Wayne Root: Introducing Our New Website for the Libertarian National Campaign Committee!

The LNCC, now called the Libertarian National Campaign Committee (formerly known as the Libertarian National Congressional Committee), has upgraded its website, and has a new look! As the chairman of the group, Wayne Allyn Root, posted on Facebook: “Introducing our new web site for the Libertarian National Campaign Committee (LNCC). Please help me fund and elect candidates who believe in smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, economic freedom:”

You can see the site for yourself here.

206 thoughts on “Wayne Root: Introducing Our New Website for the Libertarian National Campaign Committee!

  1. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Okay, thanks for the correction, Paulie. From a sheer visual level, I think this website is very attractive and professional, a step in the right direction.

  2. Chuck Moulton

    The website looks very professional! Great web design!

    Sadly all of the positions in the issues section are conservative though. None of the socially liberal issues libertarians espouse are addressed. The closest thing to a liberal position is non-interventionism… and that is couched in “we can’t afford to pay for it” terms rather than “let’s not kill people” terms.

    http://www.lncc.org/issues/

    It’s another wake up call to what the party’s outreach would look like with Wayne Root in charge. Or what messaging would look like with a Wayne Root presidential campaign.

    I’m not a conservative. I’m a libertarian.

  3. paulie

    http://www.lncc.org/issues/non-intervention-policy/

    reads in part “…Ron Paul expressed Libertarian concerns over intervention into the affairs of foreign countries when he campaigned that “By choosing sides, we create new enemies and grudges against the United States.”

    This is often complicated by the fact that we don’t always choose the right side when we wage war under the disguise of fighting for the rights and freedoms of others. In fact, such reckless involvement continues to threaten our nation’s security while providing a convenient excuse for government expansion.

    and

    Billions of our taxpayer’s dollars are allocated annually to defend other wealthy nations and to support an array of entitlement programs in many foreign countries. In addition, our government has unwittingly subsidized our enemies by fattening the wallets of dictators in nations with outspoken anti-American sentiments. Unwittingly, our government ends up funding terrorism, by supplying much of the wealth needed to promote aggressive actions against the Western world.

    Without money, terrorism will be diminished.

    I do hope that more social and civil liberties issues will be added soon, e.g., ending marijuana prohibition, supporting marriage equality, increasing legal immigration, and repealing the domestic civil liberties violations done in the name of the war on terror.

  4. Darryl W. Perry

    Does the LNCC seriously support the “fair tax”? State Rate Tax? Reverse Flat Tax?

    Did the LNCC even look at the LP platform?
    VI. TAXES
    1. The legislature should find more voluntary means of supporting state services, such as lotteries and user fees.

    2. The personal income tax should be repealed.

    3. Taxation of privately owned real property should be eliminated. In effect, it makes the state the owner of all lands by forcing individuals to pay rent to the state or forfeit their title.

    4. The personal property tax on Michigan businesses should be repealed.

    5. Tax favoritism should be illegal. Abatements, subsidies, credits, or other incentives to businesses based on geographical area, job creation, or any other criteria deny equal protection under the law.

    6. Sales tax on used merchandise that is resold results in double taxation and should be eliminated.

    7. Adding sales tax to products already subject to specific state taxes, such as gasoline and cigarettes, should be ended. This practice results in double taxation, as consumers are paying a tax on a tax.

    8. We oppose any sales or use tax on the Internet.

  5. Aaron Starr

    A technical correction is required.

    The entity is the Libertarian National Congressional Committee, Inc.

    The name Libertarian National Campaign Committee is a trade name filed in D.C. by the Libertarian National Congressional Committee, Inc. In locales outside of D.C. a trade name is often referred to as a fictitious business name or a dba.

    The trade name was adopted by the LNCC in order to better reflect the fact that its scope has been expanded to include support of Libertarian Party candidates up-and-down the ticket from House of Representatives down to local water boards.

  6. paulie

    Darryl, that appears to be a state platform.

    The national platform is:

    2.4 Government Finance and Spending

    All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

    Relevant portions highlighted.

  7. Darryl W. Perry

    In #6, I accidentally quoted the Michigan LP Platform… the national LP platform says:
    2.4 Government Finance and Spending
    All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the
    abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required
    under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax
    collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their
    consent. We support the passage of a “Balanced Budget Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution,
    provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

  8. Michael H. Wilson

    “Since his 2008 campaign as the Libertarian vice-presidential candidate, Wayne Allyn Root has suggested two alternatives to the national sales tax proposal.

    The first option recommends a “reverse flat tax” that would levy a 15% tax on all income up to $500,000 and 10% on all income above $500,000 to reward personal achievement.

    Other proponents of a Flat Rate Tax recommend that household income be taxed at one marginal rate rather than employing progressive or regressive tax rates.”
    http://www.lncc.org/issues/national-sales-tax/

    A reverse flat tax? Well that dog don’t hunt..

    “Libertarians believe in the individual freedoms and civil liberties as granted by the United States Constitution,…” http://www.lncc.org/issues/tea-party-libertarians/

    The Constitution doesn’t grant me squat.

    “Countrywide Financial (the largest mortgage lender in the U.S.) had warned that the “refinancing boom” was simply allowing homeowners to reduce their monthly payments while withdrawing equity from their homes.”

    That needs to be worded differently. It reads as if Countrywide was concerned. I don’t think so. They were in on the scam from the gitgo. Suggested reading is Reckless Endangerment

  9. paulie

    “Since his 2008 campaign as the Libertarian vice-presidential candidate, Wayne Allyn Root has suggested two alternatives to the national sales tax proposal.

    The first option recommends a “reverse flat tax” that would levy a 15% tax on all income up to $500,000 and 10% on all income above $500,000 to reward personal achievement.

    Other proponents of a Flat Rate Tax recommend that household income be taxed at one marginal rate rather than employing progressive or regressive tax rates.”
    http://www.lncc.org/issues/national-sales-tax/

    A reverse flat tax? Well that dog don’t hunt..

    I like the other proposal much better:

    Another political alternative for the repeal of the federal income tax is to have each state pay an annual tax (often referred to as a State Rate Tax) based on the population of their state. Libertarians like Wayne Allyn Root believe it would work best for the individual state to determine how their share of the money is raised. However, states would be prohibited from levying any tax on interstate commerce to ensure that our nation is in full support of fair trade.

  10. Chuck Moulton

    Darryl Perry wrote (@6):

    Does the LNCC seriously support the “fair tax”? State Rate Tax? Reverse Flat Tax?

    Did the LNCC even look at the LP platform?

    Darryl Perry wrote (@9):

    In #6, I accidentally quoted the Michigan LP Platform… the national LP platform says:

    2.4 Government Finance and Spending

    The LP platform you quoted doesn’t seem to contradict the “fair tax” or the “state rate tax”.

    Personally I favor a flat income tax, though I could support a flat consumption tax (not the “fair tax” with its prebate) or taxing states and letting them decide how to raise the revenue. The reverse income tax (really it is a regressive income tax) neither seems like a good idea nor a sellable plan.

  11. Chuck Moulton

    Michael H. Wilson wrote (@10):

    http://www.lncc.org/issues/tea-party-libertarians/

    “Libertarians believe in the individual freedoms and civil liberties as granted by the United States Constitution,…”

    The Constitution doesn’t grant me squat.

    Good catch. Libertarians should know better. Our rights are natural rights, not Constitution granted rights. The constitution merely recognizes our inherent natural rights.

  12. Chuck Moulton

    Aaron Starr wrote (@7):

    A technical correction is required.

    The name Libertarian National Campaign Committee is a trade name

    Thanks for the clarification/correction, Aaron!

  13. Aaron Starr

    @6

    Folks, if you actually read the web page, you’ll find that the LNCC does not support the Fair Tax.

    Our SEO consultants have let us know that the “Fair Tax” has a relatively high ranking in search engine results, so they recommended we have something to attract folks who are interested in that topic to come to the website.

    Fair Tax folks are already unhappy with the status quo. Hopefully, we can introduce these people to other alternatives that reduce or even eliminate an individual income tax.

  14. Just Asking

    When did the Libertarian Party become an even crazier version of the Tea Party? A “reverse flat tax” in which the government rewards the rich?

    In a libertarian society, one would think the government wouldn’t be choosing winners and losers, or creating an environment in which a janitor would be paying a higher percentage in federal taxes than the billionaire whose bathroom he cleans. Sheesh.

    Sometime political parties become obsolete long before their time…

  15. Darryl W. Perry

    @12 – based on calculations I did from 2007, if all extra-constitutional spending were eliminated, the IRS could be abolished and the budget would be balanced.

    As a side note, the Grace Commission reposted in 1984, “100 percent of what is collected (by the IRS) is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt…all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from their Government.”

  16. Aaron Starr

    @13

    Actually, it was supposed to read “guaranteed,” not “granted”. Thanks for catching that. I’ll have the folks update the site.

  17. Darryl W. Perry

    @Aaron Our SEO consultants have let us know that the “Fair Tax” has a relatively high ranking in search engine results, so they recommended we have something to attract folks who are interested in that topic to come to the website.

    “Lesbian porn” also has high search engine results… let’s use it to our advantage!

  18. paulie

    The LP platform you quoted doesn’t seem to contradict the “fair tax” or the “state rate tax”.

    I believe it does contradict the “fair tax.”

    All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor.

    I suppose that could be taken to mean that, if you grow your own food, barter and/or buy only used items, you could keep the fruits of your labor. But how many people can realistically do that?

    But, let’s suppose that is not an issue;


    We call for [..] the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.

    There would have to be some federal agency to collect the “fair tax,” whether from individuals, businesses, or states.

    Personally I favor a flat income tax, though I could support a flat consumption tax (not the “fair tax” with its prebate) or taxing states and letting them decide how to raise the revenue.

    The last one sounds like the best idea to me.

    Politically, it is much easier to institute a new tax than to repeal an existing one (much less keep it from coming back).

    Pushing any new tax does not seem to me to be a wise idea. It is unlikely to be implemented exactly as we propose.

    I believe the most likely result would be both a sales tax as well as an income tax.

    What about people that paid income tax their whole working life and saved money? Will they get double-socked when they finally spend it?

    There are other problems with a new national sales tax, with or without prebate, which is a whole separate can of worms.

    How about calling for

    1) Simplifying the income tax code as a first step

    2) Repealing the 16th amendment and going back to taxing states as a somewhat more ambitious or longer range goal

  19. Aaron Starr

    @19

    “Lesbian porn” also has high search engine results… let’s use it to our advantage!

    Perhaps, but it wouldn’t reach a target market particularly interested in political action.

    If you come up with possibilities that do, please let me know.

  20. paulie

    A “reverse flat tax” in which the government rewards the rich?

    Even those of you who think that may be a good idea should realize it is terrible political positioning.

    I would recommend removing that as one of the options being discussed.

  21. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I love posting articles that get people fired up! It’s one of my favorite things to do! 🙂

  22. paulie

    “Lesbian porn” also has high search engine results… let’s use it to our advantage!

    Perhaps, but it wouldn’t reach a target market particularly interested in political action.

    If you come up with possibilities that do, please let me know.

    Headline:

    Lesbian Porn?

    Text:

    Something along the lines of:

    We support equal rights for lesbians (as well as gay men, bisexuals, transgender and transexual people), including equal marriage rights so long as government remains involved in the marriage business.

    We also support the right of consenting adults to produce and consume pornography.

    Hope that helps 🙂

  23. Brian Holtz

    @11 Yes, replace the 16th amendment with contributions from the states, apportioned by land value (but not land improvements).

    The text could be taken straight from Article 8 from the Articles of Confederation:

    “All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint. The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.”

  24. paulie

    that’s along the lines of what I was thinking!

    I’m not being facetious, either.

    Gay rights activist are certainly politically motivated. They also have a proven track record of supporting their cause both with their time and money.

    Many of them don’t agree with Democrats on economic issues, but fear the social interventionism of the right more than they fear the economic interventionism of the left.

    Pornography producers have disposable income, but no party to work to protect their interests. Republicans and Constitutionalists tend to bend to the political will of the religious right. Many Democrats and Greens are afraid of offending anti-porn feminists, and may seek to regulate or outlaw porn because they believe it is misogynistic (granted, some of it is). They also may wish to tax and regulate it to death. Additionally, black churches, observant Catholics and socially conservative union members provide a large portion of Democratic Party revenues and volunteers. It is therefore not likely that Democrats will protect porn from attacks by the religious right.

    Although many porn consumers (much like online gamblers) may not wish to publicize their interest in porn with reported donations, it is conceivable that they could donate to candidates who support protecting legal pornography among a variety of other issues.

    The Obama administration has continued obscenity prosecutions against extreme pornographers that began under the Bush administration. It is quite possible that these could expand.

  25. Aaron Starr

    @22

    Perhaps. Some could legitimately argue that the more someone makes, the less they should have to pay as a percentage of their income or wealth.

    In the marketplace, typically, the more of a good or service you buy from a business, the lower the marginal cost.

    Assuming one views government as an entity that provides a legitimate service protecting people and their property against criminals, rather than as a tool of plunder and wealth redistribution, a person making $1,000,000 per year is not 100 times more expensive to protect than someone making $10,000 per year.

  26. paulie

    You can argue that all you want, but it is terrible political positioning.

    Not just bad.

    Absolutely terrible.

    If you are trying to create a platform that is politically sellable – and from most of what you say on the site it seems that you are – please ditch that one ASAP.

    If you want to talk pure logic, you may as well highlight legalizing meth and heroin, immediate separation of school and state, polygamy, ferrets, etc and so on.

    I thought you were trying to lead with views that have the support of a large portion of the public.

    Which is it?

  27. Aaron Starr

    @29

    I believe it comes down to what people in the political marketplace are interested in supporting, rather than what personally floats our boats.

    As an example, Wayne Root’s pet issue is legalized gambling. It’s very important to him. But I believe he has come to realize that while it may be important to him, it may not be so important to the public — at least at this point in time.

  28. Aaron Starr

    @31

    I wasn’t clear. I am saying that you make a good case and I intend to talk to the powers that be to see if we should change that.

  29. paulie

    I believe it comes down to what people in the political marketplace are interested in supporting, rather than what personally floats our boats.

    I agree.

    And I believe that marriage equality is such an issue.

    I also believe that we have a political opportunity there – many gay people (and their supporters) who don’t care for the economic interventionism of the Democrats, but fear the social interventionism of the Republicans even more.

    As for porn, I would agree that like gambling, it’s probably not one of the issues we should highlight in a short list of topics.

    However, it does have some potential as a possible issue to keep an eye on if the obscenity prosecutions expand.

  30. paulie

    I wasn’t clear. I am saying that you make a good case and I intend to talk to the powers that be to see if we should change that.

    Thank you.

  31. George Phillies

    @31 You are absolutely right.

    “Tax rich people at a lower rate” is one of the least saleable political stands ever suggested for our party. It’s also not flat.

  32. Aaron Starr

    Paulie @ 35 writes

    And I believe that marriage equality is such an issue.

    I also believe that we have a political opportunity there – many gay people (and their supporters) who don’t care for the economic interventionism of the Democrats, but fear the social interventionism of the Republicans even more.

    You may be right.

    And while I believe that our candidates should act upon those beliefs and implement such policies after they are elected to office, I am skeptical that one generally wins office — especially at a local level, where we currently do win office — by running on those issues.

    There are no doubt exceptions to that. I imagine I would run a much different campaign in Berkeley, California than I would in Salt Lake City, Utah.

    In politics one needs to lead with issues that are most important to the median voter in that district.

  33. Aaron Starr

    @39

    “We all ready tax the rich at a lower rate when it come to social security taxes.”

    The purported benefits are also lower to those who make more money.

    As it stands now, the folks who pay the least into social security receive a disproportionate share of the funds. Social Security is both a Ponzi scheme AND a wealth redistribution scheme. In other words, it’s a system of plunder.

  34. Michael H. Wilson

    Aaron I am not going to argue the outcome. It is a simple fact that people earning a million annually pay a smaller percentage than someone earning 50K.

    If you want to argue with some else go for it!

  35. Michael H. Wilson

    BTW when I was about 20 years old which was a shit pot of years ago I stood in a Baltimore theater and disagreed with someone who worked for the SS people on this issue while I was in uniform no less and I think I pissed off my date.

  36. Mario Conde

    Wayne, I have been following your political career since 2007. I commend you for your job within the Libertarian Party and you current dedication to the LNCC.

    I wish you success in fundraising for Libertarian candidates and hope good things from your committiee to change national politics for the better.

  37. paulie

    In politics one needs to lead with issues that are most important to the median voter in that district.

    To some extent yes.

    However, some voters are more available to a non-duopoly party than others.

    Studying who those voters are, and why, is key to taking a small party to the next level.

    Niche marketing is incredibly important when you are trying to break in and carve a place along larger, more established players in any field.

    Some people are also more likely to put in significant amounts of their time and money on some issues that are personally very important to them.

    When you find significant demographics that are not being served by the big two, have a track record of working hard on behalf of what they find important, and often times have disposable income…it’s not politically intelligent to pass by the opportunity to reach out to them.

    It’s also politically smart to highlight a mix of left-leaning and right-leaning issues.

    If we lead entirely, or almost entirely, with one or the other, we’ll get a lot of “yeah, I like what you guys are saying, but you are just taking votes from X and Y is worse than X…I’d vote for you but I’m more afraid of Y. I’ll keep voting X despite everything you say being correct.”

    Of course we’ll get that no matter what, but being balanced helps us counter that argument.

    Lean too much in one direction, and you are bound to topple.

  38. paulie

    I wish you success in fundraising for Libertarian candidates and hope good things from your committiee to change national politics for the better.

    All nitpicking aside, I agree.

  39. Michael Cavlan RN

    Hey Folks

    Now you all know my contempt for Wayne Root and the reasons why

    Just a thought. From a non Lib ally. I checked out the website. With pictures of EVIL Obama- EVIL Pelosi- and EVIL GW Bush. As in the former prez Bush. Not a picture of the current Repukes.

    It reminded me of the Greens lesser evil, safe states strategy.

    Which turned off a bunch of people. People who are now former Greens.

    I have no dog in this fight. Just a thought from an ally.

  40. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    By the way, about that picture of George W Bush–thanks to the LNCC
    for including it on this website. Another good step in the right direction!

  41. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 40 Aaron writes; “In politics one needs to lead with issues that are most important to the median voter in that district.”

    Maybe you guys need to get some stuff up on urban issues i.e zoning, etc.

  42. Chuck Moulton

    Aaron Starr wrote (@32):

    As an example, Wayne Root’s pet issue is legalized gambling. It’s very important to him. But I believe he has come to realize that while it may be important to him, it may not be so important to the public — at least at this point in time.

    Legalizing gambling (especially poker) is a niche issue that strongly appeals to certain demographics. I have many friends for whom it is their #1 vote moving issue… because they make all or most of of their income from playing poker.

    This is prime time for the gambling issue. Much like gay marriage and marijuana legalization, demographics are trending libertarian… it’s just a matter of time for all of them. We can lead the charge, or we can wait to embrace the issue until the majority of states have already legalized and be a johnny-come-lately supporter.

    Anyway, I don’t necessarily think the LNCC has to mirror the LP platform or address every issue under the sun. But I do share Paulie’s concern about balance. Right now it’s a conservative issues page.

    I’m not going to dictate what the LNCC has on its issue page. I just won’t send them any money. They don’t represent me.

    My main concern is I don’t want to see the LP platform or the LPHQ messaging go in that conservative only direction. And I don’t want the LP to nominate a presidential candidate that leans so far right he’s going to fall over.

    I’m a libertarian.

  43. Chuck Moulton

    Michael H. Wilson wrote (@39):

    We all ready tax the rich at a lower rate when it come to social security taxes.

    Michael H. Wilson wrote (@42):

    It is a simple fact that people earning a million annually pay a smaller percentage than someone earning 50K.

    George Phillies wrote (@47):

    See Mark Perry’s Carpe Diem on this.

    The rich pay more. Buffet, incidentally has a salary of $100,000 per year, and may be being paid less in salary than some of his ‘secretarial’ support staff.

    I think you are misunderstanding him, George. Michael is talking about social security taxes only, not about taxes in general or income taxes. The SS tax only applies for income up to $100,000. So above $100k as a percentage of total income SS tax goes down as income rises.

  44. Tom Blanton

    The Cicero quote on the “issues” page is highly dubious. I imagine Wayne picked it up from one of those tea party chain e-mails. It apparently originates from a fictitious account of Cicero’s life.

    Root’s “reverse flat tax” that isn’t flat should be just the thing for Republican rubes who are now extolling the fairness of taxing millionaires less. What a grand strategy for libertarians to take – especially those that believe tax cuts for the rich is a substitute for government spending cuts.

    If you’re in favor income tax repeal, get behind the LNCC today and support your Libertarian candidates at the local, state and federal levels.

    Now, that’s almost a well-crafted sentence from Wayne’s national sales tax page. Another problem with that page is that while it does mention Wayne’s book, no link is provided where his millions of fans can go to buy the thing.

    A ringing cell phone is turns people off, whether or not you answer it.

    Another sentence that is almost correct.

    I can’t bear to read any more of this very professional looking website. That would be just nitpicking. Anyway, in the new LP, content doesn’t matter – it’s how many right-wing talk radio shows you get on that’s important.

  45. Aaron Starr

    @49

    “By the way, about that picture of George W Bush–thanks to the LNCC
    for including it on this website. Another good step in the right direction!”

    We just wanted to select well-known politicians who are held in low regard by large segments of the population.

  46. paulie

    I’m not going to dictate what the LNCC has on its issue page. I just won’t send them any money. They don’t represent me.

    Are you willing to help fund, and find other people to help fund an alternative…say a Libertarian National Senatorial Committee DBA Libertarian National Spotlight Committee or something like that?

    Right now the LNCC has the advantage that they haven’t just put forward their opinion of the direction the party should take; they have raised at least five figures and made a nice looking site that could potentially bring in a lot more, laying out their vision.

    I would love for those who would prefer a less rightist bent to do the same.

    Unfortunately, I can only make this as a suggestion to others. However, if anyone takes me up on it, I do have the ability to help the prospective organization get a record of achievement in the party through doing ballot access, voter registration, field organizing, student group organizing, and helping build local parties around the country.

    I may also have a team that is willing to work the phones and raise some money.

    Anyone want to lay out a few bucks and get the ball rolling?

  47. Aaron Starr

    @42

    “Aaron I am not going to argue the outcome. It is a simple fact that people earning a million annually pay a smaller percentage than someone earning 50K.

    If you want to argue with some else go for it!”

    There’s nothing to argue.

    At the end of the day, Social Security is a wealth transfer scheme from rich-to-poor and from young-to-old. And the architects behind the scheme are unapologetic about it.

  48. paulie

    Anyway, in the new LP, content doesn’t matter – it’s how many right-wing talk radio shows you get on that’s important.

    Too bad the LP does not have Tom Blanton doing outreach to other market segments.

  49. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie wrote (@55):

    Are you willing to help fund, and find other people to help fund an alternative…say a Libertarian National Senatorial Committee DBA Libertarian National Spotlight Committee or something like that?

    I already grabbed the lnsc.org domain and donated it to the LNCC (at the same time I transferred lncc.org).

    I don’t think this should be about forming another national committee. National congressional and senatorial committees are meant to organize political action anyway, not move the ideology of the party.

    I used to think the next practical focus should be on college organizing. However, Students for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty are doing a pretty good job of organizing small-L libertarians nowadays, so there is less of a gaping void to fill.

    I have very little time the next few months due to teaching commitments. And I have very little money to spare because I am donating to big-L and small-L libertarian candidates that I like. Many small donations add up. If I donate any money to organizational drives it will probably be more towards recruiting Gary Johnson to run LP… because I support NOTA over the whole field at this point and Johnson seems like the best shot of salvaging 2012.

    So no, I won’t be helping to fund and find others to fund an alternative.

  50. Aaron Starr

    Tom @53

    We are interested in reaching out to an audience we can win over who is willing to donate significant money to support Libertarian candidates.

    I realize we cannot win you over. And that’s okay. You are certainly welcome to disagree and go out and do things your own way.

    If someone actually demonstrates to us that another approach works, we’re not above emulating it.

    In the meantime, we are just going to do our best. And I understand that some people are going to disagree with our approach.

    Such is life.

  51. paulie

    National congressional and senatorial committees are meant to organize political action anyway, not move the ideology of the party.

    It is clear that LNCC will be used in part to influence the ideology of the party. We either step up our game and meet the challenge head on, or cede ground by default.

    I hope we step our game in a way that will be beneficial to the party as a whole, rather than just nitpicking what LNCC is doing, which will not move the people on the fence who are interested in results more than ideological fine tuning our way.

    I used to think the next practical focus should be on college organizing. However, Students for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty are doing a pretty good job of organizing small-L libertarians nowadays, so there is less of a gaping void to fill.

    SFL and YAL are good, but we should have a partisan LP group on campuses as well. There are progressive and conservative groups at colleges, but there are also separate partisan Democratic and Republican groups as well.

    The LP also lacks a field organizing team. Most of our recruiting is passive, and that needs to change. Most of our affiliates lack training support; sure, there are some materials available, but they have not been adequately publicized.

    We need voter registration drives. Right now there is no coordinated effort to do that everywhere that has the LP as an option to register with. We should.

    We need a speakers bureau and an effort to place the speakers in front of audiences.

    We need a coordinated effort to create better flyers and videos.

    That’s just a few of the things that need to be done.

    So no, I won’t be helping to fund and find others to fund an alternative.

    That’s too bad.

    I’m hoping someone else reading will be more interested in getting these ideas implemented.

  52. paulie

    If I donate any money to organizational drives it will probably be more towards recruiting Gary Johnson to run LP…

    I don’t know what the chances of that would be. If I was Johnson I would stay put, and hope to do as well in 2016 as Paul is doing this year.

    If he does go LP, I would hope we could persuade him to drop his support of the so-called “fair tax.” However, I don’t think we would have any luck.

    I support NOTA over the whole field at this point

    I think NOTA would be a big mistake.

    I believe if we go NOTA next year, it will be NOTA or cross-endorsement, diminishing ballot access, and diminishing activities at all levels, in a downward spiral from that point forward.

    I also don’t see the existing field this year as being that terrible.

    Would Wrights or Harris run a worse campaign than Bergland, Marrou or Badnarik?

    Wrights could be better on the stump, but his written pieces are good. He’s solid on libertarian ideology, even if his resume is not very impressive. Neither was Badnarik’s, but so what? I don’t think NOTA would have been better than Badnarik, even though I supported Russo.

    Harris is pretty good at reaching Ron Paul supporters and has some “cred” there. His abortion position is a concern, but then so too is Johnson’s support for the Boortz-Linder trojan horse tax plan.

  53. Kennon Gilson

    From my comment–Sep 23, 2011 at 6:27 am

    Hi Wayne,

    Passing along info on the new LNCC site. It looks impressive. As a teen Libertarian in appointive public office, I try and encourage people to get involved locally and I hope eventually into elective public office.–Good luck!

    “Their aim is to develop local elective especially legislative candidates and from them also Federal ones.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Libertarian-National-Campaign-Committee/185386681515061?sk=wall and http://www.lncc.org/ to check it all out.

    Check out the updated LNCC-Libertarian PAC Facebook and site. I’m member lucky #7!”–Kennon

  54. Robert Capozzi

    63 p: His abortion position is a concern, but then so too is Johnson’s support for the Boortz-Linder trojan horse tax plan.

    me: No fan of the FAIR Tax, either, but all things considered, GJ’s choosing it as his foil seems not a bad move to me. It has elements that make sense, and it allows him to critique the current tax regime in ways that are graspable for the electorate. I don’t see it as a Trojan Horse, since I don’t see him winning or it becoming law.

    Unfortunately, perhaps, campaigns are soundbite driven. The FAIR Tax is a soundbite plan. A consumption tax with a prebate might a more general idea that is useful to put in the public square. He’s also put out there a 43% spending cut, in tandem with the FAIR Tax. Neither will happen, but both can be understood as aspirational, short- to intermediate-term goals.

    Just as he didn’t take a hard-edged position on Gitmo, this tandem is also not hard-edged, but it does begin to paint a picture of a semi-plausible L direction.

    Personally, I’d prefer it if he settled on a flat tax with a high exemption and negative income tax component and deepish spending cuts, but his positioning with his current tandem has landed him the “sanest man” label. As a general proposition, that’s a good place for Ls to be…edgy, not fringy.

    Maybe he waits it out til 2016; maybe he brings his message to the LP. It’s a pretty darned good message for those who wish to advance liberty, IMO.

    We’ll see…

  55. Steven R Linnabary

    I cringe every time I hear a “Libertarian” propose a new tax whether it is a national sales tax, a tax on marijuana or any other tax scheme.

    Why should any Libertarian propose new taxes for unneeded and counterproductive government bureaucracies? Let democrats and republicans do their own work. They are good enough at it.

    PEACE

  56. Scott Lieberman

    “Chuck Moulton // Sep 24, 2011 at 11:38 pm

    My main concern is I don’t want to see the LP platform or the LPHQ messaging go in that conservative only direction. And I don’t want the LP to nominate a presidential candidate that leans so far right he’s going to fall over.”

    ************************************

    The Libertarian Party Bylaws say that the purpose of the LP is to move public policy in a libertarian direction. Making the country more free economically, while not decreasing the amount of social tolerance, does move the country in a libertarian direction – just take a look at the WSPQ. If you move in a Northeast direction, you move from Liberal to Centrist to Libertarian.

    If the LNCC wants to use economic issues almost exclusively as their “hook” to get people to take a look at the Libertarian Party, I have no quarrel with that tactic. When LNCC supported candidates win their elections and start proposing legislation that makes the country less socially tolerant, that is when Mr. Moulton’s criticisms about “lean(ing) so far right” become valid.

  57. Robert Capozzi

    67 srl: Why should any Libertarian propose new taxes for unneeded and counterproductive government bureaucracies?

    me: There are a lot of reasons. First and foremost, while most/all Ls would like to see a rolling back of bureaucracies, funding what remains is also important. It’s bad for liberty to run perpetual deficits on a lot of levels.

    Ls who wish to reform the government’s revenue-raising methods believe that doing so could have secondary and tertiary benefits. The current code creates counterproductive incentives. I’m OK with tweaking HOW revenues are raised as well as HOW MUCH is raised and spent. “How” is a secondary consideration in my mind, but it IS a consideration.

    It’s a show of responsibility to consider the HOW along with the HOW MUCH. It’s preferable to present a responsible path out of the current quagmire.

    And, no, I can’t agree with you that the Rs and Ds are “good enough” at what they do. I’d say they do an exceedingly poor job, actually.

  58. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@66,

    “I don’t see it as a Trojan Horse, since I don’t see him winning or it becoming law.”

    “A consumption tax with a prebate might a more general idea that is useful to put in the public square.”

    The nice thing about the “Fair” Tax is that we don’t even have to reach the whole “no new taxes” or “taxation is theft” issues to get to the fact that it’s a very bad idea … that a lot of politicians would love to see passed.

    Here’s why lots of politicians love the “Fair” Tax:

    1) The rate, as advertised by its opponents, is a lie.

    They say it’s 23%, but when calculated as sales taxes are calculated now, and as they’ve always been calculated, it’s 30%. Politicians love to be able to tax you more while pretending to tax you less.

    2) The “prebate” — politician-speak for advance rebate — is also a lie. It’s not a rebate in any honest sense of the word. Receipt of it is not conditioned on the amount of tax paid, or even of payment of any tax at all. If you buy everything you buy used or on the black market, you get the same check as the guy who pays tax on every last cent he spends.

    It’s just a monthly federal welfare check to every man, woman and child in the United States, period, end of story.

    Politicians love handing out money, because once they start handing out money they can get anything they want simply by musing that if they don’t get what they want, they’ll have to stop handing out the money.

    If you think getting Social Security reformed is hard, you ain’t seen third rail yet. Who wants to be the politician to tell every voter, and every voter’s child, “sorry, but I’m proposing to stop sending you money every month” or even “we need to stop sending you so much every month?”

    I always thought it would be hard to come up with a worse system than the progressive, multi-rate federal income tax with its hodge-podge of exemptions, deductions, credits and loopholes, combined with the regressive Social Security/Medicare payroll tax … but the “Fair” Tax idiots managed it.

  59. Robert Capozzi

    71 tk: It’s just a monthly federal welfare check to every man, woman and child in the United States, period, end of story.

    me: For you. For me, it’s justified on neo-Georgist grounds. As a practical matter, a prebate or a negative income tax is preferable to the welfare state, with strings attached. Finally, I view it as an insurance payment for the inherent failures of jurisprudence. Property rights are based on jurisprudence, which involves the ability to press a case. Every day we see injustice and let it go for lack of resources and the limitations of the discovery process. A prebate/negative income tax is an anticipatory civil damages plan, roughly speaking.

  60. Robert Capozzi

    71 tk: Here’s why lots of politicians love the “Fair” Tax:..

    me: It could be that those are the reasons GJ has embraced a FAIR Tax. I see no reason to believe that that’s his reasoning. I suspect he likes the economics of a consumption tax VS. an income tax. The FAIR Tax has a built in constituency, perhaps a confused constituency.

    Do you mean to suggest, however, that you have reason to believe that GJ likes the FAIR Tax because it’s based on a “lie”?

  61. Robert Capozzi

    74 mhw, ignoring HOW revenues are raised ignores an important allied block to spending cuts. It’s MUCH more difficult to cut spending when the tax system is pronouncedly dysfunctional and perceived as being unfair. IMO. My guess is GJ intuitively if not explicitly recognizes that state of play.

  62. paulie

    RC

    I don’t see it [Boortz- Linder “fair” tax] as a Trojan Horse, since I don’t see him winning or it becoming law.

    I do see it “winning” and becoming law, with one major difference from the proposal: I don’t think the income tax will be repealed.

    With the amount of debt, war, entitlement creep and violations of civil liberties in the name of the wars on drugs and terrorism that the government is undertaking, they “need” new revenue sources. Raising the income tax or other existing tax rates too high may be more difficult to implement than passing a new tax.

    If you double income tax rates, the frog might jump. But a new tax that may be hidden in the price people pay (as with, for example, cigarettes or gasoline now), may go down easier. All the people who already think they are getting “something for nothing” from the government with their income tax refunds of their own money should point the way. As would Europe. Besides, with the baby boomers entering retirement age, how else do “you” tap all that stored wealth of those of them who saved their whole lives for retirement? They’ll have no more income, but they will be spending.

    The nature of government is such that when you propose a new tax or government program, it is much easier to enact than any cuts or rollbacks of government powers. That is why we still have taxes passed to fund wars that have long been over, and troops in countries where there were wars decades ago. So, if Libertarian have nine plans for cutting government and one plan that could prove useful to those that want to grow government, like the Boortz-Linder trojan horse, only that last plan is what is most likely to become real life law. And it will be, at least in part, our fault. I’d hate to see that happen.

    It is also a trojan horse because, to prevent evasion, the government may start tracking all purchases.This will also make it possible to know who is buying certain books, ammunition, weapon, gold, and other items of interest. And to make that easier, it may finally be the excuse some are looking for to get rid of paper money and coins and go to a government credit/debit card or chip. I doubt the part of the plan that leaves used goods untaxed would remain intact; government will want to keep track of everything people buy and sell. There may be growing use of surveillance cameras and citizen-informers to cut down on barter and alternative currencies.

    Personally, I’d prefer it if he settled on a flat tax with a high exemption

    Same here, as I stated above.

    It’s a pretty darned good message for those who wish to advance liberty, IMO.

    Overall, yes. But the tax plan, not so much.

  63. paulie

    I cringe every time I hear a “Libertarian” propose a new tax whether it is a national sales tax, a tax on marijuana or any other tax scheme.

    Generally speaking, agreed, but a tax on marijuana is preferable to prison.

  64. paulie

    The Libertarian Party Bylaws say that the purpose of the LP is to move public policy in a libertarian direction. Making the country more free economically, while not decreasing the amount of social tolerance, does move the country in a libertarian direction – just take a look at the WSPQ. If you move in a Northeast direction, you move from Liberal to Centrist to Libertarian.

    If the LNCC wants to use economic issues almost exclusively as their “hook” to get people to take a look at the Libertarian Party, I have no quarrel with that tactic. When LNCC supported candidates win their elections and start proposing legislation that makes the country less socially tolerant, that is when Mr. Moulton’s criticisms about “lean(ing) so far right” become valid.

    The problem is that when you do that, you get people who pretty much all think the Republicans are the lesser evil vis a vis the Democrats. This means that they will often times go back to the Republicans when it comes time to vote or make donations. Even if they like the Libertarian message better. Those of us who believe that peace and civil liberties issues are just as important see the Republicans as, in some ways, the greater evil than the Democrats, and in other ways (at least in theory) as the lesser evil. That means there actually is no lesser evil between them, which is why it makes sense that we have a separate political party.

    Another problem with that is that it leaves out all the people who care most about the social issues that are being left off the table. I know I would have never come in to a Libertarian Party that only stressed its economic issues in a way calculated to appeal to conservatives. Now, of course, some of you may say: you mean we could have kept this guy out? So what’s the downside? Well, OPH on college campuses shows that the single biggest cluster of young adults is left/center/libertarian. Ron Paul has been able to reach this audience by emphasizing antiwar positions. This audience knows and cares more about social issues than economic issues. And they are much less likely to have a firm commitment to one of the two big parties than older people. Maybe, just maybe, we should not give up on the next generation of potential Libertarians just so we can keep chasing the fool’s gold of disgruntled conservatives who will keep voting Republican (or soon enough go back to doing so) because it is to them the lesser evil.

    And, yet another problem is that when you stay silent on non-economic issues, you bring in a lot of people who do want bigger government in the social and foreign policy realms. That is what happened to the Tea Parties. They started out being libertarian, but focused exclusively on economic questions and neutral on other issues. Then a bunch of neocons and theocons joined, and now many tea parties are just Republican pep rallies. In fact, many of them will support even “RINOs” they don’t like just to keep the Democrats out, and will enthusiastically support warmongering, socially repressive red meat Republicans who pay lip service to cutting government on the economic side and are branded “Tea Party Republicans” – the Michelle Bachmann types.

    That is what happens when you lean too far right….like a ship leaning too far to one side, it topples.

  65. paulie

    Ls who wish to reform the government’s revenue-raising methods believe that doing so could have secondary and tertiary benefits.

    Or, in the case of the Boortz-Linder trojan horse, secondary and tertiary costs and risks.

  66. paulie

    The nice thing about the “Fair” Tax is that we don’t even have to reach the whole “no new taxes” or “taxation is theft” issues to get to the fact that it’s a very bad idea … that a lot of politicians would love to see passed.

    Here’s why lots of politicians love the “Fair” Tax:

    1) The rate, as advertised by its opponents, is a lie.

    They say it’s 23%, but when calculated as sales taxes are calculated now, and as they’ve always been calculated, it’s 30%. Politicians love to be able to tax you more while pretending to tax you less.

    2) The “prebate” — politician-speak for advance rebate — is also a lie. It’s not a rebate in any honest sense of the word. Receipt of it is not conditioned on the amount of tax paid, or even of payment of any tax at all. If you buy everything you buy used or on the black market, you get the same check as the guy who pays tax on every last cent he spends.

    It’s just a monthly federal welfare check to every man, woman and child in the United States, period, end of story.

    Politicians love handing out money, because once they start handing out money they can get anything they want simply by musing that if they don’t get what they want, they’ll have to stop handing out the money.

    If you think getting Social Security reformed is hard, you ain’t seen third rail yet. Who wants to be the politician to tell every voter, and every voter’s child, “sorry, but I’m proposing to stop sending you money every month” or even “we need to stop sending you so much every month?”

    I always thought it would be hard to come up with a worse system than the progressive, multi-rate federal income tax with its hodge-podge of exemptions, deductions, credits and loopholes, combined with the regressive Social Security/Medicare payroll tax … but the “Fair” Tax idiots managed it.

    That is all true, but it is just the tip of the iceberg with the Boortz-Linder trojan horse.

    And by iceberg, I mean the kind that sunk the Titanic.

  67. paulie

    And, no, I can’t agree with you that the Rs and Ds are “good enough” at what they do. I’d say they do an exceedingly poor job, actually.

    I think that Steve meant “make government bigger and more intrusive” by “what they do.”

    We don’t want them to be better at doing that.

  68. paulie

    The regressive income tax proposal is in no sense the platform, is politically suicidal, and is in no sense consistent with equality for all under the law.

    For our intended audience, let’s just concentrate on the politically suicidal part.

    I believe I made some progress with Mr. Starr using that argument yesterday evening.

  69. Robert Capozzi

    76 p: But a new tax that may be hidden in the price people pay (as with, for example, cigarettes or gasoline now), may go down easier.

    me: Yes, I somewhat share your concern. I’d say a VAT is the bigger threat than the FAIR Tax, which is specifically a replacement plan.

    Let’s say, though, that something like a FAIR Tax is added in 2013 ON TOP OF the income tax. Would I hold GJ responsible in any way for this misfortune due to his (relatively late) advocacy of the FAIR Tax? No. Is his advocacy of a FAIR Tax a reason not to vote for him? No. Does his advocacy of the FAIR Tax disqualify him as the L’s ticket topper? In my judgment, not. He’d be a great choice, IMO.

  70. paulie

    As a practical matter, a prebate or a negative income tax is preferable to the welfare state, with strings attached. Finally, I view it as an insurance payment for the inherent failures of jurisprudence. Property rights are based on jurisprudence, which involves the ability to press a case. Every day we see injustice and let it go for lack of resources and the limitations of the discovery process. A prebate/negative income tax is an anticipatory civil damages plan, roughly speaking.

    You can call it whatever you want, but the reality of it would be that everyone gets a check, gets used to getting a check, and wants the check to get bigger – certainly never to go away or get smaller. So cutting government then becomes practically impossible.

  71. paulie

    It could be that those are the reasons GJ has embraced a FAIR Tax. I see no reason to believe that that’s his reasoning.

    Me neither.

    However, I believe that he (and other libertarians who misguidedly lend their support to the Boortz-Linder trojan horse) are playing into the hands of those who want that plan, or a bastardized version of it, enacted for their own purposes, which are quite different from ours.

    When what we think we want lines up with what they actually want, that is dangerous, because it just might actually happen.

    The saying “be careful what you wish for” comes to mind here.

  72. paulie

    All this tax discussion does is ignore the goal which is to reduce government.

    Not entirely.

    Some tax plans make it harder to reduce government than others.

    A plan which puts the whole country on a federal check every month seems to me to be in the “make it harder” category.

    I actually did not mean to go off on a tangent; my original point was only that Harris and Johnson both have some drawbacks from the libertarian ideological perspective while being good on the vast majority of other issues.

  73. paulie

    ignoring HOW revenues are raised ignores an important allied block to spending cuts. It’s MUCH more difficult to cut spending when the tax system is pronouncedly dysfunctional and perceived as being unfair. IMO. My guess is GJ intuitively if not explicitly recognizes that state of play.

    I agree.

    It is unfortunate that what he thinks is a solution would actually make things worse.

  74. paulie

    Yes, I somewhat share your concern. I’d say a VAT is the bigger threat than the FAIR Tax, which is specifically a replacement plan.

    Again, keep in mind that when you push an idea into the realm of policy, you don’t own it. It will not be enacted exactly as you propose it. If we apply political pressure in favor of the Boortz-Linder plan, it will most likely morph into a VAT by the time it actually passes.

    Let’s say, though, that something like a FAIR Tax is added in 2013 ON TOP OF the income tax. Would I hold GJ responsible in any way for this misfortune due to his (relatively late) advocacy of the FAIR Tax?

    If the election is close and a more presentable than usual Libertarian candidate starts getting some traction, while promoting the “fair” tax, the Republicans may pick up on the idea more than previously to keep their supporters from going off the reservation. That is the role traditionally played by alternative parties in introducing or furthering ideas in the public square and moving them closer to implementation.

    If anything, I would be less concerned that RJ Harris’ hardcore ban all abortions stance could even conceivably cause the Republicans to actually do something about outlawing abortion – they like the abortion issue exactly where it is, bringing them votes year after year because they keep talking about it but not doing much of anything.

    Whether the Boortz-Linder is a poison pill with Johnson, or abortion a poison pill with Harris….YMMV.

    If Johnson wants the LP nomination, he’ll have it, so me railing about the trojan horse tax plan will accomplish nothing. He would in fact be a great choice in many ways, although at this stage I’m more inclined to think he would not want it.

    I still don’t see NOTA as being better than either Harris or Wrights.

  75. Robert Capozzi

    p, interesting. If the FAIR Tax is absolutely guaranteed to increase the coercive State, then I’d not support a L candidate with that position. I might go to a Sipos/Root kinda place, even. How can you possibly see the benefits of a GJ as L candidacy if a cornerstone position of his would lead to increased statism?

    IN my case, I don’t see a prebate/negative income tax that way, so it’s easy for me.

  76. paulie

    How can you possibly see the benefits of a GJ as L candidacy if a cornerstone position of his would lead to increased statism?

    He’s got a track record of vetoing spending bills that is unmatched among Governors that I know of, at least in recent decades. He’s made improving the drug laws a major part of his appeal. He’s in favor of a saner foreign policy, saner immigration laws, and incrementalist libertarian positions on a broad range of issues, foreign and domestic, economic and social.

    He’s better than Ron Paul on abortion, immigration and gay rights.

    As a former two term governor, successful businessman and mountain climber, he is presentable to the public. Certainly, his resume is more impressive than the current candidates for the nomination.

    I’m worried about the prospect of NOTA.

    When numerous Libertarians such as JT, Chuck Moulton and others are saying they will vote NOTA over the current field, I think NOTA has a good chance. As I have previously explained at some length, I think NOTA would be a disaster for the LP.

    Other likely candidates for the nomination such as Harris and Root also have some problems from the ideological perspective for me, so Johnson is hardly alone in that respect.

    Candidates who do not have any significant ideological problems for me, such as Lee Wrights, are less impressive from a resume and public speaking standpoint, and moreover, may well lose to NOTA.

    Unlike Barr’s campaign, I think Johnson would be astute enough not to piss off Ron Paul supporters.

    Unlike Barr, Johnson’s record as an actual elected official does not contain major anti-liberty elements.

    With the Constitution Party likely to go to someone less libertarian than Baldwin this time (e.g. Roy Moore or Virgil Goode), it is quite possible that Johnson will be the concensus choice for Ron Paul supporters in the general election.

    So, he certainly has a lot of positives.

    That is why I think his support for the Boortz-Linder trojan horse tax plan is so unfortunate.

    However, I am more concerned with the prospect of NOTA than with any problems that Johnson’s support for the trojan horse tax plan poses.

    I’m also concerned with the possibility that the LP nomination could be taken by a significantly less libertarian NSGOP also-ran – say, Bachmann. Sure, that may seem ridiculous, but then who could have predicted Barr as the LP’s 2008 presidential candidate in 2004? Or that Mike Gravel would gain any traction in the LP with a last minute switch, without even any significant change in views?

    Who could have possibly thought a few years ago that an unrepentant Lisa Murkowski would be pushed by serious Libertarians to be our first elected congressperson?

    If the LP can survive Barr’s support for Plan Colombia and public admiration for Jesse Helms, we can certainly do worse than a Johnson candidacy.

    That is, if he wanted it.

  77. Robert Capozzi

    p, fair enough. Calling the FAIR Tax a “trojan horse” seems off to me. Most of its advocates and supporters want to lessen government, so their motive seems not “Trojan”; that’s not their intent that I can see. I don’t see their intent as being unL or anti-liberty. It might be ill-conceived, perhaps an inadvertent error.

  78. paulie

    Calling the FAIR Tax a “trojan horse” seems off to me.

    It does not seem off at all to me, or to Aaron Zelman and Claire Wolfe at JPFO:

    http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/fairtax.htm

    I highly recommend reading the whole article.

    Most of its advocates and supporters want to lessen government, so their motive seems not “Trojan”; that’s not their intent that I can see. I don’t see their intent as being unL or anti-liberty. It might be ill-conceived, perhaps an inadvertent error.

    That’s precisely the point of the Trojan Horse analogy.

    Well-meaning Trojans thought the horse would be something cool, too.

    They got played.

    I’m sure you are already familiar with this, but for anyone who may not be:

    The Trojan Horse is a tale from the Trojan War, as told in Virgil’s Latin epic poem The Aeneid, also by Dionysius, Apollodorus and Quintus of Smyrna. The events in this story from the Bronze Age took place after Homer’s Iliad, and before his Odyssey. It was the stratagem that allowed the Greeks finally to enter the city of Troy and end the conflict.

    In one version, after a fruitless 10-year siege, the Greeks constructed a huge wooden horse, and hid a select force of 30 men inside. The Greeks pretended to sail away, and the Trojans pulled the horse into their city as a victory trophy. That night the Greek force crept out of the horse and opened the gates for the rest of the Greek army, which had sailed back under cover of night. The Greek army entered and destroyed the city of Troy, decisively ending the war.

    I hope the “fair” tax won’t be our “victory trophy.”

  79. Robert Capozzi

    p, yes, the point is the GREEKS used subterfuge to trick the Trojans. FAIR Taxers and GJ don’t intend to increase government.

  80. Robert Capozzi

    As for Dan Mitchell’s essay, I don’t happen to believe that conditioning ANY tax reform on a change to the Constitution is a good idea, even though I’d LIKE that condition to be enacted.

    This is a VERY pessimistic, risk averse viewpoint. I don’t have a problem with Ls who advocate a change in the tax system, although personally I prefer either a flat tax with a negative income tax or, better yet, a pollution tax and a citizens’ dividend.

    Worrying about the State using reform to increase taxes seems reasonable, but any tax system is prone to increased taxes. That’s the debate now, after all!

    For me, thought experiments about less injurious tax regimes is positive, even if I don’t support the actual experiment (like the FAIR Tax). Assuming the worst is an exercise in glass-half-empty-ism.

  81. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC @ 72,

    “a prebate or a negative income tax is preferable to the welfare state”

    That’s only about one third of the issue.

    I might argue against a “negative income tax,” “citizens’ dividend,” etc., but at least those are somewhat forthright welfare/entitlement proposals.

    The other two negative defining features of the “prebate” are:

    1) Its intellectual dishonesty. It pretends to be a(n advance) rebate of a tax, when in fact it’s completely disconnected from payment of said tax.

    2) Its cradle-to-grave universality. If you’ve got a pulse, you get a check. It’s a constituency creator.

  82. Chuck Moulton

    Robert Capozzi wrote (@96):

    As for Dan Mitchell’s essay, I don’t happen to believe that conditioning ANY tax reform on a change to the Constitution is a good idea, even though I’d LIKE that condition to be enacted.

    This is a VERY pessimistic, risk averse viewpoint. […] Worrying about the State using reform to increase taxes seems reasonable, […] Assuming the worst is an exercise in glass-half-empty-ism.

    Assuming the worst from government is an exercise in noticing reality and heeding history.

    Fool me once shame on you. Fool me 5427834748903780356705656 times, shame on me.

  83. Robert Capozzi

    97 tk: Its cradle-to-grave universality. If you’ve got a pulse, you get a check. It’s a constituency creator.

    me: True. As a neo-Georgist leaner, I’m not so concerned about that, false advertising aside. If all citizens got a, say, $20K stipend, people might be liberated to follow their dreams rather than stay in a shitty job with control freak bosses, for ex. I’d like to think that productivity and creativity would flourish without the fear that so many currently living lives of quiet desperation. The welfare state and other dirigistic devices would lose their steam and rhetorical power, as no one would go without the basics.

    98 cm: Assuming the worst from government is an exercise in noticing reality and heeding history.

    me: “The worst”? Really? Do we need have a less coercive regime in the US than in N. Korea? If you assume THE worst, why don’t we have a global N Korean style state?

    We may be on a path toward that, but somehow or other, there do seem to be countervailing forces don’t allow that. If we’ll be N Korea in a few years, we could just curl up in the fetal position to brace for the inevitable.

    I admit that things appear kinda dark for liberty these days. Something or other impedes the public choice endpoint, however, and not just in the US.

  84. paulie

    yes, the point is the GREEKS used subterfuge to trick the Trojans. FAIR Taxers and GJ don’t intend to increase government.

    In my analogy, Johnson and other libertarian supporters of the Boortz-Linder trojan horse are not the Greeks, they are the Trojans who bring the horse inside the gates, believing it to be some kind of gift or trophy.

    However, once inside the gates, the horse unleashes its deadly cargo and destroys the city.

    The plan is the trojan horse, but the people bringing it to us are not (for the most part) the bad guys; they are good guys who have fallen for a bad and dangerous idea.

  85. paulie

    FAIR Taxers and GJ don’t intend to increase government.

    Yes, they don’t intend to.

    But that brings to mind another literary reference:

    The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.

  86. Michael H. Wilson

    RC Writes; “The worst”? Really? Do we need have a less coercive regime in the US than in N. Korea? If you assume THE worst, why don’t we have a global N Korean style state?

    I would suspect that a white middle class male as most of us this blog are sees the world through a different prism than a black male living in Belle Glade, or Liberty City, Florida.

    To most of us it isn’t so bad. To a young black male it is another story.

  87. Chuck Moulton

    Bob,

    I propose the following bet:

    1) If a national sales tax is passed within 25 years, then:

    a) If both a national sales tax and a national income tax are in force at the same time within 5 years of the national sales tax passage, I win the bet.
    b) If both a national sales tax and a national income tax are not force at the same time within 5 years of the national sales tax passage, you win the bet.

    2) If a national sales tax is not passed within 25 years the bet does not trigger (no one wins or loses).

    I will bet you any amount up to $25,000. If you are so confident that the federal government will not stick us with both a sales tax and an income tax (ignoring hundreds of years of the history of government shenanigans), put your money where your mouth is.

  88. Robert Capozzi

    100 p: they are good guys who have fallen for a bad and dangerous idea.

    me: Agree, more or less.

    102 mhw: To most of us it isn’t so bad. To a young black male it is another story.

    me: I like the sentiment, but even there I’d say the sitch is probably preferable to N. Korea…

  89. paulie

    Assuming the worst from government is an exercise in noticing reality and heeding history.

    Exactly.

    If all citizens got a, say, $20K stipend, people might be liberated to follow their dreams rather than stay in a shitty job with control freak bosses, for ex.

    So a lot of people would get used to the idea that they don’t have to work for a living, while those who still feel compelled to work would have to support them. Of course, the number of people not working may well grow over time under this scenario, as would the amount of “prebate” they vote themselves. As an ever larger amount of the earnings of working people would go to support non-working (by choice) people, more and more would decide to join the ranks of those not working.

    The welfare state and other dirigistic devices would lose their steam and rhetorical power, as no one would go without the basics.

    From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs?

    Something or other impedes the public choice endpoint, however, and not just in the US.

    There are lots of countervailing forces, but the gravitational pull of government over time is towards tyranny, and schemes which would make larger portions of the population reliant on government certainly don’t help matters any.

    It’s like punching a hole in the bottom of your boat and asking why all boats don’t sink.

  90. paulie

    I would suspect that a white middle class male as most of us this blog are sees the world through a different prism than a black male living in Belle Glade, or Liberty City, Florida.

    To most of us it isn’t so bad. To a young black male it is another story.

    I grew up in slums, lived a life of crime, and now travel the country mostly staying in cheap motels. My job often leads me to be treated like a criminal even when I am not doing anything illegal. So, let me tell anyone with any doubt, it ain’t just young black males in ghettoes. There is another America right under some of your noses.

  91. Robert Capozzi

    103 cm, actually, I’d bet that a “national sales/VAT tax” is somewhat likely. It’s one of the MANY reasons I don’t support the FAIR Tax. It’s a bad idea, even if I would prefer it to an income tax by a shade. I would, therefore, prefer that GJ didn’t get on that bandwagon. I’d still like to see him come over to the LP, despite this tactical move on his part. Perhaps he can walk that back.

    The upside of the FAIR Tax is that it provides a ready-made platform to challenge the status quo, this crazy-quilt of a tax code. I simply find it a highly sub-optimal means to do so, all things considered.

    I’m less critical of a transaction tax, btw.

    Mostly, though, I’m interested in ANYTHING that lowers barriers to peaceful economic activity, net net. That can take many forms…

  92. Chuck Moulton

    Robert Capozzi wrote (@108):

    103 cm, actually, I’d bet that a “national sales/VAT tax” is somewhat likely.

    The point of my bet is that we will get both an income tax and a sales tax. Additionally the clear context of my comment about assuming the worst from government was exactly that: that we will get both an income tax and a sales tax if a national sales tax is implemented.

    You seem to be saying we will not get both a sales tax and an income tax at the same time.

    Do you accept my bet? If so, for what amount?

  93. Robert Capozzi

    105 p: So a lot of people would get used to the idea that they don’t have to work for a living, while those who still feel compelled to work would have to support them.

    me: I’d rather have this than all the guap that flows into the pockets of DC bureaucrats.. I happen to believe that most would use their stipend/dividend more as a safety net than a permanent, sole source of income….

  94. Robert Capozzi

    cm 109, no, at the moment, I think a VAT is somewhat likely. I don’t accept your bet, therefore, since we seem to agree. I also don’t like the Fair Tax, despite its having some teachable aspects to it.

  95. paulie

    I’d rather have this than all the guap that flows into the pockets of DC bureaucrats.

    If you think that bureaucrats won’t find a way to skim “their fair share” you’ll have another thing coming.

    I happen to believe that most would use their stipend/dividend more as a safety net than a permanent, sole source of income….

    My observations of human behavior in real life lend me to believe otherwise.

    In the USSR, everyone had to have a job by law, and everyone was provided with one. But that did not mean they had to work hard. Many people did very little or no actual work.

    In US slums, I saw many people that had an entitlement attitude towards government money and had a not too horrible (by world standards) lifestyle. They grew up that way and it was like water to a fish to them. I would hate to see that expand to the rest of society.

    It is a sad fact, but for many people, if they don’t have to work, they won’t. And others will follow their example, especially when more and more of what they earn if they do choose to work goes to those who choose not to.

    Another thing is that people who decide not to work, and have no ambition to improve their place in life, will have plenty of time to pursue romance and no reason not to have as many children as nature allows them to have, since those children will be provided for by Uncle Sugar. Those same children will not grow up with working parents as role models.

    Meanwhile other people, working hard to support not only their own families but other people’s, may be coming home too tired to try to have any kids and too depressed to bring any more kids into the world.

  96. Steven wilson

    I wonder if Root, as LNC chair, would allow an alternative organization like the lncc to exist. Especially, as I have been told, when the lncc doesn’t report or surrender any oversight to the LNC.

    They are separate and therefore islands of action. Root voted to take over the county stores in his home state. He would then have a problem of being in charge of the LNC, and living with the possibility of have a rogue element like the lncc promoting non-Rootian libertarianism. Yikes.

    As for the taxation model, taxation is not a concern as long as the agent feels justice within the system. When they feel treated unfairly, then they look for other ways.

    The fair tax is an oxymoron. I remember the earlier forms when I was down south, and it always had issues.

    As the cost analysis for a service of collectivism, it goes no further along freedom road than any other tax model.

    When the red tape of the rebate hits them, there will be unfairness again.

    Rinse and repeat.

  97. AncientAryan Astronaut

    The Libertarian is another one. Not really fighting for the Aryan, enthrall to the Jew power. Freedom for everyone but Whites, who are targeted for extinction, drained by crime and taxes for minorities, propagandized and raped into race mixing and letting in hordes of alien invaders. Freedom for thee but not for me. What about Freedom for Palestine?
    Congressman Dr. Ron Paul I belief does realize this in his heart but is afraid to speak out his true thoughts because of the zionist occupation.
    Who owns the media, who owns the banks, who owns hollywood. That is who owns us and if we fight for freedom first we must realize they are who is enslaving us.

  98. JT

    Paulie: “When numerous Libertarians such as JT, Chuck Moulton and others are saying they will vote NOTA over the current field, I think NOTA has a good chance. As I have previously explained at some length, I think NOTA would be a disaster for the LP.”

    I don’t think you need to be too concerned, Paulie. I’m probably in the small minority on that one. I don’t see most Libertarian delegates voting NOTA for this reason: I don’t think most of them will think all of the candidates for the nomination are bad.

    Libertarians have different minimum criteria for candidates, and I’d bet that mine are higher for a nominee for President than the average Libertarian (not as far as ideology, but as far as appearance, public speaking skill, fund-raising prowess, and accomplished background). I’m more lenient on those things when it comes to candidates for Senate and House, and A LOT more lenient on those things when it comes to candidates for all other offices.

  99. Robert Capozzi

    112 p, yes, like the operating costs of SS, a citizens dividend would entail SOME overhead costs, but it would be a tiny fraction of the Leviathan.

    Your concerns about the lazy seem almost paternalistic! Perhaps your experience in northern Manhattan have tainted your objectivity.

    The neo-Georgist view is that a dividend IS an entitlement, the argument being that no one owns natural resources, only the — USE of natural resources. They rent them from the commonwealth, is how it goes.

    Yes, it too is a construct, and I’m always a skeptic of constructs, although in many ways everything IS a construct on some level.

    The difference between welfare and a dividend is that the dividend is a stipend, one that doesn’t preclude work. In the broad strokes, I’d trade a citizens dividend in exchange for deep-sixing most of the Leviathan all day long. Fund it with pollution taxes, and let freedom ring.

  100. paulie

    How much do they expect to raise during the 2012 cycle. How much have they contributed for the current cycle. Who do they expect to win?

    Good question. It may be too late in this thread to bring up practical matters like that, but I may be putting up a followup thread, possibly soon.

  101. paulie

    I don’t think you need to be too concerned, Paulie. I’m probably in the small minority on that one. I don’t see most Libertarian delegates voting NOTA for this reason: I don’t think most of them will think all of the candidates for the nomination are bad.

    I don’t know. It’s not just Gene Berkman anymore. You…Chuck…an LNC member who I am not at liberty to identify. That leads me to think NOTA may have some support this time.

  102. paulie

    Your concerns about the lazy seem almost paternalistic! Perhaps your experience in northern Manhattan have tainted your objectivity.

    My experiences in other parts of the city and country, and other countries, were no different.

    And it is not paternalistic. Regular people respond in certain ways to certain incentives – just as politicians do.

    The difference between welfare and a dividend is that the dividend is a stipend, one that doesn’t preclude work.

    It does not preclude it. Just makes it less enticing.

    The soviet collective farming system did not preclude work, either.

  103. JT

    Paulie: “I don’t know. It’s not just Gene Berkman anymore. You…Chuck…an LNC member who I am not at liberty to identify. That leads me to think NOTA may have some support this time.”

    Oh, I think it will have some support–but not close to majority support. I think Libertarians generally like choosing sides and wouldn’t be satisfied voting NOTA. But clearly I don’t know how it will shake out.

    Like most Libertarians, I suspect, I’d happily support a Ron Paul or Gary Johnson candidacy. And this may annoy some people here, but if Root weren’t so myopic as far as merely targeting disaffected conservatives, I’d vote for him. However, he’s made it pretty clear that he has no interest in a more balanced outreach approach instead of his “God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts” message (in the subtitle of his book The Conscience of a Libertarian). I also don’t like that he doesn’t mention the LP in his columns and interviews.

  104. Robert Capozzi

    121 p: The soviet collective farming system did not preclude work, either.

    me: But there was no upside in the Soviet system.

    In a neo-Geo setup, sure, one could chill in a tricked out hoopty for $20K a year, or one could flip burgers, make $40K, and have an aaaright crib. Push it s’more and live like Pimpjuice. Same goes for Appalachians. Shack with no running water. Trailer park. Or Decent Digs.

  105. paulie

    Oh, I think it will have some support–but not close to majority support. I think Libertarians generally like choosing sides and wouldn’t be satisfied voting NOTA.

    I think that some influential libertarians may line up behind NOTA and influence a lot of delegates.

    For example, the internal logic of many of Wayne Root’s opinions – that a second Obama term would be an unprecedented disaster for America – may lead one to conclude that we should do nothing to hurt the Republicans’ chances of defeating Obama.

    I know that Wayne, and the current overwhelming majority of the LNC, would not want a Lee Wrights candidacy. They would quite likely prefer NOTA to Wrights.

    Chuck is someone who is not firmly in one faction or the other. The fact that he is for NOTA over the whole current field is a concerning data point for me.

    BTW, out of curiosity, were you in favor of NOTA in any previous LP nomination race(s)?

  106. paulie

    Like most Libertarians, I suspect, I’d happily support a Ron Paul or Gary Johnson candidacy.

    I’m sure that if we actually get that chance, the nomination will be a mere formality. The question is what happens if we don’t.

    And this may annoy some people here, but if Root weren’t so myopic as far as merely targeting disaffected conservatives, I’d vote for him. However, he’s made it pretty clear that he has no interest in a more balanced outreach approach instead of his “God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts” message (in the subtitle of his book The Conscience of a Libertarian). I also don’t like that he doesn’t mention the LP in his columns and interviews.

    Actually, I believe gambling has now been replaced with gold in the subtitle. Unfortunately, “God, Guns, Gold and Tax Cuts” is something Constitution Party members as well as many Republicans, including pro-war Republicans, support. IMO it does not sufficiently differentiate libertarianism from conservatism.

    I also agree with you that those two things would most concern me with Wayne as a candidate. His salesman style, which turns a lot of people on my side of the party off, does not bother me – I actually like it.

    I am concerned that Wayne might support NOTA in 2012 if Johnson doesn’t run.

    If Root and Moulton both support NOTA, I suspect NOTA might well win.

  107. paulie

    But there was no upside in the Soviet system.

    In a neo-Geo setup, sure, one could chill in a tricked out hoopty for $20K a year, or one could flip burgers, make $40K, and have an aaaright crib. Push it s’more and live like Pimpjuice. Same goes for Appalachians. Shack with no running water. Trailer park. Or Decent Digs.

    Many people subsisting on welfare right now could live better if they worked under the table – handyman jobs, babysitting, doing hair, selling pot, sex work, etc. Some do, some don’t.

    People’s desire to live better – and what they are willing to do to make it so – varies.

    There are many people who would not work if they didn’t have to, or if welfare “paid” a little better.

  108. JT

    Paulie: “BTW, out of curiosity, were you in favor of NOTA in any previous LP nomination race(s)?”

    No. The current field is the weakest I’ve seen (which has been 4 nomination races). There’s still a decent chance that will change though. I’m hoping it does.

  109. Pingback: LNCC: We Want YOU to Volunteer to Help Libertarian Candidates | Independent Political Report

  110. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie wrote (@124):

    BTW, out of curiosity, were you in favor of NOTA in any previous LP nomination race(s)?

    I voted Badnarik all 3 ballots in 2004; Root until he was eliminated in 2008 then Barr (Kubby for VP).

    Root’s explicit statements about wanting to transform the LP to be more conservative rule out any possibility of me supporting him for President or LNC chair in the future.

    From his Seven magazine interview:

    “I’m kind of re-creating libertarianism,” says Wayne Allyn Root. “I’m not just going to follow the traditional roots. I’m a Ronald Reagan libertarian. Traditional libertarianism mixes in too many things that are liberal. That’s why it doesn’t work. It needs to blend with conservatism… I’ve been trying to bring this party along, and it’s beginning to happen.”

    He doubled down on this strategy in more recent remarks rather than repudiating it.

    The others are not ready for prime time. My #1 criteria for President is practically always ability to communicate libertarianism effectively to the masses. That’s why I didn’t support Ruwart: she is a great writer, but an underwhelming speaker. Badnarik is a very dynamic speaker — as is Root. Harry Browne was great at this too.

    I’d support Gary Johnson for the LP nomination. I’d support Tom Woods. I’d support Don Boudreaux. I’d support Michael Munger.

    I’m looking for a candidate who can command a room and is unabashedly libertarian. Ideally I’d like the LP to run a candidate with an impressive resume of libertarian achievement, but I’d settle for a good communicator without a graveyard of skeletons in his closet.

    I don’t think the bar I’m setting is particularly high. As an illustration I’d even support George Phillies for President over NOTA (his speaking ability improved tremendously in 2008) in spite of my qualms about his character. But the current crop of LP presidential hopefuls doesn’t make the cut.

  111. Paulie

    I’m looking for a candidate who can command a room and is unabashedly libertarian. Ideally I’d like the LP to run a candidate with an impressive resume of libertarian achievement, but I’d settle for a good communicator without a graveyard of skeletons in his closet.

    I don’t think the bar I’m setting is particularly high. As an illustration I’d even support George Phillies for President over NOTA (his speaking ability improved tremendously in 2008) in spite of my qualms about his character. But the current crop of LP presidential hopefuls doesn’t make the cut.

    You may have commented on this before, but I don’t remember.

    What do you think of RJ Harris and why?

  112. Robert Capozzi

    127 p: There are many people who would not work if they didn’t have to, or if welfare “paid” a little better.

    me: Granted, there are some lumpen. Not that there’s anything wrong with that! There are lumpen now, and lumpen in a neo-Geo configuration.

    I’m interested in maximizing liberty and justice, not creating workaholics.

  113. paulie

    Fantastic website — gets an A from me! Kudos to Root and his media team for putting this one together.

    It definitely does look nice.

  114. paulie

    I’m interested in maximizing liberty and justice, not creating workaholics.

    I am too, but I am concerned that the negative economic consequences of a citizens dividend could provoke a major backlash.

  115. Aaron Starr

    As you see opportunities to improve the LNCC website or any of the content coming from the LNCC, please let me know.

    Me and the crew are putting a lot of time into tweaking this.

  116. Robert Capozzi

    135 p: I am too, but I am concerned that the negative economic consequences of a citizens dividend could provoke a major backlash.

    me: If the State were reduced 80%, with those funds being redirected to a dividend, say, with all government revenues being generated by pollution taxes and/or land rents, I would imagine would unleash a creative wave the likes of which we’ve never seen. Some small percentage could possibly joins the ranks of the permanently unemployed, but most would be freed of taxes and most regulations. Those living quiet lives of desperation would follow their dreams, unleashing entrepreneurial innovation. Employers would no longer treat people cruelly to the extent they do now, for people would be far more likely to leave abusive situations. (I suspect this is a far bigger damper on economic vitality than is widely and consciously understood.) Capital and labor would flow their highest and best use. The ability to take risks would increase dramatically. Since non-citizens would not receive a dividend, the hostility toward immigrants would subside. Those who receive a net dividend would become a constituency against war. Every dollar going to war becomes a dollar not available to be returned as a dividend.

    Restoring justice seems to always be a good idea, though.

    Of course, phasing in this model from the mixed economy, highly regulated, welfare state is no easy task.

  117. Robert Capozzi

    I’m lovin’ the new LNCC site. I do wonder whether the anarchists in the LP will appreciate the vid THE AMERICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, as it dismisses anarchism, not mentioning rule by competing insurance companies. The video looks to be roughly accurate to me, although speculative alternative forms of statelessness might possibly work in theory, although I’d say it’s fair to exclude such deeply speculative scenarios.

  118. Jake Porter

    Aaron,

    The website is very good. Great work. It looks very professional and is easy to use. Also, while I think the focus on issues could greatly be improved, the LNCC is actually doing real politics which is a real improvement over what the LNC has done.

  119. Robert Capozzi

    135 p: …I am concerned that the negative economic consequences of a citizens dividend could provoke a major backlash.

    me 2: Exiting Iraq ASAP might provoke a major backlash, and yet you’d be for that, yes?

  120. Michael H. Wilson

    I posted this under a different thread last night, but I think it is important enough to be posted elsewhere as well.

    Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, has a nice piece on Ron Paul.

    I have it up on my site if you can’t find it. It is well worth thinking about. Lots of Libs can learn something if they just try to think this one through.

    You don’t get your message across by beating up on someone else.

  121. Robert Capozzi

    143 mhw, thanks, yes. Money line: “Toward the end of the hour-long session, he observed: “I don’t know if I’ve said anything negative about the president since I’ve been here. Probably not, because I usually don’t.” Indeed, he hadn’t.”

    Unfortunately, many Ls go along with the conventional wisdom that politics needs to be about the demolition derby, the gotcha, the blood-sport attacks. It doesn’t have to be, and, in the end, this approach is self-defeating.

    Respect can include respectfully disagreeing, and not making it personal.

  122. Chuck Moulton

    Robert Capozzi wrote (@145):

    Money line: “Toward the end of the hour-long session, he observed: “I don’t know if I’ve said anything negative about the president since I’ve been here. Probably not, because I usually don’t.” Indeed, he hadn’t.”

    Unfortunately, many Ls go along with the conventional wisdom that politics needs to be about the demolition derby, the gotcha, the blood-sport attacks. It doesn’t have to be, and, in the end, this approach is self-defeating.

    Respect can include respectfully disagreeing, and not making it personal.

    Very true.

    Root’s approach is quite different from Paul’s.

  123. Robert Capozzi

    146 cm: Root’s approach is quite different from Paul’s.

    me: Yes, agreed. I respect Root’s fusionism. The talk-radio take-no-prisoners attacking I cannot support.

    Interestingly, both Paul and Johnson are generally high-roaders when it comes to others. Could be a teachable moment….

  124. paulie

    As you see opportunities to improve the LNCC website or any of the content coming from the LNCC, please let me know.

    Me and the crew are putting a lot of time into tweaking this.

    I take it the suggestion to remove the option of a lower tax rate for $500k annual income and up was rejected?

  125. Robert Capozzi

    p, I can say that the “reverse flat tax” is only slightly less dysfunctional than the notion of personal private nukes. Slightly.

  126. paulie

    If the State were reduced 80%, with those funds being redirected to a dividend, say, with all government revenues being generated by pollution taxes and/or land rents, I would imagine would unleash a creative wave the likes of which we’ve never seen. Some small percentage could possibly joins the ranks of the permanently unemployed, but most would be freed of taxes and most regulations. Those living quiet lives of desperation would follow their dreams, unleashing entrepreneurial innovation. Employers would no longer treat people cruelly to the extent they do now, for people would be far more likely to leave abusive situations. (I suspect this is a far bigger damper on economic vitality than is widely and consciously understood.) Capital and labor would flow their highest and best use. The ability to take risks would increase dramatically. Since non-citizens would not receive a dividend, the hostility toward immigrants would subside. Those who receive a net dividend would become a constituency against war. Every dollar going to war becomes a dollar not available to be returned as a dividend.

    It’s plausible that the positive economic effects of reducing the state by 80% and the other up sides you mention could outweigh the negative economic impact of an expanded idle class.

    Long term, I am still concerned that the class of those who choose not to work would grow, as would their demand for ever larger payments.

    It’s also possible that I could be wrong about that.

    In either case, I don’t see the upside outweighing the downside with the so-called prebate in the Boortz-Linder fraudulent “fair” tax.

  127. Robert Capozzi

    150 p, yes, there’s a lot of reasons to not support the Fair Tax. The prebate is the only means to address challenge of it being steeply regressive, so in that sense I see why they put it there.

    As a transition, I’d prefer to see a flat tax with a negative income tax, in tandem with deep cuts in spending. It addresses income inequity, the impulse for compassion, and yet reduces the penalties on saving, producing and investing.

    Cutting over to a more pure neo-Geo model I’d table, but it’s the most serviceable construct I’ve stumbled on…

  128. paulie

    I do wonder whether the anarchists in the LP will appreciate the vid THE AMERICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, as it dismisses anarchism, not mentioning rule by competing insurance companies.

    Since anarchism and rule by competing insurance companies are not even close to being on the table, even if I did not think that anarchism and competing insurance companies were likely to be good idea, I would still question the wisdom of spending viewers’ limited time addressing such esoteric ideas at all. That would seem to me to be the functional equivalent of a Republican campaign committee site spending time arguing against instituting a slave owning theocracy, or a Democratic campaign committee spending time arguing against nationalization of major industries and abolishing inheritance.

    Simply put, even if you think too little government could potentially be a problem, that is so far from being our problem that spending even a fraction of your time arguing against it in an outreach-based context seems silly to me.

    Too many Libertarian arguments are aimed at other Libertarians, even when we make a conscious effort to put forth an appeal aimed at the general public.

    However, I don’t want to dwell on the nits. The idea of the video channel is very good, and even if they are not the exact selection of videos that would have been my choices – they did the work, I didn’t.

  129. paulie

    LNCC is actually doing real politics which is a real improvement over what the LNC has done.

    At this point LNCC has no paid staff (that I know of), no meatspace office where rent is due every month (that I know of), no large database of members to maintain (as far as I know). The LNCC is not responsible for ballot access, a national convention, or a print newsletter. Thus, it is more free to concentrate its energies on real politics than the LNC at present. However, the LNC did donate 50k to a candidate this year. Whether that was the best choice to put everything behind one candidate is a separate question, but it’s real politics, and, unless I’m mistaken, more than the LNCC has been able to actually give candidates so far.

  130. paulie

    Exiting Iraq ASAP might provoke a major backlash, and yet you’d be for that, yes?

    US occupation forces exiting Iraq could provoke a major backlash against Iraqi collaborators, but I don’t think it would provoke a major backlash against freedom in the US.

  131. paulie

    They have the LNCs database.

    There are costs to maintaining the database. Those costs are borne by the LNC, not the LNCC. If the LNCC has the LNC database, they get the benefit of that work, but not the part of having to pay for the staff time of doing it.

  132. paulie

    both Paul and Johnson are generally high-roaders when it comes to others. Could be a teachable moment….

    LP members on all sides of our internal faction fights would do well to take from their example on this.

  133. Michael H. Wilson

    The end results are what is important. Paul high road approach has resulted in a significant following developing in his wake.

    The LP on the other hand has seen a decline in our membership.

    All of this and much of my past experience tells me that focusing on the issues and not the personalities will result in substantial growth.

  134. Robert Capozzi

    152 p, yours is a healthy reaction. However, that video goes out of its way to say that say that anarchism doesn’t and can’t work. (It says the same thing about monarchism, to be fair.) It suggests that anarchism creates a vacuum, one that quickly degenerates into an oligarchy. The supporting video images show murder, mayhem and generalized chaos in an anarchist “system.”

    I agree with this analysis. I wonder, though, if the LNCC itself would frame anarchism that way, given that a substantial subset of the LP consider themselves to be anarchists.

    (I’m not sure who produced THE AMERICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, to be clear.)

    Personally, I think the video would be better for an internal audience if anarchism were simply not mentioned, which could easily be done, as anarchism is pretty esoteric for most external audiences.

    The bottomline is that a LP organization seems to endorse the idea that anarchy is not a sustainable system of thought. You may not find this to be an affront to your anarchism, but others might.

    Then again, I might be being a bit too sensitive for my anarcho friends’s sensibilities, despite the fact that I find some of their ideas to be misguided.

  135. Robert Capozzi

    159 mhw: Paul high road approach has resulted in a significant following developing in his wake.

    me: Big fan of Paul’s approach, but I’d suggest not oversubscribing his approach as being the sole reason for his modicum of success. Some very successful pols use the politics of division to their advantage. Being civil is not a sure thing. Remember Willy Horton! Remember Welfare Queens! Remember taxing Millionaires and Billionaires!

    Paul is a multi-term congressman/country doctor. He comes across as affable and a kind-hearted grandfather figure. Some of his supporters, OTOH, spew venom and hatred as a matter of course. I can’t recall a day in recent memory in which his former chief of staff hasn’t called someone “evil,” a “pygmy,” “boobus,” and other personal attacks on Dr. Paul’s opponents and critics.

    I’d say this is a mixed message.

    So, while I completely agree with your sentiment, let’s be mindful that a strong L tradition is to throw mud with the “best” of them. There’s much work to do to make the message of peace and liberty a civil one.

  136. Robert Capozzi

    154 p: I don’t think it would provoke a major backlash against freedom in the US.

    me: If, say, WWIII broke as a consequence of a rapid exit from Iraq. Even if SOMEHOW the US did not get directly involved, the US would be affected indirectly if not directly.

    I’m still in the pull out ASAP camp, but it’s wise to be mindful of likely consequences.

    Of course, staying could also lead to WWIII.

    It’s a tangled web, no matter how you look at it!

  137. paulie

    I don’t see exiting Iraq in any way triggering a world war.

    I do see staying in Iraq leading further down the path to a world war.

  138. paulie

    However, that video goes out of its way to say that say that anarchism doesn’t and can’t work. (It says the same thing about monarchism, to be fair.) It suggests that anarchism creates a vacuum, one that quickly degenerates into an oligarchy. The supporting video images show murder, mayhem and generalized chaos in an anarchist “system.”

    Not sure what you mean by “however.” My previous response was based on that fact.

    I wonder, though, if the LNCC itself would frame anarchism that way, given that a substantial subset of the LP consider themselves to be anarchists.

    It may be that it was chosen for exactly that reason, or partially for that reason, to poke LP anarchists in the eye. Or maybe that is just a coincidence. I don’t know.

    Personally, I think the video would be better for an internal audience if anarchism were simply not mentioned, which could easily be done, as anarchism is pretty esoteric for most external audiences.

    It would be better for both external and internal audiences if it did not mention anarchism.

    The bottomline is that a LP organization seems to endorse the idea that anarchy is not a sustainable system of thought. You may not find this to be an affront to your anarchism, but others might.

    Whether I find it an affront or not at this point is largely irrelevant.

    Anarchists and those who believe the LP should be neutral on the anarchy/minarchy divide have substantially lost control of the LP, mostly because we did not organize sufficiently. At this point it does no good to complain that those who did make the effort to organize present their version of libertarianism. If we wanted to present ours, as I suggested to Chuck and anyone else who happens to read it above, I believe the resources exist to make it happen. It hasn’t, and probably won’t.

    At this point, as someone who would like to see even the Root/LNCC version of libertarianism do better in reaching people, I can only suggest to the winning faction that spending any time at all kicking the LP’s diminishing and dispirited remnant of anarchists when we are down is a distraction from the ostensible goal of reaching the general public. Not that they are likely to take my suggestions, mind you.

  139. Chuck Moulton

    Robert Capozzi wrote (@161):

    However, that video goes out of its way to say that say that anarchism doesn’t and can’t work. (It says the same thing about monarchism, to be fair.) It suggests that anarchism creates a vacuum, one that quickly degenerates into an oligarchy. The supporting video images show murder, mayhem and generalized chaos in an anarchist “system.”

    The bottomline is that a LP organization seems to endorse the idea that anarchy is not a sustainable system of thought. You may not find this to be an affront to your anarchism, but others might.

    I find the video both incredibly offensive and a clear indication that the LNCC is focusing on kindergarten talking points rather than reality.

    It fails the ideological turing test. There is ample research on anarcho-capitalism of which the videographer is either ignorant or deliberately misrepresenting in favor of a ridiculous straw man.

    That sort of discourse makes me sick to my stomach.

    Try reading Anarchy and the Law (edited by Ed Stringham) or The Machinery of Freedom (by David Friedman) or Anarchy, State, and Utopia (by Robert Nozick). I look forward to reading Less Antman’s Anarchy Without Bombs when he finishes it. Ben Powell has written about anarchy in practice in areas like Somalia. Stefan Molyneux has written and spoken extensively about anarchy.

    Lack of a state does not mean chaos or war. The idea that when government doesn’t do something that means it doesn’t get done is not supported by the evidence. That attitude is an anathema to libertarianism.

    You don’t support government health insurance? Then you must want people to die. You don’t support a standing army? Then you must want Iran to bomb us and kill everyone. You don’t support a government court system? Then you must want people to settle disputes by fighting each other to the death.

    In fact all of these things have been written about extensively and studied historically. The free market works. Spontaneous order works.

    I don’t expect the LNCC to go around advocating for anarchy. But I would hope at least they wouldn’t spread disinformation.

    This is yet another reason not to donate to the LNCC.

  140. Dixon Yarmouth

    First of all you anarchist puke, when you anarchists are down is the best time to kick you.

    And kick you again, and again, until you are ground into a fine powder, which is then burned to ash, buried a thousand feet below the earth, and have the ground salted so your anarchist cancer never infects the LP again.

    The LP needs to be totally cleansed and disinfected of its anarchist infestation. All new and existing members should be required to sign a new pledge saying they are not anarchists, and that if they ever become anarchists their membership is immediately terminated.

    What the party needs is more tea party conservatives. Tea party conservatives hate anarchists, and they don’t like the LP because the loud and obnoxious anarchists have spoiled the image of libertarianism.

    Only when we can conclusively demonstrated to Tea Party Reagan Conservatives that we have thoroughly purged ourselves of our anarchists can we become their new party.

    Anarchists must not only be flushed, but the sewers need to be flushed of them as well lest they float up like the turd you thought you flushed but haven’t quite flushed thoroughly enough.

  141. Robert Capozzi

    166 p: I don’t see exiting Iraq in any way triggering a world war.

    me: Really? US exits. Iran floods in. Sunnis flip, enlist — I dunno — China, maybe Russia. Pakistan goes berserk, being mostly Sunni, but with a strong Shia minority, which causes India to go berserk.

    I’m no geopolitics expert, but I know enough to know that south Asia is one dangerous place, with lots of nukes and lots of zealots.

    I can’t say with any confidence that any one move might not trigger all sorts of unintended consequences. But you may be correct.

  142. Robert Capozzi

    167 p: Anarchists and those who believe the LP should be neutral on the anarchy/minarchy divide have substantially lost control of the LP, mostly because we did not organize sufficiently.

    me: Hmm, it wasn’t that long ago that I read here that the Chair believes “taxation is theft.” If that report was accurate, that surely sounds to me like the LP is chaired by an anarchist.

    As a lessarchist myself, I find the “divide” kinda silly, but then so do I find the idea of statelessness silly in the short to intermediate run, which politics is all about. But, then, I operate on the premise that one should work from the general to the specific, so the idea that coercion is generally dysfunctional doesn’t dictate to me that one should specifically advocate any specific endstate. Process matters.

  143. Robert Capozzi

    164 bh: Mike Munger for President!

    165 p: Is he willing to run?

    me: Fellow NCian Sister Hogarth tells me, No Way. Assuming Paul and/GJ won’t, I hope she’s either incorrect or that he will change his mind.

  144. donnie Lake

    Does the LP really need ‘TEA Party’ conservatives like Palin, Perry, Backmann, and W. A. R.

    Help, I feel the Oyxgen level falling by the minute …………

  145. Robert Capozzi

    168 cm: I find the video both incredibly offensive and a clear indication that the LNCC is focusing on kindergarten talking points rather than reality.

    me: I can see why you feel so, Chuck. Perhaps the LNCC could splice in a quick audio clip to make this less offensive. At about 3:34, see brackets: “…hired to do the guarding — a sheriff, a police force, [private insurance and security companies], and so on.”

    Or, they might splice in a cutaway about the upside exception after the anarchy-degenerating-into-totalitarianism segment, featuring the Somali Experience, sans pirates…

  146. Michael H. Wilson

    Damn! Just watched three videos over at Wayne’s World. One of the left me with a sugar overload and the last one is prove positive that the American education system is a failure.

    Where can we send the history books? Maybe we can do a telethon to improve that screenwriter’s education.

    I don’t think Wayne would approve of them. After all he went to Columbia.

  147. Robert Capozzi

    176 mhw, I didn’t go to Columbia, but I nevertheless found the history pretty accurate and nothing inaccurate. What did you find to be off, historically speaking?

  148. paulie

    Hmm, it wasn’t that long ago that I read here that the Chair believes “taxation is theft.” If that report was accurate, that surely sounds to me like the LP is chaired by an anarchist.

    He might be an anarchist, but the overwhelming majority of the LNC, bylaws, platform and credentials committees are in the camp of LNCC-style Libertarians. Hinkle does not buck the trend very often, although he did put his foot down regarding the Republican Wall of Shame going ahead, which I give him credit for.

    I operate on the premise that one should work from the general to the specific, so the idea that coercion is generally dysfunctional doesn’t dictate to me that one should specifically advocate any specific endstate. Process matters.

    I agree that we should concentrate on first steps much more than endstates. That, to me, would also mean not gratuitously insulting us anarchist libertarians, but I understand that some feel differently.

  149. paulie

    Perhaps the LNCC could splice in a quick audio clip to make this less offensive. At about 3:34, see brackets: “…hired to do the guarding — a sheriff, a police force, [private insurance and security companies], and so on.”

    Or, they might splice in a cutaway about the upside exception after the anarchy-degenerating-into-totalitarianism segment, featuring the Somali Experience, sans pirates…

    Perhaps they could find videos that don’t address the issue of anarchism.

  150. Michael H. Wilson

    Robert I don’t need to go any further than about 5 minutes into the video to find a number of errors of one form or another.

    At the first the narrator talks about the American system and Americanism without defining those terms. That is unclear.

    Total government on the left, no government on the right? I don’t think so. He is redefining left/right to suite his needs

    Lots of people put fascism on the right and in my opinion that is where it should go. Fascism is big on the authority of the state. And traditionally the state is on the right.

    Freedom House list 194 countries for 2011, 87 (45%) are free, 60 (31%) partly free and 47 (24%) not free. But they also list the number of electoral democracies at 115 as of 2010. So that information raises questions about the comment that most of the nations are ruled by a few. Clarity would help here.

    And the discussion of anarchy while showing a bus crashing. What the hell is that all about? Whoever produced this has an agenda.

    This is supposed to be for a political campaign. Last I looked it was not a poly sci class discussion.

    I have other work to do that means something.

  151. Darryl W. Perry

    The Philosophy of Liberty video is very good – maybe the LNCC can post it instead of any videos now posted.

  152. Pingback: LNCC: We Want YOU to Volunteer to Help Libertarian Candidates | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

  153. paulie

    If you leave the other options in and just take that one out I think you would do better. No need for additional language, just a little pruning. Obviously, you don’t have to do it on my schedule.

  154. Robert Capozzi

    182 mhw: Total government on the left, no government on the right? I don’t think so. He is redefining left/right to suite his needs

    me: It could have been the other way around. I think the idea of putting all state (in any form) on one side and no state on the other end is a fine way to do it. I’ve done it this way:
    http://freeliberal.com/images/transpartisantriangle11.html

    mhw: Freedom House list 194 countries for 2011, 87 (45%) are free, 60 (31%) partly free and 47 (24%) not free. But they also list the number of electoral democracies at 115 as of 2010. So that information raises questions about the comment that most of the nations are ruled by a few. Clarity would help here.

    me: I believe the v/o said throughout history, and generally I’d say that’s correct.

    mhw: And the discussion of anarchy while showing a bus crashing. What the hell is that all about? Whoever produced this has an agenda.

    me: Yes, make book on that. Rothbard once (anonymously, I think) suggested the term “nonarchism” to differentiate the association of chaos-anarchism from L anarchism. Rockwellian Rozeff uses “panarchism.” The association of “anarchism” with “chaos” is a very difficult — probably insurmountable — stigma to overcome. While I consider myself a theoretical asymptotic anarchist/applied lessarchist, I use this term only among Ls, who are more likely to understand what I’m getting at. With the general public, I ID myself as a L, meaning that I advocate maximizing freedom and minimizing coercion.

    mhw: This is supposed to be for a political campaign. Last I looked it was not a poly sci class discussion.

    me: Right. Still, I don’t have a problem with the LNCC posting videos of interest. Presumably over time they’ll add more of those, some more campaign oriented. Perhaps some Root highlight reels, for ex. I do think the video in question seems insensitive to anarcho-Ls, but then I also think they should reconsider their bracing word choices.

    As the great philosopher Rick Nelson said:
    “It’s all right now.
    Learned my lesson well.
    See you, can’t please everyone,
    So, you got to please yourself.”

    Overall, I can see why the LNCC would post this particular video, it’s reasonably well done.

  155. Robert Capozzi

    182 mhw: At the first the narrator talks about the American system and Americanism without defining those terms. That is unclear.

    more me: By the end of the video, I got a very clear message of what the producers mean by Americanism. It means a constitutional republic, in which a small government is limited to a few things. Perhaps it could have been even more precisely put, but I think this aspect was perfectly appropriately put.

    Modern Ls have developed an unfortunate tradition of wanting highly specific definitions of desired endpoints. This, our forebears asserted, is “principled.”

    This flies in the face of the notion of going from the general to the specific. The general principle might be maximizing peace and liberty, the specific goals might be lower taxes and spending, bring the troops home, marry a shoe (h/t to J. McMillan). Instead, Ls often get wrapped around their axles advocating far out notions like private, non-monopoly defense forces and 100% tort-based environmental defense institutions. Talk about leaning too far out in front of one’s skis!

  156. Brian Holtz

    The 10-minute “American Form of Government” video has about 7 minutes of excellent material comparing democracies and republics. The minute or so about anarchism is unnecessary, but what disqualifies the video from Libertarian outreach is its incorrect characterization of Left and Right.

    Libertarian outreach needs to emphasize that Libertarian is neither Left nor Right. That’s the message of every Nolan quiz, like this interactive one. (Can you score 100/100?)

    Any of these videos would be better:

  157. Robert Capozzi

    192 bh, mos’ def’ I agree with your positioning…neither left nor right. Still, your elaboration on the Nolan Chart has the hammer and sickle and swastika very close together, which was the upshot of THE AMERICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT’s taxonomy as well.

    I’m not a huge fan of the PHILOSOPHY OF LIBERTY, in part because of its atomistic come-from, in part because it feels too retro, in part because I don’t find it all that persuasive for the unconverted. B-.

  158. Michael H. Wilson

    re Robert Capozzi’s previous comments;

    At about 2:30. if I am understanding the narrator correctly, he states “Most of the nations of the world are ruled by a powerful few therefore an oligarchy remains”.

    As I pointed out the Freedom House site suggested otherwise.

    As 6:53 the discussion turns to juries and says something about unanimous juries being required in criminal case. You may wish to check out this web site that mentions majority decisions in criminal cases. Now I have no idea what specifically is going on with that issue in these two state, but it suggest otherwise.

    “In two cases heard together in 1972, Apodaca v Oregon and Johnson v Louisiana, the Court considered the constitutionality of state laws that permitted criminal defendants to be convicted by less-than-unanimous votes. (Oregon allowed convictions on 10 to 2 votes, while Louisiana went further and allowed convictions on votes of 9 to 3). The Court, voting 5 to 4, upheld both state laws even though five justices clearly stated their beliefs that unanimity was required by the Sixth Amendment.”
    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/jurysize.html

    And by the way I doubt that too many African-American, or Indian Americans would agree with the idea that the nation was founded as a republic. After all the first group were enslaved and the second hunted down.

    This video leaves a lot to be desired and does not accurately reflect the history of the nation nor is the discussion about the forms of government adequate.

  159. Tom Blanton

    If being an anarchist is wrong, I don’t want to be right or left.

    Anyway, it appears that this LNCC website is actually more about Wayne Root, his perception of himself, and his agenda than anything else.

    I have a hard time envisioning anyone in the libertarian movement being inspired to make a donation as a result of this website – other than perhaps some rube excited by Wayne Root’s ego.

    However, those who are unable to read might be impressed by the look of the website.

    The movie in question, “The American Form of Government”, is an excerpt from “Overview of America” produced by The John Birch Society according to this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw

    This might explain why Capozzi likes it so much. Just kidding Bubby.

    The video sucks and not because it doesn’t mention “rule by insurance companies”. Michael has done a good job of explaining a few of the things that make this video suck.

  160. Robert Capozzi

    194 MHW, well, I think you’re picking nits. First, right before the sentence you cite, it states “in all history…” As for whether Freedom House is the definitive word on what is an oligarchy and what isn’t, I dunno, are they? Does China have an oligarchy? Does the US? If I were writing the script, I’d probably say “oligarchy has been the most common form of government, and it remains quite common for much of the world.” So, I agree with your point, technically, although it could STILL be the MOST common if weighted by population, and depending on one’s precise def. of “oligarchy.”

    Again, GENERALLY criminal law requires a unanimous vote. SPECIFICALLY, there are instances where that’s not the case.

  161. Robert Capozzi

    195 tb: The movie in question, “The American Form of Government”, is an excerpt from “Overview of America” produced by The John Birch Society…

    me: If this can be confirmed, this alone would be a great reason to remove the video, along with it’s inartful/toxic discussion of anarchism.

  162. Robert Capozzi

    more on 198

    As to the US, I’d say it’s in some ways a republic, in some ways a democracy, and in some ways it’s increasing becoming an oligarchy. I suspect that’s also the case for other nations, too.

  163. Robert Capozzi

    195 tb: Anyway, it appears that this LNCC website is actually more about Wayne Root, his perception of himself, and his agenda than anything else.

    me: You’ve established that yer not a Root-o-phile, but my quick review of the LNCC site doesn’t reveal much in the way of Root himself. His agenda, perhaps.

    Why do you feel this site reflects Root and his perceptions of himself?

  164. Robert Capozzi

    202 mhw, I favor removal certainly if it’s a JBS production.

    Whether the fact that it doesn’t mention slavery or serious injustice to Native Americans in forming a republic (which I’d say one COULD have a “republic” even if such MAJOR injustices are not rectified) seems like at worst an oversight. The video makes no claim to being comprehensive.

    The anarchism section — which I flagged initially — is unfortunate, given the meaning “anarchism” has for some Ls.

    I do wonder whether Brother Blanton was driving that bus, though…. 😉

  165. Tom Blanton

    195 tb: Anyway, it appears that this LNCC website is actually more about Wayne Root, his perception of himself, and his agenda than anything else.

    me: You’ve established that yer not a Root-o-phile, but my quick review of the LNCC site doesn’t reveal much in the way of Root himself. His agenda, perhaps.

    Why do you feel this site reflects Root and his perceptions of himself?

    The reason I say it is about Root is because when you land on the actual first page and you click on the first link at the top labeled “About”, you find out all about Wayne Root.

    When I go a website run by an unfamiliar political organization for the first time, I frequently click on “About” to see what they are all about.

    Check out this link:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_ciT1psaPc

    to confirm that the video in question is from the John Birch Society. The link above is part 1. Click on the Part 2 link to see the segment posted on the LNCC website.

    That wasn’t me driving the bus. Everyone knows that in Wayne’s World, anarchists ride on the rear bumper of the bus.

  166. Tom Blanton

    When the LNCC chooses a JBS propaganda film to feature on its website, it makes me wonder what is it about that sort of thing (especially the “republic, not a democracy” bromide) that gives libertarian boys erections?

    Every time someone with a powdered wig and knickers drags out the parchment paper and a flag starts billowing, a lot of folks go into some sort of orgasmic patriotic frenzy where historic reality evaporates and a perverse sense of exceptionalism arises.

    But then again, I suppose it does make a few rubes fork over some dough – sort of like when they toss dollar bills at an aging alcoholic “dancer” at a low-rent strip bar.

Leave a Reply

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