January 2017 Open Thread

So, it’s 2017 (or very soon will be, depending on where you are and how soon you read this). What will the new year bring? Here’s Australia’s Juice Media’s take on it:

What’s yours? Discuss in comments.

And 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.

470 thoughts on “January 2017 Open Thread

  1. Luke

    I wish I didn’t share the pessimism, but I do. I actually normally tend to be optimistic, but not so much now.

  2. Bondurant

    I’m cautiously optimistic about ’17. Hillary will not be president and the anti-Russia hysteria the Democrats are pushing isn’t passing the sniff test to anyone other than the most partisan Democrats. People are tired of their corrupt primaries and their general bullshit. Barack Obama was a disaster. We’ve witnessed the GOP establishment wilt away and we may see the same for the Democrats.

    A few weeks ago I was visiting family and shocked to learn that this staunch Democratic strand of my family has rejected the Democrats and described themselves as stepping away from lifelong indoctrination. They all voted for Gary Johnson. That blew my mind.

    I think there’s room for third parties to grow. The majority of eligible Americans still choose not to vote because they believe it a waste. Libertarians, Greens, independents, etc., have wonderful opportunities to reach out to the disenfranchised masses.

  3. Concerned Citizen

    Right on! A lot of people are super-optimistic right now. To take just two examples:

    http://tinyurl.com/h5uoggr

    The author writes:

    “By all counts and measures, 2016 was a great year. It was this year the British people finally woke and separated from the globalist EU in favor of the nationalism of Brexit. It was this year the American people finally woke and rejected the globalism of the Bush-Clinton dynasty in favor of the nationalism of President Elect Trump.

    We can expect 2017 to be just as great. We will inaugurate a new president; one who is a man of his people. We will build a Great Wall along the Southern Border to keep out the hordes taking our jobs and bringing crime to our streets. We will respect our police and allow them to do their job so that we can be safe in places like New York and Chicago. We will cut taxes, cut useless regulations, and raise tariffs on globalist corporations taking our jobs overseas. In 2017, we will make American great again and because of this new nationalist spirit people will be proud to be American again.

    Goodbye 2016. You were good to us. But Welcome 2017. You are full of promise.”

  4. Luke

    ” Hillary will not be president and the anti-Russia hysteria the Democrats are pushing isn’t passing the sniff test to anyone other than the most partisan Democrats. ”

    That’s funny. The last time I voted for or called myself a Democrat was 25 years ago, and I felt alienated in the Democratic Party even back then. Most of the time in recent decades I haven’t even found the Democrats to be less terrible than the Republicans, much less being a “most partisan Democrat” and yet I share their concerns about Russia possibly interfering in and changing the outcome of a US election to elect a man who may be under their control or influence.

    “Hillary will not be president ”

    Well that’s the silver lining, but unfortunately Trump will be.

    ” Barack Obama was a disaster. ”

    He sucked, but by way of comparison I think we’ll be looking at his time as the good old days soon.

    “We’ve witnessed the GOP establishment wilt away and we may see the same for the Democrats.”

    I’m happy about that too, but really scared about the authoritarian mess that I see filling the void.

    “I think there’s room for third parties to grow. ”

    Lots of room, but will the military-superrich corporate kleptocratic junta coming to power this year allow it to happen?

  5. Luke

    ” It was this year the American people finally woke and rejected the globalism of the Bush-Clinton dynasty in favor of the nationalism of President Elect Trump.”

    The first part is awesome. The second is so awfully terrible that it completely eclipses that.

    “We will inaugurate a new president; one who is a man of his people.”

    What people is that, bigoted braggart billionaire heirs?

    “We will build a Great Wall along the Southern Border to keep out the hordes taking our jobs and bringing crime to our streets.”

    Well, I do believe that Trump will indeed hoist up his latest substitute erection on the border. The crap about jobs and crime has absolutely zero merit. Trump’s wall will make the economy and crime problems worse, not better.

    “We will respect our police and allow them to do their job so that we can be safe in places like New York and Chicago. ”

    Yes, they keep us so very safe when they kill innocent people (and pets). Every time I see one in the rearview mirror I immediately feel safer.

    “We will cut taxes, cut useless regulations, and raise tariffs on globalist corporations taking our jobs overseas.”

    If taxes will be cut in the short term, it will only be because debt will skyrocket even faster for future generations. Tariffs are terrible for the domestic and world economy and may well lead to war.

    “In 2017, we will make American great again and because of this new nationalist spirit people will be proud to be American again.”

    That sounds better in the original German.

  6. George Phillies

    I am not particularly optimistic either, but I really do not expect an apocalypse.

  7. Don Wills

    paulie – Chapman’s Reason article is ridiculous. Let’s compare our current world situation with, say with

    the 40’s – Hitler, Mussolini, Japan, six million Jews exterminated, twenty million Russians dead
    the 50’s – the Shah of Iran installed by CIA, Guatamala CIA coup, Hungary 1956
    the 60’s – Viet Nam, Mao’s Great Leap Forward (40 million dead)
    the 70’s – the Killing Fields (2 million dead, maybe more), Idi Amin (half million dead)
    the 80’s – Castro’s Mariel Boatlift, USSR in Afghanistan mass exodus, Guatamala civil war, Pinochet

    In the last 25 years, dozens of dictators have lost power, and the world is in the best situation WRT dictatorships since before WW I. Chapman is simply wrong.

  8. paulie Post author

    Which facts in particular did he get wrong? I didn’t see any. A bunch of countries that were less dictatorial a few short years ago are becoming more dictatorial now. The longer term trend was otherwise, but that has now changed.

  9. Jim

    Concerned Citizen January 1, 2017 at 18:29

    LOL

    George Phillies makes William Weld seem pretty Libertarian.

  10. dL

    The world is more oligarchical collectivist today than the past. That mirrors the premise of Orwell’s Nineteen Eight-Four…less nation-state wars but a more unified global social control over people.

    Nonetheless, the comparisons to be made are not today vs yesterday(the progress of history), an approach that often minimizes the misery of today by appealing to some misery of yesterday(hey, think you have it bad today, well, think about living in a world w/ no indoor plumbing!!!).

    Instead, the comparison that should be made is the reality of today with what it could be. Certainly, if one circa 1989 (the beginning of the internet age and the end of the cold war) looked into crystal ball and saw what we have today, disappointment would be an understatement. And what we have is not natural. It is sustained only by a vast security apparatus…global in scope.

  11. robert capozzi

    dL: Certainly, if one circa 1989 (the beginning of the internet age and the end of the cold war) looked into crystal ball and saw what we have today, disappointment would be an understatement. And what we have is not natural. It is sustained only by a vast security apparatus…global in scope.

    me: To the extent that people fantasize, some would be disappointed and some others would probably be amazed.

    “Natural” is a term that definitely requires definition. Cavemen were natural, and I s’pose that was a desirable lifestyle when it was pretty much the only option, but I’m not sure your average burger flipper or overnight crew at Costco would necessarily prefer the cave to his or her current configuration.

    And what is the “vast security apparatus” keeping the globe in this “unnatural” state?

  12. paulie Post author

    Was Andy J banned from IPR? I missed that. What did he do to get banned?

    No. Why would you think he was banned?

  13. paulie Post author

    LOL that’s not Andy’s blog. Did you actually read it? It’s a troll blog that makes fun of Andy and other people here and puts up racist crap along with a few others such as “IPR-X”. This same person or group of people had a fake “Knappster blog” which was taken down, presumably for violating wordpress terms of service. Then they put up the fake Andy Jacobs blog right away. It should be taken down as well, for the same reasons. I don’t think anyone could spend two minutes on that site and really think it was Andy. Just read the non-quoted parts of that article or even just look at the blogs header (“gayer than all y’all”) or look at the list of recent articles and you can right away see it’s a troll site. And Andy (the real Andy) commented here yesterday.

  14. paulie Post author

    How is it that you came upon this link

    It was discussed by two separate posters here yesterday, “Concerned Citizen” and Jim.

  15. Andy

    “Concerned Citizen
    January 2, 2017 at 11:54
    Quit the bitching. You gotta admit this is funny:”

    It is stupid. It is also fraud to post something as if you were somebody else.

  16. Robert Capozzi

    I didn’t do much investigating. Thx PF and AJ for clarifying.

    Glad to hear AJ’s not the next Bob Wallace.

  17. dL

    RE: mariah carey…

    just checked that out on youtube. At first, i thought we were going to have a “this is spinal tap” moment with the feathers…lol. But shit, she she still looks pretty good… she’s been recording since the late 1980s. Obviously, past her prime for using her dance moves to compensate for a missing vocal track.

  18. dL

    me: To the extent that people fantasize, some would be disappointed and some others would probably be amazed.

    Oh, I guess if you like departments of fatherlnd security, departments of papers please to travel, decades long perpetual wars..you know, the end of the cold war==exporting the old soviet union to the United States, I guess you would be amazed. Do you find that amazing? Or do you simply consider that to be secondary to whatever you apparently find amazing?

    “Natural” is a term that definitely requires definition.

    Something that wouldn’t collapse within 5 seconds if the guns, surveillance and prisons were removed. You know, something like the East German border security after the berlin wall fell.

    And what is the “vast security apparatus” keeping the globe in this “unnatural” state?

    Are you being rhetorical or merely pretending to be obtuse?

    US Africa Command, US Central Command, US European Command, US Northern Command, US Pacific Command, US Southern Command, US Special Operations Command, US Strategic Command, US Transportation Command, TSA, NSA, FBI, ATF, FDA, DEA, CIA, ISA, CGI, DIA, OIC, OIA, OTFI, MCIA, NGIA, NRO, NIA, CBP, ICE, USCIS, USSS, FAMS, ERO, OFO, FPS, DOE, OST, BIS, EPA, FCC, FAA, FED, FDIC, FTC,ICC, SEC, CPSC, DOC, USFS, USDA, PFPA, HUD, DOT, AID, USCP

    I could on for days writing this shit out. I’m still only on the united states, and it’s partial list at that. Still would have 195 countries…how the respective organs from those countries that would interface with that above. Then one could go purely international organs like interpol….on and on. Then global surveillance apparatus like 5Eyes, 9Eyes. Of course, I don’t want to leave the international,continental military ORGS like Nato.

  19. robert capozzi

    dL: Oh, I guess if you like departments of fatherlnd security, departments of papers please to travel, decades long perpetual wars..

    me: You guessed incorrectly, then. Don’t care for those things, for the most part, although I’m not sure what “papers please” is specifically. Perhaps TSA? I suspect if the government hadn’t come up with TSA, the airlines might have come up with different security for airports.

    For me personally, other than cell phones, the Internet and things like Netflix, 89 and now isn’t all that different.

    dL: (Natural is s)omething that wouldn’t collapse within 5 seconds if the guns, surveillance and prisons were removed. You know, something like the East German border security after the berlin wall fell.

    me: The only example I can think of is Somalia.

    dL: …global surveillance apparatus like 5Eyes, 9Eyes. Of course, I don’t want to leave the international, continental military ORGS like Nato.

    me: I thought you were going for a Bilderberg/Illuminati/Globalist-type-thing with the term “apparatus,” which has a central-control feel for me. I prefer a much less intrusive and interventionist approach, but what the world might look like without all these military and intelligence networks, it seems most honest to say we don’t know how things would change without them. Mostly for the better, in my opinion. Possibly for the worse, in some places.

    I see no evidence that non-intervention or non-interference are gathering any steam in the US. There does seem to be a consensus building that the Iraq War was a mistake.

  20. Robert Capozzi

    Jim, thanks. My sense of things appears validated.

    My guess is that GJ probably sensed that trend, too, which is why he walked a fine line on FP matters in 16.

  21. Tony From Long Island

    Concerned Troll Citizen: ” . . . .“We will inaugurate a new president; one who is a man of his people.” . . . .”

    At least he didn’t have the balls to say of “THE” people.

    I guess “his people” are fake arrogant narcissist billionaires. But how many of them can there be?

  22. dL

    You guessed incorrectly, then. Don’t care for those things, for the most part, although I’m not sure what “papers please” is specifically.

    Lose a document like social security card, birth certificate, or let a document expire and you will find out what it means. No bank account, no travel, no access to public buildings, can’t vote…and god help if you are a brown person or have a good tan.

    For me personally, other than cell phones, the Internet and things like Netflix, 89 and now isn’t all that different.

    damn, Capozzi, were you an old man in 1989, too?

    me: The only example I can think of is Somalia.

    You have no imagination.

    I thought you were going for a Bilderberg/Illuminati/Globalist-type-thing with the term “apparatus,”

    No I’m not a right-winger, a conspiracy theorist, a Rothbardian, a subscriber to LRC, a fundamentalist christian, etc. I just use the dictionary definition…

    ap·pa·rat·us

    a complex structure within an organization or system.

  23. paulie Post author

    Lose a document like social security card, birth certificate, or let a document expire and you will find out what it means. No bank account, no travel, no access to public buildings, can’t vote…and god help if you are a brown person or have a good tan.

    I burned my SS card and quit using SSN 17 years ago. I don’t have a birth certificate and can’t get one (born in the USSR), but do have a naturalization certificate with a picture of me as a kid from the 1980s. I do still have a bank account, but can’t open a new one, and am limited in some of the things I can do with the one I have. I have a state ID that expired 9 years ago, and can’t get it renewed due to aforementioned SS issue. I can travel by greyhound or megabus usually with no ID at all, and I have yet to be turned away because of expired ID the few times they asked, but I’m sure it’s coming. I can ride around with friends in their cars.

    I can’t drive legally. I have been able to fly using a combination of my naturalization certificate, expired state ID, bank ATM/debit card and (ironically) LP membership card, but don’t like commercial flying for a whole host of other reasons so I rarely do it (I’d love to fly around in a private plane but don’t have the resources to afford it). I’ve been to many public buildings, and they usually seem to be OK with my expired ID. Most motels are OK with it, but sometimes I have issues with some of them. I can usually buy alcohol and/or go to places alcohol is served, but not always.

    I haven’t been voting in government elections since 2003, and probably can’t due to the ID issue. Nevertheless I’ve been very active politically. Most years I am working outside the polls on election day. In 2016 I was just laying around watching the news, though.

    I have an olive complexion and have been frequently mistaken for Latino or Arab/middle eastern. However, no one has tried to deport me yet (the closest was some ignorant ass border patrol guards who tried to claim I could lose US citizenship for bringing back painkillers from Mexico, which was an obvious lie). I’ve gotten some ignorant comments and slurs based on people’s erroneous assumptions about my ethnicity.

    I see all of this likely to get much worse for me with Trump in office. Probably at least as bad as the original comment implied it is already, or worse than that. There are many millions of other people in this country who can say the same.

  24. Andy

    The courts have ruled that you don’t need an SSN to register to vote or to get a drivers license. Trying to explain this to the bureaucrats at the DMV is difficult though, so getting a drivers license without an SSN is easier said than done. One can still register to vote without providing an SSN. All that is needed legally is date of birth and place of birth in order to verify American citizenship. Some of the voter registration forms now make it appear that one must provide an SSN (usually last four digits only, but I know that as of three years ago, there was at least one state that was still asking for a full SSN), or a state drivers license or ID card number, however, they still have to accept the voter registration form if those boxes a left blank, so long as a person provides their date of birth and place of birth. I have called up election offices and had them admit to me that a person can still register to vote without providing an SSN or a drivers license/state ID number, and that they are merely requesting that information,. but that it is not mandatory.

  25. paulie Post author

    I’ve been able to get provisional voter registration, so that’s not a problem. However, every form I’ve seen says I will need current state ID if I want to actually vote with such a provisional registration. I haven’t tried.

    As with getting a new state ID, it may be theoretically possible, but practically impossible.

  26. dL

    The courts have ruled that you don’t need an SSN to register to vote or to get a drivers license.

    RealID requires proof of SS #. SS Card is the primary document for that. In some cases, a secondary document like a W2 form may be considered. Many states have implemented State ID requirements for voting, and if that state is a RealID state, then the ID requirements must meet the RealID threshold. In a couple of years , you will not be able to travel by plane w/o being a RealCitizen(verified by RealID or US passport) nor get into many public buildings. Eventually, it extend to everything, trains, buses, hotels, motels, employment, housing, etc.

    The kafkaesque nature of RealID presents itself if you let your state ID expire. Then it’s no longer valid as an ID document. Then you need 4 separate documents to get approved as a RealCitizen. 2 to establish citizenship, 2 to establish identity. If you don’t have an original certified Birth Certificate, you are basically SOL. For life.The other documents require a state ID to get them. Why kafkaesque and bureaucracy are often mutually descriptive.

    When RealID is combined w/ E-Verify(coming sooner or later, but probably sooner), you are going to create a permanent swath marginalized class of people who are essentially going to be slaves in the 18th century sense of the term. Can’t work, can’t bank, can’t travel, can’t procure shelter. Not legally.There is very good reason marginalized people fear Trump in contrast to those who are fully compliant RealCitizens.

    Why I think the LP and libertarianism should be focused on the marginalized and not the respectability republican politics focused on a compliant middle class . You are never going to get anywhere with the latter. While the former is going to be a growth constituency and you are not going to met w/ much skepticism re: radical prescriptions.

  27. dL

    DL, what’s THE organization?

    Grab a uniform…any uniform…what’s the identifier sewn into every one? The flag of the organization…What is this organization? Obviously, the State…

  28. Jim

    dL “Why I think the LP and libertarianism should be focused on the marginalized and not the respectability republican politics focused on a compliant middle class . You are never going to get anywhere with the latter. While the former is going to be a growth constituency and you are not going to met w/ much skepticism re: radical prescriptions.”

    Both can be done. The two major parties have to build coalitions of various groups and the LP will have to do so as well. Different messages for different audiences. The Republicans don’t go to the fearmongers and talk about being pro-life. The Democrats don’t go to the unions and talk about gay marriage.

    The LP can go to disenfranchised Republicans and talk about tax and spending cuts and it can go to marginalized members of society and talk about REAL ID and E-Verify.

  29. robert capozzi

    dL: Why I think the LP and libertarianism should be focused on the marginalized and not the respectability republican politics focused on a compliant middle class .

    me: I heard and read Bill Evers make essentially that point a lot in the early 80s. (He was MNR’s sidekick.)

    By all indications, he came to see the futility of that approach. Personally, I think he went too far in the other direction. On the short list of Trump’s cabinet (Education) is not an honor in my book.

    A Leninist approach might work in more desperate times and places. Organizing the fringe in this time and place seems and has thus far proven to be ineffective.

  30. Robert Capozzi

    dL: Obviously, the State…

    Me: I shared this belief in “the State” prior to my recovery from Randian-Rothbardianism. While I still use the term, I use it as a placeholder mostly, knowing that there is no discrete State, but rather a range of institutions and individuals who comprise the government.

  31. paulie Post author

    “We’ve witnessed the GOP establishment wilt away and we may see the same for the Democrats.”

    In what universe?

    Wilt away may be an exaggeration, but it’s pretty clear that they lost some of their hold on power last year. I don’t think Trump was who they generally backed in either the primaries or the general election (to the extent that there is a bipartisan establishment). Sanders came close to defeating the Democratic establishment also. The alt party vote and write-ins were way up, all over the political map. So, at least at the top of the ticket, I think there is some truth there… and the fish does rot from the head.

  32. paulie Post author

    When RealID is combined w/ E-Verify(coming sooner or later, but probably sooner), you are going to create a permanent swath marginalized class of people who are essentially going to be slaves in the 18th century sense of the term. Can’t work, can’t bank, can’t travel, can’t procure shelter. Not legally.There is very good reason marginalized people fear Trump in contrast to those who are fully compliant RealCitizens.

    That’s exactly why I dislike him so much. Of course, I never liked him even long before he stuck his nose into politics, but now it’s downright fear and loathing in a very literal sense. It’s especially disconcerting to see libertarians make excuses for and even support this slimeball, or even just normalize him.

  33. paulie Post author

    Since asking nicely doesn’t seem to work, I closed last month’s thread to further comment. Please reply here, not there.

  34. paulie Post author

    Honestly, I don’t have the patience and tolerance for these discussions anymore. Yet I am still unable to make myself walk away from them once and for all. Breaks used to help, but now it’s instantly the same thing whenever I come back.

  35. Thomas L. Knapp

    Response to Andy’s final comment on the December thread (someone closed commenting on that thread):

    All you managed to do there was demonstrate that you don’t have the slightest fucking idea what you are talking about when you say “open borders.”

    If a bunch of people get together to jointly buy (or homestead) and jointly own property, OF COURSE it is their prerogative to decide who may or may not use that property, and to make those decisions based on whatever method they AGREED to when the entered into the contract to acquire the property together (and if an individual buys and owns property, he gets to decide, in whatever way and for whatever reasons he wants, who may use it and how).

    The state is not a bunch of people who got together to jointly buy and jointly own property. The state is a criminal gang that is forcibly preventing unowned property from being homesteaded and using stolen extorted funds to do stuff with it. “Borders” are nothing but gang-proclaimed turf lines — false property claims — that are owed precisely zero respect by anyone.

    Your choice is whether you want to empower the gang, or not empower the gang. You are clearly on the side of empowering the gang. But a criminal gang operating as a police state is not “libertarianism,” it is authoritarianism.

    At some point, you’re going to have to decide to follow the authoritarian path you’re taking on “borders,” or to get your head out of your ass and decide to be a libertarian instead. Good luck.

  36. paulie Post author

    Thought maybe I should also change the dates of the new comments left today in the December thread to December so they don’t show up on the recent comments listing on the front page. Decide no, that’s overkill. They’ll be pushed off the front page soon enough. I’ll go kick a hole in a wall or something in the meantime. I don’t know why such little things get to me so much now. Probably the blood pressure or something.

  37. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    Have you considered some kind of meditation or other relaxation therapy (hypnotic tapes, etc.)?

    The stakes here in IPR comments are too low to get upset about. It’s just people talking about stuff.

    I’d recommend smoking some weed, but I haven’t done enough of that to know if it would help with the blood pressure. I do know that getting laid helps.

  38. paulie Post author

    Can’t get my mind quiet enough to meditate now, weed generally has a negative effect on me personally nowadays more often than not (even though I am a big legalization advocate and know a lot of people it helps, and there used to be a time long ago when I liked it a lot myself), and getting laid doesn’t particularly help with my frustration issues. It’s either as part of the dating scene or part of a relationship, both of which come with their own overwhelming frustration problems; or buying hookers, which I can’t afford anymore (and even when I can, it’s usually not worth the price). Honestly, I’m even bored by porn anymore. As far as weed and blood pressure…it actually tends to cause rapid heartbeats and arrhythmias in me. But thanks for the advice.

    I know I shouldn’t let discussions here get to me. It’s irrational that they do.

  39. Andy

    “dL
    January 4, 2017 at 01:03
    ‘The courts have ruled that you don’t need an SSN to register to vote or to get a drivers license.’

    RealID requires proof of SS #. SS Card is the primary document for that. In some cases, a secondary document like a W2 form may be considered. Many states have implemented State ID requirements for voting, and if that state is a RealID state, then the ID requirements must meet the RealID threshold.”

    I’m pretty sure that Real ID has not gone into effect in every state. Also, the last time I checked, one actually could still vote without giving an SSN or a drivers license or state ID number. There is really no reason to give those things, because they can check to see if a person is legally qualified to vote from their name, date of birth, and place of birth.

    There have been lawsuits filed over people not giving SSNs to vote or to get a drivers license, and there are people who have won these law suits. There is also the issue of drivers licenses only being for commercial drivers, as they were not intended for non-commercial drivers. I just recently met somebody who is into the Sovereign Citizen movement who drives without a drivers license or a government license plate on his car. He said that the police pulled him over in the past, but the last few times he got pulled over he was never convicted of anything and all the charges against him were dropped and that the cops have not pulled him over in awhile.

    SSNs were never meant to be used for anything other than administering the Social Security program, and participation in the program was supposed to have been voluntary. There is still no actual legal requirement today for anyone to use or even have an SSN unless they want to participate in government welfare programs. The problem is that most people today have become so indoctrinated into believing that they are required to have and use an SSN to do lots of things for which it the numbers were never intended, and most people are too lazy to do any independent research into what the law actually is, including most government employees, attorneys, accountants, and tax preparers. A few of the aforementioned do know that there is no requirement for Americans to have or use SSNs, but they do not want the general public to know this because they profit from the corrupt system.

    There are few people who have the balls to fight the system.

  40. George Dance

    paulie – “Since asking nicely doesn’t seem to work, I closed last month’s thread to further comment. Please reply here, not there.”

    Thanks for the explanation; I wondered why my first 2 comments went through, and the next 2 were blocked.

    I wonder if it’s a good idea, though, to post replies here, divorced of context. Maybe it’s better to just let the discussions die.

  41. paulie Post author

    Also, the last time I checked, one actually could still vote without giving an SSN or a drivers license or state ID number.

    Every state where I looked, you can register to vote but it’s counted as a provisional registration and if you want to go actually try to vote they need a current state ID to verify your identity as well as your voter registration. I’ve looked into this in a bunch of different states.

  42. paulie Post author

    I wonder if it’s a good idea, though, to post replies here, divorced of context. Maybe it’s better to just let the discussions die.

    No need to let them die. Just link back to the original so the context is apparent for anyone who wants it.

  43. paulie Post author

    MAN WINS THE RIGHT TO VOTE WITHOUT A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

    That’s nice, but I don’t have the resources to follow a court case through. By the time they schedule followup hearings I may need to be in some other state somewhere for work. And is this the sort of thing where a lawyer would do it pro bono or with no money up front and be awarded attorneys fees? I am guessing no, I would have to pay up front, which I don’t have the resources for. So once again as a practical matter, just as with getting a state ID I can’t do it. The hoops are way too much, I don’t have the money and I don’t know how long I’ll be in any one place to keep following up repeatedly. Just being able to get rides to get to all the bureaucrats and courts and attorneys I seriously doubt I could at this point. Getting a ride to go anywhere at all is not easy at this point. So as a practical matter once again I can’t do it.

  44. Andy

    “paulie Post author
    January 4, 2017 at 15:17
    ‘Also, the last time I checked, one actually could still vote without giving an SSN or a drivers license or state ID number.’
    Every state where I looked, you can register to vote but it’s counted as a provisional registration and if you want to go actually try to vote they need a current state ID to verify your identity as well as your voter registration. I’ve looked into this in a bunch of different states.”

    I’ve heard that in such cases, you can use other forms of ID, such as a utility bill, a phone bill (land line), a rent agreement, a property deed, etc…

    Also, I know there are people who have successfully been able to get drivers licenses without giving an SSN. It is not easy, but it has been done.

  45. Andy

    “paulie Post author
    January 4, 2017 at 15:25
    ‘MAN WINS THE RIGHT TO VOTE WITHOUT A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER’

    That’s nice, but I don’t have the resources to follow a court case through.”

    I know. This is how “they” are able to screw most people over. Most people do not have the time or the resources or the technical know how to fight this bullshit, so they just bend over and take it.

    I wish that more people would take a stand against this kind of crap.

  46. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    I registered to vote, and then voted, in Florida without having any government-issued ID at all.

    I registered by mail. I had the option of providing various documents OR just telling them my SSN (without having to show the card to them). I did the latter.

    Then I requested an absentee ballot and voted with it.

    That was in 2014. I voted in person in 2016. I actually have state photo ID now, so I don’t know what would have happened if I had shown up with nothing but the non-photo voter information card I got in the mail.

  47. Andy

    Paul said: “And is this the sort of thing where a lawyer would do it pro bono or with no money up front and be awarded attorneys fees? ”

    Actually, attorney fees can be won in such cases. Even so, finding an attorney who will take cases like this is hard for a variety of reasons. Some of them are ignorant about this aspect of the law. Some are hardcore statists and don’t care that you are in the right. Some are afraid to take on the government. Some are too busy with other cases. Some of them will do it if you pay them a lot of money up front (which a lot of people can’t afford to do). There are a few attorneys who will take cases like this, but getting one of them is easier said than done. This is why some people who take on these battles end up representing themselves.

  48. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    January 4, 2017 at 15:35
    Paulie,

    I registered to vote, and then voted, in Florida without having any government-issued ID at all.

    I registered by mail. I had the option of providing various documents OR just telling them my SSN (without having to show the card to them). I did the latter.

    Then I requested an absentee ballot and voted with it.”

    Paul is talking about voting without giving an Social Security Number or a state ID number.

  49. paulie Post author

    I’ve heard that in such cases, you can use other forms of ID, such as a utility bill, a phone bill (land line), a rent agreement, a property deed, etc…

    Even if true, more things that I don’t have, since I don’t own or formally rent a house or apartment.

  50. dL

    Me: I shared this belief in “the State” prior to my recovery from Randian-Rothbardianism. While I still use the term, I use it as a placeholder mostly, knowing that there is no discrete State, but rather a range of institutions and individuals who comprise the government.

    Not a belief. It is a fact. You can reality deny the fact, call it a placeholder, call DHS the Department of Placeholder Security…whatever. But they don’t consider themselves part of a placeholder. In this instance, I will go by what they think of themselves, not what you think of them.

  51. Andy

    “paulie Post author
    January 4, 2017 at 15:47
    ‘I’ve heard that in such cases, you can use other forms of ID, such as a utility bill, a phone bill (land line), a rent agreement, a property deed, etc…’
    Even if true, more things that I don’t have, since I don’t own or formally rent a house or apartment.”

    It would not be hard for you to get a renter’s agreement. You could also use a motel bill if you have been living in the motel for more than 30 days.

    I’ve heard that you can also use a signed affidavit of somebody you know who lives in the area who can vouch for you.

  52. Andy

    You may also be able to use your Naturalization papers along with a renter’s agreement or a motel receipt that shows you having lived in the motel for more than 30 days.

  53. paulie Post author

    Paul is talking about voting without giving an Social Security Number or a state ID number.

    Correct, no SS number. I can try to tell them it’s against my religion, and that would be essentially true, but they won’t believe me since I am not in any organized religion. I’ve tried this approach in jail before, and they don’t count you as having a religion unless you have a religious leader. Being your own religious leader is not an answer they accept.

    I could give them my state ID number but they won’t count it as being good enough since the state ID is expired.

  54. dL

    A Leninist approach might work in more desperate times and places. Organizing the fringe in this time and place seems and has thus far proven to be ineffective.

    Well I’m not for the dictatorship of the proletariat a la Lenin. More like emancipation of the slaves a la Tucker. And its going to be a growth constituency w/ no competition from the Repubs or the Dems.

  55. paulie Post author

    You may also be able to use your Naturalization papers along with a renter’s agreement or a motel receipt that shows you having lived in the motel for more than 30 days.

    Tried that to try to get an ID in AZ. They needed SSN.

  56. Andy

    “paulie Post author
    January 4, 2017 at 15:59
    ‘You may also be able to use your Naturalization papers along with a renter’s agreement or a motel receipt that shows you having lived in the motel for more than 30 days.’
    Tried that to try to get an ID in AZ. They needed SSN.”

    They did not really “need” you to give them an SSN, they just requested that you give one. There is no legal requirement for anyone to give them an SSN (the only legal purpose of an SSN is for administering welfare programs, and since you were not applying for a welfare program, the SSN was not relevant). They are either to ignorant to have known this, and they were too lazy to look it up, or they were just being assholes.

    The guy in the video I posted above about terminating your SSN sued the DMV in Texas over getting a drivers license without having to give an SSN and he won the case. Perhaps you’d have had better luck in Texas, especially if you walked into the DMV with a copy of the court decision.

  57. Andy

    Government officials routinely misrepresent the law, either because they are ignorant of the law, or because they are intentionally lying about the law.

    Anyone who has done lots of petition signature gathering knows this. How many times have petition circulators been told by some government goon that they can’t gather signatures at some location where it is clearly legal to gather petition signatures? How many times have petition circulators been told that they can gather petition signatures at a location only if they are relegated to a “free speech zone” (which almost always cut them off from talking to lots of people), even though there have been multiple court rulings that have said that forcing people who are engaging in 1st amendment activities into “free speech zones” is unconstitutional? Both of these things happen frequently. Sometimes petitioners fight these abuses and win, but other times they try to fight it and lose, and other times they just leave the location, or, if offered a “free speech zone.” they will “grin and bear it” and stand in the “free speech zone,” which usually leads to them getting less signatures than they would if not confined in this manner.

    The same government that misrepresents the law in regard to gathering petition signatures misrepresents the law about a bunch of other things.

  58. George Dance

    Well, this discussion may be in order, since it’s a new topic; and reposting it gives Andy a chance to reply:

    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.

  59. Robert Capozzi

    dL: More like emancipation of the slaves a la Tucker. And its going to be a growth constituency w/ no competition from the Repubs or the Dems.

    Me: This message of emancipation- NAPSTER- style-has not noticeably caught on now for 45
    years. What’s the basis for optimism?

  60. Andy

    So George Dance knocks a video of a Lew Rockwell speech while admitting that he did not even watch the video. LOLL!!!!! You have lost some credibility here, George.

    This reminds me of the clown here who knocked Darryl W. Perry’s radio shows while admitting that he had never even listened to any of his radio shows.

    A fair minded rational person would actually watch the video and listen to the radio shows before commenting on them.

  61. George Dance

    Andy – ” So George Dance knocks a video of a Lew Rockwell speech while admitting that he did not even watch the video. LOLL!!!!! You have lost some credibility here, George.”

    As Andy knows, I didn’t “knock” Rockwell’s “speech” or his “video”, or even his position on secession (what he calls the “The Libertarian Position on Secession.” in the article I quoted), but the misrepresentations he engaged in to argue for them.

    I don’t blame Andy for trying to pretend otherwise, though; it’s much easier to attack a straw man than to try to defend his boi’s actual positions.

  62. Tony From Long Island

    Andy:
    ” . . . . ” to ignorant ” . . . . Should read, “too ignorant… . . . ”

    I haven’t posted in a bit so I start reading this thread and see the usual from Andy. Do you think people REALLY needed that correction? No one on here thinks you are stupid or ignorant of the rules of grammar. it was just a type-o, bro! We all make them. You may be a paranoid conspiracy theorist nut bag, but you are not stupid. You don’t need to constantly correct type-o’s. They stop the flow of the dialogue (as does this post).

  63. George Phillies

    CIA praises RT network…well, they may not have had that in mind, but they did:

    As a perspective on the CIA etc report

    Our spy agencies praise RT for covering political parties outside the duopoly

    In an effort to highlight the alleged “lack of democracy” in the United States, RT broadcast, hosted, and advertised third-party candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates. The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a “sham.”

    and laud the accuracy of RT’s coverage of civil liberty issues

    RT’s reports often characterize the United States as a “surveillance state” and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use (RT, 24, 28 October, 1-10 November).

    Of course, if the purposes of your organization include protecting our corrupt establishment and trampling the Bill of Rights under foot, you may have a slightly different perspective on these issues.

  64. J.R.Myers

    I have asked several Alaskan legislators to sponsor/co-sponsor the following changes to AK Election Law regarding Political Parties. Specifically AS Sec. 15.80.010 (25)(A)(B)(C). The requested changes for a group to become a recognized political party are; 1% of any statewide office, or 500 registered voters.

    J.R.Myers, Chairman Alaska Constitution Party

  65. George Phillies

    Actual Revolutionary Politics From Robert Reigh’s blog
    http://robertreich.org/post/155456448785, the author being a prominent establishment in some sense type. I do not remember this from any other Presidential election that I watched, and that goes back as a discrete event that I remember to 1956. Can anyone name parallel events in other elections?

    Reich wrote:

    Our 100 days of resistance begins a sustained and powerful opposition. Here’s what you can do (it will take about an hour of your time each day):

    1. Get your senators and representatives to pledge to oppose Trump’s agenda. Reject his nominees, prolong the process of approving them, draw out hearings on legislation. Call your senator and your representative and don’t stop calling.

    2. March and demonstrate. The Women’s March on Washington will be the day after the Inauguration. There should be “sister” marches around the country. And then monthly marches against hate. Keep the momentum alive and keep the message going.

    11. Reach out to independents and even Trump supporters who agree with this agenda, and get them involved.

    12. Your idea goes here. Meet with family and friends this weekend, and decide what you’ll contribute.

  66. Matt

    from Donald Trump’s interview with Michael Gove (The Times) and Kai Diekmann (Bild) that appeared in The Times , 16 January 2017.

    Q: Is there anything typically German about you.

    A: I like order and I like strength

  67. Tony From Long Island

    Q: Is there anything typically German about you.

    Donald Trump: : I like order and I like strength
    —————————————————————————-

    I wasn’t aware that Germans had a patent on order and strength or that they were German characteristics. Though . . . I seem to recall a time that . . . . . hmmm

  68. paulie Post author

    Moved from another thread:

    Luke: I get more than 100 spam emails an *hour* but it takes me only 2 minutes an hour at most to zap them.

    Chuck: 2 minutes an hour every hour adds up over time.

    That would be 7 x 24 x 2 = 672 minutes = 111.2 hours per week. It would be 672 x 52 = 34,944 minutes = 582.4 hours = 24.26 days per year.

    Assuming you value your time at a modest $10/hour, that would be $5,824 stolen from you every year. I myself value my time at considerably more than $10/hour, and expect larger compensation for annoying, unpleasant tasks than for things I enjoy. Your mileage may vary.

    I think you are assuming 168 hours a week on the computer, which is impossible. Even for me, LOL.

    But even if your estimate is correct, it’s one of those things, like sitting in traffic. Sure, you could spend a good deal of time and/or money to rearrange your life so you never sit in slow moving traffic again, assuming you haven’t already done so. Most people don’t do that, because the effort it takes is more than it’s worth to them, and other priorities come first. Some people do take various measures to minimize their traffic time or find ways to make it less of a waste. A few may even enjoy it as a solitary break from work, family and other obligations. However, for most people it is annoying, and worth some effort to avoid to some extent, but not worth extreme effort to avoid to an extreme extent.

  69. paulie Post author

    Assuming you value your time at a modest $10/hour

    Then on the basis of the calculation above I would be netting $1,680 a week, which wouldn’t be too bad. As a single guy with zero dependents, living in a lower than average cost of living area, that would probably put me in the top 20% of income earners (guessing without looking it up) and maybe the top 10%.

    Since the calculation above uses a 168-hour week, if we squeeze that same income down to a 40 hour work week it would be over $40 an hour, presumably after taxes since it’s calculated in terms of what someone’s time is worth, and income that’s extorted by tax doesn’t add to that (although it may provide a false ego boost in terms of bragging rights to a higher salary). I’m guessing someone at that income level who has taxes taken out of their check and works a 40-hour work week would have to have a nominal pay rate of more than $60 an hour to clear that much take-home pay. Or, since they are more likely to be on salary, that’s 87.36k net, which I am sure would require well over 100k gross in almost all cases. Thinking about it like that, for a single person who’s not living in an expensive trendy metro area, that would be a pretty nice income level, much better than most people’s.

  70. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie,

    He said he gets 100 emails per hour, then said it takes him 2 minutes per hour to deal with those emails. In context, I interpretted that as 100 emails per hour every hour (not just those hours spent in front of his computer) and 2 minutes to deal with 1 hour’s worth of emails, or 100 emails (not just 2 minutes of every hour he spends in front of a computer). By this math it would take the same amount of time per week to deal with the spam whether he spent all his time at the computer dealing with spam or just a small fraction of it.

    This is consistent with my own experience. I have found spammers do not stop sending me spam just because I am not sitting at the computer. I have found it takes me a certain amount of time to deal with X spam messages regardless of the total amount of time I spend at the computer in a given day or week.

    Flagging 100 messages as spam and moving them to my junk folder in 2 minutes seems about right. If anything it may be an underestimate. On the iPhone mail I need to click messages as read, which may take 1 second each if I just read the subjects / senders. On Thunderbird the junk filters usually pick up about half of the spam. The ither half I need to manually flag. In theory I could flag messages at about 1 second each, but in practice Thunderbird often takes a few seconds to process each request. Let’s say 2 seconds each as a reasonable estimate. I read everything on my phone first. That means 100 spam messages would take me 100 seconds on the phone and 100 / 2 x 3 = 150 seconds on Thunderbird, meaning 250 seconds = about 4 minutes total. So he deals with spam about double as fast as I do. I get less spam than he does — for now at least — so I spend less total time dealing with spam.

  71. Chuck Moulton

    When I said 111.2 hours per week, that was clearly a typo. Sorry about that. The actual number is 11.2 hours per week. The other numbers are all correct.

  72. Andy

    I am as anti-Obama as anybody, but even I have got to admit that he just did something good here.

    Obama commutes Chelsea Manning’s sentence

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-commutes-chelsea-mannings-sentence-213937692.html

    From the article: “President Obama commuted the 35-year prison sentence of Chelsea Manning, setting up the army intelligence analyst turned high-profile leaker to be freed on May 17, the White House announced Tuesday.”

    MY COMMENT: Manning never should have been put in prison in the first place, but at least Manning is being released now.

    This actually puts Barack Obama ahead of Gary Johnson on at least one issue, as during the entire 8 years that Gary Johnson was Governor of New Mexico, he only pardoned 128 people, but these pardons came AFTER they had already served their sentences, which means that Gary Johnson did not release even one person from jail/prison who was being held for a victimless crime, or for some other bogus reason.

  73. paulie Post author

    In context, I interpretted that as 100 emails per hour every hour (not just those hours spent in front of his computer) and 2 minutes to deal with 1 hour’s worth of emails,

    Yes, I got that. I was just saying that if that’s the standard you use then the correct way to calculate how much your time is worth is also based on the same baseline, that is 168 hours per week, and obviously after taxes (supposing taxes are taken out of the check or otherwise not successfully avoided in the long run). Since this standard is also logically extended to assume no vacation time, ie 24/7 365 and leap day when applicable, $10 per hour is not as paltry as describing it that way sounds – it actually comes out to a six figure pre tax annual income.

    In other words, if the opportunity cost of spam is 2 minutes per hour, including hours you spend sleeping, eating, and doing whatever else does not involve being online, then what your time is worth should also be calculated on that same baseline, not on the 40-hour workweek. The alternative is to assume the original post means to say 2 minutes out of only the hours spent online. Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges.

    Flagging 100 messages as spam and moving them to my junk folder in 2 minutes seems about right.

    I haven’t timed it exactly, but I don’t think it takes me any longer if even that long. I do select-all for 100 emails in gmail, then unselect the messages that come from people I know or lists I want to pay attention to (and aren’t obvious copies of the same messages posted to multiple lists) or have subject lines that show some promise of not being spam. Then I hit trash and voila, all gone. Any spammer that is frequent I add to my filters. That makes it even quicker. I go days at a time without being actually fooled into opening a spam email. When I do, it’s usually either by mistake or because someone’s account that I know got hijacked (and I usually catch those before I open them due to the predictable subject lines).

    On the iPhone mail I need to click messages as read, which may take 1 second each if I just read the subjects / senders.

    I don’t use my phone for email, or use any apps on my phone, but I would be surprised if there aren’t some apps for fighting email spam for all the people who do. If there aren’t, there certainly should be. Sounds like a market niche with plenty of opportunity if it hasn’t already been filled, which would be surprising if true.

    On Thunderbird the junk filters usually pick up about half of the spam.

    Manischewitz is way better for this (sorry, couldn’t resist LOL).

    That means 100 spam messages would take me 100 seconds on the phone and 100 / 2 x 3 = 150 seconds on Thunderbird, meaning 250 seconds = about 4 minutes

    It sounds like that’s in the right ballpark. I’m guessing there must be apps to deal with it for the phone, but I’m about the least app-savvy person alive, so if there aren’t, I would think you would have the resources to either create or hire someone to create an app for that.

    In addition I tend to agree with dL on the other thread,

    spend your opportunity costs retaliating w/ your own bot countermeasures…if you are into wasting the spammer’s time and money as a better form of rewarding retaliation

    But I have a hard time imagining that any kind of countermeasures would put you on some universal do not spam list nowadays; there are way too many different spammers for that. So if your goal is to minimize time wasted on dealing with spam, searching for or developing and marketing anti-spam apps would, I am guessing, be more likely to move you toward that goal in the long run (and/or make you money, or provide a valuable service for others with the same issue, or both).

  74. paulie Post author

    I am as anti-Obama as anybody, but even I have got to admit that he just did something good here.

    Obama commutes Chelsea Manning’s sentence

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-commutes-chelsea-mannings-sentence-213937692.html

    From the article: “President Obama commuted the 35-year prison sentence of Chelsea Manning, setting up the army intelligence analyst turned high-profile leaker to be freed on May 17, the White House announced Tuesday.”

    Agreed, this was more than I expected from Obama. I expect these will be the “good old days” soon enough, maybe as early as next week (although not necessarily that quickly).

  75. Chuck Moulton

    paulie wrote:

    Yes, I got that. I was just saying that if that’s the standard you use then the correct way to calculate how much your time is worth is also based on the same baseline, that is 168 hours per week,

    That makes no sense whatsoever.

    If I force you to work doing slave labor for 11 hours a week, you’re not going to create that time from nowhere by taking away your sleep — and even if you did, that would severely hurt your quality of life. Instead it would come from your work time or liesure time. People can fill their liesure time with a 2nd or 3rd job if they want, but they don’t because they value their liesure more than the marginal income they would earn.

    Feel free to value your own time at nothing. I place a high value on my time and that value is economically justified.

  76. paulie Post author

    The sooner libertarians stop trying to make any type of alliance or common cause with these people the better:

    Anonymous 01/17/17 (Tue) 17:33:40 35eaee No.8812336>>8812437 >>8812526 >>8813094
    All of this TRS debacle made me realize all lolbertarians and ex-lolbertarians pose a massive liability. Enoch is an ex-lolberg, so is Sven, so is a ton of people in the (((alt right))). Milo? Lolbertarian. Alex Jones? Paul Joseph Watcuck? Molymeme? Lauren Southern? ALL OF THEM are lolbergs.

    It may seem like a trivial complain but it really isn’t. Lolbertarianism and ancap is a fundamentally jewish ideology that espouses radical individualism and is basically incapable of thinking about people as groups and dismisses all sorts of collectivist thinking. It turns people into a group of rootless, soulless cosmopolitans who fetishize property so it’s only natural they will come around and start accepting rich kikes and chinks based on their wealth alone and rejecting poor white people living destitute lives thanks to jewish banking schemes as losers.

    Therefore it’s not shocking an ex-lolbertarian almost always turns out to be a kike, a fraud, or a shameless shekel grabber who’s in it only for profit. I will trust even an ex-communist sooner than an ex-lolberg simply because communists at the very least understand the concept of group well being.

    Listen to our enemies, and stop trying to appease them.

  77. paulie Post author

    Feel free to value your own time at nothing. I place a high value on my time and that value is economically justified.

    My point had nothing to do with how high or how low your subjective time value is, but in using the same basis for calculation in both cases.

    If your time opportunity cost of spam is 48 minutes out of every 24 hours, and you value your time at $1,000 per hour, they have cost you less than $1,000 per 24 hours. If you value it at $10 per hour, they cost you less than $10 per 24 hours. Whatever that number is, it makes no sense to exaggerate it by saying that all of the cost should be accrued against the less than 1/4 of all spam-receiving hours that the average person earns money. In reality, it’s probably going to cut somewhat into productive work time (which will probably mean some opportunity cost in the long run even if one isn’t self employed, in terms of raises and promotions foregone, time spent finding a new job at some point or another, etc), and some into leisure time. And, yes, that sucks, but it’s only one of many such time wasters, much like sitting in traffic, waiting in lines, waiting in waiting rooms, waiting for service, and so on.

    I don’t see how adding a bunch of time discussing the problem makes it any less bad. If anything, it only makes the amount of time spammers have wasted of my time this particular week much greater. And if you hire someone to beat them up, you won’t get less spam (because there are way too many spammers for you to hire enough people to beat up enough of them to make a meaningful difference, or for the word to get around among all the spammers or anything along those lines). But, you may accidentally get the wrong people beaten up (see dL on the other thread about that again), and you may get caught and face court time, legal fees, possibly fines and/or jail time. Even if you don’t ever get caught and don’t ever make a mistake in who to target, you’ll still cost yourself time and money and still get just as much spam.

    On the other hand, if you find better apps for your phone, or help create them if they don’t already exist, or if you set up bot countermeasures, that could at least be somewhat useful and productive.

  78. Chuck Moulton

    God damnit!! Another math error. I don’t really understand how I had so many math errors… The lesson is I should have done the math in my head. I used my calculator because I was multitasking, and apparently I pressed the equal sign twice by accident (multiplying the original minutes by 2 again).

    Chuck Moulton wrote:

    2 minutes an hour every hour adds up over time.

    That would be 7 x 24 x 2 = 672 minutes = 111.2 hours per week. It would be 672 x 52 = 34,944 minutes = 582.4 hours = 24.26 days per year.

    Assuming you value your time at a modest $10/hour, that would be $5,824 stolen from you every year. I myself value my time at considerably more than $10/hour, and expect larger compensation for annoying, unpleasant tasks than for things I enjoy. Your mileage may vary.

    Let’s do this over from scratch.

    That would be 7 x 24 x 2 = 336 minutes = 5.6 hours per week. It would be 336 x 52 = 17,472 minutes = 291.2 hours = 12.13 days per year.

    Assuming you value your time at a modest $10/hour, that would be $2,912 stolen from you every year. I myself value my time at considerably more than $10/hour, and expect larger compensation for annoying, unpleasant tasks than for things I enjoy. Your mileage may vary.

  79. Chuck Moulton

    paulie wrote:

    If your time opportunity cost of spam is 48 minutes out of every 24 hours, and you value your time at $1,000 per hour, they have cost you less than $1,000 per 24 hours. If you value it at $10 per hour, they cost you less than $10 per 24 hours. Whatever that number is, it makes no sense to exaggerate it by saying that all of the cost should be accrued against the less than 1/4 of all spam-receiving hours that the average person earns money.

    I never said it should be accrued against the less than 1/4 of all spam-receiving hours that the average person earns money. But your opportunity cost should be measured against the hourly wage you could earn from a marginal hour. For people who work hourly jobs, that is their hourly wage. For people who work salaried jobs, you can impute an hourly wage putting the salary in the numerator and hours worked in the denominator — which is perfectly reasonable, but you seem to have a problem with for some reason I can’t fathom — or you can look at the hourly wage they could earn by taking a supplemental hourly job utilizing their skill set. Even if we threw away the imputed hourly wage based on salary, the opportunity cost could still be measured as the hourly wage that could be earned from a supplemental job. In no case would opportunity cost ever be salary divided by total hours in the week.

  80. Chuck Moulton

    paulie wrote:

    And if you hire someone to beat them up, you won’t get less spam (because there are way too many spammers for you to hire enough people to beat up enough of them to make a meaningful difference

    You seem to think if someone gets 100 spam emails an hour, then they are coming from 100 different spammers. If that were true, then — yes — removing 1 spammer would only reduce your spam by 1%. However, I do not think your premise is true. In my case, I think there are 3 distinct spammers who are emailing me. Roughly 90% of it is from one guy and 5% from each of 2 other guys. In this scenario, removing 1 spammer (the main one) could reduce my total spam by 90%, not 1%.

  81. dL

    These manual man-hour opportunity cost calculations are not the market costs. There are automated AI solutions that operate within an acceptable error toleration. At most, you are looking at a premium subscription service. My company provides it to a few select clients(including ourselves) as an add-on service. My main business accounts that I have had for years ends up at maybe 5% spam getting through and 2-5% false positive.*** A bit of pain to manage…besides the invariable attacks a couple of times a year, the biggest headache is dealing with a couple of customer domains being falsely blacklisted.

    Calculating the opportunity costs of manual management of an unprotected inbox is like calculating the manual hours to mow your lawn with a hoe.

    *** false positives are from the pop-client filtering. Pop-client filtering also reduces the inbox spam by a factor of two. Mac postbox, 40.00, one time purchase, free updates

  82. Chuck Moulton

    dL wrote:

    2-5% false positive

    Any false positive is unacceptable. It sounds like you do not actually have any sort of spam solution.

    If I miss a bill or a work assignment or something else important in my email, I can’t just say “Sorry… I miss 5% of my email because of spammers.” Email is an essential form of communication and people rightly expect if they send you an email with important information in it, you will receive and read that email.

    dL wrote:

    Calculating the opportunity costs of manual management of an unprotected inbox is like calculating the manual hours to mow your lawn with a hoe.

    No, it’s like calculating the manual hours to protect your lawn against people shitting all over it vs. buying a fancy robot shit protector. You need to mow your lawn because grass grows. Spam is not a fact of life. Spam is trespass. It is vile human beings disrupting your life because they don’t comprehend basic social norms.

    The solution when people shit all over your lawn is not to build a shit protecting robot, it is to find anyone who would shit on your lawn, shoot him in the face, and leave his bloody mangled remains as a message to other would be shitters.

  83. Matt

    “Email is an essential form of communication and people rightly expect if they send you an email with important information in it, you will receive and read that email.”

    YMMV. I’ve always had some emails – I don’t think it’s even close to 5% tho – that vanish unaccountably on either end. If I don’t hear back from someone and it’s important I will follow up with a second email, facebook message, phone call or SMS as the circumstances may warrant. It’s easy to miss an email by mistake, so I would never assume or recommend assuming that someone got your email.

    “The solution when people shit all over your lawn is not to build a shit protecting robot, it is to find anyone who would shit on your lawn, shoot him in the face, and leave his bloody mangled remains as a message to other would be shitters.”

    Again, YMMV. In the real world, I expect you would go to prison for a long time as a murderer and would not get much of a break if any on your sentence just because the asshole was shitting on your lawn. In some hypothetical anarchist society or nightwatchman state, I expect it would also be seen as an extremely disproportionate response and would likewise be met with very serious consequences. If someone is caught shitting on someone else’s lawn, they may get a fine or some jailtime, but I don’t expect they would get a long prison sentence, much less the death penalty.

  84. Matt

    “Spam is trespass.”

    More like a door to door salesperson, junk mail, or sales calls or texts or faxes. It’s not trespass unless they have been explicitly asked to leave or stop contacting you by whatever method they are contacting you by and they keep doing it. And even then, it’s still not anywhere near a capital offense or an excuse to commit one yourself.

  85. dL

    Any false positive is unacceptable. It sounds like you do not actually have any sort of spam solution.

    If I miss a bill or a work assignment or something else important in my email, I can’t just say “Sorry… I miss 5% of my email because of spammers.” Email is an essential form of communication and people rightly expect if they send you an email with important information in it, you will receive and read that email.

    My spam solution works just fine for me. If an email communication triggers a false positive, it is easy to set a bit for the AI to learn not to flag the sender in the future. Email may be an important form of communication but the relative costlessness of modern communications makes redundancy easy. We are not talking carrier pigeons, here. You know if one falls from the sky, all is lost. The internet is reliable b/c it is redundant. Same practice with modern communication.

    Bills? Email is secondary. text messaging is primary. I usually pay them in advance of the due date so I don’t ever get an alert in the first place.

    Work assignments/project management, email is merely a secondary, redundant communication tool. Professionals use things like Slack. I find email to be a poor man’s primary tool for that kind of stuff.

    Sales and stuff like that. I would starve to death if I relied on email as the primary communication tool. In fact, email solicitations for my business is another primary source of what I might consider spam.

    Spam is not a fact of life. Spam is trespass. It is vile human beings disrupting your life because they don’t comprehend basic social norms.

    No, Spam is not prima facie trespass. The internet is a public network. If someone knows your email address, they don’t need your permission to send you a message. Trespass is unauthorized access or circumvention of your security to gain access to resources that are not meant for public consumption. If someone sends you malware in email and gains unauthorized access, then yes, that’s trespass.

    Spam is not necessarily a violation of social norms. Quite a bit of it is just simple solicitation for legitimate services and goods. Solicitation is not a violation of social norms.

    The thing you apparently demand, 100% reliable email communication w/ only people you approve of on a public network is not something you are going to get. Like in the old days of POTs, demanding only people who know you call you, that they call you only when you are home, etc. In the old days, you could approach what you would want by de-listing your number, carrying around a beeper for redundancy. But it would cost you.

    Likewise, today. You can approach what you want, but it will cost you. But isn’t going to be free. And the social norm is not that it should be free.

  86. Andy

    Chuck, since you think that you are getting too much spam, why don’t you just start a new email address, and just give the address out to the people with whom you want to communicate? If you do this, it will probably take the spammers awhile to catch up with you.

  87. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: ” . . . . .I am as anti-Obama as anybody, but even I have got to admit that he just did something good here. , , , , ”

    I’m shocked! It wasn’t some sort of CFW conspiracy?

    I was elated when I read it. One last good deed before the presidency goes from Dignity to disgrace

    (I use the word “dignity” only referring to how the person carries himself, not a comment on policy)

  88. Andy

    Tony From Long Island said: “I’m shocked! It wasn’t some sort of CFW conspiracy?

    I was elated when I read it. One last good deed before the presidency goes from Dignity to disgrace

    (I use the word ‘dignity’ only referring to how the person carries himself, not a comment on policy)”

    My guess is that since Chelsea/Bradley Manning is a transgender, Obama probably got pressured by the LGBTQ lobby, which has a lot of influence in the Democratic Party. The fact remains that Manning sat in prison for several years, and he/she should have never been put in there in the first place.

    I’m glad that Obama is releasing Manning, but this does not erase all of the bad things that Obama has done. Also, what about other political prisoners, like Ross Ulbritch, and Schaeffer Cox, and what about all of the other people who are in jail/prison for victimless crimes, or who are locked up for some other bogus reason? What about Edward Snowden, who is in exile due to fear of being prosecuted by the US government for the “crime” of letting the public know about mass civil rights violations in which the federal government is engaging?

  89. paulie Post author

    I don’t think anyone here has some rosy view of Obama (if they did, why would they be here?) but yes, we should give him credit when it’s due. And it’s rather disgraceful that there are still people who won’t do Chelsea Manning the simple courtesy of acknowledging her as a woman.

  90. Joe Buchman

    Wondering if the LP/Nick is going to send out an official statement regarding the commutation of Chelsey Manning’s sentence?

  91. Mark

    “And it’s rather disgraceful that there are still people who won’t do Chelsea Manning the simple courtesy of acknowledging her as a woman.”

    Some people are forgetting that it’s 2017, not 1957. We are supposed to be progressing as a society. It’s as incongruous to see someone who is still stuck in denial about transgender people in the current year as it would be to see a racially segregated bathroom. Some right wingers, especially the “alt” reich, libel the idea that we should be progressing culturally as “cultural Marxism,” but in reality Marxist nations are very culturally regressive, repressive and enforced conformist, so it would be more accurate to call culturally progressive views cultural libertarianism, a natural compliment to laissez faire in the economic arena (live and let live) and non-interventionism in foreign policy. The truly Marxist or authoritarian view is that government can mandate one size fits all solution and dictate to all, whether it be on economic matters or gender identity.

    “Manning is a transgender, Obama probably got pressured by the LGBTQ lobby, which has a lot of influence in the Democratic Party”

    If they are so powerful in the Democratic Party why do we still see such horrible discrimination and violence against transgender people all over the place?

  92. dL

    but in reality Marxist nations are very culturally regressive, repressive and enforced conformist

    Don’t know if there are any “marxist” nations, but, yes, communist countries are marked by a regressive social conservatism. And, yes, it is obvious–or it should be obvious–that those who throw around accusations of “cultural marxism” are themselves cultural commies.

    Con==commie

  93. Andy

    There is talk that Donald Trump is going to appoint Andrew Napolitano to the Supreme Court. If this happens, it will be a VERY good thing.

    Fox News superstar to be on Trump’s Supreme Court?

    http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/fox-news-superstar-to-be-on-trumps-supreme-court/

    From the article: “Judge Andrew Napolitano was spotted for a second time at Trump Tower Tuesday morning, leading to speculation that President-elect Donald Trump may be considering the judge for a position on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

  94. Andy

    Yeah, I am skeptical about Andrew Napolitano getting appointed to the Supreme Court as well, especially given Trump’s other appointments.

  95. paulie Post author

    Maybe whoever got wordpress to take down the fake Knappster and Andy Jacobs blogs could do the same with Vernon’s blog? That one is still up there from 2+ years ago with all the same WordPress terms of service violations. WordPress was informed of it and for whatever reason did not do anything (and still hasn’t). Email me if you don’t want to talk about it on here. My email address is in the about IPR tab at the top. Yeah, they can keep putting the same crap up on more new blogs but we can keep having them taken down too.

  96. Tony From Long Island

    Paulie: ” . . . . .I don’t think anyone here has some rosy view of Obama (if they did, why would they be here?) but yes, we should give him credit when it’s due . . . .”

    Speak for yourself. . . .

  97. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: ” . . . . .Obama probably got pressured by the LGBTQ lobby, which has a lot of influence in the Democratic Party. The fact remains that Manning sat in prison for several years, and he/she should have never been put in there in the first place. . . . .

    First of all – It is SHE not he / she.

    Second, President Obama covered his reasons for his decision pretty thoroughly during his press conference. I’m sure there was some lobbying by the LGBTQ community but the fact that the sentence was unjust was the overriding factor.

  98. paulie Post author

    ” . . . . .I don’t think anyone here has some rosy view of Obama (if they did, why would they be here?) but yes, we should give him credit when it’s due . . . .”

    Speak for yourself. . . .

    You have a rosy view of Obama? I doubt that, otherwise you would have voted for him, even in a non-swing state.

  99. Tony From Long Island

    Paulie: I did vote for President Obama in 2008. Who else would I have voted for? Bob Barr? No friggin way!

    I may differ greatly with the Democratic Party on foreign policy (as well as the Republicans for that matter) but I always approached libertarianism from the left.

    I also admire the way the President carries himself in the face of 8 years of pure obstruction and the racist garbage of the “birther” nonsense [championed by Darth Trump himself]. He is calm in the fact of pressure situations and a good commumicator – as opposed to his predecessor and successor.

    I am pretty sure that most people on here will differ with President Obama on 95% of his policy positions and that is fine, but I would find it hard to believe that people would not find him to be a decent human being.

    My voting Record in POTUS elections:
    1992 – Andre Marrou (I was 18)
    1996 – Ross Perot
    2000 – Harry Browne
    2004 – Michael Badnarik
    2008 – Barack Obama
    2012 – Gary Johnson
    2016 – Gary Johnson

    The fact that I Live in New York does influence my vote. It shouldn’t be that way since the electoral college system an archaic dumpster fire, but it is what it is.

  100. Tony From Long Island

    One more question for Andy:

    On the Roy Innis thread you claimed that someone was a “government troll.” Is every troll a “government troll?” Is EVERYTHING a conspiracy to you? Even anonymous guys in their underwear passing time on a forum?

  101. paulie Post author

    2012 – Gary Johnson
    2016 – Gary Johnson

    My point exactly. If you truly held a rosy view of Obama you would not have voted for someone other than himself and his chosen successor in those two elections.

    I would find it hard to believe that people would not find him to be a decent human being.

    I tend to think a decent human being could have done more with the power of the presidency, pardons being the most obvious example, but I may be underestimating the external constraints. To be fair, his record of pardons, while far from my ideal, is better than other recent presidents. Andy named some of the many other people he could and should have also pardoned, though.

    I always approached libertarianism from the left.

    Me too.

  102. Tony From Long Island

    Paulie: ” . . . . 2012 – Gary Johnson . . . 2016 – Gary Johnson

    My point exactly. If you truly held a rosy view of Obama you would not have voted for someone other than himself and his chosen successor in those two elections. . . . ”

    My not voting for President Obama in 2012 had nothing to do with President Obama. I just liked Gov. Johnson and felt it was another chance to boost up another option. I also was pretty confident that President Obama would in handily – which he did.

    In 2016 – being very tepid on Hillary Clinton, I voted for Gov. Johnson again knowing that Mrs. Clinton would win New York by a mile. I am thankful that I have no blame in the coronation of Darth Trump tomorrow.

    Buyers remorse will begin quickly with most of the minority of people who actually cast a vote for him.

  103. Andy

    Not every troll is a government troll. There are random asshole trolls who troll on their own. However, it is a known fact that various government entities, both in the USA and abroad, hire people to troll online, and that they spy on and sabotage political activists. I have been involved in political activism that the government does not like for more than 20 years. There has been a lot of weird stuff that has happened over the last 7-8 years or so, and I have good reasons to believe that it is not the work work of one person acting on their own. The only other posters here that have enough information to know what I am talking about are Paul and Jill Pyeatt.

  104. Andy

    Another political prisoner that Obama should have pardoned is Irwin Schiff, but Obama let him die in prison.

  105. Andy

    Obama became President in January on 2009. Manning went to prison in 2010.

    Would you admire somebody who locked you up for 7 years for a victimless crime, even though they originally said they were going to lock you up for a lot longer than 7 years? Sure, it is nice to get out earlier than expected, but 7 years is a long time to sit in prison, especially when you did not do anything wrong.

    Shouldn’t Obama have given Manning a medal for revealing war crimes committed by people in the US military rather than putting Manning in prison for 7 years?

  106. Tony From Long Island

    Andy ” . . . . . However, it is a known fact that various government entities, both in the USA and abroad, hire people to troll online, and that they spy on and sabotage political activists. . . . ”

    You give yourself too much credit.

  107. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: ” . . . .Would you admire somebody who locked you up for 7 years for a victimless crime . . . ”

    Let’s be clear here. I was elated when I read the news, but this was not a 100% victimless crime. There were people who were put in danger by the release of classified information. There’s a reason certain things are classified.

    We can discuss forever what should not be classified and we would probably agree on much in that discussion, but this was not a completely victimless crime.

    Paulie’s comment on her conditions during incarceration is important too. I obviously know a lot about what it’s like to be locked up long term. There were several instances where I was assaulted by officers, had my life threatened, and had my property stolen (never by other inmates . . .always officers).

    Additionally, transgender inmates are house with the gender of their genitalia in New York. I saw how difficult it was for transgender inmates. I can empathize with Chelsea Manning.

  108. Andy

    Irwin Schiff was kept in horrible conditions. They even went so far as handcuffing him to his bed, even though he was old and sick and never a threat to anyone. They also moved him to a prison that was far away from his family, therefore making it more difficult for them to visit him.

  109. Tony From Long Island

    So the guy broke the law and didn’t pay income tax (which is a constitutionally permitted tax) how many times? You wanted the President to pardon him? umm OK.

    Being in a prison far from home is not uncommon and not something done only to Mr. Schiff. Being handcuffed to a bed happens if an inmate is in a non-prison hospital or has become a danger to himself or others (but there are several other steps taken before that).

    I am leaving work in a few minutes, so I look forward to your fun responses tomorrow morning.

  110. Mark

    “I’m disappointed that Obama broke his promise to close Guantanamo.”

    Me too. On the plus side he did get it down to about 40 inmates but he has failed to close it and Trump has promised to make it bigger than ever (yoooge!) … and I do believe it was completely within Obama’s power to close Gitmo. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    “:There were people who were put in danger by the release of classified information. There’s a reason certain things are classified.

    We can discuss forever what should not be classified and we would probably agree on much in that discussion, but this was not a completely victimless crime.”

    Please be more specific. Who was put in danger in this case? Who were the victims and how did she put them in danger?

    Regarding the conditions Irwin Schiff was kept in you should read what his son, Peter Schiff, wrote about it.

    http://www.infowars.com/irwin-schiff-passes-away/

    Yeah, I know it’s on Infowars but read it anyway.

    Excerpt: “The unnecessarily cruel twist in his final years occurred seven years ago when he reached his 80th birthday. At that point the government moved him from an extremely low security federal prison camp in New York State where he was within easy driving distance from family and friends, to a federal correctional institute, first in Indiana and then in Texas. This was done specially to give him access to better medical care. The trade off was that my father was forced to live isolated from those who loved him. Given that visiting him required long flights, car rentals, and hotel stays, his visits were few and far between. Yet while at these supposed superior medical facilities, my father received virtually no medical care at all, not even for the cataracts that left him legally blind, until the skin cancer on his head had spread to just about every organ in his body.

    At the time of his diagnosis in early August of this year, he was given four to six mouths to live. We tried to get him out of prison on compassionate release so that he could live out the final months of his life with his family, spending some precious moments with the grandchildren he had barely known. But he did not live long enough for the bureaucratic process to be completed. Two months after the process began, despite the combined help of a sitting Democratic U.S. congresswoman and a Republican U.S. senator, his petition was still sitting on someone’s desk waiting for yet another signature, even though everyone at the prison actually wanted him released. Even as my father lay dying in intensive care, a phone call came in from a lawyer and the Bureau of Prisons in Washington asking the prison medical representatives for more proof of the serious nature of my father’s condition.

    As the cancer consumed him his voice changed, and the prison phone system no longer recognized it, so he could not even talk with family members on the phone during his finale month of life. When his condition deteriorated to the point where he needed to be hospitalized, government employees blindly following orders kept him shackled to his bed. This despite the fact that escape was impossible for an 87 year old terminally ill, legally blind patient who could barley breathe, let alone walk.”

  111. Thomas L. Knapp

    I’m glad Obama commuted Manning’s sentence and have to give him a little credit for doing so although the whole thing should have been over the instant the Army passed the “speedy trial” deadline without going to trial. But since it was a show trial anyway, the judge had no problem saying “ah, what the fuck, who gives a shit about the law, the whole point of this is to GET MANNING.”

    And there are plenty of other prisoners who deserved pardons/commutations/restorations of rights, etc. and didn’t get them. ESPECIALLY the political prisoners like Leonard Peltier, Irwin Schiff (who went to prison more for writing a book — which the judge banned and demanded be pulled from the market — than for “tax evasion”), Lynne Stewart, the Holy Land 5, Jeremy Hammond and Ross Ulbricht.

    Additionally, Obama could have used his power of pardon to close Guantanamo. Call McConnell and Ryan in for a meeting and inform them of their choice: Congress can acquiesce to him moving any remaining dangerous prisoners to facilities on the mainland, or he can just pardon every last prisoner there, but either way the place is going to be emptied and shut down. Their call, and they get 24 hours to decide whether they want to be reasonable or whether they want to be responsible for a bunch of people they say are terrorists being released.

  112. dL

    Let’s be clear here. I was elated when I read the news, but this was not a 100% victimless crime. There were people who were put in danger by the release of classified information. There’s a reason certain things are classified.

    We can discuss forever what should not be classified and we would probably agree on much in that discussion, but this was not a completely victimless crime.

    A victimless crime is that which is done to oneself. This is the first time I’ve read anyone try to refer to Manning’s actions as a “victimless crime.” Obviously, what Manning did was not something that was done to herself. What she did was expose war crimes. The only crime she could have committed was NOT doing what she did. That is, if Manning had simply followed orders. Obviously, this standard would implicate anyone w/ access to the information who did nothing as a war criminal. Which is what they would be if we went by the Nuremberg standard.

  113. dL

    I’m disappointed that Obama broke his promise to close Guantanamo.

    The dirty little secret is that you really can’t close it. No country is willing to repatriate the detainees, innocent or guilty. Where would they go? One of the bureaucratic consequences of the national security state integration w/ the global surveillance apparatus. And a demonstration that even when everyone comes to hate the thing, it’s kind of hard to get rid of it.

  114. Thomas L. Knapp

    Manning exposed more than just war crimes. She also exposed illegal and abusive use of the classification system itself.

    It is against the law to classify information to conceal the commission of a crime.

    It is against the law to conceal information because that information might be embarrassing.

    It is only legal to classify information that, if disclosed, would cause identifiable (“confidential”), serious (“secret”) or grave (“top secret”) damage to the security of the United States.

    Among other things, the Manning leaks exposed Hillary Clinton’s illegal scheme to have US diplomats wiretap the offices of other countries’ diplomats at the UN. The scheme itself was illegal. So was classifying the evidence that it happened.

    Yes, the first big disclosure from Manning’s leak was the killing of the Reuters journalists in Afghanistan. But beyond that crime, whoever put a classification marker on the video is a felon.

    Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison for embarrassing military and political officials by exposing their illegal activities and their attempts to cover up those activities, full stop.

    Side note: Don’t take my references to the requirements of the classification system to denote approval of that system. As long as these fuckheads are pretending they work for me and demanding that I pay their salaries and work expenses, they’re not entitled to conceal fuck-all from me. If nothing else, they should at least knock of the pretense of being our employees and admit that they fancy themselves our masters/owners.

  115. paulie Post author

    One of the many problems is all the executive powers which Obama expanded and which will now be abused by Trump.

    http://reason.com/archives/2017/01/10/goodbye-obama
    Goodbye, Obama: The outgoing president leaves a loaded gun in the Oval Office
    Gene Healey

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/09/if-youre-freaking-out-over-donald-trumps
    If You’re Freaking Out Over Donald Trump’s Presidential Powers, Thank a Liberal!
    Where were Democrats when Obama was going power-mad? Egging him on, mostly.
    Nick Gillespie|Jan. 9, 2017 1:30 pm

  116. paulie Post author

    The dirty little secret is that you really can’t close it. No country is willing to repatriate the detainees, innocent or guilty.

    Given that we are now down to 40 detainees is that really true? Is it true that no nation, including nations they came from in the Middle East, North Africa or Central or South Asia won’t take them? I’m skeptical. I see no reason that what TLK proposed wouldn’t work:

    Obama could have used his power of pardon to close Guantanamo. Call McConnell and Ryan in for a meeting and inform them of their choice: Congress can acquiesce to him moving any remaining dangerous prisoners to facilities on the mainland, or he can just pardon every last prisoner there, but either way the place is going to be emptied and shut down. Their call, and they get 24 hours to decide whether they want to be reasonable or whether they want to be responsible for a bunch of people they say are terrorists being released.

    But supposing it really was true that no other regime would admit them, I would think that would have to be the responsibility of the US as the regime that either abducted them or accepted custody of them from some other regime which did. Given that it’s highly unlikely that congressional leaders would want these detainees allowed to go free in the US, they would certainly drop their posturing and find a place for them in the US prison system.

  117. Bondurant

    Obama is not a “decent human being”. Decent human beings don’t expand unjust wars or drone children into oblivion.

    Obama should be cellmates with Dubya. Both are war criminals.

  118. dL

    Manning exposed more than just war crimes. She also exposed illegal and abusive use of the classification system itself.

    Agree…and an excellent synopsis of how in your comment

  119. dL

    But supposing it really was true that no other regime would admit them, I would think that would have to be the responsibility of the US as the regime that either abducted them or accepted custody of them from some other regime which did. Given that it’s highly unlikely that congressional leaders would want these detainees allowed to go free in the US, they would certainly drop their posturing and find a place for them in the US prison system.

    I don’t dispute that they couldn’t procedurally be moved to a prison in the US. But I would consider that lipstick. And I don’t think they would be merely processed into the regular US prison system. Probably some sort of executive order classified adjunct prison unit. The same place that Trump theoretically could place the flag burners who have had their citizenship stripped.

  120. dL

    Obama is not a “decent human being”. Decent human beings don’t expand unjust wars or drone children into oblivion.

    He is a psychopath…like most US politicians. It’s debatable whether the office attracts them or whether the office makes them… but the fact of it isn’t that debatable, particularly for POTUS.

  121. dL

    I don’t think anyone here has some rosy view of Obama (if they did, why would they be here?) but yes, we should give him credit when it’s due . . . .

    If Clinton had been elected, I seriously doubt he commutes Manning’s sentence. He did it, but only when his political allies no longer had any “skin in the game,” to borrow his own phrase.

  122. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    January 19, 2017 at 16:34
    So the guy broke the law and didn’t pay income tax (which is a constitutionally permitted tax) how many times? You wanted the President to pardon him? umm OK.”

    Irwin Schiff did not break any law, and he was not convicted in a fair trial because the judge would not allow him to present certain evidence (in addition to the fact that we don’t really have fair jury trials in this country since jurors are not informed of the right of jury nullification, and prosecutors purposely stack juries with state worshiping conformists by actively trying to eliminate free thinking people during the voire dire process). The government never proved its case against Irwin Schiff.

    Furthermore, a basic libertarian principle is that taxation is theft, and even minarchist libertarians have long promoted the idea that the income tax is not necessary and should be repealed.

    “Being in a prison far from home is not uncommon and not something done only to Mr. Schiff.”

    So because a bunch of other people are being screwed over by making it difficult for their families to visit them it was OK to screw Irwin Schiff and his family over as well?

    There was no legitimate reason why he couldn’t have been put in a prison that was closer to where his family was (of course he never should have been put in prison in the first place, but that’s another issue).

    “Being handcuffed to a bed happens if an inmate is in a non-prison hospital or has become a danger to himself or others (but there are several other steps taken before that).”

    Irwin Schiff was not a threat to anyone, and handcuffing him to his bed was nothing short of cruel.

  123. Andy

    “Bondurant
    January 19, 2017 at 22:53
    Obama is not a ‘decent human being’. Decent human beings don’t expand unjust wars or drone children into oblivion.

    Obama should be cellmates with Dubya. Both are war criminals.”

    BINGO!

    “Jill Pyeatt
    January 19, 2017 at 23:53
    Obama has bombed/murdered people every single day of his administration. He’s a horrible man.”

    BINGO again!

    Barack Obama is a smiley faced sociopath.

  124. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “And there are plenty of other prisoners who deserved pardons/commutations/restorations of rights, etc. and didn’t get them. ESPECIALLY the political prisoners like Leonard Peltier, Irwin Schiff (who went to prison more for writing a book — which the judge banned and demanded be pulled from the market — than for “tax evasion”), Lynne Stewart, the Holy Land 5, Jeremy Hammond and Ross Ulbricht.”

    Another political prisoner who deserves being mentioned is Schaeffer Cox.

    Liberty Advocate Framed by FBI? – The Schaeffer Cox Story

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFf4bZfsVOM

  125. Luke

    Stefan Molyneux: The Horrible Truth About Barack Obama’s Presidency

    The Horrible Truth About Stefan Molyneux

    http://www.fdrliberated.com/the-day-joe-rogan-discovered-the-real-stefan-molyneux/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1b3Wi1lI6Y

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs5bqvL5Wh4

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ek3H7Cd2TQ

    http://www.fdrliberated.com

    http://thoughtsonliberty.com/the-truth-about-stefan-molyneux

    http://thoughtsonliberty.com/stefan-molyneux-the-gun-in-the-room

  126. Andy

    Ah, another mysterious poster pops up to try to play a game of “gotcha” by posting a bunch of links critical of somebody, in this case Stefan Molyneux, while at the same time FAILING to address anything of substance that is actually related to the point of the post in question, which was Molyneux’s comments on the record of Barack Obama.

  127. Luke

    No “FAILING” … If I wanted to address Molyneux comments I would have. But I didn’t since 1) I am very much not a fan of Obama 2) I am also very much not a fan of Molyneux, but I know enough about him to guess that he’s also very much not a fan of Obama 3) I find Molyneux to be a pompous, insufferable and very low-credibility gasbag, so for many reasons outlined in the links above, I don’t feel a burning need to watch his video. Since the time opportunity cost/likelihood of learning anything valuable ratio weighs heavily against watching Molyneux video, I rationally chose not to watch, but rather to comment on the source, since you bring him up frequently in comments here and readers who don’t already know may want to brush up on just why Molyneux is such a non-valid source on, well, anything.

    But then, you also find Hoppe and Cantwell to be credible sources, and keeping saying some video posted on something calling itself the “anarcho-fascist” channel on youtube regarding immigration is really great, so there’s that.

    As for me being “mysterious”… well, the links should really speak for themselves. You and everyone else here really should read them, and follow the links they in turn lead to. Besides, being “mysterious” works wonders with whatever gender I may be trying to attract, if in fact I am trying to attract anyone. LOL.

  128. dL

    Ah, another mysterious poster pops up to try to play a game of “gotcha” by posting a bunch of links critical of somebody, in this case Stefan Molyneux, while at the same time FAILING to address anything of substance that is actually related to the point of the post in question, which was Molyneux’s comments on the record of Barack Obama.

    Well, there aren’t that many Obama defenders here. No one is interested in defending Obama. However, there are more than a few here interested in debunking a bigot con man like Molyneux trading on the libertarian name. Though, best I can tell, in the age of Trump, he has now dispensed w/ any libertarian pretense and now openly trades as a bigot.

  129. Matt

    I’m not going to express admiration for Obama or say he is a “decent person” the way Tony did, and I never voted for him or anyone he endorsed. However…

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/19/5-obama-administration-accomplishments-l
    5 Obama Administration Accomplishments Libertarians Might Appreciate

    From starting efforts on police and occupational reform to helping privatize the space race, here are things we’ll miss about Barack Obama.
    Ed Krayewski|Jan. 19, 2017 12:00 pm

  130. Mark

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/20/president-trump-promises-protectionism-n
    President Trump Promises Protectionism, Neglects Freedom in Inauguration Speech
    “We will follow two simple rules: buy American and hire American,” said the 45th President of the United States.
    by Robby Soave

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/20/president-donald-trump-books-govern
    Although Trump has been all over the map on many issues over the years, the issues on which he has been consistent, such as protectionism and opposition to criminal justice reform, are authoritarian. He also demonstrates a remarkably authoritarian personal attitude in his books over the years.

    “[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] I thought that Trump’s speech…
    …would be the most vile, poorly-reasoned, and dangerous to democracy item I would read today.

    Alas, it turned out I was wrong.

    https://supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2017/2017-ohio-224.pdf

    Joshua A. Katz”

  131. paulie Post author

    Drumpf’s opposition to the last Iraq war is one of the positions that misled a lot of people, including some libertarians, into thinking that he would be in favor of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Not so.

    http://irregulartimes.com/2017/01/22/trump-proposes-new-war-in-iraq-for-oil-and-torture/

    Most of the reporting on Trump’s speech to the CIA has focused on Trump’s crude, partisan, delusional style, which has been correctly identified as remarkably inappropriate. However, there was also something in the content of Trump’s speech that should cause Americans a great deal of concern: Donald Trump suggested that he wants to start the Iraq War back up, but this time not exercise the “restraint” he thinks was shown by George W. Bush.

    Trump declared, “The old expression: ‘to the victor belong the spoils’ – you remember? You always used to say ‘keep the oil’… I always said: ‘In addition to that, keep the oil’… We should have kept the oil. But okay, maybe we’ll have another chance, but the fact is, we should’ve kept the oil.”

    Donald Trump is plain about his colonial ambitions. That’s something that ought to be extremely concerning for young Americans, because the only way that the United States could “keep the oil” in Iraq is to establish a permanent occupation government in Iraq, enforced with U.S. troops.

    There’s no way that the United States could sustain this hostile occupation of Iraq without a much bigger military force than George W. Bush used in Iraq. To create such a huge U.S. military occupation of Iraq, there would have to be a military draft.

    And what would those American soldiers be doing in Iraq? Close your eyes and allow your mind to bring back the photographs we saw of the torture in the Abu Ghraib prison run by the Americans in Iraq under George W. Bush – only worse.

    “We’re going to do great things,” Trump told the CIA. “We’ve been fighting these wars for longer than any wars we’ve ever fought. We have not used the real abilities that we have. We’ve been restrained.”

    If Donald Trump believes that the CIA and US military were too restrained with their torture and war crimes in Iraq, just imagine what “real abilities” he must be planning to unleash.

  132. Dave

    Does anyone else notice that a lot of young Libertarians end up moving far left? I probably have a biased sample, but that’s been my experience.

    I was in college during RP’s run, and he was really popular on my campus. We even had a fairly large Libertarian group. Of the people I’ve kept in passive contact with however, I’d say more than half of them were raving about Bernie last year. Though politics does make strange bedfellows. I suppose a lot of them were probably less concerned with ideology, more with electing someone they found “honest” and an “Outsider.”

    But I also know several people who were self described Libertarians who have since done a 180 and becomes liberal democrats. Some have even become socialists or radical left of some type or another. I admit that particular transformation makes me scratch my head. After the last few presidents made you think “government was bad, authoritarian, and/or prone to abuse, I don’t quite get how you align with a philosophy that’s for increased centralized power.

    Again, my sample is almost certainly biased, but I’m curious if others have gotten the same impression. I don’t know of any leftists personally who switched to Libertarianism( excepting IPR’s Paulie, perhaps, if memorty serves), though I know one who became a standerdish conservative.

  133. Luke

    I know plenty of people who have undergone ideological transformations, in any direction. I’m not sure why any kind of ideological change is that surprising. And depending on what issues are most important to them I don’t see anything unnatural in someone going from supporting Ron Paul to supporting Bernie Sanders.

  134. dL

    Drumpf’s opposition to the last Iraq war is one of the positions that misled a lot of people, including some libertarians

    He never articulated a coherent foreign policy that would even rise to a standard of “misleading.” His “libertarian supporters” were cherry picking for whatever motivation. The only thing Trump was never incoherent about was his consistent strain of authoritarianism.

  135. dL

    Does anyone else notice that a lot of young Libertarians end up moving far left?

    If Bernie Sanders is “far left,” then apparently “far left” means controlled borders and immigration, pro-war(most of them anyway), pro administrative state and (largely) pro police. But that would be a rather peculiar definition for “far left.” However, if we include radical in the left-wing lexicon–as we should–then we see libertarianism as the far left position and any abandonment of that position as a move to the right. Bernie Sanders is a move to the right on the sliding scale. Obviously, we include state socialism in the left-wing lexicon, but in practice state socialist governments are culturally right-wing and repressive. Hence, anarchism occupies the farthest of the left of the left-wing position.

  136. paulie Post author

    If Bernie Sanders is “far left,” then apparently “far left” means controlled borders and immigration, pro-war(most of them anyway), pro administrative state and (largely) pro police.

    I guess that depends on compared to what. He is relatively better on most of those issues than most Demopublicans. That’s why it makes sense that some of Ron Paul’s supporters ended up supporting Sanders. More obnoxiously, some ended up supporting Trump, and some of those are to various degrees explicitly bigoted alt reichers. The old Rockwell/Rothbard “paleolibertarian” flirtation with the Pat Buchanan/David Duke/JBS/Spotlight/League of the South etc far right, carried on over the years by Hoppe and various others in the Rockwell orbit, is to blame. Way before that, there was Rothbard’s juvenile support for Strom Thurmond to piss off his NYC Jewish family and neighbors.

  137. dL

    I guess that depends on compared to what.

    It’s a rhetorical statement. Sanders is on a sliding right-wing scale compared to libertarianism. Compared to the paleo position–where for example the likes of Justin Raimondo are now comparing Trump favorably to Chairman Mao’s Cultural revolution–Sanders’ democratic socialism is a font of left-wing sensibility.

  138. Andy

    Lot of Libertarians supported Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, which was also pretty fucking stupid.

  139. langa

    I am pretty sure that most people on here will differ with President Obama on 95% of his policy positions and that is fine, but I would find it hard to believe that people would not find him to be a decent human being.

    I disagree with far more than 95% of his policy positions — probably 99%, at least.

    And while I applaud his decision to let Manning out early, it pales in comparison to the litany of vile, despicable actions he has committed. He’s pure scum, and I wouldn’t piss on him if he were on fire.

  140. langa

    Does anyone else notice that a lot of young Libertarians end up moving far left?

    I think the reason for that is because many “libertarians” don’t really understand the philosophy they claim to embrace. Specifically, they don’t understand that libertarianism inherently rejects the idea that the ends can ever justify the means. If someone doesn’t really believe in libertarian ideals (like the NAP), and thus, only supports libertarian policies because they believe that those policies will lead to the ends that they desire, it shouldn’t be surprising when they later come to support other ways of achieving those same goals. It’s just like a person who, after failing to legitimately earn the money necessary to buy the things they want, then turns to a life of crime as a means of getting the things that they want.

  141. Andy

    “langa
    January 24, 2017 at 04:38
    ‘Does anyone else notice that a lot of young Libertarians end up moving far left?’

    I think the reason for that is because many ‘libertarians’ don’t really understand the philosophy they claim to embrace. ”

    This is pretty obvious given the outcomes of the last few Libertarian National Conventions.

  142. robert capozzi

    I notice the opposite. Ls tend to move right in the sense that they become more hawkish, more hater, more anti-immigration, more willing to back Rs. Although I’m sure that some move left, too.

    I suspect most who fall away don’t fall away because they don’t understand the NAP. It’s more likely that they recognize that the NAP doesn’t work as a rigid First and Only Commandment.

  143. Luke

    I’ve seen libertarians move both right and left, I’ve seen people from both the right and the left come to libertarianism and I’ve seen people move from left to right and vice versa. Some people get mellower with time and some only more extreme. None of it has been particularly unusual in my experience.

    Contrary to what langa says, there are ex-libertarians who at one time fully embraced the NAP, and showed every sign of understanding it fully. I can understand why to someone who has spent a long time as a hardcore NAP libertarian it would seem unnatural or odd that someone else would fully understand and agree with those same ideas and later change his or her mind, but I’ve also known plenty of people who did exactly that.

  144. Luke

    “the likes of Justin Raimondo …”

    I can’t say I’m looking forward to Trump’s wars, but the silver lining will be watching the antiwar paleo “libertarians” who hoppe-d on board the Trump (concentration camp) train make excuses for them and/or come up with an explanation with why they were so horribly wrong about the insane clown president.

  145. Andy

    “Luke
    January 24, 2017 at 07:06
    ‘the likes of Justin Raimondo …’

    I can’t say I’m looking forward to Trump’s wars, but the silver lining will be watching the antiwar paleo ‘libertarians’ who hoppe-d on board the Trump (concentration camp) train make excuses for them and/or come up with an explanation with why they were so horribly wrong about the insane clown president.”

    It will be interesting to see what happens. I am hearing that Donald Trump is going to do some good things right now, like getting to work on repealing Obamacare.

    I too remain skeptical of Trump, although I’m not a part of the anti-Trump hysteria, not because I think Trump is wonderful (I remain a skeptic), but rather because he has only been in office for a few days, and because I know that the only other alternative that was going to win the election was Hillary Clinton, and we’d have certainly been screwed if she had won. Whether Trump turns out to be as bad or worse than Hillary remains to be seen (even if Trump turns out to be as bad as Hillary, I can’t imagine him being worse than Hillary).

    Some of you people who are directing snide comments towards libertarians/liberty movement people who got behind Trump, are you also going to direct snide comments towards all of the Libertarians out there who voted for Gary Johnson and Bill Weld? You ought to if you want to be consistent. Sure, Johnson/Weld did not win, but neither of them are anything close to a real libertarian. I would not really trust them on foreign policy either. Remember, Bill Weld is a long time warmonger who supported George HW Bush, and George W. Bush twice, and he also supported the war in Iraq, and he supported The Patriot Act as well. There is no evidence that Weld changed, because he endorsed Jeb Bush in September of 2015, and John Kasich in February of 2016. Some may think that Johnson is better on this issue than Weld, but is he? Remember, Johnson said that he supports “humanitarian wars” (whatever that means), and keep in mind that Johnson endorsed George W. Bush for President back in 2000, which was many years after Johnson had proclaimed himself to be a libertarian (Johnson said that he’s been a libertarian since sometime in the 1980’s, and he even joined the Libertarian Party as a dues paying member for one year in the early 1990’s). Even if Johnson is better than Weld on foreign policy, Johnson frequently deferred to Weld, and he said that if he were elected President, that Weld would be his co-President. How could any libertarian out there feel comfortable with Weld as co-President, and with him being just a heartbeat away from being President if Johnson had been elected?

    So if nasty comments are going to be directed at libertarians who jumped on the Donald Trump train, nasty comments should also be directed at everyone who supported the Johnson/Weld ticket, including those who knew better and held their noses and voted for them.

    If one considers themselves to be in the libertarian quadrant, the only principled things to do in this election were to not vote, and not support anyone, cast a write in vote for Darryl W. Perry, or somebody else with actual libertarian principles, or to vote for Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle, who was the most libertarian candidate to actually appear any ballots.

    The only legitimate argument that I could see for libertarians to vote for Johnson/Weld was if they were in one of the few states where the Libertarian Party could get ballot access through the presidential vote totals. This was a lot less states that people realized. So if you are a libertarian, and you lived in say Kentucky or Oklahoma, I could see voting for Johnson/Weld, just to get the party on the ballot, which it did in those states. The vote total for the presidential ticket in Arkansas can get the party ballot access as well, but Johnson/Weld did not get a high enough percent of the vote to qualify there. If you are a libertarian, and you live in say Florida or California or Alabama (Johnson was on in Alabama as an independent), to name just a few states, there was no legitimate reason to vote for Johnson/Weld, because the presidential vote did not determine ballot access in these states.

    It would be different if the Libertarian Party had nominated a more principled Libertarian ticket, which would have been any combination of the main candidates on stage at the national convention other than Johnson/Weld, because then Libertarian Party members would have moral ground on which to stand and point the finger of criticism, but the Libertarian Party gave up its moral high ground by nominating such an unprincipled ticket as Johnson/Weld.

  146. Andy

    Keep in mind that Ron Paul never endorsed or supported Donald Trump, nor did he endorse or support Gary Johnson.

  147. Andy

    “a lot less states that people realized.”

    Should read, “a lot less states than people realized.”

  148. Thomas L. Knapp

    “If you are a libertarian, and you live in say Florida or California or Alabama (Johnson was on in Alabama as an independent), to name just a few states, there was no legitimate reason to vote for Johnson/Weld”

    Yes, there was. Here’s the reason:

    My vote is MY vote, fuckstick, not yours. You don’t have to like it. That’s how it is whether you like it or not.

  149. paulie Post author

    I am hearing that Donald Trump is going to do some good things right now, like getting to work on repealing Obamacare.

    Every president does some good things. Obama pardoned Manning, and a few other things. We were discussing foreign policy here so Obamacare doesn’t really apply.

    has only been in office for a few days,

    That doesn’t make him a total unknown, as previously discussed. He has a lifelong history as a businessman, husband, a campaign he ran, a transition, cabinet appointments, and so on.

    the only other alternative that was going to win the election was Hillary Clinton,

    Completely irrelevant at this point. The election is over. To whatever degree we should be worried about President Trump and what he will do to this country and the world, it has nothing to do with the candidates he defeated in the election anymore. Those other candidates are no longer relevant and do not in any way excuse or justify whatever he will do.

    I can’t imagine him being worse than Hillary

    I can, easily. But judging by your own standards, you can’t even really say she would have been bad, since she was never actually president. Isn’t that the excuse for Trump – he hasn’t been president long enough for us to judge him? Well she hasn’t been president at all.

    Some of you people who are directing snide comments towards libertarians/liberty movement people who got behind Trump,

    As well we should.

    are you also going to direct snide comments towards all of the Libertarians out there who voted for Gary Johnson and Bill Weld?

    That would be kind of a waste of time since the proof is in the pudding (we can’t judge candidates until they actually become president, and even then not for a while)….right?

    Bill Weld is a long time warmonger who supported George HW Bush, and George W. Bush twice, and he also supported the war in Iraq, and he supported The Patriot Act as well.

    The VP candidate of a party that got 3%, who will not be implementing whatever policies he is or is not for? I’m more concerned about the politicians that actually did get elected than the ones who lost.

    Johnson said that he supports “humanitarian wars”

    Only that he wouldn’t rule them out. Meanwhile, we have the actual president of the United States telling the CIA that the US regime should probably go back into Iraq and steal massive amounts of natural resources, which will be a war crime under international law and would require a much larger and more long term US military occupation force than during the Bush-Obama occupation there. Which one should I be more concerned about again?

    Johnson endorsed George W. Bush for President back in 2000

    That’s when Bush was supposed to have been for a “humble foreign policy” which a lot of Republitarians made the mistake of falling for much as many now have with Drumpf. Johnson was among the suckers on that one in 2000, but in 2016 he correctly failed to fall for Trump’s bullshit.

    Johnson frequently deferred to Weld, and he said that if he were elected President, that Weld would be his co-President. How could any libertarian out there feel comfortable with Weld as co-President, and with him being just a heartbeat away from being President if Johnson had been elected?

    Yeah, that wouldn’t have been so great. But since it didn’t happen, why do you keep harping on losing candidates whenever how fucked up Trump is gets discussed?

    To take an extreme example, if Hitler had not become Chancellor of Germany, there is a high chance that a government led or controlled by Socialists or Communists may have been formed shortly afterwards. And that would have been really, really bad. Who knows – they may have turned out to have been worse than Hitler? But we can still discuss how fucked up Hitler’s Germany was regardless of who he “ran against” (not exactly, but approximately). If we were living in the first few days of Hitler’s Reich, would we want to be more concerned about the other parties in Germany besides the Nazis? Maybe we should have been most worried about some party that had just hit its highest support level ever with about 3% in a national election.

    To take a less extreme example, when Pinochet overthrew Allende in Chile should we have made excuses because of how bad Allende was? I know some libertarians have but if I was living in Chile right then I would be more worried about what Allende would do than what a party that was no longer in power could have done if they had stayed in power, much less in some other party that was nowhere close to being in power.

    Or suppose you are in the US in January 1973. Which one should concern you more – President Nixon and his continuing abuses of power, how much of an extreme leftist McGovern was (now that he had been soundly defeated, mind you), or that Hospers was in some respects a less than perfect libertarian?

    So if nasty comments are going to be directed at libertarians who jumped on the Donald Trump train, nasty comments should also be directed at everyone who supported the Johnson/Weld ticket, including those who knew better and held their noses and voted for them.

    I think Trump is and was a lot worse, but even more to the point, it no longer matters since the election is over and now the only real question is just how much we will get screwed over by the Drumpf administration.

    If you are a libertarian, and you live in say Florida or California or Alabama (Johnson was on in Alabama as an independent), to name just a few states, there was no legitimate reason to vote for Johnson/Weld, because the presidential vote did not determine ballot access in these states.

    Boosting the national total for the LP would be one reason. That will be used by opponents, people on the fence, and potential supporters to judge the LP and all its candidates for years to come, regardless of who the candidates in the future will be.

    Libertarian Party gave up its moral high ground by nominating such an unprincipled ticket as Johnson/Weld.

    I disagree. I haven’t given up my right to criticize the insane clown in chief just because I was outvoted in Orlando. And the party as a whole hasn’t lost its right to criticize the current administration either, even though our nominees were more moderate than I would have preferred. Likewise, I don’t think we lost our right to criticize Obama in 2009-2017 because we made the mistake of nominating Barr/Root in 2008.

  150. paulie Post author

    Keep in mind that Ron Paul never endorsed or supported Donald Trump, nor did he endorse or support Gary Johnson.

    Why? Ron Paul has endorsed a large number of shitty Republicans over the years. He’s also supported some Libertarians and some people from the theocratic “Constitution” Party. I don’t really care who he endorsed. Personally, I’m more concerned that Trump may be gearing up for a less “restrained,” as he put it, war in Iraq. Among many other incredibly awful things he keeps saying he’s going to do. Some people are making excuses for him and saying he doesn’t really mean it, much like some people read Mein Kampf and thought Hitler was exaggerating for effect.

  151. Andy

    We had a lot more to go on with Hillary Clinton than with Donald Trump, because Hillary had already been an elected official, as a US Senator, plus she had been an appointed official as Secratry of State, plus she played an influential role in the administrations of her husband as Governor and President. Also, Hillary engaged in multiple scandals in these roles, and was under criminal investigation.

    Donald Trump is more of a wild card. Sure, he has a record of supporting things, some of which are certainly bad, but we have less to go on since he does not have a track record in government like Hillary (who has a terrible record in government, in spite of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld calling her a “wonderful public servant”).

  152. paulie Post author

    He has a track record in business, in his personal life, in how he conducted himself in his campaign and in the transition, in his tweets and speeches and interviews and cabinet appointments and on and on and on. There’s also a long history of other countries that had authoritarian nationalists who came to power using populist rhetoric. This thing about Trump being a “wild card”… he may have quite a few things in common with the Joker in Batman, but aside from that he’s not really that much of a wild card. We have a lot of clues as to how this is going to go.

  153. Andy

    Libertarians who did not vote for Johnson/Weld at the convention, and who did not vote for them in November, did not give up their moral high ground.

    Unfortutely, many other Libertarians did these things.

    Given that the presidential ticket represents the national party, I am not really sure if the Libertarian Party should be called “The Party of Principle” anymore, since it is clear that the party sold out its principles with its last three presidential tickets.

    Having said this, I am NOT throwing most of the people who voted for or otherwise supported Gary Johnson under the bus. Most of them are otherwise good people. I just think that in this case they made a bad strategy decision, and/or they got duped.

  154. Andy

    How many of these leftists would be out protesting if Hillary Clinton had been elected?

    Most of these people are morons.

  155. paulie Post author

    And Trump was/is under criminal investigation as well. He was being sued over Trump University during the campaign, among other things. He isn’t allowed to close down the Trump Foundation because it may be under criminal investigation. He had a case against him where he was going to be sued for possibly raping a girl who had been 13 at the time, but him winning the election scared her off. I don’t know if all of the women who came forward about him sexually assaulting them have also been scared off; maybe some lawsuits and/or charges may yet result.

    Apparently there is a FBI investigation about high level Trump advisers, and maybe even Trump himself, being involved in collusion with the Putin regime (which goes way, way beyond alleged email hacks or leaks). For some reason, the FBI felt it would unfairly influence the election to let that be publicly known before the election, unlike how it handled the investigation into what may have been on Wiener’s laptop. Collusion between Trump transition/administration members and the Putin regime after the election is also being investigated. There’s also already a lawsuit about Trump’s likely violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

    Among many other lawsuits and investigations that are brewing in regards to Trump and his inner circle.

  156. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Apparently there is a FBI investigation about high level Trump advisers, and maybe even Trump himself, being involved in collusion with the Putin regime (which goes way, way beyond alleged email hacks or leaks). For some reason, the FBI felt it would unfairly influence the election to let that be publicly known before the election”

    I doubt the FBI has a time machine, so they can’t really go back before the election to have feelings about, or start investigating, a narrative manufactured after the election.

  157. paulie Post author

    am not really sure if the Libertarian Party should be called “The Party of Principle” anymore

    Not my favorite slogan anyway. All sorts of parties have principles; we may or may not agree with those principles. Some of history’s worst mass murderers were highly principled. I think the slogan should say something, even if in a minimal way, about what our principles actually are. Peace, Civil Liberties, Free Markets or something like that.

    How many of these leftists would be out protesting if Hillary Clinton had been elected?

    How many Tea Partiers were protesting against Duh-bya? Come on, the question mostly answers itself.

    I suppose I am the exception, having protested against both Duhbya and Obama (and every other president since Reagan…and I would again if I had it to do over). I haven’t gone to an anti-Trump protest yet, but I’m sure I probably will.

  158. paulie Post author

    I doubt the FBI has a time machine, so they can’t really go back before the election to have feelings about, or start investigating, a narrative manufactured after the election.

    It came up during hearings where Comey was being questioned in Congress a few days ago.

    http://www.pressherald.com/2017/01/10/angus-king-sees-the-irony-in-fbi-directors-refusal-to-confirm-or-deny-investigation/

    Your characterization of a “narrative manufactured after the election” to the contrary, I recall plenty of discussion of possible collusion between Trump and Putin taking place well before the election. I don’t want to invest additional time into looking it up again, but I recall reading/seeing at least some mention that the FBI was already investigating this collusion, which goes well beyond the alleged hacking, before the election took place.So no time machine required.

  159. paulie Post author

    It’s also not true that there were no protests coming from the left during the Obama years. Sure, the antiwar protests became smaller than they had been under Bush, but they still happened regularly. There were large LGBT protests for marriage equality during the Obama years. The Occupy movement happened during the Obama years. There were protests for migrants rights under Obama, some of them quite large. Black Lives Matter protests started under Obama. The Dakota Pipeline standoff happened under Obama. Protests against police brutality happened all over the country. Cannabis rallies, environmental rallies….many causes attracted large crowds during the past 8 years. Not everyone at all of these was from the left; I was at a bunch of them myself, just as I went to some Tea Party events.

    And yeah, a ton of people came out and protested against all the fucked up things Trump promised to do now that he has the power to do them along with a Republican congress and Republicans in power in most statehouses and governors mansions. What’s moronic about that? I agree with them that a lot of Trump’s agenda deserves to be protested against.

    Yes, some of them would have never protested if Clinton got elected. Some of them would have protested regardless of who got elected, especially the die-hards who always show up at leftist rallies year in and year out regardless of who the president is. Some of them probably would not have protested on day one if Clinton was in office but would have at some point later in her presidency. That’s not in any way unexpected.

  160. paulie Post author

    Contra “manufactured after the election” this is from November 6.

    http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/11/06/trump-kisses-putin-fbi-kkk-snls-cold-open-video/

    Alec Baldwin’s Trump kissed three men — representing the FBI, a shirtless Vladimir Putin and the KKK — in the live televised interview, only to be met with a mere shrug from the media while Kate McKinnon’s Clinton stood aghast.

    “Sorry, that doesn’t seem like enough of a story, let’s get back to the emails,” Strong’s CNN anchor responded as an agitated Clinton pointed out Trump’s questionable relationships with these groups of people. Trump has been accused of influencing James Comey’s FBI to sabotage the Clinton campaign. The Republican candidate has also been criticized for his admiration of Russian President Putin and for not rejecting endorsements from the KKK.

    Clearly there was this “criticized for his admiration of Russian President Putin” before the election.

    Oh and here you go. I wasn’t going to look for this but found it coincidentally.

    http://crooksandliars.com/2017/01/fbi-has-been-investigating-russia-trump

    Remember that dossier released last week by Buzzfeed? There was a report included in it about Russia using pension payments to Russian nationals living in the United States as a way to move payments to their hackers and other operatives working on Donald Trump’s behalf.

    It turns out the FBI was onto that long before Mr. Steele wrote his report. In fact, they opened an investigation as part of a joint task force with five other agencies to investigate these payments and how they might link back to the Trump campaign’s contacts with Russia. In the SPRING of last year, according to a report by McClatchy.

    The informal, inter-agency working group began to explore possible Russian interference last spring, long before the FBI received information from a former British spy hired to develop politically damaging and unverified research about Trump, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the inquiry.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/public-editor/trump-russia-fbi-liz-spayd-public-editor.html?_r=0

    LATE September was a frantic period for New York Times reporters covering the country’s secretive national security apparatus. Working sources at the F.B.I., the C.I.A., Capitol Hill and various intelligence agencies, the team chased several bizarre but provocative leads that, if true, could upend the presidential race. The most serious question raised by the material was this: Did a covert connection exist between Donald Trump and Russian officials trying to influence an American election?

    One vein of reporting centered on a possible channel of communication between a Trump organization computer server and a Russian bank with ties to Vladimir Putin. Another source was offering The Times salacious material describing an odd cross-continental dance between Trump and Moscow. The most damning claim was that Trump was aware of Russia’s efforts to hack Democratic computers, an allegation with implications of treason. Reporters Eric Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers led the effort, aided by others.

    Conversations over what to publish were prolonged and lively, involving Washington and New York, and often including the executive editor, Dean Baquet. If the allegations were true, it was a huge story. If false, they could damage The Times’s reputation. With doubts about the material and with the F.B.I. discouraging publication, editors decided to hold their fire.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article127231799.html

    The BBC reported that the FBI had obtained a warrant on Oct. 15 from the highly secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court allowing investigators access to bank records and other documents about potential payments and money transfers related to Russia. One of McClatchy’s sources confirmed the report.

    Susan Hennessey, a former attorney for the National Security Agency who is now a fellow at the Brookings Institution, said she had no knowledge as to whether a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant had been issued in the investigation of Russian influence. However, she said such warrants were issued only if investigators could establish “probable cause” that the target was a foreign power or its agent and that the surveillance was likely to produce foreign intelligence. She said the information in Steele’s dossier couldn’t have met that test.

    “If, in fact, law enforcement has obtained a FISA warrant, that is an indication that additional evidence exists outside of the dossier,” she said.

  161. Thomas L. Knapp

    Yes, AFTER Clinton lost the election there was suddenly an investigation that had started BEFORE the election.

    But BEFORE the election there was just general “he likes Putin too much” fluff.

    The plausible explanation for that difference is that the stuff “revealed” after the election didn’t actually exist before the election.

  162. langa

    Contrary to what langa says, there are ex-libertarians who at one time fully embraced the NAP, and showed every sign of understanding it fully. I can understand why to someone who has spent a long time as a hardcore NAP libertarian it would seem unnatural or odd that someone else would fully understand and agree with those same ideas and later change his or her mind, but I’ve also known plenty of people who did exactly that.

    I have encountered a few people like that, but the vast majority of the “ex-libertarians” I know are people that were never really what I’d consider consistent, principled libertarians at all. They were just people who felt very strongly about one or two issues, and temporarily believed that libertarianism represented the easiest way to achieve their goals on those one or two issues. Later, they decided that some other, more authoritarian ideology was more likely to lead to the outcomes they wanted, so they switched to that. In other words, it was always about ends for them — they never cared about means.

    Now, I will agree with the first part of your comment, that these “ex-libertarians” are probably just as likely to defect to the right as to the left. But that doesn’t strike me as particularly surprising or as particularly relevant, since “left” and “right” are focused on ends, rather than means. This is what makes libertarians unique. Regardless of their abstract rhetoric, when it comes to any given issue, progressives and conservatives invariably believe that the ends justify the means. Only libertarians reject that view.

    By the way, we’ve now heard from Matt(hew), Mark and Luke. I imagine John will be along shortly. 😉

  163. langa

    As far as the anti-Trump protests, I thought Arvin Vohra had a great take on them. I tried to find a link to his statement, but the LP site appears to still be totally FUBAR, so here’s a copy and paste of the email:

    This Saturday, I will not be attending the protest march on Washington, although I live only a few minutes away from that location.

    This march suggests that Donald J. Trump’s inappropriateness is somehow worse than the government abuses under Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

    I won’t support that kind of value reversal. I will not engage in the fantasy that idiotic locker room humor is worse than bombing civilians, or hypocritically refusing to pardon people for marijuana use after admitting to marijuana use. I will not pretend that Trump’s election antics are worse than warrantless wiretapping, or the Patriot Act, or the Wall Street bailout.

    If and when Trump bombs his first wedding or hospital, I will happily march in protest. If and when he refuses to scale back or end the drug war, I will march in protest. If and when he supports a Wall Street bailout, or a program as diseased as Common Core, I’ll gladly march. If he wastes money on a wall, I will march. If he refuses to pardon Snowden or dismantle the Patriot Act, I will march. If he creates a Muslim Watch List, I will march.

    But this protest is not about that. It is about people acting as if every kind of abuse is fine, except for social rudeness. These are the same people who refused to protest war, the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, or warrantless surveillance under Obama. They tacitly approved all of those things, and now are further extending that tacit approval in this march.

    They are saying that Trump’s rude humor is worse than all of that. After all, they didn’t lift a finger to oppose those inexcusable actions, but they came in from all over the country to oppose Trump’s rudeness.

    For a political movement to be taken seriously, it must consider more important issues as…more important. Bill Clinton’s continuation of the War on Drugs and signing of the Defense of Marriage act was far worse than sexual infidelity. The fact that the media and public focused on the latter just made them look silly. This march is no different.

    I will not support a political ideology that suggests a whiff of sexism or racism is worse than the blatant abuses of government power over the last years. Because when you march against the former, but excuse the latter, that’s exactly what you are saying.

    I am keenly aware of the political and personal advantages in attending the march. But logic, sanity, and conscience will not permit me to support the fantasy that impolite behavior matters more than blatant government abuse.

    Respectfully,

    Arvin Vohra
    Vice-Chair, Libertarian National Committee

  164. langa

    The above commentary from Vohra also perfectly explains why I am such a vehement opponent of the ultra-PC values that are being taught on college campuses, and which some “thick” libertarians have been trying to inject into the libertarian movement. After all, if rude comments that hurt people’s feelings are worse than actual aggression, and if actual aggression is against the law, then by that logic, rude comments (or any comments that “offend” anyone else) should also be against the law. Such a mindset is clearly incompatible with the free society that libertarians seek, and thus, should be strongly opposed.

  165. paulie Post author

    The plausible explanation for that difference is that the stuff “revealed” after the election didn’t actually exist before the election.

    Or that as multiple sources report, the investigation was in fact taking place during the election, the FBI “didn’t want to influence the election” by talking about it then (unlike what they did with the Wiener family laptop), discouraged media sources from writing about it then, and media outlets held off because they did not have solid enough information at that time. Sounds completely plausible to me.

  166. paulie Post author

    By the way, we’ve now heard from Matt(hew), Mark and Luke. I imagine John will be along shortly. ?

    You missed it. He has already popped up several times.

  167. paulie Post author

    As far as the anti-Trump protests, I thought Arvin Vohra had a great take on them. I tried to find a link to his statement, but the LP site appears to still be totally FUBAR, so here’s a copy and paste of the email

    It’s on a long list of stories I need to post here. I just need to get on a good roll with that.

    I don’t agree with Arvin’s take here. To me, mass protests are really most about building connections with people with whom we agree on some issues. That’s why I go to both leftwing and rightwing mass rallies. I would have gone to the anti-Trump rallies, but I don’t have rides to go anywhere at the moment. I don’t know where they were in the town where I currently am in, although I probably could have found them if I took a cruise past the university and downtown.

    Since there are many things on Trump’s agenda that the LP disagrees with, we should have had no problem with finding issues in common with the protesters, and missed yet another opportunity in not having a presence there. However, I expect these protests to continue, so the LP will have plenty more chances to jump on the bandwagon.

  168. paulie Post author

    The above commentary from Vohra also perfectly explains why I am such a vehement opponent of the ultra-PC values that are being taught on college campuses, and which some “thick” libertarians have been trying to inject into the libertarian movement. After all, if rude comments that hurt people’s feelings are worse than actual aggression, and if actual aggression is against the law, then by that logic, rude comments (or any comments that “offend” anyone else) should also be against the law.

    If you are aware of any thick libertarians who have come anywhere close to suggesting that rude comments should be against the law, please let me know who and where. I also strongly disagree with such a sentiment, but I confess to not having come across it. I am tempted to think that such alleged sentiments are a strawman, but I’m open to evidence that they exist among some self-described thick libertarians.

  169. langa

    If you are aware of any thick libertarians who have come anywhere close to suggesting that rude comments should be against the law, please let me know who and where. I also strongly disagree with such a sentiment, but I confess to not having come across it. I am tempted to think that such alleged sentiments are a strawman, but I’m open to evidence that they exist among some self-described thick libertarians.

    I’m not aware of any self-described libertarians who have openly called for such laws, but that’s not my point. My point is that support for such laws is the logical conclusion of the view that offensive speech is just as bad (or worse) than actual aggression. “Libertarians” who espouse such ideas are paving the way for speech bans — regardless of whether or not their intention is to do so.

  170. paulie Post author

    My point is that support for such laws is the logical conclusion of the view that offensive speech is just as bad (or worse) than actual aggression.

    Let’s start with first things first who has said that it is as bad (or worse)? When and where?

    Second, unless they have said that offensive speech actually is actual aggression, it doesn’t necessarily follow that responsive/preventive force is appropriate, even if we presume that it actually is just as bad. For example, starvation from poverty is certainly just as bad as being the victim of actual aggression from the standpoint of the starving person, but for a libertarian it does not necessarily follow that the law should be used to compel anyone else to feed a starving person. Many libertarians would feel a moral obligation to do so, and some would not. The law is not the solution to all social problems. Pointing out that something is a problem is not the same things as calling on monopoly state agents backed by all of the state’s guns, prisons, courts and byzantine bureaucracy to “fix” it, and rejecting/opposing such one size fits all “solutions” to various problems does not mean that we need to necessarily not consider them to be serious problems that need some type of solution.

  171. dL

    The above commentary from Vohra also perfectly explains why I am such a vehement opponent of the ultra-PC values that are being taught on college campuses, and which some “thick” libertarians have been trying to inject into the libertarian movement.

    It’s by and large the right-wingers who are on the march to make rude comments a long prison sentence, particularly if those comments are directed at the “true victims” in american society…you know the cops and the politicians.

  172. paulie Post author

    It’s by and large the right-wingers who are on the march to make rude comments a long prison sentence, particularly if those comments are directed at the “true victims” in american society…you know the cops and the politicians.

    Oh yes. Also the flag. And other rightwingers want to outlaw everything from porn to “promoting” LGBT “lifestyles” and illegal drugs (that includes calling for making them legal) to cursing to insulting their religion (but only their religion, not other people’s). Trump wants to expand libel laws in the same way that authoritarian regimes have. They even think that acknowledging that there are millions of non-Christians in the US by saying Happy Holidays amounts to a “War on Christmas.” Will we see POWs in this “war” under the Trump-Pence administration? Illegal combatants?

  173. dL

    Oh yes. Also the flag. And other rightwingers want to outlaw everything from porn to “promoting” LGBT “lifestyles” and illegal drugs (that includes calling for making them legal) to cursing to insulting their religion (but only their religion, not other people’s).

    Why I mock immigration somehow destroying “the cultural of liberty.” Why in the hell would i be worried about them when I have the Taliban, ISIS, Sharia Law and the commies all rolled into one already here…American Christian Conservatism.

  174. robert capozzi

    dL, sorry, not getting your CotOS point. With WMD, presidents can end life on earth…seems factual to me. Was there something in the comments that set you off?

  175. paulie Post author

    Why I mock immigration somehow destroying “the cultural of liberty.” Why in the hell would i be worried about them when I have the Taliban, ISIS, Sharia Law and the commies all rolled into one already here…American Christian Conservatism.

    A lot of them are the same idiots who believe white people are being “genocided” even though they are increasing in absolute numbers (even if declining proportionally) and still have a disproportionately large share of wealth and power. Some “genocide”. The same line of muddled thinking leads them to believe that straight men are oppressed. They have an entitlement mentality that leads them to believe they should never have to share power or become a minority in any respect anywhere, and that anything else amounts to “oppression,” “war,” and even “genocide” against them. Poor little crybully snowflakes…

  176. dL

    Sounds rather omnipotent to me.

    yeah, it took mighty Jehovah 40 days to smite the earth. And he came armed armed only with some puny rain. Not sure what set him off…apparently too much anal sex going on.

  177. dL

    I don’t agree with Arvin’s take here.

    And I strongly disagree w/ Arvin’s position. If Trump’s only offense was saying “pussy” or bragging about banging groupies, then there would indeed be no reason to get up in arms. However, Trump’s rhetoric is explicitly fascist. And it’s backed up by the singular most powerful military security apparatus in human history. Experience teaches us to take “liberty rhetoric” from politicians w/ a grain of salt and the authoritarian rhetoric at face value. You can say “well I will march and protest when he actually does something. ” Well, he has already done something. He is running his mouth like a two-bit Mussolini canactuallydoabe(!=wannabe). The culture war at foot is no longer a petty bourgeois one.

  178. paulie Post author

    If Trump’s only offense was saying “pussy” or bragging about banging groupies, then there would indeed be no reason to get up in arms.

    He wasn’t just saying “pussy” or bragging about banging groupies. Groupies are consenting and, presumably, adults. He was bragging about grabbing women, which implies non-consent. Whereupon a dozen or more women and some at the time underage girls came forward to say that he did exactly that to them. I don’t agree that this is just “locker room talk” or somehow trivial. Aside from being unethical and possibly criminal, it’s all about abuse of power which ties in directly to

    Trump’s rhetoric is explicitly fascist.

    And it’s not just his rhetoric. Trump will be issuing his executive orders about immigration within a few hours. So, I guess by his own terms, Arvin now has a reason to join the protests next time. Trump has already issued executive orders about building pipelines, which involves eminent domain abuse and socializing risks and costs while privatizing profits. I don’t even know all of the actions Trump has already taken in office but he is laying the groundwork for doing exactly the things he has promised with his appointments. There’s already collusion with foreign dictators, promises made in an official capacity which hasten the march not just to war but to war crimes and vastly expanded and extended occupations, and massive abuse of public office for private gain. And that’s just a bare start. How long do we need to wait?

    Experience teaches us to take “liberty rhetoric” from politicians w/ a grain of salt and the authoritarian rhetoric at face value. You can say “well I will march and protest when he actually does something. ” Well, he has already done something.

    Exactly.

  179. paulie Post author

    http://reason.com/archives/2017/01/24/is-it-cool-to-call-the-president-a-basta

    Excerpt:

    “The vision of the president as national guardian and spiritual redeemer is so ubiquitous it goes virtually unnoticed. Americans, left, right, and other, think of the ‘commander in chief’ as a superhero, responsible for swooping to the rescue when danger strikes,” Gene Healy wrote in the pages of Reason in 2008. Healy, a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of the Cult of the Presidency, published during the excesses of the George W. Bush years, warned that Americans place unrealistic expectations on the office of the presidency, and invest messianic faith in their preferred candidates, making it inevitable that White House residents will seize ever-greater power in response. “Relimiting the presidency depends on freeing ourselves from a mind-set one century in the making,” he added.

    Embracing the value of dissent and the right to tell presidents and the government they administer to go to Hell is a necessary part of breaking that mind-set. It clearly states that the dissenters expect not great things of the latest winner of the national popularity contest, but terrible things instead. Dissenters clearly don’t want the targets of their defiance to exercise power, let alone to accumulate more.

    To criticize government officials—and to embrace the right of others to do the same—is to step back from the cult.

    Well, it is if you do it right.

    That many of the new resisters who have rediscovered the joy in calling the president a bastard don’t quite get it is obvious from their all-too-ubiquitous “still with her” signs and chants. An unfortunate proportion of the people eager to take the winner of the presidential election to task aren’t at all disenchanted with the presidency—they’re just sorry that the wrong messianic figure took office.

    The same can be said of too many of the folks who are happy with the outcome of November’s vote. If you’re looking for evidence that the cult of the presidency lives on, you really can’t beat the image of a room full of alt-right activists saluting their guy with cries of “hail Trump!” as happened at a gathering of the National Policy Institute in November.

  180. paulie Post author

    http://reason.com/archives/2017/01/23/lets-avoid-the-fake-outrage-over-madonna

    For proof that the snowflake tendency runs as deeply among Trumpites as it does among campus censors, look no further than the Madonna controversy.

    Here’s the thing that these pearl-clutching wailers and tweeters, these right-leaning Safe Spacers don’t seem to understand: Madonna made no threat to blow up the White House. Nor did she incite anyone else to. She merely talked about a fantasy she had had.

    We shouldn’t only defend Madonna because she didn’t actually “threaten to blow up the White House,” as the possibly illiterate (Piers) Morgan put it. We should also defend her because heated speech, hyperbolic speech, even violence-tinged speech, is a legitimate part of political discourse and should remain absolutely free.

    There was a Supreme Court ruling that put this very well. In Watts vs the United States in 1969, the justices said that political talk often includes “vehement” and “unpleasantly sharp” attacks on public officials and even forms of criticism that sound violent but which are really just crude or super angry.

    They were ruling on the 1966 case of a young man who was convicted of knowingly threatening an individual’s life—the President’s—during a rally in D.C. against police violence, when he said: “They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification… and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” The Court threw the conviction out, ruling that it was not a realistic threat to kill President Johnson but was merely a “crude” way of expressing “political opposition to the President.”

    Feminists should bear this in mind. Some of them are defending Madonna today, which is cool, but in the past they’ve sometimes been too quick to depict porn or misogynistic music as forms of violence.

    The Madonna controversy is striking for what it tells us about the Trump era. Which is that its promised war on P.C. might be a bit of a sham, and these right-wing railers against Safe Spaces and triggered youths might not be as big on free speech as they’d like us to believe.

  181. John

    I love the inauguration protests. Hopefully they will keep the momentum up and only grow. The day after Trump was sworn in was the single biggest turnout of protesters in the history of the USA, with well over 3 million people protesting around the country in every single state of the union. Plus there were demonstrations in solidarity in many countries all over the world. I hope they become much, much bigger still and get held frequently. Trump actually tries to use the Metro ridership in DC on inauguration day to claim a lot of people came to see him. In reality most of those were protesters arriving for the much, much larger protests the next day. Even on inauguration day itself a lot of people were protesting. And of course the usual people just going to work, going on about their lives, or tourists who are there any other day.

    Trump also claims the TV audience as if everyone who watched him was tuning in to support him. Well, I had the TV on too, but that was mostly to see if there would be some kind of crazy riots or terrorism or whatnot. I did turn the sound on briefly just to hear what kind of deranged, disgusting nonsense Trump would say in his speech. He did not disappoint.

    I did not support Clinton or Johnson. Dr. Jill Stein was the best of a sorry bunch, but honestly I am not a fan of what she did after the election with the recount or for that matter any number of other things about her and her campaign. The election is over though, and resisting Trump needs to happen regardless of which other candidate you may have voted for or none at all. Or even if you made the mistake of voting for Trump and have realized you screwed up. Trump is a grievous danger to many of us personally due to various groups of people that he wants to use the power of the government to oppress and discriminate against . With his erratic temperament as revealed by his twitter tirades and his finger on the nuclear launch codes he is moreover a danger to all of us, even those who got suckered into voting for him. He needs to be resisted every step of the way as loudly as possible.

    Trump won by less than 80,000 votes in 3 states and lost the popular vote by almost 3 million. Yet he is acting like he has some kind of huge mandate because he won a lot of spread out low-population counties that make it look like he was winning all over the place when you don’t adjust the map to scale for population density. It’s supposed to be one voter, one vote…not one acre, one vote. But hey, alternative facts are the real facts in Trumpworld. And the national inquirer is a serious credible news source that should get a pulitzer prize. Yes, he actually said that. Look it up if you think I am making things up. The people who agree with this, are the ones who gave him his winning margin. Idiocracy? No need to wait 500 years, we are already there.

    Trump also controls congress because he defeated all the other Republicans for the nomination and in effect staged a hostile takeover of their party. Members of congress are scared to death he will attack them on twitter and that his followers will kick them out by voting against them in the Republican Primary so he has effective control of that caucus and therefore of Congress since they have a majority. And they hold power in most of the states, and will soon get to appoint large chunks of the judiciary (or just decide to ignore the judiciary as needed).

    So, Trump’s opposition needs to be in the streets, in as many places and as often as possible, mobilizing and organizing and networking and formenting resistance. Trump needs daily reminders that large chunks of the people do not agree with him or his sick agenda. We need emergency mobilization to protect our brothers and sisters who will be rounded up and deported, to tell a president who couldn’t care less that black lives matter, and many other things that Trump and his literally rabid supporters hate. We need to stand up to defend sanctuary cities that stand up to Trump. We need to be ready for everything from civil disobedience to street theater to organized lobbying and even to armed resistance if it comes to that. But whatever form it takes he must be resisted everywhere, constantly.

  182. langa

    Let’s start with first things first who has said that it is as bad (or worse)? When and where?

    This is why I referenced the Vohra piece. The anti-Trump protesters don’t come out and say that his crude remarks are worse than, say, Obama’s drone killings. But their actions demonstrate that they do, in fact, believe that. Similarly, I don’t know if I’ve heard a “libertarian” come out and say that offensive speech is as bad as aggression. But many of them clearly feel that way. If you doubt that, let me give a few examples.

    First, consider the reaction to Johnson’s claim that bakers should be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings. This is clear and obvious advocacy of aggression, and beyond that, a promise to commit aggression if elected. What was the reaction among libertarians? Well, it was mixed, but let’s divide it into categories: Strongly Approve, Apathetic, Strongly Disapprove, and Total Deal Breaker. I would say most libertarians fit into either Apathetic or Strongly Disapprove — probably about an equal number of each, with quite a few fitting into Strongly Approve, and only a very few considering his position to be a Total Deal Breaker. Now, let’s assume there were a hypothetical candidate who had answered the bakery question as follows: “Well, I support freedom of association, so I support the right of gays to get married, but personally, I think such relationships are sick and disgusting, and if I were a baker, there’s no way in hell I would agree to bake a cake for those perverts.” This is a statement that, while it may be offensive to many people, nevertheless contains absolutely no tolerance for aggression of any sort. So, what do you think the reaction to it would be? If you don’t think the vast majority of libertarians would consider that statement to be a Total Deal Breaker, then you are just being disingenuous. There is a zero percent chance that the hypothetical candidate making such a statement would be nominated.

    To give another example, consider the infamous interview given by Sonny Landham in 2008. In that interview, he advocated lots of stuff that violates the NAP, such as saying that we should nationalize various industries and that we should bomb the Middle East and take their oil (where have we heard that lately?). But go back and look at the discussion here on IPR (and elsewhere). The main reason people were upset was because he referred to the people in the Middle East as “ragheads” and “camel jockeys” and other rude names. In other words, libertarians were more upset at Landham calling these people rude names than they were at his threatening to kill them and steal their property.

    To give one final example (although I could give many more), consider the infamous Ron Paul newsletters. For the sake of discussion, just assume that Ron Paul wrote them. There wasn’t a single thing in any of those newsletters (or at least in the parts publicized in the Jamie Kirchick piece) that advocated aggression of any sort. There were simply a bunch of crude stereotypes, conspiracy theories, and so forth — but no advocacy of aggression. Nevertheless, for many libertarians, the existence of the newsletters, and even the possibility that Paul might have written them, were a Total Deal Breaker. Yet many of these people supported Barr/Root and/or Johnson/Weld, even though all of those men ran on platforms that were far less libertarian than Paul, and even though Barr, Johnson, and Weld had political records that included far more aggression than Paul’s.

    Bottom line: There are many libertarians (both big and small L) who are willing to tolerate almost unlimited deviation from the NAP, but aren’t nearly so forgiving when it comes to offensive speech. The only reasonable explanation for this is that they consider offensive speech to be worse than aggression.

  183. langa

    Second, unless they have said that offensive speech actually is actual aggression, it doesn’t necessarily follow that responsive/preventive force is appropriate, even if we presume that it actually is just as bad. For example, starvation from poverty is certainly just as bad as being the victim of actual aggression from the standpoint of the starving person, but for a libertarian it does not necessarily follow that the law should be used to compel anyone else to feed a starving person.

    Apples and oranges. Libertarian theory holds that you have no duty to do anything to help others. You do, however, have a duty to refrain from hurting others. If offensive speech hurts others just as much (or more) than aggression, it stands to reason that it should be punished the same as aggression should.

    Pointing out that something is a problem is not the same things as calling on monopoly state agents backed by all of the state’s guns, prisons, courts and byzantine bureaucracy to “fix” it, and rejecting/opposing such one size fits all “solutions” to various problems does not mean that we need to necessarily not consider them to be serious problems that need some type of solution.

    The “solution” for speech that you dislike is simple: either ignore it or refute it.

  184. robert capozzi

    Me: With WMD, presidents can end life on earth…

    Pf: Sounds rather omnipotent to me.

    ME: Ohhhhh, so you’re saying the CotOS language in the SoP refers to the potential damage done by WMD? I’d not read it that way before. I read it that there is a sinister cabal that wants the government to control every aspect of our lives, kind of like in “1984.”

    My feedback is that IF the CotOS language was a critique of the existence WMD, my strong suggestion would be to make that clearer and more direct. Something like, “We, the members of the LP, believe that weapons of mass destruction should be banned from the face of the Earth, as they are a threat to life to this planet.”

    Or is there another way to look at this, PF?

  185. paulie Post author

    The anti-Trump protesters don’t come out and say that his crude remarks are worse than, say, Obama’s drone killings. But their actions demonstrate that they do, in fact, believe that.

    I don’t think so. Trump’s remarks extend far beyond personal sexual assault, and he is in a dangerous position of power to assault what freedoms we have, as well as to assault billions of people at home and abroad with the guns, bombs, and myriad other tools of the regime he now heads. His many words and past deeds give every indication that he will abuse those powers far beyond any of his predecessors. It’s a huge mistake to presume that the sole point of the protests had to do with Trump bragging about physically grabbing women without consent; it’s about the extension of that same exact attitude towards using all the power and tools of the state to invade our liberty in an analogous fashion, and do things to all of us to violate our consent.

  186. paulie Post author

    I read it that there is a sinister cabal that wants the government to control every aspect of our lives, kind of like in “1984.”

    With the technology they now have and are developing it’s way beyond anything envisioned in 1984. And while some of it is indeed secret, a lot of it isn’t.

    Or is there another way to look at this

    Just one of a number of aspects.

  187. langa

    It’s by and large the right-wingers who are on the march to make rude comments a long prison sentence…

    Again, “right” and “left” are really irrelevant from a libertarian standpoint, as those are categories that are based on the ends that are being pursued, while libertarianism is not concerned with the ends being pursued, but only with the means used to pursue them. It’s not a question of libertarianism on one side and the right on the other, nor is it a question of libertarianism on one side and the left on the other. It’s a question of libertarianism on one side and authoritarianism on the other.

  188. Thomas L. Knapp

    langa,

    You gave a bunch of “examples” of something other than what you claimed (that treating offensive speech as being worse than actual aggression has something to do with “thick” libertarianism), and all three of your “examples” were of two different pieces of speech with zero actual acts of aggression.

  189. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Ohhhhh, so you’re saying the CotOS language in the SoP refers to the potential damage done by WMD?”

    No, that’s not what he’s saying.

    What he’s saying is that someone who wants the state to have the power to destroy all life on earth — including someone who says “THAT’s the guy who I trust with the nuclear launch codes” — is by definition an advocate of an omnipotent state.

  190. langa

    There are plenty of legitimate reasons for libertarians to oppose Trump. For example, we could talk about his economically illiterate support of protectionism. We could talk about his threats to torture the families of suspected terrorists. We could talk about his threats to “bomb the shit” out of the Middle East and steal their oil. And on and on. But by and large, that’s not what these protests are about. They are about how bad that it is that Hillary lost, and about Trump saying things that hurt people’s feelings, and as Arvin points out, that’s just not very important.

    It would be like if, in 2012, after Obama was reelected, a bunch of Romney supporters and various other GOP types had decided to protest Obama, on the grounds that he was a “secret Muslim” who was born in Indonesia (or wherever). Sure, there are plenty of good reasons for libertarians to dislike Obama, but those aren’t among them. and throwing in with a crowd like that would just make us look like a bunch of partisan idiots. Same thing applies here.

  191. langa

    …all three of your “examples” were of two different pieces of speech with zero actual acts of aggression.

    In the case of Johnson (and Landham), he was threatening to commit aggression if elected. He was saying, “If you give me the power to do so, I will use violence to force people to do work that they don’t want to do.” Threatening to commit aggression is itself a form of aggression.

  192. Thomas L. Knapp

    langa,

    True — but at least as true of Trump, and many of the protesters were in fact protesting his various threats of aggression vis a vis immigration and such, not just his rude language.

  193. Thomas L. Knapp

    From my blog just now: A Tax Proposal I Can Support.

    Yes, I finally thought of one. It occurred to me just now:

    Each and every one of the 50 states should levy a tax, at a rate of 100%, on all incomes deriving from the federal government. Said tax to be applicable both as to residents and, a la California’s habit of taxing out-of-state athletes who play professional sports games in the state, to activities within their jurisdictions.

    Effect: If you want to be a federal employee and make any money at it, you can only live, and you can only WORK, in the District of Columbia.

    Thoughts?

  194. paulie Post author

    If offensive speech hurts others just as much (or more) than aggression, it stands to reason that it should be punished the same as aggression should.

    It depends on the meaning of hurt you are using. Being verbally degraded hurts, but not in the same sense as an actual physical assault. Starving also hurts (if you doubt this, you have never starved). Starving, or being verbally degraded, can hurt more from the starving/degraded person’s perspective than being physically beaten. But it is not an initiation of force in the same sense as a physical assault to refuse to help someone or to launch a verbal tirade. Therefore, it should not be punished the same as initiation of force, even though it may subjectively hurt just as much or even more.

    Pointing out that something is a problem is not the same things as calling on monopoly state agents backed by all of the state’s guns, prisons, courts and byzantine bureaucracy to “fix” it, and rejecting/opposing such one size fits all “solutions” to various problems does not mean that we need to necessarily not consider them to be serious problems that need some type of solution.

    The “solution” for speech that you dislike is simple: either ignore it or refute it.

    The statement was broader than that. There are many different social problems which do indeed cause a lot of issues to a lot of people. For example, drug addiction can certainly hurt – the addict, the addict’s family, friends, neighbors, employers, employees, and so on. But it’s not an initiation of force to be an addict. It’s not an initiation of force to possess any substance. Therefore it should not be illegal. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a serious problem.

    Likewise, bigotry and verbal bullying are also serious problems, but they are not initiations of force in and of themselves, so they are not things that should be addressed with guns, billy clubs, tasers, handcuffs, kidnapping and confinement, etc. They can be addressed with boycotts, dissociation, shunning, strong condemnation, education efforts to inform people of their impact, and so on. That does in a way boil down to ignore or refute, but those words fail to capture the varieties of response and seem to trivialize the problems.

    Not every serious problem can or should be solved with force, and not calling for the use of force to solve a problem doesn’t mean that it’s not a serious problem.

  195. robert capozzi

    Tk: someone who wants the state to have the power to destroy all life on earth — including someone who says “THAT’s the guy who I trust with the nuclear launch codes” — is by definition an advocate of an omnipotent state.

    Me: Thanks. Certainly I wish there were no WMDs, that they’ve never been created. But, sadly, they have. With that established, I would think that one is in fact NOT an advocate for the CotOS if one chooses among the options for the president least likely to use WMDs. You might call that “relative trust.” Or, of course, one could take the position that ALL the options are unacceptable, and not vote or support any candidate.

    One could advocate abolition, unilateral disarmament, or something else, but as PF points out, such a person might be a complete statist otherwise.

  196. paulie Post author

    There are plenty of legitimate reasons for libertarians to oppose Trump. For example, we could talk about his economically illiterate support of protectionism. We could talk about his threats to torture the families of suspected terrorists. We could talk about his threats to “bomb the shit” out of the Middle East and steal their oil. And on and on. But by and large, that’s not what these protests are about. They are about how bad that it is that Hillary lost, and about Trump saying things that hurt people’s feelings

    I disagree. There are lots of reasons people protested. Torture, threats to bomb countries and steal their oil, and on an on were indeed prominent among them. What makes you think that it was mostly just about Hillary or “hurting people’s feelings”? Did you go to the protests? How many of the people that went to them did you actually talk to about their reasons for being there? I think you are making unwarranted assumptions about people’s motives. Since there are indeed a lot of legitimate things for us to agree with the protesters about, we should be at these protests letting people know we are with them on those issues and finding ways to work together on them.

    It would be like if, in 2012, after Obama was reelected, a bunch of Romney supporters and various other GOP types had decided to protest Obama, on the grounds that he was a “secret Muslim” who was born in Indonesia (or wherever).

    A bunch of tea partiers did believe things like that about Obama, and some of them held up signs with those type of sentiments at tea party demonstrations. That didn’t make the whole demonstrations invalid. Some of the other points being made at those same rallies, about bank bailouts and stimulus ripoffs and forced medical insurance and so on, were completely legitimate.

    Again I don’t believe that your description is accurate as far as why people are protesting against Trump. It may be a good idea for you to find out for yourself before you pass judgement.

  197. paulie Post author

    Each and every one of the 50 states should levy a tax, at a rate of 100%, on all incomes deriving from the federal government. Said tax to be applicable both as to residents and, a la California’s habit of taxing out-of-state athletes who play professional sports games in the state, to activities within their jurisdictions.

    Effect: If you want to be a federal employee and make any money at it, you can only live, and you can only WORK, in the District of Columbia.

    Thoughts?

    It sounds like a good start.

    Would this preclude the federal district from bombing the states using drones?

  198. paulie Post author

    Now, let’s assume there were a hypothetical candidate who had answered the bakery question as follows: “Well, I support freedom of association, so I support the right of gays to get married, but personally, I think such relationships are sick and disgusting, and if I were a baker, there’s no way in hell I would agree to bake a cake for those perverts.” This is a statement that, while it may be offensive to many people, nevertheless contains absolutely no tolerance for aggression of any sort. So, what do you think the reaction to it would be? If you don’t think the vast majority of libertarians would consider that statement to be a Total Deal Breaker, then you are just being disingenuous. There is a zero percent chance that the hypothetical candidate making such a statement would be nominated.

    Well yeah, that’s a deal breaker. But I’m not advocating locking such a person up or tying them to a post and whipping them or even levying a fine against them. I don’t think any libertarians that I know of are calling for someone to be punished by the force of law just for having those views. Do they have some kind of property right to the nomination? I don’t think so. So why should I feel bad about not supporting a candidate like that?

  199. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Would this preclude the federal district from bombing the states using drones?”

    Probably not. But the states could use the tax revenue to set up air defense systems.

  200. paulie Post author

    OK. But suppose there was no tax revenue, as the federal district would never send out any humans to do anything at all in any states, only killer robots to bomb them. At least not until the states repealed their tax on humanoid feds.

  201. paulie Post author

    To give another example, consider the infamous interview given by Sonny Landham in 2008. In that interview, he advocated lots of stuff that violates the NAP, such as saying that we should nationalize various industries and that we should bomb the Middle East and take their oil (where have we heard that lately?). But go back and look at the discussion here on IPR (and elsewhere). The main reason people were upset was because he referred to the people in the Middle East as “ragheads” and “camel jockeys” and other rude names. In other words, libertarians were more upset at Landham calling these people rude names than they were at his threatening to kill them and steal their property.

    I don’t think you are correct. I would have been just as upset with Landham and just as unsatisfied with the prospect of him remaining on the ballot as an LP candidate if he had promoted genocide and nationalization of industries without using slurs. It’s true that I would have also been upset with us having a candidate who merely used slurs in his interviews, even if he never advocated for such destructive policies. In his case it was both, so I am not sure how you are arriving at the conclusion that it was the slurs and not the policies that were a bigger deal to people, just as I am not sure how you have come to your conclusions about what motivates most anti-Trump protesters. Again, an LP nomination for political office is not some property right or entitlement that people have. I wouldn’t call for Landham to be jailed, fined, beaten, or killed for his views. I would call for dissociating from him by unendorsing him and taking him off the ballot, regardless of whether he just used slurs, called for mass murder, or, in his case, both. And why shouldn’t I?

    You yourself said the response to speech I disagree with is either to refute it or ignore it. In the case of a candidate whose nomination by my party purports to represent me, I refute the association and dissociate from such a candidate by calling for unendorsement. There are many good reasons for doing so, including but not limited to: not considering such a candidate to have good judgement (which means they should not be allowed to be in a position of power or prominence), not wishing to see the LP unnecessarily further marginalized and tarred in the public mind as a bunch of bigots, and not wishing to see bigots feel like the LP is the place for them, which would eventually be reflected in LP positions being officially changed (even if some bigots just use slurs and otherwise adhere to non-initiation of force, making the LP a home for promoting their views would inevitably lead to it also becoming a home for other bigots who aren’t so restrained).

  202. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    “OK. But suppose there was no tax revenue, as the federal district would never send out any humans to do anything at all in any states, only killer robots to bomb them. At least not until the states repealed their tax on humanoid feds.”

    That seems like a self-correcting situation. Who would pay taxes to the feds if they knew the feds couldn’t send anyone out to collect if they didn’t? The feds would quickly run out of money to buy bombs — and even before they ran out of money to buy bombs, all the manufacturers of bombs would have to move their factories to DC if they didn’t want to pay 100% tax on all their earnings from the feds.

  203. paulie Post author

    The residents of the federal district would pay taxes to send bombers out to drone all their neighbors until those neighbors agreed to rescind the tax on humanoid feds. They would be persuaded that in the medium term they would have a better chance of resuming their previous, relatively more comfortable, tax consumer lifestyle by intimidating their neighbors into once again sending them the loot that they had become accustomed to. The alternative would be to readjust their skills and expectations to deal with a newfound scarcity that they would find most jarringly unpleasant, much like a thousand dollar a day heroin user suddenly forced to go cold turkey.

  204. Thomas L. Knapp

    How would the residents of the federal district pay taxes? The only place they could earn money would be the district itself. And the district would probably lose its good standing to borrow money once prospective lenders realized the serfs out in flyover country weren’t coughing up any more.

  205. dL

    Trump:

    Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs.

    Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength. I will fight for you with every breath in my body. And I will never ever let you down.

    We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and hire American.

    We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world, but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first. We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example. We will shine for everyone to follow. We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones and reform the world against radical Islamic terrorism , which we will eradicate from the face of the Earth.

    At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. The Bible tells us how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity. We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly , but always pursue solidarity.

    People on this board, people in the LNC want to fucking spend their time analyzing the motivations of the people on the street? What the fuck is wrong w/ you? Personally, I’m glad there are people on the street, masses of them, protesting this fascist canactuallydoabe. Is libertarianism, the LP, a mere parody? You know the type that will rant about a nickel tax on a snicker’s bar as theft and slavery, but when a Mussolini dilettante straight outta a 1980’s Arnold Dystopian flick is barking about re-shaping America into one beating heart, it’s instead going to lurch into banal digression: oh, oh, oh, but what about safe space leftists at Swarthmore College??????????????????????

  206. dL

    Ohhhhh, so you’re saying the CotOS language in the SoP refers to the potential damage done by WMD?”

    Let me explain the obvious for the apparent 5 year olds in the room.

    The former speechwriter for a former president in the same party as the current one(so you can’t merely chalk it up to partisan hyperbole) said we have to sufficiently propitiate a fickle, vain overlord to avoid human extinction. Now how does this differ from the ancient sun cults(or whatever example cults) having to sufficiently appease the sun god to avoid the great wrath of that sun god? Well, the primary difference is that our cult g0d actually does have the power that the ancients thought their nonexistent gods supposedly had. Now that’s PROGRESS when it comes to cult worship.

    Listen, if you haven’t advanced to the mental age of 5 years old, I’m not going to debate this further. I can’t help you.

  207. dL

    Huge demand spike for Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four
    http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/25/media/george-orwell-1984-best-seller/index.html

    Now that the language of radical dissent is becoming more mainstream, it will be interesting to see if the Respectability Politics cargo cult likewise adopts(Anderson Cooper now gives his blessing to sound the alarm) . Or if the RP in the LP is something different…merely vulgar republican lite..two shades of pale from whatever the current GOP is.

  208. paulie Post author

    How would the residents of the federal district pay taxes?

    Well, they have a lot of wealth that the district has pilfered from the states over the years. There’s also a genuine local economy of the sort that exists anywhere else. However, that economy is heavily subsidized by money hoovered in from elsewhere. Supposing that outside money flow was cut off suddenly they would not be left completely without resources immediately, but they would find themselves in an unfamiliar position of having to provide a lot of things for themselves that others had been providing for them. So, with the still substantial but rapidly diminishing pile of money and stuff they have, do they pay for some drones to try to bomb their neighbors into cutting the flows back on or do they accept the new reality and adjust their economy to be a lot more self-sufficient?

    And the district would probably lose its good standing to borrow money

    I don’t think they are really all that into borrowing in reality. At least not the kind of borrowing where you actually pay it back at some point. Borrowing is just another euphemism for extorting with them. It’s like a mobster’s ever growing restaurant and bar tab; it’s not meant to ever be cashed out. “Just put it on my tab…” So, supposing that they suddenly find their credit is no longer good, do you think they would try to do something to extort or steal money somehow or another? I would guess yes. Now, it may or may not be drones with bombs. It could be hacking into other people’s bank accounts and wire transfers. It could be whole rooms of former federal employees running Jamaican lottery scams and Nigerian prince letters. It could literally be extortion, using all the data they have gathered on everyone over the years. I just somehow don’t think their first instinct will be to earn an honest living. Call it a hunch….

  209. paulie Post author

    People on this board, people in the LNC want to fucking spend their time analyzing the motivations of the people on the street? What the fuck is wrong w/ you? Personally, I’m glad there are people on the street, masses of them, protesting this fascist canactuallydoabe. Is libertarianism, the LP, a mere parody? You know the type that will rant about a nickel tax on a snicker’s bar as theft and slavery, but when a Mussolini dilettante straight outta a 1980’s Arnold Dystopian flick is barking about re-shaping America into one beating heart, it’s instead going to lurch into banal digression: oh, oh, oh, but what about safe space leftists at Swarthmore College??????????????????????

    My thoughts exactly. I guess, not surprisingly given out varying backgrounds, there are different kinds of people who call themselves libertarians. In my case I have the same kind of all alarms full blast reaction you just described, but it seems like a lot of other LPers, including some on the LNC, are of that other kind, still more worried about things like that nickel Snickers tax and safe space leftists at Swarthmore. So for those of us who really are every bit as concerned about Trump as any of the leftists, we’ll have to be on the streets joining them in protest, and the rest of the LP will either follow and join us or not, at various paces.

  210. Andy

    President Trump just banned federal funding of abortions

    http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-01-23-president-trump-just-banned-federal-funding-of-abortions.html

    From the article: “(Natural News) As of this morning, President Donald Trump has signed three executive actions. In addition to putting a stop to the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership, President Trump has instituted a federal hiring freeze (except for the military) and has re-instituted Mexico City Policy — which prevents federal funds from going to overseas organizations that perform or promote abortions.

    Mexico City Policy was first instated by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It has been rescinded twice under the Democratic administrations of Clinton and Obama, and now has been re-instated twice by the Republican administrations of Bush and Trump.”

    MY COMMENT: I believe in fair reporting, so it should be pointed out that Donald Trump just did three things that Libertarians should support. Cutting off federal funding for abortion, stopping the Trans-Pacific Partnership (a government managed trade agreement with toxic stuff in it), and instituting a federal government hiring freeze (I don’t like the fact that he has exempted the military from this, but regardless of this, not hiring more government employees for other agencies is a good thing).

    Now here is something that is really PATHETIC, and that is that our party’s presidential ticket, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, campaigned on the OPPOSITE side of at least two of these issues.

    There has long been division in the Libertarian Party and movement over the issue of abortion, but regardless of where one stands on this issue, all Libertarians and small “l” libertarians should agree that the tax payers should not fund abortions. Saying that tax payers should not fund abortions was never even really a point of controversy in Libertarian Party circles, well, that is until Gary Johnson and Bill Weld came along. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld think that it is OK to take money from pro-lifers by force via taxation, and use that money for abortions, which they vehemently oppose. How in the heck is this a libertarian stance? Welcome to the new Libertarian Party, the party of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.

    The Trans-Pacific Partnership is not a real free trade agreement, it is a government managed trade, and it is filled with lots of bad stuff. There was a time when Libertarians understood the difference between actual free trade and government managed trade. The late Murray Rothbard and the late Harry Browne knew the difference. Michael Badnarik knew the difference. Heck, current Libertarian Party National Chairman Nicholas Sarwark knows the difference, and he in fact put out a press release in 2015 rightfully condemning the TPP. Check out the link below for the comments from Chairman Sarwark on the TPP.

    https://calibertarianreport.com/2015/06/20/libertarian-partysecretive-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-bill-lets-foreign-governments-and-foreign-special-interests-control-american-medical-care-banking-the-internet-and-even-civil-liberties/

    From the article: ““The two old parties will happily work together to get special favors for particular industries and interests, even if they have to hide the specifics from the American people to do so,” said Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee.

    While the current version of the treaty remains hidden from public view, portions of it have been released by WikiLeaks. They already show that it betrays and trumps the U.S. Constitution, sells out American freedoms, and grants foreign governments vast control over American medicine, the Internet, banking services, intellectual property, and civil liberties. It also grants multi-national corporations the right to sue the U.S. government where domestic companies are forbidden to do so.

    ‘The Libertarian Party opposes TPP and other secretive pacts being negotiated between the U.S. and countries worldwide, including the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and the Trade In Services Agreement (TISA),’ said Sarwark. ‘The Libertarian Party supports free trade with all people and countries around the world. Real free trade is the reduction of barriers and the de-escalation of trade wars — not secret negotiations over winners and losers.’

    ‘T’he vast majority of job losses in America did not result from trade agreements,’ he continued. ‘The real culprits are the politicians and special interests who push for onerous government regulations, high taxes, and trade barriers that weaken American companies and which also prohibit American families from openly and freely shopping for the best buys for their families.’

    ‘To actually help the American economy, we should simply repeal laws and withdraw from trade agreements that violate the Constitution or restrict free and open trade. This will stimulate the American economy, preserve and expand our diminishing freedoms, and maintain our sovereignty as a nation,’ said Sarwark.”

    Rothbard and Browne knew that these government managed trade agreements were a scam, and Badnarik and Sarwark know this, so why can’t Gary Johnson and Bill Weld figure this out? Could it be that they are just a couple of ruling establishment shills posing as Libertarians?

    A federal government hiring freeze sounds like something that Gary Johnson and Bill Weld may have supported, but does this actually jive with their records? Government spending and debt actually increased quite a bit when Gary Johnson was Governor of New Mexico. Gary Johnson privatized some of the prisons while he was Governor of New Mexico, so maybe he did not count the people who worked at these prisons as having been state employees, but even though these prisons were “privatized,” they still received tax payer funding, and they were still filled with lots of people who were convicted for victimless crimes, or who were otherwise falsely convicted. Now I’m sure that there were some people in there who were in for legitimate crimes as well, but there are plenty of statistics that indicate that at least half of the people who are in prison are in for things that would not be crimes in a libertarian society. Gary Johnson was Governor of New Mexico for 8 years, and even though he was already a self professed libertarian BEFORE he became Governor, he only pardoned 128 people during the 8 years that he was Governor, and he only pardoned these people AFTER they had already served their sentences, which means that GARY JOHNSON DID NOT RELEASE EVEN ONE PERSON FROM JAIL/PRISON DURING THE 8 YEARS THAT HE WAS GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO. Gary Johnson’s record on granting pardons/commutations is actually WORSE than Barack Obama’s.

    There was a much talked about Bill Weld Revolution when Weld was Governor of Massachusetts, and Weld actually did make some small cuts in government, well, at least temporarily, as by the time Bill Weld left the office of governor, government had GROWN to bigger than it was than before Bill Weld was elected. Bill Weld was also a big cheerleader for President George W. Bush during the 8 years that he was President, and Weld enthusiastically supported Bush’s rapid expansions of government, which at the time were the largest expansions of the federal government since Franklin Delano Roosevelt was President. Weld showed that he was willing to “cross the aisle” and support a Democrat, by supporting Barack Obama, and his expansions of the state, including Obamacare. So how serious should we take Bill Weld when he says that he wants to cut the size of government?

    Welcome to the new Libertarian Party, the party of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. Going back to the early part of the last presidential election cycle, who would have guessed that Donald Trump would get elected President, and that as President some of his first actions would be more libertarian than issue stances that were taken by the candidates that the Libertarian Party nominated to be on their presidential ticket, in Gary Johnson and Bill Weld? Who would have guessed that Bill Weld would even be in the Libertarian Party, much less that any Libertarian National Convention delegate would actually vote to nominate him to be the party’s candidate for Vice President, much less that he’d actually win?

    Prior to 2008, if you had told me that Bill Weld would show up in the Libertarian Party two or three weeks before the national convention, after endorsing two big government Republican candidates for President (Jed Bush and John Kasich) just a few months before joining the Libertarian Party, and that he’d declare himself to be a candidate for the party’s vice presidential nomination, I’d have said that there’d be no way that he’d get nominated, and that he’d get boo’d off stage by a room full of Libertarians. I’d have said that there was no way that “The Party of Principle” would ever nominate somebody like this.

    Prior to 2008, if you had told me that in 2016, the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket would get on national television and PRAISE Hillary Clinton, one of the most corrupt and hardcore statist politicians around, and that they’d call her a “wonderful public servant,” I would not have believed it.

    Welcome to the new Libertarian Party indeed. The party where liberty has gone out the window and under a bus, and where “The Party of Principle” has turned into another empty political slogan.

  211. Andy

    “Now, let’s assume there were a hypothetical candidate who had answered the bakery question as follows: ‘Well, I support freedom of association, so I support the right of gays to get married, but personally, I think such relationships are sick and disgusting, and if I were a baker, there’s no way in hell I would agree to bake a cake for those perverts.’ This is a statement that, while it may be offensive to many people, nevertheless contains absolutely no tolerance for aggression of any sort. So, what do you think the reaction to it would be? If you don’t think the vast majority of libertarians would consider that statement to be a Total Deal Breaker, then you are just being disingenuous. There is a zero percent chance that the hypothetical candidate making such a statement would be nominated.”

    A statement like this does not violate any libertarian principles, but as much as I dislike “political correctness,” it would not be a wise strategic decision to run a candidate for office who’d make a statement like this.

    A candidate could make the same point, but to state it in a more polite manner, by saying something like, “Personally, I do not believe in gay marriage, and if I owned a bake shop, I would not want to bake cakes for gay weddings, nor do I think that anyone else should be forced to bake a cake for gay weddings, however, I do not believe that I, or anyone else, has the right to force our views on to peaceful people who are engaging in voluntary activities, so if gays want to get married, and if there are people out there who want to bake cakes for their weddings, they should be free to do so.”

    I recall back in 2008 when Alan Keyes was running for President, some Libertarians criticized him for disowning his daughter for coming out as a lesbian. I pointed out at the time that while disowning one’s child is a lousy thing to do, this has NOTHING to do with why Alan Keyes is not a libertarian, or why people should not vote for Alan Keyes. Freedom of association also means the freedom to not associate, and if Keyes no longer wished to associate with his adult daughter because she is a lesbian, that is his right, and it does not violate any libertarian principles. Does it make him a jerk, and a bad father? Maybe so, in the opinion of most people (myself included), but it does not violate any libertarian principles. I was far more concerned about Keyes’ support for foreign wars of aggression, domestic spying, and the United Nations.

    The lefty politically correct Social Justice Warriors in the Libertarian Party were not so much focused on actual political issues where Alan Keyes took anti-liberty stances (but in all fairness to Mr. Keyes, he actually was good on some issues as well), they were all hyped up about Alan Keyes not talking to his adult lesbian daughter, as if this violated some libertarian principle, which it did NOT.

  212. dL

    I believe in fair reporting, so it should be pointed out that Donald Trump just did three things that Libertarians should support. Cutting off federal funding for abortion, stopping the Trans-Pacific Partnership (a government managed trade agreement with toxic stuff in it), and instituting a federal government hiring freeze (I don’t like the fact that he has exempted the military from this, but regardless of this, not hiring more government employees for other agencies is a good thing).

    Public funding of abortion is the absolute bottom of the list of my priorities…just barely being beaten out by defunding sesame street. Perhaps it would move up the list a bit if state governments weren’t in the business of trying to make abortion illegal. If this public defunding wasn’t a part of a concerted effort to make abortion illegal.

    TPP. The problem is that Trump put a stop to it b/c he doesn’t view it as SUFFICIENTLY PROTECTIONIST. He wants something much worse. Excuse me if I don’t cheer knowing what’s coming down the pike. Yes, multi-lateral free trade agreements are not free trade. Unilateral protectionism obviously IS NOT FREE TRADE.

    Public hiring the freeze. Exceptions: Military, stasi and armed thugs. Typical conservative small government, which is : more bombs, more armed thugs…fire the graphic production assistant at PBS.

    RE: TeamGov. That’s over and done with. When Trump sounds and acts like Mussolini, I’m not interested in
    vapid red herrings over William Weld. Never a supporter of Weld and Johnson, but El Duce comparatively makes the duo look like freedom fighters.

  213. dL


    Now, let’s assume there were a hypothetical candidate…

    How about we don’t. I’m not interested in your novella length diversionary rightest PC drivel re: theocrat Alan Keyes.

  214. paulie Post author

    President Trump just banned federal funding of abortions

    You should do some more research on that one. It’s a lot more wide-ranging than that. Coincidentally, or not, the new policy is likely to result in more, not fewer, abortions (because the vast majority of what these organizations do involves distributing condoms, birth control information covering various different types of contraception and STD prevention). There will also be more botched illegal abortions, more unwanted and often abandoned children, more infanticide and more STDs being spread.

    Actual US regime funding of abortions through foreign aid has been illegal since 1973 under the Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act. The global gag rule which Trump just reinstated and vastly expanded beyond its prior versions gets into a lot of other areas, because organizations that perform or discuss abortions also do a lot of other things.

    Now, that doesn’t mean that those things should be funded by US tax extortion, but it’s simply false and misleading to claim that this is about banning federal funds for abortion.

    As far as trade goes, yes, TPP and other such agreements had a lot of details that are poison pills for many, probably most, libertarians. But Trump doesn’t just plan to do away with these “free trade” agreements, he also plans to severely hamper actual free trade as well with protectionist policies which, along with his moves to severely limit the movement of workers, will greatly damage consumers and the overall economy as a whole, both in the US and globally.

  215. paulie Post author

    Public hiring the freeze. Exceptions: Military, stasi and armed thugs. Typical conservative small government, which is : more bombs, more armed thugs…fire the graphic production assistant at PBS.

    RE: TeamGov. That’s over and done with. When Trump sounds and acts like Mussolini, I’m not interested in
    vapid red herrings over William Weld. Never a supporter of Weld and Johnson, but El Duce comparatively makes the duo look like freedom fighters.

    Exactly!

  216. paulie Post author

    The lefty politically correct Social Justice Warriors in the Libertarian Party were not so much focused on actual political issues where Alan Keyes took anti-liberty stances

    Which lefty politically correct Social Justice Warriors in the Libertarian Party do you speak of? I keep hearing these vague assertions with no specifics. Personally, yes, I was appalled that Keyes would leave his 18-year old daughter homeless and yes, that’s one of the many reasons I can’t support him for political office. That does not, however mean either that

    A) I don’t care about his many bad issue positions – that’s blatantly false, as there are many other reasons I could not support him based on his policy stances which have nothing to do with his personal behavior

    B) That I don’t give him credit for being correct on some issues – I have, and still do.

    C) That I would want to use force against him for what he did to his daughter. I wouldn’t want him to be my friend or my political candidate, but she was technically an adult and he did not have any legal obligation to help her out financially or to be morally supportive, nor should he have had such a legal obligation. If my opinion of his moral obligation differs with his, and it does, that doesn’t entitle me to use or delegate force to resolve the difference.

    Have any libertarians actually argued the opposite of A, B or C? If so, who were they and when and where did they make such arguments?

  217. Andy

    dL said: “RE: TeamGov. That’s over and done with. When Trump sounds and acts like Mussolini, I’m not interested in
    vapid red herrings over William Weld. Never a supporter of Weld and Johnson, but El Duce comparatively makes the duo look like freedom fighters.”

    Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, and the people who are responsible for them becoming the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket, are like dogs who shit on the Libertarian Party’s carpet. Those of us who don’t like it when dogs shit on our carpet need to continually run the noes of the dogs in their own shit, so we can remind them to not shit on our carpet again.

  218. paulie Post author

    If Team Guv are like dogs who shit the carpet, then Herr Fuehrer von Drumpf is like the wolf who is not just at the door but already inside. Not the best time for rubbing dogs’ noses in shit, but your mileage may vary.

  219. Thomas L. Knapp

    “while disowning one’s child is a lousy thing to do, this has NOTHING to do with why Alan Keyes is not a libertarian, or why people should not vote for Alan Keyes”

    It has nothing to do with why Keyes is not a libertarian, but that’s not the same as having nothing to do with why people should not have voted for him.

    For simplicity’s sake, consider an election in which there are two candidates who score perfectly on whatever “how libertarian is this candidate?” scale you care to use.

    One of them is also a good person, while the other one is a raging asshole.

    Or one of them has an IQ of 70, while the other one has an IQ of 170.

    Or one of them has been an involved member of the community he or she is running for office in for 24 years, while the other one has been technically a member of that community for 20 months and has left the house precisely once, to pick up candidate paperwork.

    Necessary /= sufficient.

  220. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “For simplicity’s sake, consider an election in which there are two candidates who score perfectly on whatever ‘how libertarian is this candidate?’ scale you care to use.

    One of them is also a good person, while the other one is a raging asshole.”

    Who is an asshole and who is not is at least somewhat open to interpretation, but I agree with your overall point.

    This is a reason why Christopher Cantwell would not be a good candidate, regardless of the merits or demerits of any of his issue stances, the guy has acted like a rude jerk on too many occasions.

  221. paulie Post author

    This is a reason why Christopher Cantwell would not be a good candidate, regardless of the merits or demerits of any of his issue stances, the guy has acted like a rude jerk on too many occasions.

    Additionally and separately, he would also not be a good candidate because some of his issue positions are repulsive. Given those views, even if he was the nicest person in the world, he would still make a terrible candidate.

  222. paulie Post author

    Andy is fond of youtube videos. I think the one I posted above at 4:59 am is very on point regarding a lot of what I see happening in US, Russian and European politics today. It’s also shorter than a lot of the videos Andy posts.

  223. Andy

    I want to be clear about something. I’m not a “throw the baby out with the bathwater” kind of guy. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me on every detail about everything. I can nitpick and find areas of disagreement with every candidate I’ve ever supported.

    My lack of support for, and outright opposition to, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld was not over minor issues. There were a whole lot of things wrong with Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, and their campaign.

    I did not support or vote for Gary Johnson in 2012 either, but since he did not sound quite as bad in 2012 as he did in 2020 (as in his true colors had not come out yet), and since issues with the way his campaign was run had not yet come to light, I did not oppose him as vehemently in 2012 as I did in 2016. This may surprise some people, but even though I did not vote for Johnson in 2012 (either at the national convention, or in the November election), I actually did end up doing a little bit of volunteer work for him, and I even considered changing my mind about not voting for him right up until the point where I was in the polling place to cast a vote in November of 2012. I decided to go through with NOT voting for him, and I wrote in None Of The Above for President, due in large part to Johnson’s support and stumping for the Fair Tax, and his lack of pardons as Governor, and his excuses for not granting more pardons.

    I almost hate to say it, but Jim Gray was not a good candidate either. Like Johnson, he supported the Fair Tax, and he came out against jury nullification. I heard this from other people, but I also heard it straight from him when I asked him about it when I met him in California in 2002 when he was running for US Senate, as I specifically asked him about Fully Informed Juries and jury nullifciaton. I also asked him about J.A.I.L for Judges, which was a proposed law for judicial accountability, where a citizens’ panel could review the conduct of judges, and remove them from office, and potentially press criminal charges against them which could land judges behind bars, if the judges were found to be violating people’s rights (which is something that judges do on a routine basis in this country). Gray also opposed J.A.I.L for Judges. He’s also been an apologist for the police, going so far as to say that Libertarians should, “honor, respect, and thank” the police, and he has even defended this statement when challenged by other Libertarians. Police misconduct and corruption is a HUGE problem in this country, and Gray’s comments about the police make him sound out of touch with reality, and certainly out of touch with a lot of people who would be open to hearing the Libertarian Party’s message. Also, remember that Gray was one of the people who stumped for Bill Weld to be on the LP’s presidential ticket in 2016, and Gray even “stepped aside” so Weld could run for the nomination.

    I gave Jim Gray a “pass” in 2002 when he was running for US Senate, even though I disagreed with him on a few issues, most notably jury nullification and judicial accountability. I even voted for him over Gail Lightfoot in the 2002 Libertarian Party primary (California used to have a separate primary for each ballot qualified party before Top Two), not because I thought that Lightfoot was a bad candidate, but rather because she had already run for the office, and I figured that the party should give somebody else the chance to run, and that maybe having a judge run would get us more publicity, and that even though I had disagreements with him, he sounded good or OK on some other issues.

    Looking back on that 2002 election, and what has happened since then, I probably should not have voted for him. He seems like a nice guy, but I consider jury nullification and judicial accountability to be major, high priority issues, and I really dislike the Fair Tax and the sucking up to the police (although I did not know that he supported those things at the time, and this may have been before Neal Boortz and John Linder came out with the Fair Tax book).

    I am not even going to get into all of the other things that were wrong with Gary Johnson, Jim Gray, Bill Weld, Bob Barr, and Wayne Root. The list of things wrong with them and their campaigns is too long.

    I joined the Libertarian Party back in the summer of 1996, and there have only been a few occasions where I did not support a Libertarian Party candidate. There have got to be some pretty big problems with a Libertarian Party candidate for me to not support them.

    Tom Knapp and I have posted on some of the same message forums for a long time now (I am just going to use Tom as an example, there are other names I could insert in his place). I recall Tom posting at the old Hammer of Truth, and then Third Party Watch, and IPR has been around since the spring of 2008, and Tom and I have both posted here on and off since its inception. Sometimes I agree with Tom, but we’ve also done a lot of arguing. I actually probably agree with Tom more than I disagree with him, even though there are times where we have done a lot of arguing/debating. I think that this is because we’ve focused on areas of disagreement instead of agreement.

    So if Tom were running for office, would I support him as a candidate? Well, Tom probably would not be my first choice as a candidate, but then again, part of it would depend on what office he was running for, and of course who else was seeking the nomination, if anyone. I know Tom ran for office a few times in Missouri. If I had been a registered voter in his district, I probably would have voted for him.

    Tom was going to run a right in campaign for US House last year. I thought it sounded pretty goofy at first, but after he explained what he was going to do, and what his goal was in running, I actually liked the idea, although he dropped out of the race. I would have written his name in as a candidate assuming that nobody that I thought was acceptable was running.

    Tom announced that he was going to run for the LP’s 2016 presidential nomination, or maybe it was the 2012 nomination. Would I vote for Tom Knapp to be the party’s presidential candidate, and would I vote for Tom Knapp in the presidential election? Well, Tom would certainly not be among my top choices to run for President, but if I were at an LP convention, and it came down to Tom, and say somebody like Bob Barr, or Gary Johnson, then yeah, there’s a good chance I’d vote for Tom. If Tom were on the general election ballot in November, would I vote for him for President? There is a good chance that I would.

    If Tom were campaigning for President, post nomination, as in he was the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee, and if he said something on the campaign trail where I disagreed with him, would I campaign against him? Probably not. I’d be more likely to say something like, “I disagree with Tom’s statement on _______________ (fill in blank), but I still agree with his take on most of the issues.”

    I rate candidates based on a variety of factors, the most important of which are issues/philosophy, and character. Even though I don’t always agree with Tom on the finer points of some issues and on political strategy, I still consider Tom to be high enough on the Nolan Chart to be a candidate for the party. When it comes to character, I do not really have any verifiable evidence that Tom’s character is so bad that he could not be a candidate for the party, or that he has done anything of which I am aware that would rise to the level of saying that he should not be a candidate for the party. Since I don’t have enough evidence on Tom not being “libertarian enough” or being of too poor of character to be a candidate for the party, I would not oppose him running for office, although I would not be that likely to support him for a nomination to a high level office at a convention, depending on who else was running.

    Anyone who has followed IPR for awhile knows that I’ve gotten into quite a few debates with Tom over the years, so my saying that I could potentially support him as a candidate, or at least not actively campaign against him post nomination, should tell you that I’m not a “throw the baby out with the bathwater” guy who expects every candidate to agree with me on every detail of everything.

    I would hope that Tom would afford me the same courtesy and opportunity, especially considering that he voted for Johnson/Weld after actively opposing them, both pre-nomination and post-nomination. Even though Tom and I have done a good bit of arguing, I think that we are closer on issues and strategy than either of us is with Gary Johnson or Bill Weld.

  224. Andy

    “I did not support or vote for Gary Johnson in 2012 either, but since he did not sound quite as bad in 2012 as he did in 2020”

    Should read, “2016…”

  225. paulie Post author

    he was threatening to commit aggression if elected. He was saying, “If you give me the power to do so, I will use violence to force people to do work that they don’t want to do.” Threatening to commit aggression is itself a form of aggression.

    Depends on how imminent the threat is. More broadly, do you really consider running for office or other political advocacy that is anything other than strictly libertarian to be in and of itself an act of aggression, since it’s a threat of aggression, however real or not? What forms of retaliatory or preventive force do you think are called for to keep such threats from being carried out?

  226. paulie Post author

    Tom Knapp and I have posted on some of the same message forums for a long time now (I am just going to use Tom as an example, there are other names I could insert in his place). I recall Tom posting at the old Hammer of Truth, and then Third Party Watch, and IPR has been around since the spring of 2008, and Tom and I have both posted here on and off since its inception.

    Same here. Except that Knapp and myself were also on Free-Market.Net forums close to 20 years ago (it may actually be 20 years ago by now, and definitely well over 15, closer to if not at 20) even before I knew Andy.

  227. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    If you were seeking a Libertarian Party nomination for office and I was a voter or delegate, I’d certainly give you due consideration. My “sieve” for choosing between Libertarian candidates looks something like this:

    1) If there’s an actual ideological libertarian in the running and the other candidates are some sort of “libertarian lite” or whatever, I’ll support the actual ideological libertarian.

    2) If there are no actual ideological libertarians in the running, I’ll see if there are any of the “lite” types that I can even barely stomach. If so, I’ll go with one. If not, I’ll go for NOTA if the rules allow it, abstain if they don’t.

    3) If there’s more than one actual ideological libertarian in the running, I start grading them on the issues I care most about (those issues change occasionally based on what’s happening in the world). I can deal with disagreement on issues, but I prefer a candidate who doesn’t make the issues we strongly disagree on into his or her main, marquee issues.

    4) The candidates who survive the first three sieve points start getting judged on non-ideological, non-issues stuff — speaking ability, personal appearance, fame or infamy on non-political stuff, etc.

    To be perfectly blunt, there was a time when I thought I did OK myself on point 4, but that time is past. I’m old, I’m fat, I’ve got a face made for radio and a voice made for print; I’ve never been a great public speaker and I’m cranky enough these days that I often come off as mean. I suspect that my candidate days are over, even though a couple of people have been badgering me to run for something in 2018.

    Usually when Andy and I have a big disagreement it’s over one of two things: Immigration or 9/11 Truth. If he made either of those two things centerpieces of his campaign, he’d have a hard time getting my support for a nomination versus another solid libertarian, but for two different reasons. Although we disagree on both:

    * The main reason I’d not want 9/11 Truth to be a big issue is not so much that we disagree on it as that voters don’t give a shit about it; while

    * I’d not want immigration to be a big issue because voters DO care about it right now, because the libertarian position is a position with plurality support unserved by either of the major parties, and because it’s therefore very important for Libertarian candidates to be at least mostly right about it rather than completely wrong about it.

  228. dL

    To be perfectly blunt, there was a time when I thought I did OK myself on point 4, but that time is past. I’m old, I’m fat, I’ve got a face made for radio and a voice made for print;

    Tom: when was politics ever the arena for the beautiful people?

  229. Thomas L. Knapp

    dL,

    Touche. But after campaigns for city council, school board, state rep, Congress multiple times and vice president, and after managing more campaigns than that, I think I’m better on the staff end than the candidate end anyway. I’d rather write position papers for someone more photogenic, etc. than myself.

  230. dL

    Touche…

    yeah, if ur looking for that comeback as a male stripper, yeah, ur over the hill. but politics, lol

  231. Andy

    “Tom was going to run a right in campaign for US House last year.”

    Should read, “Tom was going to run a write in campaign for US House last year.”

  232. paulie Post author

    “Tom was going to run a right in campaign for US House last year.”

    Should read, “Tom was going to run a write in campaign for US House last year.”

    Really? I would have never guessed.

  233. Andy

    “paulie Post author
    January 25, 2017 at 22:21
    ‘Tom was going to run a right in campaign for US House last year.’

    Should read, ‘Tom was going to run a write in campaign for US House last year.’
    Really? I would have never guessed.”

    I type fast and seldom proof read, plus I usually have multiple screens open and videos playing. I hate it when I find an error in something after I posted it.

    Yeah, I could try to log in and fix it, but I’d have to look for the password, and that’s a pain.

    If I ran this site, I would reset the passwords for everyone who posts here and has one, and then I’d only issue new passwords to trusted people. I would not be surprised if one or more of the trolls here got a password during that short stint of time a long time ago when all IPR posters had to get a password. I had forgotten that I even had that password until you reminded me. I intended to use it (after you reminded me about it) to post articles here, but I still obviously have yet to do it.

  234. langa

    From my blog just now: A Tax Proposal I Can Support.

    TK, I’m sympathetic to what you’re trying to do here, but before I could support it, I would have to know what would be done with the revenue generated by your new tax.

  235. langa

    It depends on the meaning of hurt you are using. Being verbally degraded hurts, but not in the same sense as an actual physical assault. Starving also hurts (if you doubt this, you have never starved). Starving, or being verbally degraded, can hurt more from the starving/degraded person’s perspective than being physically beaten. But it is not an initiation of force in the same sense as a physical assault to refuse to help someone or to launch a verbal tirade. Therefore, it should not be punished the same as initiation of force, even though it may subjectively hurt just as much or even more.

    I’m using “hurt” not as an intransitive verb, as in, “Damn, my stomach hurts”, but rather as a transitive verb, as in “I never meant to hurt anyone.” That’s the key distinction that invalidates your starvation analogy. As I said before, libertarian theory holds that you have no duty to help anyone else. However, you do have a duty to refrain from hurting (or, if you prefer, from harming) anyone else. That is the distinction between refusing to feed someone versus insulting them with your speech.

    Now, having said that, I agree, of course, that offensive speech should not be punished the same as aggression. But for a different reason. Offensive speech does not objectively harm someone in the same way that murder, rape, theft, and so forth do. Rather, it is a breach of etiquette, akin to farting in public, or severely berating your waiter for some minor mistake, or using profanity in front of a clergyman, or whatever. All those things may offend others, but they do no tangible harm, and the same is true for speech that is racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, or whatever.

    In other words, it all comes down to the old saying about sticks and stones. We all learn that when we’re kids, but at some point, most people seem to discard that idea. Way back when I first discovered libertarianism, one of the things I liked about it was that libertarians seemed to have held on to that idea. They seemed to have understood that there is indeed a huge difference between merely offending someone and actually causing real, tangible harm to them. Unfortunately, with the rise of the “thick” delusion, that distinction is once again in danger of being blurred, if not obliterated.

  236. langa

    Again I don’t believe that your description is accurate as far as why people are protesting against Trump. It may be a good idea for you to find out for yourself before you pass judgement.

    Look, I don’t doubt that, as at any large scale protest, there may be a few people whose agenda differs from that of the majority. But if you look at the reasons the organizers gave for the protests in the first place, they weren’t about Trump’s policies not being libertarian enough. They were about his rhetoric hurting people’s feelings.

    For example, look at the mission statement on the Women’s March website: https://www.womensmarch.com/mission/

    The very first paragraph says:

    The rhetoric of the past election cycle has insulted, demonized, and threatened many of us – immigrants of all statuses, Muslims and those of diverse religious faiths, people who identify as LGBTQIA, Native people, Black and Brown people, people with disabilities, survivors of sexual assault – and our communities are hurting and scared. We are confronted with the question of how to move forward in the face of national and international concern and fear.

    [Emphasis added]

    I think that’s pretty clear.

  237. langa

    Well yeah, that’s a deal breaker. But I’m not advocating locking such a person up or tying them to a post and whipping them or even levying a fine against them. I don’t think any libertarians that I know of are calling for someone to be punished by the force of law just for having those views. Do they have some kind of property right to the nomination? I don’t think so. So why should I feel bad about not supporting a candidate like that?

    You’re missing the point. You asked me to demonstrate that there are self-described libertarians for whom offensive speech is worse than aggression. I pointed out that there were many people who were willing to support Johnson and Weld, in spite of their frequent and significant advocacy of aggression. In other words, those deviations from the NAP were not deal breakers for the people who supported them. Now, assuming that the rhetoric used by my hypothetical candidate would have been a deal breaker for at least some of those same people (you’re not questioning that assumption, are you?), then I have demonstrated that yes, there are in fact self-described libertarians who consider offensive speech to be worse than aggression.

  238. langa

    I would have been just as upset with Landham and just as unsatisfied with the prospect of him remaining on the ballot as an LP candidate if he had promoted genocide and nationalization of industries without using slurs. It’s true that I would have also been upset with us having a candidate who merely used slurs in his interviews, even if he never advocated for such destructive policies. In his case it was both, so I am not sure how you are arriving at the conclusion that it was the slurs and not the policies that were a bigger deal to people…

    I’m getting it from the discussion here on IPR. I distinctly remember everyone was going on and on about how the interview made us look like a bunch of bigots, and I specifically chimed in to point out that while, yes, that was bad, it was even worse (from a libertarian standpoint, at least) that he was making us look like a bunch of warmongers/socialists.

    Of course, I agree that the LP shouldn’t nominate candidates who make bigoted comments, but we also shouldn’t nominate candidates who spit in the face of libertarian principles. Yet there seems to be far more tolerance in the LP, and here at IPR, for the latter than for the former.

  239. langa

    People on this board, people in the LNC want to fucking spend their time analyzing the motivations of the people on the street? What the fuck is wrong w/ you? Personally, I’m glad there are people on the street, masses of them, protesting this fascist canactuallydoabe. Is libertarianism, the LP, a mere parody? You know the type that will rant about a nickel tax on a snicker’s bar as theft and slavery, but when a Mussolini dilettante straight outta a 1980’s Arnold Dystopian flick is barking about re-shaping America into one beating heart, it’s instead going to lurch into banal digression: oh, oh, oh, but what about safe space leftists at Swarthmore College??????????????????????

    Wake up, dude. You’re worried that Trump’s rhetoric reminds you of Mussolini? Meanwhile, you’re ignoring the fact that every President in my lifetime (40 years) has actually behaved like Mussolini. That is to say, they have all been thoroughly committed to doing as much as they could possibly get away with to promote imperialism abroad and plutocracy at home. The main difference I see between them and Trump is that Trump is more honest about his intentions. They both piss on your leg, but Obama, Bush, etc., tell you it’s raining, while Trump just comes out and says, “Hey, I’m about to piss on your leg.” The rhetoric is different, but the result is the same. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

  240. langa

    I know. But after all these years I’ve never been clear on what your name means

    Good. That’s why I chose it.

  241. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I have demonstrated that yes, there are in fact self-described libertarians who consider offensive speech to be worse than aggression”

    No, you’ve demonstrated that yes, you’re at least as vulnerable as anyone else to non sequitur.

  242. robert capozzi

    Frum tweet that dL linked to: The president of the United States has the power to end human life on earth. It’s important that he not be disconnected from reality.

    1dL: …we have to sufficiently propitiate a fickle, vain overlord to avoid human extinction.

    2dL: …if you haven’t advanced to the mental age of 5 years old, I’m not going to debate this further. I can’t help you.

    Me: Perhaps the confusion is what you linked to. Maybe you intended a different tweet or something, because there’s nothing remotely like “propitiate” in the Frum tweet.

    As for my mental age, I’m sorry you feel that way. Have you ever noticed in your travels that people often attack — sometimes falsely — others for their own perceived flaws? It’s called psychological projection, and it’s quite common.

  243. dL

    As for my mental age, I’m sorry you feel that way. Have you ever noticed in your travels that people often attack — sometimes falsely — others for their own perceived flaws? It’s called psychological projection, and it’s quite common.

    Yes…In this case, however, the term “apparent 5 year olds in the room” refers to the inability to read between the lines, although in this instance it doesn’t refer to actual IQ level. Instead it refers to someone playing a literalist contrarian schtick to the point of acting like a 5 year old. The read between the lines is obvious(what Frum meant): Trump’s staff have to properly negotiate his narcissistic conceit to avoid a POTUS delusional disconnect, the implicit threat of that being human extinction by nuclear holocaust.

    As I said earlier, I’m not going to babysit intentional imperceptiveness.

  244. dL

    Wake up, dude. You’re worried that Trump’s rhetoric reminds you of Mussolini? Meanwhile, you’re ignoring the fact that every President in my lifetime (40 years) has actually behaved like Mussolini.

    Actually, they haven’t behaved like Mussolini. I wouldn’t equate Jimmy Carter to Mussolini. Nor Clinton. Nor Reagan…Might have to go back to FDR to get a better presidential parallel. What it has been is proto-fascist, with an attendant security/legal apparatus that has threatened an almost inevitable 1930’s style fascism.
    Empire is one thing. But we have not had a massive internal crackdown on political dissent. As bad as things have been, they can get much worse. Much worse. To the point that you would be quite fearful/hesitant to post things on a public forum that we are posting right now.

  245. dL

    I pointed out that there were many people who were willing to support Johnson and Weld, in spite of their frequent and significant advocacy of aggression.

    I agree. But that’s over and done with. It’s a red herring to the current situation. You are actually following the pattern of how the fascists respond to accusations of fascism. Very few will say: “yeah, we’re fascists. We’re here to impose tyranny and we just by and large enjoy cracking skulls.” No, they will go off on some perceived equivalent transgression. They will say something exactly like: “oh, but what about leftist safe spaces at Oberlin College” in response to government cracking skulls. Fascists always claim they are the victims, in case you haven’t noticed.

  246. robert capozzi

    dL: Instead it refers to someone playing a literalist contrarian schtick to the point of acting like a 5 year old.

    me: Prior to my recovery from Randian-Rothbardianism, I believe I was an excellent between-the-line reader. But sometimes I would build entire scenarios of how things would unfold, and frankly I was incorrect far too often. For me, the childish mentality is to fantasize excessively, mostly because it’s unreliable, but also because it often leads to either despondency or paranoia.

    Watch some Alex Jones to see what I mean.

    Ls tend to be a glum bunch, in part because they project how they think how the world ought to be onto what the world is and its apparent trajectory, and that bums them out, big time.

    Lao Tzu would be an excellent antidote for this malady. Anti-statist, yet content.

  247. dL

    me: Prior to my recovery from Randian-Rothbardianism, I believe I was an excellent between-the-line reader. But sometimes I would build entire scenarios of how things would unfold, and frankly I was incorrect far too often. For me, the childish mentality is to fantasize excessively, mostly because it’s unreliable, but also because it often leads to either despondency or paranoia.

    lol…”reading between the lines” in this instance refers more to the 140 twitter character limit than divining secret insight from obscure public statements. Not something I came up with. It is something I got directly from watching Morning Joe and CNN clips that have come across my social media timeline. I’m merely repeating what I’m sure is ubiquitous commentary on the boob tube RE: the inability of Trump’s team to navigate political reality w/ him.

    Watch some Alex Jones to see what I mean.

    Btw, when you write:

    “Have you ever noticed in your travels that people often attack — sometimes falsely — others for their own perceived flaws? It’s called psychological projection, and it’s quite common,”

    you sure you are not referring to yourself there, buddy. I’m not big on Conspiracy Theories, never have watched Alex Jones. I’m a student of Rational Choice, not conspiracy theories. Don’t need them to make sense of the world. I regard them as extraneous clutter. If you once a big conspiracy theorist, well that’s you. You seem to want to categorize other people into the thing you used to be. I’m not a rothbardian. Never was a rothbardian. i read some of rand’s novels as a teenager, but I was never an Objectivist. If you want to know what i was in a previous life, say in the 1990s, it would have been much more Chicago School/Cato(with a strong civil libertarian/cyber libertarian streak). And that was mainly from the university library in college. I had little contact w/ politics outside of reason.com. For me, it was sex, drugs ,clubbin and hacker/cracker forums. I was only radicalized in my current life b/c of 9-11, WoT,Iraq War, bank bailouts, NSA spying. it wasn’t by reading some NAP moral argument.

  248. Thomas L. Knapp

    Matt,

    I suspect there’s quite a bit of election fatigue. I haven’t gone back to see what January of 2009 and January of 2013 looked like, but even if it didn’t show in those years, this was one king-hell ball-buster of an election cycle.

  249. George Phillies

    Few posts. People who should be given their own threads, as several were in the past.

    And while Johnson/Weld is over, there are rumors that Weld may want to run again as a Libertarian, perhaps for Senate.

  250. paulie Post author

    Comments are still chugging along. I’ve slacked off on article posting. In the past when I did that other writers picked up the slack, but this time not so much. We have never been this slow with articles. Yes, burnout is a factor. Anyone want to help post articles?

  251. robert capozzi

    dL: you sure you are not referring to yourself there, buddy.

    me: Absolutely, most everyone projects now and then, including me.

    dL: I’m not big on Conspiracy Theories, never have watched Alex Jones.

    me: Interesting. CotOS sounds highly conspiratorial to me. I certainly have the impression that the 89 20-something Founders believed the “cult” was out to get them in some form, don’t you?

    I’ve watched more Jones than I care to admit. I found him curiously entertaining, but I take most of what he says with a grain of salt. I found his interviews of Stone especially interesting last year.

    But one need not be a “conspiracy theorist” to be paranoid. It’s easy to be uneasy when one’s frame of political reference is the NAP. So few places are stateless or even near stateless, so there’s an underlying worry and revulsion in the broad swathe among LM members. This leads to an outsider mentality and often a highly judgmental perspective on those “evil people” who are not Ls. This in turn leads to a kind of political acting out, taking utopian positions that virtually no one would ever take seriously, even Ls. No one paying attention expects unilateral disarmament or abolition of taxes or the Fed to happen, yet these sorts of proposals keep being made, year after year, decade after decade. All with zero effect.

  252. paulie Post author

    However, you do have a duty to refrain from hurting (or, if you prefer, from harming) anyone else.

    You can harm someone with words. In fact, you yourself said that threats of aggression are aggression. I’m still curious whether you really consider running for office or other political advocacy that is anything other than strictly libertarian to be in and of itself an act of aggression, since it’s a threat of aggression, however real or not? What forms of retaliatory or preventive force do you think are called for to keep such threats from being carried out?

    You said:

    he was threatening to commit aggression if elected. He was saying, “If you give me the power to do so, I will use violence to force people to do work that they don’t want to do.” Threatening to commit aggression is itself a form of aggression.

    Now, you say:

    Now, having said that, I agree, of course, that offensive speech should not be punished the same as aggression. But for a different reason. Offensive speech does not objectively harm someone in the same way that murder, rape, theft, and so forth do. Rather, it is a breach of etiquette, akin to farting in public, or severely berating your waiter for some minor mistake, or using profanity in front of a clergyman, or whatever.

    I’m tempted to say make up your mind. But really, words range along a spectrum, from imminent threats to using profanity in inappropriate settings. Somewhere in between is language that dehumanizes people. Before nazis could commit genocide in reality, they had to convince a nation that whole ethnic groups and other broad classes of people were less than human. A lot of Trump’s rhetoric is along such lines.

    Trump’s position makes his words matter more. When Trump, freelance billionaire blowhard, says the US regime should torture people and kill their families, bomb the shit out of countries and take their oil, that’s free speech. When he says it as a candidate, it’s more concerning, and while I would not go so far as to say that it’s actual aggression, it’s cause for worry. When he says it as potus, it’s even more worrisome. Right now you have his words being taken with Arabic subtitles and circulated widely in the Muslim world. That’s going to cause terrorist acts to happen, and it may cause anti-American regimes to come to power in Muslim nations. What will the Trump regime’s response be? And so on.

  253. paulie Post author

    I’m getting it from the discussion here on IPR. I distinctly remember everyone was going on and on about how the interview made us look like a bunch of bigots, and I specifically chimed in to point out that while, yes, that was bad, it was even worse (from a libertarian standpoint, at least) that he was making us look like a bunch of warmongers/socialists.

    Here you go: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/07/sonny-landham-calls-for-genocide-of-all-arabs/

    I was addressing policy then as now.

  254. paulie Post author

    What is a langa?

    The voice of reason at IPR.

    And modesty, clearly 🙂

    BTW, who were you replying to? I see only one side of the conversation.

  255. paulie Post author

    You’re worried that Trump’s rhetoric reminds you of Mussolini?

    Why, yes. Many other people seem to have noticed the similarity as well.

    Meanwhile, you’re ignoring the fact that every President in my lifetime (40 years) has actually behaved like Mussolini. That is to say, they have all been thoroughly committed to doing as much as they could possibly get away with to promote imperialism abroad and plutocracy at home.

    He’s kicking it up a few notches. Maybe more than a few.

    The main difference I see between them and Trump is that Trump is more honest about his intentions. They both piss on your leg, but Obama, Bush, etc., tell you it’s raining, while Trump just comes out and says, “Hey, I’m about to piss on your leg.” The rhetoric is different, but the result is the same. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    They tell you it’s raining and piss on your leg. Trump tells you he’ll piss on your leg, pisses on your legs, then kneecaps you and kicks you in the nuts. Meet the new boss, even worse than the old boss.

  256. paulie Post author

    I know. But after all these years I’ve never been clear on what your name means

    Good. That’s why I chose it.

    Again not seeing the comment you are responding to. What’s going on here?

  257. paulie Post author

    The president of the United States has the power to end human life on earth. It’s important that he not be disconnected from reality.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/26/doomsday-clock-end-world-nuclear-weapons-climate-change-donald-trump/97077736/

    Doomsday Clock ticks closer to apocalypse and 1 person is to blame

    Scientists moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight on Thursday amid increasing worries over nuclear weapons and climate change.

    Each year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a nonprofit that sets the clock, decides whether the events of the previous year pushed humanity closer or further from destruction. The symbolic clock is now two-and-a-half minutes from midnight, the closest it’s been to midnight since 1953, when the hydrogen bomb was first tested. Scientists blamed a cocktail of threats ranging from dangerous political rhetoric to the potential of nuclear threat as the catalyst for moving the clock closer towards doomsday.

    “This year’s Clock deliberations felt more urgent than usual […]”

    While many threats played into the decision to move the clock 30 seconds forward from where it was in 2016, one person in particular prompted the scientists to act.

    “Never before has the Bulletin decided to advance the clock largely because of the statements of a single person. But when that person is the new president of the United States, his words matter,” David Titley and Lawrence M. Krauss of the Bulletin wrote in an New York Times op-ed.

    Not a week into the Trump administration and we’re almost here:

  258. paulie Post author

    As bad as things have been, they can get much worse. Much worse. To the point that you would be quite fearful/hesitant to post things on a public forum that we are posting right now.

    Or even privately, since universal surveillance and pattern recognition is now feasible. Even brain scans are now becoming possible. And we don’t even know how advanced some of the technology may already be if it’s classified.

  259. paulie Post author

    Look, I don’t doubt that, as at any large scale protest, there may be a few people whose agenda differs from that of the majority. But if you look at the reasons the organizers gave for the protests in the first place, they weren’t about Trump’s policies not being libertarian enough. They were about his rhetoric hurting people’s feelings.

    The blurb posted on a website by a few organizers hardly represents the reasons of millions of people who showed up. It’s absurd to assume that it does. Furthermore, I think you place the emphasis on the wrong word. Let’s try it like this:

    The rhetoric of the past election cycle has insulted, demonized, and threatened many of us – immigrants of all statuses, Muslims and those of diverse religious faiths, people who identify as LGBTQIA, Native people, Black and Brown people, people with disabilities, survivors of sexual assault – and our communities are hurting and scared. We are confronted with the question of how to move forward in the face of national and international concern and fear.

    Ironically, you were the one who said that threats of aggression are aggression. What this paragraph clearly said was that many people have good reason to fear that the rhetoric of the campaign will become the policy of the new regime and that the guns of government will be turned on us to enforce it. That’s a lot different than your characterization of it as just being women whose feelings are hurt because Trump uses crude language about women in his personal life. We are clearly talking about policies, not just words, here, and many of these policies are ones on which libertarians agree with the protesters.

    The campaign rhetoric included things like rounding up and deporting millions of people, putting millions more on regime watch lists, using torture and the execution of family members, occupying countries and stealing their national resources, trade wars which can lead to actual wars, and empowering police to be even more violent, racist, brutal and abusive than they have been. It’s not just “hurt feelings” to be deeply worried about such rhetoric being put into action by the new regime.

  260. paulie Post author

    CotOS sounds highly conspiratorial to me.

    Well, some of it exists behind a shroud of “national security” secrecy, but a lot of it is right out in the open.

    I certainly have the impression that the 89 20-something Founders believed the “cult” was out to get them in some form, don’t you?

    It is.

    No one paying attention expects unilateral disarmament or abolition of taxes or the Fed to happen, yet these sorts of proposals keep being made, year after year, decade after decade. All with zero effect.

    Well people said that for year after year, decade after decade, and even century after century about ideas such as peasants having rights, ending legal chattel slavery, women voting, the abolition of absolute monarchy, separating church and state, and so on. Yet those sort of proposals kept being made, year after year, decade after decade. All with zero effect. Until they had an effect. Not that any of those struggles are by any means over, but they are no longer utopian ideas. So, I remain optimistic in the long term, about our radical ideas of today. However, I admit to being less optimistic than I used to be that there even will be a long term of any kind at all, what with a 70-year old president with nuclear launch codes and a maturity level that combines the worst aspects of a two year old and a middle schooler.

  261. dL

    me: Interesting. CotOS sounds highly conspiratorial to me.

    probably b/c you are in still in recovery…

    I certainly have the impression that the 89 20-something Founders believed the “cult” was out to get them in some form, don’t you?

    I have no idea what you mean by “the 89 20-something founders.” Is that some previous conspiracy you uncovered back in your days as a conspiracy theorist?

    I’ve watched more Jones than I care to admit. I found him curiously entertaining, but I take most of what he says with a grain of salt.

    MOST??? lol

    But one need not be a “conspiracy theorist” to be paranoid. It’s easy to be uneasy when one’s frame of political reference is the NAP. So few places are stateless or even near stateless, so there’s an underlying worry and revulsion in the broad swathe among LM members.

    Well, the shadow economy makes up roughly 1/4 of the world’s trade. So your statement that virtually nothing exists outside of the purview of the state is categorically false. I spent a lot of years in that economy and I can flatly say I never ran into one philosophical NAP adherent that I know of. However, there was a healthy degree of paranoia shared by everyone. For good reason. There is considerable resources being directed to put you in jail for engaging in that economy. Now that would be an example of an open conspiracy.

    This leads to an outsider mentality and often a highly judgmental perspective on those “evil people” who are not Ls. This in turn leads to a kind of political acting out, taking utopian positions that virtually no one would ever take seriously, even Ls. No one paying attention expects unilateral disarmament or abolition of taxes or the Fed to happen, yet these sorts of proposals keep being made, year after year, decade after decade. All with zero effect.

    Actually, I get the sense that you are projecting your own autobiography onto everyone else. That may well have been the way you used to think. But if you think everyone thinks like that, libertarian or otherwise, you need to get out more.

  262. dL

    Doomsday Clock ticks closer to apocalypse and 1 person is to blame

    Obviously the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists are paranoid NAPsters who have spent one evening too many cogsucking Rothbard.

  263. paulie Post author

    I have no idea what you mean by “the 89 20-something founders.” Is that some previous conspiracy you uncovered back in your days as a conspiracy theorist?

    Robert means the attendees at the first LP national convention who put “cult of the omnipotent state” in the statement of principles and created a 7/8 threshold to change it. This event retroactively triggered and traumatized Robert and he continues to be in mourning about it today, after decades. Robert apparently believes that if it were not for the LP’s Statement of Principles we would have become a much bigger party with a much greater impact on public policy, if not an outright major party on par with the Democrats and Republicans by now.

  264. robert capozzi

    dL: Well, the shadow economy makes up roughly 1/4 of the world’s trade. So your statement that virtually nothing exists outside of the purview of the state is categorically false.

    me: Of course. In fact, I suspect the 1/4 is low in the sense that everyone’s bargaining in all human interaction, and most of it “exists outside the purview” of the state. (I’d substitute “happens” for “exists,” since behavior is an act, not existence.) I’ve heard this concept from NAPsters before, and I don’t think it works. The underground economy might be viewed as “unchecked” or “unregulated” by the State, but that’s not a helpful way to look at it. One could go way off the grid in, say, MT, but one would still be in the US. The Unabomber, for ex., went off the grid, but when he did his bombings, he caught the attention of the State and his unlawful act was prosecuted. He was outside the State until he got the authorities attention, and they brought his aberrant behavior to an end.

    The rule of law over a territory is porous, yes. There is a balance between allowing individual liberty even though it sometimes leads to hurtful behavior and maintaining domestic tranquility. Too much law enforcement might be tranquil in a sense but it would be highly expensive and would choke innovation and be an all-around bummer. Too little law enforcement and there’s not enough domestic tranquility to operate a vibrant civil society.

    The law is a signal, giving us guidelines about what behaviors are unacceptable. Murder, for ex., is signalled to us as being something that, if done, leads to a loss of liberty for the murderer. Now it IS true that the latter-day Spooners did not agree to the law against murder. Some of them might believe that murder is justified. And while that belief might be true for Spooners, my sense is the vast majority don’t agree with the Spooners.

  265. robert capozzi

    pf: Robert apparently believes that if it were not for the LP’s Statement of Principles we would have become a much bigger party with a much greater impact on public policy, if not an outright major party on par with the Democrats and Republicans by now.

    me: Almost entirely fair and accurate. I would not say “would have become.” I would say that the SoP chokes the possibility of the LP challenging the Rs and Ds in a meaningful way today, certainly. Deleting it would allow the LP to become a lessarchist party vs a NAPster party, and lessarchy might well be an attractive third way.

    NAPsterism, while charming in its simplicity, is obviously unworkable in this time and place. Should the State be rolled back sufficiently, perhaps alternative institutions could evolve, allowing for stateless NAPsterism to be viable somewhere way down the road.

  266. Andy

    “George Phillies
    January 26, 2017 at 21:23
    ‘Few posts. People who should be given their own threads, as several were in the past.’

    And while Johnson/Weld is over, there are rumors that Weld may want to run again as a Libertarian, perhaps for Senate.”

    NO F’ING WAY!!! Kick this ASSHOLE out of the Libertarian Party. Seriously.

  267. Tony From Long Island

    And while Johnson/Weld is over, there are rumors that Weld may want to run again as a Libertarian, perhaps for Senate.”

    I have heard no such rumors, but that would be great! Warren / Weld / Schilling ? Fun stuff!

    It would guarantee that Senator Warren gets re-elected but at least Weld would be a counter-weight to the hate-mongering of Curt Schilling. He would do quite well

  268. Tony From Long Island

    ” . . . . Robert apparently believes that if it were not for the LP’s Statement of Principles we would have become a much bigger party with a much greater impact on public policy . . . “

    I agree

  269. paulie Post author

    The Unabomber, for ex., went off the grid, but when he did his bombings, he caught the attention of the State and his unlawful act was prosecuted. He was outside the State until he got the authorities attention, and they brought his aberrant behavior to an end.

    Well, you may get the attention of criminal gangs or freelance criminals as well, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you live under their rule. Of course, engaging in criminal activities yourself increases the chances you will attract the attention of other criminals, criminal gangs, and the state.

    Too little law enforcement and there’s not enough domestic tranquility to operate a vibrant civil society.

    True in a sense, but I would not presume that a monopoly is the only way to bring that about.

    Additionally, many parts of the world don’t have much of a regime presence. Granted, they tend to be poor countries, but I don’t believe that is why they are poor. In many parts of Africa, for example, the national regimes never are heard from except that the army will every once in a while pass through a village, do some raping and looting, maybe a little property destruction, and move on. Otherwise they may as well not exist. You wouldn’t get that idea from looking at a map of the world, which colors all these areas as the territory of one regime or another, but that’s the reality on the ground. And Africa is not the only place like that.

    My working hypothesis is that what regimes add to the equation in the more developed regions, while it is more subtle than the situation in parts of Africa that I described, has on balance essentially the same effect. That is, they add nothing but theft, violence and property destruction to the overall health, welfare and security of a society. To the extent that it appears otherwise, it’s only because their force(d) monopoly prevents other, better, non-monopoly solutions to the problems it purports to try to solve or assuage.

  270. paulie Post author

    Regarding Weld rumors, they may well be true. On a conference call with monthly pledgers earlier this week, Nick Sarwark mentioned that Weld is likely to take a prominent active role in the LP moving forward, unlike Gary Johnson. No specifics that I remember on that were discussed. Senatorial and presidential runs seem entirely plausible.

    Getting him kicked out of the party seems highly unlikely, if that is even within the bylaws, which is debatable. I remember there was some talk of getting Phillies kicked out in 2008-9 but it may not have stood up had they done it. I know some people have been kicked out of state parties, but I’m not aware of anyone who has ever been kicked out of the national LP. And even if it’s possible in theory, it seems highly unlikely in practice here.

    If Clinton would have won, I think Weld would have either been back in the NSGOP helping Romney rebuild the party, or getting some kind of appointment in the Clinton administration. But with Trump in office and Democrats likely moving more in a Bernie direction ideologically, becoming prominent in the LP with hopes of leading a bunch of moderate Republicans and perhaps moderate Democrats into the LP may be just the thing for him.

  271. paulie Post author

    ” . . . . Robert apparently believes that if it were not for the LP’s Statement of Principles we would have become a much bigger party with a much greater impact on public policy . . . “

    I agree

    That’s silly. No kind of alt party, of any ideology, moderate or extreme, has been more successful in a sustained way in US politics than the LP in the last 80 years. There have been flash in the pan or cult of personality type parties that have eclipsed the LP briefly and then quickly collapsed or virtually collapsed, there are sustained party efforts that lag behind the LP, and there are the much diminished leftovers of prominent alt parties.

    While there have been many attempts to establish prominent moderate parties, they have all either failed or faded pretty quickly. It may be that a moderate agenda is just not inspiring enough to sustain the difficulties of continuous alt party organizing.

    The LP is judged primarily on its candidates, and on one on one interactions. To some extent it’s judged by people identified with the libertarian label who are not even in the LP at all. And, while I have seen some attempts by opponents of the LP to smear the LP and its candidates by quoting from the platform to make us look like crazy extremists, I don’t remember the SoP being ever used that way. It’s just not prominent enough to have the kind of effect that Robert, and apparently Tony, think it has.

    To the extent that the LP is attacked on its platform, our job should be teaching our candidates to be rhetorically skilled at defending our positions and pivoting the argument, not at turning tail and running away from them. But since very little such internal education takes place, we do get a lot of candidates that run on a less than fully libertarian platform of issues, and the party very rarely penalizes any of them for that.

    Thus, I find it to be extremely unlikely that the SoP is what holds the party back, for a variety of reasons.

  272. Robert Capozzi

    pf: I would not presume that a monopoly is the only way to bring that about.

    me: Sure, it’s not the “only” way, just as Star Trek transporter might be a better way to travel than by air or car. If there was an opportunity to experiment with a non-monopoly means to maintain a baseline peacekeeping mechanism in a territory, I’d be open to running such an experiment.

    pf: And, while I have seen some attempts by opponents of the LP to smear the LP and its candidates by quoting from the platform to make us look like crazy extremists, I don’t remember the SoP being ever used that way. It’s just not prominent enough to have the kind of effect that Robert, and apparently Tony, think it has.

    me: I’ve not shared HOW the SoP serves as a millstone. My view is that the foundation of the party is shaky and based on untruth. Most casual passersby don’t for the most part assess just how insane the SoP is, I agree.

    What the SoP does do is limit non-NAPster lessarchists from using the LP as a platform to advance liberty. True believing NAPsters are able to employ various tactics to hamstring the organization by insisting on towing the NAP plumbline, or at least not violating the plumbline. When attempting to package an L approach, non-NAPster Ls have to tip-toe around the NAP and its adherents. This weakens the messaging capability of these lessarchists.

    Some — like the J/W ticket — try to ignore some of the most restrictive aspects of the NAPster approach, and that tends to inflame and energize the True Believers.

  273. paulie Post author

    What the SoP does do is limit non-NAPster lessarchists from using the LP as a platform to advance liberty.

    That doesn’t appear to be the case. I see plenty of non-NAPster lessarchists at LP meetings, and running as our candidates. Some of them, I am not too sure are even lessarchists, much less NAPsters. Perhaps you are referring to the LP many years ago. If so, it isn’t the same now.

    True believing NAPsters are able to employ various tactics to hamstring the organization by insisting on towing the NAP plumbline, or at least not violating the plumbline.

    Aside from the “hamstringing” characterization, which I disagree with, I see the plumbline violated constantly, so even if we were to agree that it’s “hamstringing” it just has not been effective in practice. For example, the Johnson-Weld and Barr-Root campaigns did their own thing, and didn’t feel constrained by the NAP at any time that I could see. The same is true of many downballot candidates.

    Some — like the J/W ticket — try to ignore some of the most restrictive aspects of the NAPster approach, and that tends to inflame and energize the True Believers.

    Well, yes, without the non-aggression principle, I can easily see the LP following a tangent and getting on board with, say, a Burqa ban or a border wall or whatever else. I think you underestimate how easy it is for us to become like the Reform Party in 2000, and then soon after that like the Reform Party post-2000. What you see as hamstringing I see as the foundation that keeps us even marginally within the lessarchist orbit at all. If anything, its gravitational pull is not strong enough.

  274. Robert Capozzi

    PF, life, including politics, is full of risks. When something is not working, most find that adjusting one’s approach and even one’s core assumptions is called for.

    It’s not JUST the SoP, which is filled with falsehoods and overstatements, although it does come from a positive sentiment. It’s also the ByLaws. Those two lead to the platform, which is pretty embarrassing document.

    I do note that I am not a NAPster, and I thought the burqa ban was a real bad idea. I suspect most of the Orange Line Mafia felt the same way about the subject, and for the most part I don’t think they pull out the rosaries whilst reciting the omnipotent cult prayer each morning, either. 😉

    The idea of amendable GENERAL principles to serve as a North Star makes tons of sense to me. Having a booby-trapped SPECIFIC principle that leads to literalistic, unworkable, unrealistic, unachievable positions is not such a good idea.

  275. Andy

    “paulie Post author
    January 27, 2017 at 12:04
    Regarding Weld rumors, they may well be true. On a conference call with monthly pledgers earlier this week, Nick Sarwark mentioned that Weld is likely to take a prominent active role in the LP moving forward, unlike Gary Johnson. No specifics that I remember on that were discussed. Senatorial and presidential runs seem entirely plausible.

    Getting him kicked out of the party seems highly unlikely, if that is even within the bylaws, which is debatable.”

    There needs to be serious opposition to Bill Weld in the Libertarian Party. Those of us who oppose Weld, and I think there are a lot of us out there, need to let it be known to Weld that he is NOT WELCOME in the party, and we need to let it be known to the world, and especially to the media (both mainstream and alternative), that Bill Weld is NOT one of us, and that we believe him to be destructive to be destructive to our goals, and that we wish for him to be gone from the Libertarian Party.

    Who all reading this is with me on this? Add your thoughts on this subject.

    What happened to Weld going back to the Republican Party? During the campaign he said that he was planning to go back to the Republican Party to help rebuild it with Mitt Romney. Did Trump’s victory change this plan or what?

    I don’t really give a rat’s ass where Bill Weld goes, just as long as he GETS THE HELL OUT OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY.

  276. paulie Post author

    What happened to Weld going back to the Republican Party? During the campaign he said that he was planning to go back to the Republican Party to help rebuild it with Mitt Romney. Did Trump’s victory change this plan or what?

    I believe so, yes.

  277. dL

    ” . . . . Robert apparently believes that if it were not for the LP’s Statement of Principles we would have become a much bigger party with a much greater impact on public policy . . . “

    Nonsense…When Bob Capozzi publishes a paper overturning Duverger’s law for winer take all plurality voting systems, then I might give consideration to what he is saying. Until that day, his objections are the rantings of a crackpot a la the vagaries of perpetual motion cranks.

    The rule of law over a territory is porous, yes. There is a balance between allowing individual liberty even though it sometimes leads to hurtful behavior and maintaining domestic tranquility. Too much law enforcement might be tranquil in a sense but it would be highly expensive and would choke innovation and be an all-around bummer. Too little law enforcement and there’s not enough domestic tranquility to operate a vibrant civil society.

    There is no balance between liberty and order. Liberty is the mother of order. Of course, you don’t have to subscribe to that. But non-subscription would disqualify you from being a libertarian. Non-libertarians belong in another party, another movement. I would wish you well RE: the Lao Tzu Lessarchy Party.

  278. paulie Post author

    When something is not working, most find that adjusting one’s approach and even one’s core assumptions is called for.

    Then I guess you must think that your advocacy is working.

    I do note that I am not a NAPster, and I thought the burqa ban was a real bad idea.

    That’s just an example. The derailing of the LP could come in many different directions, perhaps many different directions all at once, again a la Reform Party death race 2000.

  279. robert capozzi

    dL: Liberty is the mother of order.

    me: I agree, I think. Liberty is the default position, but liberty with no rule of law becomes a license to destroy liberty. Just ask the Unabomber. Or any criminal.

    dL: Non-libertarians belong in another party, another movement. I would wish you well RE: the Lao Tzu Lessarchy Party.

    me: Yes, I’ve been told that before by NAPsters. Catholics once felt the same way about eating a meat other than fish on Fridays. I found that to be similarly rigid and dysfunctional practice as well. 😉

  280. robert capozzi

    pf: Then I guess you must think that your advocacy is working.

    me: Feeling pretty good about it, even in the toughest of rooms here in the NAPster Lounge!

    Ever open-minded though, willing to make adjustments. You?

  281. paulie Post author

    Feeling pretty good about it, even in the toughest of rooms here in the NAPster Lounge!

    Year after year, you keep making your proposals…

    Ever open-minded though, willing to make adjustments. You?

    I trust but verify my premeses and conclusions.

    Liberty is the default position, but liberty with no rule of law becomes a license to destroy liberty. Just ask the Unabomber. Or any criminal.

    Speaking as a former professional criminal, many business opportunities arose from the self-styled “rule of law” that was anything but.

  282. dL

    When something is not working, most find that adjusting one’s approach and even one’s core assumptions is called for.

    Quite a few libertarians do. They reject politics, which is the more logical re-evaluation of ones’s approach given there hasn’t any political party realignment in the United States since the civil war. Going on 180 YEARS now. Certainly, republican lite isn’t going to cut it. Indeed, respectability politics today is that the United States is under fascist control. That is the MAINSTREAM position. Yesterday’s libertarian extremism is today’s mainstream position(boy, how quickly things can change). Today’s Republican Lite Cargo Cult is yesterday’s news. You’re old news. What kills me that in age of Trump the only good news is the opportunity for the libertarianism and the LP, but the LP appears more than willing and able to blow that as well. Time for the Radical Caucus to take control of the LP. The Radical Caucus is today’s Respectability Politics!!!

  283. Andy

    “paulie Post author
    January 27, 2017 at 15:43

    What happened to Weld going back to the Republican Party? During the campaign he said that he was planning to go back to the Republican Party to help rebuild it with Mitt Romney. Did Trump’s victory change this plan or what?”
    I believe so, yes.”

    Like I said above, I don’t really give a rat’s ass where Bill Weld goes, just as long as HIS ASS IS OUT OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY. He can go play in rush hour traffic blindfolded for all I care.

    Anyone who calls themselves a Libertarian and who supports Bill Weld is either a) really fucking stupid, or b) NOT really any kind of libertarian.

  284. John

    it doesn’t sound like that’s about to happen. It sounds like his role in the Libertarian Party is only about to increase.

  285. Andy

    “John
    January 27, 2017 at 16:40
    it doesn’t sound like that’s about to happen. It sounds like his role in the Libertarian Party is only about to increase.”

    Then this needs to be SQUASHED IMMEDIATELY.

    Which state LP affiliate are you in John? We need people in every LP affiliate to get on board with STOP BILL WELD movement.

    Who all reading this is with me? We need all the help with can get to stop this statist slimeball establishment shill. So don’t be shy, speak up.

  286. dL

    me: Yes, I’ve been told that before by NAPsters. Catholics once felt the same way about eating a meat other than fish on Fridays. I found that to be similarly rigid and dysfunctional practice as well. ?

    Friday meat is one thing. Atheism would be quite another. And I doubt the church’s position has changed much regarding atheists. And why would an atheist want to be hanging around the catholic church other than to destroy it? Why would a non-libertarian be hanging around the LP other than to destroy it?

    You set yourself up to be a fairly easy read, Capozzi. You obviously have issues w/ your former belief system. And you have been looking to exact some type of payback ever since. Not dissimilar to former christians , scientologists or political partisans, though usually they are not still hanging around the church or organization. Typically that would be because the church or organization usually has enough sense not to allow them to hang around to stir up trouble.

  287. Thomas L. Knapp

    “We need people in every LP affiliate to get on board with STOP BILL WELD movement.”

    Not really. If he’s running for office as a Libertarian again prior to 2020, he’s doing so in a single state. It’s that affiliate that needs to stop him, by denying him its nomination.

    My guess would be that he would run in either Massachusetts or New York, and my recollection is that both state LPs nominate by convention. That’s a good thing. It would probably be hard to beat him in a primary.

    Unless LPNY and/or LPMA have been taken over by a new crowd, I doubt that either would nominate Weld for anything. Especially LPNY. They made the mistake of nominating him for public office once and he rewarded them by publicly bending them over and ass-raping them without lube.

  288. Andy

    Tom, I think you are taking the Bill Weld threat too lightly. It was too many people who knew better not doing enough to stop him that led to Bill Weld becoming the the LP’s VP candidate.

    Maybe Weld is trying to get appointed as some kind of official spokesman for the party, or maybe he is trying to weasel his way on to the LNC like Bob Barr did. Maybe he is looking to get hired as a national office staffer (not that he needs the money, but he could use the position to increase his presence in the party).

    Also, I would not automatically assume that the LP’s of Massachusetts or New York would not nominate him. He could just flood their conventions with his stooges and win their nominations, and this assumes that there are no LP members in MA and NY who are unprincipled or naive enough to vote for him, which is not something I would assume.

    Those of us who are outside MA or NY can’t vote on what their state affiliates can do, but we can encourage them to not have anything to do with Weld, and we could donate to Weld’s opposition in those states.

    Whatever Weld is planning, it needs to be made clear that a large number of LP members oppose him.

  289. Andy

    Tom, the LP has party status now in Massachusetts, which means that Weld can get on the ballot in MA by petitioning under the same rules as the D’s and R’s, which means only registered Libertarians and registered unenrolled (as in people registered to vote without a party label) can sign the petition. I think that this does entitle the LP to its own primary in Massachusetts. I am not sure as to whether or not a candidate needs the nomination of the state party to be on the ballot as a Libertarian.

    I could look the law up, but I imagine that George Phillies will be here to fill us in on the details and clear up any confusion over what the process is for candidates in Massachusetts.

  290. robert capozzi

    pf: I trust but verify my premeses and conclusions.

    me: Excellent. Who is the CotOS, then?

    pf: Speaking as a former professional criminal, many business opportunities arose from the self-styled “rule of law” that was anything but.

    me: Yes, I see your point, and I agree. The rule of law should be just, reasonable, comprehensible, and as sparse as possible.

    Do you object to the monopoly State outlawing murder? If so, why so?

  291. robert capozzi

    dL: Yesterday’s libertarian extremism is today’s mainstream position(boy, how quickly things can change).

    me: Evidence, please. It’d be great were it so, but I’m sure not seeing that.

  292. robert capozzi

    dL: You obviously have issues w/ your former belief system.

    me: I see your point. “Issues” would be overstated. It’s mostly a curious hobby for me to challenge the cult that challenges the fictitious cult of the omnipotent state. It’s kinda funny and kinda sad to see how NAPsters attempt to deflect truly radical questions. Having been one, I do have compassion for the syndrome.

    When we start to get to the heart of the matter, the non-sequiturs get pulled out. PF, just above, brings up his drug dealer past as “proof” (or something) that the rule of law is a bad idea, although he profited from it.

    He seems to believe murder is wrong and should be dissuaded by law, but his beef with monopoly states implies that at any time anyone can claim what is or is not lawful. Then he usually claims he’s too busy, leading me to believe he realizes he’s cornered.

    dL: And you have been looking to exact some type of payback ever since.

    me: Now that’s amusing! Your mind-reading abilities need a LOT of work. If I have anything remotely resembling a grudge, it’d be with Rand and Rothbard for veering the Hayekian thought stream FAR off course. But they are dead, and I’m quite at peace about my memories of them. But thank you for your concern.

    dL: Not dissimilar to former christians , scientologists or political partisans, though usually they are not still hanging around the church or organization.

    me: I’m vaguely aware of former scientologists who’ve written books and campaign against that church. Many of the victims of priest pedophiles also campaign against the corruption in the church.

    You’ve not heard about this?

    Of course, IPR is I suspect not all that well read outside the LM and other 3rd party aficionados. I’m not trying to get revenge or anything like that. I vote L or I don’t vote.

    I assure you: You are mistaken.

  293. dL

    dL: Yesterday’s libertarian extremism is today’s mainstream position(boy, how quickly things can change).

    me: Evidence, please. It’d be great were it so, but I’m sure not seeing that.

    Salon: US govt is now fascist
    http://www.salon.com/2017/01/21/congratulations-america-you-did-it-an-actual-fascist-is-now-your-official-president/

    Canadian NDP: Trump/America Fascist
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-leader-tom-mulcair-denounces-trump-calls-him-a-fascist/article33790910/

    TNR: Trump Fascist
    https://newrepublic.com/minutes/124205/yes-donald-trump-fascist

    The Nation: Trump Fascist
    https://www.thenation.com/article/anti-fascist-activists-are-fighting-the-alt-right-in-the-streets/

    Mexico: Trump==Hitler
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/08/31/hitler-and-a-false-prophet-a-quick-guide-to-what-mexicans-think-of-trump/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.3f3bcf61dbf7

    WP: Comparing Trump to Hitler belittles Hitler
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/09/13/dont-compare-donald-trump-to-adolf-hitler-it-belittles-hitler/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.12cdc82a4b40

    WP: Trump is a fascist
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-is-actually-a-fascist/2016/12/09/e193a2b6-bd77-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.8746d592e6e8

    Huffington Post: Trump==fascist
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/state-of-the-nation_us_586c3f93e4b014e7c72ee4c1

    Newsweek: Is the world turning fascist?
    http://www.newsweek.com/world-turning-fascist-and-does-it-matter-541208

    CNN: Trump==Strongman
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/16/opinions/trump-following-authoritarian-playbook-ben-ghiat/

    Guardian: Fascist threat to liberal democracy
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/19/liberal-democracy-trump-angela-merkel-france-netherlands-democratic

    The Daily Banter: Straight Up Fascism
    http://thedailybanter.com/2017/01/trumps-immigrants-list-fascism/

    I could programmatically aggregate an unlimited number of articles, global commentary from all over the political spectrum. Interestingly, the mainstream press may be more apocalyptic at the moment than the libertarian press, sans a few radical libertarian outposts.

  294. robert capozzi

    dL, thanks for all the research and links. But I wasn’t asking for evidence of DJT’s fascism, I was asking for evidence that L extremism is mainstream.

    Has Rachel Maddow called for the abolition of the income tax? Has Wolf Blitzer been calling for the US to break the NATO and SEATO treaties? Has Bill O’Reilly called for the immediate legalization of heroin?

  295. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    Rest assured that if Weld shows his face around the LP again, I’ll do what I can to oppose him.

    If his presence takes the form of seeking to run as a Libertarian for public office, I’ll do whatever’s in my power to prevent him from being nominated … but unless he’s running in my state, what’s in my power is pretty limited. I might make a small contribution to a primary opponent, or contact everyone I know in that affiliate to encourage them to attend a nominating convention and support an opponent or NOTA, or whatever. But ultimately it will have to be the Libertarians in that state who send him packing.

    If he runs for LNC, naturally I’ll oppose him and support an opponent. Unfortunately, he can probably get on the LNC without going to a convention — someone resigns with it already being set up for Weld to be chosen to fill the vacancy. I could be mistaken, but I think that’s how Barr got on the LNC the first time.

  296. dL

    me: I see your point. “Issues” would be overstated. It’s mostly a curious hobby for me to challenge the cult that challenges the fictitious cult of the omnipotent state. It’s kinda funny and kinda sad to see how NAPsters attempt to deflect truly radical questions. Having been one, I do have compassion for the syndrome.

    If you didn’t consistently strawman your opponent’s positions, perhaps it would be overstated. As it is, I don’t think it’s possible to overstate your obsession w/ “NAPsterism.” Nor to point out you practice a deliberate contrarianism that borders on a vulgar moral relativism. It is what it is.

    When we start to get to the heart of the matter, the non-sequiturs get pulled out. PF, just above, brings up his drug dealer past as “proof” (or something) that the rule of law is a bad idea, although he profited from it.

    Actually, I have a drug trafficking past, too. It is brought up NOT as a non sequitur to the rule of law being good or bad, but rather as a counterfactual to your persistent, broken record claims that nothing peaceful is possible outside of the rule of law.

    He seems to believe murder is wrong and should be dissuaded by law, but his beef with monopoly states implies that at any time anyone can claim what is or is not lawful. Then he usually claims he’s too busy, leading me to believe he realizes he’s cornered.

    Everyone thinks murder is wrong. The exceptions are psychopaths and statists.The ones who seem to have propensity of for claiming what it and what is not lawful on the spur of a dime are Presidents and their executive orders.

    RE: Cornered. No, cornered is when I engaged you earlier in a socratic dialog and basically maneuvered into the moral relativist position of denying Pol Pot to be a tyrant. You really don’t have much credibility to argue anything after that re: rule of law, liberty, tyranny , etc. You know if you show up at any libertarian function, they should introduce you as “Robert Capozzi, the man who denied Pol Pot to be a tyrant. Shhhhhhh, let’s all settle down and hear what he has to think!”

    me: I’m vaguely aware of former scientologists who’ve written books and campaign against that church.

    You’ve not heard about this?

    Obviously, I have. I just have not heard about them still hanging out at the Church of Scientology.

  297. Andy

    Tom, that was exactly how Bob Barr got on the LNC (which was the only time Barr was on the LNC). Somebody resigned from the LNC and Barr was appointed to the LNC to fill the vacancy. This happened in December of 2006. It was the same day, or the next day, after Bob Barr joined the Libertarian Party.

    I thought that this was pretty messed up at the time, as Bob Barr had just joined the party, and he had zero record of being a libertarian activist prior to this. I remember thinking, “Shouldn’t people have to prove themselves and earn their way on to the LNC if they are new to the party and movement?”

    I was skeptical of Bob Barr from day one, and I turned out to be right. The same with Wayne Root, Gary Johnson, and Bill Weld.

    Have enough Libertarians learned a lesson from this, or are we going to allow Bill Weld to screw us over for a third time?

  298. dL

    dL, thanks for all the research and links. But I wasn’t asking for evidence of DJT’s fascism, I was asking for evidence that L extremism is mainstream.

    Has Rachel Maddow called for the abolition of the income tax? Has Wolf Blitzer been calling for the US to break the NATO and SEATO treaties? Has Bill O’Reilly called for the immediate legalization of heroin?

    An extremist argument would be: the state is the organization of injustice, hence increase taxes.

    If the mainstream press now shares the premise “the state is the organization of plunder, or the state is the organization of injustice,” the libertarian conclusions, conclusions that you as a non-libertarian called extremist, follow naturally. This is what is meant by “libertarian education.” One of the only bright spots of a Trump presidency . An opportune time for libertarian education. Obviously, you are opposed to libertarian education, which is another reason why your views on things libertarian should be ignored.

  299. robert capozzi

    dL: …broken record claims that nothing peaceful is possible outside of the rule of law.

    me: I’ve made no such claim. Before his bombings, the Unabomber was peaceful for a time, near as we can tell. There are and have been remote places where the rule of law is not State-provided. And, in part because those places tend to be primitive, things are reasonably peaceful there. It didn’t work out so well in Somalia, however.

    Most of humanity has and now live in a State-provided umbrella of a rule of law. This doesn’t mean that people don’t interact according to State rules…this seems to be the source of your confusion. It means that the State is more a nightwatchman at its best. Unfortunately, States don’t restrict themselves to that more appropriate role.

    Separately, I don’t know why you think I think Pol Pot wasn’t a tyrant, because I do. It seems an appropriate and serviceable label. I disagree with those who feel otherwise, but that’s different from them being “wrong” and my being “right.”

  300. dL

    me: I’ve made no such claim.

    yes, you have, repeatedly. The most recent example:

    but liberty with no rule of law becomes a license to destroy liberty. Just ask the Unabomber. Or any criminal.

    As mentioned, the shadow economy is a direct counterfactual refutation. Your usual counter: well, they are doing within state borders, in state territories. So? People fuck every night too within state borders. Does that mean there could be no human fucking without the state? Not only does the shadow economy not avail itself of this “rule of law,” the “rule of law” is actively prosecuting it as a crime. Still it persists, and in some cases, thrives.

    Most of humanity has and now live in a State-provided umbrella of a rule of law.

    Half truths. Roughly 7% of the the humans who have ever lived on earth are alive today. The percentage of those who have been born during the period of the “modern westphalian state” compared to the absolute total would be a lot, but not “most.” Then there is a question of state being a sufficient condition for a “rule of law.” Would the Soviet Union be “rule by law.” East Germany? The full truth is that most have lived under the thumb of rule by decree. Indeed, there are laws, but these laws are usually directed toward the persistence of the ruling status quo and not the facilitation of self-interested peaceful cooperation.

    And I repeat, again, because we have gone over this before…the citation of history or the current status quo as justification for a position is the “Is-Ought fallacy.”

    Separately, I don’t know why you think I think Pol Pot wasn’t a tyrant

    Hmmm…

    So Pol Pot and Idi Amin were not tyrants?

    me: Seems accurate and appropriate to me. Were they “objectively” tyrants? Not necessarily. They probably thought they were not tyrants, on some level. Human-made labels are not objectively true.

    Your position boiled down to there being no objective standard/consensus for tyranny. Since Pol Pot and Pol Pot’s minions(the khmer rouge) didn’t think Pol Pot was a tyrant, Pol Pot was not objectively a tyrant. This reduces to the vulgar moral relativistic position that there are no tyrants. The vulgarness of it is b/c Pol Pot’s regime had to employ a vast internal police to keep power. Pol Pot’s authority was not a morally relativistic exercise.

    Moral relativism is something like: Society A treats animals in way that horrifies society B. But society A does not see it as wrong.

    What moral relativism is NOT: Some dictator in society A is forcing the people in Society A to treat the animals in the specific offending way.

  301. robert capozzi

    dL: People fuck every night too within state borders. Does that mean there could be no human fucking without the state?

    Me: No, of course not. In fact, people breathe without the State as well.

    Perhaps this analogy will help you: a State-provided rule of law is like gravity. It’s ubiquitous, and always there, yet for the most part, few are aware of it in daily life. If the gravity is too high like on Jupiter (and a police state), people couldn’t survive and civil society would not flourish. Too low and people would be bounding around (Somalia or perhaps outer space).

    Those who engage in anti-social (truly) criminal behavior might be people who think they can fly. Unfortunately, if they jump from a 10 story building, gravity will get the best of them.

    dL: Not only does the shadow economy not avail itself of this “rule of law,” the “rule of law” is actively prosecuting it as a crime. Still it persists, and in some cases, thrives.

    Me: Yes, that’s true. Often, the shadow economy illustrates the fact that States are too heavy handed. The demand/need for sex creates a market for prostitutes. Some who control the rulemaking believe that prostitution is sinful, so they outlaw it. Yet, prostitution continues underground.

    Now here’s a little secret for you: Most lawmakers know that prostitution is happening and they don’t expect it to stop. They just want it minimized and in the shadows, mostly for probably guilt-ridden, prudish reasons. Or we can look at speed limits. No one expects people to obey them all the time. There’s no death penalty for driving 56 in a 55 zone. Nor is the death penalty meted out for driving 100 in a 30 zone, either. Speed limits are a check on dangerous behavior, and there’s a common understanding that defining “dangerous behavior” is impossible, so a serviceable line is drawn knowing that there’s tolerance in the enforcement of that line.

    dL: Would the Soviet Union be “rule by law.” East Germany?

    Me: Yes. The rule of law in those cases was far too heavy. It proved unsustainable.

    dL: The full truth is that most have lived under the thumb of rule by decree. Indeed, there are laws, but these laws are usually directed toward the persistence of the ruling status quo and not the facilitation of self-interested peaceful cooperation.

    Me: Again, yes. The rulemaking decrees were too heavy, agreed. Recall that I advocate lessarchy. I would like that experiment to run toward anarchy, which I repeatedly have said might well work if peacekeeping institutions evolved to maintain domestic tranquility..

    dL: This reduces to the vulgar moral relativistic position that there are no tyrants. The vulgarness of it is b/c Pol Pot’s regime had to employ a vast internal police to keep power. Pol Pot’s authority was not a morally relativistic exercise.

    Me: All depends on the frame you employ. I’d say Shakespeare nailed it when he wrote: “…for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” It’s important to recognize the truth that meaning and values are not inherent and not universally true. We make up morality based on elaborate constructs, often unconsciously adopted ones. Right/wrong, good/bad, etc., are not physics.

    You kid yourself if you think they are, I boldly suggest. 😉

  302. Thomas L. Knapp

    “There are and have been remote places where the rule of law is not State-provided. And, in part because those places tend to be primitive, things are reasonably peaceful there. It didn’t work out so well in Somalia, however.”

    I guess that depends on what you mean by “work out so well.” At the height of Somalia’s statelessness, Mogadishu had a lower homicide rate than St. Louis, Chicago or Detroit, and the fastest growing economy in sub-Saharan Africa.

  303. robert capozzi

    tk, it means it was not sustainable. Yes, Mogadishu may well have rivaled Reykjavik in the Year 1000 in terms of being Heaven on earth for a brief, shining moment. Sadly, the stateless vacuum was filled, as vacuums are wont to do.

  304. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    When Guido walks into a new store, brushes back his jacket to make sure the owner sees the butt of his pistol, and says “nice place ya got here, be a shame if anything happened to it,” is Guido “filling a vaccum?”

  305. Robert Capozzi

    TK, if Guido has done so with all the other shops in the area, then yes, in a sense.

    If there is no countervailing force to check Guido, should we be surprised by Guido’s behavior, even if we disapprove of it?

  306. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    So ANY behavior which commonly manifests above a certain frequency threshold is “filling a vaccuum?”

    “Look, if Hitler and Stalin and Mao don’t kill tens of millions of people, SOMEONE will, so quit worrying about it.”

  307. Robert Capozzi

    TK, not sure about “any.” Just because a vacuum is filled, to be clear, doesn’t mean that I approve of the vacuum-filler’s behavior. As a peacenik. I don’t approve of what Guido is doing.

    It kinda sucks that vacuums get filled in a rare Paradis on earth like Somalia, but it was, and it’s entirely predictable that it did.

    Yes?

  308. dL

    It kinda sucks that vacuums get filled in a rare Paradis on earth like Somalia, but it was, and it’s entirely predictable that it did.

    Yes?

    Actually, the US govt has been bombing and escalating secret wars in Somalia for some time now. Rest assured, if there was an anarchist paradise on earth, the US govt would bombing it, and Robert Capozzi would take that as his cue to chime in, “see, anarchy just doesn’t work!”

  309. dL

    dL: Would the Soviet Union be “rule by law.” East Germany?

    Me: Yes. The rule of law in those cases was far too heavy. It proved unsustainable.

    Well, in the literature authoritarianism is typically referred to as “rule by men” as opposed to law. That you see no distinction between the two is actually where we agree, although we obviously come to markedly different conclusions from such a premise. One conclusion is anarchism, the other, state authoritarianism.

    Now here’s a little secret for you: Most lawmakers know that prostitution is happening and they don’t expect it to stop. They just want it minimized and in the shadows, mostly for probably guilt-ridden, prudish reasons.

    Nope. DHS has expanded into prostitution as sex-trafficking. Full blown security enforcement against it now a la the war on drugs.

    Or we can look at speed limits. No one expects people to obey them all the time. There’s no death penalty for driving 56 in a 55 zone. Nor is the death penalty meted out for driving 100 in a 30 zone, either. Speed limits are a check on dangerous behavior, and there’s a common understanding that defining “dangerous behavior” is impossible, so a serviceable line is drawn knowing that there’s tolerance in the enforcement of that line.

    Nope. Speed limits, traffic laws are revenue extraction schemes. Period. There are plenty of places they don’t have them.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aljypA3UdCc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFOo3e0nxSI

  310. dL

    Perhaps this analogy will help you: a State-provided rule of law is like gravity. It’s ubiquitous, and always there, yet for the most part, few are aware of it in daily life. If the gravity is too high like on Jupiter (and a police state), people couldn’t survive and civil society would not flourish. Too low and people would be bounding around (Somalia or perhaps outer space).

    No, gravity has no counterfactuals, applies universally, even in thought experiments. Bad analogy. You are simply committing the Is-Ought fallacy(pointing this out for the nth time). You look around, see mostly territorial monopoly states and conclude: this is they way it ought to be, it has to be.

  311. Robert Capozzi

    DL, no, when I make Ought statements, I keep them general and flexible. There is a fatal conceit, to use Hayek’s term, among NAPSTERS, offering very specific constructs that require a tremendous amount of speculation.

    Notice: without process, there is no result.

    There is no fallacy.

  312. Mark

    How Adolf Trump celebrated Holocaust Remembrance Day…

    …he signed an executive order turning people away so they could go back to war zones in Syria, Iraq, and other nearby nations. In 1939, the US turned back a ship with over 900 refugees trying to escape the holocaust in Europe, the St. Louis. At one point the passengers could see the lights of Miami.

    https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005267

    Following the US government’s refusal to permit the passengers to disembark, the St. Louis sailed back to Europe on June 6, 1939. The passengers did not return to Germany, however. Jewish organizations (particularly the Jewish Joint Distribution Committee) negotiated with four European governments to secure entry visas for the passengers: Great Britain took 288 passengers; the Netherlands admitted 181 passengers, Belgium took in 214 passengers; and 224 passengers found at least temporary refuge in France. Of the 288 passengers admitted by Great Britain, all survived World War II save one, who was killed during an air raid in 1940. Of the 620 passengers who returned to continent, 87 (14%) managed to emigrate before the German invasion of Western Europe in May 1940. 532 St. Louis passengers were trapped when Germany conquered Western Europe. Just over half, 278 survived the Holocaust. 254 died: 84 who had been in Belgium; 84 who had found refuge in Holland, and 86 who had been admitted to France.

    Right now, at least 12 people from middle east nations are being detained in JFK airport pursuant to Trump’s orders.

    http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/27/14413176/st-louis-manifest-reenactment-twitter-account-history

  313. Mark

    Not a single incident of terrorism has ever been carried out in the US by a refugee from any of the nations covered by Herr Drumpf’s diktat.

  314. dL

    DL, no, when I make Ought statements, I keep them general and flexible.

    No you don’t. You said ” a State-provided rule of law is like gravity. It’s ubiquitous, and always there.” You make that analogy by looking at the status quo and from what you think you see from the past. Fallacy stands.

  315. Matt

    Getting news reports that legal US residents who have travelled to other countries are being prevented from returning, indefinitely.

    Agent Trump followed up by reporting to his FSB handler, Vladimir Putin, and receiving followup instructions today.

    We have always been at war with Eastasia.

  316. dL

    Getting news reports that legal US residents who have travelled to other countries are being prevented from returning, indefinitely.

    yep…and the erupting mass protests can no longer be construed as any proggie astroturfing…

  317. dL

    Agent Trump followed up by reporting to his FSB handler, Vladimir Putin, and receiving followup instructions today.

    Of course, this BS is what distracts from the Trump fascism…

  318. Matt

    “yep…and the erupting mass protests can no longer be construed as any proggie astroturfing…”

    People who are determined to be dismissive about any and all concerns with the Trump agenda will always blame Soros, just like some other people will always blame the Koch brothers for any expressions of public opinion that they don’t like.

    “Of course, this BS is what distracts from the Trump fascism…”

    Nope, it is the reality of Trump fascism. Trump has been an admirer of Putin, publicly, for years. He surrounds himself with people who admire Putin, have done business with Putin, have been lobbyists for Putin, etc, such as Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and Rex Tillerson. The US far right has been admiring both Putin and Trump for years. People like Bannon like Putin for ideological reasons. Trump has been manipulated by Putin by flattery, and quite likely by blackmail and bribes as well. Putin and his team openly rooted for Trump to win and cheered when he did. Trump and Putin both have affinity for the European nationalist far right. Trump admires Putin’s crackdowns on opposition media, political parties and protests. Putin regime admitted, publicly to ongoing contact with multiple high placed people in the Trump campaign throughout the election. There have been suspicious contacts *after* the election as well. See comments further up in this thread, or perhaps in another recent thread here, about FBI and other US intelligence agencies investigation Trump-Putin collusion, quite possibly in violation of the Espionage Act, since at least last spring.

    I know you are obsessed with the wikileaks part of this, but honestly wikileaks is a very tiny piece of the evidence of Trump-Putin collusion. I like wikileaks too, and I don’t think they did anything wrong here. Hopefully they will leak a whole bunch of dirt on Trump soon too, such as his tax returns, tapes of him using racial slurs, proof of him engaging in illegal and corrupt practices, and so on. Clinton is no good so no tears shed for her. But now we need to focus on Trump and his ever growing abuses of power.

  319. paulie Post author

    Who is the CotOS, then?

    I’ve given you too many examples to count over the years. At the moment, I guess people stuck in airports because between the time they left and the time they landed their permission to come to this part of North America was revoked for no good reason come to mind as tangible evidence of an omnipotent state. The cult is the belief system that sustains it.

    Do you object to the monopoly State outlawing murder? If so, why so?

    I don’t object to murder being outlawed. I object to an enforcement monopoly which is highly inefficient, hurts lots of bystanders and wrongly accused, has little accountability, and “outlaws” “crimes” without victims in the course of enforcing whatever good laws it enforces, doing countless things to foster criminality along the way.

  320. paulie Post author

    . PF, just above, brings up his drug dealer past as “proof” (or something) that the rule of law is a bad idea, although he profited from it.

    Nope. I said nothing about drug dealing. I said:

    Speaking as a former professional criminal, many business opportunities arose from the self-styled “rule of law” that was anything but.

    What that means is that the vast criminal conspiracy which falsely calls itself the “rule of law” but is far from it in reality creates many different business opportunities for freelance criminals in a lot of different ways, and that at one stage in my life I took advantage of many of those opportunities, only a few of which had anything to do with drugs. Not all of the opportunities I took advantage of were things that should be legal, either. But they were all made possible by the highly inefficient and destructive legal monopoly on force.

    I also didn’t say that the rule of law is a bad idea, if by rule of law you mean a basis of domestic peace and tranquility underlaid by a system of commonly understood rules and expectations, a baseline of public safety and contract enforceability. I did say that the bumbling, massively right-violating, bureaucratic and cruel monopoly that tries to pass itself for the rule of law is indeed a bad idea, to say the least.

  321. paulie Post author

    implies that at any time anyone can claim what is or is not lawful.

    Anyone can claim anything they want, but with or without a monopoly actual crimes with victims are outlawed.

    Then he usually claims he’s too busy, leading me to believe he realizes he’s cornered.

    LOL No, it just means I’m busy. I don’t have an unlimited amount of time to pursue endless back and forth whenever it suits your fancy. Sometimes I need to go off to a petition job, sometimes I need to go find stories to post on IPR, sometimes I have other volunteer activities or other conversations elsewhere or real-life things to go to. But it’s interesting that you think in those terms. And here I thought you said you like to discuss issues, not debate. “Cornered”?

    If I ever actually did “realize I’m cornered” I’d have no problems admitting it, and have any number of times in discussions here in the past. But no, that has not happened in any of our discussions about anarchy.

  322. paulie Post author

    And, in part because those places tend to be primitive, things are reasonably peaceful there. It didn’t work out so well in Somalia, however.

    Another reason why I sometimes have better things to do than go back and forth endlessly. We’ve talked about Somalia a bunch of times. The portion of Somalia that has a non-territorial monopoly rule of law is indeed fairly peaceful. There is another part of Somalia that is controlled by warlords, which is not as peaceful but then they are just smaller states in effect. As a whole, Somalia has done better under relative statelessness than any number of sub-Saharan nations that have states, including Somalia itself under its former Marxist dictator.

  323. robert capozzi

    dL: Nope. Speed limits, traffic laws are revenue extraction schemes. Period. There are plenty of places they don’t have them.

    Me: Non sequitur. That there are places where there are no speed limits have no obvious connection to places that DO have them. While there are reports that some jurisdictions that use speed limits in part to enhance revenue does not come close to proving that all speed limits are exclusively to raise revenue. Do you have credible evidence to back your claim, or are you overstating for effect?

    dL: You make that analogy by looking at the status quo and from what you think you see from the past.

    Me: When I analogize the State to gravity, I’m not saying there OUGHT TO BE a State. I’m suggesting that the State and its rule of law is a signal that sets some parameters on acceptable behavior.

    Pf: I object to an enforcement monopoly which is highly inefficient, hurts lots of bystanders and wrongly accused, has little accountability, and “outlaws” “crimes” without victims in the course of enforcing whatever good laws it enforces, doing countless things to foster criminality along the way.

    Me: Agree in part, but the monopoly aspect troubles me very little. I’m open to non-monopoly enforcement in theory, but I don’t see it being 100% applicable in practice. So I table the subject until a viable alternative reveals itself, an event I’m holding my breath for!

    Pf: if by rule of law you mean a basis of domestic peace and tranquility underlaid by a system of commonly understood rules and expectations, a baseline of public safety and contract enforceability.

    Me: Yes. Well put.

    Pf: And here I thought you said you like to discuss issues, not debate. “Cornered”?

    Me: Fair point. Not a great word choice on my part. But you and other non-asymptotic anarchists seem unwilling to engage and clarity the leap from “States do bad things” to “anarchist societies have existed and they worked pretty well,” despite the fact that the anarchist societies are extremely rare and generally primitive. You and other non-asymptotic anarchists seem unconcerned about the leap; I also get the sense that you dismiss the leap as a mere technicality.

  324. paulie Post author

    I’m open to non-monopoly enforcement in theory, but I don’t see it being 100% applicable in practice.

    Yes, I know. That’s where we tend to differ.

    You and other non-asymptotic anarchists seem unconcerned about the leap; I also get the sense that you dismiss the leap as a mere technicality.

    I don’t count myself as non-asymptotic, at least as I understand the concept. I am good with incremental steps between here and there. I tend to think of it as the dam cracking, or grass cracking through the sidewalk.

  325. JT

    The American Indepedent Party and the American Freedom Party do have a very good point, you know. President Trump is excellent, the best we have had since at least Andrew Jackson, maybe ever, but at least since Andrew Jackson. Libertarianism is dead; long live the Alt-Right!

    http://tinyurl.com/iprx1ipr0

  326. Andy

    “Mark
    January 28, 2017 at 13:58
    …he signed an executive order turning people away so they could go back to war zones in Syria, Iraq, and other nearby nations. ”

    What are the political ideologies of this group of Syrians? How many of them could be described as being libertarians, and out of the ones who are libertarians, what percentage of them would you say are anarcho-capitalists/voluntaryists, and what percentage of them would you describe as minarchists/small government constitutionalists? Were any of them active in the Libertarian Party of Syria? Is there a libertarian party in Syria?

    What percent of these people do you think would end up on government welfare programs if they entered this country?

    We live in a big world with lots of countries. Why, out of all of the countries in this world, including all of the many countries that were geographically closer to, did they come here?

  327. Mark

    A small minority of native born Americans or immigrants from other countries are libertarians, so that’s not a valid point. Immigrants start more businesses and work harder for less than native born Americans, so that’s also not a valid point Andy. True we live in a big world with lots of countries and immigrants are going to a lot of them. Why NOT the US, Andy? Why here? For some because they have family members here or because they risked their lives helping the US during the wars in their home countries. They underwent a very lengthy and extensive vetting process that takes two years or more and not a single refugee from any of these 7 countries has been involved in a terrorist incident in the US since before 9/11. Some are already going to countries near there and being treated like garbage there. Over 200 are being held in various airports right now after everything they went through to get here.

    Yet we have heartless, sick people here who want to send them back. In many cases to be killed, raped, tortured, thrown in dungeons, beaten savagely…this is not what this country is supposed to be about, especially being a nation of immigrants since its inception.

    Trump is such a piece of shit, it’s a real shame that he can’t get flushed. He is turning everything this country is supposed to stand for on its head. We should consider this country to be in a national state of emergency while he is in office. And please don’t even start about the people he ran against, because that’s beyond irrelevant by now.

  328. JT

    Why all the austistic screeching from the PC liberals and social justice warriors? President Trump is great. The wall is great. Getting rid of terrorists and sending them back is great. I hope he doesn’t just stop at keeping more of them from coming over but actually sends them all back. And why not just ban Islam, burqas and mosques? We would have way less problems if that happened. We need E-Verify and strict enforcement against anyone that hires illegals. Protect American jobs. 35% tariff, across the board. Get rid of all the other taxes, tariffs is all we need for revenue. No more social programs, build a military that is bigger and better than ever and put it at the borders. Develop American energy with fracking, nuclear, and more oil and gas drilling. Coal too. Fix the roads and bridges, put people to work with infrastructure projects all over the country. Get all the illegals outta here, and their anchor babies too.

    Support the police and get tough with the criminals, put them in tent city jails all over the country like Sheriff Joe did in Arizona, and crack down on drugs like President Duterte is doing in the Philippines. No more of this black lives matter crap. Start really enforcing the laws. Then make the inmates wear pink underwear, break rocks, eat green baloney and listen to Newt Gingrich lectures. Make them all line up and pledge allegiance to President Trump every morning, noon and night. And stop hating on President Putin. We need to do what he did in Russia in putting a stop to the gay parades and getting prayer back in the public schools. He is a good man and a good leader and I am glad President Trump is going to be friends with him. We need a revival of patriotism, lots of flag waving and military parades and reversing the diversity. The whole feminism thing should go the way of the dodo bird.

    We won’t need welfare anymore, America will be getting to work. No more criminals and loitering in the streets, they will be in work camps and the streets will be safe. And let’s get moving on that special prosecutor for Hillary Clinton. She can be in a jail work camp sewing uniforms for police officers like the trashy tramps from Pussy Riot when they got locked up. Pretty soon it’s going to be like the 1950s in this country, and that’s a good thing.

  329. dL

    Me: Non sequitur. That there are places where there are no speed limits have no obvious connection to places that DO have them. While there are reports that some jurisdictions that use speed limits in part to enhance revenue does not come close to proving that all speed limits are exclusively to raise revenue. Do you have credible evidence to back your claim, or are you overstating for effect?

    A counterfactual is not a non sequitur. I’m a liberal. I begin w/ a presumption of liberty. The burden is on you to demonstrate the countermanding of liberty. The burden is NOT on me to show ALL speed limits are revenue enhancers. Instead, the burden is on you show to that they are NOT. Any instance. And I will shoot each and every one down. The counterfactual is my primary weapon. I’m not in the business of proving anything. I’m in the business of disproving bullshit.

    I understand you may object to that. Most authoritarians do. You are operating from an authoritarian presumption, notwithstanding your supposed claims that you are operating from some Hayekian approach. You see, I’m not even resorting to any libertarian presumptions. This is straight-forward Hayek/Karl Popper, the scientific method of falsification. In the end it is clear that any argument/dialogue with you will end with you taking the authoritarian stance.

  330. Andy

    Check out this video where an Iman ADMITS that their goal is to come into European nations, out-breed the native population, rape their women, and take over.

    Peaceful people crossing borders my ass.

    Imam Vows Muslims Will F**k European Women and Breed Islamic Army

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVh_Kw8IXEc

  331. Andy

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Poll: William Weld Nearly Tied with Elizabeth Warren in 2018 Senate Race

    http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/weld-tied-warren/

    From the article: “If William Weld does not win the vice presidency in November, he may still have a remaining future in politics. A new poll shows the former Massachusetts governor and Libertarian only three points behind incumbent U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren in a hypothetical 2018 matchup. The poll, conducted by WBZ-TV, WBZ NewsRadio, and UMass Amherst, has a 4.3% margin of error. Weld does the best of the three tested against Warren, including former Major League Baseball pitcher Curt Schilling and current Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito.”

  332. JT

    “Check out this video where an Iman ADMITS that their goal is to come into European nations, out-breed the native population, rape their women, and take over.

    Peaceful people crossing borders my ass.

    Imam Vows Muslims Will F**k European Women and Breed Islamic Army

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVh_Kw8IXEc

    Thank you Andy. Excellent points.

    We do not need more immigration, we have had far too much already. Instead we need to be thinking about getting rid of a lot of the ones who already came here. Islam is not peaceful, it is a cancer that must be removed if the West is to survive. We need to preserve the demographic heritage of Europe and European-Americans and keep alien races from taking our women, outbreeding us and taking over. Common sense solutions such as large scale deportations, sterilization and building the wall are long overdue, and thankfully starting to be put in practice. Eugenics has really gotten an undeserved bad reputation. I for one appreciate Andy bringing up the subject of White genocide. That Imam makes it clear, that is EXACTLY what these enemies of the West clearly all want. They are invading alien armies and far from peaceful. They need to be treated like any other invading army; anything else is suicidal.

    Thankfully President Trump is on the job, we will get rid of alien invaders and the murderous Islamic terrorists and their religion of bloody pieces, and this year we will also be electing great leaders in Europe such as Marine LePen in France. Trump, Putin, LePen and other European leaders will then unite and take on Islam, Mestizos, China, and other enemies of the European race. Make America Great Again (MAGA) and Make Europe Great Again (MEGA). Reverse the diversity. We need zero tolerance.

  333. JT

    ” Weld does the best of the three tested against Warren, including former Major League Baseball pitcher Curt Schilling and current Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito.”

    I think they were envisioning a two-way race with Weld as the Republican. What I am hoping for is that Weld will run as a Libertarian and take most of his support away from Pocahontas Warren, allowing Curt Schilling to be elected to the Senate as a Republican and proud Trump supporter, adding to the growingly overwhelming Republican majority. With nationalistic Republicans forming a clear and growing majority in all three branches of government, and at the national, state and local levels, we can really start to make the badly needed changes that this country needs.

    At this point the Democrats will put up some MSM (aka Fake News) anointed savior such as Patrick Deval or Cory Booker, or perhaps Pocahontas Warren herself, but Bill Weld as the Libertarian Presidential candidate will once again split the Democrat vote and help Keep America Great by giving President Trump an even more resounding re-election victory than Presidents Nixon and Reagan had. My prediction is that Democrats will get three electoral votes – DC – and Republicans will take everything else, including enough seats in the Senate to keep Democrats from filibustering. That is my vision for 2020 and we will transform that vision into reality.

  334. JT

    Excellent video description on youtube for that video Andy posted!

    “Imam says they will conquer Europe by breeding with it’s women. Will Europe allow its women to sleep with these savages?”

    That is the key question, which we should be asking ourselves here in the USA as well.

    There are also many, many more excellent videos at the youtube channel that posted that video:

    https://www.youtube.com/user/DeathToLiberalism/videos

    Thanks Andy, I’ll be checking that whole playlist out and hopefully everyone else here will too!

  335. robert capozzi

    1 dL: Nope. Speed limits, traffic laws are revenue extraction schemes. Period.

    2 dL: A counterfactual is not a non sequitur. I’m a liberal. I begin w/ a presumption of liberty. The burden is on you to demonstrate the countermanding of liberty. The burden is NOT on me to show ALL speed limits are revenue enhancers.

    Me: I was challenging your absolute statement about traffic laws and the intent behind them. You are changing the subject. Sorry, but from where I sit, you are making a statement of fact, and I see no evidence for the fact (“traffic laws are revenue extraction schemes. Period.”) you stated.

    Please address this before you address the following. I’m VERY interested.

    As for presuming liberty, I was making no value judgments about traffic laws. That’s a SEPARATE matter. But since you bring it up, here’s how I frame it: It’s not a matter of liberty vs authoritarian, but property rights. The roads are effectively owned by the public. The public effectively delegates the rules of the road to the government.

    Like a shareholder of a publicly traded company, you might believe that speed limits have no real value, and are an unnecessary “liberty” infringement. You might believe that it should be your right to drive on the left down a city block past a school at 100 MPH.

    I’m sorry, but I can’t say I agree. Nor do I perceive any widespread desire for the abolition of all traffic laws.

    A shareholder of Facebook might not agree with Facebook’s policies on “fake news.” Indeed, Peter Thiel is a board member, and I suspect he’s not a fan of their “fake news” policies. Yet management has been delegated such matters, and generally the shareholders are quite pleased with the stock’s performance.

    Perhaps you could rewrite FOR A NEW LIBERTY, and lead with this persuasive “right.” Deep down, most Americans secretly yearn to drive on the left on a city block past a school at 100 MPH, so this could be the spark that finally lights an anarcho-libertarian revolution! 😉

  336. Nate

    “Andy
    January 29, 2017 at 03:20
    Check out this video where an Iman ADMITS that their goal is to come into European nations, out-breed the native population, rape their women, and take over.

    Peaceful people crossing borders my ass.

    Imam Vows Muslims Will F**k European Women and Breed Islamic Army

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVh_Kw8IXEc

    WOW big THANK YOU to Andy to stepping up for the 14 words! Fourteen Words slogan: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” It can be used to refer to a different 14-word slogan: “Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth.”

    The first slogan is claimed to have been inspired by a statement, 88 words in length, from Volume 1, Chapter 8 of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf:

    “What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. Every thought and every idea, every doctrine and all knowledge, must serve this purpose. And everything must be examined from this point of view and used or rejected according to its utility.”

    Mass immigration, integration, miscegenation, low fertility rates and abortion are being promoted in predominantly White countries to deliberately turn them minority-White and hence cause White people to become extinct through forced assimilation. In his White Genocide Manifesto, David Lane shows how government policies of many western countries had the intent of destroying White European culture and making White people an “extinct species”. Lane, a founding member of the organization The Order, criticized race-mixing, abortion, homosexuality, the legal repercussions against those who resist genocide and also the Zionist Occupation Government that controls the U.S. and the other majority-White countries and encourages White genocide.

  337. dL

    Like a shareholder of a publicly traded company…

    No, publicly traded shares are bought and sold. If you were to disagree with the policy/direction of a corporation, you could dump your shares. If one was forced to own shares of a company w/o any legal recourse to sell and then made to bear the shareholder consequences of that company’s actions, say it went around polluting or committing war crimes in search of profits, one would probably have a very dim view of that company, “shareholder rights” and any argument that tried to use that company’s “shareholder rights” as an analogy.

    You are changing the subject. Sorry, but from where I sit, you are making a statement of fact, and I see no evidence for the fact

    My want to schedule an appointment w/ an optometrist. Hearing problem, vision problems…hope your voice still works.

  338. dL

    Check out this video where an Iman ADMITS that their goal is to come into European nations, out-breed the native population, rape their women, and take over.

    Peaceful people crossing borders my ass.

    The only religion that is systematically crossing borders to wreak havoc is Christianity. American white Christian social conservatives are largest purveyor of hate and mass murder on the face of the earth. Where are we going to deport them?

  339. dL

    Here’s another example of “peaceful people” crossing borders.

    Afghan Migrants Abducted Woman And Gang Raped Her for a Week

    Wouldn’t stormfront or 4chan be more up your alley? I think they even allow you to break out the KKK robes over there.

  340. Andy

    Oh, isn’t this nice? Some “peaceful” Muslim migrants decided to share a live video on Facebook of themselves gang raping a Swedish woman. This must be an example of what they call the “cultural enrichment” of Sweden.

    Do you think that we need more of this kind of “cultural enrichment” right here in the good ole US of A?

    Swedish woman ‘gang-raped for three hours live on Facebook

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdHJLsLaS7o

  341. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    Did those Afghan migrants use a gun in their crime? If so, do you favor outlawing guns?

    Were those Afghan migrants on drugs when they committed their crime? If so, do you favor outlawing drugs?

    Or is the fact that they crossed over an imaginary line on the ground separating one street gang’s turf from another before committing their crimes the only thing you have a problem with?

  342. Andy

    Did you think that Muslim men were just into women? Well, fear not, they are equal opportunity rapists. Yes, that’s right, they’ve also got homosexual Muslim rapists! Sure, Muslims typically like to beat up gays, throw rocks at them, and throw them off of buildings, but this does not mean that there are not any gay Muslims. The gay Muslims also enjoy raping European men just as much as their heterosexual Muslim counterparts enjoy raping European women, and like their heterosexual Muslim rapist counterparts, they do not discriminate based on age. Here’s a story about an Iraqi migrant raping a 10 year old Austrian boy at a swimming pool in Vienna. Hey, this kid got to go swimming and get “culturally enriched” at the same time!

    Iraqi migrant rapes a 10-year-old boy at a swimming pool in Vienna

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3434708/Iraqi-migrant-raped-10-year-old-boy-swimming-pool-Vienna-told-police-sexual-emergency-hadn-t-sex-months.html

  343. Thomas L. Knapp

    Can anyone tell, by IP, if this is the real Andy or whether perhaps one of our “My Name is Legion” trolls is posting as “Andy” to discredit the real Andy even more than he has previously discredited himself with the immigration authoritarian stuff?

  344. Andy

    Maybe these gay Muslim rapists can march in the next Gay Pride parade.

    Europe’s New normal? Muslim migrants film rape of male teen

    http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/new-normal-muslim-migrants-film-rape-of-male-teen/

    From the article: “Norway is dealing with yet another gruesome rape perpetrated by newly arriving Muslim migrants.

    Authorities have charged four migrants in connection with the gang-rape of a 19-year-old male at a reception center in the city of Vestfold. The incident, which was filmed in December, included three men in their 20s and one in his 40s.

    Meanwhile, police are still looking for leads in connection with January’s rape of a 3-year-old migrant in the city of Stavanger.”

  345. Andy

    Come to America. Get to rape white western women, and let the sucker tax payers pay for it all!

    More Than 90 Percent of Middle Eastern Refugees on Food Stamps

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/10/more-than-90-percent-of-middle-eastern-refugees-on-food-stamps/

    From the article: “More than 90 percent of recent refugees from Middle Eastern nations are on food stamps and nearly 70 percent receive cash assistance, according to government data.
    According to Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) data highlighted by the immigration subcommittee staff of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) — chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest — in FY 2013, 91.4 percent of Middle Eastern refugees (accepted to the U.S. between 2008-2013) received food stamps, 73.1 percent were on Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance and 68.3 percent were on cash welfare.

    Middle Eastern refugees used a number of other assistance programs at slightly lower rates. For example, 36.7 percent received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), 32.1 percent received Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 19.7 percent lived in public housing, 17.3 percent were on General Assistance (GA), and 10.9 percent received Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA).

    The high welfare rates among Middle Eastern refugees comes as the Obama administration considers increasing the number of refugees — who are immediately eligible for public benefits — to the U.S., particularly Syrian refugees.”

    Also from the article: ““More broadly, concerning all immigration, the Migration Policy Institute notes that the U.S. has taken in ‘about 20 percent of the world’s international migrants, even as it represents less than 5 percent of the global population,’ and that 1 in 4 U.S. residents is now either an immigrant or born to immigrant parents,” Sessions staff highlights, noting that the Census is projecting that another 14 million immigrants will come to the U.S. by 2025.”

    MY COMMENT: What percent of these new “Americans” do you think are going to vote for smaller government?

    Also, to become an American citizen, one must swear an oath to support the US Constitution. What percent of these people do you think really support the US Constitution, or even really know and understand what it says? Government welfare programs are not constitutional, so if they collect government welfare, they either do not really know or understand what the US Constitution says, or they know, and they just don’t care. Remember, lying under oath is called perjury.

  346. Andy

    Do you think that these rapes committed by Muslim migrants is just happening in Europe and not here in the USA? Think again.

    MUSLIM MIGRANT BEATS, RAPES NORTH DAKOTA WOMAN WHILE CHANTING “ALLAHU AKBAR”

    http://www.infowars.com/muslim-migrant-beats-rapes-north-dakota-woman-while-chanting-allahu-akbar/

    From the article: “Abdulrahman Ali, a Somalian who arrived in America four years ago, is accused of sexually assaulting a gas station attendant in a bathroom at Gordy’s Travel Plaza in Mapleton, North Dakota.

    After trying to kiss her, Ali allegedly forced the woman into the women’s bathroom, locked the door behind him and started sexually molesting her while slapping and kicking the victim. When the woman tried to escape, Ali threw her against the wall.

    After law enforcement arrived, Ali refused to open the door, claiming that the victim was his wife. After police kicked in the door, the woman was found injured and crying.”

  347. dL

    Can anyone tell, by IP, if this is the real Andy or whether perhaps one of our “My Name is Legion” trolls is posting as “Andy” to discredit the real Andy even more than he has previously discredited himself with the immigration authoritarian stuff?

    yeah, it’s time to take out the trash, here…

  348. Andy

    Hey look, those nice Muslim migrants are also giving the handicapped a chance to be “culturally enriched” by them here in the good ole US of A. Isn’t that sweet of them?

    ‘Refugee’ named Mohamed sexually assaults disabled U.S. woman, media silent

    http://www.wnd.com/2017/01/refugee-named-mohamed-sexually-assaults-disabled-u-s-woman-media-silent/

    From the article: “A refugee newly arrived from Somalia has been tried and convicted for attempting to sexually assault a special-needs woman while she was sitting outside of a home for the disabled in Aberdeen, South Dakota.

    Liban Mohamed, 39, was in the United States for only about a week when he tried to force himself on a 31-year-old woman with severe disabilities. He is not a U.S. citizen, but whether he will be deported in the wake of his conviction remains unclear.”

  349. Long Time IPR Lurker

    Yikes!

    So Andy IS the racist troll/spammer he keeps accusing everyone else of being. He certainly seems to be spamming the living crap out of this thread without responding to or even acknowledging any of the replies he has received last night or this morning. He must be seriously mentally unhinged. I would seriously think twice about having this dude representing my party or cause to the public if I was hiring. I’d rather hire a “mercenary” than a raving, frothing at the mouth bigoted comment thread spammer.

    dL,

    “Wouldn’t stormfront or 4chan be more up your alley? I think they even allow you to break out the KKK robes over there.”

    Agreed, what Andy is posting here last night and today belongs more at one of those sites than here.

    Knapp,

    “Did those Afghan migrants use a gun in their crime? If so, do you favor outlawing guns?

    Were those Afghan migrants on drugs when they committed their crime? If so, do you favor outlawing drugs?

    Or is the fact that they crossed over an imaginary line on the ground separating one street gang’s turf from another before committing their crimes the only thing you have a problem with?”

    Great questions, but apparently Andy would like to keep spamming endless incident reports from now until the end of time rather than provide any answers to questions.

    dL,

    “yeah, it’s time to take out the trash, here…”

    Agreed, if Andy keeps this up, I have seen people tossed out of here for less. At the very least this kind of crap deserves its own “dedicated” thread like a few other hobbyhorse obsessions that a few people have had here in the past or maybe just an outright ban.

    “robert capozzi
    January 2, 2017 at 05:47

    Was Andy J banned from IPR? I missed that. What did he do to get banned?”

    Not yet, but maybe he should be. What do you all think?

    I have been reading IPR for a long time, but I don’t think I will continue doing so if Andy is going to keep posting this type of garbage on a regular basis.

  350. robert capozzi

    dL: My want to schedule an appointment w/ an optometrist. Hearing problem, vision problems…hope your voice still works.

    me: Nope, excellent vision.

    You’ve stated your alternative fact: “traffic laws are revenue extraction schemes. Period.”

    We’re still waiting for evidence. Ad hominem deflections don’t count. They undermine your credibility. But, then, you know that, right?

    So I ask again: Where is your evidence that traffic laws are ONLY about revenue extraction?

    You don’t have any, is my guess.

  351. Just Some Random Guy

    @ Jill Pyeatt

    I think it’s the real Andy (unfortunately).

    While I have a fairly low opinion of Andy, the posting style of this Andy seems a bit different than normal. I’m not sure it’s the real deal.

  352. dL

    We’re still waiting for evidence. Ad hominem deflections don’t count. They undermine your credibility. But, then, you know that, right?

    Pointing out a blind man is blind is not an ad hominem attack. And as I alluded to earlier, the burden is on you, not me. I Presented counterfactuals to your claims, there is counterfactual of the “shared space.” You see when X creates traffic laws as means to extract revenue(given that a ticket extracts revenue, traffic laws are a means to extract revenue, there is no debating that), I’m going to say, why? And you are going to say, “safety!.” And I’m going to say, “prove it! Here’s my counterfactual.” And you will say, “no, you prove that they do not improve safety.” And I’m going to reply, “stick your traffic laws up you azz,” which is what I say to anyone who operates by the authoritarian premise. I can give a rat’s ass about being credible to authoritarians.

  353. dL

    While I have a fairly low opinion of Andy, the posting style of this Andy seems a bit different than normal. I’m not sure it’s the real deal.

    If people are having a difficult time differentiating him from the types that wear white robes, it may be an indication that he might want to reevaluate his positions on some things.

  354. dL

    “yeah, it’s time to take out the trash, here…”

    Agreed, if Andy keeps this up, I have seen people tossed out of here for less

    The trash refers to the posts, not the posters. It is kind of hard to ban people w/o multi-factor user authentication. Mere IP address restriction is easily circumvented/obfuscated. Indeed, everyone should be obfuscating their IP to begin with.

  355. Andy

    “Can anyone tell, by IP, if this is the real Andy or whether perhaps one of our “My Name is Legion” trolls is posting as “Andy” to discredit the real Andy even more than he has previously discredited himself with the immigration authoritarian stuff?”

    I am NOT proposing immigration authoritarianism, because for one, the people I am talking about are not immigrants, they are VIOLENT INVADERS.

    These people are no more “immigrants” than a burglar who breaks in your house, or an invading military force.

    Also, funny some people are fine with their FORCED INTEGRATION AUTHORITARIANISM. FORCED INTEGRATION is NOT libertarian.

  356. robert capozzi

    dL,

    So it seems you refuse to answer a very straightforward question: Where is your evidence that traffic laws are ONLY about revenue extraction? I have always stipulated that traffic laws create an opportunity to raise revenues for moving violations. That’s obviously true. You claim it is the ONLY reason.

    We have to assume that you just have no answer. Or, perhaps, you recognize that you overstated your case, but you don’t care to admit to your mistake.

    My other question is: Do you think you have a right to drive on the left on a city block past a school at 100 mph?

    My view is that driving behavior like that is on its face reckless and dangerous, and yes — call me “authoritarian” if you must — I’m OK with that behavior being illegal.

  357. dL

    So it seems you refuse to answer a very straightforward question

    No, i gave you a response. Apparently, you lack the capacity to understand the burden of proof fallacy. The burden is on you, not me.

    Argument for traffic laws:

    (1) if traffic laws make driving safer, then traffic laws are just
    (2) traffic laws make driving safer
    (3) therefore traffic laws are just

    Counterfactuals to the premise (2) invalidate conclusion (3). The burden is on the argument for traffic laws. If there is no argument for traffic laws, then a reasonable inference RE: their persistence is revenue extraction. When I make a conclusion that traffic laws == revenue extraction, the burden is on you to demonstrate that they are not. See how that works. How it doesn’t work: nonsense red herrings about reckless endangerment. Do I have the right to drive on the left side of a city block past a school at 100mph? Sure, if traffic is clear and I’m going in a straight line. If traffic is congested, not if I want to live. You are an authoritarian b/c you argue like one.

  358. dL

    I am NOT proposing immigration authoritarianism, because for one, the people I am talking about are not immigrants, they are VIOLENT INVADERS.

    These people are no more “immigrants” than a burglar who breaks in your house, or an invading military force.

    (1) Andy represents all white people
    (2) Andy has shit for brains
    (3) Therefore all white people have shit for brains

  359. Luke

    When Europe sent its people to America they didn’t send their best. They sent rapists, they sent murderers, and some, I assume, may have been good people.

  360. Luke

    “I am NOT proposing immigration authoritarianism, because for one, the people I am talking about are not immigrants, they are VIOLENT INVADERS.”

    Every single one of them? Or is Andy promoting racist collectivist trash straight from the pages of the Daily Stormer, Stormfront and 4chan /pol/?

    “These people are no more “immigrants” than a burglar who breaks in your house, or an invading military force.”

    If the country is your house, and the government speaks for everyone in deciding who can come in, stay or go, can the government tell you to cut your hair? I can tell you to cut your hair or get out of my house. Can the government say pay taxes or leave? I can tell you to pay rent or leave my house. Can the government ban guns? I have the right to ban guns in my own house. And if you really can’t tell the difference between immigrants as a whole and an invading army, you are too crazy and dangerous to be allowed loose on the streets. If you were to act on those beliefs you would quickly find yourself in police custody awaiting trial for murder or involuntary psychiatric care.

    “Also, funny some people are fine with their FORCED INTEGRATION AUTHORITARIANISM. FORCED INTEGRATION is NOT libertarian.”

    “Forced integration”? Holy fuck. Andy really does need to go directly to Stormfront with that shit. I am starting to get the feeling he is not just talking about immigrants here. I think he really means that allowing the races to mix is “forced integration.”

    After all Andy did write

    “Andy
    January 29, 2017 at 13:07

    Come to America. Get to rape white western women, and let the sucker tax payers pay for it all!”

    And he also posted a video whose description on youtube includes

    “… Will Europe allow its women to sleep with these savages?”

    Now that’s seriously some Stormfront type shit. “Allow”? Really? And all Muslim immigrants are savages? 100% of them? Wow.

    Is this Andy Jacobs? Nathan Norman? The Racist Troll? Jim Bell? Chris Lesiak during a schizophrenic episode? Robert Milnes trying to make an alliance with nazis? Really, who can tell the difference anymore?

  361. Long Time IPR Lurker

    Andy Jacobs is mentally ill and rapidly getting worse. You have to admit other people have been kicked off IPR for less. You remove bigot trolls all the time for saying things like what he is saying now, except he is doing it more often and more obnoxiously and he’s been around longer. So my opinions is eventually you will have to boot him. And the sooner you do it the less painful it will end up being.

    Now I understand if you want to be fair to him. Give him a clear public warning. If that does not work give him a dedicated thread like what was done with Milnes and Ogle before they got the boot. And if that doesn’t work give him the boot. My prediction is it will not work. Milnes and Ogle had to eventually get booted because the dedicated threads did not keep them contained. And in fact, it has already not worked with Andy, since it was actually him (plus one or two or three friends but mostly him) that earned IPR’s very first “dedicated” quarantine thread, for petitioner pay disputes and complaints. And in fact Andy refused to follow those rules. So my prediction is that he will refuse to follow any subject quarantines now as well. But feel free to try warnings and quarantines first if you think he will be willing to be reasonable. My guess is not.

    He is already getting at least as obnoxious as Jim Bell or Nathan Norman and may well be crossing the line soon, if he hasn’t already, into territory previously inhabited by only Lesiak at the height of his mental breakdowns and the anon racist troll(s) with multiple names. Note this is not based solely on his opinion. If you had a racial or religious bigot or separatist or whatever term you want to use, who was polite and willing to have a rational discussion about it I for one would not have a problem with that. But that’s not what I see happening with him right now. He is seriously going off the rails and making your comment section a toxic environment for participants, would-be participants and readers alike. Also, he keeps pointing fingers and accusing everyone who jumps in of being trolls, when he is the #1 troll in recent months and maybe even years, IMO.

    It’s not just about race, immigration or religion either, he is persistently angry, repetitive, long-winded, bitter, zealous, self-righteous, paranoid, racked with delusions of persecution and grandeur, intolerant of differing views, rude, incredibly persistent… in short, all the characteristics that make it hard to be anywhere near a comment section he makes his home. How many people does he drive away or discourage from jumping in or convince to leave quickly? And he is this way whether we are discussing LP tactics, strategy and candidates, or his issues with clients or any number of things.

    Unlike the whole country, IPR actually *is* private property, and has every right to “deport” people who make the place unlivable for others. Andy Jacobs is continuously acting in a way that is detrimental to the whole community. Throw this bum outta here!

  362. Luke

    “If people are having a difficult time differentiating him from the types that wear white robes, it may be an indication that he might want to reevaluate his positions on some things.”

    Well yeah. But he is refusing to do so.

  363. Luke

    “I would seriously think twice about having this dude representing my party or cause to the public if I was hiring. I’d rather hire a “mercenary” than a raving, frothing at the mouth bigoted comment thread spammer.”

    I can’t imagine he would act this way at work. He would be kicked out of any type of location very quickly and I don’t think he would get enough signatures to pay for a Big Mac. But maybe he would, after all Trump got elected.

    “While I have a fairly low opinion of Andy, the posting style of this Andy seems a bit different than normal. I’m not sure it’s the real deal.”

    Jill can actually see IPs so I assume she knows what she’s talking about. Same Andy.

    ““Did those Afghan migrants use a gun in their crime? If so, do you favor outlawing guns?

    Were those Afghan migrants on drugs when they committed their crime? If so, do you favor outlawing drugs?

    Or is the fact that they crossed over an imaginary line on the ground separating one street gang’s turf from another before committing their crimes the only thing you have a problem with?”

    Great questions, but apparently Andy would like to keep spamming endless incident reports from now until the end of time rather than provide any answers to questions.”

    I guess Andy has no logical answers, so frothing at the mouth and spamming incident reports is all he’s got. Of course if you take any group of hundreds of thousands or millions of people some of them will commit horrific crimes. ANY group of people of any nationality. Since when is collective guilt for entire ethnic or religious groups a libertarian idea? Despite what some people like Hoppe, Cantwell, Molyneux, Augustus Invictus and now Andy Jacobs are trying to push, fascism is incompatible with libertarianism. That’s one kind of “forced integration” that is never going to fly.

    And the dubious statistics from highly questionable sources such as World Net Daily, Infowars, Breitbart and the Anarcho-Fascist channel don’t help either. Garbage in, garbage out.

  364. Luke

    “More Than 90 Percent of Middle Eastern Refugees on Food Stamps”

    There are at least two problems with this type of argument.

    1) The source is breitbart.com, so right away there is a very high probability that it’s bullshit.

    2) Even if it’s true, yes, it’s common for refugees to go through what is usually a fairly brief period of receiving public assistance when they come in with nothing and are trying to get on their feet in a new country. Andy and his racist sources make it sound like these folks come in, get on welfare and stay on welfare. But, that’s bullshit. They go on to get jobs, start businesses, become employees and employers and consumers, and add more to the economy than during the brief time they spent on welfare. Likewise the crime rate for immigrants is actually lower than for those born in the US.

  365. Luke

    “What percent of these new “Americans” do you think are going to vote for smaller government?”

    If your definition of smaller government is the belief that welfare is unconstitutional, only a very small percentage of new Americans will have that belief. Bit then only very small percentage of those born in the US believe that either, so it doesn’t matter. If you mean voting for Republicans as opposed to Democrats, that’s a very questionable assumption that Republicans are for smaller government. If you mean voting for Libertarians, again only a tiny percentage of those born in the US do that either.

    If you believe that the rate at which ethnic, racial or religious groups vote for gun control allows the regime to limit immigration or deport them, are you going to stop with Latinos and Muslims? Pretty soon you will be rounding up and deporting Jews and African-Americans too. Maybe you’ll be passing laws for mass forced sterilization on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion? If not, why not? The logic would be the same as you use in supporting immigration restrictions. Certainly Andy’s Klan-like rhetoric about “forced integration” does not inspire a lot of confidence, here. But wait… Native Americans also have a high rate of welfare dependency, and voting for Democrats and gun control. Where are you going to deport them to?

    “Also, to become an American citizen, one must swear an oath to support the US Constitution. What percent of these people do you think really support the US Constitution, or even really know and understand what it says? Government welfare programs are not constitutional, so if they collect government welfare, they either do not really know or understand what the US Constitution says, or they know, and they just don’t care. Remember, lying under oath is called perjury.”

    ROFL for real. Andy expects the same government that administers these same welfare programs to deport (or not admit) immigrants who don’t think welfare is unconstitutional? Seriously? Is Andy really this crazy/delusional or does he think everyone else is really, really stupid? It would be much more plausible to believe that a government allowed to have this kind of power would not admit any immigrants who do believe welfare, or anything else that government does, is unconstitutional.

  366. Luke

    “Maybe these gay Muslim rapists can march in the next Gay Pride parade.”

    Apparently, Andy doesn’t realize that men who rape other men don’t usually consider themselves to be gay, or even bi. Most of them identify as straight. They may consider only those on the receiving end of sexual penetration to be gay, or they may rationalize that their victims are “really” female, or they may see it as an act of aggression and dominance and not of sex, or simply have cognitive dissonance about it. In any case, it’s Stormfront garbage to talk as if a large percentage of all immigrants and/or Muslims commit rape or any other crimes, that those who don’t should be punished for the actions of those who do, or that rape or any other kind of crime is confined to a certain racial or religious group.

    The racists/bigots who push this kind of crap also love to distort statistics. For example, they take advantage of the fact that Sweden counts multiple incidents of sexual assault, typically those taking place within a marriage or relationship, as separate reports, vs the US (or Sweden in the past), that it has a broader definition of sexual assault and is more aggressive about trying to get victims to step forward and report it, etc., etc. to exaggerate the rate of rape in Sweden and falsely claim that the rise is due primarily to immigration rather than to different ways that rape statistics are kept. Then they will take individual incident reports like Andy is seen doing above to make an emotional argument and drown out logic and reason, and try to collectivize the guilt to the entire immigrant community in order to try to justify collectivist “solutions” based on bigotry.

  367. Luke

    I’m assuming that the reason that the typical racist troll comments from Lilly, Nate and JT from yesterday early morning hours have not been removed the way those kinds of comments usually get removed around here is because they are virtually indistinguishable from the crap Andy is spewing around that same timeframe? After all if it’s OK for him it must also be OK for them. Makes sense.

  368. Luke

    ““Imam says they will conquer Europe by breeding with it’s women. ”

    So what? You can find Christian Identity pastors saying they want to kill all the Jews and deport all the blacks. I guess that must mean all Christians want to do those things, right? Come on, who is supposed to take this garbage seriously? Yes, there are a few extremist Imams who say all kinds of crazy things. There are some extremist Christian pastors who say crazy crap too, but again so what?

    Nate

    “WOW big THANK YOU to Andy to stepping up for the 14 words! Fourteen Words slogan: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” It can be used to refer to a different 14-word slogan: “Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth.”

    The first slogan is claimed to have been inspired by a statement, 88 words in length, from Volume 1, Chapter 8 of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf”

    I wonder if the reason Andy did not reply to this and similar sentiments from JT and Lilly as he usually would is because he agrees with them, or because he was just so busy posting more bigoted crap that he wasn’t even reading the responses (ie spamming)?

  369. Luke

    JT

    “Islam is not peaceful, it is a cancer that must be removed if the West is to survive. We need to preserve the demographic heritage of Europe and European-Americans and keep alien races from taking our women, outbreeding us and taking over. Common sense solutions such as large scale deportations, sterilization and building the wall are long overdue, and thankfully starting to be put in practice. Eugenics has really gotten an undeserved bad reputation. I for one appreciate Andy bringing up the subject of White genocide. That Imam makes it clear, that is EXACTLY what these enemies of the West clearly all want. They are invading alien armies and far from peaceful. They need to be treated like any other invading army; anything else is suicidal.”

    Wow, JT and Andy sound just like two peas in a pod.

  370. robert capozzi

    dL,

    IOW, you’re saying IF ALL traffic laws don’t make driving safer, then the only other reason for having those laws is to raise revenue. OK, I grok.

    Now, since you think you have the right to drive 100MPH on the left on a city block past a school, I suspect that ANY case for reasonable driving standards would be rejected by you!

    The reasonable-man standard doesn’t seem to hold sway with you.

  371. dL

    IOW, you’re saying IF ALL traffic laws don’t make driving safer, then the only other reason for having those laws is to raise revenue. OK, I grok.

    Now, since you think you have the right to drive 100MPH on the left on a city block past a school, I suspect that ANY case for reasonable driving standards would be rejected by you!

    well, If your ability to follow the traffic signs is comparable to your ability to follow an argument, I would say keeping you off the roads might be one reasonable driving standard I might consider. There, my one lessanarchist concession for the day.

  372. JT

    Wow, the butthurt is just funny to see.

    “These people are no more “immigrants” than a burglar who breaks in your house, or an invading military force.

    Also, funny some people are fine with their FORCED INTEGRATION AUTHORITARIANISM. FORCED INTEGRATION is NOT libertarian.”

    Preach, brother! Some people are really in denial about the reality of White Genocide. It is refreshing to see the socialist race egalitarian orthodoxy of sacred BS challenged here. Forced immigration and forced integration are White Genocide!

    “(1) Andy represents all white people
    (2) Andy has shit for brains
    (3) Therefore all white people have shit for brains”

    Andy does represent all White people who are proud of their race, proud of who they are and not afraid to say that we must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children. He does not have shit for brains. And the fact that your vicious anti-White bigotry is not even challenged here is very sad indeed.

    “When Europe sent its people to America they didn’t send their best. They sent rapists, they sent murderers, and some, I assume, may have been good people.”

    Luke probably actually believes this and yet he is the kind to get all apopleptic when President Trump says this about Mexicans.

    “I think he really means that allowing the races to mix is “forced integration.””

    Yes, that’s exactly what it is.

    “Long Time IPR Lurker
    January 30, 2017 at 11:01”

    Translated: Andy keeps consistently kicking ass and destroying my side of the argument. Please make him stop. He is winning way too much. I am going to run to mommy and daddy and make him stop. I need a safe space because I’m a special snowflake PC social justice warrior!

    “I guess Andy has no logical answers,”

    Yeah, that must be why your side is so scared of him and is begging to make the bad man stop.

    “WOW big THANK YOU to Andy to stepping up for the 14 words! Fourteen Words slogan: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” It can be used to refer to a different 14-word slogan: “Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth.”

    Amen!

    “I wonder if the reason Andy did not reply to this and similar sentiments from JT and Lilly as he usually would is because he agrees with them”

    So what if he does? When you point your finger and scream “Waaaaaaaycist!” and the answer is “yeah, so what” you have no answer to that. And that’s why Trump is President. Checkmate!

    “Wow, JT and Andy sound just like two peas in a pod.”

    And if we do, then what?

  373. Andy

    I do not represent all white people, nor do I represent anyone beyond myself.

    Also, there are plenty of white people who have all kinds of bad ideas and/or who are lousy people, both here in the USA and abroad.

    Years ago I had a job in California where one of my co-workers was an Irish guy (as in he was ethnically Irish and from Ireland), and there was another guy who worked there who was from Australia, who I assume was of English and/or Scottish descent. I got into a debate with them over gun rights. They acted like I was some kind of horrible barbarian for supporting the right to keep and bear arms. I recall another time debating the Irish guy on censorship, as he thought that the government should censor movies/TV shows/books/websites that had “dirty”/vulgar content, or that were “too violent”.

    I have some ancestry that is English, Scottish, and Irish, and at least three other European nations of which I am aware, but English, Scottish, and Irish probably represents around 37.5% of my ancestry (give or take).

    So these would be people to whom I would be more closely related than I would be to somebody from say China or India or Iraq.

    Guess what? I would NOT want either of those guys, the Irishman or the Australian in the story above, to become American citizens and register to vote unless they changed some of their political views, particularly on the right to keep and bear arms.

  374. Andy

    My goal is a free society, not to form racial or ethnic or religious enclaves, however, in a free society some people may voluntarily chose to form enclaves based on these criteria, or on other criteria, like similar hobbies, or lifestyles, or on economic status, or whatever.

    I support the concept of freedom for all people, and i am willing to work with all who share similar views to achieve more freedom.

  375. Luke

    Well you sure seem to have some rather lovely supporters…I wouldn’t normally link to this site but

    https://iprx.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/andy-jacobs-stuns-ipr-with-courageous-pro-white-posts/

    “Yesterday Andy Jacobs did what the IPR crowd thought impossible. As one of their own, he declared he was mad as hell and not going to take this anymore. Those of us with a brain know open borders is suicide. We cannot allow Islamists to come into our country and lay waste to everything we hold dear. We cannot allow them to rape our women (and even our men) and breed us out of existence.

    […]

    IPR-X scores again as we win another convert. …..According to Nathan Norman, IPR-X will begin talks with Andy about becoming a contributor here at IPR-X.”

    That must be a real dream come true. With a blogroll featuring David Duke, American Freedom Party, Daily Stormer, and the like, what’s not to like?

  376. Andy

    Also, note that at the LP national convention in Orlando, in the VP nomination race, I voted for white American guy who became a Muslim, Will Coley, on the first ballot, and I voted for Larry Sharpe, who is half black (his other parent was white), on the 2nd ballot, and I did NOT vote for “regular” white guy Bill Weld. I would have voted for Derrick Grayson, who is black, before I voted for Weld.

    I do not regret my conventions votes, and I would vote the same way if the same convention were held today.

  377. Andy

    “Luke,” I have no control over what anyone else does, especially an obvious internet troll. If somebody takes something I said and uses it for their own purpose, it does not mean that I have anything to do with that person, nor does it mean that I am necessarily aligned with that person.

    I have made lots of statements about lots of things over the years. I’ve had lots of people say that they agree with me about lots of things, and I’ve had lots of people say that they disagree with me about lots of things. I’ve been called all kinds of names by all kinds of people, and I’ve had all kinds of accusations leveled against me, most of which were false.

    I’ve had people on the left, like Greens or socialists or communists or even Democrats, say that they agree with me on certain points.

    I also have a very long record of advocating for individual rights for all people.

    There is an old expression that says that politics makes strange bedfellows, and this is certainly true.

  378. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    January 25, 2017 at 18:06
    Andy,

    If you were seeking a Libertarian Party nomination for office and I was a voter or delegate, I’d certainly give you due consideration. My “sieve” for choosing between Libertarian candidates looks something like this:

    1) If there’s an actual ideological libertarian in the running and the other candidates are some sort of “libertarian lite” or whatever, I’ll support the actual ideological libertarian.

    2) If there are no actual ideological libertarians in the running, I’ll see if there are any of the “lite” types that I can even barely stomach. If so, I’ll go with one. If not, I’ll go for NOTA if the rules allow it, abstain if they don’t.

    3) If there’s more than one actual ideological libertarian in the running, I start grading them on the issues I care most about (those issues change occasionally based on what’s happening in the world). I can deal with disagreement on issues, but I prefer a candidate who doesn’t make the issues we strongly disagree on into his or her main, marquee issues.

    4) The candidates who survive the first three sieve points start getting judged on non-ideological, non-issues stuff — speaking ability, personal appearance, fame or infamy on non-political stuff, etc.”

    I pretty much agree with Tom’s rating criteria for candidates. Going by my standard, a candidate has to be what I consider to be good to pretty good on issues and philosophy. If I see big problems with them in this area, then nothing else matters and they get eliminated from consideration.

    The next thing I look at is character. Does a candidate have a record for keeping their word? Is there any record of them engaging in dishonest and/or unethical behavior? If so, then this could disqualify them for me.

    Has a candidate done anything that could make them look crazy? This is open to interpretation, as there are people out there who think that pretty much any Libertarian Party candidate, or minor party or independent candidate in general, is crazy, but sometimes a candidate may do something that “crosses the line” for me which could cause me to not support them.

    If a candidate passes these hurdles, I then look at things like speaking ability, record of political activism, ability to inspire and mobilize activism, fundraising ability, and political strategy.

    Political strategy is an important area, and one where a lot of Libertarians are weak.

    Name recognition and personal wealth (especially if one is willing to put their own money into a campaign) are nice things for a candidate to have, but if they are lacking in other areas that I previously mentioned, then I would not support them.

    Fancy credentials, like having been a former elected office holder, or having other impressive sounding titles or accomplishments to wave around can be nice things for a candidate to have as well, but they do not override the more important criteria of issue stances, philosophy, character, strategy, history of activism, public speaking ability, and the ability to inspire and mobilize people.

    My ideal (or most ideal) candidate would be somebody who lines up close to me on issues and philosophy, has good character, a record of pro-liberty activism, is a good public speaker, can inspire and mobilize people, and is rich and famous.

  379. Andy

    Tom Knapp said: “Usually when Andy and I have a big disagreement it’s over one of two things: Immigration or 9/11 Truth. If he made either of those two things centerpieces of his campaign, he’d have a hard time getting my support for a nomination versus another solid libertarian, but for two different reasons. Although we disagree on both:”

    Tom, if I were running for office, the possibility of these issues coming up would depend upon which office I was running for. If I were running for local office, or a state office, these issues would be far less likely to come up, so I’d be far less likely to comment on them.

    If I were running for a federal office, they would pretty much have to come up, so I’d have to address them, and I am not going to bullshit anyone about where I stand on anything.

    Would these be among the top issues on which I would campaign? No, although false flags may come up in discussion of foreign policy and gun control.

    Immigration would have to come up if I were running for federal office, but I would NOT make it one of my top issues, mostly because I see problems associated with immigration being symptoms of other problems, like the welfare state, bad foreign policy, the economy, and a lack of property rights and forced association.

    So I can assure you that I’d have ZERO intention of running some kind of Tom Tancredo like campaign where I’d obsess over immigration. I’m actually not even really opposed to immigration, I’m opposed to non-peaceful people immigrating (I do not consider people who immigrate and ride the welfare system to be peaceful people).

    If I were running for office, one of my biggest goals would be to let people know about things that they can implement in their regular lives to help move the country in the direction of more liberty which do not rely on anyone getting elected to office. I’m talking about things like jury nullification, home schooling, alternative currencies, promotion of gun ownership (I would try to convince as many anti-gun rights and;or people who are apathetic on the issue as to why gun rights are important, and why they should buy a gun, so I would not just “preach to the choir” and talk to gun owners), etc.,.. Promoting jury nullification would be one of my top priorities.

    Other issues I’d prioritize would be exposing and eliminating the income tax and replacing it with nothing, exposing and eliminating the Federal Reserve System, government debt, exposing government Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, liquidating and phasing out Social Security (older people still get their money, but younger people get set free from the system), reigning in the police state, ending domestic spying, promoting a peaceful foreign policy, and calling off the War on Drugs.

    9/11 was a long time ago, but it could still come up as an issue, particularly when talking about the War on Terror. So I’d have to address it and I’d tell people the truth about what I think.

    “* The main reason I’d not want 9/11 Truth to be a big issue is not so much that we disagree on it as that voters don’t give a shit about it; while”

    I think that you are wrong about this. 9/11 was a long time ago (relatively speaking), but there is actually a pretty big 9/11 Truth Movement out there, and it is my experience that people who I encounter who doubt the official government story about 9/11 are more open to the Libertarian Party (and other minor party and independent candidates) than the general public is. The type of people who get angry at the suggestion that the government lied about 9/11 are people who are the least likely to vote for anyone outside of the mainstream Democratic and Republican party candidates regardless of what we do.

    Lots of people know that the government lies about lots of things. Millions of Americans think that the government lied about the JFK assassination. Questioning the official government story about 9/11 is not as far out a thing as you are making it out to be.

    My goal as a candidate would not be to bend over backwards to try to appeal to people who vote for mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans. Kowtowing to the establishment and engaging in “respectability politics” is not something I consider to be a sound strategy for Libertarian Party candidates. I have long thought that the biggest potential constituency for Libertarian Party candidates are independents and non-voters (as in the people who are not registered to vote, but not so much the people who are not registered to vote because they are lazy or apathetic, but the ones who are not registered to vote because they don’t think that there is anyone worth voting for and that the system is corrupt).

    So if questioning the official government story about 9/11 or something like that offends people who mindlessly vote for mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans, well so what? These people are not likely to vote for me or any other alternative candidate anyway. so the heck with them.

    I bet if a candidate could get the message out that if they were to be elected they would release all of the government files on the JFK assassination, 9/11, and other points of controversy, and that they’d initiate criminal investigations into the Bush family and the Clinton family and other corrupt big name politicians, that this is something that would resonate with a lot of people.

    Lots of people out there know that the government is rampant with corruption, and that people in government lie frequently. Some of the people who vote for Democrats and Republicans are not even voting for them because they really believe in them, but rather because they are voting to keep whoever it is that they perceive to be the lesser of two evils out of office.

    So I think that this issue is more popular than you are giving it credit for being.

    “* I’d not want immigration to be a big issue because voters DO care about it right now, because the libertarian position is a position with plurality support unserved by either of the major parties, and because it’s therefore very important for Libertarian candidates to be at least mostly right about it rather than completely wrong about it.”

    I talk politics with a hell of a lot of people. Remember, I have worked on petition and/or voter registration drives in 33 states over the last 16 1/2 years. Plus I’ve talked politics with I don’t know how many people online, plus lots more in person when I was not working on a petition or voter registration drive.

    Many people, and I’m not just talking about white people, because many black people (as in African Americans), and even some Hispanic and Asian Americans, are not happy at all with the flood of people entering this country sucking up the public tax money.

    When most people hear “open borders” in reference to Libertarians, they think that Libertarians want more of this, as in more people coming in and sucking off the government tit. This is not a popular issue at all, including with lots of people who generally favor smaller government, and I am NOT just talking about Republicans (many of whom do not actually favor smaller government).

    I think that you already acknowledged that you agree with me that if coercive government ceased to exist, that all property (perhaps excluding small amounts of unclaimed land, which may or may not exist given the number of people who are on this planet) would be privately owned, and that migration/immigration policies would be set by individual land owners, or groups of land owners working in voluntary associations. Some land owners may set very open migration/immigration policies, while other land owners would set very restrictive migration/immigration policies.

    So if you agree on this point, which I think we do, then we agree on what the end goal is.

    Our area of disagreement comes with how to handle the situation now, with the existence of the state, and its welfare/warfare policies in place.

    You push the position that people have a right to migrate wherever they want, no matter what policies or market conditions are in place, and that government common spaces/infrastructure should be open to everyone in the world.

    I do not think that there is an automatic right to migrate on to land that is already occupied by other people, and I think that current public policies and market conditions should be taken into consideration, and that government common spaces/infrastructure is rightfully owned by the tax payers in the country that paid for it, and is therefore not open to everyone on the planet.

    If we did not live in a democratic welfare/warfare state a lot of these problems would go away, but the democratic welfare/warfare state is not going anyway any time soon.

    I think that you and I just have a fundamental strategy disagreement. You think it advances the cause of liberty for anyone on the planet to be able to enter the present land territory known as the USA, and I think that it detracts from the cause of liberty since the democratic welfare/warfare state attracts a lot of the wrong kind of people, in that the statistics indicate that a large percentage of them consume government welfare and vote for more socialist programs and gun control.

    My interim solution to the problem (barring mass land privatization and the dismantling of the state), is to come up with a system to allow productive, freedom loving immigrants to enter the country, and have a pathway to citizenship, but to weed out socialists, communists, theocrats, welfare leeches, and criminals, or to at not attract as many of them to come here as are coming here now.

    Immigration policy has long been a hotly debated issue in libertarian circles, much like abortion and anarchy vs minarchy debates.

    Topics like this have been hotly debated since the Libertarian Party was formed, and it is likely to remain that way for a long time.

    There is no political party where everyone always agrees on every detail of every issue.

  380. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    Yes, immigration is hotly debated in libertarian circles. Some of us support the libertarian position (open borders), and some of us go batshit insane, forget everything we know about libertarian ideas, and conclude that authoritarianism and libertarianism are the same thing when it comes to that one issue.

    Of course it is always better to be right than wrong, but at times when the issue is prominent in American politics, it’s especially important for the LP to not coddle its batshit insane immigration authoritarian wing.

    In brief detail:

    “government common spaces/infrastructure is rightfully owned by the tax payers in the country that paid for it”

    There are two possibilities concerning that statement.

    One is that it’s true, in which case as one of the owners of said common space/infrastructure I have just as much right to let people use it as you have to stop them from using it.

    The other is that it’s false, in which case said common space/infrastructure is unhomesteaded/unowned and what people do with it, regardless of which side of some gang turf line they come from, is None. Of. Your. Fucking. Business.

    I guess which respect in which you are completely wrong about this might be interesting. But there’s precisely zero question that you’re completely wrong on this.

  381. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    January 31, 2017 at 05:12
    Andy,

    Yes, immigration is hotly debated in libertarian circles. Some of us support the libertarian position (open borders), and some of us go batshit insane, forget everything we know about libertarian ideas, and conclude that authoritarianism and libertarianism are the same thing when it comes to that one issue.”

    Wow, this is all you took away from two long posts where I responded to your comments on criteria for campaigns and what I’d do if I were running for a local, state, or federal office. I expected more from you here, so you have disappointed me.:)

    I disagree that “open borders” is the libertarian position, unless of course you are talking about the borders of your own personal property, and you want to keep them open and have it not damage the person or property of others.

    As for property which is currently held by institutions known as governments, EVEN THE CURRENT LIBERTARIAN PARTY PLATFORM DOES NOT CALL FOR OPEN BORDERS, AS IT CLEARLY SAYS THAT IT IS OK TO SCREEN PEOPLE AND BAR THOSE WHO POSE A THREAT TO SECURITY, HEALTH, OR PROPERTY, FROM ENTERING.

    “Oepn borders” in the context of a democratic welfare state is New World Order agenda, and has nothing to do with libertarianism, because libertarianism is about private property.

    The “open borders” agenda is a bastardized version of libertarianism if anything. It is fake. There would only be open borders on land that was unoccupied or on land where the land owners specifically wanted the borders to be open.

  382. Andy

    Open borders is something that would be rare to exist in a stateless society, because most land owners would have some kind of migration/immigration restrictions. I could see unclaimed land being left open, but there probably would not be much land that was truly “open borders” beyond that.

  383. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Wow, this is all you took away from two long posts where I responded to your comments on criteria for campaigns and what I’d do if I were running for a local, state, or federal office. I expected more from you here, so you have disappointed me.:)”

    Where we agree, I see no point in just posting “I agree” over and over. That would be boring. Especially since these are things we already knew we agreed on.

    “There would only be open borders on land that was unoccupied or on land where the land owners specifically wanted the borders to be open.”

    Precisely. And as I just explained, in the current situation, the land is either unoccupied — or, rather, unhomesteaded, although there does happen to be a criminal gang squatting on it and pretending to own it — or I am one of the owners. Take your pick. There’s no way to get from libertarianism to government control of borders without taking a detour through complete denunciation of logic, reason and morals.

  384. Andy

    Here is what Murray Rothbard had to say on the subject:

    “This is from Murray Rothbard’s Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State. It was published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies in 1994.

    IV. THE PURE ANARCHO-CAPITALIST MODEL

    I raise the pure anarcho-capitalist model in this paper, not so much to advocate the model per se as to propose it as a guide for settling vexed current disputes about nationality. The pure model, simply, is that no land areas, no square footage in the world, shall remain “public”; every square foot of land area, be they streets, squares, or neighborhoods, is privatized. Total privatization would help solve nationality problems, often in surprising ways, and I suggest that existing states, or classical liberal states, try to approach such a system even while some land areas remain in the governmental sphere.

    Open Borders, or the Camp of-the Saints Problem
    The question of open borders, or free immigration, has become an accelerating problem for classical liberals. This is first, because the welfare state increasingly subsidizes immigrants to enter and receive permanent assistance, and second, because cultural boundaries have become increasingly swamped. I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples. Previously, it had been easy to dismiss as unrealistic Jean Raspail’s anti-immigration novel The Camp of the Saints, in which virtually the entire population of India decides to move, in small boats, into France, and the French, infected by liberal ideology, cannot summon the will to prevent economic and cultural national destruction. As cultural and welfare-state problems have intensified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail’s concerns any longer.

    However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

    Under total privatization, many local conflicts and “externality” problems-not merely the immigration problem-would be neatly settled. With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortions, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s or community’s land area. While statists who have the itch to impose their values on everyone else would be disappointed, every group or interest would at least have the satisfaction of living in neighborhoods of people who share its values and preferences. While neighborhood ownership would not provide Utopia or a panacea for all conflicts, it would at least provide a “second-best” solution that most people might be willing to live with.”

  385. Andy

    If it does not matter who your neighbors are, which is apparently you think since you espouse “open borders” under all circumstances, what’s the point of the Free State Project, or Liberland (which stipulates that they want to BAN socialists, communists, and religious extremist from living there), or Liberstad? If mass immigration with no standards and a welfare state equals freedom, then why is it not creating a free society anywhere where it is happening?

    California is one of the states with the most foreign born people, and it is also one of the states that is the lowest on the freedom index. Going by your logic, California should be one of the freest states in the nation since it has so many immigrants. The mass influx of immigrants into California has led to higher taxes and more gun control laws, and the statistics clearly show that this is in large part because immigrants voted for these things.

  386. Andy

    If a large percentage of the people immigrating were libertarians things would obviously be better, but this is clearly not the case.

    This is where I think a lot of libertarians get it wrong. There is a difference between PEACEFUL people crossing borders (ie-libertarians), and non-peaceful people crossing borders (people who hold ideologies that are not libertarian).

  387. Thomas L. Knapp

    Yes, Rothbard was still alive near the beginning of the divergence problem created by the idiotic “paleo strategy.” Unfortunately he died before he could realize the problem was insoluble in that case, abandon the strategy and revert to libertarianism. And even more unfortunately, most of his proteges seem to have either been unable to figure out that they couldn’t solve it, or to have just consciously decided to go down the paleoconservative fork instead of the libertarian fork.

    The paleo strategy is incompatible with libertarianism as to both ends and means. I suppose that might not have been immediately obvious to Rothbard et al. 30 years ago when they first got hold of a bad batch of crack and thought it up, but it’s certainly become obvious over time. Paleoconservatism is not a variety of libertarianism, it is a decision to abandon libertarianism over the issues where libertarianism simply can’t be stretched to cover particular authoritarian exceptions. Such as immigration.

  388. Thomas L. Knapp

    “If it does not matter who your neighbors are, which is apparently [what] you think”

    If you’re going to build straw men to knock down, you’ll need to do a better job than that.

  389. Jill Pyeatt

    The mass influx of immigrants into California has led to higher taxes and more gun control laws, and the statistics clearly show that this is in large part because immigrants voted for these things.

    I don’t agree with this statement at all. I’ve never seen a statistic saying that it’s all immigrants’ fault.

    Texas also has a very high percentage of immigrants from Mexico. By your logic, they should also have strong gun control laws and less freedom. As we all know, that’s not the case in Texas.

  390. William Saturn

    “Texas also has a very high percentage of immigrants from Mexico. By your logic, they should also have strong gun control laws and less freedom. As we all know, that’s not the case in Texas.”

    Texas is moving in that direction as are Arizona and New Mexico.

  391. Andy

    “William Saturn
    January 31, 2017 at 14:59
    ‘Texas also has a very high percentage of immigrants from Mexico. By your logic, they should also have strong gun control laws and less freedom. As we all know, that’s not the case in Texas.’

    Texas is moving in that direction as are Arizona and New Mexico.”

    Yep. One of the main reasons that Texas is not more like California yet is because Texas still has a lot of rednecks.

    Also, California is the home to Hollywood, and San Francisco, two of the most left leaning places in the country.

  392. Andy

    Take the rednecks out of Texas, or make them a minority that can easily be outvoted, and look for more gun control laws to pass in Texas.

  393. Andy

    This is an example of why, in another thread, I suggested revamping the Naturalization process, so better quality immigrants would be attracted, and that they would have a better understanding of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, free market economics, and the right to keep and bear arms, BEFORE they are sworn in as American citizens.

    Yeah, I know that lots of Americans also suck in various ways, but I’ve already made other proposals to address these problems in other threads, and I’m just focusing on the immigration and naturalization process for this part of the discussion.

  394. George Phillies

    There is great confusion here as to how Massachusetts ballot access works.

    “Also, I would not automatically assume that the LP’s of Massachusetts or New York would not nominate him. He could just flood their conventions with his stooges and win their nominations, and this assumes that there are no LP members in MA and NY who are unprincipled or naive enough to vote for him, which is not something I would assume.”

    “Tom, the LP has party status now in Massachusetts, which means that Weld can get on the ballot in MA by petitioning under the same rules as the D’s and R’s, which means only registered Libertarians and registered unenrolled (as in people registered to vote without a party label) can sign the petition. I think that this does entitle the LP to its own primary in Massachusetts. I am not sure as to whether or not a candidate needs the nomination of the state party to be on the ballot as a Libertarian.

    I could look the law up, but I imagine that George Phillies will be here to fill us in on the details and clear up any confusion over what the process is for candidates in Massachusetts.”

    There are several paths to getting on the ballot here. At one point, there is a rule that the state party may or may not adopt.

    Massachusetts at last report had a Libertarian Association of Massachusetts and (thanks to the 2016 election) a Libertarian Party of Massachusetts. The first is a group of dues-paying members. The latter is the voters of Massachusetts who enrolled as Libertarians.

    The LAMA convention has nothing to do with people getting on the ballot.

    While Libertarian is a minor party (not applicable to 2018) to run for statewide office you collect signatures on nominating papers (any voter may sign), and you appear on the November ballot as a Libertarian.

    While Libertarian is a major Party, to run for statewide office you collect signatures on nominating papers in a much narrower time window, with only Libertarians and independent voters being able to sign, and you may or may not be on the primary ballot.

    State Law allows a major party to adopt a rule saying that candidates for statewide office must ALSO get enough votes at the state convention, or they are not on the primary ballot. The Democrats and Republicans have this rule. I have not heard what LPMA is doing. In recent years, there has often been careful maneuvering at the D and R conventions to make sure that this rule was not used to keep people off the ballot, since there would be negative repercussions in November if someone got the signatures and was not in the primary. The latest R convention did things differently, and after litigation there was a major hole in the RPMA coffers and the candidate was on the ballot any how.

    Collecting signatures under minor party rules, and avoiding Boston, Cambridge, and Lowell, the signature validity rate without vigorous filtering is 80% or higher. Under major party rules, same exclusion, the validity rate falls to 30%. You can filter voters for eligibility, but this slows down signature collection. A lot.

    If Weld runs for Senate, we may well have two Libertarian Slates on the ballot under slightly different party names.

  395. John

    “I suggested revamping the Naturalization process, so better quality immigrants would be attracted, and that they would have a better understanding of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, free market economics, and the right to keep and bear arms, BEFORE they are sworn in as American citizens.”

    Andy wants to put the US government in charge of deciding who has a good understanding of free market economics, etc. Yeah, good luck with that.

    And yeah, I know a propertarian feudal order with walls, barbed wire, armed guards, questioning of anyone passing through, searches and examination of biometric travel documents, and other border controls every couple of miles is the ultimate goal here. But, in the meantime, we’ll settle for the folks who run the BATFE and DEA determining who should be in the US based on political ideology. Because that’s going to work out great! I see no potential problems at all with implementation.

    “Yeah, I know that lots of Americans also suck in various ways, but I’ve already made other proposals to address these problems in other threads, and I’m just focusing on the immigration and naturalization process for this part of the discussion.”

    Other suggestions? Do tell. Mandatory sterilization? Taking away people’s citizenship? Repealing the 19th Amendment? Poll taxes? If any of these are not justifiable by using the same reasoning that you use to want to limit immigration, in the real world by the real existing government, please explain the difference.

  396. Vg

    Anyone notice that the Constitution Party is about to launch a new website and that they have a new logo?I quite like the new logo it looks modern.

  397. paulie Post author

    Mises seems to be out of fashion at the Mises Institute the last few years.

    Yes, they seem to have hopped over to the dark side in some respects.

  398. dL

    Mises seems to be out of fashion at the Mises Institute the last few years.

    Mises was a liberal. He would be appalled by the critical theory nonsense that Hoppe, Rockwell and others have brought in.

  399. George Phillies

    Courtesy of the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance, and only up today, the promised revival of LPedia and other things, a work in progress:

    lp-history.org/wiki/index.php

    Note that the Concrete5 install for the front page here and at LibertarianLeaders.org is in progress and not yet complete, so the actual front page is not yet visible.

  400. langa

    While I have made it clear on many threads that I strongly disagree with Andy’s position on immigration, I disagree even more strongly with the suggestions that his comments should be deleted, or that he should be banned from IPR. The idea that one should seek to silence those with whom one disagrees is about as authoritarian as it gets. (And please, no lectures about how IPR is privately owned, and has the right to ban whomever it wants. I’m fully aware of that, and I’m not disputing the existence of such rights. Rather, I’m questioning the wisdom of exercising such rights — at least, if one’s goal is freedom, as so many here claim.)

  401. langa

    …we have not had a massive internal crackdown on political dissent. As bad as things have been, they can get much worse. Much worse.

    The question you should ask yourself is why they have not gotten worse already. Is it simply because previous presidents were too benevolent? For example, if Congress had proposed a budget that doubled military spending, do you think Bush would have vetoed it? If Congress had proposed massive regulations on businesses, do you think Obama would have vetoed them?

    I think not. Every president in my lifetime has done as much as they thought they could get away with, and I expect Trump will do the same. The question is, “How much will he be able to get away with?” Or, more accurately, “How much will the public put up with?” That’s why I’m so concerned about, for example, college students being taught that any speech that “offends” them deserves to be silenced. That kind of authoritarian attitude being adopted by the future leaders of this country makes it more likely that authoritarian laws proposed by Trump (or by future presidents) will be considered acceptable.

  402. langa

    You are actually following the pattern of how the fascists respond to accusations of fascism. … They will say something exactly like: “oh, but what about leftist safe spaces at Oberlin College” in response to government cracking skulls.

    You don’t seem to get it. It’s not just about the “safe spaces” (stupid and childish as they are). It’s about the underlying motivation for such things, and the potential for that motivation (silencing of dissent) to manifest itself in much more dangerous ways. 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/

    If you bother to read that link, you’ll see it has nothing to do with “safe spaces” at all. Rather, it’s a policy whereby anyone (even tenured faculty members) can be suspended or even fired for “offensive” speech. So, what counts as offensive? According to the article:

    Sharp criticism of Islam.
    Claims that homosexuality is immoral.
    Claims that there are biological differences in aptitude and temperament, on average, between men and women.
    Rejection of the view that gender identity can be defined by self-perception, as opposed to biology.
    Harsh condemnation of soldiering (that would be harassment based on “service in the uniformed services” or “veteran status”).
    Condemnation of people who have children out of wedlock (that would be harassment based on “marital … status” and “family status”).

    Yes, you read that right. Tenured professors can be suspended or even fired for, among other things, criticizing soldiers.

    If you don’t see how that kind of mindset is a serious threat to freedom, then I don’t know what else to say to you.

  403. langa

    …you yourself said that threats of aggression are aggression. I’m still curious whether you really consider running for office or other political advocacy that is anything other than strictly libertarian to be in and of itself an act of aggression, since it’s a threat of aggression, however real or not?

    It depends on what one promises to do if elected. If you promise to commit aggression, then yes, of course that’s aggression. Saying, “If you elect me, I’ll force people to do work they don’t want to do, and if they resist, I’ll use violence to force them to comply” is obviously aggression. How could it not be? It’s no different than if a hit man says, “If you give me $10,000, I’ll kill that guy.”

    What forms of retaliatory or preventive force do you think are called for to keep such threats from being carried out?

    That’s up to the individual. Personally, I would say that working to prevent such a person from getting elected would be a good start. At the very least, avoid assisting them in getting elected, as that would seem to make one an accomplice on some level.

    …words range along a spectrum, from imminent threats to using profanity in inappropriate settings.

    “Spectrum” or not, there is a clear distinction between words which merely offend, versus words that clearly communicate a specific threat. Only the latter constitute aggression.

  404. langa

    Here you go: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/07/sonny-landham-calls-for-genocide-of-all-arabs/

    If you read the thread, you’ll see people like “johncjackson” and “mscrib” arguing that what Landham said was no different than the Ron Paul newsletters. Of course, as I pointed out before, those newsletters never once advocated the use of aggression. But to many people (like “johncjackson” and “mscrib”) that doesn’t matter, because Landham’s real sin was not calling for aggression, but using “offensive” language.

  405. langa

    Again not seeing the comment you are responding to. What’s going on here?

    What’s going on? Simple. You (or one of the other editors) are indulging your “inner authoritarian” by deleting any post that you find sufficiently objectionable. Yes, you have the right to do it, but that doesn’t mean I have to play along with it, no matter how much you might wish that I would.

  406. langa

    The blurb posted on a website by a few organizers hardly represents the reasons of millions of people who showed up. It’s absurd to assume that it does.

    Let’s see. Should we take the word of the people who came up with this idea about what their agenda is, or should we instead take your totally unsupported assertions of what you wish their agenda was? Hmm, I think I’ll go with the former.

    Furthermore, I think you place the emphasis on the wrong word. Let’s try it like this:

    The rhetoric of the past election cycle has insulted, demonized, and threatened many of us – immigrants of all statuses, Muslims and those of diverse religious faiths, people who identify as LGBTQIA, Native people, Black and Brown people, people with disabilities, survivors of sexual assault – and our communities are hurting and scared. We are confronted with the question of how to move forward in the face of national and international concern and fear.

    Ironically, you were the one who said that threats of aggression are aggression. What this paragraph clearly said was that many people have good reason to fear that the rhetoric of the campaign will become the policy of the new regime and that the guns of government will be turned on us to enforce it. That’s a lot different than your characterization of it as just being women whose feelings are hurt because Trump uses crude language about women in his personal life. We are clearly talking about policies, not just words, here, and many of these policies are ones on which libertarians agree with the protesters.

    Regardless of which words are emphasized, those words still have meanings, and in some cases, those words have multiple meanings. For example, “threatened” can mean that you were faced with a specific threat, or it can mean that you were simply made to feel uncomfortable. For example, it would be fair to say that many conservative Christians feel “threatened” by the gay rights movement. However, that does not mean that anyone in the gay rights movement has made any specific threat against anyone. The same is true with many of the groups listed here. What specific threat has Trump made against, for example, “…people who identify as LGBTQIA, Native people, Black and Brown people, people with disabilities, survivors of sexual assault…”? None that I am aware of. (True, some of the immigrants and/or Muslims that he has threatened may well belong to those other groups, but he has threatened them, not on that basis, but solely on the basis of their being immigrants and/or Muslims).

    Furthermore, the statement cites not only “threats” (which, again, are apparently not of the specific nature required to count as aggression), but also “insults” — which is certainly not anything libertarians should be marching against. On the contrary, libertarians should be defending the right to free speech, including saying things that are “insulting” to others. If you disagree, ask yourself how many times, on this very website, you yourself have “insulted” Trump (and many other politicians). Should you therefore be the target of protests and demonstrations?

Leave a Reply

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