Debate/Discussion thread with declared candidates for the 2016 Libertarian Presidential nomination


Declared candidates for the 2016 Libertarian Party presidential nomination: Dr. Marc Feldman, Darryl W. Perry, Keenan Wallace Dunham.

This thread is for the purpose of a discussion/debate among declared candidates for the 2016 Libertarian Party presidential nomination and members of the IPR comment community. Lurkers and new people are welcome to join in (first comment under a screen name/email address combination and any comment containing more than one link is automatically moderated). I’ve invited three candidates seeking the nomination who have had their own threads at IPR:

Marc Allan Feldman declares candidacy for Libertarian presidential nomination

Keenan Wallace Dunham Seeking Libertarian Party Nomination for President

Darryl Perry has been an IPR regular commenter, and author of numerous articles posted here, as well as a declared candidate for the LP 2016 presidential nomination since IPR’s inception in 2008 (Darryl was not old enough to run in 2012).

Dr. Feldman has accepted an invitation to this discussion in a comment on his thread linked above. Darryl Perry accepted via FB message, but also said he earlier replied to my email, which I did not receive. I also did not see a reply from Mr. Dunham, although it is possible his reply was somehow garbled by my email as Mr. Perry’s apparently was. In any case, I will send him a link to this discussion along with the others and he is free to join in or not as he wishes.

Supporters of None Of The Above (not having a candidate for president) are welcome to participate in this discussion and make their case as well, since NOTA is a candidate in the actual election that will take place by LP delegates at the national convention in Orlando, FL in 2016.

Before anyone asks, Gov. Johnson and any other rumored/possible/likely candidates are treated separately for the purpose of this thread, as are any candidates for other parties’ nominations who are not seeking the LP nomination, or anyone working on a campaign for 2020 or beyond, or seeking an office other than US President. I have not invited any candidates besides the three named above, but additional candidates can join the discussion, or we can start new ones in the future. I see no reason to have formal rules for the discussion, other than common sense ones, given that there is no time constraint as in a TV or radio debate (well, sixteen months or so). The candidates and members of the audience will participate on an equal basis, and no one is under any obligation to reply to anything they don’t want to address.

If there are any additional questions about the format or participants please put them in the comments, where the actual discussion will take place.

246 thoughts on “Debate/Discussion thread with declared candidates for the 2016 Libertarian Presidential nomination

  1. AndyCraig

    I’ll start with a good general-purpose one: Have you given any consideration to your preference for the Vice Presidential nomination, and have you spoken to anybody about being your running mate? Corollary: do you intend to announce a willing running mate (or your endorsement for the VP nomination) prior to the convention? Take it as open-ended question on running mates.

  2. Darryl W. Perry

    Have you given any consideration to your preference for the Vice Presidential nomination, and have you spoken to anybody about being your running mate? Corollary: do you intend to announce a willing running mate (or your endorsement for the VP nomination) prior to the convention? Take it as open-ended question on running mates.

    No and no. Possibly, it all depends on who expresses interest.

  3. paulie Post author

    If anyone would like to snail mail Mr. Kuffel, feel free. Perhaps he even uses the intertube superhighway, although I’ve seen no evidence. If anyone has seen evidence of him catching waves on that fad thingy Al Gore came up with via a series of tubes, do feel free to point him to the correct sequence of tubes to find his way here.

  4. paulie Post author

    General question for any/all of the candidates:

    If you receive the nomination, will you campaign with local LP candidates, frequently mention the party in your interviews, campaign materials and public appearances, and share any inquiries/volunteers/contacts/donor info with the LP in as real time as possible?

  5. Jed Ziggler

    Open question to all candidates: If elected president, will you bring all our troops and our drones home from around the globe? Will you pursue an agenda of peace? Will you begin to close military bases in foreign countries?

  6. Andy

    I don’t know what is reasonable, I just seriously doubt any of these candidates will win the nomination.

  7. William Saturn

    1. What will you do to protect free speech?
    2. Will you ever support a ban on “hate speech”? Why or why not?
    3. Would you consider imposing travel bans or closing the borders in the face of global pandemic?
    4. Should private corporations be allowed to possess nuclear weapons?
    5. Who is your favorite president and why?

  8. paulie Post author

    The other one has a website that’s housed at a link that has been identified as a spam site, which spammed IPR for a number of months or years and was subsequently banned as commercial spam, and says things like

    All financial systems including money will be abolished.

    The Ashtar Command starship saucers will land on all streets. This will happen on January 20th, 2017. This will not occur sooner.

    All items will be free including employment. This will have education. And training.

    There will be no more prisons and jails.

    I will be an honest president of the United States.

    All items and food will be free.

    I didn’t proactively invite any such entity here. If it shows up, we’ll see what we do about it, but I suspect the link back to the candidate’s website alone would place it in the spam filter, and I’m not inclined to proactively fish it out of there either.

  9. Pingback: Questions for Robert Milnes | rwm4prez2016/theplasplace

  10. Robert Capozzi

    Questions:

    1) Why are you running, in one paragraph?
    2) If you receive the nomination, what is primary reason why voters should vote for you, in one paragraph?
    3) Is there are discernible geodemographic where you think you can plausibly receive 5%+ of the vote, and why do you think you can accomplish this? In one paragraph.

  11. Marc Allan Feldman

    Thank you for inviting me. I think it is an great place to bounce around ideas and share perspectives. I know things can get heated, but I don’t take things personally. I think you’ll find I can dish it out as well as take it. Also, I think it is important to keep campaign ideas and plans secret, to keep them where nobody will see them. That is why I am very comfortable discussing them here at IPR. jk, 😉

  12. Marc Allan Feldman

    I am a little behind, so I will try to catch up.

    @AndyCraig: On the Vice Presidential nomination

    I have given it some thought. There are many factors. I would want a running mate who has sound Libertarian principles, is a good speaker who enjoys campaigning, but who 99% of Americans would not want as President, to limit my risk of impeachment / removal. That is why I would offer it to former Gov. Gary Johnson.

    But, seriously, I would want a running mate who could help attract new young people into the Libertarian Party, especially attracting diverse groups who have felt excluded in the past.

  13. Marc Allan Feldman

    @Paulie If you receive the nomination, will you campaign with local LP
    candidates, frequently mention the party in your interviews, campaign
    materials and public appearances, and share any
    inquiries/volunteers/contacts/donor info with the LP in as real time
    as possible?

    I am running as a Libertarian, not an Independent. At the same time, my primary election issue is getting money out of politics. I expect to put together a coalition including Libertarians and highlighting the LP, but also including many independents, Greens, and others who would not normally be attracted to the LP.

  14. Waldo TerraFirma

    questions for all of them.

    Have you started thinking about white house decorations, and if so, what are your thoughts? Do you have a first lady or first gentleman, and if not, are you looking for one? If you are, what are your search criteria? Would you consider merging the position with VP for the sake of efficiency? Are you open to a VP/first lady candidate affiliated with the Green Party?

  15. Joe Wendt

    For all candidates:

    Would you consider recruiting Starchild or Chuck Moulton as a potential Vice Presidential candidate?

  16. langa

    Questions for all of the candidates:

    1. What should be the primary goal of an LP presidential campaign?
    2. What makes you the best person to achieve that goal?
    3. If you had to choose one single issue to emphasize, what would it be?

  17. Marc Allan Feldman

    @William Saturn
    January 11, 2015 at 5:54 pm
    1. What will you do to protect free speech?
    I will speak freely and promote free speech as the greatest asset we have against enemies around the world.

    2. Will you ever support a ban on “hate speech”? Why or why not?
    “Hate speech” has a narrow legal definition in the United States. It is not merely hateful talk. The Supreme court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio ; “The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” I believe we have enough laws on the books against incitement to lawless action that we do not need addition penalties for “thought crime.”

    3. Would you consider imposing travel bans or closing the borders in the face of global pandemic?
    I have a Master’s Degree in Public Health from Johns Hopkins. I would make any decision on travel bans and border closings on medical, not political priorities.

    4. Should private corporations be allowed to possess nuclear weapons?
    This is kind of a “gotcha” question for Libertarians. The question includes several assumptions:
    a. That Corporations would try to obtain and possess nuclear weapons.
    b. That Government could prevent Corporations from possessing nuclear weapons.through legislation and law enforcement.
    c. That Government legislation and law enforcement against Corporations possessing nuclear weapons would not have inordinate costs or severe unintended consequences.
    A more reasonable question would be: Do you support legislation to prohibit Corporations from possessing nuclear weapons, with an associated monitoring and law enforcement program?
    My answer would be no – I do not see a need for such legislation now or in the foreseeable future.

    5. Who is your favorite president and why?
    Remarks at a Dinner Honoring Nobel Prize Winners of the Western Hemisphere.
    John F. Kennedy April 29, 1962
    “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” I agree.with JFK on that one.
    Another more unusual presidential hero of mine is James K. Polk. He made few promises during his campaign, and he kept them all. He took California from Mexico, he lowered the tariff, he established a sub-treasury, and he retired after a single term. He also settled the Oregon dispute. I hope I could be that good.

  18. Marc Allan Feldman

    @Joe Wendt January 11, 2015 at 9:02 pm
    Would you consider recruiting Starchild or Chuck Moulton as a potential Vice Presidential candidate?

    I consider both Starchild and Chuck to be great Libertarians as well as friends. I would consider either to be a great potential choice for a running mate. I expect to consider a very long list, .

  19. Marc Allan Feldman

    @ langa January 11, 2015 at 9:36 pm

    1. What should be the primary goal of an LP presidential campaign?
    I don’t think all candidates have, or should have, the same primary goal. If I was a well-known former major party career politician with great fundraising ability, my primary goal would be to win. This is how I could best promote the Party, and I would not worry so much about making any particular political points.
    I am not that kind of candidate. I may change tactics, but I will not compromise my principles to win. My goal is to send a message and promote the entire movement of freedom in this country.

    2. What makes you the best person to achieve that goal?
    I can tell you I don’t have money… but what I do have are a very particular set of skills. Skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for authoritarians. Somehow, because of my background, my education and personal learning, and some of the most trying and difficult experiences a person can suffer, I am left almost incapable of fear or being intimidated. I do not consider myself courageous. The courageous man feels great fear, but overcomes it via strength of will. I lack fear. I know we come from dust and will return to dust. My goal is to leave this world a better place than I found it. I think different. If people are looking for real hope and real change, they will easily see that I am offering something new and different.

    3. If you had to choose one single issue to emphasize, what would it be?
    Get money out of politics. The Democrats and Republicans will each spend over a billion dollars on this race. My goal is to turn that asset into a liability. More and more people see that we cannot control our spending, our deficits, or our debt because our leaders are owned by the special interests that finance their campaigns. I will break that cycle.

  20. Darryl W. Perry

    I believe I have covered all of the questions asked thus far:

    If you receive the nomination, will you campaign with local LP candidates, frequently mention the party in your interviews, campaign materials and public appearances, and share any inquiries/volunteers/contacts/donor info with the LP in as real time as possible?
    I would gladly campaign with other Libertarian candidates, and proudly mention the LP in interviews, campaign materials, etc. I would, to the best of my ability, share donor information with the national LP provided the donor does not object to me sharing that information.

    If elected president, will you bring all our troops and our drones home from around the globe? Will you pursue an agenda of peace? Will you begin to close military bases in foreign countries?
    I would end all overseas intervention, which would include closing overseas military bases.

    What will you do to slow climate change?
    I don’t know, however I know what I would not do, and that is to have a system of carbon taxes and carbon credits.

    What will you do to protect free speech?
    I would not prosecute whistleblowers, and ask Congress to repeal all federal restrictions on speech/expression.

    Will you ever support a ban on “hate speech”? Why or why not?
    No, these laws serve only to criminalize thought crimes.

    Would you consider imposing travel bans or closing the borders in the face of global pandemic?
    No!

    Should private corporations be allowed to possess nuclear weapons?
    I do not believe that any government should have any weaponry that an individual can’t possess. That said, there is no way to use a nuclear weapon in a purely self-defense manner; therefore no one has a right to detonate a nuclear weapon.

    Who is your favorite president and why?
    William Henry Harrison. This is not to say that I condone things he did before he was president, or that I would have supported his election. WH Harrison is my favorite President because he did only two things: 1) give an inauguration speech, 2) die! He had no chance to grow the government.

    What is your experience in government or governance?
    I have experience as a manager in many different private sector fields, I also own my own business, and for the past 2 years have served on the Board of Directors for Cheshire TV (the community access television station in Keene, NH).

    Why are you running, in one paragraph?
    I am running to promote the idea that men do not need leaders. We are all capable of leading ourselves. Coercive governments only get in the way of allowing this to happen.

    If you receive the nomination, what is primary reason why voters should vote for you, in one paragraph?
    I can answer this in one sentence: voters should cast a ballot for Darryl W. Perry for President in 2016 if they are tired of the Republicratic Duopoly controlling the federal government, and want to send a message that they don’t consent to the Duopoly’s control.

    Is there are discernible geodemographic where you think you can plausibly receive 5%+ of the vote, and why do you think you can accomplish this? In one paragraph.
    This could happen, only if I were in the debates involving the Duopoly candidates.

    Have you started thinking about white house decorations, and if so, what are your thoughts?
    No.

    Do you have a first lady or first gentleman, and if not, are you looking for one? If you are, what are your search criteria?
    No, and sort of. No comment.

    Would you consider merging the position with VP for the sake of efficiency? Are you open to a VP/first lady candidate affiliated with the Green Party?
    No, mixing work and relationships is never a good idea.

    Would you consider recruiting Starchild or Chuck Moulton as a potential Vice Presidential candidate?
    I would gladly have either man on my campaign!

    What should be the primary goal of an LP presidential campaign?
    The primary goal of a Libertarian Presidential campaign should be to promote the ideas of liberty, and the Libertarian Party!

    What makes you the best person to achieve that goal?
    I have been promoting the ideas of liberty for most of my adult life, and have the ability to express ideas of radical libertarianism in a way that doesn’t scare people away from the ideas.

    If you had to choose one single issue to emphasize, what would it be?
    Abolition of coercive governments.

  21. Jed Ziggler

    I agree! I’m leaning toward Mr. Perry.

    Another question: There is currently a movement, led by Tom Knapp & endorsed by Joshua Katz among others, to not run a presidential ticket in 2016. The Libertarian Party currently holds the fifth longest streak of consecutive presidential elections with a candidate on the ballot, behind only the Democratic Party, Republican Party, Prohibition Party, and Socialist Workers Party. Do you think failing to field a presidential ticket is a bad idea? Why are you a better choice than NOTA?

  22. Darryl W. Perry

    There is currently a movement, led by Tom Knapp & endorsed by Joshua Katz among others, to not run a presidential ticket in 2016. The Libertarian Party currently holds the fifth longest streak of consecutive presidential elections with a candidate on the ballot, behind only the Democratic Party, Republican Party, Prohibition Party, and Socialist Workers Party. Do you think failing to field a presidential ticket is a bad idea? Why are you a better choice than NOTA?

    Yes, not many (if any) national political parties last very long after having failed to field a Presidential ticket. That said, I do understand the idea of supporting NOTA, as I believe it sends the message that the interested candidates don’t meet the standard that should be upheld.
    In some ways I would say that I am running a NOTA campaign, not just for the LP nomination but in the general election as well; the main difference is that I am able to articulate the ideas of liberty, while NOTA is not an actual person capable of speech.

  23. Marc Allan Feldman

    I will be happy to comment, though it will be difficult for me to debate against NOTA. NOTA is always a great choice and often the best choice. I will know more as we get closer to the convention. For now, I have chosen NOTA to be my running mate.

  24. Marc Allan Feldman

    @JedZiggler:
    “If elected president, will you bring all our troops and our drones home from around the globe?”
    I imagine it might be practically difficult to bring home more than 90% or 95% over 4 years, but I will certainly try. Surveillance drones probably have some place. I would decommission armed drones.

    “Will you pursue an agenda of peace?” Peace means different things to different people. For some people:
    Truth = What I believe
    Justice = I get what I want.
    Peace = You do not get to fight back.
    It is not a peaceful world. I hope to help make it much more peaceful. For some time it will be necessary to fight against our enemies. My plan is to use our most powerful weapons:
    a. To project the power of our proponents of free speech to educate, motivate and inspire.
    b. To overwhelm the enemy with tolerance, courage, and the refusal to fear or be intimidated or terrorized.
    c. To use the power of example to demonstrate to the world the power of freedom, limited government, and personal responsibility.

    “Will you begin to close military bases in foreign countries?” Yes. Many of them. I would also look toward recommisioning bases to be private communities, educational or healthcare facilities, to lessen negative economic effects.

  25. paulie Post author

    On this thread? No. He started to answer a couple in his own thread (linked in the article above). Then dropped off soon after the actual questions started and hasn’t been back since. As far as I can tell he did not reply to my emails inviting him to this thread either, although it’s possible my email screwed up – I didn’t get an email back from Darryl either so I facebook messaged him, where he accepted and said he did send me an email accepting earlier which for some reason I never received. But as far as I can tell Mr. Dunham has stopped replying on or to IPR. Not sure if we offended him somehow or if he has other reasons for not coming back here that I don’t know about. He’s welcome to participate if and when he decides to do so, or not.

  26. NewFederalist

    “If Mr. Dunham does answer questions here at IPR, I’d like to know the level of his involvement with James Ogle’s USA Parliament.”

    Oh, oh… that isn’t good.

  27. paulie Post author

    Twitlonger? That’s a travesty! It defeats the very key distinguishing feature of twitter. And Dunham can compete with the abovementioned FEC filing candidate in the USP fantasy election. That other candidate has his whole website (as per politics1.com) on the Ogle USP website.

  28. paulie Post author

    Do the candidates (Feldman, Perry, NOTA supporters, Dunham if he shows up) have any questions for each other or statements about each other? I presumed that it was obvious this was always an option in this discussion, but perhaps I should make it explicit. I guess I may as well include that if you don’t have any that’s OK too.

  29. Darryl W. Perry

    To the other candidates: what is your position on secession, specifically allowing states, territories, reservations, counties, all the way down to individuals withdrawing from the United States of America?

  30. Marc Allan Feldman

    @Darryl W. Perry
    “what is your position on secession, specifically allowing states, territories, reservations, counties, all the way down to individuals withdrawing from the United States of America?”
    I certainly would not oppose it, but it would not be on my short list of objectives. I have thought that a Constitutional amendment establishing the State Supreme Courts as the hightest court for deciding Constitutional issues regarding activities of State residents acting within the borders of the State would allow greater freedom and experimentation by the States.

    My focus is strictly on getting money out of political campaigns to get money out of politics. Once leaders do not have to worry about who will be financing their next campaign, they will be able to act out of principle and represent their citizen constituents, instead of catering to special interests.

  31. Darryl W. Perry

    Darryl, I think your question sort of implies what your own answer is, but you may as well give it anyway.

    I fully support the right of self-determination; that is the right of “determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status.” Though there are no established guidelines regarding how a group of people exercise their right of self-determination. During the 1860’s several States attempted to leave the United States of America, several counties in these States took secession one step further and seceded from their seceding State. It was this act of self-determination that allowed West Virginia to become a State, it also led to several “Free State’s” throughout the Confederacy.
    The United States of America was founded on the principles of self-determination. Not only has the U.S. government violated the self-determination rights of the Native Americans, but also the people of Hawai’i, Guam, Puerto Rico and many other people who have become dependent on the U.S. government. I believe that every person and/or group of people should be allowed to decide for themselves if and/or how they will be governed.

    Do you support the “Fair” tax. Why or why not?

    I do not support creating a national sales tax, nor do I support a tax that includes sending out checks to every household on a monthly basis. The only fair tax is one that is completely voluntary!

  32. NOTA

    Attempting to respond to as many questions as possible:

    >I’ll start with a good general-purpose one: Have you given any consideration to your >preference for the Vice Presidential nomination, and have you spoken to anybody about being >your running mate? Corollary: do you intend to announce a willing running mate (or your >endorsement for the VP nomination) prior to the convention?

    Yes, I will endorse myself as my own running mate. It would be rather silly to nominate anyone else, I think, given how Presidential elections work.

    >If you receive the nomination, will you campaign with local LP candidates, frequently mention >the party in your interviews, campaign materials and public appearances, and share any >inquiries/volunteers/contacts/donor info with the LP in as real time as possible?

    Yes. I will do everything I can to support local candidates, beginning with not asking for any money from the LNC for ballot access. I will encourage down-ticket candidates and votes, and will appear with every local candidate every time that candidate makes an appearance.

    > If elected president, will you bring all our troops and our drones home from around the >globe? Will you pursue an agenda of peace? Will you begin to close military bases in foreign >countries?

    No, I cannot do any of that. However, I will not sign any AUMFs, nor will I request any funding. Under the War Powers Act, the only way to send troops into the field would be through a Congressional declaration of war – and even once authorized, I will not issue any commands sending them there, since I am not a person.

    > What will you do to slow climate change?

    If elected (somehow) I will make it impossible to sign any legislation providing corporate welfare to big business. This will make it impossible for the largest polluters to avoid the market consequences of their actions, which is the greatest control we have on environmental issues. It will be impossible to sign any such legislation because I am not a person.

    Sorry, I need to go deal with police militarization (get it, cause no one’s dealing with it?) I will respond to the rest when I get home.

  33. paulie Post author

    Since there are many different people who support NOTA for different reasons, I think it would be better if NOTA spokespeople spoke for themselves or at least included their real name or screen name (I haven’t checked, but I am guessing the NOTA above is Joshua?).

    Also, the electoral laws of the US haven’t changed, and I presume are very unlikely to change in the next two years, so as to allow actual election of NOTA (as in having the White House decommissioned, no one moving in). So it would seem to me to be more realistic to have NOTA spokespeople speak to the benefits of the LP not running a presidential ticket, as opposed to pretending that states all over the country will allow us to put a NOTA option on the actual November election ballot and in theory actually have NOTA win and take office.

  34. Marc Allan Feldman

    Since this thread is for Debate/Discussion thread with declared candidates for the 2016 Libertarian Presidential nomination, I would recommend moving those interested in NOTA or not running a Presidential candidate to another thread. As it is I am finding this discussion unhelpful.

  35. NOTA

    >What will you do to protect free speech?

    A better question is what will my opponents do to protect free speech. The answer is: likely nothing, because they are unlikely to be elected President.

    >Will you ever support a ban on “hate speech”? Why or why not?

    No, mostly because I’ll never support a ban on anything (and will never support anything, for that matter, since I’m not a person.) Specifically, though, because banning hate speech does not ban hate – it just makes it harder to identify the bigots amongst us.

    >Would you consider imposing travel bans or closing the borders in the face of global >pandemic?

    No. Markets can solve health crises.

    >Should private corporations be allowed to possess nuclear weapons?

    They shouldn’t possess nuclear weapons, but government should not possess the power to stop them.

    >Who is your favorite president and why?

    William Henry Harrison. His actions in office were closest to what mine would be. Second choice: John F. Kennedy. When you leave behind your body and personhood and become a non-existent entity, you realize the importance of peace and the silliness of the squabbles between rival superpowers, and quickly come to love his speeches on the topic.

    >What is your experience in government or governance?

    I have been appointed to fill multiple vacant offices at all levels of government. Most famously, I filled in for President Reagan after an assassination attempt when the Vice-President was not available. My quick thinking during that time is credited by many historians with preventing a coup attempt by Alexander Haig, who mistakenly claimed that he, rather than me, had taken control at the White House. I also filled in for President Bush multiple times during his vacations, and for President Clinton while he was getting blowjobs.

    >Why are you running, in one paragraph?

    I am running to provide a reasonable, serious alternative to all announced candidates. Having taken stock of the LP’s financial situation, I have determined that my candidacy is the only one the LP can afford at the moment. Furthermore, I am running because, unlike any of my opponents, I will spare the LP another cycle of wondering “Will we or won’t we break 1%?” By nominating me, the LP can focus on the tasks it can actually accomplish. It’s been said that I lack visibility, and that running me for office may lead people to mistakenly believe that the party no longer exists; I say that cannot happen if candidates across this country step up, in every municipality and county, to run for, and win, offices with direct contact with the people. Finally, I am running because 90% of contact with government is local, and nominating me will allow the LP to focus on the area where freedom will have the most immediate impact on people’s actual lives. Nominating me will free the LP to enter into the task of actually governing rather than wasting energy on a Presidential campaign.

    >If you receive the nomination, what is primary reason why voters should vote for you, in one >paragraph?

    If I receive the nomination, I will not be on the ballot. However, I would urge voters to write me in. The Presidency is an unnecessary relic of monarchy, and has been given far too many powers over the decades. If there must be a government, and there must be an executive branch, and there must be a head of that branch, then we will be best served by rewriting that job description – the easiest way to do that would be leaving the Presidency vacant.

    >Is there are discernible geodemographic where you think you can plausibly receive 5%+ of the >vote, and why do you think you can accomplish this? In one paragraph.

    Probably not – but I do not believe any of my opponents have one either, which is a powerful reason to vote for me. Only one can plausibly claim to come close, but he’s demonstrated through a past campaign that he doesn’t have such a demographic, even within the state where he was a popular Governor.

    >Have you started thinking about white house decorations, and if so, what are your thoughts?

    I have thought deeply about this question. I would sell all White House decorations and replace them with nothing. The money would be used to pay those who have paid into SS when that system is terminated.

    >Do you have a first lady or first gentleman, and if not, are you looking for one? If you are, what >are your search criteria?

    I am actively seeking a First Androgenous Being. They would need to be, like me, sexless, and non-existent.

    >Would you consider merging the position with VP for the sake of efficiency? Are you open to a >VP/first lady candidate affiliated with the Green Party?

    I would hope that the non-existent entity serving as First Androgenous Being would also be open to being VP, yes. I would love it if they were affiliated with the Green Party; I am also seeking their nomination.

    >Would you consider recruiting Starchild or Chuck Moulton as a potential Vice Presidential >candidate?

    While it would be very strange (and impossible) to have a running mate, I’d be proud to run with either of these individuals, if that were possible.

    >What should be the primary goal of an LP presidential campaign?

    Winning the Presidency. That’s how parties work.

    >What makes you the best person to achieve that goal?

    Again, I am not a person. I will not achieve that goal. Neither will any of my opponents. I will fail to achieve it at much lower cost.

    >If you had to choose one single issue to emphasize, what would it be?

    Eliminating the Presidency, and, more importantly, government.

    >There is currently a movement, led by Tom Knapp & endorsed by Joshua Katz among others, >to not run a presidential ticket in 2016. The Libertarian Party currently holds the fifth longest >streak of consecutive presidential elections with a candidate on the ballot, behind only the >Democratic Party, Republican Party, Prohibition Party, and Socialist Workers Party. Do you >think failing to field a presidential ticket is a bad idea? Why are you a better choice than >NOTA?

    This is a tough one. I am not a better choice than NOTA. In any event, the LP has a very long streak of running candidates, as noted – and has never broken 2% of the vote. The LP received one electoral college vote, and it wasn’t earned. The LP currently has 134 elected officials. Of those, none are above the county level. In it’s history, the LP has elected (I believe) 4 state reps, and no candidates to any higher office. The LP has won almost no partisan races where both the Republicans and the Democrats have run; most of its victories have come in races where every other party nominated me (I’ve been beaten many times by other LP candidates, and I’m quite happy about that!)

    In short, the LP has not succeeded, by the definitions most would think to use for a political party’s success. Why continue the same efforts the LP has made? I have appeared on the ballot in every Presidential nomination race; I have never been eliminated in any but the last ballot, but I have never been nominated. If a tactic doesn’t work, stop using it. The LP needs to reconsider what success is. Success is not breaking Ed Clark’s percentage; success is winning offices. Pouring money and time into an unwinnable race, leaving many volunteers entirely burned out and unwilling to participate in other races, is not a means of winning offices. Focusing on winnable races is an important thing to do. Building a solid reputation as a serious party is important – and people believe you are serious about governing when you seek opportunities to actually govern, then govern, and do so well, while holding to your principles. Continually punching above your weight does not convey an impression of being serious; it conveys an impression of running a party as an activity and a diversion. It gives off the impression of vanity campaigns and of unserious people.

    I would like to respond to my opponents on this question:

    >Yes, not many (if any) national political parties last very long after having failed to field a >Presidential ticket. That said, I do understand the idea of supporting NOTA, as I believe it >sends the message that the interested candidates don’t meet the standard that should be >upheld.

    No party has risen to major party status, or become successful, after 42 years. If the LP is ever to succeed, it will be by bucking history, so an argument from history means little here. Other than the Liberal Democrats, no party has ever risen to prominence after more than 3 election cycles. Looking at the parties with longer streaks than the LP, two are major parties, and the rest are gone.

    >In some ways I would say that I am running a NOTA campaign, not just for the LP nomination >but in the general election as well; the main difference is that I am able to articulate the ideas >of liberty, while NOTA is not an actual person capable of speech.

    Nominating me would mean that every local candidate needs to speak in my place. It would mean that LP activists could not rely on a Presidential candidate with vocal cords to do all the championing of liberty. That responsibility would fall on every party member. Yes, my opponents have vocal cords and I do not, but discrimination on this account is unwarranted, since those vocal cords will not, in the course of the election, be likely to get much of a workout. My opponents will not be in the debates; I can guarantee that I will be in the debates. My opponents will not be able to run tv or radio ads; I will have an ad every time a tv or radio station has dead air. My opponents will not be heard, vocal cords or none, by most of the public. The same is true for me, but no one will think that I will be heard.

    >I will be happy to comment, though it will be difficult for me to debate against NOTA. NOTA is >always a great choice and often the best choice. I will know more as we get closer to the >convention. For now, I have chosen NOTA to be my running mate.

    I am honored by this choice, but I do not desire to run for the VP nomination, only the Presidential nomination. I will accept the VP nomination if elected, though. While it may be difficult for Dr. Feldman to debate against me, I do not have trouble debating against Dr. Feldman. I have no job and no career (well, I was hired during the Obama years as a liberal anti-war activist, and during the Bush years as a conservative supporter of small government). My opponent has a well-respected job. However, do we really want to run a candidate who puts people to sleep for a living?

    >If Mr. Dunham does answer questions here at IPR, I’d like to know the level of his involvement >with James Ogle’s USA Parliament.

    Go Ogle your name! I worked with James to invent Google. We did it as a team.

    >To the other candidates: what is your position on secession, specifically allowing states, >territories, reservations, counties, all the way down to individuals withdrawing from the United >States of America?

    I would take no action to stop secession, down to the individual level.

  36. Joshua Katz

    I saw the above comments after answering the second set of questions. Yes, I am the NOTA above. I will honor Dr. Feldman’s request to not speak for NOTA here, despite NOTA being a declared candidate, and the only candidate to have appeared on the ballot at every convention in the party’s history.

    To Paulie’s point – aside from some tongue in cheek remarks, I acknowledged throughout my answers that NOTA will not be on the ballot, and my longest answers were about the arguments for not running a candidate, although phrased as “running NOTA” as a useful shorthand.

    In any event, I think I’ve made my points as far as NOTA and will stop posting in NOTA’s defense.

  37. Jed Ziggler

    “I would recommend moving those interested in NOTA or not running a Presidential candidate to another thread. As it is I am finding this discussion unhelpful.”

    I agree. And the person replying as “NOTA” is super lame.

    To the actual candidates: there is a chance the Libertarian presidential nominee will be involved in nationally-televised debates, due to a pending lawsuit from OAI & several petition efforts. What makes you more qualified to debate Democratic & Republican candidates than, say, a former state governor? Do you think the voting public would take someone who has never held major office seriously?

  38. Marc Allan Feldman

    Our number one national security threat is our debt.
    A serious candidate must have a plan to solve our number one national security threat.
    I have a plan. Gary Johnson does not. The Democrats and the Republicans do not and cannot.
    I will be in the debates, because I will be the only serious candidate and the public will demand it. Gary Johnson is too nice. He ran in the Republican primary. He wants to get along. He wants to be positive about freedom, not negative about Democrats and Republicans. He is an enabler, and I think the Democrats and the Republicans need some tough love.
    Negative is appropriate. This is not politics as usual. The Democrats and the Republicans are hopelessly addicted to money. This is not an election – it is an intervention. I expect to break records, and I could win.
    Because, in reality, votes are not for sale.

  39. paulie Post author

    “Since this thread is for Debate/Discussion thread with declared candidates for the 2016 Libertarian Presidential nomination, I would recommend moving those interested in NOTA or not running a Presidential candidate to another thread”

    But NOTA will be on the ballot in Orlando. Therefore, I think it makes sense to have people explain why they are for NOTA, and to have the breathing candidates explain why delegates should pick them over NOTA as well as over other breathing candidates – since they will have to convince the actual delegates at the actual convention of both things as well.

    “As it is I am finding this discussion unhelpful.”

    You are free to ignore the NOTA related discussions. I would recommend that anyone speaking for NOTA

    1) Make clear who they are, since different supporters of NOTA have different reasons for doing so,

    2) Answer from the standpoint of why they think the LP would be better off not running a candidate – not pretend we can actually elect NOTA in the real election in November, (individuals may choose not to vote, or to write in NOTA, but that won’t get NOTA elected).

    but I don’t want to actively enforce those rules (at least not at this point) – they are just my opinions/requests/suggestions, at least as of now, which may or may not change depending on ongoing feedback from the community and the breathing candidates.

  40. paulie Post author

    “I saw the above comments after answering the second set of questions.”

    And I saw yours just now. Sorry.

    “Yes, I am the NOTA above.”

    I thought so, and was sure after the second round (still haven’t checked but now I don’t need to).

    “I will honor Dr. Feldman’s request to not speak for NOTA here, despite NOTA being a declared candidate, and the only candidate to have appeared on the ballot at every convention in the party’s history.”

    That’s unfortunate. I think we do need people to speak for NOTA, since it is an actual option in the nomination vote, and since some of you are actively campaigning for it.

    And as you know, but some others may not, I strongly disagree with you about NOTA and expressed my reasons at some length in prior threads. But I appreciate the arguments, and the humor.

    “In any event, I think I’ve made my points as far as NOTA and will stop posting in NOTA’s defense.”

    Up to you, but if the threads goes for a while I hope NOTA supporters will continue to participate, and that breathing candidates can develop good counterarguments because they may need them.

  41. AndyCraig

    I’m not sure what to make of the complaint that Johnson is “too nice,” but the idea that he didn’t make a major issue out of the national debt strikes me as being at odds with Johnson’s actual campaign rhetoric. The need to cut spending dramatically and fast enough to eliminate the debt in a single year (43%, iirc) was/is the lead-in he uses to discuss just about every other issue about size/scope of government.

  42. Joshua Katz

    For all candidates: What will you do differently from past campaigns to draw attention and notice to your campaign?

    If invited to a debate, what specific skills do you possess that would enable you to successfully debate against, in all likelihood, two experienced politicians who have held multiple offices and won several elections?

    What would be your approach in a televised debate with candidates of other parties? Would you focus most on debating them on facts, on publicizing our ideology and ideas, demonstrating the difference in character, or something else?

  43. Joshua Katz

    Paulie – yes, I’m actively campaigning for NOTA. Of course, whoever is nominated, I will, post-nomination, fully support our candidate and work for their election to President, assuming we have one. But I’m not going to debate on NOTA’s behalf with people who don’t wish to debate against NOTA. For better or worse, that’s the nature of debates. I wish that candidates would engage with NOTA as well, as being better than nothing at all seems to be a reasonable hurdle for a candidate to overcome, but I can’t make them do so, at least prior to the convention. Your point is well-taken that the breathing candidates may need arguments against NOTA in the future, but whether they want to hone those arguments now or not is up to them.

  44. Jed Ziggler

    “as being better than nothing at all seems to be a reasonable hurdle for a candidate to overcome”

    I would argue that the worst candidate is better than no candidate at all. If I were at the convention (I won’t be, btw) and my only choices were Rand Paul (who I’ve voiced my great disdain for) & NOTA, I’m voting for Randall because the LP MUST have a candidate, for a number of reasons, ballot access retention among them. I would not, however, vote for Randall in the general, under any circumstances.

    Question for Mr. Feldman: I admire your cause of getting money out of politics, as I believe all political donations are a form of corruption. Do you support laws to prevent such corruption, or do you favor a grassroots movement to remove big money interests from the political process?

  45. Darryl W. Perry

    For all candidates: What will you do differently from past campaigns to draw attention and notice to your campaign?

    I would speak the message of liberty every opportunity I was given, and unlike some previous Libertarian Presidential candidates, I would not advocate incrementalist positions as the position, because when you do so, you leave no room for compromise.

    If invited to a debate, what specific skills do you possess that would enable you to successfully debate against, in all likelihood, two experienced politicians who have held multiple offices and won several elections?

    I am a fairly skilled public speaker, and as a radio host I am used to being able to think quickly on my feet, if you will, when talking to callers. The fact that I could potentially be debating skilled liers does not intimidate me.

    What would be your approach in a televised debate with candidates of other parties? Would you focus most on debating them on facts, on publicizing our ideology and ideas, demonstrating the difference in character, or something else?

    It depends on what facts you’re referencing. I would most certainly point out the fact that coercive governments are the reason for so much death and destruction, and loss of liberties. I would also use the debates to promote the libertarian ideology!

  46. Darryl W. Perry

    Joshua Katz/NOTA advocates:
    If NOTA gets the LP nomination, should there be a designee to speak on behalf of NOTA’s campaign post nomination? If so, who should that be? If not one of the announced candidates, would you support that designee seeking the LP nomination?

  47. Joshua Katz

    In my opinion, there should be no official designee, since NOTA wouldn’t be “nominated,” it just means the absence of a candidate. Anyone who wishes to speak against other candidates is free to. In place of relying on a Presidential candidate to spread our message, though, the onus would be on our down-ticket candidates to promote our ideas, as NOTA explained above.

  48. paulie Post author

    I would argue that the worst candidate is better than no candidate at all.

    You mean that literally? How about Milnes or the Ashtar Flying Saucers guy or Imperato (if you remember 2008) or one of the candidates campaigning on legalizing bestiality as a campaign issue? I have a relatively low bar for breathing human vs NOTA, but I do have one.

  49. Jed Ziggler

    “You mean that literally?”

    Yes.

    “How about Milnes or the Ashtar Flying Saucers guy or Imperato (if you remember 2008) or one of the candidates campaigning on legalizing bestiality as a campaign issue?”

    Milnes would be unfortunate, but still better than NOTA. I’m unfamiliar with Ashtar guy or Imperato, and I would have no problem with a candidate campaigning on bestiality legalization. Frankly I think sexual liberation issues have for too long been ignored by LP candidates.

    “I have a relatively low bar for breathing human vs NOTA, but I do have one.”

    I would be very disappointed if the LP nominated a bad candidate, but not nearly as disappointed as I would if they gave up. I’m already soured on the party, I’m afraid that would finally seal the deal for good.

  50. Darryl W. Perry

    Who is your favorite libertarian philosopher and why?
    Unlike many people who became libertarians from reading Rothbard, Mises, Spooner, Ayn Rand or others who wrote extensively on libertarian ideology, I became a libertarian from studying history. So, I guess you could say I don’t have a favorite libertarian philosopher, however I would say that I enjoy the books from Mary Ruwart, and Tom Woods.

  51. Joe Wendt

    Based on the answers I’ve seen, I’d probably vote for Mr. Perry at the convention as my first choice. His point of view is more in-line with my own. However, Mr Feldman would be my second or third choice for the Presidential nomination and definitely my first choice for the VP nomination.

  52. Marc Allan Feldman

    @Jed Ziggler
    “Question for Mr. Feldman: I admire your cause of getting money out of politics, as I believe all political donations are a form of corruption. Do you support laws to prevent such corruption, or do you favor a grassroots movement to remove big money interests from the political process?”
    I do not support laws that would limit to whom and how much people would donate to campaigns. How else would we figure out who was corrupt?
    I believe we should fight appealing to big money in campaigns the same way we fight against appealing to racism in campaigns. It is not by making it against the law. It is by not voting for these corrupt people.
    There is new information technology for organizing and making grassroots efforts much easier and more effective. This is the time. We will show that votes are not for sale.

  53. Marc Allan Feldman

    Question for Darryl Perry. Neither of us is listed on the FEC Form 2 filers list as official registered candidates. I sent my forms a week ago, and I am still waiting for the posting.
    Have you filed paperwork as a Presidential candidate, or will you once your expenses have exceeded the $5000 limit? Or as your May 2013 letter stated:
    “I would like to inform you that on behalf of the campaign, the FEC will not be receiving a Statement of Organization, Statement of Candidacy, any financial reports, etc.”
    http://darrylwperry.com/2013/05/07/open-letter-to-the-fec/

  54. paulie Post author

    Feldman would be my second or third choice for the Presidential nomination and definitely my first choice for the VP nomination.

    This brings up a more general question to mind.

    Of the candidates running for the presidential nomination, if you fail to get the nomination, would you be willing to seek and/or accept a VP nomination? Why or why not?

  55. paulie Post author

    DWP

    I became a libertarian from studying history.

    What particular aspects, accounts, incidents or lessons of history would you say were eye openers in this regard for you?

    Similarly to Dr. Feldman,

    IIRC you said you discovered big L Libertarianism around 2008 or 2009…I don’t remember yet if you answered how this came about?

    Mr. Dunham if you grace us with your presence here, or any future declared candidates if we hold this thread active for this purpose:

    What led you to discover libertarianism or that you are a libertarian and when?

  56. Darryl W. Perry

    @Paulie – just saw the question:

    This brings up a more general question to mind.
    Of the candidates running for the presidential nomination, if you fail to get the nomination, would you be willing to seek and/or accept a VP nomination? Why or why not?

    I would not rule out accepting the VP nomination, though I have no plans at this time to seek the VP nomination.

  57. Martin Passoli

    Are there some measurable goals you would set now for your campaign? What short of an outright win, if anything, would you consider success? What can you realistically expect to accomplish with your campaign regardless of whether you win?

  58. Jed Ziggler

    Question to @KDunham4Prez on Twitter:

    From @JedZiggler: @KDunham4Prez What is the level of your involvement with James Ogle’s USA Parliament?

    Response:

    @JedZiggler Hey there, I am a member of that group and a Minister of Research and Science in their National Cabinet

    @JedZiggler Which you can see here: http://t.co/I2jJUbhbzW

  59. paulie Post author

    Dunham emailed me and said he wanted to participate in the thread. Well, it’s wide open. Jump in any time.

    He also said he wants it to include other parties. I replied:

    Go ahead and join the thread anytime you want. Other parties’ candidates can show up if they want to, and other IPR writers can put up a new thread anytime they want that explicitly includes other parties, but the existing thread is as it is, and already has a lot of questions for you to answer anytime you want to join in. The reason I have it the way it is, is because the LP will pick its own candidate and only LP delegates will get to vote on that, just as only Green Party delegates will get to vote on candidates for their nomination and so forth. I see the thread I put up as a first step in helping LP convention delegates make that decision.

    The only candidates the general public will have on the ballot are the ones the parties nominate, if they have ballot access in their state. They will not have a choice of all the candidates seeking the LP nomination, all the candidates seeking the Constitution Party nomination, etc on their ballot – not unless they sign up as delegates for each party’s convention.

    But I have no objection to other parties’ candidates “crashing the party” at least to some extent on my thread (some of it will depend on the community/reader reaction if they do) or other IPR writers putting up a cross-partisan thread.

  60. Marc Allan Feldman

    @paulie- VP – not interested with any of the current crop of potential candidates. I will be happy to endorse and work for whoever the eventual nominee is. And a Republican VP offer would be 100% out of the question.

  61. Marc Allan Feldman

    @Martin Passoli measurable goals –
    Evidence of spreading the message – 2% of the general election vote and 2500 new LP members and donation of excess campaign funds to the LP at the end

  62. Darryl W. Perry

    How many state conventions do you plan to or want to make it to this year?

    I’m not sure at this point. I might be able to attend the New Mexico convention, however I’m not certain.

    Are there some measurable goals you would set now for your campaign?

    I do have some measurable goals, however at this point in time, I will reserve the right to not share the details.

    What short of an outright win, if anything, would you consider success?

    I would consider my campaign a success if it continues through the 2016 general election!

    What can you realistically expect to accomplish with your campaign regardless of whether you win?

    I realistically expect to promote the ideas of liberty.

  63. Martin Passoli

    Are there things you believe past LP presidential nominees or their campaigns have done well, and if so what were some of those things and in which campaigns? Can you replicate those successes and improve on them?

    What are some things past nominees have not done well, and how will you avoid making similar mistakes?

  64. paulie Post author

    Same problem as Milnes, except that I think NN/CLC/FFF/whatever actually realizes his “campaign” is a joke, unlike Milnes.

  65. Hal

    1) Would you prefer to keep the Electoral College system or replace it with a popular vote via Constitutional amendment?
    2) The Patriot Act: keep, repeal, or revise (and if the latter, how)?
    3) Guantanamo: keep it open or close it? And how would you handle it?

  66. Marc Allan Feldman

    1. I would keep the Electoral college until someone comes up with a better idea. I don’t think a popular vote is a better idea.
    2. Patriot Act – If it is not repealed, I would not enforce it by executive order, as I believe it is unconstitutional. If congress want to take it to the Supreme Court, it will be an excellent way to air the issues.
    3. Guantanamo – It is not just a prison, it is a symbol. Close it now.

  67. Andy Craig

    There are many better ideas than the electoral college, which has never worked as intended. Of the alternatives out there, a simple popular vote like we use for every other office seems to be the obvious choice.

    Doesn’t have to be through constitutional amendment, either. You can keep the EC, and simply have the states agree via interstate compact to award their votes to the national popular vote winner. Several states have already passed this, they’re creeping on the trigger for it, which is enough states to control a 270+ EC absolute majority. This is exactly as much in line with what the constitution says about the EC, as the current system.

  68. Andy Craig

    The current platform does say “We support election systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels.” It doesn’t explicitly mention the EC, but I don’t see how you can read it as supporting the current system, since most-votes-loses is about as “unrepresentative” as an election system can get.

    Hardly the most important issue, but it does come up from time to time in presidential campaigns. Plenty of Libertarians on both sides of it, but I think the pro-EC ones have the weaker argument.

  69. Darryl W. Perry

    Are there things you believe past LP presidential nominees or their campaigns have done well, and if so what were some of those things and in which campaigns?

    I believe Harry Browne and even Michael Badnarik did a good job of promoting their beliefs and standing by their convictions, though Badnarik is probably more of a constitutionalist than libertarian.

    Can you replicate those successes and improve on them?

    Yes, I will at all times stand by my principles, and promote the ideas of liberty.

    What are some things past nominees have not done well, and how will you avoid making similar mistakes?

    I don’t believe that a Libertarian candidate for any office should run a deficit, nor do I believe they should seek taxpayer funding for their campaign. I will avoid doing both!

    Would you prefer to keep the Electoral College system or replace it with a popular vote via Constitutional amendment?

    If we’re talking hypotheticals, I’d prefer the federal government not exist. However, if we’re talking about reality, I’d prefer to see modifications in the apportionment of electors. Whether it be the Maine/Nebraska system of 2 at-large and 1 per Congressional district, or proportioned allocation, I do think that the winner-take-all system of apportionment needs to be modified by the legislatures of the various states.

    The Patriot Act: keep, repeal, or revise (and if the latter, how)?

    REPEAL!

    Guantanamo: keep it open or close it? And how would you handle it?

    Close it and every other overseas military base!

  70. Martin Passoli

    Andy Craig,

    The Libertarian Party would likely not exist today if it weren’t for the electoral college and a faithless Republican elector in 1972. The “national popular vote system” would exclude the possibility of a party such as the LP getting any electoral votes. Proportional allocation of electors within each state would increase it – we’d only need about 2% in California (actually slightly less), 3% or less in a few other states, and single digits in many states to win electors.

  71. Pingback: Nathan Norman Announces Presidential Run | The Saturnalian

  72. Martin Passoli

    Just read the story at the Saturnalian. Has anyone here been in touch with Robert Kuffel? Does he have a phone number or email contact published anywhere, web page or social media accounts of any sort? Has he run for office before? Did he ever get interviewed anywhere, and if so, how did they manage to get a hold of him?

  73. Robert Capozzi

    dp1: Yes, I will at all times stand by my principles, and promote the ideas of liberty.

    dp2: If we’re talking hypotheticals, I’d prefer the federal government not exist.

    me: So, would your “principles” include making the statement: “I’d prefer the federal government not exist” (hypothetically)?

  74. paulie Post author

    I may have asked already but I can’t remember. Would anyone reading here be willing to look thru the past threads we put up for the individual candidates to see if there are questions that could be general questions for all the candidates that haven’t been asked yet on this thread and copy them here?

  75. paulie Post author

    To what extent will you emphasize this position? IE, would you make explicit anarchism part of your opening and closing statements, or just answer about that when asked? Would you proactively point out that some Libertarians are anarchists and others are not?

  76. Andy Craig

    @Martin

    I’m aware of MacBride’s vote for Hospers, and the important role that played in the early days of the party. But the possibility of the LP picking up a single EV isn’t a very good basis to decide if we support the EC as a matter of policy. And I don’t think it’s generally true that the EC helps third parties. Ross Perot didn’t get a single electoral vote. If anything, the EC rewards geographic concentration, which libertarians and national third-parties are not very good at. The only ones who ever really were segregationist Southern third party candidates who could sweep those states with relatively modest percentages of the total national popular vote. For example, in 1948 Strom Thurmond (Dixiecrat) and former VP Henry Wallace (Progressive) both got the same % of the popular vote, but Thurmond got several Southern states and Wallace got no states or EVs.

    Proportional-by-state might be an improvement in some regards, but you quickly run into the problem that it has weirdly different strategic-voting effects in small states vs. large states, like you allude to with your point about California. You could have the LP get an EV with 2-3% in one state, and not get any for 15% in another state. Which gets back to the fundamental problem with the EC: there’s no particularly valid reason to weigh or count votes differently in different states in a national presidential election. Slightly changing the political calculus of which votes will be the swing votes, or making it easier for a regionally-concentrated third-party effort to get a few token Electors, doesn’t really change that.

  77. Andy Craig

    Proportional-by-state also has an even bigger hurdle than the NPV interstate compact. Instead of just having to get states with 270 EVs to agree, you would have to get all 50 state legislatures (plus DC) to agree to award their electors proportionally, which is effectively impossible. Otherwise the ones who do start using proportional systems will be seriously harming themselves vs. the states that retain winner-take-all, in terms of importance in the election.

    (yes, NE and ME are different, but they don’t use the system you’re talking about either, and it only puts 1-2 EVs into play at most, and rarely does it even do that)

  78. Robert Capozzi

    dwp, thanks. I see it. So, you are running an explicitly abolitionist anarchist campaign.

    I see you also admire President Harrison for his ability to die quickly once in office. If elected, do you plan to die as or more quickly after inauguration?

  79. Darryl W. Perry

    To what extent will you emphasize this position? IE, would you make explicit anarchism part of your opening and closing statements, or just answer about that when asked? Would you proactively point out that some Libertarians are anarchists and others are not?

    There are several sub-layers of the question. Abolishing the federal government does not automatically equal anarchy. There would still be 50 State governments, plus the territorial governments and tribal governments, not to mention all of the county and municipal governments that would still exist. Further, as a voluntarist, I support the rights of anyone to create a voluntary government as long as said government is not used to coerce anyone into “consenting” to its existence.
    Yes, this will be an integral part of my campaign message. Since I would use the term voluntarism (or voluntarist), I don’t feel the need to point out that some Libertarians are anarchists and others are not, unless asked specifically about the “a” word.

  80. Robert Capozzi

    dwp, thanks for your candor. Should you secure the LP nomination, your abolitionist/voluntaryist campaign is sure to raise the eyebrows of those who hear your message. Based on your answers, yours would surely be the most extreme L prez campaign to date, by far.

    Will you be calling for the immediate abolition of the fedgov, or will you be offering a transition plan of some sort?

  81. Marc Allan Feldman

    A question for all candidates: In the event that you are not the nominee, do you plan to support and endorse whoever is the choice of the LP delegates in convention?

    My answer: absolutely yes. Although each of us has a very different approach, I am impressed with the sincerity and dedication of each of the candidates and I would offer my enthusiastic support over any Democrat, Republican, or other candidate.

  82. Darryl W. Perry

    In the event that you are not the nominee, do you plan to support and endorse whoever is the choice of the LP delegates in convention?

    If I felt the candidate were sufficiently libertarian, in no situation would I endorse the Democrat or Republican nominee.

    Will you be calling for the immediate abolition of the fedgov, or will you be offering a transition plan of some sort?

    I would prefer the immediate abolition of the fedgov; however I would be open to a transition plan.

  83. Robert Capozzi

    dwp, generally prez candidates don’t speak in “preferences,” but advocate positions. Here’s a soundbite for your consideration:

    “The world would be a much better place if there were no US government. If elected, I would call a special session of Congress to advocate for the immediate abolition of the evil entity known as the United States of America. In all candor, as president I would be open to transition plans that Congress might offer.”

  84. Robert Capozzi

    MAF, I see soundbites as having 2 components…the first sentence “zinger,” and the elaborating paragraph. A compelling pol can deliver both in a punchy, effective manner.

    Here’s an example:

  85. Joshua Katz

    It’s funny, I listened to the clip above and didn’t hear anything about the Fair Tax being a useful transition or better than what we have now, etc. I heard an enthusiastic support for the Fair Tax as being, just that, fair. Although, to be sure, there is a lot to be said for knowing one’s audience.

  86. Martin Passoli

    Gotta agree with Dr. Feldman here. The dog part before the applause was the soundbite. The nonsense about the “fair” tax afterwards I would not count as part of the soundbite at all.

  87. paulie Post author

    It’s funny, I listened to the clip above and didn’t hear anything about the Fair Tax being a useful transition or better than what we have now, etc. I heard an enthusiastic support for the Fair Tax as being, just that, fair.

    Whenever asked about specific aspects of the “fair” tax such as the “prebate” near-universal welfare check or the revenue neutral tax rate, Gary Johnson always goes into the bit about how he’s not necessarily endorsing the details of the current proposal, just thinks it is a “good starting point for a conversation” about how to radically simplify the tax code (which I agree is a laudable goal on its own terms, although I don’t agree that the “fair” tax is a good starting point for any such conversation, much less actually fair). But then at other times he uses shorthand references which make it sound like he is fully on board with the Boortz plan. I wish he would stop doing that. Actually I wish he would just drop it, but even short of that I would love it if he would say “fairer, flatter, simpler and lower tax” or something else instead of just “fair tax.” I think some of that confusion is almost certainly deliberate, due to the financial and other contributions he gets from organized supporters of the “fair” tax.

  88. José C

    David Stockman former budget director of the Reagan administration is considering seeking the Presidential nomination of the Constitution Party on a platform to:

    Balance the federal budget.
    Return the United States to a gold and silver money system.
    Stop the printing press of the Federal Reserve and limit the printing of money.
    Reduce military spending as a percent of GDP to the level that existed when Eisenhower was President.
    Withdraw United States troops form engagement in the Middle East and other world “hot spots”.
    Reform Social Security by initiating means testing to limit Social Security to only those in need.
    Institute banking reform to limit the possibility of bailouts by the FED, FDIC, Congress, etc. of financial institutions.
    Eliminate “Tarp” style bailouts of auto companies, public work projects, etc.
    Reform mortgage lending by instituting home mortgage lending practices to only those with good credit (no sub-prime loans) and abolishing Freddie Mac and Fannie May.

    What are your thoughts about David Stockman’s potential candidacy? What are your thoughts to his policy ideas?

  89. Martin Passoli

    I don’t see any social conservative agenda in that platform, so why would he seek the CP nomination as opposed to the LP, when the LP has more pre-existing ballot access and more proven ability to get ballot access?

    Also, where did you get the news that he is considering a CP run? This is the first I have seen it. There was some speculation here about Steve Stockman, but this is the first I have seen David Stockman mentioned, much less what his platform would be. Where is this coming from?

  90. Robert Capozzi

    The term “soundbite” has a fluid definition.

    I’d call the one sentence a “zinger” or a “one-liner.”

    Although I also don’t share GJ’s enthusiasm for the FAIR tax, it was a pretty crisp presentation, and he didn’t sound kooky or extreme, which for most of the voting public is a non-starter.

  91. Marc Allan Feldman

    @Robert Capozzi Excellent point. From the positions described, he sounds like the kind of fellow I would want as a VP choice. The choice of the Constitution party is troubling.
    I find more than a few planks in the platform troubling:
    1. Drugs: “The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.”
    2. Under Campaign reform: “The Voting Rights Act should be repealed. ”
    3. Abortion: “We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all human beings from fertilization to natural death, without exception. The first duty of the law is to protect innocent life, created in the image of God. No government may legalize the taking of life without justification. Legalizing the termination of innocent life of the born or unborn, whether by abortion, infanticide, euthanasia or suicide, is a direct violation of their unalienable right to life. As to matters of rape and incest, we find it unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.”

    His words sound great, but it reminds me of my favorite Jon Stewart line about Libertarians:
    It went something like this:

    LIbertarians want to cut the size of government, cut spending, balance the budget, end wars, cut taxes and give people more freedom. The Republicans say the same thing, so what’s the difference?. Ohhh, the Libertarians are actually going to DO that stuff.

  92. Robert Capozzi

    jk, listen again. At the end, GJ claims it would spur “10s of millions of jobs,” apparently because it would abolish the corporate income tax.

    Again, my counsel is to drop this FAIR tax. My sense is that even as a built-in constituency, the FAIR tax movement is in decline. These days, spending, deficits, and debt seem far more of concern.

  93. Thane "Goldie" Eichenauer

    Feldman makes some good points above at 6:09 pm. If a candidate for the Constitution Party could motivate more people to limit needless war and needless military spending and banker and business bailouts then I certainly have no objection. I am a Libertarian.

  94. paulie Post author

    LIbertarians want to cut the size of government, cut spending, balance the budget, end wars, cut taxes and give people more freedom. The Republicans say the same thing, so what’s the difference?. Ohhh, the Libertarians are actually going to DO that stuff.

    I hope this does not mean you don’t believe the Republicans say this (well they say some of it, but not all) and won’t market the LP as “like Republicans, but we really mean it”?

    BTW where did David Stockman say any of this, including the part about running CP?

  95. Guess what

    Have you considered any intermediate job opportunities between “IPR commenter” and “President of the United States”?

  96. Guess what

    If NOTA wins at the convention, the LP should fight for the right to have uncommitted Libertarian electors on state ballots in November.

    Any LNC member not on board with that should just resign.

  97. Guess what

    Wouldn’t a fair sales tax extend to the sales of corporate stocks? Is it fair to tax physical commodities but not financial commodities?

  98. Robert Capozzi

    GW, no. from wiki: Purchases of used items, exports and business-to-business intermediate transactions would not be taxed. Also excluded are investments, such as purchases of stock, corporate mergers and acquisitions and capital investments. Savings and education tuition expenses would be exempt as they would be considered an investment (rather than final consumption).

    I think that’s a stretch, actually, especially tuitions.

  99. Robert Capozzi

    gp: The notion that the Republican Party of the War of Aggression against Iraq says it wants to end wars is a bit odd.

    me: Yes, although the Rs would argue that peace is achieved through strength. There is a case for that, although in practice “strength” has often manifested in unjustified military action. And while their rhetoric differs slightly, the Ds are just as responsible for unjustified military action, as well.

    With the events of the last year or so, what is apparently socially acceptably referred to as “Islamic extremism” makes the L approach to f.p. a tougher sell, in my estimation. Add to that the many other hotspots around the world, coupled with the American psyche’s addiction to thinking of ourselves as a “super power” makes it an even tougher sell.

    As a dove myself, I prefer to see Ls making the case for disentanglement, but I do think it needs to be done with care, as the fear-mongering tactics employed by pols and the establishment intelligensia has achieved its desired effects on the multitudes. My guess is the pol and intelligensia are themselves quite frightened, too.

  100. Martin Passoli

    “The notion that the Republican Party of the War of Aggression against Iraq says it wants to end wars is a bit odd.”

    Agreed.

    “Have you considered any intermediate job opportunities between “IPR commenter” and “President of the United States”?”

    Of the candidates who have participated in this thread so far, one is a doctor, the other is a business owner, and both have been candidates for lower offices. That’s not the case with all the people alleged to be running for the LP presidential nomination at politics1, and I’m not sure about Keenan Wallace Dunham – I could check his page if I really cared, and he hasn’t actually showed up here to participate in this thread, at least yet.

    “If NOTA wins at the convention, the LP should fight for the right to have uncommitted Libertarian electors on state ballots in November.”

    And on what basis would the LP expect to win such a fight?

    “Any LNC member not on board with that should just resign.”

    What does commitment to a quixotic fight for uncommitted electors have to do with serving on the LNC?

    “Wouldn’t a fair sales tax extend to the sales of corporate stocks? Is it fair to tax physical commodities but not financial commodities?”

    Capozzi’s followup seems to assume you are referring to the Boortz-Linder plan, whereas I read your question as applying to a “fair” tax in the abstract. But why should we believe that any involuntary tax can ever be fair?

  101. Andy Craig

    This has been made clear before, but just to re-iterate: the convention nominating NOTA is not a choice to actively run “Nobody for President”. It is, instead, a choice to not have any presidential campaign. Nothing in selecting NOTA commands the LNC or state parties to try to place uncommitted electors on the ballot, nor does it say that anybody is supposed to try to get a “None of the Above (Libertarian)” line placed on Presidential ballots (which isn’t possible in any states, anyway).

    NOTA means nothing more than not having a Libertarian presidential nominee.

  102. Martin Passoli

    “s would argue that peace is achieved through strength. ”

    To misquote Pink Floyd’s _The Wall_ “If we can’t have endless wars, how can we have any peace?”

    Or to quote Orwell accurately:

    “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

    Would this be a fair summation of Republican ideology? In what important ways, if any, do you see the prevailing Demorepublitarian big corp-big gov establishment consensus ideology being different than Ingsoc as described by Orwell in _1984_ ?

  103. Robert Capozzi

    mp: Capozzi’s followup seems to assume you are referring to the Boortz-Linder plan, whereas I read your question as applying to a “fair” tax in the abstract.

    me: To my knowledge, all consumption tax plans out there are on consumption, not investments. If there’s an exception, please do share.

    Now, there has been an uptick in the alternative idea of a financial transaction tax, mostly from Ds. These are generally very, very low, like 0.2% low. So low, in fact, that the cost of evasion or avoiding might be higher than the tax itself.

    I wonder if anyone’s proposed just a straight transaction tax that would include both consumption and financial transactions. If the rate is low enough, it might fund government, hopefully less and less of it. Imagine if 1 or 2% would be sufficient, and thereby end all other taxation.

    It would be fair so long as individuals can secede into private Nonarchy Pods. And it’d be a lot fairer than the current regime, IMO.

  104. Martin Passoli

    “Imagine if 1 or 2% would be sufficient, and thereby end all other taxation.”

    Wouldn’t that be a massive reduction in the size of government? And how would you then handle debt?

    Which is also an opening for a series of questions for the candidates.

    How would you go about discharging existing government debt, and how quickly could it be done? Would you pay it off or just repudiate it and tell bond holders/creditors tough luck? If you pay it off, could it be done within one term? Two? If you repudiate it, how would you deal with the resulting collapse of credit rating for the US government and its currency?

    Which taxes would you keep and which ones would you do away with? How quickly? What changes in the rates of taxes you intend to keep would you try to make within a term or two? Would you try to institute any new tax? If so, at what levels? Would it be temporary or permanent? If temporary, how long would it last, and how would you ensure that it doesn’t become permanent (or last much longer than you intended) and grow, as many past “temporary” taxes and regulations have?

    What changes in the levels of government spending do you realistically hope to make within a term or two as president?

  105. Robert Capozzi

    mp: Wouldn’t that be a massive reduction in the size of government? And how would you then handle debt?

    me: No. Don’t forget that Wall Street high-velocity trading involves many, many transactions annually. That’s the beauty of the FTT…a fractional rate can bring in substantial revenue.

    Personally, I don’t have a position, but in concept I think I’d like to see the FedGov run small surpluses to pay down debt over time.

  106. Martin Passoli

    “No. Don’t forget that Wall Street high-velocity trading involves many, many transactions annually. ”

    I’ll take your word for it. Supposing that trading is frequent enough that a 1 or 2% tax can replace trillions per year in revenue and even start paying off the debt, why wouldn’t companies that trade shares on US-based exchanges not then move their trading to exchanges based somewhere outside the US that does not charge such a transaction tax?

  107. Robert Capozzi

    more…

    Actually, I’m thinking the rate might be more like 0.5% or less. Average daily trading volume on the NYSE alone is about $170B. Back of the envelope, that’s perhaps $400B in annual revs, just from NYSE trading. Add to that Nasdaq, options, futures, etc., and the numbers get big, quick.

    And a sales tax of a half a percent of less seems a heckuva lot better than the income tax, SS, etc.

  108. Robert Capozzi

    mp, right, going off shore is possible. FTT advocates say it should not be a big factor, which makes some sense to me if the rate is low enough to be negligible.

  109. Martin Passoli

    Right. So again based solely on your numbers, 170 billion per day is roughly 60 trillion per year – roughly four times the size of the US gross domestic product, and close to the world gross per year. Thus, a tax rate that sounds trivial at first, be it 0.5 or 1 or 2%, must represent a significant chunk of the earnings of any company that does appreciable trading volume. Why would they keep these trades on US-based exchanges in that case? What would prevent them from moving their trading to foreign exchanges, just as some companies have moved their manufacturing, customer service departments, and/or headquarters to other countries?

  110. Martin Passoli

    “FTT advocates say it should not be a big factor, which makes some sense to me if the rate is low enough to be negligible.”

    It is not negligible if you are making it up on volume. Wouldn’t getting taxed 0.5 or 1 or 2% – let’s say on average once every week – be the same as getting taxed a much higher rate once a year? Either the rate is negligible or it raises significant revenue, but how could both be true at the same time?

    What do the candidates here think of this idea?

  111. Robert Capozzi

    I’d really need to read more in-depth on the FTT to give a really good answer, but there are transactions costs now with any exchange. An FTT might not increase the TOTAL transactions costs onshore higher than offshore.

    And even if some of the trading goes off-shore for a time, if the equity and debt holders are US domiciled, they would need to trade it back to the States at some point.

    Or feel free to read up on it yourself. The general idea intrigues me, but since my interest in political economic matters is limited to sporadic IPR comments, I leave it to bigger, more interested brains to ponder.

  112. Robert Capozzi

    mp, I think you have too many trading days in your calculation, btw. Take out weekends and holidays.

  113. Robert Capozzi

    mp, but yes, traders would pay higher taxes than waitresses and barbers. I’m OK with that.

  114. Robert Capozzi

    I would also be OK with barring trading firms who off-shore some of their trading from dealing in US government securities. This might be enough incentive to keep their trading on shore.

  115. Martin Passoli

    “I think you have too many trading days in your calculation, btw. Take out weekends and holidays.”

    You’re right. So amend my previous calculation to say 40 trillion rather than 60 trillion. That doesn’t seem to make any substantial difference in the point when we are talking about a rate that could be anywhere from 0.5 to 2%.

    “And even if some of the trading goes off-shore for a time, if the equity and debt holders are US domiciled, they would need to trade it back to the States at some point.”

    So perhaps it would greatly accelerate the trend of those who can afford to do so easily (and have more to lose or gain from various tax schemes) personally moving outside the US and perhaps renouncing US citizenship, as well as moving their trading elsewhere?

    “traders would pay higher taxes than waitresses and barbers. I’m OK with that.”

    Perhaps if we assumed that there wouldn’t be any significant reaction in terms of companies moving outside the US, or going out of business due to inability to raise sufficient capital from trading shares, or shutting down some of their operations or growing more slowly due to decreased ability to attract capital, or buying back their shares and ceasing to be publicly traded companies (with the loss of capital for sustaining and growing their operations that would come from no longer being publicly traded), or some combination of these things. But I have a hard time seeing how none of these responses would take pace; it seems to be magical something for nothing thinking. I also don’t see how it would not end up impacting the job prospects and earning potentials of folks like waitresses and barbers. After all, people could cut their own hair (even if in most cases not very well) and eat out less, and leave smaller tips or no tips, etc.

    Perhaps we should take a break for a bit and let the candidates catch up on answering some of the questions these discussions have raised?

  116. Martin Passoli

    “I would also be OK with barring trading firms who off-shore some of their trading from dealing in US government securities. This might be enough incentive to keep their trading on shore.”

    Or it might cause US government securities to tank. And with that, I’ll try to allow the candidates to catch up a bit.

  117. George Phillies

    12:24PM One of my novels has a chapter with that idea as its title “Waging Peace through Superior Firepower”. The advocates of the position are actually mostly nice people.

  118. Robert Capozzi

    MP, you are forgetting that all other taxes, esp. K gains, goes away, as well as income and SS taxes.

    More likely, trading firms might trade less as a way to lessen their tax burden.

    All taxes crimp economic behavior to some extent. However, lower, simpler ones do so less than complex, high-rated ones.

    Some wonk might make a case that a national consumption tax of 1% and an FTT of 0,2% would be optimal, and I’d be OK with that, too.

    Haven’t you noticed: Markets ARE magical? Smith called it an invisible hand for good reason! Unburdening productivity leads to wonderful outcomes, as capital and labor seek their highest and best use, and all that.

  119. Robert Capozzi

    mp: Would this be a fair summation of Republican ideology?

    me: Yes, both the Rs and Ds are prone to internal contradictions. I think peace IS strength, but I also think immediate unilateral disarmament would be unwise.

  120. Guess what

    Paso – if you are voluntarily purchasing a stock in a company that receives the protection of limited liability from the the state, that seems pretty voluntary to me.


    Good discussion from Capo & Paso on the Wall St sales tax. Back-envelope calculations may not be too accurate, however, because you have to consider some kind of slowdown in stock turnover is inevitable if the turnover is taxed.

    A low sales tax from 0.5-2% that included stock sales might be a good starting point for bringing in more left-libertarians into a winning coalition. Bump up the “prebate” to something like a $10k minimum income to seal the deal.

    This is just a degree of difference from what Gary Johnson’s plan was. Could the 2016 LP accept this? Or could it too easily be rebranded into something “socialist,” and jerk the knee of too many LP conventiongoers to be successful?

    Seems to me it would be a good platform for a Webb-Johnson third-party candidacy, though..

  121. Zapper

    An FTT would be a direct tax on wealth – not consumption. It would suck massive amounts of wealth out of investments at a time when the world is hundreds of trillions of dollars short of the investment capital needed to get all the economies of the world moving and adjusting to the future realities of global warming and rising sea levels.

    Smooth financial markets with value based prices and minimal trading swings are made possible by professionals who both buy and sell specific stocks in tight trading ranges all day long, every day the market is open. These market makers deal with tiny fractions as their spread on which to profit. The FTT as proposed would exceed 100% of their margin, before any other expenses. If the market makers are unable to function, the markets crash. Stocks would end up trading like non-listed businesses do today, with off market deals and no mechanism to determine real market prices.

    A financial transactions tax, even at 0.1%, would be a disaster for the US stock market and financial firms in the US. If the NYSE trades $170 billion per day, the tax at 0.1% would take $170 million per day of capital – wealth – out of the owners daily. No way would anyone sit still for that – nearly a trillion dollar annual wealth tax – everyone with a portfolio over $5,000 would have to flee. Nearly ALL transactions would quickly relocate to overseas markets – unless the government imposed a draconian enforcement program.

  122. Zapper

    Any enforcement mechanism that successfully prevented financial transactions from moving off shore, thereby forcing the markets to trade with the tax would cause a massive reduction in buyers while sellers rushed to get out – before the effective date of the tax. There would be a severe market crash, a collapse of the dollar, failure of the banking sector, all before the implementation date of the tax. This would probably result in immediate repeal of the FTT even before it kicked in, but if not, the market, dollar and banking crashes would be followed by a severe depression.

    … but other than the economic reality of the damage an FTT would do, it’s a good fantasy. Like turning the seas into lemonade, and training whales to pull icebergs, so we can all drink lemonade while we swim at the beach. There’s a good platform.

  123. Joshua Katz

    >If NOTA wins at the convention, the LP should fight for the right to have uncommitted >Libertarian electors on state ballots in November.

    >Any LNC member not on board with that should just resign.

    I have no intention of resigning, feel free to take it up with my regional chairs. I also have no intention of asking the LNC to lobby 50 state legislatures for…what exactly? All electors are uncommitted and vote as they choose. You’re asking for partisan uncommitted electors, which is a contradiction in terms. It’s also freely available already – each affiliate can gain ballot access with some name, and instruct its electors that they can vote for whoever they want. Of course, that makes it possible, in principle, for the LP to win the election in a combination of states carrying a majority of electoral college votes, but then kick it to the House and lose.

    But, you say, you want the ballot to say “electors for NOTA – Libertarian?” That wouldn’t reflect what we decided at our convention, since, as AC pointed out above, NOTA winning at the convention just means we don’t nominate a candidate. In any event, it’s basically asking for voters to voluntarily give up the right to vote. It wouldn’t open up the possibility of eliminating the President, it would just make us look sillier than people already think we are.

  124. paulie Post author

    Please give the candidates a chance to catch up.

    There have been dozens of comments since they did – especially Darryl, as the last comment from him was on the 17th, so the questions may be getting lost in all the cross talk.

  125. Robert Capozzi

    gw: A low sales tax from 0.5-2% that included stock sales might be a good starting point for bringing in more left-libertarians into a winning coalition. Bump up the “prebate” to something like a $10k minimum income to seal the deal.

    me: Yes, that’s my thinking as well. Yes, I’ve acknowledged that it might curb some trading, but OTOH the dynamic analysis would also take into account that corporate income taxes, capital gains, SS, and personal income taxes would go away. The supply-side effects of that would likely be profoundly positive. Investing activities may well increase under my proto-idea.

    Zapper doesn’t seem to get that. What I’m saying might be interesting is, in essence, not a “consumption” tax, but a very, very low transaction tax.

    Ls are extremely well-positioned to break the ideogical logjam in the US. Unfortunately, the residue of NAPsolutism keeps us safely out of the fray, out of the Public Square, sanctimoniously braying about aggression in the abstract. Appealing to the center while pulling in the direction of free markets and free minds, kinda thing.

    Jeez, sorry if this feels like a hijacking…. 🙁

  126. Darryl W. Perry

    I’ve not kept up with all of the side discussions that aren’t actual questions. I believe these are the only real questions that were asked.

    How would you go about discharging existing government debt, and how quickly could it be done? Would you pay it off or just repudiate it and tell bond holders/creditors tough luck?
    This could happen a few different ways. Scenario 1: repudiate the debt, something that I would support since I never signed as a lender. Secenario 2: the US government be declared bankrupt, and all assets held by the US government, except nuclear weapons, be auctioned. The nuclear weapons would be decomissioned. All foreign debt would be repaid, the rest of the debt is repudiated. Scenario 3: the Federal government dissolves, and no one can be held liable for any debt. Any assets physically located in a state become property of that state, any assets physically located in another country become the assets of that country.

    If you pay it off, could it be done within one term? Two?
    If paid off in scenario 2 (above), then yes that could happen in 1 term.

    If you repudiate it, how would you deal with the resulting collapse of credit rating for the US government and its currency?
    If the debt is repudiated, then the federal government would likely dissolve along with the repudiated debt. Each State government would still exist to handle problems at that level. Some states could re-organize into smaller federations to serve as their smaller federal governments.

    Which taxes would you keep and which ones would you do away with? How quickly?
    Presuming you mean absent a collapse of the federal government from eliminating the debt, I would propose that the Congress eliminate all coercive taxes by the end of the fiscal year, and find ways to operate on voluntary forms of taxation.

    What changes in the rates of taxes you intend to keep would you try to make within a term or two?
    I would try to eliminate all forms of coercive taxation. http://fpp.cc/funding-government-without-taxation/

    Would you try to institute any new tax? If so, at what levels?
    see http://fpp.cc/funding-government-without-taxation/

    Would it be temporary or permanent? If temporary, how long would it last, and how would you ensure that it doesn’t become permanent (or last much longer than you intended) and grow, as many past “temporary” taxes and regulations have?
    see http://fpp.cc/funding-government-without-taxation/

    What changes in the levels of government spending do you realistically hope to make within a term or two as president?
    Realistically, since Congress passes the budgets it would be up to the 435 members of the US House and 100 members of the US Senate to work together with me to reduce the budget to under $1 trillion. I would veto any budget over that amount.

  127. paulie Post author

    DWP

    I’ve not kept up with all of the side discussions that aren’t actual questions. I believe these are the only real questions that were asked.

    There were a few other questions mixed in here and there. I’ll scroll thru and try to find them.

    Jose C wrote:

    David Stockman former budget director of the Reagan administration is considering seeking the Presidential nomination of the Constitution Party on a platform to:

    Balance the federal budget.
    Return the United States to a gold and silver money system.
    Stop the printing press of the Federal Reserve and limit the printing of money.
    Reduce military spending as a percent of GDP to the level that existed when Eisenhower was President.
    Withdraw United States troops form engagement in the Middle East and other world “hot spots”.
    Reform Social Security by initiating means testing to limit Social Security to only those in need.
    Institute banking reform to limit the possibility of bailouts by the FED, FDIC, Congress, etc. of financial institutions.
    Eliminate “Tarp” style bailouts of auto companies, public work projects, etc.
    Reform mortgage lending by instituting home mortgage lending practices to only those with good credit (no sub-prime loans) and abolishing Freddie Mac and Fannie May.

    What are your thoughts about David Stockman’s potential candidacy? What are your thoughts to his policy ideas?

    Note that I haven’t gotten a response as to where or when Stockman said any of this, including that he would consider a CP run, and haven’t heard that anywhere except in Jose’s comment quoted here, but nevertheless it’s a question or a series of questions.

    “Guess what” asked:

    Have you considered any intermediate job opportunities between “IPR commenter” and “President of the United States”?

    The same person also asked a question which I think you also cover by your repeated references to http://fpp.cc/funding-government-without-taxation/ but a question nevertheless:

    Wouldn’t a fair sales tax extend to the sales of corporate stocks? Is it fair to tax physical commodities but not financial commodities?

    Martin Passoli asked the following, which may or may not have been a question for the candidates. You can interpret it as being one if you choose to do so:

    “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

    Would this be a fair summation of Republican ideology? In what important ways, if any, do you see the prevailing Demorepublitarian big corp-big gov establishment consensus ideology being different than Ingsoc as described by Orwell in _1984_ ?

    Martin Passoli asked the following question, also answered by your linked to the URL about voluntary taxation, but you can choose to answer it separately if you want to discuss the merits of the specific proposal versus other exiting or proposed tax schemes:

    What do the candidates here think of this (financial transaction tax) idea?

    That is all I am finding.

  128. Darryl W. Perry

    When I saw the first question from “Guess What” I figured that his weren’t serious questions worthy of an answer.

    I’d like to see Stockman’s positions of civil liberties before commenting on his candidacy.

    At least in 1984 “animals and proles are free!” The Duopoly doesn’t want anyone to be free, and will use force to get compliance. In fact, compliance is not their only goal, they want people to want to be compliant!

  129. Keenan Wallace Dunham

    I am Keenan Wallace Dunham, and I am running for President of the United States of America for 2016 with the Libertarian Party. I am different than most candidates running now, or any other candidates that have run before because first and foremost I am an Activist. And this election is more special for me than any past election because my generation now has the opportunity to take the reins of this country. I have trained in politics, and activism for 10 years in preparation for this and planned specifically to run in 2016 for three years. I was the first one to dive in and start running for President before the Midterm 2014 elections, and I supported major Libertarian Candidates Steve French in South Carolina, Robert Sarvis in Virginia, and Adrian Wyllie in Florida. My plan is meticulously and methodically brought to the American People from my ten years of planning, and to accomplish my goals I plan to use BOTH Activism and Politics as rightful tools of any American. I want to open up all possible industries in the USA for jobs, health and science in a completely hands-off, free market. The main industries I see as on the brink of exploding the USA economy in expansion and revolution are the Cannabis Industry, Space Colonization, and Green Energy Industries. All of these are manifold industries with many manufacturing and scientific applications which I explain in more depth on my website Dunham2016.com. I’m not here just to run for President, I am here to change the game. I love my country, I am a Christian, and I appreciate all people and cultures out there on Earth.
    All my ideas, and the five main ones I will present I intend to use many avenues to accomplish them and work with many other parties. Those avenues will range from grass-roots to organized politics, from local level propositions to Congressional Bills, and using education and resources for anyone to take up from my campaign freely. I implore any other Presidential Candidate reading this or any supporter, voter, activist or politician to work with me on my five main activist plans. We can work on all these 24/7 to bring healthy, ecological, scientific, and substantial change to the United States. Please join our community on my campaign website, Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter to organize activist work with my supporters and I. And I will be directly accessible in a town hall atmosphere like no other candidate before using social media. My website is Dunham2016.com, and use my name, Keenan Wallace Dunham, to find me on Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter.
    My five point plan is meticulous and interwoven, with the four industrial aspects planned to positively affect and drive each other for a better USA for decades to come. At the Dunham campaign we want to Legalize Marijuana 100%, Open up Green Energy markets across the USA, Redesign NASA for Indefinite Space Colonization, Eliminate the Personal Income Tax for a (non-essential item, non-food) 9% Flat Sales Tax, and Restore Civil Liberties. These are very complex ideas which I have planned out to implement for the entire United States, but the change and empowerment always begins with you, each and every one of us. We can Legalize Marijuana state by state through Activism while I and many congress representatives can finish the job and keep it legal in Washington D.C. Everyone can go green, go hybrid, or build solar panels, and I will cut the red-tape on building Green Across the USA, and create plans and incentives for Green Energy, including my published plan to lease non-National Park government land for sole purposes of Green Energy Plants and Facilities. And I freely publish this lease plan for state Governors to use for their states and state-owned land as well.
    To restore civil liberties we can all throw off the last ten years of growing tyranny in the USA, and take up the struggle of so many of our fore-fathers (Give me Liberty or give me death) and forebears (There is nothing to Fear but Fear itself). This time we must face tyranny of lazy law within, falsely mandated from terrorist hunting. There is neither the need nor the right for warrant-less law enforcement to occur in the United States. The Constitution is THE LAW, and no Amendment has been done for the tyrannical additions of torture, mass surveillance, or warrant-less searches which have occurred lately. It is so simple to assert the true law of the constitution that I encourage everyone to expressly avow their local cities and counties back to the Constitution and at every level of society outlaw tyranny. I believe we should outlaw all tyranny is the USA bringing us back to the Constitution just as much as we should outlaw sharia law or oppressive regimes from affecting us from the outside. There is no different or better tyrant. I ask you and all Americans to hold me up to a high standard for this, and keep the reins locally and regionally yourselves on civil liberties. As President I plan to dissolve the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Department, end droning, end torture, end mass surveillance, end mass data collection and storage, end political targeting, and end warrant-less searches. These are already all AGAINST THE LAW of the CONSTITUTION because no constitutional amendment was ever made. We are all born inalienably free, and no tyrants have any right over you or me. Thank you.
    Legalizing Marijuana is a NEW QUESTION OF REVOLUTION in the United States of America. While Marijuana was available before, the research into its medical applications has now revealed it to be essentially useful for treating and saving millions of patients today. I will even include some research citations regarding Medical Marijuana at the end of this article. Marijuana is not directly harmful to adults and its euphoria effects are not any stronger or more long lasting than drinking alcohol. I believe because of its medical applications and its non-threatening use as a recreational substance it should be 100% legalized and recreationally categorized like alcohol. I believe anyone over 21 years old should be able to smoke marijuana, and all research, science, and medical use should be legalized, taxed and regulated. I believe the regulation on recreational marijuana should be to keep chemicals out of the smoked product, and keep it more natural than cigarettes. As for Marijuana’s Medical viability both the THC and Cannabidiol (CBD) chemicals found in Marijuana are medically useful. These vary in the different strains of Marijuana and can be extracted for gathering CBD, THC, or both. We need Marijuana thoroughly researched and legally regulated to understand and prove all the benefits of these chemicals. Marijuana already saves lives during AIDS and Cancer treatment because Marijuana relieves nausea, gives patients hunger back, and through the ability to eat and keep food down patients can strengthen their immune systems during the worst stages of AIDS and Cancer treatment. In the New England Journal of Medicine’s Endorsement of Medical Marijuana they state, “The advanced stages of many illnesses and their treatments are often accompanied by intractable nausea, vomiting, or pain. Thousands of patients with cancer, AIDS, and other diseases report they have obtained striking relief from these devastating symptoms by smoking marijuana.” (1) And with many other ailments such as MS, Autism, Epilepsy, Glaucoma, Depression, Psychosis, and Opiate Dependency either THC or CBD have been found to alleviate symptoms and make life easier.(2) We need more research and education into these effects. We need the medications legalized across the USA. I therefore campaign for 100% legalization of marijuana and hemp nationwide to build industry, medicine, healthcare, research, farming of hemp, hemp for food, textiles, manufacturing and construction material, commercial and government revenue and JOBS.
    The benefit of Independent Green Energy production across the United States is Revolutionary and Manifold. We need to harness what is possible with all our effort, not wait in the doldrums letting our fossil fuels slowly run out. Just as we harnessed all our nation in the 1800’s and 1900’s for oil to increase the industry of the United States and increase the value of the American dollar from the value of our very land beneath us and our resources we need to do what’s right this time, and have a similar Green and Safe Revolution. This Green Revolution is similar because it will energize literally huge growth in industry, advances in science, and transportation. But guess what! This Revolution is BETTER because it is SAFE, SUSTAINABLE, INFINITE, and CONSERVES NATURE. This also keeps us out of oil wars by diversifying away from needing foreign oil. There is immense growth possible with Green Energy if we open up all the avenues where Green Energy can be built. It is not about competition with safe oil practices, but a sound diversification, which in time will replace oil, and right now can vitalize our economy. Basically I have some incentive and leasing plans which I would use to grow Green Energy in the USA, which can be repeated at the state level. I would grow the tax incentives already in place for Green Energy for all buildings and land in the USA to be eligible for Tax Incentives for building Green Energy (solar, geothermal, etc.). These would be residential tax incentives, commercial, federal to state government incentives, and government contractor incentives. Also I have prepared a land lease program I will introduce where start-up companies and corporations will be able to lease non-National Park government land solely for the purpose of building Green Energy Plants and Facilities. This will generate Federal Revenue and build up Green Energy diversification. With these incentives and leases the government will not be getting into the Green Energy business. The government will only encourage the industry’s growth, no different than subsidies are given for oil or farming. In fact many of those programs will be repeated for Green Energy.
    Space Colonization is the future for The United States of America and the World. There is no greater goal in this generation than creating a synonymous and ubiquitous society in space easily traversed by any one on Earth. My plan is to look for revenue building aspects for NASA to fund Space Colonization on the Moon and Mars with the international community. The resources gathered in space can and should fuel our further endeavors outward into the stars. And this Revolution takes its lifeblood and inspiration from the same place as the other revolutions I have proposed, Truth. Analytically described in Science, It IS the Truth that there is a vast territory out there ready for us to explore and even live on. I want to redesign NASA to look for the tools to survive and thrive forever in space. I have studied Space Colonization in depth personally, without any party, government, or corporate interest invoked, to search for the Truth about how we can Colonize Space. I believe we need to learn how to grow food in space and use the resources alone that are in space to fuel our expansion. There may be fuels we can refine on asteroids, comets, moons, planets, and even our sun to propel our transportation through space. For one there is solar power which we can harness through space elevators for terrestrial use, for space stations and moon and Mars colonies, for solar wings on spacecraft, and various satellites and even robots that operate in space. I want to build up ALL the possibilities within NASA well-researched and engineered to Colonize Space, Farm in Space, Mine Metals, Solar Energy and Fuel in Space, Refine Energy and Fuel on Space Colonies, Sell Commercial Trips to Station and Colony Facilities. And for all these plans I want to fund NASA from within, by partner donations, corporate and international partnerships, commercial trips to space, mining metals, harvesting energy, and harvesting fuel. I have
    the training, dedication and research to lead this effort with many scientists and I scientifically understand the hurdles AND the huge possibilities.
    Finally Income Tax is a huge and unneeded burden on American Families. I question why we should pay 40% of our hard earned wages to any government. Whether rich or poor I want to fairly 100% eliminate the Personal Income Tax. And the answer to gaining equal revenue while still being able to legally capture any business corporations do without them being able to shield their profits and business is a 9% flat sales tax that does not apply to essential items of food, medicine, and baby needs. If we tax sales in the USA no corporation will be able to do business in the USA without paying taxes to fund our social programs like the VA and Social Security and our military budget. This plan interlocks perfectly with my plans to legalize marijuana because the 9% tax will capture the entire new industry of marijuana for new taxable revenue. The new tax revenue from marijuana will be used to help start the NASA Space Colonization plans. I understand that the economy needs stability to make such a huge change in its procedures and I would change the Personal Income Tax and the New Sales Tax by only 25% each of my first four years in office. Meaning I would lower the Personal Income Tax by 25% per year for four years to ZERO, and I would increase a Federal Sales Tax starting my second year 3%, 6%, and then 9% by the last year of my first term.
    In addition to my main structured plan I have plans broadly for Education and Healthcare in the USA which are planned interwoven with my other ideas. Firstly I want to forgive first-responders and doctors and nurses college debt that is 5 years or older. Any Doctors, Nurses, EMTs, Fire-Fighters, and Police who have any college debt 5 years or older in collection and are working in those fields currently would have those debts instantly forgiven, and beyond collection. This is the start of my final plan to make college free, and what I would do to encourage growth, freedom, and new applicants in these fields. In fact if a person currently works in these fields and did so for the last 6 months their 5 year old college debt would be forgiven. SO, this takes a burden off those who serve us and our communities, gives them freedom to stay in those service jobs and focus on protecting and serving us, and encourages new applicants and youth to seek out these service jobs. I believe this plan would better serve America than a socialized medicine plan. We have the work ethic in the USA to accomplish anything, and that is our strength. I would therefore repeal the Affordable Care Mandate that everyone has to carry health insurance. I do not believe this part of the act is Constitutional. I would keep in funded health care wherever possible, but I believe it is in education and professional healthcare workers, doctors, and nurses that we get our strength within healthcare. It is not through socialism or corporatism that America thrives but through hard-work from all individuals. And Americans work best when lead their destinies, not corporations, as free entrepreneurs, even if they freelance for a named company. Finally I believe the influx of treatments, research, and medicines from Legalizing Marijuana will aid and grow the healthcare fields to a great degree.
    Regarding Immigration I believe immigrants are as strong a resource of hard workers, and smart entrepreneurs as any group in the USA, and I want to always encourage Legal Immigration to the USA. However for security of our nation we have to regulate our two foreign borders, especially the Mexican Border with its huge influx of people over the past years. I would require by the current laws that all illegal immigrants get work visas or be deported. I would have a picture ID on these work visas, well-document the immigrants, and require that any one with a work visa CANNOT receive social programs, food stamps, social security, or healthcare and CANNOT vote. Basically I would enforce the laws already in place.
    As you can see my campaign and activism has guiding principles that I have planned and planned to benefit all Americans. Wherever I can I wanted to lower American Families regular bills and build jobs. Energy bills should go down from building Green Energy, Income Tax brought down to zero will greatly aid families, and Space Colonization and Hemp Industries will build jobs and opportunities for all Americans. I embrace Science and Technology and these plans grow the United States’ leading edge in science and technology and do so building up safe sustainable practices encouraging good health and medicine. I want to serve you America, and I take up the task of planning and implementing change in America as a responsibility and duty I will not turn away from. I love my country, its diversity, its ingenuity, and its sacrifice. I think we have 7 and more manifold revolutions on our hands. The future is bright and we can make it brighter everyday together. Thank you!

    1. http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v97/n000/a014.html?2032
    Jerome P. Kassirer, M.D., “Federal Foolishness and Marijuana,” New England Journal of Medicine, January 30, 1997, Volume 336, Number 5, p. 366.
    2.http://www.lmreview.com/articles/view/new-developments-in-cannabinoid-based-medicine-an-interview-with-dr-raphael-mechoulam/
    New Developments in Cannabinoid-Based Medicine: An Interview with Dr. Raphael Mechoulam by Lara Pizzorno, MDiv, MA, LMT

  130. Keenan Wallace Dunham

    Questions Individually Answered Regarding My Campaign:

    Please see Dunham2016.com and Keenan Wallace Dunham on Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter for a breadth of information on my campaign.

    I’m going to start with Questions for all Candidates and Questions Directly Addressing Me. I will take time to answer questions regarding other candidates, and questions from other candidates soon. I do have one question at this time for the other candidates.

    Would you like to work with me at an Activist Level on any of the 5 main points I have outlined in my campaign plan for those goals outside of our campaigning for President? The five areas are Legalization of Marijuana, Restoring Civil Liberties, Building Green Energy, Space Colonization, and Ending the Personal Income Tax for a 9% Sales (non-food) Tax. And if you partially disagree with these points I outlined would you still like to partially work together? and Why do you agree or disagree?

    “Have you given any consideration to your preference for the Vice Presidential nomination, and have you spoken to anybody about being your running mate? Corollary: do you intend to announce a willing running mate (or your endorsement for the VP nomination) prior to the convention?”

    I have been approached by multiple parties about being my running mate and running with them if they win the nomination. Also I work within the Libertarian party (LP.org) and the US Parliament Group (USParliament.org) and would run alongside many of their candidates as President or VP, and with many seeking lower office, working together. However I don’t plan to announce my VP nomination until the time of the Libertarian Party Convention May 26th in Orlando, Florida. Although this may change before then. I have started a group for Candidate Cooperation across all parties which coordinates with the US Parliament Group. With this group I plan to open free access to election resources and guidance for any one running for office, any party. https://www.facebook.com/UnitedCoalition2016

    “If you receive the nomination, will you campaign with local LP candidates, frequently mention the party in your interviews, campaign materials and public appearances, and share any inquiries/volunteers/contacts/donor info with the LP in as real time as possible?”

    I have already been running my campaign and growing it for a year and I have been supporting and campaigning for regional Libertarian Candidates such as Steve French in South Carolina, Robert Sarvis in Virginia, and Adrian Wyllie in Florida. I plan to campaign for Libertarian Candidates and grow the Libertarian Party. Also my Candidate Coalition I mentioned will help to work with many candidates to help them run and coordinate together for politics and activism. I already have other Presidential Candidates and other politicians working with the Candidate Coalition and we will be making a lot of waves the next years to come. All are welcome to join, so let any candidates or supporters know about this open group. https://www.facebook.com/UnitedCoalition2016

    “If elected president, will you bring all our troops and our drones home from around the globe? Will you pursue an agenda of peace? Will you begin to close military bases in foreign countries?”

    I am a very peace oriented candidate. I outlined my plan to Restore Civil Liberties and I also want to end droning, bring all troops back from combat, end the training and arming of “rebels” in various places, and seek constantly better relationships alongside my Sustainable Programs throughout the world. I will close bases in foreign countries with the advise of our military experts and the wishes of those sovereign countries.

    “What will you do to slow climate change?”
    I will seek with international cooperation 100% reliance on Green Energy over the next 20 years.

    “What will you do to protect free speech?”
    I will restore civil liberties back to the true law of the Constitution. You can see my expanding answer to Restoring Civil Liberties above.

    “Will you ever support a ban on “hate speech”? Why or why not?”
    No I abhor political correctness, and free speech is not a crime. As long as there is no associated violence, hate speech is protected free speech.

    “Would you consider imposing travel bans or closing the borders in the face of global pandemic?”
    Yes absolutely, I plan to close the southern border already, and in a case like the Ebola panic of 2014 I would ban travel. I would also pursue relentlessly education, treatments and cures for all major diseases to end all suffering from AIDS, CANCER, and EBOLA and put them in humanity’s past.

    “Should private corporations be allowed to possess nuclear weapons?”
    No, Never. And I will pursue nonproliferation for the USA and all our allies..

    “Who is your favorite president and why?”
    I admire, Kennedy, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Washington, Jefferson, Reagan, and Lincoln. For the parameters and scenarios surrounding this election cycle I look most to Theodore Roosevelt for his protection of the country and his opposition to banking and corporate interests. He has inspired many ideas in my campaign, as do the founding fathers and the Great Generation of World War 2.

    “What is your experience in government or governance?”
    I have not held an office, I am a Washington and Corporate outsider. I am also the youngest possible age to run for President as I am 33 and my birthday is July 16th, 1981, and I will be 35 July 16th, 2016. I consider these to be commendable assets for the present political world. I have been involved in politics all my life, and always studying government, politics, and the USA. I worked on Dennis Kucinich’s 2004 Presidential Campaign when I was a Democrat, working as campus liaison for the University of Chicago, and met President Barack Obama in Chicago while he was running for Senator. I changed to the Libertarian Party in 2012 when I became fed up with the nowhere direction we have been taken by the major parties in the last 10 years. I decided to run for President then and have been deeply planning this campaign for 3 years.

    “Why are you running, in one paragraph?”
    I am running for a brighter USA for my generation and generations to come. I have envisioned this America through meticulous planning, and I know how to spur new growth for the next 20 years with my plans for Green Energy Cannabis, and Space Colonization. There are also many wrongs to right regarding civil liberties, and I will not stand by and allow these wrongs to be done in the name of the USA. Please see me as an Activist, and coordinate bases on the issues with me. I’m not for profit or corporate gains. Thank you.

    “If you receive the nomination, what is primary reason why voters should vote for you, in one paragraph?”
    If I receive the nomination or if I am on a ticket as a VP please vote on me based on the issues, and the substantive plans I have put forward. I’m not running based on Hollywood Presence, Ideology, or Ego. I’m running because I want to serve America and Americans. There is no better reason to vote for some one. Thank you.

    “Is there are discernible geodemographic where you think you can plausibly receive 5%+ of the vote, and why do you think you can accomplish this? In one paragraph.”
    Well, I think my strength is that I am NOT confined to one Geodemographical area or set of people. My plans are scientific and based on ideas which stand on their own. Study and Judge the plans, and ask me questions about them. I’d love to answers hundreds of questions about my specific plans while coordinating with you voters on how to perfect those plans. I love voter input! So I speak to all 100% of the vote. I’m not pandering I’m serving, with science and planning. And it’s obvious I have a plan for the USA for the next 50 years, as opposed to ideology with no plan. NOTA has no hope or plan for the USA.

    “Have you started thinking about white house decorations, and if so, what are your thoughts? Do you have a first lady or first gentleman, and if not, are you looking for one? If you are, what are your search criteria? Would you consider merging the position with VP for the sake of efficiency? Are you open to a VP/first lady candidate affiliated with the Green Party?”
    Yes, I’ll sell the non-historic White House decorations to relieve the budget. haha! I have a first partner in my life who I love very much. I just may nominate them for VP you never know.

    “Would you consider recruiting Starchild or Chuck Moulton as a potential Vice Presidential candidate?”
    I would consider and would love to work with Starchild and Chuck Moulton.

    “What should be the primary goal of an LP presidential campaign?”
    Inclusiveness. The libertarian Party needs to pick up where this generation of Washington insiders and politicians have failed and that is in serving all Americans. Every American voters’ viewpoint is valid, and we need to include all Americans to be a strong leading party. I am going to do this, grow the LP and win the Presidency!

    “What makes you the best person to achieve that goal?”
    I have the principles of inclusiveness and service engrained in my Ethos and Pathos. They energize me, and I want to energize others. I’m not working with washington status quos. I am free, and I’m firing up revolutions. As Samuel Adams said we are lighting brushfires in the hearts and minds of men and women. I’m breaking people’s chains as I go and I’m loving every minute of it!

    “If you had to choose one single issue to emphasize, what would it be?”
    Freedom. My campaign is not meant to limit or cement people’s plans or beliefs. I am just building and sharpening a tool box of Activist Tools and Scientific Techniques, that can be used to empower and better American lives. It’s better to sharpen oneself, than to cement and drown in Ideology. Thank you!

    “There is currently a movement, led by Tom Knapp & endorsed by Joshua Katz among others, to not run a presidential ticket in 2016. The Libertarian Party currently holds the fifth longest streak of consecutive presidential elections with a candidate on the ballot, behind only the Democratic Party, Republican Party, Prohibition Party, and Socialist Workers Party. Do you think failing to field a presidential ticket is a bad idea? Why are you a better choice than NOTA?”
    I have a plan, no candidate is what we have now in office and that is TERRIBLE. Let Obama and Bush golfing be that experiment. It FAILED. Doing nothing is not the answer. What we need is the political ethos to change to SERVICE. I know it will with the coming generations, and I do appreciate the high standard the NOTA option sets, but I think I exceed that standard.

    “Do you support the “Fair” tax. Why or why not?”
    I support a version of the Fair Tax, but I would not dissolve corporate income tax. I describe my tax plan above.

    “To the actual candidates: there is a chance the Libertarian presidential nominee will be involved in nationally-televised debates, due to a pending lawsuit from OAI & several petition efforts. What makes you more qualified to debate Democratic & Republican candidates than, say, a former state governor? Do you think the voting public would take someone who has never held major office seriously?”

    I am very prepared to take on any Dem and Rep with facts, service to the American People, a peaceful vision, and a great set of industry plans. I have plenty of public speaking experience, and some experience in radio. I will use Science and Facts to dissuade any false candidates from taking me on. However I don’t mind working with anyone, supporter or candidate on achieving my goals if they agree with me. Also I am truly a peace candidate and both major parties have failed that task with regards to foreign policy and protecting civil liberties. I am way ahead of the game with my enormous amount of planning I have already done for my campaign, and I am not slowing down this study and preparation.

    “What will you do differently from past campaigns to draw attention and notice to your campaign? ”

    I have a very open townhall style campaign, and I will stay very close to the voters throughout this campaign, and always open to questions and suggestions.
    “If invited to a debate, what specific skills do you possess that would enable you to successfully debate against, in all likelihood, two experienced politicians who have held multiple offices and won several elections?”
    I have a succinct plan a years of preparation for campaigning for president. I have planned the most for this race, and there is no one more expert in writing and implementing a huge national Revolution of Green Energy, Cannabis, Space Colonization, and Ending Income Tax. Am I ready to debate a politician who tows the party line and doesn’t plan and write for themselves every little detail of their campaign? Yes I am very ready and I relish that opportunity. A better question might be will a standard Dem or Rep be afraid of facing my debating skills, facts, plans, and implementations?

    “What would be your approach in a televised debate with candidates of other parties? Would you focus most on debating them on facts, on publicizing our ideology and ideas, demonstrating the difference in character, or something else?”
    I would campaign based on my plans, facts, issues, science, and the truth. Also I would emphasize peace, sustainability, ecology, civil liberty, and conservation.

    “Who is your favorite libertarian philosopher and why?”

    Of the founding fathers I think Thomas Paine did the most, and made his ideas clearest on where he stood regarding liberty and inspired many others.

    “Of the candidates running for the presidential nomination, if you fail to get the nomination, would you be willing to seek and/or accept a VP nomination? Why or why not?”
    Yes, I would look to work with any nominee, and any party moving forward. Or another position I would consider if it lined up with my goals. Thank you.

    “What led you to discover libertarianism or that you are a libertarian and when?”
    I don’t want to become an ideologue, I believe Libertarianism is the best strategy for the coming years for the USA. In another scenario it might have been another philosophy.

    “Are there some measurable goals you would set now for your campaign? What short of an outright win, if anything, would you consider success? What can you realistically expect to accomplish with your campaign regardless of whether you win?”

    I plan to win! Everything towards my 5 implementation plans is a success and I’m already enjoying progress there with others like the Legalization of Cannabis in many states. I plan to grow my platforms and serve the USA, no matter what in many forms, and avenues.

    “1) Would you prefer to keep the Electoral College system or replace it with a popular vote via Constitutional amendment?
    2) The Patriot Act: keep, repeal, or revise (and if the latter, how)?
    3) Guantanamo: keep it open or close it? And how would you handle it?”

    I would replace the EC with a popular vote.
    I have said I would repeal the Patriot Act.
    I would close Guantanamo Bay prison and end torture.

    “Wouldn’t a fair sales tax extend to the sales of corporate stocks? Is it fair to tax physical commodities but not financial commodities?”

    I will leave efforts to tax stocks and also to ban stock ownership by politicians to my second term or at least a later time. I agree with both of these though.
    “How would you go about discharging existing government debt, and how quickly could it be done? Would you pay it off or just repudiate it and tell bond holders/creditors tough luck? If you pay it off, could it be done within one term? Two? If you repudiate it, how would you deal with the resulting collapse of credit rating for the US government and its currency? ”

    No, under my industry plans I see no need to discharge debt. I would close the Federal Reserve, and personally lower interest rates.

    “Which taxes would you keep and which ones would you do away with? How quickly? What changes in the rates of taxes you intend to keep would you try to make within a term or two? Would you try to institute any new tax? If so, at what levels? Would it be temporary or permanent? If temporary, how long would it last, and how would you ensure that it doesn’t become permanent (or last much longer than you intended) and grow, as many past “temporary” taxes and regulations have? ”

    I have outlined my tax plan above.

    “What changes in the levels of government spending do you realistically hope to make within a term or two as president?”
    I will micro manage all spending to reduce spending 5-15% in every branch. I will spend a lot of time as President managing the budget. I will cut the White House budget itself immediately by only accepting a salary of $100,000, never vacationing, never flying Air Force One off the job, never golfing.

  131. Hal

    1) Keep or repeal the federal death penalty?
    2) Position on potential military conflicts with Iraq/Syria?

  132. Keenan Wallace Dunham

    Repeal the Federal Death Penalty.
    I would stop all wars by peaceful means, cooperation with many countries, and keeping my hands-off to a great degree regions that don’t include the USA. We need to build up Green Energy immediately, and stay hands-off of the Middle East Region. We need to stop passing out weapons, stop training militant groups, stop chasing oil and keep our interests and goals beneficial for all I pray for the middle east and Iraq and Syria.

  133. paulie Post author

    Keenan,

    Good to see you have joined us here at last. Please keep in mind that comments containing more than one link are moderated by the automated spam filter. Hit the enter key twice for paragraph breaks.

    That’s all the suggestions I have for now. I haven’t read your replies yet and will probably only read the ones that are short and/or have paragraph breaks in them.

  134. Pingback: Q&A with Three 2016 LP Presidential Candidates | The Saturnalian

  135. Jed Ziggler

    “Looking only at the questions I asked, I believe Marc Allan Feldman provided the best answers.”

    My pick of the candidates announced so far is Darryl Perry. This thread has been very informative.

  136. paulie Post author

    Good summary of some of the answers at the Saturnalian. Several threads there also include comments from some of the alleged “candidates” being excluded here.

    As I mentioned on one of the threads – can’t remember and don’t feel like checking if it was this one – so far I give Perry the edge on ideology, and Feldman the edge on resume and “looking presidential.” So far I am not a huge fan of any of their campaign plan/strategy. Perry’s seems more realistic, as far as I can tell, but I guess we’ll see how much media coverage, fundraising, etc he can actually generate. I still need to catch up in reading Dunham’s answers, although what I have skimmed so far doesn’t change what I just wrote.

  137. Marc Allan Feldman

    @paulie “Perry’s seems more realistic”
    It doesn’t bother you that Perry is refusing to file FEC paperwork, so any kind of a national campaign will be illegal?

  138. paulie Post author

    He seems to be doing it as civil disobedience, as a conscious strategy. I know the Harry Browne campaign considered doing something similar at one point and did not follow through.

    In Darryl’s case, unfortunately, it may be a moot point unless he raises over $5k in contributions; I’m not yet convinced that will happen, but it could be interesting if the FEC actually enforces the law against him if he does, since he will use it as an opportunity to speak out against the injustice of these restrictions on freedom of association and political free speech. I take it that he is ready, willing and able to face the consequences.

  139. Darryl W. Perry

    1) Keep or repeal the federal death penalty?
    abolish

    2) Position on potential military conflicts with Iraq/Syria?
    don’t intervene unless actually attacked

  140. Zapper

    RC: You haven’t thought through the workings of an FTT on stocks. It’s an instantaneous tax on wealth. It doesn’t matter that Capital Gains or Corporate Income Taxes could be repealed – both good things. It’s just that an FTT is a tax on wealth – not income – (in fact, a person with a losing position in a stock would still pay this wealth tax). It is concentrated and collected at a single point, having nothing to do with the corporation behind the stock. It will be highly resented and it is very easily avoided by trading off shore.

    The most important point that you have missed – and apparently you are unaware of – is the role of market makers. These individuals take one side or the other in a high percentage of all transactions daily. They buy from sellers and sell to buyers to keep the market moving smoothly. They operate in very tight ranges – those little eighths of a point you see – a bit up and down all day long: sell 1/8 up, buy 1/8 down. The spread would widen greatly with an FTT, markets wouldn’t be able to function smoothly, market makers would flee.

    An FTT is dangerous and unworkable. You really need to study the inner workings of the markets before you advocate for this.

  141. Robert Capozzi

    Zapper, I know about spreads, thanks. They’ve narrowed mightily over the past few decades. They are a cost of doing business. Some trading might go offshore, I’ve so stipulated.

    Actually, no, a transactions tax would NOT be a tax on wealth, it would be a tax on trading. It would not tax what someone has in financial assets, but what they trade. It would be phenomenally lower than the capital gains tax. A miniscule one at that. You are catastrophizing.

    Everyone resents taxes to some extent. A very low transactions tax, however, seems like the least intrusive, least distortive to pay for domestic tranquility and contract enforcement in a civil society.

    If you don’t see the upside of a nation with no taxes on wealth, income, or capital gains, then you don’t.

  142. Robert Capozzi

    btw, if all high-frequency trading went offshore while intrinsic trading for US-domiciled institutions and individuals stayed on shore, would that be such a bad thing? To the extent that narrow price discovery and risk-abating-derivatives trading fled but remained a factor in smooth-flowing capital markets continued, that serves its purpose, regardless of where the trades happen.

    Wonks can figure out what low-level a transaction tax should be set to minimize disruption and maximize revenues. That’s a form of price discovery as well!

  143. Zapper

    RC, you obviously don’t get it yet.

    1st) One side of nearly every trade is made by a high frequency trader called a market maker. That means nearly all trades would go off shore just based on the needs of market makers.

    2nd) Buyers would have every incentive to transfer their cash overseas, then buy their shares in a free market. Unless you plan some draconian form of currency control, there is no way to prevent this. They would be able to get the best price when buying, have their shares held by an overseas broker, and sell them again without the transaction tax.

    3rd) Sellers would also want to get the highest price. So, they would transfer their shares overseas – unless you have a scheme to prevent it – before selling.

    Finally, the major exchanges would shut down.

    Sure, you could propose a tax so low that it generated little revenue and didn’t drive everyone away. But the biggest traders would still move to other exchanges around the world. Even at a very low level, more than half of all trades would flee. Major banks and corporations already have traders moving money around the planet 24 hours per day to gain tiny slices of interest and to take advantage of tiny price differences – buying in one market and selling in another. They are already set up to move any and all financial transactions offshore.

    And yes, a FTT is a tax on wealth. You have an asset worth a certain amount, you may have a capital gain, no change or loss while holding that asset, but you are taxed on its value. That is a wealth tax. Sure, it’s only assessed when you trade, but it’s not based on P/L so it’s not an income tax. It’s not a sales tax on a good or service produced, it’s not a value added tax since there is no value added – it’s not a consumption tax. It is a wealth tax that can be avoided by not buying, not selling or buying and selling in an overseas market – so it’s a selective, discriminatory and foolish tax on wealth.

    Burger King merged with a Canadian doughnut company in a reverse merger where BK becomes a subsidiary of Tim Hortons as the parent to save on US taxes. Hundreds of US companies have gone through difficult mergers to legally avoid US income taxes, and you sit there with a straight face pretending that people and businesses who can move their trades offshore with a phone call and a few computer keystrokes that will save them thousands, millions and billions of dollars somehow won’t do it … you’ve got to be trolling.

    Banks and other businesses make millions of dollars by watching out for little details, such as rounding fractions of a penny up or down, and you think they won’t make a phone call to avoid a wealth tax on trades? Really? You really don’t have a clue about markets? I’m truly surprised that you don’t know how financial markets work.

  144. Zapper

    … and btw, a FTT would not be lower than a capital gains tax for most of the participants in the trades you see every day on the big exchanges.

    For every seller with a loss or no gain, the FTT would obviously exceed their zero capital gains.

    For market makers, where their net income is a fraction of the tiny fraction of the tiny spread between buy and sell prices – and they are taking one side of most trades – the FTT would exceed their normal margins (which is why margins would have to widen significantly causing buyers, sellers and market makers to flee). They have to balance their stock buys eventually with stock sales..

    And for those people who intend to buy and hold, hopefully to gain, why not begin the process overseas to escape the tax which could become worse in the future before they sell, especially since they still have to pay the FTT tax on their wealth even if they lose money or break even?

  145. Andy Craig

    Or, as Milton Friedman and other economists have said in fewer words: “no capital markets, no capitalism.”

    “”btw, if all high-frequency trading went offshore while intrinsic trading for US-domiciled institutions and individuals stayed on shore, would that be such a bad thing?””

    Not if you live in London or Hong Kong or Singapore. If you live in New York or Chicago though, yes, it would be a very bad thing and cost your city and country hundreds of billions of dollars in economic activity.

  146. Andy Craig

    I’ll add Puerto Rico, and to a lesser degree the other island territories, to Hal’s question. I’ve heard libertarians give paleo-constitutionalist type answers for why DC or PR shouldn’t be states, but I’ve never been terribly convinced by either. Nor does picking at the term “state” as if these territories don’t already have a government. But I’d like to know what the candidates think of it. Personally, my preferred option for DC would be retrocession to MD (or at least combining the two for federal elections, which has some precedent) instead of DC statehood, but alas that logical solution doesn’t seem to have any political viability to it. A straight up independence vs. statehood referendum is long overdue for Puerto Rico, and my guess is they’d probably opt for statehood, which should be accepted.

    In deference to paulie’s reminder to stay on-topic, I’ll toss a few more out there, for any of the candidates:

    Would you support or advocate a return the line-item veto?

    Would you push or support a policy of single-topic bills, and would you be willing to veto bills for violating it? What standard, in general, would you use to determine when to use the existing veto power?

    A few possible constitutional amendments were discussed earlier, but is there any particular short list of one or two constitutional amendments you would publicly support and seek to have passed and ratified during your term? Since everybody says repeal the 16th Amendment, I’ll take that one off the table and just assume it’s a given, unless for some reason you wouldn’t repeal the 16th and want to explain why. But I’m curious to know what other changes might have your support, or if you think supporting constitutional amendments would not be a priority in your administration.

  147. Hal

    Just to throw it out there: my preference for D.C. is statehood, and my second choice would be returning it to a state. Either way eliminates my current concerns (such as its lack of representation in the federal government), but I prefer statehood because I generally think more local control over smaller areas is preferable (and perhaps slightly closer to the ideal of no government at all, as it’s a smaller number of people participating in their own government). I also think self-determination is important; if the people of D.C. chose to join an existing state instead of becoming one (and if the people of that state agreed), that’d be my preference.

    Ditto on Puerto Rico: my preference would be independence and my second choice would be statehood, but I think the will of Puerto Ricans should be the determining factor.

  148. Hal

    Works for me, if that’s what the people of D.C. want! I’d be inclined to support any secessionist movement, but probably not to push for one; again, it’s all about self-determination for me. So I don’t consider it a big issue for presidential candidates, unless a state or territory makes it one by wanting to secede.

  149. Darryl W. Perry

    To answer the questions about DC & Puerto Rican stateood, I direct you to my stated positions on DC Voting Rights and Self Determination.

    DC Voting Rights: Washington, D.C. should be retro-ceded to fit within the “10 miles square” as prescribed by the Constitution, putting all residents in Maryland. The only land left within the District should be Government Offices, Museums and Parks.

    Self-Determination: I fully support the right of self-determination; that is the right of “determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status.” Though there are no established guidelines regarding how a group of people exercise their right of self-determination. During the 1860’s several States attempted to leave the United States of America, several counties in these States took secession one step further and seceded from their seceding State. It was this act of self-determination that allowed West Virginia to become a State, it also led to several “Free State’s” throughout the Confederacy.
    The United States of America was founded on the principles of self-determination. Not only has the U.S. government violated the self-determination rights of the Native Americans, but also the people of Hawai’i, Guam, Puerto Rico and many other people who have become dependent on the U.S. government. I believe that every person and/or group of people should be allowed to decide for themselves if and/or how they will be governed.

  150. Darryl W. Perry

    Would you support or advocate a return the line-item veto?
    YES, I would advocate for line-item veto!

    Would you push or support a policy of single-topic bills, and would you be willing to veto bills for violating it? What standard, in general, would you use to determine when to use the existing veto power?

    For several years I’ve been a member of Downsize DC, and have supported the Read the Bills Act, One Subject at a Time Act and the Write the Laws Act; and would urge the Congress to adopt all three proposals. In determining whether or not to veto a bill I would consider the following: Does the Congress have authority to per Article 1 Section 8 to do what is being proposed? (If yes, proceed; if no, veto) Does the bill increase the size, scope or power of the federal government? (If no, proceed; if yes, veto) Does the bill infringe on the rights of the people? (If no, proceed; if yes, veto) Does the bill allow an agency or department to write regulations? (If no, proceed; if yes, veto) Did the Congress have adequate time to read the bill? (If yes, proceed; if no, veto)

    A few possible constitutional amendments were discussed earlier, but is there any particular short list of one or two constitutional amendments you would publicly support and seek to have passed and ratified during your term? Since everybody says repeal the 16th Amendment, I’ll take that one off the table and just assume it’s a given, unless for some reason you wouldn’t repeal the 16th and want to explain why. But I’m curious to know what other changes might have your support, or if you think supporting constitutional amendments would not be a priority in your administration.

    Repeal the 12th Amendment, and recognize the rights of individuals to be a candidate for public office.
    Amendment recognizing the right of self-determination.
    Amendment repealing legal tender laws, and prohibiting a central bank.

  151. Joshua Katz

    If elected will you sleep with Olivia Pope, or any other staffer turned ‘fixer’ while ignoring your wife and fighting a spy organization run by the father of your mistress? Why or why not?

  152. Jill Pyeatt

    JK said: “If elected will you sleep with Olivia Pope”

    Ah-HA, someone else who watches “Scandal”!

    However, I don’t think Mr. Perry or Dr. Feldman have wives. Dunno about Keenan–

  153. Andy Craig

    All good answers Darryl, but I do have to correct one thing that the pedant in me just can’t let pass: the Constitution was never intended to limit DC to 10 mi^2. “Ten miles square” was understood at the time as meaning a square ten miles on each side, in other words what we’d call “100 square miles”. Which is exactly the size DC was originally set at, prior to Alexandria being retroceded to Virginia. This is a case of nothing more than linguistic shift over time, not an unconstitutionally large capital district, which would have been kind of hard to get away with.

    Though like I said, retrocession to MD with possibly a rump district surrounding the National Mall, is what I’ve always seen as the logical and obvious answer. Probably not politically viable though, and you couldn’t really force it on MD or DC, neither of which want it.

    re: 12th Amendment. Interesting answer, I’m not quite sure why you named that one though. Are you saying you’d rather have the pre-12A system where the members of the electoral college all vote for two people, and 1st place becomes President and 2nd place Vice-President? The system that produced the notorious 1800 election deadlock and never really worked as intended? Or is this part of a broader electoral law amendment that would, by necessity of implementing something like a national popular vote or other changes, repeal the 12th?

  154. Darryl W. Perry

    AC – thanks for the correction on the linguistics about the 10 miles square.

    re: 12th Amendment repeal. Are you saying you’d rather have the pre-12A system where the members of the electoral college all vote for two people, and 1st place becomes President and 2nd place Vice-President? YES. I see this, along with an overhaul of federal election ballot access (something the Congress has authority to regulate) as a way to potentially benefit alternative parties. The reason the pre-12th EC didn’t “work as intended” is because political parties formed almost immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, creating Presidential tickets. If the Presidential candidates were to run without a running mate, and the runner-up became Vice President, I do believe you would see more votes for minor party or independent candidates. Primarily because the wasted vote theory is thrown out the window, because they could potentially come in 2nd.

  155. Joshua Katz

    >I’m not sure if that’s a serious question from Mr. Katz.

    Mr. Perry passes my test – he can deflect a question like any politician!

  156. Waldo TerraFirma

    What are you going to do to expose the truth about UFOs, space aliens, 9/11, chemtrails, stoned aliens high on weed and PCP crashing their UFOs into the twin towers and the Pentagram on 9/11, alien rectal intrusions and chemtrails left by space aliens stoned on weed and PCP?

  157. Jose C

    David Stockman former budget director of the Reagan administration is considering seeking the Presidential nomination of the Constitution Party on a platform to:

    After further research I am convinced my source(s) are incorrect and as of today David Stockman is not considering seeking the Presidential nomination of the Constitution Party or any political party.

    David Stockman’s policy views are presented in his book The Great Deformation . . . The Corruption of Capitalism in America.

  158. Jose C

    How important to your campaign is being on the ballot in all 50 states, Washington DC, and Guam? If it is very important to be on the ballot in all 50 states, Washington DC, and Guam what will your campaign do to be on the ballot in all 50 states, Washington DC, and Guam?

  159. Guess what

    Mr. Katz says re uncommitted LP electors — “That wouldn’t reflect what we decided at our convention.”

    Are you psychic? The 2016 LP convention is more than a year away. That could very well be decided. If there is something in the bylaws that prevents it, it should be changed.

    A 2016 electoral-college ballot reading:

    1. Bush
    2. Clinton
    3. None of the above

    would have an excellent chance of the third choice winning. A better chance than any previous LP ticket. If you would thus stand in the way of LP’s greatest victory, then yes, you should certainly resign from the LNC.

  160. Jose C

    Alicia Garcia Clark wife of 1980 Presidential candidate Ed Clark campaigned for Ed Clark’s Presidential campaign. She helped produce a Spanish language ad, Spanish language brochure, and she spoke to Hispanic organizations. If you are married will your spouse campaign for your candidacy? Will she be out in the campaign trail?

  161. Jose C

    Some Libertarians are suggesting if Rand Paul gets the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party the Libertarian Party should not have a candidate. What is your thought on this?

  162. Andy Craig

    Even if the 2016 convention wanted to amend the rules to specify its support for trying to put NOTA on ballots, instead of just not nominating a candidate, that wouldn’t change the fact that it’s not a legal option in any state. Which can only be changed by the state legislatures, and good luck with that.

    And even if you *did* somehow get a slate of unpledged electors put on state ballots under the name “None of the above.”, and even if those slates won a majority of 270+ EVs and all submitted a vote for “nobody” or refused to vote (effectively the same thing)- then you’ve still accomplished nothing more than kicking the election to the House of Representatives. Where a group of actual, breathing human beings will elect another actual, breathing human being to be President.

    No matter how you play it, and no matter what implausibly generous assumptions you make about it, there simply is not any way that Presidency falls vacant as a result of people voting for NOTA. The system will produce a President, period.

  163. Joshua Katz

    I’m not psychic. Not only can’t I tell the future, I also can’t read your mind. So when I read a message saying what I should do (or resign) if the convention selected NOTA, I assumed you meant as NOTA is currently defined.

    So, let’s unpack this scenario you’re asking about. We adopt a bylaws amendment that, in some sense, makes NOTA a “bonafide candidate.” I’ll set aside any qualms about motions whose object is impossible being out of order and just assume it happened. This will make nominating NOTA less likely, in my opinion, but suppose we then go ahead and nominate NOTA.

    Yes, in that circumstance, since the LNC is obligated to support our Presidential ticket, we should support efforts to get this done. I’m not sure exactly what you have in mind, but there are a few possibiliities:

    1. NOTA written on the ballot, with electors going and voting for NOTA. This would probably be unconstitutional, but that never stops anyone, so who cares? If NOTA wins, or even gets enough EC votes to prevent anyone from getting a majority, the election goes to the House, where a human being is selected as the Constitution requires.
    2. A blank LP line for which people can, nonetheless, vote. I suppose in this case electors would be free to vote however they like, so I can’t say what will happen. This also increases the chances, slightly, of an election going to the House.
    3. Some sort of entirely uncommitted ballot line. Again, not sure what would happen.

    In short, AC’s analysis is right, in my opinion, but yes, I’d do what is needed to carry out the will of the supreme governing body of the party – the delegates in convention – regardless of what I think of it.

    If such a bylaw is passed, I will stop my campaign for NOTA.

  164. Joshua Katz

    Jose C – the candidates, I would expect, oppose NOTA. I will say that the event of a Rand Paul nomination is an area of disagreement between me and Dr. Lieberman. In my opinion, if at our convention Rand Paul seems likely to get the GOP nomination, I would be more hesitant to support NOTA because I think, in such a case, it will be important for us to keep a visible representative of the brand, rather than allowing Rand to redefine it in his image. I very much doubt that will be the case, though.

    Dr. Lieberman’s view, if I understand him correctly, is not so much “we shouldn’t run if Rand is nominated because he’s great” but rather that a Rand Paul nomination would suck the oxygen out of the room, make it very hard for us to get volunteers and money from the larger liberty movement outside of the LP diehards, and so on. However, I don’t think he limits his support for NOTA to Rand being nominated, but I know others out there are doing that – they probably do believe it’s because Rand is a good choice and so we shouldn’t “hurt” him. I personally don’t think much of that argument, for many reasons.

  165. Darryl W. Perry

    re: NOTA
    I’m a big fan of NOTA. In Duopoly: How the Republicrats Control the Electoral Process

    NOTA (None of the Above) should be a binding ballot listed option. Currently, Nevada has NOTA as a ballot listed option, yet if NOTA wins, it is a non-binding vote and the office is filled with the human candidate with the most votes. If a majority of voters cast a ballot saying they want the office left vacant, it should be left vacant.

    As far as Rand Paul is concerned, I do not believe the Libertarian Party should give the illusion of supporting his candidacy, by not running a candidate if he’s the GOP nominee.

    re: 50 state ballot access
    The purpose of my campaign is to give as many people as possible a real libertarian option in the Presidential election, and to do what I can to spread the message of peace, love and liberty!

    re: undeclared electors
    There was a group of unpledged electors that were elected in Mississippi in 1960, and in 1964 unpledged electors were the only opposition to Barry Goldwater in Alabama. Louisiana and Michigan also had unpledged electors in 1960.

  166. Andy Craig

    The only (modern) example of unpledged electors winning was in 1960, when some Southern states put them up as a protest against the Kennedy/Johnson ticket. But that had nothing to do with NOTA- those slates were conservative segregationist Democrats whose intention was either to obtain concessions in exchange for their votes if they could decide the outcome (they couldn’t), and to otherwise vote for a segregationist Southern Dem (which they did- they all voted for Sen. Harry F Byrd for President and Strom Thurmond for Vice President.).

    It is also not a legal option in any states today, like it was then when a few state legislatures and state Democratic Parties enabled it during the Civil Rights era. In no state can we submit a list of electors with no candidate, and be placed on the ballot in 2016. There are also no states that place the name of electors on the ballot, which was still the case in many states in 1960.

  167. Guess what

    As part of the LNC’s obligation to support the nominee (“NOTA”), the LNC would have to sue any state who refused to comply.

    The state of Louisiana, at least, lists electors on the ballot.

  168. Guess what

    Craig:”And even if you *did* somehow get a slate of unpledged electors put on state ballots under the name “None of the above.”, and even if those slates won a majority of 270+ EVs and all submitted a vote for “nobody” or refused to vote (effectively the same thing)- then you’ve still accomplished nothing more than kicking the election to the House of Representatives. Where a group of actual, breathing human beings will elect another actual, breathing human being to be President. ”

    Why would the electors refuse to vote? I would lobby them to vote for Gov. Ventura. As long as they don’t vote for Bush or Clinton, they have fulfilled their obligation to vote NOTA.

  169. Guess what

    Do any of you plan to seek the nomination of another party, such as the Green Party, Constitution Party, Reform Party, or Tax Wall Street Party?

    Are you open to fusion nominations?

  170. Andy Craig

    ” I would lobby them to vote for Gov. Ventura”

    Then try to draft him for the nomination (good luck with that, by the way). If the point of your plan is to have electors vote for a candidate, then you’re aren’t supporting NOTA, you’re supporting a candidate. With a bizarre, impossible, and illegal scheme to try to deceive or confuse voters instead of just putting that candidate’s name on the ballot.

    “As long as they don’t vote for Bush or Clinton, they have fulfilled their obligation to vote NOTA.”

    No, that is not how that works. “None of the above” refers to *the other candidates for the Libertarian nomination*. It does not refer to nominees of other parties.

    “As part of the LNC’s obligation to support the nominee (“NOTA”), the LNC would have to sue any state who refused to comply.”

    NOTA is not a nominee. That’s the point.

  171. paulie Post author

    “As part of the LNC’s obligation to support the nominee (“NOTA”), the LNC would have to sue any state who refused to comply.”

    Clearly someone has a very realistic understanding of how much lawsuits cost and how much money the LNC has here. And the chance of such lawsuits succeeding, especially in time..?

  172. Andy Craig

    @Darryl W. Perry “GW
    I’m open to the idea of being nominated by multiple parties with similar ideology (if any such parties exist).”

    Do any parties that have current ballot access in at least one state meat that criteria? I think it’s probably a moot point, but our attempt to get the Americans Elect ballot line in OK in 2012 comes to mind. Also maybe relevant in states that allow fusion nominations, and have parties generally focused on fusion nominations, such as the Independent Party in Oregon or the Independence Party in New York.

  173. paulie Post author

    Do any parties that have current ballot access in at least one state meat that criteria?

    None that I can think of.

  174. Joe Wendt

    two questions for all candidates:

    1) Should the dark lord Cthulhu emerge from the nightmare realm and bring about an age of darkness and madness, what would be your response to the situation as President? (Yes, this is a joke question, but the responses could be entertaining)

    2) As an alternative to maintaining any form of federal income tax and instituting the “Fair Tax,” would you consider implementing a “Wall Street” tax or service fee to fund some functions of government?

  175. paulie Post author

    2) As an alternative to maintaining any form of federal income tax and instituting the “Fair Tax,” would you consider implementing a “Wall Street” tax or service fee to fund some functions of government?

    That was already asked earlier. It’s what led to the discussion on that above, and then on open thread, and then its own thread.

  176. paulie Post author

    I have an idea…not exactly a question. How about some youtube videos from the candidates either addressing each other, or addressing the questions asked here or posing questions to each other? Might make for some attention, which is probably in short supply for pre-nomination campaigns in the LP in the start of the year before the nomination.

  177. Guess what

    Mr. Craig is apparently confused on the difference between the Libertarian National Convention and the Electoral College.

    And it is very disconcerting to read Alternate Committeeman Cannoli forswearing the LNC’s role in securing ballot access for the Presidential ticket.

    More to the point, will the candidates here commit to supporting a NOTA electoral-college slate if that’s what beats them for the LP nomination? Or will they be sore losers like Mary Ruwart?

  178. Andy

    “Guess what

    January 27, 2015 at 10:43 pm

    And it is very disconcerting to read Alternate Committeeman Cannoli forswearing the LNC’s role in securing ballot access for the Presidential ticket”

    If you are referring to Paul, he is no longer on the Libertarian National Committee. He did not run for reelection after his term expired at the last national convention.

  179. paulie Post author

    Alternate Committeeman Cannoli

    I haven’t been on the LNC since June, haven’t used the nickname cannoli (except on FB where I can’t get rid of it) in years, and you are deeply confused if you think either that LNC has the resources to sue every state in the country, that it would lead to NOTA being listed on any state’s ballot, or that this is what a NOTA vote by the convention would even signify.

    sore losers like Mary Ruwart?

    More delusional fantasy. Mary did nothing to oppose the Barr-Root trainwreck after it happened. She’s under no obligation to go out of her way to campaign for the nominees, and neither is anyone else.

  180. paulie Post author

    If you are referring to Paul, he is no longer on the Libertarian National Committee. He did not run for reelection after his term expired at the last national convention.

    You’re talking to someone who thinks the LNC has the money to sue every state election office at the same time, so I’ll forgive this delusional/out of touch with reality person for not knowing that I haven’t been on the LNC in the better part of a year.

  181. Andy Craig

    “Mr. Craig is apparently confused on the difference between the Libertarian National Convention and the Electoral College.”

    No, I’m not. As has already been explained to you, “None of the above” is the option of the LNC to not nominate a candidate. “the above” are the other candidates seeking the nomination. What you’re talking about is not NOTA as it actually exists. You would have to suspend/amend the rules before a vote could even be taken on your idea- it won’t be an option in the nomination balloting the way real-world NOTA is an option (and your idea would also still have to defeat actual-NOTA). And if a member of the Electoral College actually cast a vote in the EC for “NOTA”, that will be nothing more than a spoiled ballot and an invalid vote.

    And what, exactly, is the point of trying to put unpledeged electors on the ballot on a “Vote for nobody” campaign, only to then have them vote for somebody? (Jesse Ventura, as you posit.) That seems willfully misleading, to say the least. If you’ve got a candidate, put them on the ballot. Why would try to lie or mislead people about what vote for the Libertarian spot on the ballot means? If this whole thing is just supposed to be an exercise in deceptive ballot labels, then you’re doing a good job of demonstrating why no states would allow it.

    If the convention actually decided that the party should try to place slates of unpledged electors on the ballot under the candidate name “None of the above:” or “Nobody”, then I don’t think anybody here has disagreed that the national committee should indeed support that decision. We’re just pointing out that that’s not what a NOTA-as-it-exists vote would mean, and your scheme has less than zero chance of being adopted by the convention attendees, and that if it was there is effectively nothing the LNC could realistically do to get it put on the ballot in *any* states.

  182. paulie Post author

    I don’t think anybody here has disagreed that the national committee should indeed support that decision.

    It depends on what you mean by support. Issue press releases? Sure. Sue every state elections division in the country? Not so much.

  183. Andy Craig

    I think that’s just because such a lawsuit would have no chance of succeeding. The LNC does have a general obligation or responsibility (or at least has taken on the task in the past) to help put the presidential ticket on the ballot, including litigation at times, so if the convention directs slates of unpledged electors and we’re supposed to regard that as Presidential ticket (dubious, but hypothetically…), it wouldn’t categorically be out of the question for the LNC to attempt legal action in at least one or two states. But that doesn’t mean they have any obligation to file frivolous lawsuits with no chance of success, or to sue every single state that doesn’t put us on the ballot, even if we somehow had the money to do that. And they would be within their discretion to decide that any such legal action would be a waste of limited resources.

    You also can’t just sue to overturn a law because you don’t like it and want to do something different. You’ve got to have some sort of precedent and a legal argument to make. And there is no such case for forcing a state to place slates of unpledged electors on the ballot for President. We can’t even get them to put us on the ballot sometimes when he have a regular, valid, eligible nominee, who’s an actual person. The idea that we could force a fundamental rewrite of how elections work (with no real constitutional basis for our demand) is beyond implausible.

  184. paulie Post author

    I think that’s just because such a lawsuit would have no chance of succeeding. The LNC does have a general obligation or responsibility (or at least has taken on the task in the past) to help put the presidential ticket on the ballot, including litigation at times, so if the convention directs slates of unpledged electors and we’re supposed to regard that as Presidential ticket (dubious, but hypothetically…), it wouldn’t categorically be out of the question for the LNC to attempt legal action in at least one or two states. But that doesn’t mean they have any obligation to file frivolous lawsuits with no chance of success, or to sue every single state that doesn’t put us on the ballot, even if we somehow had the money to do that. And they would be within their discretion to decide that any such legal action would be a waste of limited resources.

    Fair enough, good point.

    (Mostly just responding to make sure comments are working correctly, since there have been zero IPR comments on any articles since you posted that one 13.5 hours, which is not usual for us).

  185. Guess what

    I wanna know if any of these guys can pick football games as well as Wayne Root or if their teeth are as shiny as his.

  186. George Phillies

    As will be recalled, after it put Barr on the ballot in New Hampshire, the LNC sued to have the LPNH’s candidate removed from the ballot. The suit went down the drain.

  187. paulie Post author

    The candidates haven’t responded here in quite a while. I’ll stop bumping this thread. I can put up a new one for February, but I’d like to try something different this time…how about answers in youtube format?

  188. William Saturn

    According to James Ogle:

    “Kip Lee is no longer seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination and is currently seeking Ashtar Command Party nomination.”

    Also, I have found Robert Kuffel on Facebook and have been in communication.

  189. paulie Post author

    I didn’t forget you. This article was from before I heard you were running. Feel free to start answering questions posed above. Or on the one I posted later about you running.

  190. Jill Pyeatt

    I went to the Facebook page for Derrick Michael, and he seems to be combining the Libertarian and Green Parties into a word called “Libereen”. However, it seems many of his views have nothing to do with either party. I don’t know him, although I’m in Southern CA where he lives, so he certainly hasn’t reached out to local Libertarians. I’m thinking that he isn’t a serious candidate for the LP. I’m curious as to whether we’ll hear from him again or not.

  191. Shave the Whales!

    “I went to the Facebook page for Derrick Michael, and he seems to be combining the Libertarian and Green Parties into a word called “Libereen”. However, it seems many of his views have nothing to do with either party. ”

    That sounds oddly familiar…where have I heard something like that before? Let me think now….

  192. Amy Lunde-Provines

    He must read IPR because he responded, on Facebook, to my post in the open thread asking any presidential candidates planning on attending the LPCO Convention to contact me (and no, he is likely not attending…)

  193. paulie Post author

    How about answering the questions asked of the candidates above, and perhaps asking some yourself? Just start at the top and work your way down…

Leave a Reply

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