D. Frank Robinson: Can Libertarianism Be Co-Opted?

Some Libertarians have hoped that the LP could achieve its stated goals by having its platform co-opted and enacted by either or both of the entrenched status quo parties.

However, forty years of political history counter this hope.

Why?

As a matter of historical fact alternative party issues have been co-opted rhetorically into the entrenched parties platforms and talking points.  Usually this strategy has silenced the issue-oriented party.

For such a co-optation strategy the Libertarian Party has presented an especially tough problem.  The LP attacks the status quo across such a broad front and is uniquely structured ideologically in the history of American political parties.

The LP relative immunity to co-optation and deflation has left the status quo with primarily only three options:

First, rig the ballot access laws to make the LP appear as a mere “debating society” without electoral influence against the entrenched status parties.  Over a span of four decades, the garrotting of the LP at the ballot is not been very effective and failed to bankrupt the LP in litigation costs.

The entrenched status quo parties second co-optation tactic is to infiltrate the LP and water down the Libertarian message down so that their candidates appear as more-or-less as merely slightly eccentric versions of the status quo and not worth a vote to the public.

The third entrenched status quo parties tactic uses the techniques of CIA Operation Gladio interventions in European politics after WW II.  This tactic manipulates the media to discredit LP candidates on a personal level and side-step political ideological issues.  This tactic is aka “gutter politics” and has a long political pedigree going back before the French Revolution.

So long as the LP or any other unentrenched new party can be denied actual representation in the government apparatus, any influence the LP could have on the Republican Party or Democratic Party will be merely cosmetic and transitory to be jettisoned ASAP.

Term-limits also work to the disadvantage of insurgent parties by banning a candidate from the ballot for being too popular with a constituency.  The entrenched status quo parties can subsidize candidates to replace term-limited incumbents from their own ranks.  Money talks and votes go back to weighing the lesser of two evils or no one but one evil elected by default in an uncontested election.


D. Frank Robinson, one of the earliest members of the Libertarian Party, chaired the Constitution, Bylaws and Rules Committee at the founding LP convention in 1972 and authored the 7/8ths rule for amending the LP Statement of Principles with David Nolan’s concurrence. D. Frank is now writing a novel as time permits.

50 thoughts on “D. Frank Robinson: Can Libertarianism Be Co-Opted?

  1. George Phillies

    Omitted is the fourth option: Disagreeing with the Libertarian Party on the ground that the libertarian solutions are wrong.

  2. ATBAFT

    Finally, a strategy posting that can (or should) be discussed calmly.
    What seems to be overlooked is a committed member of a major party hearing something from an LP candidate, or libertarian think tank, and thinking “that makes some sense.” The drug legalization effort seems to have picked up these kinds of supporters over the years. The tricky thing is to have LP candidates who “make some sense” and aren’t whacking the voters with visions of private roads, children agreeing to participate in porn, and other purist ideology that immediately turns off 99% of them.

  3. D. Frank Robinson

    You are correct, Mr. Philles. I am guilty of presuming that readers assume that head on disagreement is the default tactic of all political parties. However, the case against the non-aggression principle (NAP) is a hard sell to the public for Libertarian opponents, so they tend to engage the LP platform topic by topic while attempting to evade that all Libertarian platform planks rest on the NAP. That is why I think the entrenched status quo parties prefer the indirect co-optation strategies in their efforts to undermine the LP.
    The raw political power to encumber insurgent parties like the LP from attaining the artificial legitimacy of ballot access remains their Great Wall around their regime.

  4. D. Frank Robinson

    ATBAFT, yes, the non-aggression principle at the core of the Libertarian ideology can be construed in ways that challenge traditional cultural norms. A cultural norm that cannot be defended rationally as non-aggression can evoke fears. It does take some moral courage to advance libertarianism.

  5. robert capozzi

    dfr: authored the 7/8ths rule for amending the Statement of Principles

    me: In an alternate universe, this DIDN’T happen, and in that universe, the Ls have the White House and the Senate. The Iraq War didn’t happen, and government spending has fallen to 12% of GDP. Ls are considered the environmentally friendly party, and a negative income tax was considered pivotal in rolling back the State’s scope and scale. Drugs are considered a public health issue and marriage equality was achieved in the late 90s.

  6. Don Wills

    The author wrote “Term-limits also work to the disadvantage of insurgent parties…”

    I disagree. There is an argument that “good guys” who get elected to state legislatures and then get term-limited out generally get replaced by “bad guys” because there are far more of them in the ranks of both the Ds and Rs. Colorado is a prime example of this. However, the argument in favor of term limits is that the only realistic hope for a “good guy” to get elected is when an incumbent retires or dies. That is, the 95%+ incumbent re-election rate is a bigger impediment to change than having “good guys” term-limited out. I agree with this latter argument.

  7. D. Frank Robinson

    Reply to Don Wills: Term-limits infringes on the right of voters to choose. One could argue that people should only be allowed to vote so many times. Rationing candidacy or voting are both bad ideas.
    The entrenched status quo political parties have routinely gerrymandered “rogue” incumbents out of their constituencies – sometimes because the incumbent is too popular with constituents of both old political parties and not susceptible to the pressure of party bosses.
    In some cases, a better solution to incumbents gerrymandered into safe seats is to create more seats. This may not always remove an incumbent the powers in a party want to get rid of, but it does broaden representation.

  8. D. Frank Robinson

    I’m OK with imaginary alternative universes. I have a pocketful of them myself.

  9. George Phillies

    Debate the Non-Aggression Principle as a foundation? That only makes sense to people whose religious beliefs use ‘logically derive’ as a tool. Most Americans, including a fair part of the libertarian political movement, not to mention people aware of twentieth century advances i understanding logic and axioms, view that approach as superstitious nonsense. The approach is also mildly antiscientific.

    The reasonable debates will be on such issues as “Shut down social security? What do you think will happen to people in their 90s who have depended on their government’s promise on this matter?” Of course, real radical Lee Wrights had an answer to this, in one of the Presidential debates I moderated: You make a deal, you keep the deal.

  10. ATBAFT

    Mr. Phillies, do you then view the NAP as a kind of anchor that the LP should never have adopted because it makes it impossible to operate as a political party that advocates or even tolerates gradualism in any of its candidates or positions? If that is so, and it takes 7/8 to amend or eliminate the NAP, is the solution to have everyone who is anti-NAP drop out and form a libertarian political party that will, say, advocate for gradual social security reforms that don’t screw 90 year old folks out of their s.s.checks?

  11. George Phillies

    “Mr. Phillies, do you then view the NAP as a kind of anchor that the LP should never have adopted because it makes it impossible to operate as a political party that advocates or even tolerates gradualism in any of its candidates or positions? ”

    No. That interpretation has absolutely nothing to do with my position.

  12. D. Frank Robinson

    Mr. Phillies, the philosophical justification for self-ownership and the non-aggression principle as the ethical basis for political action is not within the purview the founders of the Libertarian Party set for it. I recall making that point in to delegates at the founding convention. It within the purview of every individual to explore those metaphysical and epistemological questions for themselves, but all those who do reach agreement with SO and the NAP are welcome to collaborate in the ethical political program of the Libertarian Party. This is why the LP Statement of Principles states the ethical basis for the LP and NOT any other particular underlying philosophical doctrines such as Objectivism.

    Regarding Social Security. If one prefers a non-coercive association for mutual aid to persons in what ever category one chooses, then the Libertarian Party’s SoP can accommodate such efforts.
    I prefer to hear Lee Wrights speak for himself on the subject and I will speak for myself.

    I repudiate the coercive moral claims for collective debt including Social Security. It is my opinion that the pyramid of coercion-based debt will collapse before the LP can enable a peaceful evacuation of the guilty and innocent alike from the pyramid. If my opinions could be logically demonstrated to contradict the Libertarian political ethic I would alter my conclusions or withdraw from the LP and I invite others to do likewise.

    I certainly encourage anyone to explore these underlying philosophical questions for himself. One might begin the exploration here and follow wherever it may lead: http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression

  13. Shane

    DFR, with the statement above, just explained why Libertarians don’t win elections.

    Voters care about their pocketbook, their freedom and their safety. I don’t think they give a shit about exploring “metaphysical and epistemological questions.”

    W . . . T . . . F

  14. dL

    “Voters care about their pocketbook, their freedom and their safety. I don’t think they give a shit about exploring “metaphysical and epistemological questions.”

    Results would suggest that voters don’t really care all that much about “their pocketbook, their freedom and their safety” either…Partisan voting seems to be more about punishing the other side. Non-affiliated voting is more about which political gang scares them the least.

  15. robert capozzi

    sc, agree and disagree. It seems pretty impossible for a person to not have some rudimentary at least metaphysical and epistemic views. Whether those views dictate a political stance seems pretty unlikely in most cases.

    Perhaps inadvertently, D. Frank, 87 other 20-somethings, and Hospers created a organization that excludes 99% of society, including fellow lessarchists who may like the sentiment of the NAP, but not the dogmatic rigor with which it’s applied by cadre of True Believers.

  16. Thomas Knapp

    “In an alternate universe, this DIDN’T happen, and in that universe, the Ls have the White House and the Senate.”

    You left out a key factor: That not happening didn’t have fuck-all to do with the Ls having the White House and the Senate.

    The Statement of Principles has had zero detectable impact on the LP’s electoral performance, full stop.

  17. Marc Montoni

    Actually this entire thread illustrates why Libertarianism hasn’t gained wider acceptance.

    Too many dilettantes wishing the way things are were not the way they are, and too few willing to doorhang their precinct.

    Any political philosophy can be sold, including a clear, radical libertarianism.

    But not if so-called “libertarians” spend more time telling each other their ideas will never be adopted rather than going out and finding the other people who *have* already adopted them.

  18. Andy

    “Marc Montoni
    October 7, 2016 at 12:17
    Actually this entire thread illustrates why Libertarianism hasn’t gained wider acceptance.

    Too many dilettantes wishing the way things are were not the way they are, and too few willing to doorhang their precinct.”

    BINGO!

    “Any political philosophy can be sold, including a clear, radical libertarianism.

    But not if so-called “libertarians” spend more time telling each other their ideas will never be adopted rather than going out and finding the other people who *have* already adopted them.”

    I do think that there are a lot of people who will never accept libertarianism no matter what we do, but even so, there are enough people in this country who are open to what we have to say to where if we could ever rally these people to our side we could radically change this country for the better.

  19. Marc Montoni

    …created a organization that excludes 99% of society, including fellow lessarchists who may like the sentiment of the NAP, but not the dogmatic rigor with which it’s applied by cadre of True Believers.

    It is interesting that Mr Capozzi — who does absolutely nothing to promote the “less-archist” nonsense he spews except to spend hours upon hours on IPR and other pages telling everyone else how fucked up they are — has spent hundreds of hours attacking Libertarians, and yet he can’t be bothered to lift a finger to non-libertarians to take them to task for enabling:

    — 1,400 Americans being killed by police every year
    — American citizens being added to a “No Fly” List without justification
    — Mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent drug offenses
    — Warrantless wiretapping of American citizens
    — Aggressive bombing of innocent lives in foreign countries
    — Suspension of Habeas Corpus in cases deemed “terrorist acts”
    — Use the US Military as the World Police
    — The sale of subsidized military hardware to foreigners
    — The massive debt spending
    — The massive regulatory complex that ruins free trade

    Where ones loyalties lie is usually revealed by their choice of opponents.

  20. robert capozzi

    tk: The Statement of Principles has had zero detectable impact on the LP’s electoral performance, full stop.

    me: True ONLY because of the word “detectable.” False, IMO, without that word. My belief is that humans crave peace and freedom. If true, that’s a setup for success for a L party. Unfortunately, the NAP millstone chokes the possibility of an effective lessarchist party.

    mm: …telling everyone else how fucked up they are

    me: I’m sorry you feel that way. I’m not sure how my words can be read as a personal attack, but I understand that perception is reality for the perceiver, so I’m not terribly surprised.

  21. dL

    Although I wouldn’t accuse the pragmaticrats on IPR of being government spooks, they do nonetheless mimic the disinformation techniques of the online spooks that I can often spot elsewhere(hint: one easy example…they troll civil libertarian reporters like Greenwald). Simply b/c it is impossible for anyone to actually be that brain dead and simultaneously operate a keyboard or a touch device.

    http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

  22. dL

    “Any political philosophy can be sold, including a clear, radical libertarianism.”

    The way I would put it is that it would be possible for a radical libertarian to be elected in a 3-way race despite voters having no widespread agreement w/ the LP platform. Particularly when the other two candidates are so bad and/or bland. The proposition that being elected requires popular consensus with all the candidate’s positions is nonsense. Not a political science principle. Collective action is dominated by the minority. However, it won’t happen on a 3rd party like shoe-string budget. Not a 7 figure budget. Not a 8 figure budget. Need 9 figures.

  23. ATBAFT

    “Perhaps inadvertently, D. Frank, 87 other 20-somethings, and Hospers created a organization that excludes 99% of society, including fellow lessarchists who may like the sentiment of the NAP, but not the dogmatic rigor with which it’s applied by cadre of True Believers.”

    Yet, it seems to me, that the NAP has already been discarded by the majority of LPers. Has there been one presidential candidate who hasn’t taken some pragmatic stance that called for less than strict adherence to the NAP demanded? The same is certainly true of many, if not most, LP candidates for lesser offices.
    And very few have been kicked out or removed from the ballot for such stances.
    It doesn’t take 7/8 to do away with the NAP. It only takes a majority of delegates to elect a majority of NatCom that then orders the staff not to print the NAP on literature, websites or anywhere else it can be seen.

  24. robert capozzi

    dL, quite an assertion, that. Can ya be more specific? Maybe give some examples to persuade us of your POV?

  25. Jill Pyeatt

    I agree, dl, that some of the commenters here display professional troll behavior. On the other hand, my observation is that this campaign has been bringing undesirable traits out from many of us, so maybe they’re just naturally trollish..

  26. D. Frank Robinson

    Clearly the diversity of opinions in this thread show that the U S is actually a multi-party population coerced into a bureaucratic duopoly. There are at least two ‘libertarian’ parties – one pro-NAP and one NAP optional. Hard to see why the NAP optional party doesn’t organize and seek ballot access…woo scary.

  27. ATBAFT

    “Hard to see why the NAP optional party doesn’t organize and seek ballot access…woo scary.”

    A realistic observation is that the NAP optional party does now and perhaps always has been in control of the LP from the Hospers nomination onward. So perhaps the pro-NAP proponents need to organize their own party? As a philosophical supporter of NAP, I can nevertheless see that the American public would need a ton of education and acceptance before a pro-NAP party would be even marginally viable.

  28. D. Frank Robinson

    “It doesn’t take 7/8 to do away with the NAP. It only takes a majority of delegates to elect a majority of NatCom that then orders the staff not to print the NAP on literature, websites or anywhere else it can be seen.”

    Amazing that it has never been done in four decades and 21 conventions. Might be easier said that done. I don’t deny it could be attempted and it might serve to send the LP into a financial crash, but that could be only practical objective of anti-NAP infiltration – unless a group already had government loot in their pockets to attempt it. It would mean the LP has been recognized as a serious threat to the status quo.

    The possibility of such a concerted Gladio operation is a sufficient to refuse the government cheese.

  29. ATBAFT

    I guess the NAP optional folks don’t need to do away with it because even they pay it lip service while not honoring it in the breach. I don’t recall the platform of Hospers/Nathan but I doubt they campaigned fully on the NAP. After all, Hospers eventually pledged allegiance to the GOP and Tonie seemed to be a voice of conciliation between the anarchists and the minarchists. Other early campaigns such as Kay Harrah, Roger MacBride, especially Ed Clark, drew criticism from the NAPers but had majority support from the rank and file. I would think any infiltrators seeking to ruin the LPs growth path would be more likely to insist on NAP purity in order to destroy the effectiveness of the LP that way.

  30. Matt Cholko

    There is exactly one person on the planet that stays away from the LP because of the NAP. That person is Robert Capozzi.

    It is a shame, really. Considering how much time RC spends talking about his problem with the NAP, it seems that he could, theoretically, be a very prolific promoter of the party, if only the 80 some odd 20-somethings didn’t ruin everything back in 1971.

  31. dL

    “dL, quite an assertion, that. Can ya be more specific? Maybe give some examples to persuade us of your POV?”

    Well, the political/social science would start with
    (i) Kenneth Arrow’s impossibility theorem
    (ii) social choice theory
    (iii) Mancur Olson’s The Logic of Collective Action

    Evidence of the theory? Most recent one of the top of my head. Election of William Weld as the VP candidate for the LP party. While the party moved in many ways to strengthen the platform, William Weld nonetheless managed to win election despite holding views not in alignment with the average libertarian nor the party platform.

    Of course, I also qualified my statement w/ the necessity of a candidate having sufficient financial resources. You know, 100 Million dollars minimum. Also didn’t say it was likely. Merely said it was possible.

  32. George Phillies

    “Mr. Phillies, the philosophical justification for self-ownership and the non-aggression principle as the ethical basis for political action is not within the purview the founders of the Libertarian Party set for it. ”

    Philosophical justification is irrelevant nonsense. In particular, most Americans have correctly worked out that people who start talking about philosophy are not people who they would trust with political office.

    George Phillies, D.Sc. (Physics, MIT, 1973)
    Professor Emeritus

  33. dL

    “Mr. Phillies, the philosophical justification for self-ownership and the non-aggression principle as the ethical basis for political action is not within the purview the founders of the Libertarian Party set for it. ”

    I don’t subscribe to NAP but I have no issue w/ the LP platform. I find NAP, as typically understood today, to be more of a product of Rand and Rothbard. Historically, NAP may implicit in the tradition, but the explicit Randian or Rothbardian sense of it is not. Self-ownership, from a legal standpoint, is actually a liberal tradition. That is, prior restraint/crimes for what you do to yourself is actually a liberal violation. There is no need to delve into the ethical red herring of self-ownership vis a vis politics. In the liberal tradition, self-ownership, at least from a legal standpoint, is presumed.

    The best part of the LP platform is this:

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

    That should be the starting point…unapologetic. Out, proud and loud…

  34. D. Frank Robinson

    “Philosophical justification is irrelevant nonsense. In particular, most Americans have correctly worked out that people who start talking about philosophy are not people who they would trust with political office.

    George Phillies, D.Sc. (Physics, MIT, 1973)
    Professor Emeritus”

    Since everyone has a philosophy you are arguing that no one can be trusted with political office. Why are you arguing political philosophy with me when I agree – no one can be trusted with political office. I believe we call it anarchism, but hell, even that is philosophy. Oh, wait, you’re a damn philosopher if you do and a damn philosopher it you don’t. Even nihilism is a philosophy.
    Thanks for curriculum vitae. We all need a little help from our friends at times.

  35. robert capozzi

    mc: There is exactly one person on the planet that stays away from the LP because of the NAP.

    Me: It’s not even me. I LIKE the sentiment of the NAP. I don’t subscribe to the dogmatic and literalistic reading of the NAP that is prominent among the Founders and their followers. And I find the CotOS language embarrassing and, frankly, delusionally insane.

    There are many former Ls who’ve lapsed or left the LP because of the futility of the founding documents and the ongoing interpretation of those documents as an unworkable, extremist vision. Dealing with Randian/Rothbardian Ls is often like dealing with a Marxist or a cult member, who have no interest in engaging in any sort of negotiation to sell the idea of more liberty. There is a sanctimonious tone I’ve found, manifested in the arrogance of the 7/8ths requirement that DFR seems actually proud of — somehow!

    There are millions of lessarchists who are sympathetic to a peace-and-freedom message, I submit. But when they delve into the LPs extremism, they find it either wacky or so unrealistic, they move along.

    Tragic.

  36. D. Frank Robinson

    rc:

    The millions of LP-sympathetic lessarchists of whom you speak of are certainly entitled to form a libertarian lite party and pursue their humble goals. They can be confident that as time passes and they succeed, they can absorb the dusty husk of the original militant Libertarian Party. Yet for 40 years these alleged millions of humble sympathizers have refused to act on their convictions while the Libertarian Party’s more militant “old guard” has trudged onward, convictions intact, making incremental progress toward an inflection point in people’s thinking.
    I await news of the founding of the Lessarchist Party by thousands of delegates.

  37. Robert Capozzi

    DFR, where you see progress, I see a persistent slide toward more statism. I get that you set up a very exclusive club. Yes, a more inclusive party could be formed, true. Thanks for the obvious reminder.

  38. George Phillies

    “Since everyone has a philosophy” More superstitious nonsense. And the rest of the argument is classic sophistry.

  39. Robert Capozzi

    GP, why nonsense? Makes perfect sense to me. Unless you believe that thought comes from a dictating, external source, making people puppets.

  40. Thomas Knapp

    “There is exactly one person on the planet that stays away from the LP because of the NAP. That person is Robert Capozzi.”

    Nope. I’ve known a couple of others.

  41. Kevin Bjornson

    There is no such thing as “the NAP”. The LP has a pledge, but that doesn’t mention the phrase “non-aggression principle”. Similarly, the statement of principles does decry initiation of force, but doesn’t use the term “aggression” (much less NAP).

    The basic communication problem here is, the phrase does not define “aggression” and in fact, different people have different conceptions of what constitutes aggression.

    For instance, many in the LP equate “intervention” with “aggression”. While in standard English, “intervention” simply means, taking sides in a dispute. By definition, there can be only one first strike. If party “A” initiates force against party “B”, and party “C” sides with “B” by attacking “A”, party “C” does not initiate force because party “A” has already done so.

    Similarly, many LP activists view irrational discrimination as a form of aggression. What this boils down to is, people often interpret as aggression, any behavior they view as immoral.

    Contrary to Wikipedia, Ayn Rand did not create the non-initiation-of-force principle. That honor rightly belongs to Greco-Romans, who created the theory of Jus Naturale or natural justice. They did so inductively, starting with their common law system; and later used the logic of equity to purify Jus
    Gentium (the law in common to all nations) into Jus Naturale.

    The conflation of non-intervention with non-aggression was a feudal departure from classical libertarianism. However, the NFIP kept re-emerging, mostly notably from the renaissance, due to it’s basis in human nature. The virtual collapse of the libertarian movement post-Pearl Harbor wiped the slate almost clean, and post-WWII a cleaner version of libertarianism emerged, created by real libertarians like Rand, Mises, and Friedman.

    But Rothbard brought back to life the feudal apocryphal non-interventionist statism (disguised as anti-statism), and Ron Paul popularized this departure from classical libertarianism.

  42. langa

    If the LP were to ever discard the NAP, it would soon find itself on a slippery slope that would lead it to the same kind of absurdities currently reserved for the Republican Liberty Caucus, such as arguing that a 2.2% increase in funding for a particular program, rather than a 2.6% increase, is the essence of libertarianism.

  43. robert capozzi

    L, has the RLC actually done that? There certainly was a time when LPers argued whether the NAP extended to private nukes or not. Did you find that conversation “absurd” or “principled and sober”? I know NAPsters to this day who come down on the side of the right to possess WMD.

  44. D. Frank Robinson

    Much of the confusion about self-ownership (SO) and the non-aggression principle (NAP) arises from our continued uncertainty of scientifically accepted explanations of self-awareness and volition. This lack of science-based precision leads to interminable controversy in linking epistemology to ethics.
    A libertarian political ethic cannot bridge this chasm of scientific ignorance, so we must choose to infer what social rules lead to the preservation and maximization of self-awareness for each individual. The argument that violence distorts and traumatizes self-awareness is very persuasive.

  45. Kevin Bjornson

    The “NAP” is an empty phrase, and cannot be a full concept, until and unless it defines “aggression”–which the phrase by itself does not do. We can’t rightly assume everybody agrees what “aggression” means.

    So, there is no such thing as “the” NAP, there are as many NAPs as there are definitions of “aggression”.
    Science can help bridge this gap, for instance, we can subject people in an experiment to simulated threats of force and measure the bio-physical reactions and responses. But we likely would similar results, if the subjects were victims or perpetrators. Violence directed against force-initiators may traumatize their self-awareness, but I don’t see that as a problem.

    which means, the heavy lifting must be done by linguists, language experts, and communicators.

  46. George Phillies

    Defining words after the agreement has been written is, well, not so much a slippery slope as a vertical cliff.

  47. langa

    …has the RLC actually done that?

    You mean have they decried one policy as the epitome of statist tyranny, while simultaneously defending an almost identical policy as a “libertarian” policy? Yes. In fact, near as I can tell, that’s about all they do.

    I know NAPsters to this day who come down on the side of the right to possess WMD.

    Again, with this ridiculous straw man. To my knowledge, no one who comments on IPR advocates the ownership of private nukes. If you know someone who does, you should invite them to comment here, so that the two of you can argue about this silly red herring, while the rest of us discuss more pertinent topics (for example, whether libertarians should wear shirts with horizontal or vertical stripes on them).

  48. Marc Montoni

    Capozzi is the only person who *ever* brings up private nukes (except he can’t spell it either, he usually spells it “newks”).

    He’s obsessed over it and a couple of other issues.

    And he still hasn’t done even one iota of real, actual politicking for his wet-dream moderate incoherent candidate.

    Just remember, Langa, it’s a complete waste of time trying to have a real conversation with him. Five minutes after speaking directly to whatever question he’s asked, he will announce that no one ever answered his question.

Leave a Reply

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