buy your premise; I don’t think the NAP is “sacred.” I do find it a nice, but vague, sentiment. Since that’s so, what flows from your premise and mine are likely to lead to different conclusions.

    A few reflections on Smith from a NAP-as-sacred denier:

    LNS: “‘The perfect is the enemy of the good’, you say? I say that if nobody ever insisted on the perfect, there’d never be any good.”

    Me: ADR, but I LOL at this idea. I have no idea what “perfect” is. Occasionally, I kid myself into thinking something is “perfect,” only to realize later that nothing is perfect, or, alternatively, from a more spiritual perspective, EVERYTHING is perfect! Whether Rothbard, Rand, or Nozick’s constructs are “perfect,” I can’t say. What is one’s basis for exclaiming X perfect and not Y? They are all speculations, which itself is imperfect. Hayek figured this one out, and he baked in the idea that spontaneous orders emerge over time. His critiques of scientism and constructs resonate for me. For me to adopt what you call “radical” L-ism, you’d have to show me where Hayek was incorrect.

    LNS: • “Once you’ve taken a public stand you know is right, never back down; anything less than a rock-hard stance will allow your enemies to nibble you to death.”

    Me: Smith would need to explain how one “knows” what “right” is. I’d need to see his epistemological proof. Seeing none, I move on…

    LNS: • “Go straight to the heart of the enemy’s greatest strength. Break that and you break him. You can always mop up the flanks and stragglers later, and they may even surrender, saving you a lot of effort.”

    Me: Again LOL. How’s that been working for Mr. Smith? Myself, I love my enemies. Actually, I have no enemies. As soon as one views others as “enemies,” you’re lost. But, OK, who has Smith “broken”? He’s been at it for decades, and it surely appears to me that the State and statists – his “enemies” – have gotten nothing but stronger. Perhaps he doesn’t realize he’s beating a dead horse!

    LNS: • “Tell me what you think, not what you think other people think. If you voted in terms of what you’re ready for, instead of what you’ve convinced yourself others are ready for, we’d have had Constitutional government, a Libertarian society, and eradicated socialism half a century ago.”

    Me: It’s my practice to tell you what I think. But – wow – it appears that Mr. Smith is math challenged. One vote is just one vote. I’m sorry, but this is simply ridiculous, IMO.

  242. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 290,

    “As for minors carrying guns in your urban school, I cannot say I knew anyone who did so in the 70s in my exurban experience.”

    I went to high school in the 80s, and don’t remember guns being controversial at all.

    I distinctly recall coming back from Christmas break one year and a friend of mine showing off the 9mm pistol he’d received as as a present.

    At least half the vehicles in the school parking lot were pickup trucks, and more than half of the pickup trucks had gun racks, and many of those gun racks had guns in them.

    “I’m pretty sure that minors cannot carry weapons legally today in schools, and I support that.”

    Then I have to wonder whether you are consciously evil or just a fucking idiot.

  243. Robert Capozzi

    tk, I love you too, man. I’m curious where you come down on the outfitting newborns with a piece? Or would you wait til, what, 7 for kids to bring their Glocks to show and tell?

  244. Starchild

    rc @291 – And thank you for your civility, as always. But you spent most of your message criticizing the words of L. Neil Smith, who isn’t here to defend himself, rather than addressing what I wrote! Perhaps you plan to add more later?

    Regarding the final Smith quote I shared…

    “Tell me what you think, not what you think other people think. If you voted in terms of what you’re ready for, instead of what you’ve convinced yourself others are ready for, we’d have had Constitutional government, a Libertarian society, and eradicated socialism half a century ago”

    …it seems obvious to me that he meant “you” plural, not “you” singular. If you reread it assuming a plural audience (all the people like yourself who claim to hold fairly to very libertarian beliefs but oppose radicals on the grounds that the public isn’t ready for libertarianism), you’ll find the math makes more sense.

  245. Robert Capozzi

    sc, and thank you. There’s really no need to make it personal, a lesson that I trust TK will learn, based on his attacking words @ 293. Unnecessary and counterproductive, I’d venture to say.

    Even a collective-you reading makes LNS’s words no more plausible. We Ls — even those of us who are “evil” or “idiots” in some people’s view — are still a tiny minority.

    Is there another way to look at the situation?

    As for not commenting on the rest of your post, I share my time as I can. I meant no disrespect for not commenting on the rest, rest assured.

  246. Starchild

    rc @291 – You appear to be making the existentialist argument that we have no way of knowing that anything is better than anything else.

    If that’s really what you believe, then it seems to me that you have no philosophical basis to argue for or against *anything*, in this forum or anywhere else!

    If, on the other hand, you feel life is certain enough that you can justify arguing for your opinions, then so can L. Neil Smith. If he asserts the correctness of his opinions more stridently than you do, that’s simply a matter of style and of degree, not a fundamental difference of kind.

  247. Robert Capozzi

    sc 296: …you have no philosophical basis to argue for or against *anything*, in this forum or anywhere else!

    me: Sure I can, at least FOR what I consider to be the closest approximation to a peaceful solution to a worldly “problem.” I don’t argue “against” things as much as I question them.

    sc: ….you feel life is certain enough that you can justify arguing for your opinions, then so can L. Neil Smith.

    me: Hmm, it depends on what you mean by “justify.” I look at the facts, then form an opinion based on my values and beliefs on what works and is peaceful, and share them. Smith does the same thing, which of course he’s entitled to do. If he thinks that he’s got a monopoly on “truth,” I’ve got some more questions!

  248. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 93,

    Governments at every level — local, state and federal — across the United States steal billions of dollars per year on the claim that it is to be used for “education.”

    At the local and state levels (and it wouldn’t surprise me to find at the federal level, too, but I haven’t researched it) then use “compulsory attendance” laws to herd millions of children into the concentration compounds built with those billions of stolen dollars and keep them there for 6-8 hours per day, five days per week, nine months per year, for 12 years.

    You “support” additional laws to keep those victims defenseless against any random Klebold/Harris type who doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about laws, and you do so in the face of:

    1) Recent history in which armed school-children were commonplace and the halls did not drip blood (I even got a firearms safety course in junior high — and brought my .22 rifle to school for it with no comments except perhaps some sneers from fellow students who had bigger or more expensive weapons to show off); and

    2) Current reality in which tens of millions of Americans own guns and many of those tens of millions arm their children and train them in the use of arms.

    Evil and stupidity are the only two broad concepts sufficient to explain such a position.

  249. Robert Capozzi Claims to be a Mind Reader

    Capozzi: I still observe a lot of fearful Americans, acting like frightened children.

    You know they’re fearful? Can you read their minds?

    Capozzi: I’ve also noticed a lot of attitude changes since the 70s.

    You can tell when people change attitudes? Can you read their minds?

  250. LibertarianGirl

    best way to prevent gun violence from or to your children , teach them what it means to be responsible and teach them how to shoot.

    oh and the reasons in writing are starting to trickle in , apparently my constant harassing for them has had an effect. ill post them here pretty shortly

  251. LibertarianGirl

    The following constitutes my reasons for deaffiliation:

    Based upon a review of the past decade’s lack of membership growth and current membership totals, I believe that the current system of individual county organizations are both inefficient and counterproductive. As a duly elected leader of the state party, I believe the best way for the party to move forward is to consolidate our leadership and party platform on a state level. Therefore, until such time as the state membership ranks warrant it, the I have voted to de-affiliate the county organizations in order to consolidate them into a single centralized state party which can more effectively pursue Libertarian values and elect Libertarian candidates.

    Irv Hopkins
    LP Nevada At Large Representative

  252. LibertarianGirl

    Based upon a review of the past decade’s lack of membership growth and current membership totals, the Libertarian Party of Nevada Executive Committee believes that the current system of individual county organizations are both inefficient and counterproductive. As the duly elected leaders of the state party, we believe the best way for the party to move forward is to consolidate our leadership and party platform on a state level. Therefore, until such time as the state membership ranks warrant it, the Executive Committee has voted to de-affiliate the county organizations in order to consolidate them into a single centralized state party which can more effectively pursue Libertarian values and elect Libertarian candidates.

    Joseph P. Silvestri
    LPNevada – Chair

  253. Robert Capozzi

    299 touche! No, I don’t read minds, it’s my intuitive sense that we live in fearful times, times in which many suffer from pronounced anxiety. I hope I’m incorrect.

  254. Robert Capozzi

    298 tk, yes, I support laws that protect children. That is, I don’t think children are adults, so I think it’s reasonable to outlaw sex with children, selling drugs to children, and 7 year olds bringing Glocks to show and tell.

    I might support exceptions to the latter law…17 year olds taking gun safety classes seems reasonable.

    I find it disappointing that you find my view either “evil” or “stupid”. You’ve not persuaded me, however.

  255. Starchild

    @301 – 302 – That’s all these guys got?? Looks like they should’ve gone to Aaron Starr, M Carling, or Alicia Mattson — they would’ve come up with some obscure bylaw or legal advice or something to make it look halfway reasonable. 🙂

  256. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    That seems to be their story, and they’re
    sticking to it!

  257. LibertarianGirl

    LOL , ya because when you pull the rug out from under people they soooo want to jump on yur bandwagon. What they mean , and what wont happen is de-affiliate until we have had time to identify enuf activists in prospective counties that reflect us and can have them be the new county excoms while simultaneously hoping the old ones get get mad and stupid and /or fade away

    mark my words , with us moving forward there will be a vote to expel myself , Duensing , Colborne , Rowan , Angy and others from the party as a whole…

  258. Andy

    “mark my words , with us moving forward there will be a vote to expel myself , Duensing , Colborne , Rowan , Angy and others from the party as a whole…”

    Kick you guys out based on what charge? Being too libertarian? Being too active at the county level?

  259. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 305,

    “298 tk, yes, I support laws that protect children.”

    That’s begging the question.

    It attempts to smuggles in as fact the claim that the laws in question (laws to disarm public school inmates) do “protect children.”

    Any evidence for the claim?

    Have school shootings gone up or down since those laws began to be implemented?

    If they’ve gone up, is that causation or mere correlation? If they’ve gone down is that causation or mere correlation?

    “That is, I don’t think children are adults”

    Children are, by definition, not adults. But you might want to start by defining “adult” … and if you’re serious you’ll do in some manner other than drawing a number out of a hat and using it as a dividing line.

    “I might support exceptions to the latter law…17 year olds taking gun safety classes seems reasonable.”

    I’m pretty sure I was either 12 or 13 when I took the gun safety class. First semester of 7th grade in “Lifetime Sports” (a phys ed elective).

    “I find it disappointing that you find my view either ‘evil’ or ‘stupid.'”

    Between these posts, I did mentally stumble upon a third option: Ignorant.

    But since you’re given to pontificating wildly on all kinds of weapons-related subjects, my inclination is to assume that either you’re not ignorant of the facts (which brings us back to those other two choices), or that you intentionally remain ignorant of the facts in order to avoid having to examine the tenability of your positions (which is a sort of dishonesty that at least borders on evil).

  260. David Colborne

    @308 and @309: The good news is there is no condition in the bylaws that allows expulsion of members from the LPNV. They could just not cash our checks or return our credit card payments and keep us out that way, but that’s the extent of it.

    Having said that, the barrier for removing Executive Committee members is not particularly high. They either need 1/3 of the Executive Committee plus 10% of the state membership to petition for removal of a member (reasons are “Actions in Violation of the By-laws; or Actions Unbecoming an Executive Committee Member”), then get a majority of the Judicial Committee to vote in favor, or they need 2/3 of the Executive Committee to petition for removal, followed by a majority of the Judicial Committee to approve the petition. Whether they’re feeling brave enough to do that or not, though, remains to be seen – from conversations I’ve had with current-soon-to-be-former Brigade members, there’s more than a little blowback from their last measure, so they might just let Sandi and I just sort of stew for a while, lest they completely hose their existing fundraising base.

  261. Robert Capozzi

    310 tk, yes, I — like all of humanity — am ignorant on many matters. On Long Island in the 70s…no guns in schools. Apparently, we did in the 50s…before my time.

    I support local/states setting standards in this regard. I find it hard to imagine that it’d be prudent to allow 7 yr olds to tote Glocks.

    I do not think that minors have a RIGHT to tote in school or anywhere, except at home with parental approval. Do you?

  262. whatever

    What about private schools? Private summer camps? (I was shooting BB guns at summer camp at age 8 and .22 rifles and 12-gauge shotguns at age 10.)

    In the non-non-aggression principle reformist libertopia would all of these camp counselors and directors be locked up for this? The kids?

    Maybe the Nevada LP could back a law calling for life imprisonment for children caught with BB guns. That could prove the new LP isn’t “radical” or “offensive.”

  263. Thomas L. Knapp

    “On Long Island in the 70s…no guns in schools.”

    If you were in one of the two counties of Long Island that are also boroughs of New York City, no wonder — NYC has had a legal policy of general victim disarmament since what, 1911?

    And, of course, New York City also managed to go from 1963 to 2007 without ever dipping below 500 homicides per year.

    “I find it hard to imagine that it’d be prudent to allow 7 yr olds to tote Glocks.”

    I find it hard to imagine that anyone other than your 7 year old should be bound by your notions of prudence.

    “I do not think that minors have a RIGHT to tote in school or anywhere, except at home with parental approval. Do you?”

    “Minor” (under an age drawn out of a hat by some politicians) has no more to do with it in terms of logic and reason than “Pisces” or “of African descent” or “the shaman saw something weird in the chicken entrails.”

    Should “children” be guided by their parents? Certainly.

    Should private property owners be empowered to set conditions on use of their property (“you can’t bring that Uzi in my house, kid”)? Absolutely.

    When it comes to “public” property, on the other hand, I don’t see how the rights of anyone owning an undivided interest in said property (i.e. any member of the “public”) can morally be impaired as a condition of use of the property.

  264. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “1) Recent history in which armed school-children were commonplace and the halls did not drip blood (I even got a firearms safety course in junior high — and brought my .22 rifle to school for it with no comments except perhaps some sneers from fellow students ”

    Back in the late 1950’s my father (who was 12 years old at the time) rode his bicycle to a pawn shop and bought a rifle and some ammo. He made this purchase without showing any ID. He then put the rifle across the handles bars of his bicycle and put the ammo in a basket that was attached to the handle bars and rode home with it. He used the rifle for target practice and hunting, no crimes were committed with the rifle and ammo. This event took place in the suburbs of a major metropolitan area which now has a lot of gun control laws, and (not suprisingly) now has a lot of crime as well.

    If this event had taken place in the modern era the police would have been called and the pawn shop owner would have gone to prison and my father would have been placed in a juvenile detention center.

    I read a story about how as recently as the 1960’s the were high school students in New York City who rode carried rifles (real rifles) with them to school (note that some of them rode the subway to school) because they were on their school’s shooting team.

  265. Andy

    “Root’s media hits don’t really count: every time Harry Browne was on a TV or radio program, calls and emails would start coming to LPHQ, and some of those inquiries would subsequently join. That’s simply NOT HAPPENING with Root’s appearances.”

    Good point. Harry Browne got media coverage and the media coverage he got lead to more people contacting the Libertarian Party. Some of these people joined and became activists. Harry Browne brought in lots of new Libertarians, and he did this by presenting a hardcore Libertarian message.

  266. Robert Capozzi

    313 w.e., I see these sorts of questions as best answered at the local and state level.

    314 tk, even though Brooklyn and Queens are on Long Island, people from Brooklyn and Queens don’t say they’re from LI. That’s the idiom. I’m from Suffolk.

    Murder rates in NYC may be more or less constant, but I have no idea what that has to do with whether kids tote or not. Is there some correlation?

    Setting the standard for who is a minor and what sorts of things minors can and cannot do is something I’m OK with the State doing. Since you are an anarchist who believes there should be no State, I can understand why you seem to bristle at the idea of uniform standards being set. This is one of the many reasons why I am not an anarchist, and am instead a lessarchist. Carving out special circumstances for non-adults makes a State useful in my judgment. I suspect that non-acceptance of anarchist arguments for statelessness will be pronouncedly strong when it comes to matters of the special circumstance of children.

    As for this: “I don’t see how the rights of anyone owning an undivided interest in said property…” I’m sure I don’t know what you mean. I’m sure I never received title to my “undivided interest” in the Grand Canyon…you?

    315 Andy, I’m not sure what your charming anecdote about your dad proves in your mind. My point separates the matter of “gun control” with “kids toting guns anywhere, at any age.”

    I’m open to the possibility that the nation would be a better place if 12 year olds could still buy guns at pawn shops. I admit to being skeptical, however.

  267. David Colborne

    @318: Nope. Just checked the National and State bylaws. Nothing. You can eliminate affiliates at either level (National has a somewhat higher bar than our state), but that’s the closest I can come to that.

    @319: No we don’t. Assuming we were to do something like that, we have an eight person Ex Comm and only (at most) two votes. 1/3 requires a minimum of three votes.

  268. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 317,

    You write:

    “Murder rates in NYC may be more or less constant, but I have no idea what that has to do with whether kids tote or not. Is there some correlation?”

    According to various researchers (the three that pop to mind are Cates, Kopel and Lott, but that’s just imperfect memory and may be incorrect), there’s a strong inverse correlation between rates of gun ownership and rates of violent crime.

    That correlation seems to have remained strong over time, even back to the height of the “Wild West” when Boston, which had local victim disarmament (“gun control”) laws, ran a higher per capita homicide rate than any place west of the Mississippi, including the infamous Dodge City, Kansas.

    Whether the correlation extends into the lower age brackets or not, I don’t know. What I do know is that you and I are always going back and forth about center/edgy/fringe matters …

    … and I’d definitely say that a return to the widespread policy of as recently as two or three decades ago, when it was completely non-controversial for kids (outside of urban cores turned into violent hell-holes by GENERAL “gun control”) to buy, own, and carry guns without anyone but their parents acknowledged as having a legitimate interest in the matter … is barely edgy, and not anywhere within a mile of fringy.

    “Setting the standard for who is a minor and what sorts of things minors can and cannot do is something I’m OK with the State doing.”

    Drawing a number out of a hat, applying it to randomly selected activities, then ignoring it when convenient (e.g. “trying a child as an adult” for criminal offenses on an ad hoc basis) is not a “standard,” it’s a capricious indulgence of superstition.

    Adult is as adult does.

  269. Robert Capozzi

    321 tk, yes, I agree that setting an age of majority is arbitrary. As is requiring the prez to be at least 35. I’d say the latter is actually MORE arbitrary.

    I can deal with the age of majority contrivance because the alternative sounds like it would involve profound levels of information costs. This 16 1/2 year old qualifies, that 19 year old doesn’t. I find it to be a social convention that, ATC, makes sense.

    Interestingly, it sounds like Andy’s dad didn’t necessarily get the green light from his ‘rents to score heat. Andy hasn’t shared whether his Dad didn’t do a 1950s version of Columbine, but let’s assume he didn’t. Thankfully!

    But, yes, I can think of fringier ideas than lifting the restrictions on gun ownership for tots and teenagers.

  270. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    John Jay, I think we had one thread go over 400 last year, during the pedophile in CA Ex Com crisis. This one’s getting there, though!

  271. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    “As is requiring the prez to be at least 35. I’d say the latter is actually MORE arbitrary.”

    True. I’m less concerned with that than I am with the other on pragmatic grounds — a lot more people want to drive, vote, smoke, drink, have sex and own guns than want to be president, so an arbitrary/capricious barrier on those things is a lot more damaging to a lot more people.

    “I can deal with the age of majority contrivance because the alternative sounds like it would involve profound levels of information costs.”

    You might want to think that. You have it 180 degrees ass-backward.

    Setting arbitrary age barriers ADDS a datum requirement to every transaction/interaction to which that barrier applies.

    The fact that these barriers tend to vary across jurisdictions imposes even more information costs.

    The only place where the information costs might reverse is at the statistically small fringe — prosecutions where incompetence would have to be actually proven to the satisfaction of a jury instead of just assumed by statutory fiat on the basis of age — and I’m not even sure that’s the case.

    Any prosecutor who can’t convince a jury that a 3-year-old can’t consent to sex, or any defense attorney who can’t convince a jury that a 5-year-old was not competent when he picked up Daddy’s 45 and shot Mommy, should consider retiring from the practice of law and seeking work some place where nothing more complicated than pushing the button with the picture of the cheeseburger on it is required.

    On the flip side, absent the ability to point to the number drawn out of the hat and automatically “win,” fewer prosecutors would likely waste the public’s money, the jury’s time and the defendant’s freedom when a 19-year-old gets caught fucking her 17-year-old significant other, or a 15-year-old is stopped toting a Budweiser and a Marlboro.

  272. Robert Capozzi

    326 tk, the purpose the law is to signal, to dissuade unacceptable behavior. Putting the onus on the prosecutor massively increases the information costs, for what is illegal behavior becomes a case by case matter in your model. Without the notion of “jail bait,” for ex., that 14-year-olds looking mighty fine, to be course. Little Johnny got beat up yesterday, let’s pack a Lugar in his lunchbox.

    You seem to have much more faith in the justice system. I don’t. Property and the rule of law starts with some rules that proscribe unacceptable behaviors to offer those on the margin reasonably clear guidelines about what NOT to do. Knowing that justice is not blind and can be bought, the populist in me prefers a more level playing field in some basic areas, especially ones regarding minors.

    IOW, the law’s function is largely pre-emptive.

  273. Starchild

    rc @327 – I think a playing field more level than what exists now could be established by a simple rule that government officials cannot initiate prosecutions.

    For there to be a criminal case, either a victim would have to come forward to press charges, or someone outside government would have to come forward on behalf of a victim (in which case they must have the victim’s consent, if the victim is living).

    Like you, I don’t have a lot of faith in the “justice system”, and don’t want prosecutors making arbitrary decisions about whom to go after (no matter whether the arbitrariness is a result of “I don’t like this person,” or “Wealthy interests want this person jailed”, or “Anybody under age X is a child”).

  274. Eric Sundwall

    It seems a shame that any affiliate to a state organization would be booted based on anything other than malfeasance.

    That type of case was made against the Queens affiliate in 2006 in the LPNY. I made the mistake of voting for the first one and never advocated a removal of even individuals after that in any capacity as a StateCom rep. While folks like Dr. Stevens might claim otherwise, the minutes do reflect that reality. I even abstained from voting out Sam Sloan after replacing him as Manhattan rep to the StateCom.

    One can’t blame the effectiveness of a state organization on their affiliates. Is that a contra positive or just a logical infirmity of some other flavor?

    Yes, charge the windmills if for no other purpose than awareness if you have a willing participant to do so. But encourage the earnest moderate of any flavor who wants to try also. There isn’t enough chance of any political success in a third party effort no matter the issues, pocket book or lurking silver bullet by a genius or bungling hidden faction. Accept your limitations and exploit your opportunities. Bemused indifference otherwise. Just my prescription mind you.

    It’s ‘go time’ for the group who has turned this stone. I’m sure it’s still possible for the locals to mount some sort of action which would be analogous to what they were doing despite the ignominy of dis-affiliation. Shrug, laugh, run again.

    But now the state NVLP has to perform according to their ideological and practical choices and expectations. If success in third parties is only measured in wins according to some and they assume power within the organization . . .

    . . . but when they are crushed by the American electoral reality and are simply a hollow shell for another ambition, the remaining members of the original tribe should offer no animus – simply reconciliation.

    Life goes on, good luck with all those dreams.

  275. Tom Blanton

    It would seem that in Capozzi’s world of prudent governance, the enforcers would only intervene and send citizens to prison for acting imprudently – since there really is no right or wrong, good or bad.

    I would hope that varying degrees of imprudence and the resulting punishment would be codified.

    The Capozzi Correctional System would sure change common prison banter:

    Hey punk, what are you in for?

    They gave me 5 to 10 for 3 charges of Level 10 Imprudence.

    Tough break kid. But I’m doing 20 for a trumped up Level 13. I was framed. Sure, I’ve been imprudent. I’m no angel. But never more than a Level 3 or 4.

  276. JT

    Robert: “326 tk, the purpose the law is to signal, to dissuade unacceptable behavior.”

    Although you say that as though it’s an obvious fact, I disagree. I think the purpose of law is to establish justice (i.e., to secure individual rights). Law is often perverted by government officials who use it to violate individual rights, of course. But the preemptive effect of law (sometimes) is also good (if that law is just).

    Robert: “Without the notion of “jail bait,” for ex., that 14-year-olds looking mighty fine, to be [coarse].”

    Is that a personal confession? I find that repugnant, regardless of whether it’s legal or illegal. I suspect most adult men feel the same way, and often the ones that don’t violate the law.

  277. LibertarianGirl

    1 more…

    Here is my written statement as required:

    Based upon a review of the past decade’s lack of membership growth and current membership totals, the Libertarian Party of Nevada Executive Committee believes that the current system of individual county organizations are both inefficient and counterproductive. As the duly elected leaders of the state party, we believe the best way for the party to move forward is to consolidate our leadership and party platform on a state level. Therefore, until such time as the state membership ranks warrant it, the Executive Committee has voted to de-affiliate the county organizations in order to consolidate them into a single centralized state party which can more effectively pursue Libertarian values and elect Libertarian candidates.

    Chris Roberts
    Southern Nevada Representative
    Libertarian Party of Nevada


    ROFLMAO , chris is cool too bad he’s a sell out …

  278. Cody Quirk

    To all you Nevada Libertarians out there that feel cheated and marginalized by the recent events, I have a solution for you that would serve as a successful and more productive alternative…

    http://WWW.IAPN.ORG

  279. Thomas L. Knapp

    Eric @ 329,

    You write:

    “I’m sure it’s still possible for the locals to mount some sort of action which would be analogous to what they were doing despite the ignominy of dis-affiliation.”

    Possibly more than just analogous.

    Depending on how Nevada election law works, the executive committee may technically be out of the party organization loop from a legal standpoint, with e.g. precinct committeepersons and county committee members being in it and composing the state committee, of which the executive is a sort of legally weightless delegative appurtenance.

    That’s the case in Missouri. Nevada may be similar, or not. If it’s similar, then the county parties remain “the Libertarian Party” in Nevada, and the executive committee has, in effect, disaffiliated itself. 😉

    The new state leadership seems, if LG’s accounts are correct, to think that the affiliates they just disaffiliated are supposed to send their money to an organization they’re no longer associated with.

    The obvious and correct response to that think is “not only no, but fuck no.” The bylaws provide for money to flow from affiliates to the state party (it looks like $10 per member) … but non-affiliates aren’t affiliates, are they?

    Personally, I’m beginning to wonder if the whole point of this exercise might not have been to intentionally make an apparent shambles of the NVLP so that certain national party types from neighboring California can be “asked in” to coordinate national convention matters in the absence of a viable state-based host.

    I can think of one likely presidential candidate who probably expects he would fare better at that convention under such circumstances.

  280. Robert Capozzi

    328 sc: For there to be a criminal case, either a victim would have to come forward to press charges, or someone outside government would have to come forward on behalf of a victim…

    Me: Interesting idea. Has some upsides, and some downsides. Downside is that some crimes might go unprosecuted, perhaps with criminal organizations making it known that anyone who presses a criminal case will themselves be injured or killed. I’ll consider the idea, though.

    330 tb: …since there really is no right or wrong, good or bad.

    Me: True, but there is hurtful and helpful, which vast majorities will align with as a rule of law. Most would agree that hurtful acts should be considered criminal. Having a (very small) monopoly-empowered State, this assessment can be a ubiquitous regime in a given territory. With no State, anything goes, with marauding-insurance-company agents enforcing a crazy-quilt of rules that may or may not apply. This is the Hoppean nightmare scenario that some Ls don’t want to consider…unwisely, IMO. How that nightmare is “principled” escapes me.

    “Prudence” is more of a function of institutions that generally establish domestic tranquility. Prudence is also a function of proportionality in light of a given fact set. For ex., I’d say it’d be prudent to advocate exiting Iraq, Afg., and Libya, but not prudent to close the US Embassy in London. I’d think even an anarchist would agree with that assessment, but I’ve been incorrect before. 😉

    332 jt: I think the purpose of law is to establish justice…

    Me: I agree. Mechanically, most of what we call “justice” is the signalling function. It’s also the establishment of rules and means to enforce justice and rights protection. As for 14 year olds, no, not a personal thing. The idea is that by establishing a bright line, an adult would use caution in determining who one got involved with. If there’s doubt about whether someone has reached the age of majority, “steer clear” is what the law signals. Most inappropriate behavior is avoided by having a bright-line rule.

  281. JT

    Robert: “I agree. Mechanically, most of what we call “justice” is the signalling function.”

    I don’t think we actually agree. Justice is retaliatory–it deals with past action, not future action. IOW, after someone is wronged by having his or her rights violated, the violator is punished, thus balancing the scale (hence the statue of Lady Justice with a blindfold on and scale in her hand). The retaliatory action isn’t necessarily the same as the crime (e.g., a defendant who’s convicted of rape isn’t raped back). Still, that’s the establishment of justice under proper law.

    Dissuading people from taking future actions that violate others’ rights is a valuable side effect–but I don’t believe it’s the primary purpose, as you said.

    Anyway, I don’t think I have more to add on this topic.

  282. LibertarianGirl

    lets discuss this disclaimer–

    “This e-mail, including any attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may only be used by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.”

    does this or does this not give me permission to post? I think so because it says:
    “may only be used by the person or entity to which it is addressed.”
    thats me..and it also says…

    “If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited.”

    me_ doesnt that mean may be disseminated , distributed or copied by the recipient?

    Wayne thinks he can sue IPR over my posting his email here , what do you guys think?

  283. Robert Capozzi

    339 jt, yes, we don’t agree. There’s no need to have a “justice system” if the purpose is “retaliation.” Retaliation — the rule of the jungle — can be meted out by anyone who believes they’ve been wronged.

    A justice system, OTOH, should be designed to promote domestic tranquility. Elements of the justice system look like retaliation, yes, but the procedural safeguards that justice system’s have are larger than mere institutionalized retaliation, IMO.

  284. LibertarianGirl

    RC , whats your take on the legality of IPR being sued over ME posting waynes email? dont you think the disclaimer gives me permission to copy?

  285. LibertarianGirl

    what RC , no comment…? Ima take that as a sign you know his disclaimer gives me permission to disseminate and you just dont wantto say so…

  286. Robert Capozzi

    lg, I’m not an attorney. I’d say the intent of “used by” implies to me…don’t share this.

    Off the top of my head, I don’t think posting a private email is cool. I also don’t think suing is cool, either.

    I’m in favor of being cool.

  287. LibertarianGirl

    ” and may only be used by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. ”

    me_ it explicitly gives permission to the recipient , if the recipiet is the intended person , to disseminate distrubute and copy , other wise it would say may not be used by the recipient to yada yada , but somehow i knew you wouldnt say that

    IS EVERYONE CRAZY? I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT WITH THE EMAIL AND IM GOING TO. NOW IM GOING TO POST IT EVERYWHERE , and it will definitely be a flier on every table at the convention , DEFINITELY

  288. Robert Capozzi

    lg, I agree that the juxtapositioning of the 2 sentences leaves much to be desired.

    But, yes, everyone IS crazy. We live in a vast insane asylum.

  289. LibertarianGirl

    in fact Im going to make a booklet , title it Waynes World and include my email , Rowans , if she says I can , and anything else true and awful that waynes said. No lies , no accusations , just his own words. You cant run frm those with a lawyer. and if he wants to sue me , he’ll be really disapponted. I live in my dads house( he doesnt live here , but he owns it) i dont own a vehicle and I make nothing on paper. he coul howvever win some of my most prized possessions , 20 or so cats. and if and when i am able to turn catshit into gold , ill have something worth taking!:

  290. JT

    Robert: “339 jt, yes, we don’t agree. There’s no need to have a “justice system” if the purpose is “retaliation.” Retaliation — the rule of the jungle — can be meted out by anyone who believes they’ve been wronged.”

    Not according to universally applicable rules, procedures, and standards in a human society. Retaliation needn’t mean the “rule of the jungle” or the arbitrary whim of a lynch mob.

    Robert: “A justice system, OTOH, should be designed to promote domestic tranquility.”

    It does that too. But “justice” can only be sought in the case of an injustice that has already happened, not what might happen in the future.

    Robert: “Elements of the justice system look like retaliation, yes, but the procedural safeguards that justice system’s have are larger than mere institutionalized retaliation, IMO.”

    They look like that because that’s what they are. We can agree to disagree here. Just wanted to chime in and offer an opposing view.

  291. Robert Capozzi

    349 jt: Not according to universally applicable rules, procedures, and standards in a human society. Retaliation needn’t mean the “rule of the jungle” or the arbitrary whim of a lynch mob.

    me: Of course we can agree to disagree, but I’m not feeling understood. Whether it’s “retaliation” or a sense of “fairness,” we don’t need a “justice system” to attain retaliation or fairness. A justice system institutionalizes and channels a desire for retaliation or fairness for perceived past injustices, but it also prescribes acceptable behavior now and in the future.

    Limiting the value of a justice system to past events only misses IMO the bigger reason for a justice system. Without this signalling function, a justice system serves a much more limited purpose to the point that having one is unnecessary.

  292. Boilerplate form letters rejected by the Libertarian Wing of the Libertarian Party

    (A parody response to the government-surplus baloney handed down by 3 LPN Executive Committee members)

    Based upon a review of the past week’s lack of integrity and ethics and testicular shrinkage, the Libertarian Party of Nevada Executive Committee is believed to have no brains, balls, spines, or guts, is corrupt, inefficient, and counterproductive. As an outside observer who knows damned well that centralized operations in any state political party is a recipe for guaranteed disaster and failure, it is believed that the best way for the party to move forward is to throw the Executive Committee out on its centralized collective statist ear and re-establish the previous arrangement that actually was working in spite of the Executive Committee. Therefore, until such time as the restoration of integrity and ethics and respective body parts warrant it, these boilerplate form letters and their respective votes are rejected by the county organizations as illegitimate, and they will continue to pursue their own development in the most effective manner they can, which is by local grassroots politics and growth and to hell with the Executive Committee.

    Ima Activist
    Libertarian Representative
    Libertarian Wing of the Libertarian Party

  293. Tom Blanton

    “We’re through being cool”
    –DEVO–

    The zen of being cool is such that at that very moment when one believes he or she is cool, they cease being cool and become a mere poseur. The essence of cool is not being cool. One becomes hip by rejecting hipness and aligning with the universal groove – freakness. Miles claimed the birth of cool, only later to transcend that moment in time, reaching the higher plane of true evolved freakness only in later years.

    The freaks know who they are and they know who the other freaks are. And it’s got nothing to do with cool. It’s about being who you are and letting others be who they are.

    Anyway, as a bona fide paralegal in a previous lifestyle, I am qualified to use the phrase “actionable tort” which may interest LibertarianGirl.

    Wayne Root has no cause of action against any person if that person makes public an e-mail received by that person from Mr. Wonderful. The said Mr. Wonderful would have to prove damages. Root’s only real remedy would be to cease sending e-mails to those who make them public if that bothers him.

    To summarize, there is no actionable tort. Stay away from malicious remarks and personal opinions and there is no way anyone could make a libel case against a recipient of e-mail that merely publishes the messages received. And even if Root tried to, what would his provable damages be? My guess would be about 30 cents, tops.

    As a self-proclaimed public figure, Root has opened himself to a world of slander anyway. But, as a reptilian mutant bastard child of Wayne Newton, I’m sure Root has developed a thick skin. Just imagine how badly he must be maligned by those who lost their money gambling on his worthless picks. Not to mention all the libertarians who despise him because they are jealous of his teeth and his assholier than thou attitude.

  294. Robert Capozzi

    352 tb: The zen of being cool is such that at that very moment when one believes he or she is cool, they cease being cool and become a mere poseur.

    me: Yes, I see that. It’s more about undoing uncool. Whether “many factions underground” will reverse “Mr. Hinky Dink” and his deleterious deeds is another matter. I’m not liking the odds.

  295. Robert Capozzi

    349 jt: Not according to universally applicable rules, procedures, and standards in a human society.

    more from me: Actually, the rule of law is quite different across the globe. Anglo-American jurisprudence is not “universal.” The rule of law might be in general, but I am suggesting that A rule of law in any form is there to maintain a semblance of domestic tranquility, not simply as a way to channel either “retaliation” or even fairness. These are means, not ends.

  296. Tom Blanton

    Mr. Bumble, not to be confused with Mr. Bungle, argued that the law is an ass.

    Later, George Clinton, the high guru of freakness, established that if you free your mind, your ass will follow.

    The ramifications of these widely accepted doctrines should be apparent as we can observe that unfree minds insist on following the law.

    Anglo-American jurisprudence allows lawmakers to be law breakers as they are more equal than their subjects. Here you have unfreed minds following their own unfreed asses that follow the asses created by jackasses. That ain’t justice or domestic tranquility – no justice, no peace.

  297. Robert Capozzi

    355 tb, please share where Anglo-American jurisprudence “allows lawmakers to be law breakers” de jure. Or do you mean de facto?

    BTW, I’m not a big fan of jurisprudence as a means to establish peace or justice or tranquility.

  298. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 353,

    “I am suggesting that A rule of law in any form is there to maintain a semblance of domestic tranquility”

    That’s an intermediate purpose. A more correct definition would be “A rule of law in any form is there to maintain a semblance of domestic tranquility so that the domesticated animals can be milked (or butchered) in an orderly manner.”

  299. Robert Capozzi

    357 tk, this is new! I’d not realized that anarchists oppose the rule of law.

  300. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 358,

    “I’d not realized that anarchists oppose the rule of law.”

    And you still don’t (“realize” is not a synonym for “fantasize”).

  301. Robert Capozzi

    357 tk, “in any form” sounds like a rejection of “ANY” rule of law. Can your statement be read differently? If so, how so?

  302. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    Please feel free to point out the statement of “opposition” or “rejection” you think you see in my comment @357.

    If you can, I guess we can talk about it.

    If you can’t, well, I don’t see it there either.

  303. Robert Capozzi

    362 tk, OK, something seems to not be registering for at least one of us. In 357, you said:

    “A rule of law in any form is there to maintain a semblance of domestic tranquility so that the domesticated animals can be milked (or butchered) in an orderly manner.”

    Am I reading this incorrectly? Any rule of law will lead to “domesticated animals” (which I took to mean “people”) being “milked” or “butchered”.

    If not, what did you mean? Are you supportive of a civil society being organized under a rule of law, or not?

  304. LibertarianGirl

    and the counties in NV are still unaffiliated , but the Las Vegas iberty Club had a shoot night last night and will have economic preparedness and security meeting tonite and wil have a large presence at the Ron Paul appearence Tuesday,nice to have the state out of the way:)

  305. LibertarianGirl

    Tim,

    As I stated in my announcement to the entire LPCC business list, the
    action taken by the LPNevada Excomm on May 5 effectively disbanded the
    LPCC. As the outgoing Chair, I directed the outgoing Treasurer to close
    all accounts and forward all funds to the LPNevada Treasurer. I saw that
    as the last remaining appropriate action for a dissolved affiliate to
    take.

    That is not debatable, Tim. If a LPNevada bylaw is unclear, than it is up
    to the LPNevada to interpret its own bylaws (see Robert’s Rules page 570)
    and not us. The relevant section of the LPNevada bylaws regarding the
    revoked affiliation status is as follows:

    b. REVOCATION OF AFFILIATE STATUS
    i. The Executive Committee shall have the power to revoke affiliate status
    if two-thirds of the Executive Committee shall so vote. Members voting to
    revoke affiliate status must state their reasons in writing.
    c. AFFILIATE DEFINED
    i. An Affiliate is a creation of the LPN over some territory in Nevada and
    exists at the discretion of the LPN and subject to the other provisions
    and protections of these bylaws.

    So maybe I’m not sure what other advice or direction you’re looking for,
    or who you’re trying to get it from, especially after the LPCC Excomm
    voted to give the Chair the ability to allocate any LPCC funds to the
    State LP for outreach and fundraising.

    Thanks for your service, as always Tim. I look forward to continuing to
    work toward liberty with you.

    Sincerely,
    Kris McKinster

    On Sun, May 8, 2011 7:03 pm, Tim Hagan wrote:

    > I have seen litigation in this party before. There is a question
    > whether revoking the motion has passed yet in accordance with the LPN
    > Bylaws, which require members voting to revoke affiliate status must
    > state their reasons in writing. I’m concerned that I’m at risk no matter
    > what I do. Therefore, I do not want to act unilaterally and am asking
    > advise how you want me to proceed.
    >
    > My preference would be for the LPN ExCom not have the reasons for
    > revoking affiliation at their next meeting, and so declare that the vote at
    > the last meeting did not pass in accordance with the Bylaws. Barring
    > that, the LPCC ExCom should get notice of the revoking along with the
    > reasons in writing from each LPN ExCom member voting to revoke, and
    > afterward the LPCC ExCom votes for the Treasurer to close all LPCC
    > accounts and what to do with the remaining funds. I have no control over
    > either of these scenarios, so please reply with your views.
    >
    > Trying to cover my ass,
    > Tim Hagan
    >
    >
    > On 5/5/2011 8:29 PM, Kris McKinster wrote:
    >
    >> The LPNevada Executive Committee has voted to revoke our affiliate
    >> status, effectively disbanding our organization. The Treasurer will
    >> close all LPCC accounts and forward all funds to the LPNevada Treasurer.
    >> All assets
    >> will be dispensed to the LPNevada.
    >>
    >> This email list is now closed to new posts.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Kris McKinster

  306. LibertarianGirl

    translation: the robbing of Clark County of nearly $3,000 will commence because the pathetic woefully broke and ineffective only has $600 and really , really needs it. This is no different than when your government robs you to give it to someone else.

  307. LibertarianGirl

    we had a county excom meeting in march I believe where certain county excom members , ( the same people on the state excom) voted to allow Kris McKinster discretion to send our money at will to the state for “fundraising and outreach”. It it abundantly clearthe entire vote of Kris to be able to send money to the state was never about fundraising and outreach it was aklways about the coming deaffiliation and needing to make a loophole whereas the state had access to our money.

    nicely executed , very unlibertarian – LIBERTARIAN MEANING IN THIS INSTANCE THE IDEA OF FAIR PLAY ..HONESTY …ETC

  308. LibertarianGirl

    I forgot to add , when the county did this i immediately resigned my 1776 Brigade membership-monthly donation– and lodged my opposition in an open letter to the excom . I refused to send any money to an organization who allowed one person sole discretion ( as lets ace it ,”fundraising and outreach’ is sufficiently vague as to allow anything) to send our money to the state who nonsuprisingly voted to allow 1 person sole discretion spending at their own business meeting directly followig ours. Whew , shorlty in means Joe Silvestri has sole discretion to spend everyones money.

    3 dissenting votes on the County excom , mine , angela mcknster , and Tim hagan. the voting rights of 3 other eligible people we’re denied by the Clark County excom for are obvious reasons

  309. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 363,

    You write:

    “something seems to not be registering for at least one of us.”

    Actually, more than one thing is not registering for you.

    The first thing that’s not registering for you is that your attempt to infer that I oppose any rule of law is not sustained by the material you’re attempting to make that inference from.

    By analogy: If I say that the purpose of an auto’s transmission/differential is to give a car multiple gears, you can’t logically infer from that that I oppose cars.

    The second thing not registering with you is that you mis-attributed the opinion you illogically inferred. You didn’t attribute it to me, you attributed it to “anarchists.” Even if the illogical inference turned out to be correct, the attribution itself would be illogical. I cannot conclude from seeing a one-legged duck that all ducks have only one leg.

  310. Robert Capozzi

    370 tk, first, yes, while I think it’s fair to say that you identify yourself as an “anarchist,” you are only one anarchist, not plural. Technically, my use of the plural might be defensible, but — fair enough — it would have been clearer for me to’ve written “an anarchist.”

    Your analogy doesn’t work for me. I didn’t change the subject from “rule of law” to “something else.” You said, “A rule of law in any form…” If you’d said “A rule of law often/historically does/or something else… leads to, say, institutionalized injustice” I would understand your view, and largely agree with your view, actually!

    There’s nothing per se “wrong” with being a nihilist anarchist. If you’re NOT a nihilist, perhaps you can suggest an alternative to a rule of law that is NOT nihilistic. Or something else I cannot anticipate.

    In some ways, a pure Taoist would be a nihilist. The Eternal Tao (consistent virtuous thought and action) would “rule” without codifying its rules. It’s an attractive idea, but I can’t say human consciousness has evolved to the point that we can go without some kind of codified rule of law.

  311. Tom Blanton

    Does Capozzi require codified rules to guide his behavior in order to exist in society? Or is it that he feels everyone else must adhere to codified rules in order for him to feel comfortable?

    Is it merely the Code of Virginia prohibiting the rape and murder of children that is keeping Capozzi from engaging in these acts?

    Perhaps we really do need a strong central government with many codified laws to protect us from the criminally insane who would otherwise be running amok.

    Is that the point Capozzi is trying to make?

  312. Robert Capozzi

    373 tb, no, that’s not the point I’m trying to make.

    What my behavior might or might not be is immaterial, although I’d like to think that I behave in a virtuous manner, whether law is codified or not.

    Short of living in Nonarchy Pods, however, civil societies generally need some basic rules of behavior to maximize domestic tranquility and minimize aggression among the citizenry. If you don’t believe in property rights, you might not need rules. It works OK in the animal kingdom, after all.

    But, without rules, property rights amount to who’s got the bigger club. Or, which Hoppean insurance company has the most forceful security goons! 😉

  313. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You still seem to be hung up on this idea of yours that I in some way suggested that I oppose “rule of law.”

    I neither said nor suggested any such thing. I did not indicate whether I support or oppose it. I merely opined as to its purpose.

    Having stated neither support nor opposition, I feel no need to defend either support or opposition. I have plenty to do defending things I have said. I don’t have time to defend your stretchy inferences from things I’ve said.

  314. Robert Capozzi

    376 tk, do you mean “purpose” or do you mean “as practiced”? I would certainly agree that AS PRACTICED the various rules of law come up wanting for me, too.

    In concept, do you believe that a civil society can be organized in a sustainable manner without the rule of law?

  315. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    I don’t consider the road connecting purpose and practice to be a one-way street. Each affects the other.

    For example, Jefferson et al may have very well be quite sincere in staking their “lives, fortunes and sacred honor” on the claim that the purpose of government is — or at least should be — to protect rights. Maybe it’s just that the actual practice of political government lends itself to change of original purpose.

    “In concept, do you believe that a civil society can be organized in a sustainable manner without the rule of law?”

    Yes.

    “Civil society” is generally defined as distinct from state and market, with the three types of institutions defining the parameters of overall society.

    The whole concept of “rule of law” is unique to one of those three structures, the state.

    I propose to reduce the number of institutional types to two by eliminating the state. If the state is eliminated, “rule of law” necessarily goes out the window with it, presumably to be replaced by a market in law, genuine social contract law evolved through civil society, or some combination of the two.

    In fact, I believe that “rule of law” amounts more or less to seizure, monopolization and customization of those two latter phenomena by the state, to and for its own benefit.

  316. Thomas L. Knapp

    Addenda to myself @378:

    1) Please be clear on the fact that I am not purporting to speak for anarchists per se in those statements.

    2) All of that is essentially another way of saying that the state is a parasite on the market and civil society, and that its “rule of law” is parasitical excrement.

  317. Robert Capozzi

    378 tk, thanks for clarifying. OK, without a state, there is no rule of law…it goes out the window.

    Speaking as AN anarchist, then, what is your theory about how inter-human relations protect life, liberty and property? What do you call that organizing principle?

  318. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 380,

    “Speaking as AN anarchist, then, what is your theory about how inter-human relations protect life, liberty and property? What do you call that organizing principle?”

    I see no reason to suppose that there’s only a single valid theory as to how inter-human relations CAN or COULD protect life, liberty and property. My lifetime project is pretty much undoing the massive error of my namesake and paternal ancestor, Thomas Hobbes, whose theory of the “sovereign” led inexorably to Paine’s biggest mistake (failing to put an “un” before “necessary” in his description of political government in Common Sense.

    I’m a social Darwinist in the L. Neil Smith sense: Let a thousand modes of social organization try to bloom and see which ones succeed in the eyes of those engaged in them. Not survival of the fittest, but survival of all those that prove fit for those adopting them.

    The state is an attempt to halt that process of evolution. It’s a petri dish full of agar that’s been poisoned because its imperative is preservation of the dish rather than of the culture.

  319. Robert Capozzi

    381 tk: Let a thousand modes of social organization try to bloom and see which ones succeed in the eyes of those engaged in them.

    me: I’m OK with this idea. I suspect the modes will sometimes include some sort of basic rule of law, and those that don’t seem likely to fail.

  320. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 382,

    “I suspect the modes will sometimes include some sort of basic rule of law, and those that don’t seem likely to fail.”

    “Fail” implies a goal to be achieved or not achieved.

    If the goal is to protect life, liberty and property, the evidence says that “rule of law,” a/k/a political monopoly, a/k/a the modern nation-state, has proven a failure so predictably, and with such regularity and severity, as to no longer (if ever it did) merit any significant level of provisional acceptance as a likely solution.

    It may be that there is no “solution” which will not “fail” given those terms. But sticking with one “solution” that has proven itself beyond reasonable doubt to be such a failure hardly seems to be the way to go about finding out.

  321. Robert Capozzi

    383 tk, I take your point. Of course, I didn’t mean to suggest that a rule of law — no matter how enforced — will be 100% protection of life, liberty and property. I wish I could give you a precise metric, but even if I could, others may have a different metric.

    Whether one (i.e., a monopoly state) rule of law in a territory delivers more of a prevailing sense that life, liberty and property are protected better than ala carte rule of law in that same territory, I can’t “prove” it one way or the other. Of course, you can’t “prove” that ala carte works better.

    In the end, we are left with a series of options, and the many will pick one (or the few will impose one). Personally, I’d pick a monopoly at much smaller levels. I’m not willing to risk a Mad Max scenario.

  322. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 384,

    “Of course, you can’t ‘prove’ that ala carte works better.”

    I didn’t say that a la carte works better. I said that a la carte is the only way of finding out whether or not anything works at all.

    We know the state doesn’t work on those terms.

    Even the United States, which advertises itself as the best example state in terms of protecting life, liberty and property, protects none of the above.

    Its government casually/incidentally murders more Americans in any given month al Qaeda has over the entire course of its existence; intervenes in opposition to liberty of every type on a daily basis; and takes any property it wants through eminent domain, asset forfeiture, regulation, etc.

    “I’m not willing to risk a Mad Max scenario.”

    Apparently you don’t have any grasp of what that is. Check out the first minute-and-a-half or so of the trailer to educate yourself. You’re not only willing to risk it, it’s likely an inevitable consequence of your reservations:

  323. Robert Capozzi

    385 tk, OK. So we test ala carte. 2020, in the nation formerly known as the US, in the city formerly known as St. Louis, on the street formerly known as Mockingbird Lane.

    In the house formerly numbered 1311 lives Melvin Mellow. At 1313, Harry Hothead. Melvin buys into the rule of law for murder. He won’t kill unless he’s threatened with death. Harry, OTOH, believes he’s justified in killing for what he perceives to be the most mild affront. One day Melvin flashes Harry a look that Harry perceives to be contempt. (In truth, Melvin was recovering from a tiff he’d just had with Martha Mellow, who was concerned that they’d not had beef in 2 months.) Enraged, Harry comes over and savagely kills Melvin.

    Harry feels perfectly within his rights. Melvin, he figgers, had looked at him sideways.

    With no rule of law, there is no authority that can intervene, ex ante or ex post.

    This is OK by you? If not,why not?

  324. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You write:

    “Melvin buys into the rule of law for murder. He won’t kill unless he’s threatened with death.”

    You say that as if the two things imply on each other.

    Not only do they not, I can cite specific instances of their opposites.

    Between 1941 and 1945 (and at other times), US law required selected Americans to kills others on order, whether they themselves were threatened with death or not.

    Also between 1941 and 1945, at least one anarchist — David Dellinger — went to prison because he refused to do so.

    “With no rule of law, there is no authority that can intervene, ex ante or ex post.”

    How the hell did you ever come up with a damnfool idea like that?

    Question: After the Supreme Court broke up the AT&T monopoly, were there no phone companies?

  325. Robert Capozzi

    387 tk, the rule of law is not perfect. In the case of war, it’s not considered “murder” even if you do. I’m not sure, but even then, I do believe that conscientious objectors could exercise that out.

    AT&T’s monopoly was within the context of a ubiquitous rule of law…apples and oranges.

  326. Michael H. Wilson

    RC you might want to read up on the UCMJ. Murdering civilians in war is still murder and there are trials occurring on the base not too far from where I live for soldiers accused of murdering civilians in Afghanistan while on patrol.

  327. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 390,

    The “out” that conscientious objectors get (and got in WWII) is that they can refrain from killing if they’re willing to work in some other area in active support of the killing. Dillinger wasn’t willing to do that, either.

    “AT&T’s monopoly was within the context of a ubiquitous rule of law…apples and oranges.”

    Touche.

    Still, it seems counter-intuitive to that ending a coercive monopoly on the part of one provider of a service would result in zero, rather than more than one, providers of that service.

    Anecdotally, the modern state’s “rule of law” seems to have not only been rather ineffective at reducing the incidence of murder, but to have greatly multiplied said incidence. Ted Bundy was a pretty scary dude, but he was a piker compared to the “rule of law.” My off-the-cuff recollection is:

    – 14 million victims of the Third Reich’s “rule of law” (exclusive of regular war casualties).

    – 35 million victims of the Soviet Union’s “rule of law” during Stalin’s tenure as administrator of said “rule of law” (exclusive of regular war casualties).

    – 70 million victims of the People’s Republic of China’s “rule of law” during Mao’s tenure as administrator of said “rule of law.”

    – Off-the-cuff estimate based on previous published period samplings: 3,000-5,000 victims of the Food and Drug Administration’s “rule of law” over the last 50 years or so.

    And that’s just the dead.

    Are you aware of any stateless areas, past or present, in which 1 in every 150 residents is kept in a cage, and another 1 in 30 or so are kept under believable constant threat of joining them, as is the case under US “rule of law?”

  328. Thomas L. Knapp

    Erratum:

    “3,000-5,000 victims of the Food and Drug Administration’s ‘rule of law’ over the last 50 years or so.” should have included the phrase “PER MONTH” after “rule of law.”

  329. Robert Capozzi

    392 tk, it seems to me that you are suggesting that you object to monopolistic rule of law by the State, not a rule of law per se. You seem to be pointing to a myriad of rules of law that might operate in an overlapping fashion. I’m guessing that in your construct, some may opt out completely of anything resembling a rule of law, but that even that is not as concerning as the current monopoly State rule of law. Harry might kill Melvin and claim he’s under no law, but that would be a rare occurrence.

    Surely you know by now that you don’t need to convince me that the State does lots of hurtful things, things I don’t support. Even with all those dysfunctions, there has been a massive material improvement by many metrics, all under monopoly States, especially in the past 50 years or so. (see here: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/videos/ted-global-2010-when-ideas-have-sex)

    Now, it’s possible that the house of cards is in the process of crashing down. I suspect that Ridley’s point — that the network effects of trade creates wealth at an increasing rate — will win the day. But the State’s ability to kill and mess with the spontaneous order could cause the Ridley Effect to fail. We’ll see.

    I suspect you agree that exceptions don’t prove anything. Very large States do tend to be especially dangerous and lethal. Very small States tend to not be so lethal. Whether a no-monopoly (non)State is achievable, I cannot say. Whether the chaos is worth the trade-off is unknowable. While non-monopoly rules of law has some theoretical appeal to me, I certainly don’t see how it could possibly be achieved in one fell swoop. Shrinking the State – territorially and/or in its reach – might move in that direction.

    But, as you know, I limit my time horizon to achievable events and don’t do highly speculative (materialistic) constructs. If you really can’t address the Melvin and Harry challenge, I suspect few will salute. Everyone knows that murders happen, and no one expects a world of no murder. Most intuitively if not explicitly see the benefit of an institutionalized, monopoly rule of law that dissuades Harry from killing Melvin.

    Again, choosing a “service” – any service — in the context of a monopoly rule of law is not the same as ending the overarching monopoly itself.

    I do wish for the Dellingers of the world who’d like to opt out completely that Nonarchy Pods are provided as an option.

  330. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 394,

    You write:

    “it seems to me that you are suggesting that you object to monopolistic rule of law by the State, not a rule of law per se.”

    I don’t see any way the two aren’t identical, or at least synonymous to the point of being indistinguishable from each other.

    “A” rule of law implies a single standard of law — a monopoly on law by some person or thing — rather than a market in laws or a network of genuine social contracts comprising de facto law.

    “I’m guessing that in your construct”

    Then you’re guessing wrong. I don’t have a construct.

    I’m content to work on smashing the state and see what happens after that should I happen to succeed.

    Godwin’s Law oh-noes:

    The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto did not have to have a fully realized vision of modern Israel in mind in order to decide that the Nazis had to be fought, did they?

Leave a Reply

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