December 2016 Open Thread

ddycd4erydeog2refytc0g88m8mogl5dyxst_aneq2g

So, it’s December and the drama and speculation about where the duopoly we all here love so much is taking us has been somewhat clarified. On the positive side, Clinton lost. On the negative side, Trump won.

In a possible IPR first, having correctly predicted the results a month ago, I’ll just recycle last month’s videos:

Is everyone all aboard and strapped in? It’s going to be a wild and crazy ride ….

But, no need to worry. It’s going to make America great again!

All sarcasm aside … as usual, talk about whatever you want, even the duopoly (or, you know, something else), just don’t get us in trouble if you can help it.

494 thoughts on “December 2016 Open Thread

  1. Tony From Long Island

    Anyone who says that want to “Make American Great Again” should be banned from IPR. They have clearly taken the bait of nonsense from the orange faced gasbag

  2. paulie Post author

    Anyone who says that want to “Make American Great Again” should be banned from IPR. They have clearly taken the bait of nonsense from the orange faced gasbag

    Nathan Norman and his multiple personalities are already banned here. He sneaks back in. Please ignore him when he does and give us a chance to catch it and erase it. Jill, me, and some others here catch it when we see it and remove it but we are not always here every minute of every day. It’s easier to get rid of it if you do not respond to it.

  3. Bondurant

    If Trump supporters are to be “banned” why not ban Hillary supporters also? They’re all the same.

  4. paulie Post author

    Nathan Norman and his drawer full of characters is banned, not all Trump supporters. We have plenty of regular commenters in good standing, including IPR editors, who are either Trump supporters or enablers, sadly. Some of them are otherwise good and rational people and even good friends of mine.

  5. Tony From Long Island

    Bondu – I was not a Hillary supporter but rather a Trump resister. I will resist for his entire reign. There’s really not much to say to you if you truly think Trump resisters and Hillary supports are the same.

    You can dislike Mrs. Clinton – I didn’t even vote for her in 2000 (the only time I ever voted for a Republican), and voted for Gov. Johnson this year, but she could speak in complete sentences, made actual detailed policy proposals (whether or not you agreed with them), didn’t speak in 8th grade generalities using nothing words like “huge, terrific, bad, great, nasty etc., have temper tantrums on twitter . . . . could go on forever.

  6. Bondurant

    @ Paulie

    I wasn’t referring to moderators but calling out a poster wishing Trump supporters be banned when he has been championing Hitlery here since May.

  7. Tony From Long Island

    First of all . . . Hitlery . . . . so old . . . can’t you be original? her policies are not even slightly like fascism or naziism . . . At least I come up with my own fake names for Trump.

    I have never once claimed that I voted for Hillary. Not one single time. Do I prefer her to he-who-shall-not-be-named? Yes, and so do most Americans.

    I voted for Gov. Johnson, just like I did in 2012. Sadly, I filled out the ballot too fast and filled in his bubble for the “Indepencence Party” rather than the LP, but it still counted for Johnson / Weld.

    I didn’t call for all trump supporters to be banned. Just people who blather about “making America Great Again.” Meaningless nonsense.

  8. dL

    Donald Trump Is a Greater Threat to Free Speech Than the Campus Left
    Trump’s flag-burning comments fit a pattern of disrespect for the First Amendment.

    stripping citizenship for “speech crimes” is stalinist. Leftist PC is often accused of “stalinist speech codes,” but I never come across anyone from the “campus left” actually advocating that extremity of punishment. The PC Right is the first to actually rhetorically cross that line in the United States…

  9. paulie Post author

    Brian W. Ryman
    December 4 at 2:26pm

    There is a disturbing trend towards tribal insularity that has manifest on both sides of America’s political divide. It is easy to recognize this in Trump supporter’s blathering about the destructive effects of globalism and Bernie Sanders’ railing against world trade, but insular thinking has permeated our culture as well.

    The problem is not exclusively about the racist and xenophobic outbursts we have seen of late; It is also evident in the condemnation of “cultural appropriation” by so called Social Justice Warriors.

    We used to be proud of the fact that America was an amalgam of the best characteristics of cultures around the world. In spite of being seen as rubes by the more “civilized” Europeans, we were the true Cosmopolitans- citizens of the world. We inculcated the ideals of democracy from ancient Greeks and tempered them with ideas of the British and European Enlightenment. While we were late to recognize their influence, African culture has also enriched our society. But today many people would condemn this as illegitimate.

    There are students at universities today that have more in common with white segregationists of the Dixiecratic south than they do with cosmopolitan thinkers. I imagine them protesting against Alan Freed for the “appropriation” of “negro music” for the benefit of white Americans in the mid 1950s; I see them walking arm in arm with Reverend Jimmy Snow to protest against cultural miscegenation. – While the images here are hyperbolic, the threat is real.

    Americans are being bullied from the left and the right to build cultural cloisters. Instead of embracing the advantages that globalism has given us we are simultaneously being assailed by fear and guilt in an attempt to have us reject them. Globalism and cultural diversity have given us an expansive banquet in food, art, music and ideas. It has caused the standards of living for people around the world to improve. We are a richer and freer society because of it.

  10. Andy

    I do not believe that is the same Wang Tang Fu. That is one of the same chickenshit trolls that has been posting here for years, probably working for some government entity, and dredging up some of the same tired old lies that are meant to smear people who engage in effective activism the government does not like.

  11. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    dL: stripping citizenship for “speech crimes” is stalinist. Leftist PC is often accused of “stalinist speech codes,” but I never come across anyone from the “campus left” actually advocating that extremity of punishment.

    I’ve come across Leftists who want to imprison people for “hate speech.” Such American Leftists have been around for decades.

    Many on the Left believe that free speech is racist (and sexist, xenophobic, etc.):

    http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29443/

    http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26232/

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674065891/

  12. dL

    I’ve come across Leftists who want to imprison people for “hate speech.” Such American Leftists have been around for decades.

    I wrote stripping people of their citizenship, not mere criminalization. Both the right and the left have wanted to criminalize disagreeable speech since forever. That behavior is not exclusive to either side. What is new is advocating stripping someone of their citizenship, a condition in the modern world that more or less puts someone in no mans land. Effectively, that would result in you being shipped off to something like
    guantanamo bay. Effectively==stalinist camps.

    Pauli wrote about Trump and Stalinist camps. At first blush, one might think he was being a little over the top, invoking a paranoia one typically finds on the loony far right vis a vis “FEMA camps.” But rhetorically at least, the American right seems to be justifying the paranoia. At the very least, it is unequivocally clear the American PC right celebrates stalinist speech codes.

  13. Wang Tang-Fu

    Who removed my comments, and why? Also who removed me as an IPR editor (if I have been removed) and why? I no longer see my name on the “about IPR” page, yet I was never informed that I had been or would be removed, or even warned that it might happen. If there was something I did that bothered someone they never bothered to tell me or ask me to stop. What is this arbitrary behavior about? Please answer the question rather than just deleting it.

  14. Wang Tang-Fu

    Speaking of Stalinist speech codes, does this site have one? Is it spelled out anywhere or do things just go down memory holes for arbitrary and unexplained reasons?

  15. Andy

    “Wang Tang-Fu
    December 4, 2016 at 22:38
    Who removed my comments, and why?”

    I had nothing to do with this, but my guess would be because you are a piece of shit troll that is using an IP anonymizer. Now get the F out of here.

  16. Tony From Long Island

    Can we have just one thread without Andy posting about conspiracy theories and proclaiming that so-and-so is a government paid troll?

  17. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    December 5, 2016 at 08:57
    Can we have just one thread without Andy posting about conspiracy theories and proclaiming that so-and-so is a government paid troll?”

    Can we just have one thread where Tony does not make a stupid comment?

  18. Andy

    “dL
    December 5, 2016 at 10:51
    ‘piece of shit troll that is using an IP anonymizer’
    That would make him a smart troll.”

    Of they just work at a government troll center and using an IP anonymer is a part of the job.

  19. Tony from Long Island

    Andrew the Magnificent: ” . . . . .Can we have just one thread without Andy posting about conspiracy theories and proclaiming that so-and-so is a government paid troll?”

    Can we just have one thread where Tony does not make a stupid comment? . . . . ”

    Wracking my brain trying to figure out how this was a ‘stupid comment.’ I it more than likely the sentiment of more than a few people on IPR.

  20. Tony from Long Island

    AHHHHH!!! Please please please stop with your “should read . . . ” posts! I KNOW I am not the only person who feels that way because it has been mentioned on here before.

  21. Tony from Long Island

    Although I will agree with Andy that the Wu-Tang guy is a troll.

    The guy who does that gods2 website is a Yahweh ben Yahweh cult member who just spouts jibberish during interviews.

    Of course, that didn’t stop Generalissimo Trump Cheetolini from pointing him out at several of his “rallies.”

  22. Thomas Knapp

    Two things:

    1) The subscribe function at IPR seems to be hit and miss the last month or two. I commented to subscribe at the beginning of this thread and never got the confirmation email. Trying again.

    2) Anthony Dlugos was looking forward to being carried into the hallowed halls of the Cato Institute on the coattails of Gary Johnson. Hey, Anthony, when and if you do get here, gimme a yell.

  23. Thomas Knapp

    Tony,

    At the bottom of each comment form is a little box you can tick that says “Notify me of follow-up comments by email.” When you tick that box, you get an email asking you to confirm that you want to get a “subscription to the thread” (an email every time someone posts a comment on it). But in order to check that box, you have to comment. So you’ll see people (especially the authors of the posts) “commenting to subscribe” since they have nothing in particular to say about the subject at the moment.

  24. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “2) Anthony Dlugos was looking forward to being carried into the hallowed halls of the Cato Institute on the coattails of Gary Johnson. Hey, Anthony, when and if you do get here, gimme a yell.”

    This would be yet another strike mark against the Cato Institute.

  25. Andy

    Just to clarify my above comment, I meant if Cato hired Anthoy Dlugos. Dlugos is a shiny badge worshipper who throws libertarian principles out the window for any candidate who can flash a shiny badge, probably because Dlugos lacks any libertarian principles himself.

  26. Tony From Long island

    So you have no problem with your favorite person Thomas Knapp writing for Cato? But didn’t he vote for Gov.Johnson – a man with no libertarian principles . . . a LINO??

    Did this get you all worked up?

    How come you haven’t commented about Pizza Gate? A conspiracy theory too mainstream for you??

  27. Andy

    “Tony From Long island
    December 5, 2016 at 14:05
    So you have no problem with your favorite person Thomas Knapp writing for Cato? But didn’t he vote for Gov.Johnson – a man with no libertarian principles . . . a LINO??

    Did this get you all worked up?”

    I have less of a problem with Tom writing there than with Dlugos.

    I’m not the world’s biggest fan of the Cato Institute. I think that they are too watered down and influenced too much by the ruling establishment. I’m not saying that everything they do is bad. They do some good work, but much of what they do is watering down libertarianism and appeasing the establishment. This is why some people call the Cato Institute the Stato Institute, and also Beltway Libertarians, Cosmotarians, and Lap Dog Libertarians (as in they are lap dogs for the state).

    I don’t always agree with Tom, but I do think that he gets things right a lot of the time, and whatever faults he has and/or disagreements I have with him, I consider Dlugos to be worse.

    Dlugos has been an active cheerleader for putting establishment shill non-libertarians on the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket. I think that Tom made a bad strategy decision to vote for the Johnson/Weld ticket at the last minute, but he actively opposed the Johnson/Weld ticket and pointed out all of their shortcomings and wrongdoings for months, and I pretty much agree with everything he said in that regard.

    “How come you haven’t commented about Pizza Gate? A conspiracy theory too mainstream for you??”

    I already have commented on PizzaGate here and on other forums. You must have missed it when I discussed it here. I’m sure you’ll be hearing a lot more from me on the subject here on IPR in the weeks and months to come.

    PizzaGate is a disgusting scandal that involves the politically connected elite engaging in the sexual abuse of children and talking about it in code, which includes pizza and pizza related words, among others, to cover up their disgusting acts. Some of these incidents of child abuse are alleged to have taken place at pizza restaurants. Sick stuff.

  28. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: ” . . . . PizzaGate is a disgusting scandal that involves the politically connected . . . . ”

    No. It’s more made up nonsense . . . . right up your alley.

    I was just waiting for you to confirm it for me. Once you buy into it, that just confirms that it’s nonsense.

  29. Tony From Long Island

    Amazing that as word starts leaking of a scandal involving Trump and underage girls (including – at the very least – some type of evidence that would be admissible in court) the right wing nutbags make up something even more vile about Hillary. I’m shocked.

    Our new world of fake news is a very sad reality. Of course Andy has been living in this fantasy land for years.

  30. Jill Pyeatt

    Tony, you are wrong to write off Pizzagate as Fake News or a conspiracy theory. This story is huge and will not go away. Despite the mainstream media’s campaign to get us to ignore it, citizen journalists everywhere (like me) will not let this go.

    This scandal is part of the reason Hillary didn’t win.

  31. Jill Pyeatt

    As far as being “made-up”, the information comes straight form Wikileaks., It’s right up there online for you to read yourself. NO ONE HAS DENIED THOSE ARE THEIR EMAILS.

    Oh, and last I heard, no one has seen or heard from Podesta since told everyone to go home in the wee hours of November 9.

  32. Tony From Long Island

    This “scandal” had nothing to do with the electoral college victory by Cheetolini because it isn’t a “scandal.”

    There is no such thing as the “mainstream media.” There is only media, some with more viewers / readers than others. Some with more credibility than others.

    What makes a story “huge?” There is no evidence what would be admissible in a court that shows even the slightest proof that this is true.

    All power to ya in being a citizen journalist. However, I taught journalism (albeit at a high school) and was assistant editor of my college paper for two years. One of the main tenets of journalism is to have credible sources and to verify as much information as you can. Otherwise, you are writing an opinion piece.

    This shit gets worse every day.

  33. Tony From Long Island

    It’s right there in WIKILEAKS? Really? Please feel free to post the e-mail from Podesta where he explicitly said that he is involved in a sex with children party time fun zone. Please.

    There’s a reason you can’t do that. Because it doesn’t exist. So, no, it’s not “right there in WIKILEAKS.”

  34. Jill Pyeatt

    One of the main tenets of journalism is to have credible sources and to verify as much information as you can.

    How do you know there’s no evidence of a pedophile ring if you haven’t looked into it? You would be surprised at what you might find.

    If it isn’t true, them the Powers That Be shouldn’t be afraid of an investigation.

  35. Jill Pyeatt

    And we’ve already debunked your “no such thing as Mainstream Media” crap.

    Other than the past few comments, I remind myself to use my time in the best way possible, which means I won’t be bothering to discuss this with you anymore, Tony. If you’re interested, there’s quite a bit of information for you to go through which might give you another opinion. Otherwise, you’re welcome to keep living in LaLa Land.

  36. Tony From Long Island

    So, why didn’t you post it direct from WikiLeaks? Please wake me to the truth! You made this proclamation before that it’s “right there” in WikiLeaks. So really, you are not wasting time to prove your own point.

    I didn’t think so. So you can say that you “don’t want to be bothered” after you’ve painted yourself into a corner.

    Sorry, my friend, you didn’t come out ahead in this little back and forth . . . and now. . . .back to work . . .for both of us 🙁

    “mainstream” is being used as an adjective. Describing some media as “mainstream.” It’s a made up adjective in this context. Some media has more viewers / readers than others. It’s really easy for you (or anyone else) to just write something off because it’s from some mythical “mainstream media.”

  37. Thomas Knapp

    Tony,

    I’m not really sure what to think about “Pizzagate.”

    There are certainly some weird emails with stuff that’s obviously being said in SOME kind of code to mean SOMETHING.

    The Clinton campaign has at no point denied the emails are real.

    Many of the emails can be verified by digital signature as to source and as to content being unaltered (Donna Brazile DID try saying that one of her emails had been altered and got busted with the digital signature — after which she zipped her lips and refused to talk about it any more).

    And in ten years, the number of times that Wikileaks has been found to be distributing fake information is a big fat zero.

    Am I going to leap to the conclusion that the coded language is referring to a pedophile ring? No.

    Am I going to write off the possibility? No.

    I don’t necessarily buy the claims of those who say they have a key to the code and that A means B, B means C, etc. But some of that strange language seems to be linked to publicly available Instagram photos of underage girls and boys in at least moderately sexualized circumstances.

    Furthermore, both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump have been plausibly linked to Jeffrey Epstein’s sex parties with young (possibly illegally young) women. Whenever the establishment tries to whip up some pedophile panic, one of their claims is always that pedophiles are organized, working together in “rings,” etc. If “where you find one of them you’ll find a nest of them” is true in general, why would it be untrue of the rich and/or powerful?

    To me, the important thing when it comes to “conspiracy theory” is to look at what is offered as evidence. If it really IS evidence, it will stand up to scrutiny, so why not scrutinize it instead of just mocking it without bothering to find out whether or not the mockery is warranted?

  38. Tony From Long Island

    I’ve never denied that the e-mails were, in fact, genuine.

    I just to connect non-existent dots.

    Nor do I believe they would be stupid enough to mention something like that in e-mails even if were happening, which I do not believe to be the case.

    I am not mocking Jill at all! Not in the slightest. Jill and I have had several passionate back and forths, but I would never mock her. I save my mocking for one person only – Andy.

    She offered to post some so-called “proof.” Since that proof does not exist unless you want to make assumptions and guesses, she is unable to produce what she claimed exists.

  39. Jill Pyeatt

    No, I didn’t offer to provide proof. I simply don’t have time for such a discussion today, and my experience with you is that you won’t take it seriously even if I provide it.

    A. My mother entered hospice care this weekend, and I’m on call at any moment to rush down to Huntington Beach to be with her;

    B. It’s Christmas, and I have an online jewelry store;

    C. I’ll only be in my insurance office 2 days this weekend, and I have tons to do. I don’t have time to do your research for you.

  40. Jill Pyeatt

    And thanks, Thomas, for weighing in on the topic. I’m also uncertain of all that’s going on with Pizzagate, and I can’t help but wonder if it’s some kind of trap for alternative news sites. I do think, however, that the whole ugly issue of possible pedophilia should be taken seriously and investigated. Since the large news sources aren’t doing it, other people have to.

  41. Tony From Long Island

    Jill, since my work day is about done, I will leave you with your own words:

    ” . . . .the information comes straight form Wikileaks., It’s right up there online for you to read yourself. . . . :”

    So yes, you did offer proof. Maybe you will post it by the time I get to work tomorrow morning 🙂

    Have a wonderful evening everyone.

  42. Tony From Long Island

    Every post from the same IP my delusional friend . . . . . Government trolls don’t work 8 – 5 Mon – Fri . . . if I was a troll, wouldn’t I try to at least hide my identity a little?

    Is there really a “government troll center?” Oh, just another conspiracy theory . . .

    Just waiting for UPS so I can leave . . . tonight is bowling night!

  43. NewFederalist

    Sorry to hear about your mother, Jill. Been there. Done that. Great organization for all concerned in very difficult circumstances. God bless you.

  44. wolfefan

    Hi Jill –
    I am sorry to hear about your mother. I know how hard it is to be in that circumstance and she, along with you and all who love her, are all in my thoughts and prayers.

    When you have some time, I have a question. As a citizen journalist, how exactly would you go about investigating Comet Pizza and Ping Pong? We (those of us in the DC area) had an armed guy firing shots in the venue today. I doubt that he would call himself a “citizen journalist,” but he certainly was investigating. How would such an investigation have worked back in the McMartin pre-school days, when professional investigators and prosecutors investigated non-existent child abuse and convinced jurors that such abuse had actually occurred, ruining people’s lives?

  45. Jill Pyeatt

    I don’t recall much about the McMartin case except for an overall memory that a lot of lives were ruined with very little evidence. The big difference here is that the Wikileaks emails are available to read for yourself at http://www.wikileaks.org. You can search by topic, and there’s a link available to read the Podesta emails, which is a good place to start. No one has denied that the emails were written by the person listed as having written it. My reason for calling myself a “citizen journalist” really just means I want people to know about the emails and what they might mean.

    As far as my personal research, there are words that are used that don’t seem to be used in the way most of us use the words. There are symbols available on some sites and on some Youtube channels that show very odd Instagram photos with adult unmarried men and small kids, and captions that will make your skin crawl that were posted by the Comet Ping Pong owner before they were pulled within the past few weeks. There is a photo of the sign on Comet Ping Pong before the sign was yanked down and replaced, again, just a few weeks ago. When I looked recently, Google Earth showed the sign with an odd symbol in the corner. That symbol is used to represent pedophilia. The paintings in the restaurant–supposedly family friendly–have creepy and sexual photos and paintings in it. The menu had strange symbols on it. Much of those things have been changed now that people are looking into it, but the photos from just a few months ago are easy to find.

    Also, there are photos of art in Podesta’s office that are nothing short of bizarre, and certainly seem to bear out that he’s into pedophilia and even some Satanic rituals. It’s not too hard to research what these odd words and symbols might mean. Each person simply has to look into the situation themselves and decide what they think is going on.

    As far as the shooter on Sunday, the whole story is strange. I doubt the guy was there to investigate, because if he had he’d have taken some hostages or done something to enable the research. Walking into a pizza place with a huge gun in broad daylight is suspicious to me, and I think there’s more to the story. Will we ever find out? I doubt it.

    The result of my research is that I believe there just might be an active pedophile ring in Washington DC that has involved John Podesta, his art dealer brother with ties to the Middle East, Bill Clinton, and even Hillary and Obama. If I tried to lay it out, you wouldn’t believe me because it’s so bizarre. That’s why I urge people to research it themselves.

  46. dL

    Also, there are photos of art in Podesta’s office that are nothing short of bizarre, and certainly seem to bear out that he’s into pedophilia and even some Satanic rituals.

    Publicly self-identified “satanists” are rational atheist skeptics/egoists. The only religious organization that I’m aware of that has been involved in a systematic pedophilia conspiracy is the catholic church. There is simply no such thing as a “satanic ritual” that celebrates the molestation of children. Those rituals are usually reserved for the Abrahamic religions..for example, circumcision.

    Christian conservatism has spread the McCarthyite crap for years of a satanic/pedophilia conspiracy among government officials. That nonsense should be treated as hysteria. If by some incredible chance there is such a ring, it should be treated as an underground Christian ritual thing b/c they all outwardly profess to be Christians.

    Nor am I aware of any Wikileaks promotion of a “pizzagate” conspiracy. My initial instinct is that the thing has been blown up to sensationalize “fake news”(the real problem is not fake news..it’s fake journalism). The modus operandi of the Clinton machine for years has been to allow(or even encourage) the right wing noise machine to hang itself by its own rope. It didn’t quite work this time re: the election. But it is a tried and true practice.

    The bottom line is that there is a conspiracy of child trafficking. It’s called mass deportations. It’s generally not reported on. It’s generally ignored… to the extent that one might point to a conspiracy of neglect. It’s right there in front of you.. If instead you are looking for “satanic symbols” in pizza restaurant menus and John Podesta’s office paraphernalia , you are of the reservation on a hysterical red herring.

  47. Andy

    Jill Pyeatt said: “As far as the shooter on Sunday, the whole story is strange. I doubt the guy was there to investigate, because if he had he’d have taken some hostages or done something to enable the research. Walking into a pizza place with a huge gun in broad daylight is suspicious to me, and I think there’s more to the story. Will we ever find out? I doubt it.”

    I have heard that it has already come out that the alleged shooter is an actor. Funny how actors seem to keep popping up in these shooting incidents (Sandy Hook, Virginia TV news station, Orlando Pulse, etc…). What are the odds of this?

  48. Andy

    “dL
    December 6, 2016 at 02:51
    ‘Also, there are photos of art in Podesta’s office that are nothing short of bizarre, and certainly seem to bear out that he’s into pedophilia and even some Satanic rituals.’
    Publicly self-identified “satanists” are rational atheist skeptics/egoists. The only religious organization that I’m aware of that has been involved in a systematic pedophilia conspiracy is the catholic church. There is simply no such thing as a “satanic ritual” that celebrates the molestation of children. Those rituals are usually reserved for the Abrahamic religions..for example, circumcision.”

    You are still operating under the delusion that just because somebody calls themselves a Christian, that it really means that they are a Christian, in that they actually follow the tenets of the ideology which they espouse, This makes about as much sense as claiming that Bill Weld is really a Libertarian just because he joined the Libertarian Party and said that he’s a Libertarian. Reality is that child molesters have about as much to do with any Christian religion as Bill Weld has to do with libertarianism, which is nothing.

  49. Tony From Long Island

    Wolf Man: ” . . . .How would such an investigation have worked back in the McMartin pre-school days, when professional investigators and prosecutors investigated non-existent child abuse and convinced jurors that such abuse had actually occurred, ruining people’s lives? . . . .

    An excellent point. The McMartin case was one of the most tragic miscarriage of justice cases in our nation’s history. I did my masters thesis on the history of sex offender laws, so I do have a bit of understanding of this case.

  50. JamesT

    Castle is a few hundred votes from 200K and beating Baldwin. With dreadful ballot access. Good for them. Yet I wonder how much they are kicking themselves for not being better organized. I think they only raised 60 or 70K. I would assume of the top 10 vote receivers they paid the least per vote. But I honestly think by 2020 the ASP, assuming it can get decent ballot access, will replace them as the conservative alternative.

  51. Tony From Long Island

    Jill: ” . . . . Google Earth showed the sign with an odd symbol in the corner. That symbol is used to represent pedophilia. . . . ”

    Jill, first off, I wish your mother the best and I hope she sees 2017 and beyond.

    I would like, though, for you to explain this “symbol” to me. As I said above, I have done quite a bit of research on this and similar topics (including interviewing an admitted member of NAMBLA.” I have not once come across any secret symbol. So, in all curiousness, I’d like to know how this or any symbol is associated with such.

  52. Thomas Knapp

    “You are still operating under the delusion that just because somebody calls themselves a Christian, that it really means that they are a Christian”

    No, he’s pointing out that “Satanism” as such doesn’t exist. It’s simply a rebellion against Christianity, not an actual religion in its own right. There’s an atheist/egoist movement that caricatures what actual “Satanism” might look like if it existed according to those who have convinced themselves it does, but the next actual “Satanist” pedophile ritual that’s discovered will be the first.

  53. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: ” . . . . .I have heard that it has already come out that the alleged shooter is an actor. Funny how actors seem to keep popping up in these shooting incidents (Sandy Hook, Virginia TV news station, Orlando Pulse, etc…). What are the odds of this? . . . ”

    Andy this crap has to stop! You’ve “heard??” Heard from who? Anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime is an actor to you. You are seriously twisted. You truly need professional help and, likely, strong medication.

    You sound very Trumpian ” . . . some people say . . . ”

    I was actually ready to agree, for the most part, with the religious point you made above, but when you say such wacko crap it makes it difficult to have a rational and sane conversation with you.

  54. Thomas Knapp

    JamesT,

    Is there any reason to believe the American Solidarity Party actually has its act together for political success or even electoral progress?

    It seems to me that there IS an opportunity for a specifically Christian political party to make headway. The “leadership” of the establishment religious right lost a lot of credibility in this cycle when they threw in with Trump in obvious contradiction to the values they’ve been pushing for decades. And the Constitution Party has established that it’s still not ready for prime time — they should have picked up huge (compared to past performance) vote totals this year.

    There’s an opportunity, but is the ASP able to seize that opportunity?

  55. James Troxell

    Given how many prominent paleos at amconmag that said they wrote him in. Also I’ve seen Distributism mentioned more and more as an economical philosophy in various circles. So it’s a hunch on my part. I see a vacuum and a bit of movement that indicates the opportunity is there for them. But it is ultimately a hunch.

  56. Tony From Long Island

    ” Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!”

    – Anton LeVey

  57. Andy

    JamesT
    December 6, 2016 at 08:54
    Castle is a few hundred votes from 200K and beating Baldwin. With dreadful ballot access. Good for them. Yet I wonder how much they are kicking themselves for not being better organized. I think they only raised 60 or 70K.”

    The Constitution Party could have EASILY gotten ballot access in a few more states. Darrell Castle SHOULD HAVE made the ballot in Tennessee, Nebraska, and Rhode Island, and they could have likely picked up a few other states as well, like Vermont.

    Yeah, the Constitution Party did not spend that much. I heard that the Castle campaign raised around $50,000, and I’m not sure how much was spend by the Constitution Party national committee or any state Constitution parties, but whatever it was, it was nowhere near what some of the other parties spent.

    ” I would assume of the top 10 vote receivers they paid the least per vote.”

    This may be so, but I doubt that Gloria La Riva of the Party for Socialism and Liberation spent very much either, probably less than Castle. I think that she came in next in line behind Castle and got around 67,000 and something votes.

    Rocky de la Fuente spent a lot of money, yet received very few votes. He only got around 33,000 votes, so his cost per vote was pretty high, possibly the highest of any candidate, or certainly up there.

    ” But I honestly think by 2020 the ASP, assuming it can get decent ballot access, will replace them as the conservative alternative.”

    Unless this party gets some big money behind it, and does a lot of advertising and outreach, I doubt this will happen.

  58. Thomas L. Knapp

    “YOU TUBE IS NOT A SOURCE OF NEWS”

    It certainly can be, and it certainly is in some cases.

    News can come from all kinds of places. It just needs to be carefully evaluated for source credibility. On the whole, I doubt that any given random YouTube video is much more credible than sensational tabloid trash like the New York Times or the Washington Post.

  59. Jill Pyeatt

    dl, thanks for your input. It looks like I need to spend more time verifying what others have called Satanic child abuse. I will, possibly this weekend.

    I have a training meeting for work today and tomorrow, so I won’t be spending time here until Wednesday night or Thursday. Any questions about Pizzagate should be researched by each individual, however. It’s too darn strange to believe it when someone tells you about it. It really is best to read the Podesta emails yourself, and take it from there.

  60. Jill Pyeatt

    A couple quick comments before I go:

    Most of the connections to Satanism have to do with what has been called “spirit cooking”.

    Also, if you choose to research Pizzagate yourself, I suggest you don’t use Google. I’ve used http://www.duckduckgo.com much of the time. It’s interesting how much different info is presented by the different search engines.

  61. dL

    You are still operating under the delusion that just because somebody calls themselves a Christian, that it really means that they are a Christian

    No…I simply don’t operate under the hysterical delusion that there are people who outwardly call themselves Christian but secretly practice as ‘Satanists.” No actual practicing satanist would ever do that. To the best of my knowledge there are no self-professes satanists in government–at any level. Hence, there is no satanic conspiracy afoot in government. Now there may be conspiracies afoot, and indeed I’m quite sure there are some, but there are no “Satanic conspiracies” afoot.

  62. dL

    Most of the connections to Satanism have to do with what has been called “spirit cooking”.

    I never heard of “spirit cooking” until recently. A lookup indicates it has primarily an avant garde food cuisine spectacle with some tangential relation to Aleister Crowley’s revelatory occultism. Satanism, however, is not a revealed/revelatory religion. Nor is it identifiable with “the occult.” There is no connection between the two.

    And there is no organizational connection between “spirit cooking” and “sex parties.” The sex party stuff sounds like maybe like something similar perhaps to a “Eyes Wide Shut” thing. You know, the Stanley Kurbrick movie where Tom Cruise thinks he has uncovered some satanic/ritual criminal conspiracy but it turns out it’s just rich and powerful people who like to exhibition sex w/ prostitutes…they dress up in costumes to retain their anonymity.

    And underage prostitution is not “pedophilia,” or at least not generally. Keep in mind , age of consent laws are typically 16 years of age. For some reason, if money changes hands or a camera is involved, it suddenly becomes child prostitution or child pornography if under 18. Libertarians don’t(or shouldn’t) respect those arbitrary distinctions. And finally: I did a quick search on the images relating to that and didn’t find anything published that could be remotely mistaken for preteen sex performers. And I wasn’t expecting to find anything b/c publishing that could land your ass in real hot water for distributing child pornography. “Public pictorial evidence” of child prostitution is sort of a literal oxymoron b/c of the extreme legal sanction against its publication.

  63. 5

    dL: “I simply don’t operate under the hysterical delusion that there are people who outwardly call themselves Christian but secretly practice as ‘Satanists.” No actual practicing satanist would ever do that.”

    Are you basing that assertion on your numerous in depth relationships with other practicing satanists?

    Here’s 4chan’s primer on pizzagate:
    https://dcpizzagate.wordpress.com/

  64. Tony From Long Island

    dL: ” . . . . .Keep in mind , age of consent laws are typically 16 years of age. . . . . ”

    Yes, the majority of states have set the age at 16, some are 18 and a few are 17. The federal law is 18.

    dl: ” . . . . .And underage prostitution is not “pedophilia,” or at least not generally . . . . ”

    It seems odd that in the 10 months I have been posting here, this is the second time the definition of “pedophilia” has come up. The DSM-IV defines it as:

    302.2 Pedophilia

    —————————————
    I notice my posts from yesterday are not here. hmmm
    The paraphilic focus of Pedophilia involves sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger).

  65. Tony From Long Island

    That got a bit jumbled. . . . my comment ended up in the middle of the definition . . . oh well.

  66. dL

    The federal law is 18.

    The “federal law” applies to filming, sexting and “interstate” rendezvous. The latter two are fairly recent.

    It seems odd that in the 10 months I have been posting here, this is the second time the definition of “pedophilia” has come up.

    It’s hardly “odd” in this instance when pedophilia accusations are at the center of a current fake news frenzy.

  67. Tony From Long Island

    dL, of course it’s not odd in that context. It’s just something that I came across a lot in researching my master’s thesis. The word “pedophile” gets thrown out by journalists willy nilly with no understanding of the definition.

    The laws that you say are of fairly recent origin are not actually. They are just being applied to recent behavior. The “Sexting” laws are just old “disseminating indecent material to a minor” laws being applied to new ways to do it. The “interstate rendezvous” laws are quite old. They are the same old “Mann Act” laws applied. Also the federal statutory rape laws apply anytime someone crosses a state line and commits such.

    ———————————————-

    Regardless of how they are applied, I have a general aversion to “federal crimes” that are already a crime in all fifty states. They are a complete waste of resources and unnecessarily fill up federal prisons for what are, in essence, state crimes.

    This is by no means only with sex crimes – it occurs with all sorts of crimes, drugs, murder, robbery. They are already illegal everywhere for the most part. Let the states deal with it.

  68. paulie

    “I notice my posts from yesterday are not here. hmmm”

    I see several comments from you from yesterday morning. Do you remember when the deleted comments were posted or what they were about? Were they part of a chain of responses with a troll whose comments also got deleted?

  69. Tony from Long Island

    Paulie, I remember posting yesterday where I wished Jill’s mom well and then spoke about having done my master’s thesis on the subject of sex offender laws and never once came across anything about some sort of “pedophile symbol.”

    maybe I just didn’t click “post” correctly. I do sometimes rush since I do these from work.

  70. Tony from Long Island

    . . . or maybe I just need to start the weekend a few days early! Yikes! Thanks Paulie

  71. NewFederalist

    I just took a look at Dave Leip’s site and it appears that Darrell Castle has gone over the 200,000 vote threshold as write in votes continue to be tabulated. Congrats! Despite poor ballot access and weak fundraising he has set a record for CP presidential nominees.

  72. Andy

    “NewFederalist
    December 10, 2016 at 14:56
    I just took a look at Dave Leip’s site and it appears that Darrell Castle has gone over the 200,000 vote threshold as write in votes continue to be tabulated. Congrats! Despite poor ballot access and weak fundraising he has set a record for CP presidential nominees.”

    Wow. That is a pretty good accomplishment.

  73. George Phillies

    On November 15, 2016 Gary Johnson 2012 paid the Treasury the $333,874 that it owed the Federal Government. It is unclear where the money came from.

  74. robert capozzi

    nf: Despite poor ballot access and weak fundraising he has set a record for CP presidential nominees.

    me: Depends. Was the CP’s ballot access better in previous years? How much, if so>? Ditto for fundraising?

  75. George Dance

    George Phillies – “On November 15, 2016 Gary Johnson 2012 paid the Treasury the $333,874 that it owed the Federal Government. ”

    What Mr. Phillies did not mention (perhaps because it should be common knowledge by now) is that Johnson2012 “owed” that money to the U.S. government simply because the U.S. government ruled that he did, and that the campaign did not pay that money before now because they have been challenging that ruling.

  76. Thomas L. Knapp

    What Mr. Dance did not mention (perhaps because it should be common knowledge by now) is that Johnson 2012 owed that money to the US government because it got that money from the US government and used it for things that the rules under which it got the money didn’t allow it to be used for.

    Yes, Johnson 2012 engaged in various dilatory appeals while trying to avoid paying back the money. I’m not sure why Mr. Dance thinks that reflects well on the Johnson campaign.

  77. George Phillies

    As the other George does not mention, we are discussing Federal government money that was given to the Johnson campaign with certain conditions attached, conditions that were according to the review procedure not satisfied, with the Johnson campaign having agreed that they would return the money under this condition.

  78. Just Saying

    “On November 15, 2016 Gary Johnson 2012 paid the Treasury the $333,874 that it owed the Federal Government. It is unclear where the money came from.” — George Phillies

    There’s not much of a mystery here. As several folks here at IPR predicted earlier this year, it looks like Johnson’s 2016 supporters have unwittingly paid for their candidate’s obligation to the U.S. Treasury stemming from his mishandling of federal matching funds during his failed 2012 campaign.

    According to their latest filing with the FEC, the Johnson-Weld campaign made a payment of $345,124 in “legal fees” to DB Capitol Strategies in Alexandria, Virginia, on Nov. 3, 2016. That payment, incidentally, was more than thirty times larger than any other payment made by the Johnson campaign to DB Capitol Strategies during this election cycle. A week later, on November 10, DB Capitol Strategies sent the Federal Election Commission a check in the amount of $333,874.75 made payable to the U.S. Treasury to cover Johnson’s 2012 repayment obligations.

    http://www.fec.gov/audits/2012/Gary_Johnson_2012_Inc/Johnson2012RepaymentDocuments.pdf

  79. George Phillies

    Just saying! That was superb detective work! Three cheers!

    Some 2016 donors will doubtless have a reaction when they learn that their money went to pay Johnson’s 2012 debts.

  80. Andy

    “dL
    December 6, 2016 at 11:48
    ‘You are still operating under the delusion that just because somebody calls themselves a Christian, that it really means that they are a Christian’

    No…I simply don’t operate under the hysterical delusion that there are people who outwardly call themselves Christian but secretly practice as ‘Satanists.'”

    You don’t get it. Many people claiming to be Christians are too stupid or ignorant or lazy to live up to their own stated ideology. Many of them are hypocrites. The “Christian” who supports foreign wars of aggression or locking up non-violent drug “offenders” is not really living up the the tenets of Christianity. So with this people it is not that they are knowingly “worshiping” Satan, it is more like they are supporting evil because they a philosophically inconsistent people.

    Having said this, a very small percentage of these people probably are Satanists.

    “No actual practicing satanist would ever do that. To the best of my knowledge there are no self-professes satanists in government–at any level. Hence, there is no satanic conspiracy afoot in government. Now there may be conspiracies afoot, and indeed I’m quite sure there are some, but there are no ‘Satanic conspiracies’ afoot.”

    What about the rituals practiced by The Order of Skull and Bones and at the Bohemian Grove? What about the symbols on the dollar bill? Do some homework.

  81. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    December 12, 2016 at 21:13
    ‘nf: Despite poor ballot access and weak fundraising he has set a record for CP presidential nominees.’

    me: Depends. Was the CP’s ballot access better in previous years? How much, if so>? Ditto for fundraising?”

    The Constitution Party had the worst ballot access that it has had in a long time in this election, possibly ever.

    Their fundraising was pretty bad this time too, possibly their worst ever. I think that the Darrell Castle campaign only spent around $50,000 and something (although in 2012, most of the money spent by the presidential candidate came out of the candidate’s pocket, but even so, it was more money than Darrell Castle raised). The Constitution Party National Committee and some of their state affiliates spent some more more that went to support their presidential ticket, but it was on even close to what was spent by Jill Stein and the Green Party or Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party.

    So Castle did surprisingly well under the circumstances.

  82. robert capozzi

    AJ, please put some numbers to the ballot access and previously spending levels so we can actually make a comparison.

    Didn’t Glenn Beck and Andy Jacobs endorse DC 16, btw?

  83. Tony From Long Island

    Jorge Phillipe: ” . . . . Some 2016 donors will doubtless have a reaction when they learn that their money went to pay Johnson’s 2012 debts. . . . ”

    I am a 2016 donor and I have no problem with it. Campaigns cost money. When you donate money, you are not giving it for one specific purpose i.e. “this donation can only be used toward the renting of space in Suffolk County, New York for the purpose of a rally . . . “

  84. Tony From Long Island

    Let me expand a bit . . . if it was used for strippers and blow, I might have an issue . . . otherwise, I’m OK.

  85. Tony From Long Island

    Andrew the Malevolent: ” . . . .What about the rituals practiced by The Order of Skull and Bones and at the Bohemian Grove? What about the symbols on the dollar bill? Do some homework. . . . ”

    Oh no, here we go . . . .

  86. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tony’s statement on Johnson’s campaign finances translated into English: “You know that sucker born every day? That’s me!”

    Money raised by the Johnson 2016 campaign was raised on the expectation that that money would be used for the Johnson 2016 campaign, not on paying off a different campaigns debt to the government for misuse of that previous campaign’s welfare checks.

  87. George Phillies

    “Some 2016 donors will doubtless have a reaction when they learn that their money went to pay Johnson’s 2012 debts.”

    The reaction will be based on what were interpreted as commitments by the campaign that they would do nothing of the kind.

    It wasn’t just a rational expectation; there was what was interpreted as an actual commitment.

  88. Tony From Long Island

    TK, Who is the sucker? Me, or the delegates who nominated someone you call a welfare recipient? You did vote for that welfare recipient if I recall . . .

    I can’t speak for every donor, but I knew there was still debt from 2012 when I donated.

  89. George Phillies

    You were the sucker. And you are the mouthpiece apologist for the campaign.

    Mind you, I did not vote for him.

  90. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tony,

    I did not vote for Johnson to be the LP’s nominee. I voted for the LP’s presidential ticket IN SPITE OF the fact that the convention made the mistake of nominating him.

    When you donated to Johnson’s 2016 campaign, did you know that his 2012 campaign had defrauded the LP by lying about the size of its debt in the FEC report filed immediately before the 2012 nominating convention?

    When you donated to Johnson’s 2016 campaign, did you know that the Johnson 2016 campaign had been ASKED about the 2012 debt and had specifically said that donations to the 2016 campaign would not be used to pay the 2012 debt?

    When you donated to Johnson’s 2016 campaign, did you know that in addition to his 2012 campaign debt, he also owed the FEC $300k+ in reimbursements for spending that violated the guidelines which came with the 2012 welfare check?

  91. Tony From Long Island

    TK: when I donated, I knew he had debt. When I donate to a candidate, I give that money for the candidate to use as they feel is best. Unless, like I said, it is used for hookers and blow, I am fine with it. I guess I save my outrage for other things.

    I would think that anyone who donated money to the person who received more electoral votes is a sucker rather than me. Mr. “I am self-financing” spent very little of his own money on the campaign. I thought he was a billionaire.

    GP: Nice to know you didn’t vote for your own party’s candidate. Maybe your energies would be better served trying to get a libertarian message out more than investigating every single penny ever spent by the LP or it’s candidates.. Don’t you get tired of it after a while?

    This is not to say you do not work hard to get a libertarian message out. I know you do and you get my respect for that.

  92. Matt

    But hookers and blow are important to campaign morale, and morale is important to a campaign. Just put it down as an entertainment expense.

    More seriously… expecting anything else from the Johnson scampaign was foolish. More glad than ever that I ended up voting for Stein. I did consider voting for Johnson but definitely not donating. I did not donate to Stein before the vote, but did make a small donation to her recount effort later.

  93. George Phillies

    ” Nice to know you didn’t vote for your own party’s candidate.” Yes, I voted for McAfee.

  94. Matt

    “Didn’t Glenn Beck and Andy Jacobs endorse DC 16, btw?”

    Beck endorsed just about every candidate that was not a Democrat, Socialist or Green at some point in the campaign. There must have been at least a dozen or more.

  95. Tony From Long Island

    So yeah, you didn’t vote for your beloved party’s candidate. The accused murderer was a much better choice.

  96. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    December 13, 2016 at 05:13
    AJ, please put some numbers to the ballot access and previously spending levels so we can actually make a comparison.”

    It would help if you did some of your own homework instead of always asking others to do it for you.

    I have been following this stuff for a long time, and I know that the Constitution Party and their presidential candidate was on the ballot in less states and spent less money than in past presidential elections, possibly all of them, but maybe it was just some of them. I don’t have all of the figures memorized nor do I have a reference manual handy to look them up quickly.

    “Didn’t Glenn Beck and Andy Jacobs endorse DC 16, btw?”

    I did end up endorsing and voting for Darrell Castle for President. I voted for the Libertarian Party candidates who were on my ballot for other offices (there were three of them besides the presidential ticket, who I boycotted), and I wrote in None Of The Above for everything else (Democrat vs Republican races).

    I endorsed Darryl W. Perry for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination, and I voted for him at the LP National Convention in Orlando. I thought about writing him in for President, but I did not end up doing it because the place where I voted does not consistently tally write in votes.

    I don’t think that Glenn Beck ended up endorsing Darrell Castle. I think that he acted like he was going to endorse Castle, and then he revoked it. I think that he did the same thing to Austin Petersen for the LP’s presidential nomination. I think that Beck may have ended up endorsing Evan McMullin, but I’ve have to look that up to be sure.

  97. Matt

    ” Nice to know you didn’t vote for your own party’s candidate.” Neither did you. You’re a Democrat and voted for Johnson, correct? It happens. I’m an independent libertarian who voted Green. Andy is a Libertarian who voted Constitution Party. People cross those lines all the time.

  98. George Phillies

    Tony, Y

    You seem to be being a bit slow this morning.

    At the time I did not vote for Johnson, Johnson was not the candidate. We were still settling who the candidate would be.

    McAfee was indeed a much better choice. However,if you were bothered by that issue, I would say that Feldman would have been a better choice for you.

    George

  99. Matt

    ” I think that Beck may have ended up endorsing Evan McMullin, but I’ve have to look that up to be sure.”

    Even Glenn Beck would probably have to look it up. He changed his mind so many times, how could he keep track?

  100. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tony,

    McAfee has never been charged with murder, and according to the regime in Belize, he is not a suspect in the murder you are presumably referring to.

    All of that moonshine amounted to one thing, and one thing only from a political standpoint: A great way of attracting attention to a candidate.

    If McAfee had been the LP nominee and had brought his usual personality to the national discussion, my guess is he would have racked up 10-15 million votes. But that’s just a guess.

  101. Tony From Long Island

    GK . . . I’m a convicted felon . . . so I guess the murderer would be just fine with me.

    I admit, I thought you meant that you voted for McAfee in November. When you said the following in response to me: ” . . . . . ” Nice to know you didn’t vote for your own party’s candidate.” Yes, I voted for McAfee. . . . . ” it gave me the impression you voted for McAfree in November. . . maybe I AM a bit slow this morning.
    ————————————————————-

    Matt, touche for calling me out on my apparent hypocrisy. However, I never had a bad word to say about my party’s nominee . . . at the same time I have few nice words to say about her other than I prefer her by far to the person who apparently received more electoral votes.

  102. Tony From Long Island

    TK ” . . . . . If McAfee had been the LP nominee and had brought his usual personality to the national discussion, my guess is he would have racked up 10-15 million votes. But that’s just a guess. . . . . ”

    I have to respectfully disagree with you there. I found his speaking style kind of spooky (but not as spooky and creepy as Perry) and not much more effective than Gov. Johnson. Just my opinion.

    Every see Will Forte in his old SNL “Tim Calhoun” candidate skit. That is what McAfee reminded me of.

  103. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “If McAfee had been the LP nominee and had brought his usual personality to the national discussion, my guess is he would have racked up 10-15 million votes. But that’s just a guess.”

    McAfee would have been a better candidate than Gary Johnson. Team John McAfee up with either Larry Sharpe, Will Coley, Judd Weiss, or Derrick Grayson (I did not care for his last minute party hopping, but even so, he was preferable to Bill Weld) and it would have been a much better ticket than Gary Johnson/Bill Weld.

    John McAfee as the LP’s presidential candidate may very well have gotten more votes than Gary Johnson, but even if he got less votes, I bet that he’d have run a more libertarian campaign, and that he would not have damaged the LP’s “street cred” with the liberty movement in this country like Johnson/Weld did.

    Getting votes is nice, but just getting votes for the sake of getting votes should not be our purpose. Our purpose should be to get votes while spreading a libertarian message, and winning as many new converts to the libertarian message as possible, and you don’t do this by running candidates like Johnson/Weld, who either don’t understand the libertarian message, or don’t agree with the libertarian message.

  104. Andy

    Tony From Long Island said: “I have to respectfully disagree with you there. I found his speaking style kind of spooky (but not as spooky and creepy as Perry) and not much more effective than Gov. Johnson. Just my opinion.”

    John McAfee and Darryl Perry were better public speakers than Gary Johnson. The same goes with Austin Petersen and the late Dr. Feldman. Johnson was clearly the worst public speaker and debater on stage at the national convention.

    Funny how you keep knocking Perry’s speaking ability, when Perry actually uses his speaking ability to earn a living as a radio host.

  105. Tony From Long island

    Andy . . .that might just be the most “normal” post I have read from you. No conspiracy theories, not hyperbole – just a fair rationed opinion. I don’t agree with your opinion, but at least it was concise and to the point. . wow. I’m amazed.

    https://soundcloud.com/user-831858763 <—– I posted a few new songs

  106. Tony From Long Island

    Of course I was referring to your first of the last two posts.

    I earned a living as a singer and a voice teacher, but I have only an average singing voice . . . . . so what?

    What actual radio station is his show on? That is a serious question. I am curious.

    So, I don’t like his speaking style . . oh well. I must not be alone. He couldn’t garner more than a few votes from even his own party. Guess his style isn’t as effective as you would like it to me.

    I would listen to all of TK’s podcast thingies before I had to site through more than a few minutes of Perry. I usually enjoy his podcasts.

    To me he comes across as a caricature of a righteous zealot. Again . . . just my impression.

  107. Thomas L. Knapp

    “What actual radio station is his show on? That is a serious question. I am curious.”

    It’s on around 170 stations, as well as free satellite, etc. Last time I checked the Talkers top 50 list, it was the 38th ranked show in US talk radio. It’s called Free Talk Live.

  108. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    December 13, 2016 at 12:34
    Of course I was referring to your first of the last two posts.

    I earned a living as a singer and a voice teacher, but I have only an average singing voice . . . . . so what?

    What actual radio station is his show on? That is a serious question. I am curious.”

    Darryl Perry is one of the co-hosts of Free Talk Live. The primary hosts are Ian Freeman and Mark Edge, but they have three or four other hosts that are on the show different days. Free Talk Live in on 7 days a week, and Perry is on there frequently.

    The last I heard, Free Talk Live is on something like 150-160 radio stations. There are also people who listen to Free Talk Live online or over their cell phones (they have a free listen line that people can call).

    Darryl Perry also does his own show. He’s got a daily short news segment called The FPP Radio News (FPP stands for Free Press Publications which is the name of a newspaper he puts out). This show runs about 5 minutes and is repeated several times throughout the day. He also does a longer show called The Peace, Love, and Liberty Show, or something like that. I think he does this show like once or twice a week and runs about 30 minutes, maybe an hour.

    I am not sure how many radio stations carry Darryl Perry’s shows. It is probably a lot less than carry Free Talk Live. Perry’s shows and Free Talk Live are both on the Liberty Radio Network ( http://lrn.fm/ ). You can listen to The Liberty Radio Network online, or over a cell phone (they have a free call in number, which is 641-793-9660 or 712-775-8114).

    I just checked The Liberty Radio Network website, and according to the site, The Liberty Radio Network is only carried on 13 commercial radio markets, but they also have this thing called the AMP Program where people donate money to put up micro stations so more people can hear their programs. I am not sure how many of these micro stations they have running, but I’ve heard that they have people who are broadcasting their shows outside the US, in places like Africa.

    I have been listening to The Liberty Radio Network for several years, mostly over my cell phone (I put it in loud speaker mode). Alex Jones also have a free listen line (the number is 712-432-9366). It is not like I listen to either of them 24/7, but I usually check in with these shows a few times per week (sometimes more often than others).

    Some of the shows on The Liberty Radio Network are better than others, in my opinion. Other shows on The Liberty Radio Network that I sometimes listen to beyond Free Talk Live and Darryl Perry’s shows, who are two of the better shows that they carry, are Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock and Marc Stevens’ The No State Project. Rodger Paxton’s The LAVA Flow (LAVA stands for Libertarian, Anarchist, Voluntaryist, Agorist / http://thelavaflow.com/ ) podcast was recently picked up by The Liberty Radio Network, and his show is good

    “So, I don’t like his speaking style . . oh well. I must not be alone. He couldn’t garner more than a few votes from even his own party. Guess his style isn’t as effective as you would like it to me.”

    I bet that you’ve never even listened to any of Darryl Perry’s radio shows. How about you take the time to actually listen to his shows a few times before you knock him?

    I don’t think that the number of votes Perry got at the LP national convention means that he’s not a good public speaker, nor does it mean that a lot of Libertarians do not like what he says. I think that it has more to do with too many LP members, particularly the ones who show up at national conventions (and some of the people who were delegates joined the party not long before the convention, and I am not convinced that some of those Johnson/Weld delegates were even really libertarians, I suspect that some of them are people who just joined the party so they could vote for Johnson/Weld at the convention), are shiny badge worshipers, as in they are more impressed with fancy credentials/titles than they are with libertarian ideology or ability to communicate the libertarian message. This is more of an internal dysfunction within the Libertarian Party than it is a problem with Darryl Perry.

    I spoke to several Johnson/Weld delegates who ADMITTED to me that they think that Darryl Perry is a good public speaker, some even ADMITTED that he’s a better speaker than Gary Johnson. Their problems with Perry were not based on his speaking ability. They were more about his lack of money and lack of fancy credentials, and/or his manner of dress and hair style (both of which were things that could have easily been fixed).

    “I would listen to all of TK’s podcast thingies before I had to site through more than a few minutes of Perry. I usually enjoy his podcasts.”

    Tom Knapp’s Knappster podcast was recently picked up by The Liberty Radio Network. I called in to the LRN listen line sometime within the last several weeks, and I was like, “Hey, that’s Tom Knapp.”

    “To me he comes across as a caricature of a righteous zealot. Again . . . just my impression.”

    I will take the principled righteous zealot Darryl W. Perry over the unprincipled bumbling buffoon Gary Johnson any day.

  109. Tony From Long Island

    TK: ” . . . . . And thanks for the podcast compliment! . . . . . ”

    Even after you called me a sucker today!

  110. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    December 13, 2016 at 13:17
    ‘What actual radio station is his show on? That is a serious question. I am curious.’

    It’s on around 170 stations, as well as free satellite, etc. Last time I checked the Talkers top 50 list, it was the 38th ranked show in US talk radio. It’s called Free Talk Live.”

    Like I pointed out above, the primary hosts of Free Talk Live are Ian Freeman and Mark Edge. Darryl Perry is one of a revolving staff of 3 or 4 other people who co-host the show. Perry is on there several times per week though.

    If Free Talk Live was The Darryl Perry Show, and was on the same number of radio stations, Darryl Perry would be a lot more well known.

  111. Tony From Long Island

    Andy” . . . . I bet that you’ve never even listened to any of Darryl Perry’s radio shows. How about you take the time to actually listen to his shows a few times before you knock him? . . . . . ”

    I don’t need to listen to his shows to know I dislike his speaking style. I’ve heard him actually speak enough. That great interview he did where his insulted the host . . . classic . . . . Plus, I disagree with about 95% of what he says, so why would I listen to his show?

    Andy” . . . . . Their problems with Perry were not based on his speaking ability. They were more about his lack of money and lack of fancy credentials, and/or his manner of dress and hair style (both of which were things that could have easily been fixed). . . . . .”

    And you were doing so well today . . . Those things might be sorta true, but they were far outweighed by his actual stances on issues and the desire to actually have people vote for the LP candidate.

    I will let the Alex Jones appearance in your post go . . . .

  112. Tony From Long Island

    Andrew: ” . . . . If Free Talk Live was The Darryl Perry Show, and was on the same number of radio stations, Darryl Perry would be a lot more well known. . . . . ”

    But it’s not. So saying he has his own radio show is a bit misleading.

  113. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    Darryl recently started co-hosting the show much more often. IIRC, Mark Edge decided to go sail around the world or something and Darryl stepped up to be on several nights a week.

    The news update he does via FPP is pretty much what used to be the standard top of the hour network news feed on radio stations. He even talks in the same sort of neutral voice as those guys did. I don’t know if he markets the update to terrestrial radio or not, but if so I would expect him to have some interest from stations that aren’t necessarily network-affiliated. He does a good job on it.

    On Free Talk Live, he is sometimes teased by the other hosts as being rather pedantic, and that’s not completely unfair. He likes to intervene to get the facts straight when someone starts going off the rails.

    In my opinion, his campaign made several positive contributions to the LP now and in the future.

    One of them, the most obvious, is that he allowed the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party to have a horse in the nomination race.

    Another is that he contributed to holding Johnson/Weld off. That they did not get first ballot wins is positive for two reasons:

    – The states which were carried by candidates other than Johnson/Weld will likely get more attention from future “inevitable” candidates. I know Darryl won New Hampshire on both ballots, and IIRC he carried another state or two as well at least on the first ballot. McAfee carried, to the best of my recollection, Vermont. I think there are good reasons for wanting to force future would-be LP presidential nominees to campaign heavily in those two states, especially New Hampshire (in fact, I would LOVE for us to move the nomination up to odd years so that our nominee is campaigning AS THE NOMINEE in New Hampshire right when the Democrats and Republicans are going for their own parties’ nominations).

    – Having a convention that is not a coronation means the party likely gets more attention. A little uncertainty about the outcome is simply more exciting to watch than a bunch of boring platform votes and then a dog and pony show as the guy everyone knew would win gets the nod in one vote. And it’s also good for later ammunition. We made a huge mistake nominating Bob Barr in 2008, but at least we could tell people who were appalled by that “at least we were able to hold him off for six ballots,” establishing that he was not the preferred pick of a LOT of Libertarians.

  114. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    December 13, 2016 at 13:54
    Andy ‘. . . . I bet that you’ve never even listened to any of Darryl Perry’s radio shows. How about you take the time to actually listen to his shows a few times before you knock him?’

    I don’t need to listen to his shows to know I dislike his speaking style. I’ve heard him actually speak enough. That great interview he did where his insulted the host . . . classic . . . . Plus, I disagree with about 95% of what he says, so why would I listen to his show?”

    Translation of what Tony said above: “I don’t want to have to think or give anyone a fair chance, my mind is already made up, so I am just going to stick my fingers in my ears and knock Darryl Perry’s radio shows even though I have never actually listened to them.”

    “Andy ‘ . . . . . Their problems with Perry were not based on his speaking ability. They were more about his lack of money and lack of fancy credentials, and/or his manner of dress and hair style (both of which were things that could have easily been fixed).’

    And you were doing so well today . . . Those things might be sorta true, but they were far outweighed by his actual stances on issues and the desire to actually have people vote for the LP candidate.”

    Unlike you, I was actually at the Libertarian National Convention in Orlando. I actually talked to numerous convention delegates. I overheard the conversations of numerous convention delegates. So given that you were NOT there, and that I was there, I’d say that what I say about this carries a lot more weight than what you say.

    Yes, some Johnson delegates, as well as some of the other delegates, did think that Darryl Perry’s very radical libertarian platform may scare some people away, BUT THIS WAS NOT THE PRIMARY REASON WHY MORE PEOPLE DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM.

    The primary reasons that more people did not vote for him had to do with his lack of money/name recognition/credentials, than it had to do with his views. There were some delegates who voted for other candidates, including some of the Johnson delegates, who ADMITTED to me that they agreed with Perry’s views, and some of them even ADMITTED that Perry was the most libertarian candidate for the presidential nomination.

    If Darryl Perry had more name recognition, and more money, like let’s say that he was a lot more well known from his radio shows and other endeavors than he is now, he’d have gotten a lot more votes at the convention, and he may have even won the nomination.

    “I will let the Alex Jones appearance in your post go . . . .”

    Alex Jones is an excellent radio host, and I think that this is true even if you don’t agree with his views. I rate Alex Jones as the best talk radio host that there is right now. I can’t think of anyone who does political talk radio better than Alex Jones.

    I do not like Rush Limbaugh, but I consider him to be a good radio host. I used to listen to his show back in the 1990’s, and I even watched his short lived TV show (anyone remember that?) back in the 1990’s, and I read a couple of his books, but I always thought that he was a shill for the Republican establishment and I never agreed with a lot of what he said (although I did agree with some of what he said). I think that I first listened to Rush Limbaugh back during the build up to the 1992 election after a Republican friend I had at the time told me about his show. I thought that he was full of shit about 50% of the time, and I remember cringing when he did an introduction speech for George W. Bush at some speaking engagement during the 1992 campaign season where he introduced George HW Bush as being, “A good, decent, honest man.” or something like that. Even though I never agreed with Rush Limbaugh on a lot of the things he said, and even though I always considered him to be a hypocrite, I thought that he was an entertaining radio host.

    I did not vote in the 1992 election, but if I did vote in that election I would have voted for Ross Perot. I did not really know anything about the Libertarian Party until I stumbled up the Libertarian National Convention on C-SPAN during the 4th of July weekend in 1996. After I discovered the Harry Browne and the Libertarian Party, I immediately dropped Ross Perot and the Reform Party.

    I still occasionally listened to The Rush Limbaugh Show after this, but as I got more and more into the Libertarian Party and movement I became more and more disgusted with Rush Limbaugh, and I got to the point where I could not stomach listening to him anymore, but this was not because I thought that he was not a good radio host, but rather because I did not like his hypocrisy and his shilling for the Republican establishment, and I did not like some of the views that he espoused (although I did agree with some of the things that he said).

    So even though I do not like Rush Limbaugh, I take nothing away from him as a radio host.

  115. Andy

    Tony From Long Island
    December 13, 2016 at 14:09
    Andrew: ‘ . . . . If Free Talk Live was The Darryl Perry Show, and was on the same number of radio stations, Darryl Perry would be a lot more well known. . . . . ‘

    But it’s not. So saying he has his own radio show is a bit misleading.”

    Scroll back up and read my post again. Darryl Perry DOES have two of his own shows. He’s got the FPP Radio News show, and the Peace, Love, and Liberty show. Perry is also a co-host of Free Talk Live, but he does not own that show, as it is owned by Ian Freeman and Mark Edge, but Perry one of the regular co-hosts of this show.

  116. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: ” . . . .Translation of what Tony said above: “I don’t want to have to think or give anyone a fair chance, my mind is already made up, so I am just going to stick my fingers in my ears and knock Darryl Perry’s radio shows even though I have never actually listened to them.” . . . ”

    Yes, my mind is made up. I read and listened to everything libertarian for almost 20 years. Even when I considered myself a Libertarian I disagreed with guys like Darryl Perry. I left the LP for several reasons, one being I couldn’t take the self-righteousness of the “purists.” They have no nuance. There is no grey. It’s all or nothing. It doesn’t work – it will never work.

    Additionally, being incarcerated played a part in changing my views. Living amongst different people with different backgrounds. Knowing people on public assistance and then needing it myself.

    I still have libertarian views on the drug war and foreign policy and probably bits and pieces here and there

    So, no. I don’t need to listen to Darryl Perry to know it wouldn’t change my mind on much. Plus, why would I listen to someone who’s speaking style I dislike intensely? That just isn’t logical.

  117. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    December 13, 2016 at 14:26
    Andy,

    Darryl recently started co-hosting the show much more often. IIRC, Mark Edge decided to go sail around the world or something and Darryl stepped up to be on several nights a week.”

    Are you sure that he is still on the trip? I had not heard anything about him going on a trip, I had heard that he was going to spend more time looking for new advertisers and trying to get on new radio stations than hosting the show. Regardless of this, I know that Mark Edge has been on Free Talk Live recently because I have called in to the show and got put on the air a few times in the last few months, and one of those time was within the last 2 or 3 weeks, and Mark Edge was one of the people who was hosting the show the last time I called in and got on the air.

    “The news update he does via FPP is pretty much what used to be the standard top of the hour network news feed on radio stations. He even talks in the same sort of neutral voice as those guys did. I don’t know if he markets the update to terrestrial radio or not, but if so I would expect him to have some interest from stations that aren’t necessarily network-affiliated. He does a good job on it.”

    I think that Perry does an excellent job with his FPP Radio News segment. FPP Radio News is a short (around 5 minutes) daily synopsis of freedom oriented news. If you are a busy person, and you’ve only got a short about of time to listen to any political talk radio or podcast, then I’d say that Darryl Perry’s FPP Radio News segment is probably the best show for you.

    “On Free Talk Live, he is sometimes teased by the other hosts as being rather pedantic, and that’s not completely unfair. He likes to intervene to get the facts straight when someone starts going off the rails.”

    Hahaha! I have been accused of the same thing myself.

  118. Andy

    Tony said: “So, no. I don’t need to listen to Darryl Perry to know it wouldn’t change my mind on much. Plus, why would I listen to someone who’s speaking style I dislike intensely? That just isn’t logical.”

    I don’t see what Darryl Perry’s views have to do with his speaking style or his ability as a radio host.

    Like I said above, I don’t like Rush Limbaugh, but I can still give him credit for being a good radio host.

    Adolf Hitler was one of the greatest public speakers of all time, but this does not mean that I think that he was a wonderful human being or that I endorse his politics, because I do not.

    Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan are three of the slickest politicians that I’ve ever seen, but this does not mean that I like any of them.

  119. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: ” I don’t see what Darryl Perry’s views have to do with his speaking style or his ability as a radio host. . . . .”

    I didn’t say it did. It’s like making me listen to a CD by Bob Dylan. I don’t like his voice. Why would I listen? You couldn’t pay me to listen to Patty Smith. Her voice is awful in my opinion.

    I already disagree with 90% of Perry’s views, so why would I listen to him, especially considering that I don’t like his voice.

  120. Tony From Long Island

    Andy . . . ” . . . .Adolf Hitler was one of the greatest public speakers of all time, but this does not mean that I think that he was a wonderful human being or that I endorse his politics, because I do not. . . . ”

    Really? You’re gonna go there? *sigh*

  121. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    December 13, 2016 at 15:33
    Andy: ‘I don’t see what Darryl Perry’s views have to do with his speaking style or his ability as a radio host. . . . .’

    I didn’t say it did. It’s like making me listen to a CD by Bob Dylan. I don’t like his voice. Why would I listen? You couldn’t pay me to listen to Patty Smith. Her voice is awful in my opinion.”

    You are the only Darryl Perry critic that I have ever heard who has said that they don’t live his voice.

    “I already disagree with 90% of Perry’s views, so why would I listen to him, especially considering that I don’t like his voice.”

    I don’t see how anyone could be any kind of libertarian, or libertarian leaner, and disagree so vehemently with Darryl W. Perry. I can understand somebody being a moderate libertarian, or a libertarian leaner, and thinking that Perry’s views are too radical, and I can even see a person being a hardcore libertarian, and being fearful that Perry’s views are so radically libertarian that they may scare some people away, but I do not see how a person could be any kind of libertarian, or libertarian leaner, and be as strongly opposed to Darryl Perry’s views as you are.

    It should be pretty clear that the Libertarian Party is not for you. I think that I can speak for others in the LP by saying that we are not going to change our views to accommodate somebody like yourself.

    You are a better fit for the Democratic Party or some other party, perhaps some moderate or centrist party, than you are for the Libertarian Party.

    I find it odd that you spend so much time coming to this website and posting on threads about the Libertarian Party when your views are so out of step with Libertarians.

    “Tony From Long Island
    December 13, 2016 at 15:34
    Andy . . . ‘ . . . .Adolf Hitler was one of the greatest public speakers of all time, but this does not mean that I think that he was a wonderful human being or that I endorse his politics, because I do not. . . . ‘

    Really? You’re gonna go there? *sigh*”

    Saying that a person is a good public speaker, has NOTHING to do with the content of their speech, or the content of their character.

  122. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: ” . . . .I can understand somebody being a moderate libertarian, or a libertarian leaner, and thinking that Perry’s views are too radical . . . .”

    Yes, that about sums it up. His answers during the debate were straight awful.

    Andy: ” . . .It should be pretty clear that the Libertarian Party is not for you. I think that I can speak for others in the LP by saying that we are not going to change our views to accommodate somebody like yourself. . . . ”

    HA! ya think? I left the LP a few years ago. I have no intention of rejoining. However, I will always have a soft spot for libertarians and several libertarian points of view. I have no soft spot for you, however, you are a complete wack job.

    Andy: ” . . . .You are a better fit for the Democratic Party or some other party, perhaps some moderate or centrist party, than you are for the Libertarian Party. . . . ”

    Do you read my posts or just fume with anger about me? I have been a registered Democrat since I was 18. I joined the LP later that year (since you could not register as LP in New York then) after seeing Andre Marrou speak on C-SPAN. I have voted for LP and Dem candidates my entire life and only ONCE for a republican (Rick Lazio in 2000 for senate over Hillary). I have stated this many times. I read all the literature. I heard all the arguments. I realized quickly that I would be in the “moderate” wing.

    Andy: ” . . . .I find it odd that you spend so much time coming to this website and posting on threads about the Libertarian Party when your views are so out of step with Libertarians. . . . ”

    *sigh* not all of my views are out of step. Several of my views fit just fine within the “moderate libertarian” label,. I just can’t stomach the purists and went back home to the DP. Will I still vote for an occasional Libertarian? Probably. Depends on which issues they stress. I would not have voted for Gov. Johnson if I hold NO libertarian views.

    Do you want to keep preaching to the choir on here or would you not prefer any opposing viewpoints?

    Enough for today. Work is almost over.

  123. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: ” . . . . “don’t live his voice.” . . . . Should read, “don’t like his voice…”

    We All KNOW this. It was obvious from the context. Why do you INSIST on doing that? I’m not the only person who has let you know that this is highly annoying and unnecessary. You can tell when you need to make a correction. This was NOT one of those times.

    G.nite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  124. Andy

    Tony said: “HA! ya think? I left the LP a few years ago.”

    When exactly did you leave the Libertarian Party? I want to cross-reference your name with the party membership records with the time period when you claim you left the party. I still suspect that you are bullshitting us. So here is your chance to prove that you really were an LP member.

  125. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    December 13, 2016 at 16:21
    Andy: ‘. . . .I can understand somebody being a moderate libertarian, or a libertarian leaner, and thinking that Perry’s views are too radical . . . .’

    Yes, that about sums it up. His answers during the debate were straight awful.”

    And Gary “I don’t know” Johnson’s answers were good? Hahaha!

    I encountered random members of the public over the summer who, without me saying anything to prompt them, came up to me and made negative comments about Gary Johnson giving stupid and/or un-libertarian answers to questions in debates and interviews.

  126. Andy

    Tony said: ” I realized quickly that I would be in the ‘moderate’ wing.”

    Moderate wing of which party? The Democratic Party. Your views do not even really fit in with moderate libertarians.

  127. Robert Capozzi

    AJ: It would help if you did some of your own homework instead of always asking others to do it for you.

    Me: ok, except YOU made the claim without providing ANY support. IF you are correct, it has implications for the LP. Perhaps they shouldn’t push for 50-state access and more funds. If DC did better with less, there might be a case that there’s a negative ROI for marginal access and funds, counterintuitive as it sounds.

  128. Matt

    “I want to cross-reference your name with the party membership records with the time period when you claim you left the party. ”

    You have access to the party membership records? Who gave you such access, when, and why?

  129. Matt

    ” IF you are correct, it has implications for the LP. Perhaps they shouldn’t push for 50-state access and more funds. If DC did better with less, there might be a case that there’s a negative ROI for marginal access and funds, counterintuitive as it sounds.”

    Doesn’t follow. Third parties of all sorts of different ideologies did better in 2016. Johnson and Stein both tripled their votes from 2012. The Constitution Party did better than in 2012, despite slightly worse ballot access, but did not increase its margin as much as the Libertarians or Greens, who both had slightly better ballot access than in 2012. The Reform Party, socialist Gloria LaRiva, even the Prohibition Party did better than four years ago.

  130. Matt

    “We All KNOW this. It was obvious from the context. Why do you INSIST on doing that? I’m not the only person who has let you know that this is highly annoying and unnecessary. You can tell when you need to make a correction. This was NOT one of those times.”

    I agree with Tony here.

  131. Thomas L. Knapp

    Moreover, why would he abuse such access in order to stalk people he disagrees with?

    The LNC has a severe aversion to transparency in general. That’s usually a bad thing, but hopefully it extends to not letting every yahoo with an ax to grind go through the LPHQ files.

  132. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi
    December 13, 2016 at 17:32
    ‘AJ: It would help if you did some of your own homework instead of always asking others to do it for you.’

    Me: ok, except YOU made the claim without providing ANY support.”

    You do this frequently here. That is that you want everyone else to do your homework for you. How about YOU look things up for a change?

    ” IF you are correct, it has implications for the LP. Perhaps they shouldn’t push for 50-state access and more funds. If DC did better with less, there might be a case that there’s a negative ROI for marginal access and funds, counterintuitive as it sounds.”

    This is a rather ridiculous conclusion to draw from this.

    The dynamics of this election were such that the market conditions were favorable for minor party and independent candidates in general, more so than most elections. Jill Stein of the Green Party received over 1.4 million votes, which is the 2nd best showing in Green Party presidential candidate history, second only to Ralph Nader, who was far more well known and better funded than Jill Stein. Evan McMullin received over 600,000 votes and he was only on the ballot in 10 states. I have heard that there were more write in votes than normal, and that lots of people wrote in Bernie Sanders for President even though Bernie was not even running in the general election.

    So yeah, Darrell Castle did relatively well due to the unusually favorable dynamics of this election for minor party and independent candidates, and I’m sure I’m not the only disgruntled Libertarian out there who was upset with the Johnson/Weld ticket and who voted for Darrell Castle for President. If anything, the view that SHOULD BE taken away from this is the importance of gaining ballot access, because just imagine how much better Darrell Castle would have done had he been on the ballot in more states. ,

  133. Andy

    “Matt
    December 13, 2016 at 17:38
    ‘I want to cross-reference your name with the party membership records with the time period when you claim you left the party. ‘

    You have access to the party membership records? Who gave you such access, when, and why?”

    I have done fundraising before, so I have lists with contact information for lots of Libertarians. I also know other people who have other lists.

    Do I have a list of everyone who has ever been a member of the Libertarian Party? No, but I know lots of people, and if Tony was really an LP member and if he would give the time period of the last time he paid membership dues to the party, I may be able to put the word out to certain people and we may be able to verify whether or not he is full of shit.

  134. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    December 13, 2016 at 17:45
    Moreover, why would he abuse such access in order to stalk people he disagrees with?”

    I did not say this because I have any interest in “stalking” Tony. I would be willing to debate him in public, but beyond that, I really have no interest in meeting him or having anything to do with him. I have reasons to believe that he is not being honest with us here, so he made a claim about being a former Libertarian Party member, and I’d like to verify whether or not his claim is true.

    There are plenty of people here who can verify that I have been a Libertarian Party member for a long time, and there are lots of people here who have met me or seen me at LP meetings/conventions over the years.

    Tony claims that he was a dues paying LP member in the past, so let’s see him back up this claim. Is there even one person here who knows or has heard of him?

    There has been a lot of weird shit that has gone on here with trolling of which most of you people are not aware. The only people who post here who’d know what I am talking about are Paul and Jill.

  135. Matt

    ” I have reasons to believe that he is not being honest with us here”

    What are they? He seems completely believable to me. Sure, there are plenty of things we don’t agree on but the same can be said of anyone else here, including you.

  136. Andy

    Maybe Tony is who he says he is, and maybe he really was a member of the LP, but given his bizarre behavior, and given all of the other weird shit that has gone on here and in conjunction with this stuff (and outside of Paul and Jill, nobody else here has enough details to make an informed comment), I have reasons to suspect that Tony is not being honest with us.

  137. Andy

    “Matt
    December 13, 2016 at 18:01
    ‘ I have reasons to believe that he is not being honest with us here’

    What are they? He seems completely believable to me. Sure, there are plenty of things we don’t agree on but the same can be said of anyone else here, including you.”

    It is too much to get into right now. Maybe at some point down the road those of us in the know about the weird stuff that has gone on in conjunction with the IPR trolling will do an article or a video or audio interview to reveal the things of which the rest of the regular posters here are not aware.

  138. Matt

    I haven’t noticed any bizarre behavior. Do you have examples? I am open minded but so far you are not very convincing.

  139. Andy

    If Tony is on the “up and up” then he should have no problem proving that he’s a former Libertarian Party member. Surely somebody in the party must know who he is.

    I know that most of the people who post here who are Libertarians are really LP members because they have been involved in the party for a long time, and I have either met most of them in person, or have at least seen most of them in person.

    I have never heard of Tony From Long Island. He made a claim. now let’s see if his claim can be verified.

    I am the first to admit that my suspicions about him could be wrong, but he’s done enough to set off my bullshit detector, in large part because of all of the other weird shit that has happened here on IPR and in conjunction with this stuff outside of IPR, so this is why I am raising the question.

  140. Andy

    “Matt
    December 13, 2016 at 18:10
    I haven’t noticed any bizarre behavior. Do you have examples? I am open minded but so far you are not very convincing.”

    Then you do not have enough information to make an informed comment.

  141. Matt

    According to what he has said in the past he was a member but did not go to meetings. And, indeed, there are more members who don’t go to meetings than ones who do. So, that part seems eminently believable. There are more former members than current members. Seems believable. He evolved away from LP beliefs somewhat. Seems believable; I know plenty of people who did that. It would make sense that someone who evolved away from LP beliefs would no longer be a member. There are a lot more people who vote for LP candidates than there are LP members, and a lot more people who vote LP some but not all of the time – again, none of it seems hard to believe. If he did not go to meetings and was just a basic member, it seems unlikely that anyone here would know him or that he would be on your fundraising lists. So far I see no reason for suspicion. What have I missed?

    “….he’s done enough to set off my bullshit detector….”

    Like what? Any examples? Or is it just that he’s not in full agreement with all libertarian beliefs and did not go to LP meetings even when he was a member?

  142. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I’d like to verify whether or not his claim is true.”

    And I’d like to verify that Mila Kunis isn’t lying when she reports her bra size as 32B.

    But apart from public statements on the matter, her bra size is none of my fucking business and whether or not Tony was ever a dues-paying LP member is none of your fucking business.

  143. Andy

    Tom, if you had received anonymous death threats from online trolls, and had some other weird and destructive things happen like what I have been through, it might cause you to change your mind.

  144. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Tom, if you had received anonymous death threats from online trolls, and had some other weird and destructive things happen like what I have been through, it might cause you to change your mind.”

    The next year I have without at least two anonymous death threats from online trolls will be the first since 1994.

    Finding out whether or not Tony has ever been a dues-paying member has nothing to do with whether or not you’ve had anonymous death threats from online trolls, except to the extent that you are seizing on that as an excuse to stick your nose in other people’s business.

    He says he used to be a dues-paying LP member. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t. It doesn’t particularly matter. Believe him or don’t believe him. I doubt he gives a damn which.

  145. paulie Post author

    And I’d like to verify that Mila Kunis isn’t lying when she reports her bra size as 32B.

    I’ll have to do some investigation.

  146. robert capozzi

    aj: How about YOU look things up for a change?

    me: Oh, I have many times. The protocol I follow is if I make an empirical claim, I cite my reasons for my conclusions.

    When someone else makes an empirical claim, my expectation is the advocate would display a similar courtesy. If you don’t care to, then we have no idea if you vague memory is correct or faulty.

    I tend to agree with you that 2016 was an odd year, one where all protest candidates did better than usual. In that sense, it could be that we have almost nothing to learn from this aberration.

    Certainly, the credentialed non-fringe L ticket got the most media than the other protest candidates. That may be a takeaway. That you and possibly a few thousand L voters voted CP seems a low price to pay for credibility.

  147. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: ” . . . . . but given his bizarre behavior . . . . ”

    Come now Andrew. You are the last one to speak of someone exhibiting “bizarre behavior.”

    I offered to show you a picture of me with old issues of LP news, but you declined. If I recall correctly, they didn’t just send them to anyone. You had to be a dues paying member. That’s really the only sort of proof I have. If you don’t like it, I honestly don’t give a shit.

    The only person on here who I have anything other than a spirited back and forth is you. Why is that? Why are you obsessed with knowing who I am rather than why you are disliked?

    I am sure that Jill is not a big fan of me either, but (at least I feel) that it has never been personal. I have much respect for Jill’s passion even though we generally disagree. You . . . . I have no respect for. Get over it.

    You are so obsessed with discrediting me that you really don’t read what I post anymore. I clearly have “moderate libertarian” positions on several issues:

    1) Foreign Policy – I think the US should remove troops from almost every overseas base we occupy.

    2) Immigration – I have no problem with completely open borders and a much more simplified system for becoming a citizen. I welcome anyone who wants to come here, for the most part

    3) Drug Policy – I am for legalization of most drugs and treating drug use as a medical issue rather than criminal

    4) Incarceration – I am for shortening sentences of non-violent offenders. Although I know from first-hand experience that prisons are not “full of non-violent drug offenders,” I also know that extended incarceration for the sake of incarceration has no deterrent effect. I only serves to raise corrections budgets.

    5) Federal Justice Dept. – All “federal crimes” that are also a crime in each of the 50 states should be repealed and left to the states to handle.

    There are probably other places where I overlap slightly with libertarians, but, as I said, my politics has shifted left over the years. I still consistently score on the line between libertarian and liberal on Nolan Tests.

  148. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: ” . . .. if you had received anonymous death threats from online trolls, . . . . ”

    I hope you are not referring to me. I have NEVER threatened you. I would NEVER threaten you. Violence in any form is anathema to me.

    The last time I was in a fight was in 8th grade when I jumped a bully after years of abuse from him and his friends. Other than being sucker punched many times by corrections officers, 1988 was the last time I had any punches anywhere near my vicinity.

    I dislike you, but I do not wish you harm. I don’t know you other than just some wack job who posts on here. Other than that, I couldn’t care less about you.

    Feel free to equally dislike me, but do not accuse me of threatening you. I have not done so and will never do so.

    I wish you a long life of paranoid conspiracy theory investigating.

  149. paulie Post author

    I tend to agree with you that 2016 was an odd year, one where all protest candidates did better than usual. In that sense, it could be that we have almost nothing to learn from this aberration.

    It may just be the bare beginning of a growing trend.

  150. Tony From Long Island

    I tend to agree with Paulie. Young people do not have the connection to parties like previous generations.

    I don’t like that I usually dismiss things said or done by Republicans out of hand. It’s a bad habit. I hope that younger people don’t do that as with any party or candidate.

    Hopefully they will start giving other candidates a longer look.

  151. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “Certainly, the credentialed non-fringe L ticket got the most media than the other protest candidates. That may be a takeaway. That you and possibly a few thousand L voters voted CP seems a low price to pay for credibility.”

    Robert, you are forgetting about all of the Libertarians and small “l” libertarians that a) did not vote at all, b) voted for one of the major party candidates (most likely Donald Trump), c) voted for a minor party or write in candidate who was not Darrell Castle.

    You are also forgetting about all of the people who were not self identified Libertarians or small “l” libertarians who considered voting for Gary Johnson/Bill Weld, but who did not, because they were turned off by some of the stupid comments they made (like the “Aleppo” moment, the stupid answers given by Johnson and Weld to the favorite world leader comment, etc…), and/or some of their comments where they deviated from general libertarian positions (like tax payer funding for Planned Parenthood, supporting some gun control laws, praising Hillary Clinton, etc…).

    This was the most favorable set of circumstances for a Libertarian Party presidential ticket, and while Johnson/Weld did receive more votes and a higher percent of the vote as compared to past LP tickets, I would say that they underperformed as compared to what the potential was this year. Even if one wants to argue that they did not underperform, it should be blatantly obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills that they deviated from the Libertarian Party’s platform on multiple issues. Some would say, “Yeah, they deviated from the Libertarian Party’s platform on multiple issues, but that led to getting lots of votes, so those deviations were a good thing.” My reply to this is, “What is the point of running as a Libertarian Party candidate and getting votes if you are going to deviate from the Libertarian Party’s platform on so many issues? Doesn’t this defeat the purpose of running for office as a Libertarian Party candidate?”

  152. Tony From Long Island

    Andy, you want to spend all night ranting about me (when you know I am not at work and so not able to reply) but then are quiet when I defend myself. Says a lot about your character.

  153. Jill Pyeatt

    We’re cool, Tony.

    I remain passionately glad that Hillary didn’t win, but I’m also passionately concerned about the continuing turmoil in our country. I had hoped things would settle down after the election. I’m also not pleased that Trump will be our President, although it’s still possible he won’t, it appears.

    We’re living in historic, but quite unpleasant, times, that’s for sure.

  154. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    December 14, 2016 at 08:36
    Andy: ‘ . . .. if you had received anonymous death threats from online trolls, . . . . ‘

    I hope you are not referring to me. I have NEVER threatened you. I would NEVER threaten you. Violence in any form is anathema to me.

    The last time I was in a fight was in 8th grade when I jumped a bully after years of abuse from him and his friends. Other than being sucker punched many times by corrections officers, 1988 was the last time I had any punches anywhere near my vicinity.

    I dislike you, but I do not wish you harm. I don’t know you other than just some wack job who posts on here. Other than that, I couldn’t care less about you.”

    I don’t know if you had anything to do with the death threats against me, or the death threats against Paul, or any of the other crazy stuff that has happened over the last several years in conjunction with the IPR trolling or not.

    You seem to have had it “out” for me from the day that you got here. Your pattern is similar to patterns I have seen here and on other message forums with trolls in the past. That is a poster pops up, claims righteous indignation because I dared to question an official government story about say 9/11, Sandy Hook, police misconduct, etc…, and then I get viciously attacked, lies about me are spread, and sometimes there have been death threats.

    Why would somebody so strongly dislike a person for questioning stories or actions from the government? A person would either have to be a hardcore statist, and/or they would have to have some kind of vested financial interest in what the government says and does. It is a known fact that the internet is filled with trolls from various government entities.

    There have been several instances on here where a poster popped up, started attacking me, claimed a back story, like the posters who claimed to be from Oregon, or the one who claimed to be from Florida, or the one who claimed to be from South Dakota, and when I challenged them to in person debates to be put on video, they ran away (the one who claimed to be from Florida did this around the time of the LP National Convention in Orlando, which I attended, and I challenged them to debate there, or at a neutral venue anywhere in Florida, and they refused), and when I did people searches online I could not find any evidence that these people even existed, as I checked multiple online databases and I could not find anyone with their names in the states where they claimed to be, and then they all ended up disappearing from IPR.

    “Feel free to equally dislike me, but do not accuse me of threatening you. I have not done so and will never do so.”

    I hope that you are not connected to any of the death threats, or the other strange and destructive things that have happened, but your pattern of behavior is certainly enough to make one wonder.

  155. Tony from Long Island

    See Jill, there is much in your statement that we agree with.

    I too am very concerned with the unsettled nature of how things are right now. it’s hard to put it into words, but you likely know just what I am trying to say. Some people seem to feel more comfortable saying things or speaking about subjects that they would NEVER would have done a few years ago. It saddens me to think that the progress I thought our society had made wasn’t as great as I thought.

    I fear it will be quite a while until things “settle down.”

    Saying I am “not pleased” with Darth Trump as the President of this nation is an understatement. I think it is a disaster and that November 8th was one of the worst days in the history of our country. He is an international embarrassment and how he has conducted himself since November 8th shows just how bad he will be.

    Although I did not vote for her in 2000, 2006, the 2008 primary, the 2016 primary or in November, I would have been fine with Hillary as our president as she is not Darth Trump. We can disagree on that.

    On a positive note, December is my favorite time of the year! So I can find something to smile about 🙂

  156. Tony From Long Island

    Andy : ” . . . . You seem to have had it “out” for me from the day that you got here. . . . ”

    *sigh* Andy . . . I am sure that I am not the only person who thinks you are a terrible human being.

    I didn’t have it out for you from the first day I started posting here (which was around February). It was only when I realized how awful you truly are that I call you out for your bull shit.

    Andy: ” . . . . .a poster pops up, claims righteous indignation because I dared to question an official government story about say 9/11, Sandy Hook, police misconduct, etc…, and then I get viciously attacked, lies about me are spread, and sometimes there have been death threats. . . . ”

    I’ve never spread one lie about you. I just call you out on your crap. I will continue you to call you out on your conspiracy garbage. What you need is strong medication – in large doses.

    I sincerely hope you never have a child who is killed by gunfire. Even though you are a despicable person, I don’t wish that on you.

    How delusional do you have to be to truly think that (in this day of social media and immediate information) every single person from New Town CT is lying? They are all actors. It’s a sickness. It’s an inability to use rational thought and logic.

    They have all these kids who had to escape that carnage and they were all coached on how to do it? Really? The looks of total fear they exhibited was taught to them? Give me a friggin break! The devastation shown in the emotions of parents who lost children was fake? Give them an Oscar because they must put Meryl Streep to shame.

    Is there a political issue here and there that we might agree on? Probably – but anything we might have in common is “trumped” by your complete lack of empathy and gullibility.

    I make no threats – it’s not in my nature. You have to live with yourself. That’s punishment enough.

  157. paulie Post author

    Saying I am “not pleased” with Darth Trump as the President of this nation is an understatement. I think it is a disaster and that November 8th was one of the worst days in the history of our country. He is an international embarrassment and how he has conducted himself since November 8th shows just how bad he will be.

    True!

  158. Tony From Long Island

    Hey Paulie, how do you quote something with italics and change the margins? Its been a long time since I had to use HTML code . . .

  159. Tony From Long Island

    This is a test . . . . let’s see if I fail

    [blockquote That’s the blockquote /blockquote tag (between brackets, of course). Like this: /blockquote]

    Will I be wearing the dunce cap for the day?

  160. paulie Post author

    This is a test . . . . let’s see if I fail

    You got the tag right.

    [blockquote] quoted stuff [/blockquote] but change the square brackets to angular AKA the greater than /less than buttons.

  161. Thomas L. Knapp

    Some people may want to learn a few HTML tags, such as those people on here who like to YELL IN ALL CAPS for emphasis rather than for example using italics. I mean, if there is anyone on here like that ?

    WHAT WAS THAT? I CAN’T HEAR YOU!

  162. Tony From Long Island

    I would NEVER use all caps 🙂

    Ahh . . I see

    [blockquote] This is a made up quote! [/blockquote]

    That should work

  163. robert capozzi

    aj: I would say that they underperformed as compared to what the potential was this year.

    me: GJ, WW, and I would all agree with this statement. It’s always true. DJT and KellyAnne Conway — if they are worth a damn in terms of analytical skills — would likely agree that they underperformed their potential as well.

    My sense is that had GJ run using the Browne or Badnarik playbook, they would have underperformed far more. From a NAPster perspective, that lower level of votes might represent more “quality” votes, but you might have voted GJ had they run a NAPster campaign, many more probably would NOT have voted GJ that did, would be my guess.

    Had Aleppo not happened, my guess is that GJ might have gotten 250-500K more, net.

  164. dL

    Although I know from first-hand experience that prisons are not “full of non-violent drug offenders”

    You bring up your prison record fairly regularly. Since you keep bringing it up, what exactly were you convicted of?

    And no one claims all crime is merely victimless crime. However, radical libertarians favor restitution over retribution. Human imprisonment as punishment is a barbaric institution.

  165. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    It’s not about “quality of votes” versus “quantity of votes.”

    It’s about whether the campaign advanced the purpose of the party or not.

    The purpose of the party is to “implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles.”

    It’s obviously possible to do the latter (“give voice to”) without doing the former (“implement”).

    I suppose it might be possible through some bizarre Trojan Horse scheme to do the former without doing the latter.

    This presidential campaign didn’t do either. Which makes it, from the standpoint of the party’s reason for existing, a failure.

    That would have been that case even if the candidates had accomplished their own goal, which was apparently to rack up enough Respectability Politics Skeeball tickets to get that cool wooden paddle that has a ball attached to it by a rubber cord, and perhaps some brightly colored pencil toppers.

  166. robert capozzi

    tk, “give voice” could be viewed any number of ways. We could read that term hyper-literally, and that might mean that the ticket only quoted directly from the platform in media appearances and on the website.

    Or it could mean that the ticket gives an interesting, compelling message that inspires a sense of seeking a world of liberty by offering a path of lessarchy.

    iirc, Bergland was probably the MOST NAP-compliant, NAP-literal L ticket. He was almost a NAP robot, as I recall his presentation.

    Are you and/or AJ saying that Bergland got 227,204 votes, and all of them “count” because they LITERALLY “gave voice” to the SoP, and GJ got zero since his campaign was completely off the NAP reservation?

    Or, because I heard GJ cite the NAP at least once, does he get some fraction of the 4,042,291 votes he got that “count” toward his actual, giving-voice-to-the-NAP total?

  167. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    I said nothing about the NAP, or about NAP compliance. Are those things part of the straw man you keep building, or are they part of the kerosene you keep soaking that straw man in?

  168. robert capozzi

    tk, well, you did cite the SoP, which is — as I understand it — shot through with the NAP, or the NIOF, if you prefer. If you’d like, replace my NAPs with SoPs.

  169. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    The party’s purpose is independent of the particular content in question. That is, if the SoP said “everyone should get a pony,” it would be the job of the party and its candidates to “implement and give voice to” the message “everyone should get a pony.”

    And in that case, the standard of success would be “did the candidates implement and/or give voice to the message that everyone should get a pony? If yes, success; if no, failure.”

    The campaign may have been a success from your perspective. From the perspective of the party’s purpose it was a blown opportunity, a waste of time, at best.

  170. robert capozzi

    tk, yes, if a political cause was a simple and simplistic as “everyone should get a pony,” then I would agree with you.

    In my case, however, I don’t think politics is in the neighborhood of such a simplistic approach. Politics is the art of the possible, and if practiced well, inspired with a sense of direction toward a more peaceful (in my case) civil society. Others may desire a more orderly civil society, a fairer civil society. Some NAPster Ls might want a more “moral” civil society, with “moral” being code for “NAP manifestation.”

    The Soapbox Lunatic is not practicing “politics.” S/he is engaged in “political speech,” usually offering her or his manifesto as a means to influence the direction of the current drift in the political arrangement, often by offering extreme end-states as a kind of different gravitational pull on the body politic’s prevalent POV.

    I can see why you might think GJ’s 4MM votes were a “waste,” but Bergland’s 227K were a heroic achievement. The gravitational pull — the messaging — was not in sufficient harmony with your interpretation of how the SoP was “given voice” by TeamGov. My feedback remains that you are being too literal and rigid with this approach.

  171. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    I can see why you might think GJ’s 4MM votes were a “waste,” but Bergland’s 227K were a heroic achievement.
    —–

    Given that I never said any such thing, I can’t see why you might think that I might think that.

    Your argument is “I wish the Libertarian Party’s purpose was something other than what it is, so I will evaluate candidates for success/failure based on their fulfillment of what I wish the LP’s purpose was rather than what it is.”

    Which is fine, but understand thatt he party’s job, and the job of its candidates, is to fulfill its actual purpose, not whatever you happen to wish its purpose was.

  172. Tony From Long Island

    DL: You bring up your prison record fairly regularly. Since you keep bringing it up, what exactly were you convicted of?

    And no one claims all crime is merely victimless crime. However, radical libertarians favor restitution over retribution. Human imprisonment as punishment is a barbaric institution.

    I would rather not say, It did not involve violence and did not involve drugs. I served 12 years and two months.

    I bring up the “prisons are full of non-violent drug offenders” quote because much of the libertarian literature I received over the years stressed that. It’s just not true. Most drug offenders I interacted with also had another underlying crime (i.e. robbery or burglary) that was connected to the drug use. I still firmly believe that drug use is a medical issue and not a crime issue. If you deal with the addiction, you would remove the need to steal to feed it.

    Also, you say that “human imprisonment is barbaric.” I would generally concur, but there definitely are very dangerous people who should not be free in society. Dangerous and inherently violent people need to be dealt with somehow. What would your solution be?

  173. robert capozzi

    tk, you didn’t say it, but you did imply it. You said:

    TK 04:40: “The purpose of the party is to “implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles.”….”This presidential campaign didn’t do either. Which makes it, from the standpoint of the party’s reason for existing, a failure.”

    Me: In short, the L ticket was a “failure” because it didn’t give voice to the SoP, according to you. “Failure” seems synonymous to “waste” to me, or actually worse, more counterproductive.

    It’s fair and true that I prefer the Preamble’s “seek a world of liberty,” and I find the SoP’s CotOS to be daft. I would also say that GJ often made similar statements to the SoP’s “right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”

    Agree? I can go back and find his canned rewording of this clause that he said in many, many media appearances, if need be. (btw, I didn’t particularly find his rhetoric all that crisp or compelling, but I agree with the sentiment, particularly since I advocate for Harlos Nonarchy Pods for those who wan to opt out of civil society completely.)

    He DID freelance away from the SoP, describing the NAP’s implication as suggesting fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. Was this freelancing IN ADDITION TO articulating a version of the NAP what leads you to believe that GJ was a “failure”?

    NAPsters seem to be severely harsh critics. Would you have been satisfied if GJ had reworded the CotOS clause? Or did he have to say both phrases word-for-word in order to not be deemed a “failure” by you?

  174. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Would you have been satisfied if GJ had reworded the CotOS clause?”

    I would have been satisfied if he and Weld had campaign for the LP’s platform instead of against it. The last time we really had a presidential candidate do that with any consistency was 2000.

  175. Tony From Long Island

    TK: ” . . . .I would have been satisfied if he and Weld had campaign for the LP’s platform instead of against it. The last time we really had a presidential candidate do that with any consistency was 2000. . . . .”

    OK, but do you think the Harry Browne campaigns grew the party ranks more than the Gary Johnson campaigns?

    Also, you don’t think Badnarik ran on the LP platform?

  176. robert capozzi

    1) TK 04:40: “The purpose of the party is to “implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles.”….”This presidential campaign didn’t do either. Which makes it, from the standpoint of the party’s reason for existing, a failure.”

    2) TK 08:40: I would have been satisfied if he and Weld had campaign for the LP’s platform instead of against it. The last time we really had a presidential candidate do that with any consistency was 2000.

    Me: Before you were talking about the SoP. Now you are talking about the platform.

    I’ve asserted that GJ DID partially articulate the SoP. You haven’t disputed that, even though you have not retracted your “failure” assertion.

    And now you seem to be moving the goalposts….

  177. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Also, you don’t think Badnarik ran on the LP platform?”

    Badnarik ran on parts of the LP platform, at times. At other times he ran against parts of the LP platform. Not nearly as much nor nearly as embarrassingly badly as Johnson/Weld, but some.

    As the author of many of his position papers and other public statements, I was bothered by that. And ever since, I’ve preferred candidates who were willing and able to campaign wholeheartedly for the platform and never against it. If there are mismatches, so long as they are minimal, a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up about those issues (and if pressed on them make clear that one’s position varies from the party’s) is the best patch I can come up with.

    Don’t get me wrong: I love Michael, I thought he ran a campaign to be proud of, and I think the LP got lucky when he got the nod instead of Russo (who I worked for pre-nomination). But ideologically, that campaign pushed me to aim higher.

    I joined the party in 1996. From that point forward, Harry Browne’s two campaigns are pretty clearly the gold standard for post-nomination LP presidential campaigns when it comes to fidelity to the party’s purpose (Badnarik at least tied with Harry on work ethic and clearly bested him on campaign ethics).

    Robert Capozzi likes to bring up David Bergland’s 1984 campaign. That was more than a decade prior to my involvement with the LP. I haven’t reviewed Bergland’s position papers or speeches, or listened/watched to any of his radio/TV appearance/ads, so I really can’t speak to the quality of his campaign. I will note, though, that he was a last-minute draft who hadn’t even planned to attend the national convention and grabbed a red-eye flight to accept nomination as a compromise candidate at the request of other party members when the convention rejected the other contenders. So I’d say he deserves at least a little bit of slack on campaign quality. My only interactions with Bergland were during his time as chair; I was not a fan.

  178. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Before you were talking about the SoP. Now you are talking about the platform.”

    No, before YOU were talking about the SoP. I was, and am, talking about the party’s purpose.

    The platform is the party’s official issue-by-issue exegesis of the Statement of Principles. If you’re giving voice to one, in theory you are giving voice to the other. Similarly, if you are running against one, you are running against the other.

    It might be that the party makes mistakes in the process of translating SoP into platform (in fact, I think it has done so in certain cases), but I don’t recall Johnson or Weld arguing that that was the case.

  179. Tony From Long island

    What causes me to raise my eyebrow like Spoke every now and then, is the insistence by some that LP candidates must run on every issue and sentence exactly as it is in the platform.

    Candidates are not allowed to have any nuance or individuality. Otherwise they get labeled as LINO’s or not libertarian enough.

    I do understand the issues some have with Johnson / Weld, so I keep them as a separate issue.

    However, I don’t want to vote for a robot. I prefer if someone has a general political philosophy and tries to make policy positions that coincide with it. That being said I don’t mind if someone may have a particular issue here or there that differs and that they feel passionately about.

  180. Thomas L. Knapp

    “What causes me to raise my eyebrow like Spoke every now and then, is the insistence by some that LP candidates must run on every issue and sentence exactly as it is in the platform.”

    That would indeed be eyebrow-raising if any such people existed. If they do, I’ve never met them.

  181. Tony From Long Island

    When you take my words literally, yes, that may be true. But you know what I meant my friend.

  182. robert capozzi

    1: TK 04:40: “The purpose of the party is to “implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles.”

    2: TK 09:22: No, before YOU were talking about the SoP. I was, and am, talking about the party’s purpose.

    Me: ???

  183. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tony,

    I guess I don’t know what you mean.

    There are always going to be variations on theme.

    There are always going to be candidates who take an incremental approach instead of a demanding instant abolition of this or that, and whose policy proposals will reflect that incremental approach.

    Those things are fine, although any given Libertarian might have a specific problem with the candidate’s approach to this or that issue. But I don’t know anyone who demands that an LP presidential candidate just read the platform plank for each issue when campaigning.

    When it comes to things to like or to not particularly like about candidates, I’m pretty much the same as anyone else.

    But I do have a baseline, and it looks something like this:

    1) Do not run AGAINST the platform of the party that nominates you.

    2) If you disagree with the platform of the party that nominates you, don’t make that issue a part of your campaign. Don’t discuss it unless you’re asked about it. If you ARE asked about it, make it clear that this is an issue on which your position conflicts with the party’s position.

    An example:

    Party’s platform: “We favor the repeal of all laws creating ‘crimes’ without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.”

    Johnson/Weld campaign’s stated position: “Johnson and Weld do not support the legalization of other recreational drugs that are currently illegal.”

    That’s not “nuance.” It is a flat statement that clearly contradicts the party’s platform. Nobody forced Johnson and Weld to put it that way on their campaign site. They decided to put it that way on their campaign site. They decided to run against the Libertarian Party on that issue..

    Did they occasional introduce “nuance” in their discussion of the issue? Sure — they talked about medicalization and so forth when other drugs were brought up. But back against the wall, no shit, tell us where you stand, their default position was “Johnson and Weld do not support the legalization of other recreational drugs that are currently illegal.”

  184. Andy

    “Tony From Long island
    December 15, 2016 at 09:43
    What causes me to raise my eyebrow like Spoke every now and then, is the insistence by some that LP candidates must run on every issue and sentence exactly as it is in the platform.

    Candidates are not allowed to have any nuance or individuality. Otherwise they get labeled as LINO’s or not libertarian enough.”

    This is not true. Candidates have the leeway to emphasize or de-emphasize issues. Candidates can offer incremental steps as a part of their platform, while at the same time pointing to long term ideal goals. Candidates can acknowledge parts of their platform that differ with the party, or they can acknowledge that there are disagreements within the Libertarian Party on certain issues, and that they side with a particular faction on a specific issue.

    Some people (such as myself) are upset with the Johnson/Weld ticket because they ran against the Libertarian Party’s platform on multiple issues, and they did not bother to mention that they differed with the Libertarian Party’s platform on these issues, and even on some issues where they were somewhat in line with the Libertarian Party’s platform, such as where they offered what would be an incremental step, they did not frame the issue as an incremental step.

    Case in point: Johnson/Weld called for legalizing marijuana, and taxing and regulating it. They were asked about legalizing other drugs, AND THEY CAME OUT AGAINST IT. They made it sound like the Libertarian position on marijuana was that it should be legalized because it is not that dangerous, but that the government should tax and regulate it, and that other drugs were dangerous, so we need the government to ban them. Government taxing and regulating marijuana is not really in line with the Libertarian platform, but even worse than this, in my opinion, is that Johnson and Weld did NOT advocate this as an incremental step towards calling off the War on Drugs, they added legitimacy to the War on Drugs by advocating that marijuana should be tax and regulated because it is not that dangerous, but that the government should continue its war against other drugs.

    So even on the issue of marijuana, Johnson/Weld did a poor job of framing this issue.

    Here is a way that Johnson/Weld COULD HAVE framed the issue of marijuana, that could have presented legalizing it as an incremental step, and which would have better represented the Libertarian Party’s platform:

    “Let’s do an experiment. The Libertarian Party has advocated against the War on Drugs since its inception in 1971. The rest of the country is finally catching up with the Libertarian Party, as lots of states have moved in the direction of marijuana legalization, with some states legalizing it for medicinal purposes, while other states have gone further by legalizing marijuana, and taxing and regulating it like is done with alcohol. Libertarians believe that the War on Drugs is immoral, unconstitutional, and a failure from the stand point of reducing drug abuse and crime, and we also believe that the drug war has been used as an excuse to expand government power, and trample over our freedoms, such as our 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Now I understand that legalizing all drugs may seem like a radical step for a lot of people out there, so here’s a compromise that I’d like to offer. Elect me as your next President, and one of my first actions as President will be to immediately call off the war against marijuana. I will order federal agents to stop pursuing marijuana cases, and I will grant pardons to anyone who is in prison, or facing prosecution, for marijuana charges. My administration will not interfere with any of the states that have already moved towards marijuana legalization. I am willing to work with Congress to pass a bill for taxing and regulating marijuana, but I would prefer that any bill passed presents the least amount of burden on the American people. States like Colorado and Washington have already proven that marijuana legalization works, and I believe that it can work for the rest of the nation as well, so I want to get the federal government out of the way. So I ask for your vote this November, and if elected, I will immediately get to work on calling off the war against marijuana. We, as a nation, can try this experiment with marijuana legalization for four years, and if I am correct, that is that if this experiment is a success, like the evidence already indicates that it is in states like Colorado and Washington, then I will ask you to re-elect me as your President in 2020, and then we can talk about how much further we can go in ending the war on drugs during my second term in office. If, after four years, it looks like I was wrong about marijuana legalization, then you can vote for one of my opponents who supports marijuana prohibition in 2020, but I am skeptical that this is going to happen, because I believe that once the American people realize who much more freedom and prosperity we will have after we end marijuana prohibition, that they will never want to re-implement it. So I ask you, the American people, to join me in this grand experiment for our liberty and our prosperity, by voting for me, Gary Johnson, and my running mate, Bill Weld, this November. Please visit our website, JohnsonWeld.com to find out more details, and to find out how you can get involved in the campaign.”

  185. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    It’s not that complicated. I was talking about the purpose of the party. The purpose of the party happens to involve the SoP, but it wasn’t the SoP I was talking about, it was the purpose of the party.

    If the bylaws said the purpose of the party was to promote the racing of radio-controlled toy cars, my position would be that the party’s candidates should promote, rather than oppose, the racing of radio-controlled toy cars. I might not LIKE that purpose. I might even decide that purpose meant the Libertarian Party wasn’t an organization I wanted to be involved with. But I would still acknowledge that the party has a purpose and that the reason it runs candidates is to accomplish that purpose, not whatever alternative purpose Bob Capozzi comes up with for it to accomplish.

  186. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: You do make a good point, but my initial post on this subject made it clear that I was excluding Johnson/Weld because I know that they had issues that deviated from the platform.

  187. Andy

    “Johnson/Weld campaign’s stated position: ‘Johnson and Weld do not support the legalization of other recreational drugs that are currently illegal.'”

    Johnson/Weld also advocated enforcing the gun control laws that were already on the books, plus they advocated in favor of additional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

    This was clearly at odds with the Libertarian Party’s platform, and you’d have a hard time finding any Libertarians or small “l” libertarians who’d even be sympathetic with their stance on this issue.

  188. Tony From Long Island

    TK: Section 2.4 of the Platform states: ” . . . . We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. . . . . ”

    If there were a candidate that did not advocate for the abolition of the income tax, but rather a substantial reduction of the brackets and percent (and made it clear that he did not want a complete abolition) would you consider that incremental or against the platform?

    This is just a hypothetical. I am curious.

  189. Matt

    “COULD HAVE framed…”

    The vast majority would have clicked the channel or surfed to another site or flipped the page long before you get all that out.

  190. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    December 15, 2016 at 13:03
    TK: Section 2.4 of the Platform states: ‘. . . . We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. . . . . ‘

    If there were a candidate that did not advocate for the abolition of the income tax, but rather a substantial reduction of the brackets and percent (and made it clear that he did not want a complete abolition) would you consider that incremental or against the platform?”

    I would consider it to be an incremental step, so long as it moved in the direction of less taxes and less government.

    I do not believe that the income tax is necessary from even a small government perspective, nor do I believe that it is applied legally (I have spent lots of time studying the issue, and I do not believe that the income tax even applies to most Americans), plus there is evidence that the 16 amendment was never properly ratified, but even if it had been, it still does not legally apply to most Americans.

    Having said this, I found the 14.5% flat tax proposed by Rand Paul, and the 10% flat tax proposed by Austin Petersen (Petersen said something about his flat tax plan being at the lowest rate possible to support the core functions of government, but I also recall him floating the 10% figure), to at least be incremental steps in the right direction. I would prefer that a candidate call for an end to the income tax and replace it with nothing, but a step in that direction is better than nothing.

    Contrast this with Gary Johnson’s tax plan, which was to eliminate the current income tax, and replace it with the Fair Tax, which is a national sales tax. which is disingenuously pitched as being a 23% tax, but is really a 30% tax, and which includes a rebate check plan, which essentially puts the entire nation on welfare. The Fair Tax plan is designed to be revenue neutral, which means that it is designed to bring in as much money for the government as the present income tax generates. So at best, the tax plan that Gary Johnson pushed during both of his presidential campaigns, is as bad as the present income tax system, and there is a chance that it could be EVEN WORSE than the present income tax system.

    So even though I am an abolitionist when it comes to taxes, I could still get behind a candidate who actually wants to move in that direction by offering a tax plan which reduces the tax burden, but I vehemently opposed the Fair Tax plan pushed by Gary Johnson, because it fails to do this.

  191. Andy

    “Matt
    December 15, 2016 at 13:10
    ‘COULD HAVE framed…’

    The vast majority would have clicked the channel or surfed to another site or flipped the page long before you get all that out.”

    That was just an example. Gary Johnson talked a heck of a lot longer than that during the CNN Town Halls, so he could have easily said what I said above.

    My point was not to design an exact quote for what could have said, but rather to show a template for how he should have framed the issue, by showing marijuana legalization as an incremental step towards the complete elimination of the War on Drugs.

  192. Thomas L. Knapp

    “If there were a candidate that did not advocate for the abolition of the income tax, but rather a substantial reduction of the brackets and percent (and made it clear that he did not want a complete abolition) would you consider that incremental or against the platform?”

    The part in parentheses is by definition against the platform. The LP wants to get rid of the income tax; your hypothetical candidate doesn’t.

    But your hypothetical candidate has an easy way to deal with that. He could just call for cutting the income tax. If asked whether or not he wants to eliminate it, he could either say “no, I disagree with my party on going that far,” or the even smoother “I’m content to cut it for now and see where that takes us.”

    Eliminating the income tax really shouldn’t be a controversial position. It would reduce US government revenues to circa 2004. I could be wrong, but I don’t remember mass starvation, being conquered by the Canadians, or other symptoms of under-funded government in 2004.

  193. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: You make rational points for the most part. I am shocked.

    I used to support a complete flat tax where the same rate applied to all. What the rate would be was to be determined. I supported the concept.

    Now, though, I support what I call a “flatter tax.” where there would be only 3 or 4 brackets – with NO exceptions or write offs.

    I have come to believe that the affluent and more fortunate among us should contribute more for the good of all. If someone who makes $25,000 a year had to pay a flat 10% of that as tax it would hurt a LOT more than someone who made 10 million a year.

    I know you will call me a liberal. Go right ahead. But even my “flatter tax” would result in fewer dollars going to the federal government via income tax. This would force spending cuts – which in my perfect world would mostly be in defense spending.

  194. Tony From Long Island

    Eliminating the income tax really shouldn’t be a controversial position. It would reduce US government revenues to circa 2004. I could be wrong, but I don’t remember mass starvation, being conquered by the Canadians, or other symptoms of under-funded government in 2004.

    Aww. A recycled and updated Harry Browne quote. 🙂 I enjoyed his books too.

  195. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tony,

    Yes, I recall Harry using a similar plot device. But it’s reasonable. Eliminating the income tax, especially over several years, would not (unfortunately, from my point of view) gut the federal government. It would leave it at least as big as it was a decade or so ago, when it was plenty big.

  196. Matt

    ” Gary Johnson talked a heck of a lot longer than that during the CNN Town Halls, so he could have easily said what I said above.”

    I doubt it. I think his individual issue answers were much shorter than that. Try reading it out loud and timing it.

    “My point was not to design an exact quote for what could have said, but rather to show a template for how he should have framed the issue, by showing marijuana legalization as an incremental step towards the complete elimination of the War on Drugs.”

    But that’s exactly what the prohibitionists want people to believe. Mind you, I agree with them that it is exactly that, but at this time the majority of the public has finally come around on legalizing marijuana but still opposes legalizing other drugs by a wide margin. The major parties lag the change in public opinion on legalizing marijuana, so the Johnson/Weld campaign position, while definitely not a principled libertarian one, was pretty politically smart in the short run – positioning themselves where the public is, but the major parties aren’t yet.

    If you tell people that legalizing marijuana is just a step towards legalizing meth and PCP, you are likely to persuade more of them to be against legalizing marijuana – and certainly against voting for you – than the much smaller numbers of people (at least for now) that you’d convince to seriously consider the idea that meth and PCP should be legal.

    That’s not to say we shouldn’t run on legalizing all drugs, but Johnson/Weld was not that kind of campaign. They ran on, or at least tried to sell, the delusion that they could be electable in some perfect storm scenario, or at least get in the debates, or if not that at least set the LP up to get a bunch of federal welfare for next time around. They executed very poorly and fell short of all those goals, but came much closer than any past LP candidates to the last one (and I agree with Knapp it would have set the party up for disaster if they had reached it).

    Thus, their strategy was never to push too far past where “respectable” policy consensus is, and to focus on what they could implement in the short term if they somehow got elected. Unfortunately, in their minds it also meant quelling the fears that some people have about libertarians (for example, that the LP would legalize hard drugs) by explicitly distancing themselves from that position rather than just giving an open ended answer and focusing on marijuana. One of the many reasons I couldn’t bring myself to vote for or support them.

  197. Matt

    “Eliminating the income tax really shouldn’t be a controversial position. It would reduce US government revenues to circa 2004.”

    Reducing US regime extortion to circa 2004, while not ultimately satisfying, is at least a good start, and shouldn’t be – but is – “radical” by major party standards. However, the idea that the best place to start is by getting rid of the income tax can certainly be controversial, even among libertarians. Of the three major mechanisms of US regime loot – income tax, corporate tax and FICA/payroll taxes – I’d start with eliminating the last one first, then income tax (MITE would be a good way to go on that), and corporate taxes last.

  198. Tony From Long Island

    TK: I am always for finding ways to reduce federal spending. I just don’t know if completely eliminating the income tax is feasible. Your Harry Browne argument doesn’t account for normal inflation and whether the other sources of income are sustainable.

    I guess I am just an incrementalist – but that’s not new.

    I also firmly believe that if we are going to pay social security tax on our weekly paycheck, it should NOT be capped at the first $106,000 of income. So basically you and I pay every week (I assume you make less than 100K?) while billionaires take care of that in one week. Every single cent of income should be included. Politicians on the left and right always whine about the sustainability of social security. Well, have Bill Gates pay the same percent of his income that I pay and it will be just fine.

  199. Andy

    Matt, so what if the opposition also says that we are legalizing marijuana as a step toward legalizing all drugs? The incrementalist proposal I suggested above gives people an out, when I said that if after living under a administration that called off marijuana prohibition for four years, they believe that it was not yielding positive results, they could vote to put a marijuana prohibitionist into office the next time they vote in a presidential election.

  200. Tony From Long Island

    ANDY: I said that if after living under a administration that called off marijuana prohibition for four years, they believe that it was not yielding positive results, they could vote to put a marijuana prohibitionist into office the next time they vote in a presidential election.

    That’s all well and good, but I would say 95% of voters would not put marijuana legalization or prohibition at the top of the issues they base their vote on.

    Full legalization of marijuana is inevitable. Then we’ll see how that goes. I don’t / won’t smoke it, but have always advocated its legalization.

    I’m just iffy on some other substances after seeing just how devastating they are not only to the people using them but to their loved ones. I’m not closed to it, though.

  201. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    December 15, 2016 at 15:08
    ‘ANDY: I said that if after living under a administration that called off marijuana prohibition for four years, they believe that it was not yielding positive results, they could vote to put a marijuana prohibitionist into office the next time they vote in a presidential election.’

    That’s all well and good, but I would say 95% of voters would not put marijuana legalization or prohibition at the top of the issues they base their vote on.”

    Some voters may not put this at the top of their list of concerns, but this would be a way out for those who think that there would be chaos if marijuana were to be legalized.

    It may sound ridiculous to most of us here that there are people who think that marijuana legalization causes chaos, but there are still people out there who believe this, even after the legalization that has taken place in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, etc…, has proven otherwise.

    When I worked on the Ron Paul campaigns in 2007-2008, and 2011-2012, I ran into people who cited Ron Paul’s support for ending the War on Drugs as a primary reason that they would not vote for him.

  202. Andy

    Tony From Long Island said: “I’m just iffy on some other substances after seeing just how devastating they are not only to the people using them but to their loved ones. I’m not closed to it, though.”

    The government outlawing these substances obviously has not prevented people from abusing them.

  203. robert capozzi

    Reducing revenues accomplishes little to nothing in these days of deficit spending and massive debt. This game is chess, not checkers.

  204. Tony From Long Island

    When I worked on the Ron Paul campaigns in 2007-2008, and 2011-2012, I ran into people who cited Ron Paul’s support for ending the War on Drugs as a primary reason that they would not vote for him.

    Yes, I’m sure there are people. That’s why I didn’t say 100%

    The government outlawing these substances obviously has not prevented people from abusing them.

    I drive faster than the speed limit despite it being illegal. Should there be no speed limits?

  205. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    December 15, 2016 at 15:27
    Reducing revenues accomplishes little to nothing in these days of deficit spending and massive debt. This game is chess, not checkers.”

    True, so reducing/eliminating taxes is only part of the equation. The other parts of the equation are reducing government spending (and ideally shutting down government agencies), and eliminating fiat currency.

  206. Matt

    “Matt, so what if the opposition also says that we are legalizing marijuana as a step toward legalizing all drugs? The incrementalist proposal I suggested above gives people an out, when I said that if after living under a administration that called off marijuana prohibition for four years, they believe that it was not yielding positive results, they could vote to put a marijuana prohibitionist into office the next time they vote in a presidential election.”

    What’s so hard to understand? Johnson and especially Weld had no interest in being bogged down in irate questions from mothers of kids who ODed on hard drugs, gotcha journalists, etc. Yes, there are perfectly good ways to answer those question, but Johnson/Weld were too chickenshit to go there. If you and your opposition both agree that marijuana legalization is just a stepping stone to legalizing hard drugs, and if the public remains by a large margin adamantly against legalizing hard drugs, it’s easy to get trapped into having a lot of conversations about legalizing hard drugs, and many people won’t even be willing to reason and logic on that one. I don’t respect the way they chickened out of going there but I do understand the temptation.

  207. Matt

    “Harry Browne argument doesn’t account for normal inflation and whether the other sources of income are sustainable.”

    Inflation since 2004 hasn’t come close to keeping pace with the growth in regime spending. And what do you mean by other sources of income not being sustainable?

  208. Matt

    “I also firmly believe that if we are going to pay social security tax on our weekly paycheck, it should NOT be capped at the first $106,000 of income. So basically you and I pay every week (I assume you make less than 100K?) while billionaires take care of that in one week. Every single cent of income should be included. Politicians on the left and right always whine about the sustainability of social security. Well, have Bill Gates pay the same percent of his income that I pay and it will be just fine.”

    I think you misunderstood the MITE proposal, as my understanding is that it calls for a 100k floor, not a 100k ceiling. In other words, if you make less than 100k, you pay nothing, or substantially less, and the tax (or at least the full tax) doesn’t kick in until you make 100k or more. However if you make 100 million a year, you pay the full extortion on everything except the first 100k that you earn in the beginning of January.

  209. Matt

    “I’m just iffy on some other substances after seeing just how devastating they are not only to the people using them but to their loved ones. I’m not closed to it, though.”

    Prohibition only makes it much, much worse. Alcoholism is also very devastating to alcoholics and those around them, but I think we would agree that alcohol prohibition not only utterly failed to solve that problem but created a whole bunch of new ones. The same has been true with prohibition of any and all other drugs that have been outlawed as well, for the same reasons.

  210. Matt

    “I drive faster than the speed limit despite it being illegal. Should there be no speed limits?”

    Actually no, there shouldn’t, and contrary to what you may think, traffic can self-regulate very effectively. But even if we were to agree that there should be traffic limits, that doesn’t even begin to parallel the many ways in which drug prohibition not only fails to lessen the problems of drug addiction both to addicts and non-addicts but actually makes them much worse.

  211. Andy

    Matt said: “What’s so hard to understand? Johnson and especially Weld had no interest in being bogged down in irate questions from mothers of kids who ODed on hard drugs, gotcha journalists, etc. Yes, there are perfectly good ways to answer those question, but Johnson/Weld were too chickenshit to go there. If you and your opposition both agree that marijuana legalization is just a stepping stone to legalizing hard drugs, and if the public remains by a large margin adamantly against legalizing hard drugs, it’s easy to get trapped into having a lot of conversations about legalizing hard drugs, and many people won’t even be willing to reason and logic on that one. I don’t respect the way they chickened out of going there but I do understand the temptation.”

    This is an example of why Johnson/Weld were not good candidates for the Libertarian Party. Libertarian Party candidates should not be so afraid of answering the difficult questions. I do not have a problem with candidates taking incrementalist positions, but even in these cases, they should at least point in the direction that libertarians want to go, which should be in the direction of maximum liberty.

    Libertarians have been saying that the War on Drugs should be ended since 1971. The rest of the country is finally starting to catch up when it comes to marijuana. Johnson/Weld were not pushing for any new ground, they were just jumping on a trend that has already gained a lot of popular support.

    Heck, Ron Paul offered proposals that were more boldly libertarian when he ran in the Republican presidential primaries than Johnson/Weld did running as Libertarian Party candidates in the general election. Ron Paul called for the ENTIRE War on Drugs to be called off, and he even defended the legalization of heroin in front of a room full of Republicans.

    Johnson/Weld presented the issue as if it was OK for the government to tax and regulate marijuana, because marijuana is not really that dangerous, but that the government should keep the War on Drugs going against other drugs. This was not really an incrementalist approach, nor was it very inspiring.

  212. dL

    I’m just iffy on some other substances after seeing just how devastating they are not only to the people using them but to their loved ones. I’m not closed to it, though.

    Sugar can have devastating effects on diabetics. Should sugar thus be prohibited? 10% of the population is a diabetic so availability of sugar is actually poses much more potential immediate harm to more people than heroin or cocaine. If Moms for a SugarFree America invade political debates and volunteer their sob stories about how easy availability of sugar destroyed their sons and daughters lives, we have to do something, right?

    The potential harm of a substance to some in society is a selective argument b/c the harm of prohibition of that substance to everyone has no cachet w/ those who make the harm argument, and hence I give “the harm” argument as much credence as those who dismiss the harm of prohibition. None.

  213. dL

    The major parties lag the change in public opinion on legalizing marijuana, so the Johnson/Weld campaign position, while definitely not a principled libertarian one, was pretty politically smart in the short run – positioning themselves where the public is…

    The public opinion incrementalist approach is unscientific nonsense. Collective action is dominated by the minority. Abortion rights are an easy example. There is no incremental consensus on the morality or legal availability of abortion. The public opinion ebbs back and forth on it. However, the legality of it was established by 9 judges. It wasn’t by any public consensus.

    Likewise with drugs legalization. There is a dedicated minority for it. There is a dedicated minority against it(including the entrenched regulatory apparatus). Most don’t prioritize it any way and would follow like sheep along the least path of resistance. People are not stupid but they are sheep.

    A LP that forfeits on self-ownership is not executing any strategy. And when you only have 2 million or so in the coffers, there is no “strategy” to execute to begin with.

  214. dL

    “I drive faster than the speed limit despite it being illegal. Should there be no speed limits?”

    The mere existence of a law does not prima facie establish the morality of it.

  215. robert capozzi

    aj: they should at least point in the direction that libertarians want to go, which should be in the direction of maximum liberty.

    me: Perhaps not to your satisfaction, but they did. They talked about hard drugs as a public health issue; the Zurich and Vancouver experiments; needle exchange; heroin testing; etc.

    RP1 held the banner much higher. I wonder how many he triggered to bend a knee because he did.

    I’m starting to sense that RP1 was a personality cult. I’ve seen no indication that his campaigns had any ongoing benefit or progress, except to the extent that the Alt Right seems to be rising, which from where I sit, it a step backwards.

  216. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I’ve seen no indication that his campaigns had any ongoing benefit or progress, except to the extent that the Alt Right seems to be rising, which from where I sit, it a step backwards.”

    We’ve been talking for enough years that I don’t think I have to convince you I’m not a Paul cultist and that I think he did considerable damage to the libertarian movement in particular ways.

    That said, there’s also plainly visible “ongoing benefit” from his campaigns.

    At least two sizable student/campus organizations (Students For Liberty and Young Americans For Liberty) continue to be much larger and more active on an ongoing basis than the pre-Paul libertarian student movement had been for, at least, decades, and there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that his campaigns fueled their growth in a big way.

  217. Matt

    “The public opinion incrementalist approach is unscientific nonsense. Collective action is dominated by the minority. Abortion rights are an easy example. There is no incremental consensus on the morality or legal availability of abortion. The public opinion ebbs back and forth on it. However, the legality of it was established by 9 judges. It wasn’t by any public consensus.”

    The court didn’t rule in a vacuum. It followed a tangent that it established in Griswold, and came with a huge social backdrop of the easy availability of birth control, the feminist movement, liberalization of some state abortion laws, etc. You are, however, correct that organized minorities move policy. The feminist movement was one such organized minority that spoke up for a disempowered majority.

  218. robert capozzi

    tk, I wonder whether SfL and YAL are growing still, and what the growth rates are. I’m not sure training young people on eccentric interpretations of the Constitution leads to an actual lessarchist path somewhere down the road.

    I, however, was referring to RP1’s influence on policy currently. I see none. If anything, I sense that morearchy is on the rise. There is a glimmer of hope that DJT’s f.p. will be less interventionist than the last 4 years have been.

  219. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I wonder whether SfL and YAL are growing still, and what the growth rates are.”

    So do I. The most recent year I noticed a number for (2013), SFL’s annual conference was only about half again as big as the biggest LP national convention in history and they just had a bunch of fringe sponsors (Cato, FEE) and speakers (Stossel). Probably nothing to write home about.

    The last time morearchy wasn’t on the rise was probably during the Grover Cleveland administration.

  220. Tamara Millay

    RC,

    I thought we were talking about policy. “Oh, shit, the war ended, we better hurry up and find an excuse to not get rid of all this neat stuff” isn’t policy, it’s the space between policies.

  221. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    December 16, 2016 at 12:31
    tk, I wonder whether SfL and YAL are growing still, and what the growth rates are. I’m not sure training young people on eccentric interpretations of the Constitution leads to an actual lessarchist path somewhere down the road.”

    I bet that you say this as somebody who has never even been to a Young Americans for Liberty or Students for Liberty meeting, or done any Libertarian petitioning and/or voter registration and/or outreach at a college.

    I am a person who has plenty of experience doing all of the above, and I can tell that you do not know about what it is that you are speaking.

    “I, however, was referring to RP1’s influence on policy currently. I see none. If anything, I sense that morearchy is on the rise.”

    He’s probably not having that much influence on current government policies, but neither is the Libertarian Party, or any other libertarian or libertarian organization.

    Ron Paul has still inspired more people to become Libertarians or small “l” libertarians than anyone else.

  222. George Dance

    Andy: Having said this, I found the 14.5% flat tax proposed by Rand Paul, and the 10% flat tax proposed by Austin Petersen (Petersen said something about his flat tax plan being at the lowest rate possible to support the core functions of government, but I also recall him floating the 10% figure), to at least be incremental steps in the right direction.”

    I also recall Petersen calling for federal spending reductions of 1% a year (not a typo – he specifically called it the “Penny Plan”).

    Any idea what a 10% flat tax, while keeping spending at 95% (after one term) of present levels, would do to the federal deficit? Any idea how to reconcile that with the platform stipulation that governments “should not incur debt”, period?

    (This is directed not just to Andy, but to all the “libertarian Libertarians” who think Austin Petersen would have been the ideal libertarian communicator / candidate.)

  223. Andy

    The nomination of Johnson/Weld. and the number of Libertarians who supported their campaign, and voted for them, tells me that there are some real philosophical flaws as well as strategic flaws with many Libertarians. I also find it disturbing about the number of Libertarians who knew better, but who succumbed to peer pressure and group think mentality by voting for Johnson/Weld.

    I never thought that I’d see the day when Libertarians like Tom Knapp (and some others whom I would not have expected to do this) would vote for a warmongering, police state loving Republican. I am referring to William Weld. If the problems with Gary Johnson were not blatant enough, the problems with William Weld SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Weld supported the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act, and he endorsed and actively campaigned for George W. Bush in 2000 and in 2004, and he also endorsed George HW Bush in 1992, Mitt Romney in 2012, and in September of 2015, he endorsed Jeb Bush, and in February of 2016 he endorsed John Kasich. Voting for the Johnson/Weld ticket means that you wanted to place a warmongering, police state loving Republican, William Weld, a heartbeat away from the presidency, and you wanted him to be the President of the US Senate. If Johnson/Weld by some miracle had won the White House, you wanted Gary Johnson to give William Weld assignments, and you had no problem with him being Gary Johnson’s “co-President,” as Gary Johnson said that he would be if they won. When you voted for Johnson/Weld you said that you thought that Mitt Romney should be given a high level position in their administration, perhaps Secretary of State, as Johnson/Weld both said that they’d offer this to Mitt Romney. When you voted for Johnson/Weld, you said that every time they urinated on the Libertarian Party’s platform was OK.

    So yeah, a vote for Johnson/Weld was a vote for a warmongering, police state loving Republican.

    Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not throwing Tom Knapp, or every other Libertarian who voted for Johnson/Weld “under the bus” (so to speak), but a few of their supporters deserve this fate (metaphorically speaking). There are people in the LP who I otherwise hold in high regard who voted for Johnson/Weld. I just think that you all made a bad strategy decision, and that you’ve given yourselves less moral ground to stand on when you point the finger and criticize others.

    The only argument that I could see in favor of voting for Johnson/Weld was if you lived in one of the few states where the presidential vote determined ballot access.

  224. Andy

    “The only argument that I could see in favor of voting for Johnson/Weld was if you lived in one of the few states where the presidential vote determined ballot access.”

    I hate to sound like I am picking on Tom, but he voted in Florida and a vote for Johnson/Weld had ZERO effect on ballot access there.

    There were not as many states as some people think where votes for Johnson/Weld had any effect on ballot access. Some states do not have a vote test for ballot retention, and there are other states that do have a vote test for ballot access, but it is not based on the presidential vote, and there are some states where there is a vote test that could be for president or vote other offices.

  225. Andy

    “George Dance
    December 16, 2016 at 13:56
    Andy: Having said this, I found the 14.5% flat tax proposed by Rand Paul, and the 10% flat tax proposed by Austin Petersen (Petersen said something about his flat tax plan being at the lowest rate possible to support the core functions of government, but I also recall him floating the 10% figure), to at least be incremental steps in the right direction.”

    I also recall Petersen calling for federal spending reductions of 1% a year (not a typo – he specifically called it the “Penny Plan”).

    Any idea what a 10% flat tax, while keeping spending at 95% (after one term) of present levels, would do to the federal deficit? Any idea how to reconcile that with the platform stipulation that governments “should not incur debt”, period?

    (This is directed not just to Andy, but to all the “libertarian Libertarians” who think Austin Petersen would have been the ideal libertarian communicator / candidate.)”

    I NEVER said that Austin Petersen was my idea candidate. I have a few problems with Austin Petersen, and I did NOT vote for him at the convention, nor was he my 2nd choice, and he may not have been my 3rd choice either.

    I voted for Darryl W. Perry on both ballots at the convention. If Perry had been eliminated, I would likely have voted for John McAfee. Marc Feldman would likely have been eliminated before McAfee or Petersen, so I’m not sure who I would have voted for between them.

    There were problems with all of the candidates at the convention. I’ve never seen a perfect candidate, but I’d have voted for Harry Browne (if he were still alive) or Ron Paul over anyone that was on the stage at the convention in Orlando.

    When I said that I thought that Petersen would have been a better candidate than Johnson, I did NOT say this because Petersen is my ideal candidate, or because he was my top choice at that convention (once again, i voted for Perry), but rather because whatever faults Petersen had, Gary Johnson was worse.

    I am not sure that you are accurately stating Petersen’s plan (yes, I already knew about the penny plan, but I think that his platform ran deeper than that), but regardless of this, Petersen would have been preferable to Johnson, given what I have seen and heard from both of them.

  226. robert capozzi

    aj: [RP1]’s probably not having that much influence on current government policies, but neither is the Libertarian Party, or any other libertarian or libertarian organization.

    me: Thank you. We agree. What we don’t seem to agree about is WHY the LP, LM, or RP1 are of any influence. I believe the foundational principles of NAPsterism are untrue and unworkable. You — I think — believe that non-NAPsters are “sheeple,” ignorant, brainwashed, and confused.

  227. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    December 16, 2016 at 15:23
    ‘aj: [RP1]’s probably not having that much influence on current government policies, but neither is the Libertarian Party, or any other libertarian or libertarian organization.’

    me: Thank you. We agree. What we don’t seem to agree about is WHY the LP, LM, or RP1 are of any influence. I believe the foundational principles of NAPsterism are untrue and unworkable. You — I think — believe that non-NAPsters are ‘sheeple,’ ignorant, brainwashed, and confused.

    I believe that lots of people being “sheeple” (ignorant/brainwashed/confused/etc…) is a part of the problem, but another part of the problem is that those who want to make government bigger and simply better organized, and more willing to do what it takes to advance their agenda, as compared to libertarians, plus at this point the folks who want bigger and bigger government have already stacked the deck so far in their favor that it is hard for libertarians to compete.

    I do think that libertarians have a lot bit of influence, as in I think that the situation would be worse if there was no libertarian movement in this country, but obviously the trend toward an ever increasing government continues.

    There are a lot more things that libertarians COULD BE doing but are not doing, or at least are not doing enough, so to an extent, we have ourselves to blame for the situation,

  228. robert capozzi

    aj, interesting. But for NAPsters, government would be larger still and more intrusive. Is this just a sense of yours, or do you have specific areas where NAPsters have beaten back the State to some extent?

  229. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    It’s a matter of process. There are two steps:

    1) Be right; and

    2) Implement that.

    What you call “NAPsterism” is, in plain English, being right.

    Without Step 1, Step 2 isn’t anything worth doing.

    Your approach to policy is like the guy who thinks he lost his keys over there, but is looking for them over here because the light is better.

  230. Robert Capozzi

    TK, I’m sure YOU believe you are “right.” I believe NAPSTERISM to be unworkable and untrue.

    I do agree that GIGO holds in politics as well as with computer programming.

  231. Thomas L. Knapp

    Robert,

    It’s not so much about whether or not I believe I am right.

    The LP was formed around principles that its founders believed to be right and, as you are fond of pointing out, they codified those principles into the party’s structure in a particular way so as to make them very difficult to change.

    Success, for the LP, is implementing and/or giving voice to those principles.

    Implementing and/or giving voice to other, especially opposing, principles isn’t success for the LP.

    Nominating a candidate who doesn’t make anyone inside the beltway even a little uncomfortable may make you feel like you’re on track for thatinvitation to join the Very Special People Club, but it isn’t success for the LP unless that candidate implements and/or gives voice to those principles (and there’s probably an inverse correlation between doing that and soothing the membership of the Very Special People Club).

  232. robert capozzi

    tk, quite deferential (or perhaps clinical) of you! The 89 20-Somethings believed they were “right,” and oh by the way so do you, yes? Or are you disowning the NAP as Holy Grail now? 😉

    You are confused or mischaracterizing the lessarchist model that I point to. Of course it would make many inside the Beltway uncomfortable. It’s against their narrow special interests, after all.

    Fringe movements are much less of a concern to them, since the fringe is so easily dismissed on every level. Witness: The LP’s performance to date. Until 2016, it was no threat at all. In 2016, the relatively sane, non-fringe L ticket became an electoral threat, and the Rs, Ds, and MSM struck back.

    They showed no overt concern over the Bergland, Browne, and Badnarik campaigns, since Americans are largely uninterested in fringe candidates.

  233. Thomas L. Knapp

    How can I disown something I never owned?

    The NAP is the Libertarian Party’s foundational principle whether you like it or not (I know, you don’t).

    The NAP is the Libertarian Party’s foundational principle whether I like it or not (I’m OK with it).

    And the founders of the LP made it difficult to change that.

    You can whine about how wrong they were all you want. And when you’re done whining about it, they will still have done what they did.

  234. Thomas L. Knapp

    “They showed no overt concern over the Bergland, Browne, and Badnarik campaigns, since Americans are largely uninterested in fringe candidates.”

    Actually, they showed overt concern over the Badnarik campaign in 2004 because they saw the Browne campaign as having swung New Mexico in 2000. Neither Kerry nor Bush had New Mexico on their campaign schedules until Badnarik trotted out a poll showing him at 5% and announced a tour of the state. The Kerry and Bush BOTH jumped through their asses to get to New Mexico.

  235. dL

    Americans are largely uninterested in fringe candidates.

    Well, i would hazard a guess they even less interested in Capozzi’s dorky intellectual constructs. When I think of a truly fringe, I think of someone like Capozzi on stage explaining the differential calculus of the “lessanarchy” imperative. Tin-foil hat apparatus optional.

  236. robert capozzi

    Tk: Actually, they showed overt concern over the Badnarik campaign in 2004 because they saw the Browne campaign as having swung New Mexico in 2000.

    Me: It’s possible I s’pose that a poll might get the R or Ds attention in a swing state like NM. The truth, though, is that HB’s NM ‘00 result of 0.3% was within the margin of error, but it was DWARFED by Nader’s 3.6%. MB’s NM ‘00 result was 0.31% with RN getting 0.54%.

    “[B]ecause they saw” lacks credibility on its face unless there’s explicit evidence that that’s what they saw. Is there any such evidence? Nader was FAR more of a factor in that swing state. Or is this wishful thinking on your part?

    I wonder how many of the 0.3% of the HB and MB voters were consciously voting to challenge the cult of the omnipotent state. Maybe half of the 2,000+ votes in each election?

    Contrast both MB and HB’s result to Bergland’s 1984 result in NM. Well, the purest NAPster candidate did do far better, when looked at through a microscope: 4,459 votes representing 0.87%, placing a distant 3rd, not 4th. DB’s result, however, was not within the margin, as Reagan drubbed Mondale by 20 points.

    In a sense, the pure NAPster did better; in some ways the semi-NAPster Browne and the fellow-traveler Badnarik did better than the pure NAPster Bergland. None were taken nearly as seriously as the NAP-as-sentiment candidate GJ did, and whose result was 74K representing 9.3% in NM, within the margin. I stipulate that GJ’s being a former guv helped, but he tripled his ’12 result with better preparation and financing.

    Think of me less as “whining” and more as an escapee from a cult. Often, these escapees are doing their best to alert those still in the cult of its deep dysfunctions, which the current cult members are blind to.

  237. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I wonder how many of the 0.3% of the HB and MB voters were consciously voting to challenge the cult of the omnipotent state.”

    I have no idea. Challenging the cult of the omnipotent state is one of the party’s purposes and it would be both evil and un-pragmatic to mask it, but ultimately people vote the way they vote for whatever reasons seem sound to them. The most that can be said by way of connection between the two things is that the more honest and forthright we are about our actual purposes, the more we can plausibly conclude that those votes reflect support for our actual agenda instead of other reasons.

  238. robert capozzi

    tk, “evil and un-pragmatic,” huh? I wonder how many LP members believe there’s a CotOS? Maybe 5K of 15K?

    To me, hewing to falsehood because the falsehood has been booby-trapped by the generators of the falsehood smacks of hypocrisy and deep dysfunction. True radicals are — or should — be willing to check and challenge foundational premises.

    If I’m correct that perhaps 2/3rds of LP members don’t buy the Edicts of the 89 20-Somethings — not really, but they remain because the LP is the vehicle closest to their values, this is a massive setup for failure. It is a House severely divided, perhaps hopelessly so.

    Tautological defenses of untruth become increasingly transparent on examination, though.

  239. Thomas L. Knapp

    —-
    tk, “evil and un-pragmatic,” huh? I wonder how many LP members believe there’s a CotOS? Maybe 5K of 15K?
    —–

    Um … so?

    —–
    To me, hewing to falsehood because the falsehood has been booby-trapped by the generators of the falsehood smacks of hypocrisy and deep dysfunction. True radicals are — or should — be willing to check and challenge foundational premises.
    —–

    Implementing/giving voice to the document which asserts the existence of the cult of the omnipotent state IS the purpose of the LP. That’s just a fact. You can bemoan it all you like, but it’s a fact nonetheless.

    Lying about an organization’s purpose in hopes of fooling people into thinking its purpose is something else is evil and, in electoral politics, un-pragmatic. The only way for victory in a democratic system to bear decent fruit is if the people voting for you know what they’re voting for.

  240. Andy

    Robert Capozzi, you are totally overlooking the circumstances of the elections, so your analysis of how each LP presidential ticket did is FLAWED.

    Gary Johnson ran under FAR MORE FAVORABLE market conditions, both in 2012 and in 2016, as compared to the conditions that David Bergland, Ron Paul, Harry Browne, and Michael Badnarik ran under.

  241. Robert Capozzi

    TK, more tautologies. I’m not sure The 89 were “lying,” but they were quite confused.

    AJ, nope, not ignoring anything, since I agree with you. I am, rather, challenging TK’s highly selective, cherry picked facts as not analytically helpful.

  242. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    You’re trying to make this about ideology, when it isn’t.

    Suppose some people get together and form a car club. We’re a group of pre-1970 Ford Mustang owners. We call ourselves the Mustang Owners Fan Club, and we draw up bylaws saying that our purpose is to show, and promote the restoration and showing of, pre-1970 Ford Mustangs. Because we know that there are other cars out there with fans, and because we want our club to be what we want it to be in the future as well as now, we set a very high threshold for changing that purpose.

    At some point, we decided to hire someone to do a publicity tour — drive around the US in his pre-1970 Mustang talking up pre-1970 Mustangs. That’s an implementation of our purpose (“promote the restoration and showing of pre-1970 Mustangs.” So we pick a guy and hire him.

    One week later: He’s on TV showing off his 1978 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am, talking about what a great car it is, and advising people to stay away from pre-1970 Ford Mustangs.

    Your view of this in the analogy is “oh, well, the 1978 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am is a better car than the 1966 Ford Mustang Coupe, and we really should be about 1970s Pontiac Firebird Trans Ams instead of pre-1970 Ford Mustangs, and besides, look how much better the people he’s showing his car too are responding than the people our past club promoters showed their Mustangs to. We shouldn’t get so hung up on pre-1970 Ford Mustangs.”

    Even if everything you say is true, it doesn’t change the FACT that the PURPOSE of the Mustang Owners Fan Club is to show and promote the showing of pre-1970 Ford Mustangs, not 1970s Pontiac Firebird Trans Ams.

    I didn’t author the LP’s statement of principles, nor did I author the 7/8ths modification requirement for modifying it. I was in kindergarten when that happened.

    I also didn’t author the bylaws provision saying that the party’s purpose is to implement and give voice to that statement of principles. I’m not sure when that became part of the bylaws, but I’m 99% certain it was before I joined the party.

    Nonetheless, that’s the setup. I don’t have to like it. It’s the setup whether I like it or not. And complaining about the content of the statement of principles does change those facts.

  243. Andy

    Robert, you’ve been complaining for years about the purpose and structure of the Libertarian Party. Why don’t you just form a new political party that is to your liking? You could work with other people who agree with you on what you think is wrong with the Libertarian Party.

  244. Just Some Random Guy

    @ Andy

    Here is an example of why Ron Paul was a MUCH BETTER candidate than Gary Johnson or Bill Weld.

    Ron Paul On Legalizing Drugs! PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE!

    If not for his age (and probably even when considering it), Ron Paul would have been a better candidate than Gary Johnson or any of the 2016 presidential LP candidates. However, the comparison is also a bit moot, because Ron Paul wasn’t running. I do think that, of the generally mediocre crop of candidates the LP had in 2016, Gary Johnson was the best of them. I hope they can get a better group together for 2020.

  245. robert capozzi

    tk: Suppose some people get together and form a car club.

    me: Since the LP advertises itself as seeking a world of liberty, but what it really seeks is adherence to the NAP and the belief in a cult of the omnipotent state, I simply point out the disconnect.

    It may advertise itself as a pre-1970 Mustang Car Club, but the fine print only allows full membership for those whose Mustangs were assembled on a Tuesday, it seems useful to me to point out the fine print to those who’ve not delved into the exclusions.

    It’s also just fucking weird and dysfunctional that Mustangs built Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, and — as a radical — I take some satisfaction in pointing out obvious poor thinking. There’s nothing special about Tuesday-built Mustangs. Why a bunch a 20 year olds plus Rothbard and Hospers thought something magical happened on Tuesdays in MI in the 60s.

  246. George Phillies

    Interesting News Note…from Huffington Post
    Some states mandate that electors vote the way their state instructs, but the the 10th Circuit Court ruled late on Friday that such laws are unconstitutional. The court covers the region of Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah, and Wyoming.

  247. George Phillies

    There is some question about what the 10th Circuit actually said.See Daily Kos for alternative opinions.

  248. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Since the LP advertises itself as seeking a world of liberty, but what it really seeks is adherence to the NAP and the belief in a cult of the omnipotent state, I simply point out the disconnect.”

    The non-existent “disconnect” is irrelevant to the question. No amount of bitching on your end is going to create a time vortex going back 50 years to make the purpose of the LP be what you wish it was and isinstead of what it was and is.

    The LP doesn’t “seek … belief in a cult of the omnipotent state.” It seeks to “challenge” said cult, which is probably the single least disputable political fact of the last century (its congregations number billions and its cardinals include, among others, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Franco, FDR, Mao, the Kim dynasty, Castro, Pinochet, the Perons, Pol Pot, Hoxha, the Ceaucescus, Erich Honecher …)

  249. robert capozzi

    tk, I’m sorry, I’ve many times stipulated that you are correct about the intentions of the 89. I ask the next obvious question: Was their NAP-adherence, NAP-as-Holy-Grail a good idea? Is it the optimal basis for those seeking a world of liberty, starting with the US? Or was it rather the best work that an assemblage of 20-something Randians with tweaks from Rothbard and Evers could muster, which, after a decades-long experiment, has been unsuccessful in advancing liberty?

    Since you are fond of analogies, say a 23-year-old engineer believes she can build a perpetual motion machine. Her basis for optimism springs from a fundamental math error she made in her junior year in engineering school. She founds a company (PPM, Inc.) dedicated to building this perpetual motion machine, based on the error. For decades, she tinkers in her shop, hoping for the breakthrough that will revolutionize the world. Sadly for her, after all this effort, she’s now 60 and has still not invented her PPM. It was a lovely and ambitious intention, but her efforts are largely for naught.

    So, yes, it’s a “fact” that PPM was founded and dedicated to inventing a PPM. It’s ALSO a fact that she made a math error when she was 20. And it’s also a fact that she still doesn’t have a PPM when she’s 60.

    Focus only on fact one as you are wont to do, but it seems important (at least to me) that we look at facts two and three.

    BTW, some good has come from her efforts. She’s invented better lubricants and more efficient materials and joints, so her “PPM” may not be “perpetual,” but it DOES sustain motion for longer than thought possible.

    Friends of hers have pointed out her initial math error, but she has elaborate defense mechanisms, and she simply won’t hear about her fundamental error. Admitting that error would be to make her entire life’s work a waste, so she labors on, based on a false assumption.

    See?

  250. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I ask the next obvious question: Was their NAP-adherence, NAP-as-Holy-Grail a good idea?”

    That’s an interesting question.

    It has nothing to do with appropriate candidate conduct, though.

    The role of candidates in relation to the party is that they’re the people we hire to “give voice to the Statement of Principles” in a particular way (by running for office).

    If they use their campaigns to give voice to something else instead, especially something incompatible, they’re a failure from the perspective of the party’s purpose.

    A guy who sets a record selling Budweiser at hot rod shows is a pretty good salesman. But if he dos so under the pretense of operating a booth for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, he shouldn’t expect pats on the back from MADD.

  251. robert capozzi

    aj: Why don’t you just form a new political party that is to your liking?

    me: As I’ve explained before when you make this My-Way-Or-the-Highway argument, I’m not that interested, lack the resources, lack the time. Also, with the NAPster LP having achieved a certain institutional status, it effectively blocks a lessarchist L party’s formation and has probably achieved some allegiance to itself from those who are NOT NAPsters but are interested in L political activity.

    Really, we’re all just bullshitting at the corner bar. I suspect that even NAPsters realize this.

  252. robert capozzi

    tk: they’re a failure from the perspective of the party’s purpose.

    me: Yes, I can see that, from the narrow, 89ers perspective. But IIRC the 89ers also have Bylaws that allow for removal of poseur, non-NAP-plumbline candidates.

    I seem to recall your trying to provoke that Bylaw to be imposed. That effort was unsuccessful, IIRC.

    Who’s the whiner?! 😉

  253. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    “Who’s the whiner?!”

    Well, let’s see:

    1) I asked if the LNC was going to do its job vis a vis Johnson. The answer was no.

    2) I asked the LNC to do its job vis a vis Weld, as did some local party affiliates. It didn’t happen.

    My recollection is that I haven’t discussed either one of those questions since around the time I asked them. I moved on as soon as I understood that the LNC had no intention of doing its job this time around.

    You, on the other hand, have continued whining for decades whenever the LP DOES do its job, or whenever you think the LP might even be CONSIDERING doing its job.

    So there’s the answer to your question, I guess.

  254. Thomas L. Knapp

    Ah — I almost missed that you were trying to smuggle your “plumbline” strawman in again. Not to belabor it, but please consider yourself busted and your lighter fluid confiscated, as per usual.

  255. Robert Capozzi

    TK, decade, not decades. ?

    Sorry that I seem to whine to you. I see it more like pointing out that the Emperor’s naked, whereas the assembled seem convinced that he’s wearing regal robes.

    It’s some mighty POWERFUL Kool Aid to see that which is not there! ?

  256. Robert Capozzi

    We all have plumblines of a sort. GJ’s burqa ban triggered a bright line plumbline for me, a new one for me. Your plumbline seems a bit more liberal than some NAPSTERS use.

  257. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    It’s not about whether or not we all have plumblines of a sort. It’s about whether or not THAT is what THIS DISCUSSION is about. It isn’t.

    “Plumbline” is ideology.

    You’re talking about whether the floor should be mopped or swept, hardwood or linoleum, what color and texture the floor should be.

    I’m talking about whether or not janitors Gary Johnson and William Weld mopped the floor as they were hired to do, or whether they decided to do something else, maybe even something that made the floor dirtier.

  258. Robert Capozzi

    TK: I’m talking about whether or not janitors Gary Johnson and William Weld mopped the floor as they were hired to do…

    Me: As a hyper-technical matter, based on 89er rules, no. Nor did the JC and your chairman, as I understand it.

    You have the choice of accepting that, or you can start a campaign of retribution against the many interlopers who’ve disappointed you and the like-minded.

    Stepping outside the hyper-technical construct, most would not be as hyper-literal in complying with the rules. People drive 60 in 55 MPH zones all the time, and cops don’t bat an eyelash. People recognize that common practice sometimes diverge from the law.

  259. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    OK, at least now we’re finally talking about the same thing.

    While the janitors were taking a dump on the floor instead of mopping it as they had been hired to do, I did make an issue of it to the extent I was capable of doing so.

    Now that the campaign is over, I’m not particularly interested in retribution. I’ll do what I can to help the LP not make the same mistake yet again. There may be a few people whose judgment I will not trust in the future based on their past mistakes.

    If, in my view, this particular problem continues to be chronic and I lose faith that it can be corrected, I won’t be interested in retribution, either. I’ll just move on to some vehicle other than the LP.

  260. Jill Pyeatt

    George and Paulie, do you think there’s some possibility that there will not be 270 electors who vote for Trump?

    I’m now starting to think that might happen.

  261. paulie Post author

    do you think there’s some possibility that there will not be 270 electors who vote for Trump?

    I’m not nearly that optimistic. And even if it somehow did happen, he would probably be voted in by the House.

  262. dL

    People drive 60 in 55 MPH zones all the time, and cops don’t bat an eyelash. People recognize that common practice sometimes diverge from the law.

    Actually, it’s completely discretionary whether they do nothing or pull you over. It depends on a number of factors: the model of the the car, your ethnicity, your gender, the time of day or night, whether they are out trolling for revenues(DUI prowling). The common practice of the people re: interpreting the actions of the police differs markedly across disparate groups.

    Capozzi strikes me as the type that views the police more or less as your friendly neighborhood lessanarchic good guy. I would contend that people like Capozzi and his target demographic should not be the target nor the concern of the LP. In a n-way race(n>2), they don’t need to be. Fuck ’em. Indeed, sufficiently pissing off that target demo(GOP/cons) probably is a damn good test for the effectiveness of a LP candidacy.

  263. George Phillies

    Do I think that there will be 270 electors for Trump? No, I think that there will be about 304 +/- 2.
    But Johnson will have none of them. And the crock proposal that if he got one electoral vote the race would be thrown into the house can be seen to be what it was, namely a complete crock.

  264. Jill Pyeatt

    But Johnson will have none of them. And the crock proposal that if he got one electoral vote the race would be thrown into the house can be seen to be what it was, namely a complete crock.

    LOL~ I never heard this one.

  265. George Phillies

    It was less funny that the claim that there were two states he was more or less certain to carry, one being Utah.

  266. robert capozzi

    tk: While the janitors were taking a dump on the floor instead of mopping it as they had been hired to do, I did make an issue of it to the extent I was capable of doing so.

    me: And there’s the thing about politics…it is all about perception. The L ticket was wildly record-breaking on many levels and was, at least until Aleppo, largely taken seriously and generally positively by probably tens of millions of people.

    But, for you, that performance was tantamount to “taking a dump.”

    Since it is YOUR perception, you cannot be wrong…for you. The number of “infractions” and the magnitude of those “infractions” were unacceptable, though you voted for them.

    And yet if it were studied seriously, I suspect the wider perception was that — as 3rd party campaigns go — TeamGov is as good as it gets. Many thought they were qualified, and had many good, positive things to say. What probably came through were things like: shrink government; end the practice of regime change; legalize weed; marriage equality is a good thing.

    I even heard GJ cite the NAP a number of times on national TV.

    Again, nothing “wrong” with your perceptions, but I suspect they are very unusual.

  267. Thomas L. Knapp

    “And yet if it were studied seriously, I suspect the wider perception was that — as 3rd party campaigns go — TeamGov is as good as it gets. Many thought they were qualified, and had many good, positive things to say.”

    Which has nothing to do with the matter we’re discussing. I might do a bang-up job of painting your house purple and spraying your yard with Round Up. If you hired me to paint your house yellow and mow, you’re going to be righteously pissed regardless of how well I did what I did.

  268. robert capozzi

    more…

    Those who participated in the Underground Railroad were in technical violation of the rules, too. I think they did the right thing in doing so.

  269. robert capozzi

    Except, Dear Thomas, it wasn’t just YOU who hired GJ and WW. It was the convention. And it CERTAINLY wasn’t the 89 20-somethings who hired GJ and WW. They may well have been SO arrogant that they thought they should be a virtual, eternal jury for all things L.

    Thankfully, they are not!

  270. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Those who participated in the Underground Railroad were in technical violation of the rules, too. I think they did the right thing in doing so.”

    I don’t recall the operators of the Underground Railroad agitating for taking away the 2nd Amendment rights of people put on secret government enemies lists in violation of their 5th Amendment rights. Or “trying to start a conversation” about how it’s better to just civilly commit than criminally arrest people who used pharmaceuticals they didn’t like. Or advocating putting every man, woman and child in America on a cradle to grave federal welfare check. Or claiming that the US should maintain the most powerful military in the world. Or conditioning movement across gang turf lines on registration with gang extortion rackets.

  271. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Except, Dear Thomas, it wasn’t just YOU who hired GJ and WW. It was the convention.”

    That would be the same convention which could have changed the purpose and/or platform and/or Statement of Principles if it had wanted to, right? The fact that it did none of those things presumably indicates that it was okay with, and assuming itself to be operating on, those things.

  272. Robert Capozzi

    No. When confronted with a booby trap, sometimes it’s wiser to move on to a less burdensome task.

  273. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    I heartily agree that if someone considers the LP’s bylaws, platform, Statement of Principles, convention rules, etc. to be “booby traps” then he should either try to navigate those booby traps, or go find an organization he doesn’t consider to be booby trapped.

    When I was in the Marine Corps, I received a certain amount of training in identifying and avoiding or defusing booby traps (that training came in handy — at the very least it saved severe injury to a comrade’s leg, and possibly both our lives). “Whine about it while, as a practical matter, ignoring it” was not part of the syllabus.

  274. Robert Capozzi

    TK, it seems the non-NAPSTER and even non-NAP-obsessed Ls in fact ARE “navigating” the 89’s handiwork by ignoring it where they can get away with it.

    Others, like myself, lapsed and will vote L where it makes sense to do so.

    If there WERE a viable non-NAPSTER, non booby trapped lessarchist party, I’d certainly take a look. Thanks for reminding us of SOME of our options.

  275. Thomas L. Knapp

    “If there WERE a viable non-NAPSTER, non booby trapped lessarchist party, I’d certainly take a look.”

    The last time there was one — one that got on the ballot in more states than Hospers/Nathan 1972 with less lead time — you didn’t seem to think much of it.

  276. Thomas L. Knapp

    “BTP was both booby trapped and NAPSTER IIRC, just a lot more transparently so.”

    Nope. It was just plain lessarchist and its platform didn’t even mention the NAP. That platform, in its entirety:

    “The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.”

    That platform allowed for the party’s policy proposals to be incrementalist or abolitionist as the membership pleased on any given issue at any given time. All it required was that the party actually be lessarchist. One of the side effects of that was that it outed fake lessarchists like yourself.

  277. George Phillies

    I predicted: “Do I think that there will be 270 electors for Trump? No, I think that there will be about 304 +/- 2.”

    As it happens, there were exactly 304.

  278. robert capozzi

    tk: All it required was that the party actually be lessarchist.

    btp: opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.

    me: As I read this, if a BTP MC agreed to increasing pothole remediation by $1 as a package to cut overall spending levels, the MC would be repudiated.

    Emerson called that “foolish consistency.”

    tk: outed fake lessarchists like yourself.

    me: Ouch! Sorry you feel that way! I do believe I coined the word “lessarchist,” so it seems odd on its face that I’d be a fake one! Yes?!

  279. dL

    Emerson called that “foolish consistency.”

    Emerson’s quote, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines” is meant to extol the virtue of nonconformity. Indeed, something like the dipshit conformity of lessanarchy respectability politics is an example of what that quote would be attacking.

    Emerson is not right guy to be citing re: the case for intellectual conformity/respectability. Who’s next? Thoreau? LOL…

  280. robert capozzi

    tk: Offered actual lessarchism, you run like hell.

    me: I guess this is still interesting… Tom, yes, that’s true. BTP was lessarchist. So is the LP. So am I. So are you.

    How rigid are the standards of what constitutes a lessarchist approach probably gets us closer to the point. I would vote for a budget that was frozen overall, but in some cases some line items increased so long as there were offsetting cuts. I would view that as TREMENDOUS progress, given how much the federal budget grows year in, year out.

    I might even vote for an overall budget that increased but slowed sufficiently and put spending on a path of shrinking relative to the GDP or some other measure of national wealth. Surely I would push for the deepest cuts I could get, but if my vote was pivotal in bending the curve or allowing current trends to continue, I might suck it up and vote for the best package that could be agreed to by the body.

    Then, again, as I’ve shared before, I think a case could be made for something like a UBI, which might be viewed as increasing government. I might be able to make the case that would be excluded from the “size of government” basket, as it could be viewed as baseline justice, given the many imperfections of the justice system to date and almost certainly in the future.

    You seem to find that assessment too lax for your tastes of what constitutes lessarchy. For me, your each-and-every-line-item standard misses the forest for the trees. That level of “consistency” is another example of the perfect being the enemy of the good, from where I sit.

    Also, I noted that the BTP was founded by an abolitionist anarchist and seemed to mostly appeal to fellow abolitionists. The tone of it didn’t appeal to my asymptotic anarchist perspective.

    And, yes, assessments involve feelings. At root, 1+ 1 = 2 because we feel it does, since numbers are themselves constructs, mere labels.

  281. Thomas L. Knapp

    Yes, I know you had various reasons for not considering the BTP worthwhile. Based on our discussions over the years, I conclude that the chief such reason was that it was “lessarchist without loopholes” instead of “lessarchist when I happen to feel like it.”

  282. dL

    At root, 1+ 1 = 2 because we feel it does, since numbers are themselves constructs, mere labels.

    Crackpot alert…

  283. Darcy G Richardson

    “I also thought the name BTP was odd and lacked national attractiveness.” — Robert Capozzi

    Yeah, Bob, the Boston Tea Party had no significance in American history. Nobody in the United States could have possibly figured out that it was named after an intrepid act of legendary defiance — a political protest organized by a group called the “Sons of Liberty” — that not only sparked a revolution, but laid the foundation for this Republic.

    It was just too odd and unattractive.

    Sorry, but Tom’s choice of a party name, a moniker gleaned from what was arguably one of the most pivotal events in American history — and the subsequent British reaction to it — was one of the coolest political party names ever.

    In many respects, it was the perfect name for an anti-government, freedom-oriented party hoping to appeal to an aroused citizenry.

  284. robert capozzi

    tk, yes, the lessarchist without “loopholes” approach that the LP and BTP both employ(ed) doesn’t do much to actually advance lessarchism, in my estimation. If I thought the highly “consistent,” almost completely inflexible approach to politics COULD work, I’d support it.

    ATC, and based on results, I’d surmise that my assessment has (thus far at least) been proven correct. By virtually all measures, the State controls more of our lives today than it did 45 years ago.

    AJ may be correct that without political activity informed by NAPsterism, the situation would be even more state-coercive. I see no evidence for that assessment, but I’m open to that possibility.

    I suspect it’s mostly just a feeling of his! 😉

  285. robert capozzi

    DGR, there’s no accounting for tastes.

    My sense is that, yes, of course, the event was vitally important, but for me naming a political party with a city name made it feel regional and non-serious.

    Tea Party might have been interesting, and IIRC, TK formed the BTP pre-Santelli’s rant and the subsequent rise of the “Tea Party.”

    He might have named it the Lysander Party or the Garrison Party or Shay’s Rebellion Party, which were also cool, but probably wouldn’t sell today.

    IIRC, there was a guy involved at high levels of the BTP who frequently talked about “rebar” as a kind of veiled threat, I think, so that was also unattractive to me.

  286. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    The BTP never got big enough to have “high levels” 😉

    I chose the name Boston Tea Party for one reason: I had it lying around. One day I was at my web site domain registrar for some un-remembered reason and saw that they were having a sale on “.us” domains for 99 cents or somewhere in that range. I remember thinking “I wish there was a .party TLD … if there was, I’d buy bostontea.party.” So I bought “bostontea.us” with it in mind to use for SOMETHING related to the historical Boston Tea Party.

    It wasn’t until months later that your “Reform Caucus” comrades managed to gut the LP’s platform in Portland. That seemed to me to call for some kind of organized response, and I also had it in mind to try some new things generally that weren’t necessarily related to the Portland Massacre.

    For example, I wanted to see if it was possible to hold a full national political party convention entirely online, from opening gavel to closing gavel (the BTP became the first party to do that, and did it again in 2008, 2010 and, terminally, in 2012).

    I also wanted to see how a national political party convention would work with all members eligible to act as delegates instead of appointing representative delegates. We managed that, too (I do think that had something to do with the terminal organizational crisis, though).

    I wanted to test a minimalist permanent platform/biennial policy program format for a political party. I thought that actually worked out reasonably well.

    And while I was at it, I figured I would use it to see if you, Brian Holtz and a few others were actually serious about “lessarchism” or just blowing hot gas. That was informative.

    The BTP certainly failed at keeping itself a going concern as an electoral political organization. But it was useful for testing a few things I wanted to try (and that I am continuing to refine process-wise in theory — there may be a book eventually), so even if no one else found it worthwhile, I certainly did.

    It was also able to field, and achieve some ballot access for, a presidential ticket on a few days notice (there was no organized intent to do so until after Barr won the LP nomination in 2008). That was pretty cool.

    I’m always bouncing around new ideas for political parties (mostly the LP), and ideas for new political parties (if I do that again, I may take another look at Rothbard’s vanguardist/”Leninist cadre” model for the ideological component, coupled with a more decentralized strategic model for the electoral component).

  287. Robert Capozzi

    TK, prominent may be a better word than high. 😉

    Seems like an awful lot of effort to test me and others. As a member of the Lennon-Ist Cadre, I of course must respect whatever gets you through the night.

    Self-reporting, I can say that my interest in advancing lessarchism is about the same as it was in 06. I’m cautiously pessimistic for its near- and intermediate- term prospects, mostly due to the State’s momentum and that the only organized counter is NAP-strung, choking off the possibility of a credible opposition.

  288. Matt

    Rebellion Party has a certain ring to it. I wouldn’t include “Shay’s.” Rebel Alliance, maybe. Remember, the average person is not that highbrow. The BTP name was not effective, as most people to the limited extent they encountered it probably thought it had something to do with the modern city of Boston (so if I don’t live there why are you bothering me), or, irrespective that it was founded pre-Santelli, post-Santelli trying to explain that it meant anything else was a whole lot of pissing into the face of hurricane strength wind. But since the BTP did not do any organizing outside of an online passive recruiting model worth speaking of, none of that real world stuff even came into play anyway.

    Organizing a new alt party and having it take off, regardless of ideology, is very difficult. Lots of people try, and their continuous failure does not necessarily mean that there is not much market for their ideas. There have been a myriad of socialist parties for decades, some of them a century or more old now, and Bernie Sanders proved that the reason they fail to the extent they do is not necessarily because they admit to being socialist. Libertarians took off, by alt party standards, due to the historical accident of an electoral vote they hadn’t earned back when they were a two-state electoral party with less than a hundred people, most in their 20s, at their national convention and 4,000 or so votes nationwide; followed by a temporary infusion of Koch money and thousands of Libertarian campaigns up and down the ballot over the decades since, including a presidential campaign on all or at least most state ballots every 4 years.

    Although the name is inherently clunky, it has clawed its way to fairly widespread recognition, partially through the work of that party over the years, and partially through the work of the larger libertarian movement, most of which does not align with the party of the same name but does hold roughly similar views. Starting a new libertarian-like party is unlikely to meet with greater success, regardless of whether that party is more or less extreme than the current LP, and regardless of whether the current LP continues to exist. It takes a lot of hard work, a lot of strategic intelligence, a lot of overcoming internal disagreement, and some luck such as the aforementioned faithless elector. There are a lot of roadblocks to any “third” party gaining traction. Coming up with a cool name is the least of them.

  289. Andy

    Party of the reason the Boston Tea Party was not more successful was due to a lack of candidates on the ballot. Did the Boston Tea Party ever have any candidates on the ballot besides Charles Jay for President in 2008, who qualified for the ballot in Colorado, Tennessee, and Florida (Charles Jay was on the ballot under the Boston Tea Party banner in Colorado and Florida, but he was on in as an independent in Tennessee)?

    Another thing that held the Boston Tea Party back was that their national committee was prohibited from raising money. I do not know if they put the same restriction on their state affiliates, or if they even had state affiliates. Fund raising could have been done by their candidates, or through PACs, but I am not sure if anyone even did that. I think that all of the money spent on Charles Jay for President came out of the pocket of Charles Jay.

    I still have some Charles Jay for President and Tom Knapp for Vice President Boston Tea Party buttons. I wonder if they are collector’s items now.

  290. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    Yes, we needed more candidates … but the task of the party at a national level was to select TWO candidates. One for president, one for vice-president. Candidates at other levels weren’t the national organization’s job, although in the absence of strong state affiliates running their own candidates, we did endorse libertarian candidates on other parties’ ballot lines (mostly Libertarian, but I think there may have been a Republican or two after I was no longer involved).

    Part of the idea of the Boston Tea Party was that it would serve the two main purposes of a “national political party” without getting dragged down into some of the centralization problems that plague the LNC. That was why the bylaws didn’t allow it to get into the business of raising and spending money.

  291. Andy

    Tom, did any Boston Tea Party candidate besides Charles Jay for President ever qualify for the ballot anywhere (not counting BTP endorsed candidates from other parties)?

  292. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    I don’t know, but I doubt it. We never developed a strong set of state affiliates.

    Not to give Tom Stevens too much credit, but part of his scheme for getting himself nominated for president by the BTP was to create essentially fake affiliates — no real members, just a chair who happened to be a friend of Tom Stevens and might not even live in the state in question. The other half of that scheme was to try to get the national committee to ignore the bylaws and nominate a ticket on the basis of “one affiliate, one vote.” So we ended up with maybe 3 or 4 actual state affiliates (i.e. affiliates with at least a few members instead of just one Stevens stooge) and maybe twice as many fake Stevens organizations which existed for the sole purpose of voting for him and Alden Link as the nominees. When his scheme got busted, those puffball affiliates disappeared too.

    There’s no doubt that Stevens hurt us at a critical moment with his bizarre power grab scams. On the other hand, I am far from sure that we would have developed a strong, continuing affiliate base even absent his sabotage.

  293. William Saturn

    The party had the opportunity to nominate Phil Davison in 2012. He would have been a great advocate for the party. Instead, it nominated a fraud and so it no longer exists (except for in James Ogle’s mind).

  294. Thomas L. Knapp

    Yes, the party’s 2012 presidential nomination fiasco was pretty much its terminating event. But that fiasco did not happen in a vacuum, it just happened to be the end point of a series of systemic failures.

    Would I have loved it if the BTP had persisted, grown, run candidates all up and down the ladder and across the country, etc.? Sure. But very few new political parties manage that, and my anecdotal sense is that very few of them do even as much as the BTP managed to do. We blazed a couple of new trails, and when Darryl saw that the time of doing so was over, he turned out the lights. I’m grateful to him for doing so. RIP BTP.

  295. Andy

    Matt
    December 25, 2016 at 09:20
    ‘Hoppe New Year’

    I just vomited a little. Have a Ron Paul Newsletters Hanukkah and a Trump loving Lew Rockwell Kwanzaa.

    http://www.theagitator.com/2008/02/02/lew-rockwell-on-rodney-king-in-the-la-times/

    Talk about old news.

    Lew Rockwell’s point was that Rodney King was a drunken lowlife who engaged in reckless driving, and who led the police on a chase (running multiple red lights in the process), and then once he was pulled over, he LUNGED at the police.

    The cops were wrong to keep hitting him after he was down, but this does not mean that Rodney King was some kind of great role model, nor that he was not in the wrong for drunken, reckless driving, and for lunging at the police.

    What if Rodney King had run somebody over? Suppose he had run over somebody’s kid? If one is drunk driving, is it a smart thing to do to charge at the police after you are pulled over?

    The cops could have grabbed him after he was on the ground, and put handcuffs on him, and that likely would have been the end of it. They whacked him several times after he was down, and that was wrong, but none of this means that Rodney King did not bring this situation on himself (which he did), nor does this make him a role model.

  296. Thomas L. Knapp

    No, that wasn’t his point.

    His point was to seize an opportunity to come off to white rural southerners as an enthusiastic copsucker, on the supposition that said white rural southerners have nightmares about people of duskier hue “running wild” on the streets of the big city.

    See “strategy, paleo.”

  297. Matt

    I think that has something to do with it, even though the Los Angeles Times has an audience that is not primarily rural or Southern, as far as I know.

  298. Matt

    But once again people here are missing the forest for the trees. The newsletters and the LA times op-ed are trees. Their Trumptardedness of late is just another tree. Hoppe paling around with racist skinheads in Europe is another tree. But it’s all part of a pattern, a larger forest. Step back and take a bird’s eye view. It’s a very ugly forest of hate and bigotry and excuses for authoritarianism (as long as it comes from the nationalist/racist right). And about to get uglier, now that the Rockwell crowd is about to be in the unusual role of defending a regime whose rise to power they enthusiastically backed.

  299. Thomas L. Knapp

    Matt,

    My expectation is that the Rockwell and Co. will try to turn on a dime and start pretending to be anti-state again after January 20.

    They didn’t expect Trump to win.

    In fact, they were COUNTING on him to not win.

    Rockwell’s revenue model is “pick a controversial loser, because the supporters of controversial losers can be milked FOREVER.” Or at least close enough to forever to not matter. Heck, Appomattox was more than 150 years ago and he’s still milking supporters of the Confederacy.

  300. dL

    Lew Rockwell’s point was that Rodney King was a drunken lowlife who engaged in reckless driving, and who led the police on a chase (running multiple red lights in the process), and then once he was pulled over, he LUNGED at the police.

    I have never known Lew Rockwell et al to be staunch supporters of DUI laws or traffic lights. This was simply case of “paleo strategy agitprop”, which in part, relied on playing up white fear of “lawless brown people” usurping traditional white authority(of course, for a subscription fee). The worst thing about those “newsletters” was not the “political correctness,” it was the putrid copsucking. Some passages suggested it should be illegal to videotape the cops, and if you did, you would justified in getting the Rodney King treatment. Of course, this is actually a version right-wing political correctness which holds the cops to be the victim.

    Now, no one ever owned up to actually writing to those newsletters. It’s an open question whether Rockwell, Rothbard, Ron Paul or Casper the Ghost actually believed what they were spewing. But for those today who openly defend those newsletters and who have no possible ulterior-motive tie-in with it’s history, it’s not an open question of what you are and what you believe.

  301. dL

    My expectation is that the Rockwell and Co. will try to turn on a dime and start pretending to be anti-state again after January 20.

    Hmm, my guess is that they are going to continue to ride that white identity train in the open. Good for business. Doublethink is a wonderful thing when it comes to such endeavors.

  302. Matt

    It will be interesting to see whether their white power tendencies will “trump” their anti-statism. My guess is that when push comes to shove they will go with the white nationalism, even if you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette ( one where there’s not too much pepper to darken it up).

  303. Thomas L. Knapp

    dL,

    You may well be right — we’re both just guessing, and sometimes you guess better than I do.

    My perception is that the revenue model pretty much requires them to be on the outraged edge, with a thick gravy of “defending the undefendable,” “tearing up the index card of allowable opinion,” etc. Rodney King, the Confederates, what have you.

    In the electoral arena, I think their support for Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, regardless of whether they saw those two as ideologically compatible, was more about “after these guys lose, we can commiserate with their supporters and sell them stuff for YEARS.” And they expected to be able to do the same thing with Trump … but then he WON.

    Of course, I could be giving them too much credit for being venal con artists. Maybe they really are just the kind of mentally deranged and morally reprobate scum they pretend to be and try to sell stuff to. Hans-Hermann Hoppe strikes me as strong evidence for that possibility. He’s what you’d get if Chauncey Gardiner had been raised by Julius Rosenberg and Orville Faubus.

  304. Just Some Random Guy

    I figure I might as well drop this off here. Laura Ebke, currently the only Libertarian Party state senator, is doing a “money bomb” fundraiser for the end of 2016 to try to gear up for re-election in 2018 (though I’m sure she’d have no objections if you were to donate after 2016). She was originally elected as a Republican but changed to the Libertarian Party earlier this year. Here’s her website where you can donate if you’re potentially interested in helping the only Libertarian serving at the state level to keep her seat:

    https://lauraebke.com

  305. Thomas L. Knapp

    Thanks for posting that, JSRG — it’s easy to forget that elected Libertarians have to get RE-elected, too, and that, as the proggies over at Emily’s list like to say, “early money is like yeast — it helps raise the dough.”

  306. Andy

    Even if we had a libertarian society, driving recklessly (while drunk, and in a high population area), would not be acceptable, and the market would have to come up with a way to deal with individuals who engaged in such behavior.

    Do I think that the police should dish out beatings after a perpetrator/suspect is subdued? No, even though one could argue that there could be situations where some people may deserve it, this would obviously set a dangerous precedent with lots of room for abuse.

    Bringing up some letter that Lew Rockwell wrote 25 years ago has little to do with the post that illicited this response. I thought the “Murray (Rothbard) Christmas, and a (Hans-Herman) Hoppe New Year” was an amusing and season appropriate meme.

    So everyone should disregard the entire body of work from Murray Rothbard and Hans-Herman Hoppe, because of a comment made by Lew Rockwell 25 years ago? Talk about guilt by association.

    Should everyone disregard everything that Lew Rockwell has ever done because of a comment he made 25 years ago, even though Rockwell has spent plenty of time railing against the police state and warfare state since then?

    If so, you could probably find lots of things to criticize with lots of people, and then disregard them, because of something they, or somebody with whom they associated, said or did, sometime during the course of their lives. If you applied this same standard to everyone you’d probably have a difficult time finding anyone with whom you could not find some reason to disregard them.

  307. Matt

    Once again, Andy manages to rather spectacularly miss the point. A few small examples of the overall problem with Hoppe, Rockwell et al aren’t some kind of aberration, they are illustrations of a much larger trend with them. Knapp and dL successfully explained what that trend is.

  308. Thomas L. Knapp

    “So everyone should disregard the entire body of work from Murray Rothbard and Hans-Herman Hoppe, because of a comment made by Lew Rockwell 25 years ago?”

    Everyone should disregard the entire body of work from Hans-Hermann Hoppe because he’s a lunatic authoritarian twat.

  309. dL

    Even if we had a libertarian society, driving recklessly (while drunk, and in a high population area), would not be acceptable, and the market would have to come up with a way to deal with individuals who engaged in such behavior.

    King was a cab driver. He was not targeted b/c he was driving recklessly. He was targeted b/c he was speeding and was black. Evading the police in a high speed chase carries an automatic “reckless endangerment charge.” Upon apprehension, it was determined he had committed the crime against the state of having a prohibited BAC level while driving(probably why he evaded in the first place). However, nothing he did prior to being targeted was an endangerment to anyone. The police, as they are often wont to do, turned it into a dangerous situation.

    Most, if not all, driving laws/regulations are revenue schemes. I don’t see a market problem at all when it comes to “safe driving.” Hence, there no market problem to solve. Just because some bureaucrats put up a stop sign/traffic light, invent some laws against speeding,DUI laws, etc doesn’t magically create “a market problem.” Nor do those things automatically mean “a hah, market failure!!!!”

    Bringing up some letter that Lew Rockwell wrote 25 years ago has little to do with the post that illicited this response.

    The post that elicited the response was your follow-up http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/12/december-2016-open-thread/#comment-1508666

    Sometime you should know when to fold. If you want to double down on your cards, don’t be surprised when other people want to play.

    So everyone should disregard the entire body of work from Murray Rothbard and Hans-Herman Hoppe, because of a comment made by Lew Rockwell 25 years ago? Talk about guilt by association.

    Well, guilt by association is only a logical fallacy if there is no actual concrete association. If there is an actual association, it’s not really a logical fallacy.

    Rothbard is famous for his impatient, ADHD-like associations w/ various factions. Rothbard’s paleo phase comprised the last 6 years of his life. His life history suggests he would moved on after Pat Buchanan failed to metastasize a paleo cadre revolution. 1989 to Ron Paul circa 2008 would have a lot of years from him to stick it out.

    Rockwell, on the other hand, seems a guy permanently stuck in it. I don’t know him. I didn’t even know about him until roughly 10 years ago. He strikes me as more of the agitprop type(and a managerial type). But not the ideas guy. Has a good voice for radio. But I think he relies on others for the creative thinking.

    Hoppe, on the other hand, is the creative thinker. I just don’t think his idealogical constructs(most of them anyway) are libertarian. The fact the he presents them as such, or are presented as such by others(i.e. Rockwell), is what raises my ire. Racism/White supremacy is not part of the historical libertarian tradition(unlike, say, progressivism). Beyond me why anyone would tolerate that garbage trying to get a foothold now.

    Should everyone disregard everything that Lew Rockwell has ever done because of a comment he made 25 years ago, even though Rockwell has spent plenty of time railing against the police state and warfare state since then?

    No, I’m an existentialist sort, so I think what you think/do now is more important than what you used to think/do. So, if people have moved on from something, then they have moved on. And I give them that. But if they haven’t moved on, well, then what you have said/done in the past should be taken into consideration.

    If so, you could probably find lots of things to criticize with lots of people, and then disregard them, because of something they, or somebody with whom they associated, said or did, sometime during the course of their lives. If you applied this same standard to everyone you’d probably have a difficult time finding anyone with whom you could not find some reason to disregard them.

    Agree. Benjamin Tucker in the end repudiated his anarchism. I’m not going to ignore him b/c of that. Nor will I ignore Rothbard b/c of his late paleo phase. Though I’m not really much of a Rothbardian. However, if both were alive today, if Bastiat was alive alive today, and all those guys were pushing Trump, they would be at the fore my critique. Their pasts wouldn’t save them. Much less for the likes of Rockwell or Hoppe who don’t have the track record.

  310. dL

    You may well be right — we’re both just guessing, and sometimes you guess better than I do.

    My perception is that the revenue model pretty much requires them to be on the outraged edge, with a thick gravy of “defending the undefendable,” “tearing up the index card of allowable opinion,” etc. Rodney King, the Confederates, what have you.

    Lew Rockwell is not going to rename The Mises Institute into the John C. Calhoun Institute. But I also know that he is NOT going to retire his “political theatre” blog or walk back his Trump support. Indeed, I imagine he is already in the works for a new book about Trump synthesis w/ the Old Right cockamamie. Like Trump, he can juggle more than one business. I think he knows not to give a rat’s ass about the ministry of truth. Not in the age of Trump.

    Of course, I could be giving them too much credit for being venal con artists. Maybe they really are just the kind of mentally deranged and morally reprobate scum they pretend to be and try to sell stuff to. Hans-Hermann Hoppe strikes me as strong evidence for that possibility. He’s what you’d get if Chauncey Gardiner had been raised by Julius Rosenberg and Orville Faubus.

    My reading of Hoppe pegs him as someone who took his “german school critical theory” university education seriously. I view him as using libertarianism as means to that end. I don’t see that as a conspiracy. Openly admitted to, for example, in this 2014 essay at LRC:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/07/geurt-marco-de-wit/egalitarian-libertarians-dont-like-hoppe/

    Moreover Professor Hoppe was a doctoral student of the famous left-wing idol Jurgen Habermas and has attempted to integrate elements of the Critical Theory into the Austrian theory. Hoppe’s project is truly fascinating whatever one thinks about the Critical Theory or the radical Austrian school. Thus also many open-minded non-Austrian intellectuals are curious to discuss Hoppe’s insights.

    The next paragraph might provide insights to Rockwell’s motivations:

    Many of Hoppe’s ideas have been spreading like wild fire. Peter Thiel – Paypal co-founder and the original angel investor in Facebook – has been interested in Hoppe’s libertarian and secessionist ideas.

    Should note, in many ways, Hoppe’s essay “(Race) Realistic Libertarianism” is the flip side of the coin of Long and Johnson’s “Libertarian Feminism: Can This Marriage Be Saved?,” an ode to the identity politics, sex-negativist nonsense of Andrea Dworkin. The same crap that has infected left-libertarianism.

    Back in the day, I challenged Johnson over his conclusions from that essay, and he banned my IP from his site for 2 years. More recently, I challenged Carson over his categorization of Assange “being a piece of shit.” He quit the dialogue before getting too uncomfortably close that the position that WL was crap b/c it was unfairly attacking Hillary Clinton.

    Now I wouldn’t ever question the motives of Long, Johnson or Carson. It only highlights in the end, as a devotee of the rational choice method and de Jasay, I don’t really look to motivations/reasons. You just make the prediction: the thing that is best to ideologically attack the state when it’s obvious to anyone what the thing is, will be emasculated. It has to be.

    Identity politics kills radical movements dead. And dead radical movements is the prediction re: state persistence.

  311. Dindu Nuffin

    Hail!

    So if you would please explain, is there anything at all that Hoppe gets wrong? Or is it just that he is not always 100% politically correct, ass kisser? Do some of you need a safe space from the overwhelming force of his rightness? Well if so you might then find this to be objectionable as well, even though it is the truth; don’t say I didn’t give you a trigger warning you SJW leftist scums.

    I need a Pinochet!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_5FkCs6n_A

    PS I did not see any left-liberaltarian, or gender bender to answer the previous question; once again:

    What exactly do you find to be morally reprobate about White racial self-defense? Are Whites uniquely bad in this respect, whereas it’s A-OK for everyone else?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnrl5dS1B28

    OK OK one last question! How much dindu would a dindu do if a dindu dindu nuffin?

  312. langa

    So, once again, we see the infamous “Rodney King” article being dragged up, but I suppose that’s to be expected — because how else are we to know what Lew Rockwell stands for, right?

    I mean, I guess we could look at his published archive: https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/lew-rockwell/

    That includes a little over 800 articles, dating from the ’90s to now, covering a pretty wide range of topics. Still, it probably makes more sense to ignore all those, and instead base our judgment of him on a single newspaper editorial from 25 years ago, right?

  313. langa

    As for my own personal opinion of Rockwell, that really all depends on whether you’re talking about his political views or his cultural views.

    When it comes to politics, I agree with him at least 95% of the time. There are a few exceptions (such as immigration, or euthanasia), but for the most part, I think he takes the correct libertarian position on the vast majority of issues. I also think that he does a good job of explaining libertarian concepts in a simple (but not simplistic) manner. Consider a recent column (published on Election Day):

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/11/lew-rockwell/fatal-flaw-politics/

    It’s hard to find a much more accurate, concise, and persuasive statement of pure libertarianism.

    Now, when it comes to cultural issues, it’s a completely different matter. Rockwell is a cultural conservative, and I’m not. Thus, I disagree with probably at least 50% of what he says.

    However, I also disagree with probably at least 50% of the cultural views expressed by many “left” libertarians like Carson or Long. And unlike Rockwell, who identifies as a “thin” libertarian, and therefore holds that his cultural views and his political views are separate, the “left” libertarians generally embrace “thick” libertarianism, and claim that their cultural views are somehow “part of” consistent libertarianism.

    (Such a “thick” conception of libertarianism is, in my opinion, not only intellectually confused, but strategically disastrous when it comes to promoting libertarian ideas, but that’s a different subject.)

  314. langa

    By the way, since it came up, Rockwell is also opposed to the whole idea of DUI laws. See here:

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2000/11/lew-rockwell/legalize-drunk-driving/

    And yes, that’s an old article, but he’s also published more recent articles to the same effect, like these:

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/03/mark-r-crovelli/drunk-driving-laws-are-absurd/

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2000/11/lew-rockwell/legalize-drunk-driving/

    Of course, he’s also published many very strong condemnations of police violence (pretty strange for a supposed “copsucker”), but hey, why let those pesky facts get in the way of a good smear job, right?

  315. Thomas L. Knapp

    langa,

    Are you suggesting that Lew Rockwell puts on blackface and moonlights pseudonymously as “William Norman Grigg?”

    You write:

    “it probably makes more sense to ignore all those, and instead base our judgment of him on a single newspaper editorial from 25 years ago, right?”

    If you’re going to try and hustle a bullshit strawman, you might want to bother reading the thread first to make sure nobody’s already tried it.

    Yeah, Rockwell and Hoppe are thin libertarians all right. Like so:

  316. Andy

    The real issue with drunk driving is not with being drunk, but with driving recklessly. Driving recklessly would not be acceptable even if we lived in Libertopia and had private roads.

    There was no excuse to defend Rodney King’s actions. It sucks that the cops continued to whack him after he was down, but the cops were in the right up until that point.

    This incident was uses to fan the flames of racial strife, and it played into the narrative of, “Look at those evil white cops picking on some poor black guy.”

    There have been incidents where black cops have beaten people, both black and white, yet these incidents have received little media coverage. Gee, I wonder why.

    If those cops had all been black, and Rodney King had done the exact same thing, do you think the outcome would have been different? Maybe, but I would not be a bit surprised if many black cops would have engaged in similar behavior, as in that they also would have continued to hit Rodney King after he was down. Black cops are not any better than white cops, and this includes when they deal with black suspects/perpetrators.

    Marxists use incidents like this to whip people up into a frenzy with the goal of furthering their agenda, facts or rational thought be damned.

  317. George Dance

    langa: “Lew Rockwell he does a good job of explaining libertarian concepts in a simple (but not simplistic) manner. Consider a recent column (published on Election Day):
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/11/lew-rockwell/fatal-flaw-politics/
    It’s hard to find a much more accurate, concise, and persuasive statement of pure libertarianism.”

    That’s true if “pure libertarianism” is anarchist libertarianism, since Rockwell spends as much time assailing limited government and its proponents as he does on “the modern state” as he calls it. He makes it quite clear (though of course never coming out and saying it) that all the millions of people working to limit government are just wasting their time, doing nothing to advance liberty.

    Indeed, Rockwell names only one politician who is actually doing something to advance liberty: Donald Trump, naturally. In his view: By just threatening to undermine Hillary Clinton’s “legitimacy” (if he’d lost), he’s brought us halfway to liberty already: ” if one major presidential candidate’s legitimacy is undermined, we’re halfway there!”

    It would take a whole column to answer the nonsense in that column. If I’m lucky (being off today), I’ll be able to write that column today, and blog it tomorrow. So I’ll leave off the discussion until then.

  318. dL

    The real issue with drunk driving is not with being drunk, but with driving recklessly. Driving recklessly would not be acceptable even if we lived in Libertopia and had private roads.

    There was no excuse to defend Rodney King’s actions. It sucks that the cops continued to whack him after he was down, but the cops were in the right up until that point.

    You know, I took 30 minutes to compose a post to answer your objections. Apparently, you don’t even bother to read shit. Waste of my fuckin time.

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/12/december-2016-open-thread/#comment-1509019

  319. George Dance

    Matt: “If you tell people that legalizing marijuana is just a step towards legalizing meth and PCP, you are likely to persuade more of them to be against legalizing marijuana.”

    How about if you tell them that legalizing marijuana is a step toward legalizing the sale of heroin to 5- year-olds (which is the position in the platform, as the Orlando debate boo-ers realized full well)?

    I agree that candidates should run on (and therefore their election platforms should be about) practical reforms, in the direction of liberty where enough “people are on our side but the parties aren’t”. I have no objection to an “exegesis of the SoP”, as TK calls it, but that should not be the platform. Call it something else (as, up here in Canada, we used to call the “Statement of Objectives” when I was the leader and now call it the “Statement of Policy”). But or gosh sakes, let the campaign come up with its own platform; and use the advisory boards and, if necessary, the JC to ensure that’s consistent with the SoP and its exegesis.

  320. dL

    So if you would please explain, is there anything at all that Hoppe gets wrong? Or is it just that he is not always 100% politically correct, ass kisser?

    There are number of things he gets wrong. 6 off the the top of my head.

    (1) Invited-Trespass contractual property rights.
    (2) Taxpayer “collective will” and immigration
    (3) Race Realistic Libertarianism
    (4) Monarchy preferable to democracy
    (5) “Sexual deviancy” and time preferences
    (6) German critical theory school(he’s an adherent)

  321. dL

    How about if you tell them that legalizing marijuana is a step toward legalizing the sale of heroin to 5- year-olds (which is the position in the platform, as the Orlando debate boo-ers realized full well)?

    Well, George, we already have legalization of forced amphetamine use by children. if legalized heroin for children was coerced by the state, hell, I’m guessing you would have no problem w/ that. I suppose it’s the voluntary component that spooks you.

  322. Michael H. Wilson

    Does anyone in the LP have any ideas about this committee which I just found out about in the last couple of days known as the Empowered Future Committee?

  323. Thomas L. Knapp

    “How about if you tell them that legalizing marijuana is a step toward legalizing the sale of heroin to 5- year-olds (which is the position in the platform, as the Orlando debate boo-ers realized full well)?”

    Well, I suppose we COULD lie instead of admitting that we want US drug policy to go back to its successful first century and change, during which a five-year-old could indeed walk into any apothecary in the country and legally buy anything he or she wanted if the owner was willing to sell it.

    All other things equal, though, it seems wiser to tell the truth than to just make some shit up and hope nobody notices you’re lying.

  324. George Dance

    GD – “How about if you tell them that legalizing marijuana is a step toward legalizing the sale of heroin to 5- year-olds (which is the position in the platform, as the Orlando debate boo-ers realized full well)?”

    TK – “Well, I suppose we COULD lie instead of admitting that we want US drug policy to go back to its successful first century and change, during which a five-year-old could indeed walk into any apothecary in the country and legally buy anything he or she wanted if the owner was willing to sell it.”

    Knowing how limited the common-law rights of “pupils” (children under 14) were to contract and own property in those days, I’m a bit skeptical that was the case; and even more so that I’d want that to be the case. But it’s a side issue, that I really don’t want to argue.

    “All other things equal, though, it seems wiser to tell the truth than to just make some shit up and hope nobody notices you’re lying.”

    Alternatively, we COULD simply not talk about heroin use by 5-year-olds when discussing the question of legalizing marijuana use by adults; or (if others did), point out that the one has nothing to do with the other, and the idea that the one will lead to the other is an illogical slippery-slope argument; whether those others are anti-marijuana authoritarians, or anti-government libertarians who insist on greasing the slope themselves.

  325. dL

    Alternatively, we COULD simply not talk about heroin use by 5-year-olds when discussing the question of legalizing marijuana use by adults;

    99.99% of the time that boogeyman is brought up either by prohibitionists or libertarians prone to respectability politics as means to supposedly discredit the actual libertarian position. Not once have I heard a libertarian who conforms to the correct position volunteer(giddily or otherwise) the prospect of 5 year-olds buying heroin. Yes, when attacked on the position by frauds, they will defend the potential policy consequences, however unlikely. But rarely, if ever, will you hear:

    “Drug legalization. Hell, yeah!! Because 5 year olds should be able to buy heroin!!!!!

    No, it’s more like:

    “Drug legalization. Hell, yeah!!! Because Freedom!!!!!

    George Dance: “But what about the children?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What will people think, wha, whah, whah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    Remarkably, Dance will then accuse those who take correct libertarian position as making a slippery slope. lol

  326. Thomas L. Knapp

    George,

    I don’t know what kind of situation you grew up in, when or where. I grew up in rural and small-town America in the 1970s and 1980s. When I was 7-10 years old and we lived on the farm, it was not at ALL unusual for me to be sent to the store with money for a candy bar in addition to the money for my real mission, buying cigarettes for my dad. And if he had been a drinker, and if the little country store had sold booze, I have no doubt whatsoever I could have gone in and bought him a fifth, no questions asked.

    I have no reason to think that the late 19th and early 20th centuries were any different with respect to tobacco, alcohol — or laudanum, or cocaine.

    The question is not whether or not five-year-olds should be shooting up heroin. I know nobody who thinks they should — and the only people who ever seem to bring it up are the fainting couch cargo cultists trying to blackmail libertarians, on pain of embarrassment they think we would experience if we declined, into supporting any and all government laws and regulations which claim to protect the chillllllllllldrennnn, which of course all of them claim to do and none of them actually do.

  327. Michael H. Wilson

    I’m not really into the children using drugs discussion but it has come up at a few booths I have worked in the past. I usually dismiss the argument and say something like. “Lots of people think drugs should be treated as a health issue instead of a criminal one.” Or “You may disagree with us on legalization but maybe we can discuss decriminalization as was done successfully in Portugal.” It usually shuts the argument down. And I can go on to other points from either one of the ones I started with.

  328. langa

    Are you suggesting that Lew Rockwell puts on blackface and moonlights pseudonymously as “William Norman Grigg?”

    No, I’m simply suggesting that when he frequently publishes articles from the same person, with the same message, it strongly suggests that he thinks there is at least some merit to that message. I’m also suggesting that if one wants to “suck up” to the cops, it makes little sense to fill one’s personal website with articles that strongly denounce cops. Do you disagree with that inference?

    On the flip side, I haven’t noticed Rockwell picking out a pet SJW and publishing dozens of their columns about the evils of white privilege. Perhaps that’s just a coincidence, but I kind of doubt it.

    Yeah, Rockwell and Hoppe are thin libertarians all right.

    I said Rockwell was. Hoppe, like all too many libertarians (“left” and “right”) seems to have become so consumed by cultural issues that liberarianism has become little more than a footnote to him. This is the sad, but seemingly inevitable, consequence of buying into the “thick libertarian” delusion.

  329. langa

    …Rockwell spends as much time assailing limited government and its proponents as he does on “the modern state” as he calls it. He makes it quite clear (though of course never coming out and saying it) that all the millions of people working to limit government are just wasting their time, doing nothing to advance liberty.

    Well, I can’t blame him for telling the truth…

  330. langa

    How about if you tell them that legalizing marijuana is a step toward legalizing the sale of heroin to 5- year-olds (which is the position in the platform, as the Orlando debate boo-ers realized full well)?

    I’ll be quite happy to discuss this “issue” with you, as soon as you can produce some evidence that there is at least one actual 5-year-old who: A) is eager to stick a needle in his arm, and B) whose parents are willing to indulge his desire to do so, if only C) it weren’t for those stupid drug laws.

  331. George Dance

    TK – “I don’t know what kind of situation you grew up in, when or where. I grew up in rural and small-town America in the 1970s and 1980s. When I was 7-10 years old and we lived on the farm, it was not at ALL unusual for me to be sent to the store with money for a candy bar in addition to the money for my real mission, buying cigarettes for my dad. And if he had been a drinker, and if the little country store had sold booze, I have no doubt whatsoever I could have gone in and bought him a fifth, no questions asked.”

    My experience in rural Canada, too, and back then (the ’60’s for me) age of majority laws were on the books.

    I have no reason to think that the late 19th and early 20th centuries were any different with respect to tobacco, alcohol — or laudanum, or cocaine.

    Which is exactly why I didn’t want to argue the point: looking up common law or whatever say nothing about what laws were actually obeyed or enforced. Pharmaciesd use to sell (Bayer) heroin and (Coca Cola) cocaine drinks OTC; for all I know, some or many would let children buy it for their parents; and there’d be some children who’d sneak in the odd purchase for themselves, too.

    The question is not whether or not five-year-olds should be shooting up heroin. I know nobody who thinks they should — and the only people who ever seem to bring it up are the fainting couch cargo cultists trying to blackmail libertarians, on pain of embarrassment they think we would experience if we declined, into supporting any and all government laws and regulations which claim to protect the chillllllllllldrennnn, which of course all of them claim to do and none of them actually do.”

    As someone who’s been fighting for legal cannabis for 40 years, I expect the odd anti-libertarians to go there, and I think I know how to deal with them:
    (1) repeat my answer from my last post – they’re 2 different issues;
    (2) if answer 1 doesn’t shut them up, get into how prohibition (“trying it their way”) increases the chance of children’s involvement with drugs. For instance, drug dealers have a big incentive to use children as couriers; less risk of capture, and a much lower penalty;
    (3) if answer 2 doesn’t shut them up, bring up a specific child, like 3-year-old Wyatt Mason*, and ask point-blank: “Do you care about children like him?”
    (4) if all 3 don’t work, turn aggressive: “I’ve made 3 points, and you haven’t answere any of them. I’m starting to think you don’t care about chidren at all, you’re just using it as an excuse” – sure, that won’t win the person over, but by that point he’s a lost cause anyway.

    So I can handle questions about children and heroin by anti-libertarian, one-on-one. What burns my butt here, when it came up in Orlando, it wasn’t brought up by anti-libertarians: it was brought up by Libertarians (I suspect, by “libertarian Libertarians”), in front of the largest media attention the Party’s ever had. And it looks to me that that was done for only one one purpose: to trap Gary Johnson. Either he’d say “yes, 5-year-olds have a right to buy and use heroin,” and it would be “Aleppo” X 100, right at the start of the campaign; or he’d say “no,” and lose the nomination.

    And it almost worked; the only reason he didn’t lose was because all the other candidates (except Mr. Perry) said “no,” too. Even Austin wouldn’t go there in front of that media mob. So it didn’t work; but that doesn’t mean I’m going to let it go. There was a lot of dirty politics like that, and I don’t intend to let any of it be forgotten.

    *Mason has a form of epilepsy that his parents couldn’t control, because the only thing they found that controlled it – cannabis oil – was illegal. “Wyatt suffered seven seizures in the time it took his parents to explain why they’ve already booked an appointment to buy cannabis oil for their son this Wednesday, the first day it will be legal.” http://gdspoliticalanimal.blogspot.ca/2015/06/medical-marijuana-comes-to-minnesota.html. I have found other horror stories like that.

  332. George Dance

    “‘Yeah, Rockwell and Hoppe are thin libertarians all right.”‘
    I said Rockwell was. Hoppe, like all too many libertarians (“left” and “right”) seems to have become so consumed by cultural issues that liberarianism has become little more than a footnote to him.”

    Rockwell’s a Rothbardian; and he and other self-described “thin libertarians” are fond of quoting Rothbard’s dictum: “Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. ”

    What they never do is give the context: the quote where that sentence comes from. So here it is (with italics added, if the html works):

    “At bottom is the point which many of us had to learn painfully over the years: that there can be no genuine separation between formal political ideology and cultural views and attitudes.

    “Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be – and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular – and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics. In fact, in strict logic, one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a scamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be. Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn’t work that way.”

    The paleo-libertarians – Rothbard, Woods, Hoppe, and all the rest – were “thick” before the term was invented. It’s only because it was invented by left-Libertarians (The Bleeding Heart Libertarians et al) that these guys are suddenly using “thin libertarianism” like a girdle, to hide their own obese “thickness.” It’s a dishonest debating tactic that should fool no one.

  333. George Dance

    “How about if you tell them that legalizing marijuana is a step toward legalizing the sale of heroin to 5- year-olds (which is the position in the platform, as the Orlando debate boo-ers realized full well)?”

    I’ll be quite happy to discuss this “issue” with you, as soon as you can produce some evidence that there is at least one actual 5-year-old who: A) is eager to stick a needle in his arm, and B) whose parents are willing to indulge his desire to do so, if only C) it weren’t for those stupid drug laws.

    That makes no sense at all. If there are no 5-year-olds who want to do heroin, by whatever means, then there’s even less reason for the Libertarian Party to be out there campaigning for their right to do so.

  334. langa

    As is so often the case, it is hard to tell if George Dance is being intellectually dishonest, or if he is merely confused. So, I’ll be charitable, and assume the latter.

    Rockwell’s a Rothbardian…

    So what? That doesn’t mean he agrees with every single thing Rothbard ever said. He clearly does not. For example, Rothbard was a very strong supporter of the “right” to an abortion, while Rockwell strongly denies that such a right exists. As another example, Walter Block, another Rothbardian, is famous in part for his view that one can legitimately sell oneself into “voluntary slavery” — a view that Rothbard himself emphatically rejected. There are plenty of other examples, like Rothbard’s position on IP, which is shared by very few of his followers. In short, unlike some Randians, none of the Rothbardians I have ever encountered have held that their hero was some sort of infallible deity.

    …he and other self-described “thin libertarians” are fond of quoting Rothbard’s dictum: “Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. ”

    What they never do is give the context: the quote where that sentence comes from.

    Wrong, on two counts. First, there is no attempt to hide the end of the quote. Some Rothbardians (those of the “thick” variety) proudly quote the entire passage. For example, Hoppe — https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/hans-hermann-hoppe/smack-down/ — not only includes the entire quote, he emphasizes the exact same part of it that you do.

    Rockwell, on the other hand, being a thin libertarian, doesn’t use that quote at all in explaining his position:

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/lew-rockwell/the-future-of-libertarianism/

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/lew-rockwell/what-libertarianism-is-and-isnt/

    In both of those articles — which specifically explain why Rockwell rejects the “thick” fallacy — he instead offers another Rothbard quote:

    There are libertarians who are indeed hedonists and devotees of alternative lifestyles, and that there are also libertarians who are firm adherents of “bourgeois” conventional or religious morality. There are libertarian libertines and there are libertarians who cleave firmly to the disciplines of natural or religious law. There are other libertarians who have no moral theory at all apart from the imperative of non-violation of rights. That is because libertarianism per se has no general or personal moral theory.

    Libertarianism does not offer a way of life; it offers liberty, so that each person is free to adopt and act upon his own values and moral principles. Libertarians agree with Lord Acton that “liberty is the highest political end” – not necessarily the highest end on everyone’s personal scale of values.

    (Go ahead, Detective Dance, feel free to search for the context of that quote. Then share it with us.)

    Why the difference? Simple. Hoppe is a “thick” libertarian, while Rockwell is not. Plain and simple.

    It’s a dishonest debating tactic…

    I assume that’s meant as high praise, coming from the King of Dishonest Debating Tactics. (Sorry, my charitable moods only last so long). Now, George, tell us the straw man again about how we need drug laws to prevent that epidemic of 5-year-old heroin addicts…

  335. langa

    That makes no sense at all.

    It makes perfect sense. Why have laws designed to prevent something that would never happen? Should we also have laws against consuming more than 50 pounds of cow feces per day?

  336. dL

    Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be – and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular – and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics.

    Yep. Libertarian morality shares the same premise as liberalism in that we are really talking about moral constraints against the “rightness” or “wrongness” of actions agent A may do to others or judge the actions of others according to A’s own moral foundation. In short, tolerance. Put differently, libertarianism, like liberalism, is unconcerned with meta-ethics or moral foundations. Often, this is may be referred to as liberal neutrality. Agents act within moral constraints against what they can do to others, but what they themselves believe or what they do to themselves, is of no concern to anyone but them.

    This is the biggest divide between libertarianism and something like Objectivism. Rand would hold that you can only come to right conclusions on politics if you have the right ethics, the right metaphysics, the right epistemology, etc. Her view of libertarians was that they were “hippies.” Libertarians returned the favor by often referring to Rand’s Objectivism as an intellectual cult.

    At bottom is the point which many of us had to learn painfully over the years: that there can be no genuine separation between formal political ideology and cultural views and attitudes.

    That’s the communitarian position. It’s not the liberal one. The communitarian position is that you can’t separate the moral community from the political community. Indeed, politics is the means by which the moral consensus is established, the bonds by which the moral community is coalesced.

    Of course, when social redistribution as a moral end enters the equation, it matters greatly who is included within the political or moral community. And this is at the intellectual root of much of the social control dirigiste of the modern redistributive state.

    A libertarian critique of Hoppe has to begin with the understanding he is not a liberal. By that, I mean a rejection of liberal neutrality, a rejection of the social order merely being the coordination of disparate individual interests(the spontaneous order we are all so fond of). Hoppe is more from the Critical theory tradition than the communitarian one(both, however, stem from Hegel). An important distinction between the two is that critical theory retains a rational praxis, but it can only proceed from a shared cultural commitment. In other words, society tells you who you are and what you should become. With that, and only with that, can a human then act rationally. With Hoppe, Misean praxeology can only proceed from the critical theory construct of shared commitment. And that is what is meant by “thick” when it comes to Hoppe.

    Once you understand Hoppe’s ideological aversion to liberalism, you can then begin to see what he is doing with his property rights theory. He uses it as means to enforce the critical theory construct of shared commitment. For example, his “invited-trespass” property rights socializes the liability of fraud/crime across the group or the shared commitment. ‘You did not steal that!” It particularly makes his claim of anarcho-capitalism a joke, since that type of “social commitment” severely limits capitalism as a system. To the extent you would have a market economy, it would be quite primitive. As I have stated on many occasion, the Amish aversion to strangers is a good model of Hoppean society.

    Now I have nothing against the Amish. But if some Amish contingent suddenly showed on the internet trying to trade their version of social commitment under banner of a complex consumer market society or were pimping state immigration control as a natural extension of the Amish social order, then I would have a problem with them. And that’s sort of conveys the problem I have w/ Hoppe.

  337. wolfefan

    Hi langa – with respect to five year olds and heroin, the issue isn’t just whether there is a five year old (or make it a ten year old, so that it’s someone old enough to be able to raid mom and dad’s wallets) who is willing to stick a needle in their arm. Isn’t it also about the seller committing fraud by talking up the potential benefits of the heroin and downplaying the risks to a person who is not competent to make that evaluation for themselves?

  338. Thomas L. Knapp

    George,

    You write:

    —–
    What burns my butt here, when it came up in Orlando, it wasn’t brought up by anti-libertarians: it was brought up by Libertarians (I suspect, by “libertarian Libertarians”), in front of the largest media attention the Party’s ever had. And it looks to me that that was done for only one one purpose: to trap Gary Johnson. Either he’d say “yes, 5-year-olds have a right to buy and use heroin,” and it would be “Aleppo” X 100, right at the start of the campaign; or he’d say “no,” and lose the nomination.
    —–

    It was brought up by the debate moderator, Larry Elder, who is hardly a “libertarian Libertarian” — or, in truth, anything that includes the word “libertarian,” capitalized or otherwise. He’s a conservative who uses libertarianism as an attack vector when there’s a Democrat in office.

    Its purpose, like that of several other questions, seems to have been to corner the candidates along the lines of “c’mon, you’re not SERIOUS about this libertarian crap, are you? Put on a Republican prom dress and let Uncle Larry take you to the inaugural ball.”

    And all of them except Perry fell for it.

    Are there better and worse ways to handle one of the stupidest fucking questions in the world? Yes. But if you can’t work your way out of the heroins to five-year-olds question without doing a 180 on your basic philosophy and begging the state to saaaaaaaaaaaaave the chillllllllllldren, especially knowing that that question has been out there for decades and that some asshole is going to throw it at you sooner or later, you shouldn’t be running for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination.

  339. robert capozzi

    gd: these guys are suddenly using “thin libertarianism” like a girdle, to hide their own obese “thickness.”

    me: Top 5 cleverest comment on IPR for 2016.

  340. Thomas L. Knapp

    To my mind, there are two different kinds of “thickness.”

    The more obvious type is an intentional methodological thickness a la Johnson/Long on the left or Hoppe on the right. That project is an attempt to overtly incorporate everything they want into libertarianism. They think X is good and they therefore try to find a theoretical formulation that causes libertarianism to require X.

    The less obvious kind is less obvious because it is fueled by un-examined assumptions about the environment from which libertarianism can spring and/or the environment which libertarianism might produce. The particular brand of thickness I ascribe to Rockwell is “bourgeois libertarianism”.

    I consider myself an ultra-thin libertarian. It’s not there there aren’t things I value beyond non-aggression. It’s just that I see no need to try to tie those things and non-aggression together in one indivisible package. I’m sure there are places where I am “thick,” but when I notice one I try to slim it down.

  341. dL

    Isn’t it also about the seller committing fraud by talking up the potential benefits of the heroin and downplaying the risks to a person who is not competent to make that evaluation for themselves?

    That’s not the definition of fraud. Fraud would be, say, selling sugar water as heroin. Your example would go under negligence. Of course, a “what about the children” negligence standard would make everything pretty much illegal. Now you can try to circumvent that outcome w/ an minimum age restriction requirement. However that results in an identification bureaucracy that inevitably and inexorably results in papers please “RealCitizen.” It is also a truism that the prospect of a large swatch of children being fed opioids is much more likely to result from a state + pharmacology social control regime like we see with amphetamines.

  342. Michael H. Wilson

    I think I have found the answer to the question I asked above about the Empowered Futures Committee or whatever it may be called so I guess that can be ignored unless you care to add anything.

  343. Andy

    How many five year olds are going to be out shipping on their own? How many five year olds go anywhere without a parent or guarding with them? How many five year olds are going to have any money to pay for heroin, in this highly unlikely hypothetical scenario?

  344. George Dance

    GD “Alternatively, we COULD simply not talk about heroin use by 5-year-olds when discussing the question of legalizing marijuana use by adults;”

    dL – “99.99% of the time that boogeyman is brought up either by prohibitionists or libertarians prone to respectability politics as means to supposedly discredit the actual libertarian position. Not once have I heard a libertarian who conforms to the correct position volunteer (giddily or otherwise) the prospect of 5 year-olds buying heroin.”

    Exactly. That’s great; dL and I have finally reached some points of agreement. Now maybe we can get somewhere in this argument. Let’s see what we agree on:

    1) The platform calls for legalizing use and sale of heroin and cocaine as well as marijuana.
    2) Some libertarians, when talking about marijuana legalization, don’t volunteer that information.

    3) The platform calls for legalizing use and sale of heroin and cocaine, as well as marijuana, by/to 5-year-old (and younger) children as well as adults.
    4) Almost all libertarians, when talking about marijuana legalization, don’t volunteer that information.
    Agreed so far?

    Now here’s where we still may disagree.

    dL (and other “libertarian Libertarians”) believe that Libertarian who fit (2) are misrepresenting the party and the platform, selling out, and are probably not even be be libertarians at all. (Some call them “Drug Warriors”, though I don’t know if dL has that term or not.) I disagree – I think they’re making a strategic choice about how to talk about an issue.

    The only remaining question is: Do dL and other “libertarian Libertarians” (this isn’t addressed only to him) believe that Libertarians who fit (4) (which we agree are 99.99% of the party) are also misrepresenting the party and the platform, selling out, and probably not libertarians at all – are they “Drug Warriors”, too – or are they similarly making a strategic choice? (I think the latter, of course.)

    Once that question is answered, then we can move on.

    “Drug legalization. Hell, yeah!!! Because Freedom!!!!!
    George Dance: “But what about the children?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What will people think, wha, whah, whah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    I wonder if this is what dL really thinks that “simply not talk[ing] about heroin use by 5-year-olds” (which he accurately quotes me as saying) really means.

    “Remarkably, Dance will then accuse those who take correct libertarian position as making a slippery slope. lol”.

    Not true. What I’ve called a ‘slippery slope’ argument is the claim that legal marijuana use by adults, by itself, implies, entails, is going to lead to, or even has anything to do with heroin use by children – whether that claim is made by anti-marijuana activists or by “libertarian Libertarians”.

    (dL’s argument that “if you oppose voluntary drug use by children, you’re in favour of forced drug use by children” could also be classed as a slippery slope argument, BTW – though I think it’s more properly a False Alternative).

    The only point at issue here is whether one a Libertarian can call for marijuana legalization without simultaneously calling for legalizing cocaine and heroin use by adults and children alike, or whether always talking about both is the only possible “correct libertarian position”.

  345. George Dance

    GD – ‘(dL’s argument that “if you oppose voluntary drug use by children, you’re in favour of forced drug use by children”…

    Just to make it clear, I was paraphrasing; the above was not a direct quote.

  346. George Dance

    Another “libertarian Libertarian,” langa, joins the discussion:

    As is so often the case, it is hard to tell if George Dance is being intellectually dishonest, or if he is merely confused. So, I’ll be charitable, and assume the latter.

    It’s also possible that George Dance could be right; of course that possibility would never occur to that a “libertarian Libertarian” like langa.

    “Rockwell’s a Rothbardian…”
    So what? That doesn’t mean he agrees with every single thing Rothbard ever said. He clearly does not.

    No one said it did. It does mean that it’s fair to assume he holds Rothbardian positions except in the areas where he specifically disagrees.

    …he and other self-described “thin libertarians” are fond of quoting Rothbard’s dictum: “Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. ”
    What they never do is give the context: the quote where that sentence comes from.

    Wrong, on two counts. First, there is no attempt to hide the end of the quote. Some Rothbardians (those of the “thick” variety) proudly quote the entire passage. For example, Hoppe — https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/hans-hermann-hoppe/smack-down/ — not only includes the entire quote, he emphasizes the exact same part of it that you do.

    And just what does what Hoppe says, or what any other ‘Rothbardians (those of the “thick variety”)’ say, have to do with what ‘self-described “thin libertarians”’ say? Hoppe doesn’t call himself a ‘thin libertarian’, and neither, I suspect, do any of the Rothbardians langa would describe as being ‘of the thick variety’. That’s called a straw man: attempting to discredit something I said by attacking something I didn’t say.

    Rockwell, on the other hand, being a thin libertarian, doesn’t use that quote at all in explaining his position:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/lew-rockwell/the-future-of-libertarianism/
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/lew-rockwell/what-libertarianism-is-and-isnt/

    This is exactly what I’m talking about. Notice how Rockwell is identifying the “thick” heresy with “egalitarianism” (and, in a few places, feminism). His actual target looks exactly the same as the one Rothbard was targetting in the 1994 article I quote from: the “infection, of libertarians’ political views by their deep-seated egalitarianism” – specifically, the Libertarian Party and the “egalitarian” parts of its platform (such as “We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant.” (3.5)).

    In both of those articles — which specifically explain why Rockwell rejects the “thick” fallacy — he instead offers another Rothbard quote:
    There are libertarians who are indeed hedonists and devotees of alternative lifestyles, and that there are also libertarians who are firm adherents of “bourgeois” conventional or religious morality. There are libertarian libertines and there are libertarians who cleave firmly to the disciplines of natural or religious law. There are other libertarians who have no moral theory at all apart from the imperative of non-violation of rights. That is because libertarianism per se has no general or personal moral theory.
    Libertarianism does not offer a way of life; it offers liberty, so that each person is free to adopt and act upon his own values and moral principles.

    I left the whole thinkg in, so as not be be accused of misprepresenting. Notice that this is exactly what Rothbard repudiates in the 1994 article I quoted. The phrasing is almost identical, down to the choice of words like “hedonist” and “libertine” to describe non-Rothbardian libertarians.

    Libertarians agree with Lord Acton that “liberty is the highest political end” – not necessarily the highest end on everyone’s personal scale of values.

    (BTW, again notice the use of selective quotation, this time of Acton by Rothbard. )

    (Go ahead, Detective Dance, feel free to search for the context of that quote. Then share it with us.)

    I’ll let others do their own search; but it’s from a 1979 speech – and that it says the very thing he opposes 15 years later (“Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn’t work that way.)

    Why the difference?

    Indeed; why the ‘thin’ Rothbard of 1979 and the ‘thick’ Rothbard of 1994? Did he “learn better”? That’s what he implies in the 1994 article. Or does it have something to do with the fact the 1979 quote was outreach – Rothbard explaining libertarianism to non-libertarians – while the 1994 was inreach: Rothbard engaging in infighting?

    Simple. Hoppe is a “thick” libertarian, while Rockwell is not. Plain and simple.

    Or, like I said, Rockwell is a ‘thick’ anti-egalitarian libertarian (like Hoppe and 1994 Rothbard), while using ‘thin libertarianism’ to attack egalitarianism. Notice Rockwell’s 2014 position is identical with 1994 Rothbard; but that he’s using a quote from 1979 Rothbard (the very quote that Rothbard himself repudiated 20 years previously) to do so. At the very least, he’s misrepresenting Rothbard’s views. Even if he’s not deliberately misrepresenting his own, that’s enough to call it

    “a dishonest debating tactic…”

    I assume that’s meant as high praise, coming from the King of Dishonest Debating Tactics.

    What to call this? The fallacy of IKYBWIR (I know you are, but what is Rockwell)?

    (Sorry, my charitable moods only last so long). Now, George, tell us the straw man again about how we need drug laws to prevent that epidemic of 5-year-old heroin addicts…

    Of course, I’ve never said that “we need drug laws to prevent that epidemic of 5-year-old heroin addicts”. I’d accuse langa of attacking a straw man; except, of course, he’s prevented me from doing so by accusing me of making a “straw man” first; so if I do the same, he can accuse me of simply engaging in IKYABWAI. (I call that the fallacy of ‘preemption’, since I don’t know the actual term).

  347. George Phillies

    It would be nice if for once the Presidential debate had a good moderator, one who is trying to bring out differences not scores gotchas against the candidates.

    By many reports, Rothbard si deceased. These arguments about what he might have meant are fitting for a religious cult, but not for a political party.

    However, people who have been infected with the deadliest of social diseases — philosophy — will insist on having them

  348. dL

    1) The platform calls for legalizing use and sale of heroin and cocaine as well as marijuana.
    2) Some libertarians, when talking about marijuana legalization, don’t volunteer that information.

    3) The platform calls for legalizing use and sale of heroin and cocaine, as well as marijuana, by/to 5-year-old (and younger) children as well as adults.
    4) Almost all libertarians, when talking about marijuana legalization, don’t volunteer that information.
    Agreed so far?

    The LP platform states:

    Therefore, we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

    You could write a novel on the implications, consequences, predictions and/or results from that concise statement. Statists, conservatives, progressives, and “non-libertarian libertarians” will tend to jump immediately right to the sale of narcotics to minors as the first order of discussion. Indeed, “5-year olds buying heroin” was the hypothetical raised by Larry Elder at the LP debate. First time I’ve ever heard that exact hypothetical. Even the most ardent statists typically floor the age at 10. 5-year olds don’t have the wherewithal to even buy a stick gum, much less a narcotic. And they certainly wouldn’t have the cognizance to anything with it other than ingesting it orally(which markedly reduces its potency) by accident or toddler curiosity. Then again, Elder’s questions resembled the 20 most popular objections to libertarians submitted by Salon or National Review. I have no idea why he was moderating that debate. It’s akin to the GOP inviting Keith Olbermann to moderate the Repub debate.. If he is a “friend of liberty,” then it needs no enemies.

    (dL’s argument that “if you oppose voluntary drug use by children, you’re in favour of forced drug use by children” could also be classed as a slippery slope argument, BTW – though I think it’s more properly a False Alternative).

    Oh, I would agree, if that was actually my argument. My argument begins with the premise:

    Statist prohibitionist intervention is required to protect the children from narcotics.

    And then immediately jump to the empirical observation:

    legalization of forced amphetamine use by children.

    as the first point of discussion to refute the premise. You see that’s the difference between authoritarians, who will offer up a million and one unfalsifiable objections to a presumption of liberty and libertarians(or “libertarian libertarians,” or “libertarian libertarian libertarians”) who surgically(and empirically) refute an authoritarian premise.

    The only point at issue here is whether one a Libertarian can call for marijuana legalization without simultaneously calling for legalizing cocaine and heroin use by adults and children alike, or whether always talking about both is the only possible “correct libertarian position”.

    No, there is no mandate on what one might choose to focus on in terms of the novel of implications from the LP platform statement above. Because it would be a novel, any discussion is going to be selective. Hence, there can be no “correct” self-selection preference. However, one if chooses to focus on the sale of narcotics to minors, I am going to judge you accordingly as to what you are.

  349. George Dance

    TK – [The question of supporting the right to sell heroin to 5-year-olds] was brought up by the debate moderator, Larry Elder, who is hardly a ‘libertarian Libertarian’ — or, in truth, anything that includes the word “libertarian,” capitalized or otherwise. He’s a conservative who uses libertarianism as an attack vector when there’s a Democrat in office.

    Elder said the questions, and he may have come up with them. Liberty magazine tried to track that down, and “nobody would own up to having written them, and it’s easy to see why.”

    They may very well have been designed as ‘gotcha’ questions, designed to make libertarians look crazy; but they do read to me more like litmus test questions, designed to distinguish the “libertarian Libertarian” from the more generic Libertarian; and judging from the audience reaction, that’s how at least the vocal audience members saw them, too.

  350. George Dance

    “By many reports, Rothbard si deceased. These arguments about what he might have meant are fitting for a religious cult, but not for a political party.”

    As far as I know, George, there’s only one political party where people go around quoting Rothbard as the authority whose words decide who can be a member or a candidate, and what they s’posed to believe or at least say. If there were others, then it would probably be a good idea for them to look at what he actually, and even pay some attention to what the words mean.

    However, people who have been infected with the deadliest of social diseases — philosophy — will insist on having them.

    Agreed; if one’s purpose in bringing up Rothbard is non-philosophical – say, just for propaganda or rhetoric – there’s no reason to look closely at anything he says.

  351. George Dance

    TK – “I consider myself an ultra-thin libertarian. It’s not there there aren’t things I value beyond non-aggression. It’s just that I see no need to try to tie those things and non-aggression together in one indivisible package. I’m sure there are places where I am “thick,” but when I notice one I try to slim it down.

    I wouldn’t argue either with what you say, or that it applies to you. Everyone is going to be ‘thick’ with other opinions; the trick isn’t to try to get rid of them, but to recognize their irrelevance and split them out.

    I do wonder how thin the LP membership wants to go, though. Notice that the ‘thickness’ Rothbard (in the 90’s) and Rockwell (today) are going after is the idea of non-discrimination; not just wrt to bakers, but by government as well; not just in regard to private property, but government roads and hospitals.

  352. Tony From Long Island

    Jorge Phillies: ” . . . . .By many reports, Rothbard si deceased. These arguments about what he might have meant are fitting for a religious cult, but not for a political party. . . . . ”

    I think the same thing when I hear a republican talk about the grand high exalted mystic Ronald Reagan.

  353. dL

    However, people who have been infected with the deadliest of social diseases — philosophy — will insist on having them.

    The obligatory Keynes retort. Filed under the “even broken clocks are occasionally correct” drawer.

    Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.

  354. robert capozzi

    It strikes me that one could be “thin” in theory and “thick” in practice.

    I’d say I’m thin in the sense that my political credo is “anything peaceful.”

    In practice, though, I’m more inclined to advocate specific policies that I think would maximize liberty in the short- to intermediate-term, tabling specific positions that I consider long-term in nature. Considerations of current conditions and what might or might not sell could be viewed at “thick” thinking.

    Or something.

  355. dL

    but they do read to me more like litmus test questions, designed to distinguish the “libertarian Libertarian” from the more generic Libertarian

    Unless you actually wrote the questions, i doubt it. I assure you, “libertarian Libertarian” is a form of newspeak that does not exist outside the cognitive thinking of this forum and perhaps a certain faction of LP delegates. Elder is a Republican with a few libertarian positions. The purpose of those questions was emphasize Elder’s position that libertarianism as a whole is an extremist branch of conservatism, and that the LP would do well to continue its practice of nominating moderate GOP has-beens for POTUS.

  356. Thomas L. Knapp

    “‘libertarian Libertarian’ is a form of newspeak that does not exist outside the cognitive thinking of this forum and perhaps a certain faction of LP delegates.”

    Actually, more than one faction/group has at least occasionally referred to itself as “the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party,” generally for the purpose of fighting against “Elder’s position that libertarianism as a whole is an extremist branch of conservatism, and that the LP would do well to continue its practice of nominating moderate GOP has-beens for POTUS.”

  357. dL

    Actually, more than one faction/group has at least occasionally referred to itself as “the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party”

    Granted. But that’s not exactly newspeak..you know, “doublepluslibertarian”

  358. dL

    It strikes me that one could be “thin” in theory and “thick” in practice.

    Thickness does not mean in practice…nor moderation by practical considerations. Thickness refers to a more expansive set of presumptions that form the arena/context in which a thing then can only properly be understood. Beyond the scope of this forum to go into Kant(synthetic a priori judgments) and Hegel. Needless to say, liberalism(which is more universalist) rejects this type of thinking. And much of it is attached to the German romantic idealist tradition, a thing that came after the period of the original liberal philosophers.

  359. Concerned Citizen

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/white-genocide/ makes a good point. Rockwell asks:

    “Can’t you take a joke?”

    His link leads to this, at Bionic Mosquito:

    “A few days ago, a professor at Drexel University offered: “All I want for Christmas is white genocide.”

    The university is apparently taking the situation very seriously.

    There are several thoughts that come to mind, easy thoughts. If the professor wrote this about Black genocide or Mexican genocide or Jew genocide would the university take it seriously or would the professor already be fired? ”

    What do you all think? dL? Others here?

  360. langa

    Hi langa – with respect to five year olds and heroin, the issue isn’t just whether there is a five year old (or make it a ten year old, so that it’s someone old enough to be able to raid mom and dad’s wallets) who is willing to stick a needle in their arm. Isn’t it also about the seller committing fraud by talking up the potential benefits of the heroin and downplaying the risks to a person who is not competent to make that evaluation for themselves?

    The example you cite is no more fraud than, for example, manufacturers of candy bars “talking up” the benefits of the product (e.g. taste) and “downplaying the risks” of it (e.g. poor nutrition). Do you think libertarians should use this bizarre definition of “fraud” to oppose the sale of anything that could have any potential negative consequences whatsoever? That doesn’t sound very “libertarian” to me.

    And again I’ll ask: Fort anyone who thinks we need laws specifically designed to prevent young children from using heroin, do we also need laws specifically designed to prevent those same young children from consuming cow manure? If not, why not? Isn’t that also a very hazardous practice? And worse yet, cow manure can be found for free in many places. So, why aren’t we seeing an epidemic of children dying from ingestion of cow manure?

    And it’s not just that. For example, I know of no law that specifically prohibits young children from banging their heads against brick walls. Why not? Certainly, that’s a very dangerous practice — at least as bad as heroin use. Don’t we “need” a law against that, too? The more I think about it, there are dozens — or maybe even hundreds — of these potential health hazards that “libertarians” — but not “libertarian libertarians” (maybe “non-libertarian libertarians”?) — like George Dance should be calling for legislation to address. You better get cracking on that, George!

  361. langa

    …if you can’t work your way out of the heroins to five-year-olds question without doing a 180 on your basic philosophy and begging the state to saaaaaaaaaaaaave the chillllllllllldren, especially knowing that that question has been out there for decades and that some asshole is going to throw it at you sooner or later, you shouldn’t be running for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination.

    Exactly!

  362. langa

    The more obvious type is an intentional methodological thickness a la Johnson/Long on the left or Hoppe on the right. That project is an attempt to overtly incorporate everything they want into libertarianism. They think X is good and they therefore try to find a theoretical formulation that causes libertarianism to require X.

    Yes, this is the type of “thickness” I’m referring to when I say some Rothbardians (like Hoppe) are thick, while others (like Rockwell) are thin.

    The less obvious kind is less obvious because it is fueled by un-examined assumptions about the environment from which libertarianism can spring and/or the environment which libertarianism might produce.

    If this counts as thickness, then I think it is almost impossible to be thin, since I think we all have these sorts of assumptions, although some people seem to have more than others (for example, I am far less confident in my — or anybody’s — ability to predict the outcomes of a true free market than many “thick” libertarians seem to be). But I think we all have our ideas about how to make the world more conducive to freedom, or what the world will look like if we succeed. And, in most cases, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that sort of conjecture.

    Where I do think it becomes a problem is when these assumptions begin to take precedence over the NAP. For example, I mentioned above that one area where I disagree with Rockwell is immigration. And while I still hold that Rockwell is “thin” is the sense of the first of your two types, he is certainly (as we all are) somewhat “thick” in the second sense. Specifically, he thinks that unchecked immigration will create an environment that will not be conducive to freedom. In other words, he makes an empirical claim that mass immigration will lead to more NAP violations in the future. And I don’t necessarily disagree. But where I strongly disagree is when he tries to take that empirical prediction, and morph it into the normative claim that immigration restrictions (which clearly and unambiguously violate the NAP) are justified on the basis of preventing these hypothetical future violations of the NAP. This is no different than arguing that gun bans are justified on the basis of preventing future NAP violations that might result from the sale of said guns. The NAP can’t be violated for the sake of preventing future hypothetical NAP violations.

  363. langa

    It’s also possible that George Dance could be right…

    About other things, yes. About this, no.

    …it’s fair to assume he holds Rothbardian positions except in the areas where he specifically disagrees.

    Like, for example, the thick/thin debate, where he clearly and explicitly disagrees with Rothbard (or at least with the position that Rothbard adopted in his latter years). That’s my whole point. Thanks for agreeing!

    And just what does what Hoppe says, or what any other ‘Rothbardians (those of the “thick variety”)’ say, have to do with what ‘self-described “thin libertarians”’ say?

    It demonstrates exactly the point that I was making above: that “Rothbardians” do not operate on the basis of some hive mind, or in blind obedience to the commands of their lord and master Murray the Great. Rather, there is considerable disagreement between them on many issues, including the “thick vs. thin” debate, and thus, your attempts to lump them all together (be it as “Rothbardians” or “paleos”) is naive at best, if not intellectually dishonest. It also demonstrates why Hoppe chose to use one Rothbard quote, while Rockwell chose a different one (more on that below).

    Notice how Rockwell is identifying the “thick” heresy with “egalitarianism” (and, in a few places, feminism).

    Nope. If you read those articles, it is clear that Rockwell is attacking the general idea of “thickness” and his references to egalitarianism/feminism are merely used as examples of things that could be said to be “part of” libertarianism. As for why he chose those specific examples, it is almost certainly because those are the things that are most commonly cited by the most vocal proponents of “thick” libertarianism (Long, Richman, and so forth) as examples of what is allegedly “missing” from “thin” libertarianism.

    …why the ‘thin’ Rothbard of 1979 and the ‘thick’ Rothbard of 1994? Did he “learn better”?

    Simple. He changed his mind. It happens all the time. First, he held one view. Later, he switched to the opposite view. Hoppe believes that he was correct to change his mind. That’s why he used the latter quote. Rockwell, on the other hand, thinks that Rothbard’s latter position was wrong. That’s why he used the earlier quote. Are you suggesting that there is something sinister or deceitful about this? Why? If someone says something you agree with, and then later changes their mind, does that mean you have to change your mind, too? If that is your position, it’s indescribably unreasonable. If that’s not your point, then I don’t see what it is.

    Rockwell is a ‘thick’ anti-egalitarian libertarian (like Hoppe and 1994 Rothbard), while using ‘thin libertarianism’ to attack egalitarianism.

    There’s not a shred of evidence to support either of those assertions. On the contrary, Rockwell has explicitly stated that he opposes “thick” libertarianism in general, while pointing to the “egalitarian” form of it only as an example. Your attempt to disprove that is apparently limited to asserting that, “Yeah, well, Rockwell’s a liar!”

    Notice Rockwell’s 2014 position is identical with 1994 Rothbard…

    If by “identical” you mean “exactly the opposite.”

    I’ve never said that “we need drug laws to prevent that epidemic of 5-year-old heroin addicts”.

    Perhaps not. But you have repeatedly criticized Perry for disagreeing with that statement, so it seems reasonable to assume that you agree with it. Of course, as TK points out, Perry was the only candidate on stage in Orlando to give even a halfway decent answer to that question, and thus, the only one of the five who didn’t come off looking like either a pseudo-libertarian poseur, or a confused dilettante.

  364. langa

    Complaining about “white genocide” not being part of the trigger warning canon == thin libertarian?

    Whatever Rockwell’s opinions about “white genocide” or trigger warnings, they have nothing to do with whether he is a “thick” or “thin” libertarian, unless he asserts that agreeing with him on those things is an essential component of libertarianism. I haven’t heard him make any such assertion.

  365. George Dance

    Tonio:

    Tony From Long Island
    December 29, 2016 at 16:20
    Jorge Phillies: ” . . . . .By many reports, Rothbard si deceased. These arguments about what he might have meant are fitting for a religious cult, but not for a political party. . . . . ”
    “I think the same thing when I hear a republican talk about the grand high exalted mystic Ronald Reagan.”

    Not the same thing. Republicans love to invoke Reagan’s name; but rarely if ever bother do any of them look at what he said, or what that might have meant. In the main. “Ronald Reagan” just gets used as a cover for one’s own agenda. More or less how plenty of libertarians do treat Rothbard; and how, it seems, Mr. Phillies prefers that they treat him.

  366. robert capozzi

    dL: Thickness refers to a more expansive set of presumptions that form the arena/context in which a thing then can only properly be understood. …And much of it is attached to the German romantic idealist tradition, a thing that came after the period of the original liberal philosophers.

    me: For me, it’s practical to consider context. One can somewhat separate one’s absolute viewpoint from one’s relative position.

    As for schools of thought, as a radical, I’m not concerned about where an idea’s tradition spring from. I’m more concerned — possibly only concerned — with truth.

  367. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    The less obvious kind is less obvious because it is fueled by un-examined assumptions about the environment from which libertarianism can spring and/or the environment which libertarianism might produce.

    If this counts as thickness, then I think it is almost impossible to be thin, since I think we all have these sorts of assumptions
    —–

    “Thickness” isn’t about having those assumptions. It’s about trying to define those assumptions as elements of libertarianism itself, or as necessarily entailed by libertarianism* even if they do not hinge on non-aggression per se. Once you do that, you’re pretty much on rails to an eventual conflict in which those assumptions come into conflict with non-aggression.

    * The whole “thick” versus “thin” distinction is closely tied to what Bob Capozzi would characterize as a “NAPster” or “NAPsolutist” definition of libertarianism. People who don’t start by defining it in those terms in the first place, and especially those whose definitions aren’t of a binary/consistency nature, don’t really run into the problem in question.

  368. George Dance

    Like, for example, the thick/thin debate, where he clearly and explicitly disagrees with Rothbard; (or at least with the position that Rothbard adopted in his latter years).

    Wrong. There’s not even a hint, in either article, that he disagrees with Rothbard; certainly not a with a ‘position’ that he doesn’t even bother to mention.

    “Rothbardians” do not operate on the basis of some hive mind, or in blind obedience to the commands of their lord and master Murray the Great.

    Wrong again; his title is not “Murray the Great”: it’s “Mr. Libertarian”. Read Rockwell’s articles again and you’ll see that.

    Rather, there is considerable disagreement between them on many issues, including the “thick vs. thin” debate, and thus, your attempts to lump them all together (be it as “Rothbardians” or “paleos”) is naive at best, if not intellectually dishonest.

    There is no disagreement: they’re all inegalitarians in principle, and Leninists in strategy. They may use different language, to push their common principle to different groups, but that’s standard Leninism.

    It also demonstrates why Hoppe chose to use one Rothbard quote, while Rockwell chose a different one (more on that below).

    The reason is simple: they’re speaking to different groups. Hoppe explicitly recruits among the white power right and the alt.right and the, while Rockwell’s trying to to recruit from mainstream libertarians, the kind that supported the Ron Paul campaigns.

    If you read those articles, it is clear that Rockwell is attacking the general idea of “thickness” and his references to egalitarianism/feminism are merely used as examples of things that could be said to be “part of” libertarianism.

    Really? Let’s look at the specific examples he gives of “straightforward libertarian” positions; things that according to him ARE part of libertarianism:

    “Was he opposed to antidiscrimination law? Yes. Did he dissent from the received version of the Civil War, from which the regime derives much of its legitimacy? Yes.”

    By using those as his examples of “what libertarianism is”, Rockwell’s demonstrating that he either doesn’t know or care about “thinness”, except as a rhetorical stick to beat the egalitarians you mention:

    As for why he chose those specific examples, it is almost certainly because those are the things that are most commonly cited by the most vocal proponents of “thick” libertarianism (Long, Richman, and so forth) as examples of what is allegedly “missing” from “thin” libertarianism.

    Yes, nondiscrimination’s a lot more popular now; that explains why inegalitarians have to use ‘thin’ rhetoric to combat it. 20 years ago, when libertarians were buying and reading things like the Ron Paul Survival Report, their articles could be a lot “thicker”; but today, when even Ron Paul repudiates that stuff, those turds don’t float anymore.

    That’s sufficient to explain the difference in the articles, without making up some disagreement between Rockwell and his “Mr. Libertarian himself”.

    Rockwell, on the other hand, thinks that Rothbard’s latter position was wrong.

    There’s not a shred of evidence that Rockwell thought “Mr. Libertarian himself” was wrong about anything to do with libertarianism. You’re just making that up, because that’s what you want to read.

    Are you suggesting…>/i>

    No, I’m not. Please stick with what I said.

    Rockwell has explicitly stated that he opposes “thick” libertarianism in general, while pointing to the “egalitarian” form of it only as an example.

    While pointing to inegalitarian forms of it – opposition to anti-discrimination laws, and Civil War revisionism – as “straightforward libertarian” positions. So much for Rockwell’s ‘thin libertarianism’.

    Your attempt to disprove that is apparently limited to asserting that, “Yeah, well, Rockwell’s a liar!”

    Another made-up quote, I see. Rockwell’s simply using different arguments to support his anti-egalitarian beliefs than Rothbard did. That’s not lying, and I did not say it was.

    Notice Rockwell’s 2014 position is identical with 1994 Rothbard…

    If by “identical” you mean “exactly the opposite.”

    The theme of all 3 articles is: “Egalitarianism is not libertarianism. Egalitarianism is statism.”

    GD – I’ve never said that “we need drug laws to prevent that epidemic of 5-year-old heroin addicts”.
    Perhaps not. But you have repeatedly criticized Perry for disagreeing with that statement

    Wrong again. I’ve said Libertarian can, and should, campaign for legalizing marijuana without mentioning either heroin or the age of majority. That’s not a support of drug laws, and it’s not an attack on anyone. So please stop that sort of thing.

  369. Thomas L. Knapp

    George,

    You seem to be getting some of the thin/thick stuff backward. Opposition to anti-discrimination LAWS, being by definition opposition to aggression, is not “thick.” “Thickness” would reside in a holding that discrimination or non-discrimination is an essential element of libertarianism.

  370. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    —–
    GD – I’ve never said that “we need drug laws to prevent that epidemic of 5-year-old heroin addicts”.
    Perhaps not. But you have repeatedly criticized Perry for disagreeing with that statement

    Wrong again. I’ve said Libertarian can, and should, campaign for legalizing marijuana without mentioning either heroin or the age of majority. That’s not a support of drug laws, and it’s not an attack on anyone. So please stop that sort of thing.
    —–

    But your example is not about Libertarian candidates “mentioning” heroin or the age of majority. It’s about a non-libertarian cornering Libertarian candidates (at the inexplicable invitation of the national convention committee) and demanding an answer on heroin/age of majority for the obvious purpose of trying either to:

    1) intimidate those candidates into abandoning their party’s platform on the issue, or

    2) boost the nomination prospects of one candidate he knew would abandon his mother in the middle of a busy freeway with a “hit me” sign on her back if he thought it would make him look “mainstream.”

    I don’t recall McAfee’s answer to the question. Perry decided to stick with his party instead of running against it. Petersen and Johnson both turned the question into an opportunity to proclaim, from the party’s presidential debate stage, “fuck the Libertarian Party, this is all about me.”

  371. George Dance

    The reason is simple: they’re speaking to different groups. Hoppe explicitly recruits among the white power right and the alt.right and the, while Rockwell’s trying to to recruit from mainstream libertarians, the kind that supported the Ron Paul campaigns.
    No, I’m not. Please stick with what I said.

    That was my comment, not langa’s. I normally don’t make corrections to the inevitable mistakes in my hurried comments; but this needs it.

  372. langa

    There’s not even a hint, in either article, that he disagrees with Rothbard…

    He must disagree with Rothbard, since as you yourself point out, Rothbard’s earlier position is the exact opposite of his latter position. So, Rockwell can’t possibly agree with both. He has to choose one to agree with, and one to disagree with. Clearly, he chooses to agree with Rothbard’s earlier position. You can’t seem to wrap your head around this, and continue to imply that it’s some sort of trick, but there’s not a shred of evidence to support that claim.

    There is no disagreement: they’re all inegalitarians in principle…

    Here you go again, insisting that all “Rothbardians” (or “paleos” or whatever) agree on everything, even though I have provided you with numerous examples earlier in the thread of areas where they disagree, but you remain stuck in some sort of denial. And yes, Rockwell is opposed to egalitarianism, as far as his personal opinion, just as Hoppe is. The difference between them is that Hoppe claims that opposition to egalitarianism is an essential element of libertarianism, while Rockwell does not. That’s the difference between “thick” and “thin” libertarianism. It’s really starting to get tedious to explain the same basic points to you, over and over.

    Let’s look at the specific examples he gives of “straightforward libertarian” positions; things that according to him ARE part of libertarianism…

    The things he mentions are part of basic libertarianism. Anti-discrimination laws violate the NAP, and should obviously be opposed by any libertarian worth the name. Heck, I’m pretty sure even a hardcore “thick” libertarian like Long doesn’t support the provisions of the CRA of ’64 that ban discrimination by private businesses. As for the Civil War, the conventional wisdom — that Lincoln justifiably fought the South to free the slaves — is flawed from a libertarian perspective. That’s why probably the leading libertarian of the time, Lysander Spooner — who, not coincidentally, also happened to be one of the leading abolitionists of the time — took the exact same position on the Civil War as the one that Rockwell and Ron Paul take — because that’s the position that results from logically applying libertarian principles to the situation.

    …nondiscrimination’s a lot more popular now…

    Much to your chagrin, I’m sure, “popularity” has nothing to do with any of the issues we are discussing.

    There’s not a shred of evidence that Rockwell thought “Mr. Libertarian himself” was wrong about anything to do with libertarianism. You’re just making that up, because that’s what you want to read.

    Bullshit. I’ve already given you the example of abortion, where their positions couldn’t be more different, as well as the fact that logically, Rockwell can’t help but disagree with one of Rothbard’s positions on the thick/thin debate. Specifically, he disagrees with the one from the ’90s, no matter how loath you are to admit it.

    While pointing to inegalitarian forms of it – opposition to anti-discrimination laws, and Civil War revisionism – as “straightforward libertarian” positions. So much for Rockwell’s ‘thin libertarianism’.

    As explained above, they are straightforward libertarian positions.

    The theme of all 3 articles is: “Egalitarianism is not libertarianism. Egalitarianism is statism.”

    Well, at least you got this one half right. All three articles do agree that egalitarianism is not an essential component of libertarianism. The ’94 Rothbard article claims not that egalitarianism is statism, but that egalitarianism leads to statism, while the two Rockwell articles take no position on egalitarianism, other than, again, stating that it is not a necessary ingredient of libertarianism.

    I’ve said Libertarian can, and should, campaign for legalizing marijuana without mentioning either heroin or the age of majority. That’s not a support of drug laws…

    You have said that when a libertarian is pressed on the issue, he should abandon full drug legalization, as Johnson did, rather than stand up for it, as Perry did, haven’t you? Or do you agree with me that Johnson’s public repudiation of libertarian principles on stage in Orlando was highly inappropriate?

  373. Thomas L. Knapp

    No, Civil War revisionism is not a “straightforward libertarian position.” It’s an opinion on the correctness or incorrectness of factual claims. When that opinion gets stretched into a general defense of either side of the war, it does become a position — but not a libertarian position of any kind.

  374. dL

    If this counts as thickness, then I think it is almost impossible to be thin, since I think we all have these sorts of assumptions

    Wrt to NAP, I think it is impossible to be thin. But that’s not how I calculate thinness/thickness. The better to look at it IMHO opinion is through impersonal duties. Thick is never going to be thin in regards to duties owned to no one. Examples of impersonal duties:

    Duty to have military service
    Duty to go to public schools
    Duty to get married
    Duty to obey God
    Duty to respect the sanctity of life

    If libertarian morality is “anything peaceful is tolerated,” when can call this space of moral permissiveness M.

    “Thickness” is going to carve out a subset TM of what is permissive in M. TM society. Generally, anything outside of TM is not interoperable with TM in regards to society.

    Personally, I view “thickness” as a type of clamp down on moral permissiveness. Hence, I view it as a form of social conservatism, whether from the left or right. Most of it traces back to Hegel***

    Liberalism on the other hand will attach a universalism to M, or at the very least, hold the various subsets within M to be socially interoperable. I view libertarianism and liberalism as overlapping(==the same) in terms of the treatment of moral foundations.

    ***white privilege===ppl using 19th century white man’s constructs to critique 18th century white man constructs

  375. dL

    NOTE:
    The fucking filtering system here when it comes to use of arrows:

    “Thickness” is going to carve out a subset TM of what is permissive in M. TM society. Generally, anything outside of TM is not interoperable with TM in regards to society.

    should read:

    “Thickness” is going to carve out a subset TM of what is permissive in M. From TM then flows property rights, legal system, contacts== society. Generally, anything outside of TM is not interoperable with TM in regards to society.

  376. dL

    Whatever Rockwell’s opinions about “white genocide” or trigger warnings, they have nothing to do with whether he is a “thick” or “thin” libertarian, unless he asserts that agreeing with him on those things is an essential component of libertarianism. I haven’t heard him make any such assertion.

    They most certainly do have something to with thick or thinness..

    Listen, Rockwell can have his little agrarian, Amish white christian society. I can give a rat’s ass. The problem is that he and him ilk don’t hold to that. They want to use the state as means for their politics. I know they usually claim “self-defense, self-defense, they are doing it to us.” Whatever. But that is when it becomes a big problem with me.

    Also, giving references to Rockwell essays where he seems to express a different opinion than what he promulgates on his political theatre or blog is a “con man alert .”

  377. George Dance

    You seem to be getting some of the thin/thick stuff backward. Opposition to anti-discrimination LAWS, being by definition opposition to aggression, is not “thick.”

    I’d say that’s half right. Laws telling private individuals or groups to discriminate, or to not indiscriminate, are aggression, and opposing them is ‘thin’.

    But there are other anti-discrimination laws, dealing with access to government services and use of public spaces. Some are imposed by a government on its own employees or agencies; some by one level of government on another; some by governments on businesses receiving monopolies or grants from, or just doing business with, those governments.

    Let me come up with a specific historical example: a town puts in a whites-only drinking fountain at public expense; then the federal government tells it it has to let non-whites drink there, too. NAP has nothing to do with it. Supporting or opposing each side would be equally ‘thick’ (note I’m not saying equally right or wrong).

    “Thickness” would reside in a holding that discrimination or non-discrimination is an essential element of libertarianism.

    Well, that’s exactly what I think is going on here. The LP says, no discrimination in “the government’s treatment of individuals” – which would mean, integrate the fountain. That’s the egalitarian ‘thickness’ that Rothbard (definitely) was targeting, long before the term was invented; and (afaics) it’s still a target in the Rockwell articles. What I don’t think Rockwell’s noticed is that opposing that egalitarian law – in letting the town discriminate – is equally ‘thick’.

  378. George Dance

    dL – “‘libertarian Libertarian’ is a form of newspeak that does not exist outside the cognitive thinking of this forum and perhaps a certain faction of LP delegates.”

    TK – Actually, more than one faction/group has at least occasionally referred to itself as “the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party,”

    I believe it’s time for me to define what “libertarian Libertarian” (or “libertarian libertarian”, since there are such people and factions outside the party as well as in) means. dL’s right that it’s unknown outside IPR; I invented it, and I’ve used it only in IPR. Because it’s my term, I get to say what it means; and it looks like I’ll have to because, if I don’t, it end up defined as something else.

    It doesn’t mean supporter or opposent of any faction or position: it applies to anyone who self-identifies as a “real libertarian”, and identifies whoever disagrees with him as not really a libertarian. Someone who acts like these 2:
    http://gdspoliticalanimal.blogspot.ca/2016/05/jillette-moderates-vegas-libertarian.html

    For obvious reasons I’m not going to call those people “real libertarians”, their own term – that would mean having to give up the libertarian term myself – and I’m not going to use the usual terms they get called – “radical” or “purist” – because those are simply wrong: There are plenty of radicals, and purists, who don’t act that way. So “libertarian Libertarian” it is; I know it sounds silly, but that’s part of the point.

    generally for the purpose of fighting against “Elder’s position that libertarianism as a whole is an extremist branch of conservatism, and that the LP would do well to continue its practice of nominating moderate GOP has-beens for POTUS.”

    I’ll leave that for now.

  379. dL

    It doesn’t mean supporter or opposent of any faction or position: it applies to anyone who self-identifies as a “real libertarian”, and identifies whoever disagrees with him as not really a libertarian. Someone who acts like these 2:

    That cartoon doesn’t represent the types of accusations that/debates that take place in the LP. They usually goe something like:

    Person A: You’re a republican
    Person B: No, you’re just a purist

    The closest thing to “you’re a socialist…no, you’re the socialist” is right-libertarian anarchists vs left-libertarian anarchists. But that goes something like:

    left-libertarian: you’re a fascist
    right-libertarian: no, you’re just a socialist

  380. robert capozzi

    gd: Laws telling private individuals or groups to discriminate, or to not indiscriminate, are aggression, and opposing them is ‘thin’.

    me: True, in the moment of enforcement, such laws are “aggression.” But, that’s only in isolation. Laws against discrimination are imperfect signals addressing centuries of profound injustice.

    Are anti-discrimination laws ideal? Hardly. Could the centuries of injustice have been addressed in a more-just way? Yes. Have anti-discrimination laws overreached? I’d say yes. Must a person who calls him- or herself L advocate the abolition of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

    I’d say No, since it’s bad politics and an inappropriately narrow interpretation of the desire to maximize liberty, since the ability to address the massive injustice of slavery is extremely limited. To the extent the CRA was poorly executed, undoing it would at this point be highly counter-productive and doomed to fail. Why expend energy on such an endeavor?

  381. George Dance

    dL – You have said that when a libertarian is pressed on the issue, he should abandon full drug legalization as Johnson did, rather than stand up for it, as Perry did, haven’t you?

    I intend to come back to the rest of your post; but there’s so much to comment on, suddenly, and I have to look at what’s most important. This certainly looks important.

    I haven’t said what a Libertarian candidate should do or say. So I could accuse you of trying to put words into my mouth. But let me take another tack, and make that my fault, not yours: you have to believe I have a position, and if I don’t tell you what it is, you have to try to guess.

    So I don’t think a candidate should say yes or no: He should talk about his own issues. This is the type of thing I’d say as a candidate, and that I think a candidate should say:

    “That question has nothing to do with why we’re here. All of us are running for President, and we’re here to talk about what we’d do, as President, in the next four years, if elected.”
    “The great libertarian Lao Tzu once said that a journey of 1,000 miles starts with a single step. As a candidate for President, I’m proposing two small steps: legalize the sale and use of marijuana; and stop criminalizing drug use. You’re asking about something 500 or 1,000 miles down the road. I’m not interested in 500 or 1,000 miles down the road. I want to focus on where are, and where we’re going, now. Let’s take those 2 steps: legalize marijuana, and stop making drug use a crime – and then after we take them, let’s see where we can go next.”

    Well within 60 seconds; and as well put as I can state it.

    Or do you agree with me that Johnson’s public repudiation of libertarian principles on stage in Orlando was highly inappropriate?

    I was not impressed with Johnson’s answer, but that doesn’t mean I liked any of the other answers. None of them distinguished between principles – what kind of world would you like to see? – and actual platform: What would you do as President in the next 4 years? None of them touched on the ethics of current drugging of children (whether Ritalin or cannabis oil). None of them even touched on the question of children’s rights vs. guardian rights.

    But how could they? If I’d been blindsided with the question, with no time to prepare an answer, I have no idea what I’d have actually said.

  382. Chuck Moulton

    George Dance wrote:

    I believe it’s time for me to define what “libertarian Libertarian” (or “libertarian libertarian”, since there are such people and factions outside the party as well as in) means. dL’s right that it’s unknown outside IPR; I invented it, and I’ve used it only in IPR. Because it’s my term, I get to say what it means; and it looks like I’ll have to because, if I don’t, it end up defined as something else.

    Son, people have been using the term “libertarian Libertarian” since long before you discovered IPR — or the LP or the Internet for that matter.

  383. Luke

    Aside from the rather dubious origin story, why would someone who resents others calling themselves real libertarians because it implies he is a less real libertarian want to call those same people libertarian libertarians? Doesn’t that equally imply that they are more libertarian than he is?

  384. Luke

    “stop making drug use a crime” means legalize all drugs to most people. Not a problem for me personally but I doubt most people are ready to understand those fine distinctions.

  385. George Dance

    Chuck Moulton:
    Son, people have been using the term “libertarian Libertarian” since long before you discovered IPR — or the LP or the Internet for that matter.

    Really? I discovered IPR the day it went online, in 2008; the internet in 2000, when I discovered DejaNews; and the Libertarian Party in 1973, the year I joined.

    Now it’s your turn. Back up your claim, please.

  386. George Dance

    Luke “Aside from the rather dubious origin story, why would someone who resents others calling themselves real libertarians because it implies he is a less real libertarian.

    If you find someone who does resent that, please let me know. I’d be interested, too. Maybe you can ask Chuck Moulton to put you in touch with one of those 60’s libertarians he was telling us about.

    Doesn’t that equally imply that they are more libertarian than he is?

    It might; but if they’re going around calling him things like “Nazi” anyway, he probably wouldn’t worry about that sort of thing.

  387. George Dance

    Luke: “stop making drug use a crime” means legalize all drugs to most people. Not a problem for me personally but I doubt most people are ready to understand those fine distinctions.

    Decriminalizing can mean different things; which is probably why it seemed Johnson & Weld went out of their way to not use the word. To tell you the truth, though, I wish they had; I thought their trying to describe that policy without calling it anything was more confusing.

  388. George Dance

    RC – Are anti-discrimination laws ideal? Hardly. Could the centuries of injustice have been addressed in a more-just way? Yes. Have anti-discrimination laws overreached? I’d say yes. Must a person who calls him- or herself L advocate the abolition of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

    I’d say No, since it’s bad politics and an inappropriately narrow interpretation of the desire to maximize liberty, since the ability to address the massive injustice of slavery is extremely limited. To the extent the CRA was poorly executed, undoing it would at this point be highly counter-productive and doomed to fail. Why expend energy on such an endeavor?

    It certainly would be bad politics; I remember what happened to Rand Paul when he took the bait and talked about it. Precious few libertarians, of any kind, could be found to agree with him. I remember only 2: Walter Williams and Larry Elder. neither of which could be tarred with the racist brush.

    There is an argument for the private accommodations part of the original CRA; that it was needed to stop businesses from being forced to discriminate, both by state laws and/or by private coercion, from the KKK or similar groups. I’d probably go with that, segue to talking about the decline in at least overt racism since that time, and conclude with something like, I look forward to the day when we all agree it isn’t needed.

  389. langa

    No, Civil War revisionism is not a “straightforward libertarian position.” It’s an opinion on the correctness or incorrectness of factual claims. When that opinion gets stretched into a general defense of either side of the war, it does become a position — but not a libertarian position of any kind.

    Perhaps you could point out where Rockwell or Ron Paul have mounted a “general defense” of either side in the Civil War. To be sure, they have defended certain acts, such as defending the right of the Southern states to secede. But surely you will agree that the right to secede (which is really just a specific example of freedom of association) is itself a basic libertarian principle.

  390. langa

    Listen, Rockwell can have his little agrarian, Amish white christian society. I can give a rat’s ass. The problem is that he and him ilk don’t hold to that. They want to use the state as means for their politics. I know they usually claim “self-defense, self-defense, they are doing it to us.” Whatever. But that is when it becomes a big problem with me.

    When Rockwell advocates using the state (e.g. when he advocates restrictions on immigration), I’m the first one to call him on it. But in the case you cited, he merely linked to an article about the Drexel professor and the “white genocide” tweet. Neither his post nor the one he linked to called for any use of state force.

    Also, giving references to Rockwell essays where he seems to express a different opinion than what he promulgates on his political theatre or blog is a “con man alert .”

    I’m not sure what you think I’m trying to “con” you about. Yes, Rockwell’s articles differ from his blog. That’s because his articles express his political views (i.e. his views as a libertarian), while his political theatre blog expresses his personal views. The fact that those differ just proves the point that I’ve been making all along — that he’s a “thin” libertarian.

    As for my personal opinion of the whole “white genocide” controversy, it’s basically a bunch of right-wing PC identity politics types making a mountain out of a molehill. However, I do find it somewhat amusing that the left-wing PC identity politics types (like the Drexel professor) are so outraged at being fed a dose of their own medicine. For decades, they have been on a crusade to weaken protections of free speech* so that they could push their agenda with no opposition. Now, they’re being hoisted by their own petard, and they don’t like it one bit. The irony is delicious.

    * See here, for example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/26/at-the-university-of-oregon-no-more-free-speech-for-professors-on-subjects-such-as-race-religion-sexual-orientation/

  391. langa

    But there are other anti-discrimination laws, dealing with access to government services and use of public spaces. Some are imposed by a government on its own employees or agencies; some by one level of government on another; some by governments on businesses receiving monopolies or grants from, or just doing business with, those governments.

    Well, when it comes to government-owned property, I think libertarians should support reducing the existence of such property as much as possible (which, in my opinion, would be down to none at all).

    As long as it does exist, I’d say whichever level of government paid for it should get to decide how it’s used, although I’ll admit that’s more of a practical standard than anything derived from the NAP, which really has little (if anything) to say about the administration of so-called “public” property.

    However, I strongly disagree with the idea that some libertarians propagate (I can’t tell whether you are doing so here or not) that any business that receives any sort of direct or indirect subsidy from the state should be treated as “public” property. Today, that would include almost all businesses, and treating all businesses as if they were owned by the state isn’t libertarianism; it’s de facto communism.

  392. langa

    Laws against discrimination are imperfect signals addressing centuries of profound injustice.

    “Imperfect”? I’d say that’s an understatement. Punishing people for crimes committed long before they were even born is not just “imperfect” — it’s unjust, and unjustifiable.

    Must a person who calls him- or herself L advocate the abolition of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

    Regardless of what you call yourself, if you wish to take the libertarian position on freedom of association, then yes, you must oppose the CRA of ’64, or at least the parts of it that outlaw discrimination by private entities. (Of course, that doesn’t mean, for example, that an LP candidate should make such a position a focal point of their campaign. But if asked about it, they should take the position advocated in the platform, or at the very least, explain that they are running in opposition to their party on that issue.)

  393. langa

    I haven’t said what a Libertarian candidate should do or say. So I could accuse you of trying to put words into my mouth. But let me take another tack, and make that my fault, not yours: you have to believe I have a position, and if I don’t tell you what it is, you have to try to guess.

    Fair enough. I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth, or create a straw man. I thought your position was that Johnson answered the question correctly, and that’s why you were upset when he got booed.

    So I don’t think a candidate should say yes or no: He should talk about his own issues. This is the type of thing I’d say as a candidate, and that I think a candidate should say…

    Well, I’m not crazy about your answer, as I think it comes off as evasive, and that’s one of the traits of politicians that many people despise. However, I will agree that it’s a lot better than Johnson’s answer.

  394. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    Perhaps you could point out where Rockwell or Ron Paul have mounted a “general defense” of either side in the Civil War.
    —–

    Why would I need to “point out” an instance of something I didn’t claim exists? I was merely pointing out the difference between an opinion regarding the accuracy of factual claims on one hand, and an ideological position relation to those claims on the other.

    Just for example, you could know that I have any opinion on Pearl Harbor — that it was a genuine surprise attack, that FDR knew an attack was coming but not where/when, that FDR knew within half an hour and half a mile when and where the attack would take place, whatever — but knowing my opinion of that would, in and of itself, tell you absolutely nothing concerning my opinion of which side was better/worse, right/wrong, should have won/should have lost World War II.

  395. robert capozzi

    L: Punishing people for crimes committed long before they were even born is not just “imperfect” — it’s unjust, and unjustifiable.

    me: This assumes that — in this example — African Americans were experiencing ongoing injustice based on a much-more unjust system of slavery. To me, it was fairly obvious that they were, that they were second-class citizens, and to some extent still are second-class citizens BECAUSE OF the ongoing effects of slavery.

    Don’t pay attention to this, and you are sure to be a pariah in the Public Square.

    L: Regardless of what you call yourself, if you wish to take the libertarian position on freedom of association, then yes, you must oppose the CRA of ’64, or at least the parts of it that outlaw discrimination by private entities.

    me: No, sorry, that’s Langa’s L position. It’s not mine. You don’t have the authority to dictate what the L position is. Private entities likely would not have had whites-only lunch counters had there not been slavery.

  396. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Private entities likely would not have had whites-only lunch counters had there not been slavery.”

    Private entities likely not have had whites-only lunch counters — or at least they would have been very rare — had there not been laws compelling them to segregate their lunch counters.

    There will always be prejudice, but when you find any particular ethnic prejudice implemented as universal or near-universal discrimination, you can be reasonably sure that it was implemented forcibly by the state.

  397. Robert Capozzi

    TK, possibly correct. Another justification for the CRA. Overriding racist state laws which traced back to the ultimate injustice of slavery.

    Once a law is on the books, it starts to become an institution. Had only state laws been banned, probably individual businesses would have continued the tradition for decades.

  398. George Phillies

    “Private entities likely not have had whites-only lunch counters — or at least they would have been very rare — had there not been laws compelling them to segregate their lunch counters.”

    Definitely false. I am reminded of the private club I was once taken to dinner in. Newly opened. It was ‘whites only’. The otherwise pleasant suburb in a major northern city had had its first black family move in, adn someone launched the club so you would not have to associate with them. There were no segregation laws. There was money to be made from bigots. I must have been about 10 or 12 at the time, and remember the explanation, though at the time it did not make sense. It was like watching on TV, the paratroops arriving in Little Rock to desegregate the schools. The people you obviously saw were not in combat dress. My father looked politely and noted the machine gun and mortar positions in case a really large mob got totally out of hand.

  399. Thomas L. Knapp

    On the one hand, Hoppe is right that central bankers are criminals.

    On the other hand, Hoppe saying it is damaging to the cause of getting people to believe it.

    Remember, this is the same guy who believes that capitalism developed in western Europe because that was so much more challenging an environment than the Arctic, the Sahara, etc., that it caused white people to evolve faster; that homosexuals must have high time preference because they don’t have kids; and that authoritarianism magically becomes libertarian on immigration and only on immigration. So his track record vis a vis the real world is in the same league as the average schizophrenia patient’s.

  400. Andy

    Thomas L. Knapp said: “Remember, this is the same guy who believes that capitalism developed in western Europe because that was so much more challenging an environment than the Arctic, the Sahara, etc., that it caused white people to evolve faster; that homosexuals must have high time preference because they don’t have kids; ”

    These opinions have nothing to do with anything relevant anymore so than it is the opinion of some people that rights come from God, etc…, and this has nothing to do with his opinions here are right, wrong, or somewhere in the middle.

    “and that authoritarianism magically becomes libertarian on immigration and only on immigration. So his track record vis a vis the real world is in the same league as the average schizophrenia patient’s.”

    No, that’s resevered to the left wing “politically correct” Social Justice Warriors who think that it is somehow “libertarian” to bring lots of Marxists and hostile religious extremists into a country against the will of much of the population who paid for the infrastructure of said country, and to forced integrate them into society where they can leech off of the rest of the population by getting on welfare and taking advantage of Affirmative Action programs, and where they can be fraudulently sworn in as “American citizens” (which requires an oath to support the US Constitution, which the statistics show a high percentage of these people are clueless about as their views are close to the Communist Manifesto), and then vote in large numbers for more socialism and more gun control (which the statistics clearly show they do in large numbers).

    It is amazing how these “politically correct” cowards posing as “libertarians” openly advocate for NON-peaceful people to cross borders, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS NOT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN A LIBERTARIAN SOCIETY WHERE ALL LAND WAS PRIVATELY OWNED AND THERE WERE NO TAXES. Talk about being divorced from reality.

    Only in “politically correct” left wing Social Justice Warrior delusion land is it somehow “libertarian” for NON-peaceful people to cross borders and be FORCED integrated into a Democratic welfare state where they can leech off of the native population and vote to take their rights away once gaining citizenship.

    I’ll take Hoppe over the “politically correct” ass kissing delusional leftist Social Justice Warriors any day.

  401. Andy

    How would immigration work if government did not exist? If land was unclaimed, people could homestead on it. Any land that was claimed, it would be up to the land owners (either individual land owners, or groups of land owners working in voluntary associations) as to who could immigrate there, and since there’s no government in this scenario, there’d be no threat of immigrants collecting government welfare or voting to take people’s rights away in democratic elections (a voluntary association could have democratic elections, but this would only be if everyone there consented to it).

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe is advocating for the abolition of the state, and the privatization of all land, which would leave immigration to an actual free market, and this is a perfectly libertarian position.

  402. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Hans-Hermann Hoppe is advocating for the abolition of the state, and the privatization of all land, which would leave immigration to an actual free market, and this is a perfectly libertarian position.”

    Yes, it is.

    But he’s also advocating for having the state be a property manager that forcibly makes society look exactly the way he wants it to look, at everyone else’s expense, until and unless it is abolished. And that’s a perfectly authoritarian position.

  403. Andy

    Great animated video which illustrates how idiotic, destructive, suicidal, delusional, and anti-libertarian the “open borders” position pushed by some so called “libertarians” is.

    The REAL libertarian position is for free market private property borders.

    Open Border Libertarians In A Nutshell

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHiZSmv2_IM

  404. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The REAL libertarian position is for free market private property borders — and against authoritarian collectivism as an interim substitute for free market private property borders.”

    Fixed, no charge.

  405. George Dance

    Andy – “Lew Rockwell knocks the ball out of the park here. I am posting this since Rockwell was knocked earlier in this thread.”

    Sorry, but Rockwell gets knocked here, too; perhaps not for the video (which I haven’t watched, since I don’t watch online videos), but for articles like this one:
    “The Libertarian Principle of Secession”
    https://mises.org/library/libertarian-principle-secession-0

    Like the earlier Rockwell columns, this probably needs a full column to rebut; but one can notice in passing that Rockwell brings up only two arguments for secession, both fallacious.

    First of all, he equates support for secession with the principle of non-aggression: “support for secession means simply this: it is morally illegitimate to employ state violence against individuals who choose to group themselves differently from how the existing regime chooses to group them. ”

    That is not what “support for secession” means. Libertarians oppose employing violence against innocent people. That includes initiating violence to prevent secession; also, and by the same logic, it includes initiating violence to promote or further secession. Supporting or opposing secession is simply a red herring; libertarians oppose initiating ‘violence’, irrespective of whom it’s practised or advocated by.

    Second, he contends that secession is libertarian because it results in a “decentralized political order”, and that a “decentralized political order” in turn results in limiting government power. Never mind that he argues elsewhere that limiting government power is impossible; let’s look at his evidence.

    That evidence comes down to an argument for authority. But look at what the authorities he quotes actually say:

    “Ralph Raico … documented how the decentralized political order of Europe made possible the emergence of liberty. The lack of a single political authority … placed a strict limit on the ambitions of any particular prince. The ability to move from one place to another meant that a prince would lose his tax base should his oppressions grow intolerable.
    “[Frank] Chodorov made a similar observation: ‘When an individual is free to move from one jurisdiction to another, a limit is placed on the extent to which government may use its monopoly power.” (stress added)

    In other words: political decentralization, combined with open borders, acts to limit government power. But Rockwell and his ilk do not support political decentralization combined with open borders.

    To be consistent, Rockwell would have to show some evidence that decentralization, combined with closed borders, limits government power. And he doesn’t present any such evidence, presumably because he has none to present.

  406. Andy

    This is great! Cantwell nails really nails it here.

    Yeah, I know, Christopher Cantwell is a rude jerk, and he says mean and nasty things, but even so, he still gets some things right, like in the video below.

    The Stupidity & Ignorance of Pro-Open Borders “Libertarians” | Christopher Cantwell

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=450wSQBDWBg

  407. George Dance

    Andy – “Social Justice Warriors […] think that it is somehow “libertarian” to bring lots of Marxists and hostile religious extremists into a country against the will of much of the population who paid for the infrastructure of said country, and to forced integrate them into society where they can leech off of the rest of the population by getting on welfare and taking advantage of Affirmative Action programs, and where they can be fraudulently sworn in as “American citizens” (which requires an oath to support the US Constitution, which the statistics show a high percentage of these people are clueless about as their views are close to the Communist Manifesto), and then vote in large numbers for more socialism and more gun control (which the statistics clearly show they do in large numbers).”

    As opposed to Rockwellians, who who think that it is somehow “libertarian” who think that a country is somehow the native-born, including “Marxists and hostile religious extremists”, whether or not they’ve paid a dime (on net)”for the infrastructure of said country”, and whether or not they “leech off of the rest of the population by getting on welfare and taking advantage of Affirmative Action programs”; and that ll those people automatically become “American citizens (which requires an oath to support the US Constitution, which the statistics show a high percentage of these people are clueless about as their views are close to the Communist Manifesto), and then vote in large numbers for more socialism and more gun control (which the statistics clearly show they do in large numbers)”.

  408. Andy

    This is probably the best video I’ve ever seen on immigration. I have posted this video here several times in the past, and NOBODY has been able to debunk it. The only comments have been about Cantwell’s less than congenial personality, which does absolutely nothing to refute anything that he said in the video.

    Christopher Cantwell: Libertarianism Is Not A Suicide Pact

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKQy5SyzUi0

  409. paulie Post author

    Why are people using the December thread rather than the January thread? Please move all further replies to the January thread. Also, scumbags like Hoppe and Cantwell don’t deserve the effort of being debunked, although they have been many times, including here.

  410. Andy

    Let’s say that libertarians purchased the Rogers Campground in New Hampshire, where Porcfest is held, and instead of having a libertarian society there that only lasts for one week during Porcfest, that it became a year round settlement.

    Now let’s say that some libertarians like Tom Knapp lived there. Let’s say that Tom and some other said, “You know, we should open up our border here on the Rogers Campground, and just allow anyone to enter.” Let’s say that Tom and his fellow “open borders” libertarians got their way, and the borders to the Rogers Campground got opened up to Democrats, Republicans, foreign born Marxists, and foreign born religious fanatics.

    The Democrats and their fellow Marxist buddies don’t like it that the libertarians are engaging in commerce without business licenses, and that they are not paying taxes, and that they are violating child labor laws, and they really hate that they are openly carrying firearms. The Republicans and the religious extremists don’t like it that people are smoking marijuana, and using other drugs, and that they are walking around consuming open containers of alcohol, and they don’t like “Big Al’s Gay Dance Party,” or the panels on polyamory,. so they start to crack down on these things.

    Let’s say that after a while under the “open borders” policy advocated by the likes of Tom Knapp, the number of Democrats, Republicans, foreign born Marxists, and foreign born religious fanatics actually outnumbers the amount of libertarians who live in the Rogers Campground.

    How long do you think that the year round Porcfest settlement would remain libertarian under such an “open borders” policy?

Leave a Reply

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