Open Thread for July, 2017

Welcome to July! For some of us, this is a month for vacation. For others, it’s a month to hang out at the beach. It also means we’re halfway through the tumultuous year of 2017. For those of who who read and comment on IPR, it ‘s another month to discuss third-party politics and independents.

If you have something to share that doesn’t quite fit into another thread, here’s a place to leave it. As long as it doesn’t slander or plagiarize anyone, it’s probably okay.

Here’s a chilling video in which the writers of “Mother” osk that ever-important question: Mother, should I trust the government?

523 thoughts on “Open Thread for July, 2017

  1. Bondurant

    The world is still an ugly political shit show but….NHL free agency has kicked off! A minor distraction from the sorry state of affairs domestic and abroad.

  2. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Speaking of sorry state of affairs, the LP “Radical” Caucus once again voted down putting any plank on abortion in their platform, even simply the one from the LP.org/platform. (A majority of 21 odd video conference participants. Something tells me the leading anti-abortionist in the group stacked the deck with her fanatical buddies.)

    And there was massive drama and the same individual’s threat to quit because of the proposal that this language be included: ” The repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material;” because it might be seen as including kiddie porn. Why not take out prostitution too since lots of teenagers get sucked into that? And drugs? And internet freedom? And free speech because kids might hear us cursing??

    Radicals are supposed to be smart enough to tweak hardcore statements, not just throw hissy fits and ignore hard topics altogether. Well, at least they haven’t gotten rid of their ommissions plank – yet…

  3. SolidAmerica

    The American Solidarity Party has its first candidate on the ballot for state legislature. Monica Sohler in the 6th Assembly District.

    Ellennita Hellmer is running for state legislature in Virginia’s 50th district as an independent but with ASP endorsement, as a write-in. She turned in a full petition but did not make the ballot.

    Hopefully IPR can do a story on this soon.

  4. Just Some Random Guy

    Might as well post this again. Laura Ebke’s “Jump Start 2018” fundraiser for her re-election in 2018 lasts until July 4:
    lauraebke.com

    Obviously, no politician would say no to a donation given after that point, but part of the reason for trying to raise the money this early is to, as it says, give a jump start to the re-election campaign. As the liberal Emily’s List says, Early Money Is Like Yeast.

    I want to again say why I think this re-election is incredibly important: She was one of the state representatives who changed their party status to Libertarian. I expect there’s quite a few more who might be interested, but are hesitant about their re-election chances if they change to a minor party. If it can be demonstrated that someone can change to Libertarian and then get re-elected, that would probably cause more to jump ship.

  5. dL

    …threat to quit because of the proposal that this language be included: ” The repeal repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material;” because it might be seen as including kiddie porn.

    who exactly was making a “what about the children” objection to the repeal of pornography laws? I find it difficult to believe that viewpoint would exist within the radical caucus membership…

  6. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    So as not to misrepresent what happened at Radical caucus platform video conference call, here’s what a participant wrong (in reply to an inaccurate hearsay version):

    Tyler Danke Here is my modified version of the original post that I believe is much more accurate. So the LPRC had their “Virtual Convention” last week.
    They paid extra so that they could conduct a teleconference with more than 100 attendees. They got 21 attendees, 19 of which paid $100 to be able to vote.
    Caryn Ann Harlos did do a lot of the talking because she was the platform committee chair so all motions would be presented and debated first by her. At one point a vote didn’t go her way, and she freaked out and left the call. 15 minutes later, when they had already moved on with the agenda, she came back on the call. Caryn Ann threatened to leave the caucus and never come back if they passed something that gave a hint that the radical caucus endorsed child pornography. There was a motion to reconsider the issue she had left over. The motion was reconsidered and was amended before it eventually passed. The will of the organization won that day without any type of coercion.
    It seems like the so-called radical caucus now consists 19 people willing to spend 4.5 hours of their Saturday afternoon AND pay $100 to be voting members. and there are many more that were not able to make the event. I think it’s safe to say that for some people the radical caucus is no longer a legitimate outlet for party members advocating for anti-authoritarianism. For some people, the radical caucus is a legitimate outlet for some party members advocating for anti-authoritarianism.

  7. Starchild

    Carol — good points. If we feel compelled to add “except” children” every time we write about human freedom, we’re in sorry shape as the Radical Caucus.

  8. dL

    Carol — good points. If we feel compelled to add “except” children” every time we write about human freedom, we’re in sorry shape as the Radical Caucus.

    If you are using Facebook as your public archive source, you have already lost…

  9. Andy

    Murder is bad, except for children in the womb.

    This is much like saying, slavery is bad, unless the person being enslaved is black, then it is OK.

  10. langa

    who exactly was making a “what about the children” objection to the repeal of pornography laws? I find it difficult to believe that viewpoint would exist within the radical caucus membership…

  11. dL

    Hmm, that last comment didn’t work. I was trying to post a video. We used to be able to do that here.

    Use the iframe embed code

  12. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    DL: A lot of people who don’t understand radicalism at all are in the radical caucus.

    Also, want to provide a link to a site that explains which iframe embed code best for this wordpress site? (Since the ones I find just tell you what to do if you are the webmaster of the site. Of course maybe just writing here makes you an editor.)

    I’d do a test of code I put into one of my wordpress sites. This one is dedicated to Andy, if it works:

    [embed width="500" height="325"]https://youtu.be/KNQyJ-ur_sY[/embed]

  13. dL

    I did. Didn’t work.

    Ok, I verified that you need an authenticated login account to video embed. Otherwise the WordPress parser will strip it out. Sorry.

  14. dL

    I’m not able to post this as a comment and have it open up. I don’t know why.

    The WordPress editor parses a video link to a html correct embed code. No wordpress editor for comments, hence no link parsing.

  15. dL

    I’d do a test of code I put into one of my wordpress sites. This one is dedicated to Andy, if it works:

    [embed] is a wordpress editor markup. It is only going to work when using the WP editor to publish.

  16. dL

    DL: A lot of people who don’t understand radicalism at all are in the radical caucus.

    There is no prerequisite to attend seminary school to be a radical. It’s pretty simple. Support NOTHING that increases the authority of the state. That’s it. Unfortunately, it appears some may be using the radical caucus as an intermediate step to an inevitable landing in the GOP. Of course, after posting the obligatory “libertarians are delusional” sayonara.

  17. Jill Pyeatt

    DL, I’ve been posting videos here for years. I’ve never had a problem before.

  18. dL

    DL, I’ve been posting videos here for years. I’ve never had a problem before.

    WordPress shortcode/markup in user comments? I believe that is disabled by default and can only be enabled by a 3rd party plugin. Comments of course are different than posts and pages where that shortcode should work in the visual editor.

  19. paulie

    We can still post youtube videos using just the URL in posts. We used to be able to do the same thing in comments. Due to either a wordpress update or something the Redlich brothers did (most likely Steve, but it could have been Warren) we can no longer do that. Now only IPR admins and editors, and possibly authors (I would have to check to refresh my memory), can post youtube videos and then only if they grab the embed code, not just by posting the URL. I preferred it the way it was before.

    As it s now it will post just the URL if you post the URL and not a video you can click on and play without leaving the site. Our usage stats show that virtually nobody ever clicks on the youtube links to view them offsite. I have no way of telling how many people watch the videos if they are embedded, but people did comment on them before so at least some people did watch them when it was easier to embed them here.

  20. dL

    Guest commentary: Why I’m running as a Republican for U.S. Senate

    ” I have made this change in large part because after personally reaching out to over 4,000 of my supporters, more than 98 percent of them said that the party of Lincoln was the best fit for my pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-Constitution stands — and more importantly, the best way to bring change to Washington.”

    That’s why he raised a such stink over Arvin Vohra’s comments RE: the military. Predictable as 1,2,3…Can’t have the GOP’s minor league farm team saying shit like that.

  21. dL

    Due to either a wordpress update or something the Redlich brothers did (most likely Steve, but it could have been Warren) we can no longer do that.

    Video link parsing for posts and pages is part of WordPress native. Link parsing in user comments requires a separate plugin. Most likely, the settings for that plugin were changed, either manually or by an update. Unfortunately, I don’t have a sufficient security role to view plugins, so I can’t tell for sure.

  22. Andy

    “Guest commentary: Why I’m running as a Republican for U.S. Senate

    I have made this change in large part because after personally reaching out to over 4,000 of my supporters, more than 98 percent of them said that the party of Lincoln was the best fit for my pro-life, pro-liberty, pro-Constitution stands — and more importantly, the best way to bring change to Washington.”

    The Republican Party does not really uphold any of those things. If Austin thinks he can get more publicity, or have a better shot at getting elected as a Republican, I could see making those arguments, but acting like the Republican Party is anything more than a corrupt organization that bears half of the responsibility for the mess that we are in today is not accurate.

  23. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    And there was massive drama and the same individual’s threat to quit because of the proposal that this language be included: ” The repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material;” because it might be seen as including kiddie porn.
    —–

    That’s dumb. I would have expected better logic from Caryn Ann.

    In my opinion, this piece on the subject from many years ago still holds up fairly well, except for the problem of “intellectual property” (I came to understand that there’s no such thing some time after writing it).

  24. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Thomas, it was more nuanced than that and your piece is excellent but explains why on this issue more precise wording is needed that isn’t needed in other topics.

    Since you know I am not dumb, I hope you can presume that it was a clear nuanced position I wanted. I felt this one ham-fisted.

  25. Caryn Ann Harlos

    George, it is always good to directly talk to the people in question. Things can be portrayed many ways. A threat has an implication that is not present here. Sometimes people simply state what they will do. During the time that this was considered in platcomm it became known that some members with potentially contentious child custody were uncomfortable with the un-nuanced wording as vindictive ex’s could use it or even someone’s employer. That is a valid concern and there were others. Messing with people’s real personal lives, livelihoods, and kids when it can be worded better and communicate principles better is not acceptable.

    There are always several sides to a story, and some others not told. We are people with lives and fragilities not walking L-bots.

    On the abortion plank, I wrote it with Kim and fully expected it to pass. It didn’t.

  26. Caryn Ann Harlos

    And inaccurate account- I didn’t leave for fifteen minutes after a vote. I left prior to the vote because someone said something that quite unexpectedly provoked a deep reaction. I left to deal with that. I asked how the vote went when I came back. There was confusion about it and several people expressed discomfort not just me. The body agreed to reconsider one portion and refer back to committee.

    Yes I did say (with the support of several others) that I would leave if we left such a ham fisted wording that already has been twisted for the sake of being “radical” rather than a statement that clearly communicated our position which is shocking enough without adding ambiguity that affects real people’s lives.

    We often act like this is all some fun virtual world where we snipe at each other and run from forum to forum obsessively on people and dragging them through mud.

    It isn’t fun and games, it is real world, and I desire to present clear nuanced radical positions.

  27. Andy

    “paulie
    July 4, 2017 at 08:00
    If Molyneux hits any nail on any head, that head must have been his own.”

    I bet that you did not even watch the video.

  28. Andy

    This speech was given in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, PA, on July 4th, 2009.

    I wish that there was some way to set up a big screen at every 4th of July event in this country, and play this speech before the fireworks start.

    Larken Rose YOU ARE NOT THE BOSS OF ME brilliant speech

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

  29. Bondurant

    It’s the anniversary of the original Brexit. A day on which many like to blow things up and hope to make it to July 5 without losing digits.

    A bit too hot in my neck of the woods to mill about and wait for fireworks. I’ve settled on watching chess videos on YouTube (from English content creators!).

  30. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    RE: Austin Petersen. http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article159554424.html

    As I wrote there: It’s always good to see an advocate for secession running for office as Republican. Search his views on secession, for example this from 2016: “Yes, of course. I’m in favor of that right of secession. I like the idea that the Amish can create communes where they are free to practice their religion. Can you imagine if the anarcho-capitalists were as productive as the Amish how much better off we’d all be? I would love for people to have the opportunity to have communes where they are free of the restraints of taxation. Letting people opt out is a key concept in libertarian thought.” If elected hopefully he will spearhead a Constitutional Amendment to allow town, cities and regions to secede from the union.

  31. dL

    In my opinion, this piece on the subject from many years ago still holds up fairly well, except for the problem of “intellectual property” (I came to understand that there’s no such thing some time after writing it).

    Yes, I agree…that piece holds up very well.

    However, rationales like this

    it is real world…
    clear nuanced position…
    some members with contentious child custody issues were uncomfortable…

    do not.

  32. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    re: Ms. Harlos and fun and games. If it’s not fun and games, why does she run around with that ridiculous pink hair and statue of liberty crown? She has MORE than enough personality and work ethic to make an impact on the party (for good or ill).

    I’m not worried that SOME outside persons might immediately jump to worry about the LP promoting kiddie porn is a big issue because we’re against censorship. But it’s probably less of an issue than SOME outside persons thinking a party leader running around like an attention seeking teeny bopper with pink hair and a crown proves libertarians are a bunch of nuts. (In fact I’ve read a couple reports on Ms. Harlos hair that infer just that.) And then there’s the slamming the door business…

    So please quit the NUANCE bull shit. There’s little in Ms. Harlos presentation that is nuanced.

    Of course, I’m not always very nuanced myself. And I actually recommended the Audacious Caucus add a bit of nuance to their Children’s Rights platform. But at least I admit my own contradictions!

    Of course, the effectiveness of pink hair has had me toying withbringing a dozen cheap pink wigs (or cowboy or pussy hats?) in case the LP gets rid of the Abortion plank. 2/3 naked protesters can wear them so media and pro-choicers can find us for comment, especially if we are in various degrees of disrobing. (Surely nothing much less than LNC member Starchild wears about the convention, of course.)

    If the LP doesn’t take women’s right seriously, we at least can advertise it to the media and other libertarians and women worldwide that we don’t take the LP’s commitment to freedom seriously.

    Of course, given that the alt-rightists in the LP Veteran Caucus are threatening big protests if the LP doesn’t respect the confederacy, or some such nonsense, and move it’s NOLA convention. So in comparison all our pink hair/hats and 2/3 naked bodies may not get as much attention.

    Perhaps the party gets wilder every year, as opposed to more conservative after all… Or maybe everyone will get sensible and they’ll be no pink hair/hats/bodies or alt-rightists at the convention. Time will tell.

  33. Caryn Ann Harlos

    DL it does to me and did to them. We can fight for principles wisely and I presume parents know what’s in the best interest of their family.

  34. dL

    DL it does to me and did to them. We can fight for principles wisely and I presume parents know what’s in the best interest of their family.

    What’s in the best interest of squabbling families w/ vindictive spouses on the lookout for legal weapons is not necessarily in the best interest of the LP or other individuals/families not burdened with that drama.

  35. dL

    re: Ms. Harlos and fun and games. If it’s not fun and games, why does she run around with that ridiculous pink hair and statue of liberty crown? She has MORE than enough personality and work ethic to make an impact on the party (for good or ill).

    Her argument in this instance is weak enough to preclude any need of having to resort to ad hominem attacks.

  36. Caryn Ann Harlos

    DL,

    That is one example. And I do think it in the best interest of the LP to be very clear and nuanced on this issue. Knapp’s article laid out very good reasons why – because there absolutely is no discussion or room for allowance like other subjects. Certain things you must be clear on. I understand you disagree. That’s fine. We each live with our own consciences. I’m looking forward to a much more nuanced statement.

  37. langa

    If elected hopefully [Petersen] will spearhead a Constitutional Amendment to allow town, cities and regions to secede from the union.

    Given that he is touting his decision to join the GOP as joining “the party of Lincoln”, I doubt Petersen will have much good to say about secession — or maybe he will, to prove he’s a just as much of a hypocrite as his fellow GOP-ers.

  38. paulie

    I bet that you did not even watch the video.

    Correct, I would not waste my time nor would I suggest anyone else do so. However, I have posted plenty of information regarding Molyneux in the past and watched enough of his videos to know that it was accurate.

  39. paulie

    re: Ms. Harlos and fun and games. If it’s not fun and games, why does she run around with that ridiculous pink hair and statue of liberty crown? She has MORE than enough personality and work ethic to make an impact on the party (for good or ill).

    Why are her fashion choices any of your business?

    . And I actually recommended the Audacious Caucus add a bit of nuance to their Children’s Rights platform.

    It’s funny that they have a platform at all. The original impetus for the creation of their caucus was that some people created a structure to decide on what the platform, bylaws, officers etc would be for the Radical Caucus, and they claimed that no one had the right to do that since the structure did not previously already exist to elect or empower anyone to make such decisions.

    Also, the lack of nuance in the Audacious Caucus plank is on purpose. Jeff Wood makes internet graphics of a cutout large person holding a small person’s hand alongside male-female, male-male and female-female pairings, implying pedophilia should be considered equally with straight, gay, lesbian and poly relationships (I believe that was also on the same graphic).

    Of course, given that the alt-rightists in the LP Veteran Caucus are threatening big protests if the LP doesn’t respect the confederacy, or some such nonsense, and move it’s NOLA convention.

    I don’t think Ramsey’s following is really all that large. A lot of veterans joined the FB group just thinking it was a generic veterans caucus not realizing it was an altreich front group. As for Ramsey and whoever else really does follow him, I do hope they can stay out of New Orleans and find their way to the “American” “Freedom” Party convention. It would be a lot more up their alley.

  40. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Actually, once one has proved the person has made invalid points, the reasons they do so become relevant. Especially when they give the excuse they were being “Nuanced” when nuance is not their attention seeking modus operandi.

    Paulie makes good points and I do have to pay more attention to who is up to what. Some in a couple of my feminist FB groups certainly have pointed out that straight males (trans) and pedophiles (promoting pedophiles as “minorities”) use LGB’s to promote agendas that harm especially younger LGBs.

    Sometimes blue haired Wood also obviously and attention seeker. Missed the brouhaha on pedophilia on Sex Caucus couple months back and don’t go there much, so still not sure who is promoting what. I am for children’s rights, however, so they can establish majority and get away quickly from abusive or neglectful parents. And having run into a couple seductive pedophiles whose activities I had to publicize to possible targets of their interest, I do see this as an issue. In the LPRC platform case it really was overblown paranoia.

    And then we have Ms. Harlos as a defacto leader of the LPRC,, a radical group that can’t even pass a platform plank saying “keep the govt out of the abortion issue.” (I know that got voted down too.)

    Seriously, Paulie. What is going on? A lot of people thinking leaving the GOP and calling themselves “libertarian” think that automatically makes them radical? But they’re really a bunch of quasi-libertarian abortion prohibitionists? Or does Ms. Harlos work hard to recruit abortion prohibitionists to her platform meetings so she can zap the abortion plank?

    If either case, extremism in defense of women’s liberty, against people who would take away the freedom of half the human race, is no freaking vice…

  41. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Says the guy whose response to any criticism of the STATE of Israel for many years was to scream “ANTI-SEMITE!!” (Though it seems to me he’s become more tolerant of such criticism the last few years and made some himself.)

    You’ll be glad to know that to me Saudi Arabia is right up there with Israel now as a country that has too much influence on US foreign policy and engages in wars of aggression to steal other people’s lands, like in Yemen.

  42. Thomas L. Knapp

    Carol,

    The next time I call anyone an anti-Semite for criticizing Israel will be the first time I call someone an anti-Semite for criticizing Israel.

    You’ve played that card and been corrected on it too many times for it to be treated as honest at this point.

  43. dL

    That is one example.

    Well, it is the only one you given..and its weak argument. It’s analogous to saying the LP shouldn’t argue for drug legalization lest it be grounds for state investigation of party members for “illegal narcotics.” Indeed, if some vindictive spouse is looking for weapons in the LP platform/principles in a child custody case, it’s difficult to imagine that drug legalization wouldn’t be right up there w/ pornography. Now it’s not like I have no sympathy for an individual’s situation, but pseudo-anonymity for that individual is a preferable alternative to cowardice for all.

    Knapp’s article laid out very good reasons why

    How so? That piece doesn’t make the case that taboo social norms should dictate nuance.
    My reading of your position, after we get around your weak rationalizations, is that they should.

  44. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I’m not particularly interested in rehashing the whole thing here. Any caucus member can bring it back up at the 2018 convention. I don’t have to defend my decisions – they are mine. Knapp’s article provided insight because in that this is a subject in which we don’t have discussions, there is little room for nuance and positions need to be clear. And there are people who have used the LP over the years to appear to support inappropriate behaviour. We just recently had an article about a guy running in VA who was very open about it. It happens with enough regularity on such a topic where there is a cone of silence that we must be clear.

    You don’t agree. You think it is weak. That’s your prerogative. It is not my position.

    Do we know each other? Are you a caucus member? This isn’t the national platform, this is a caucus platform and ultimately the concern of caucus members with an opportunity to change it every year. The proposed change was published months in advance. Join and put in a submission for change in 2018. Platform committee is appointed in October and member submissions are welcome as long as they given with time to publish thirty days in advance.

  45. Thomas L. Knapp

    I’m not going to presume how to tell the Radical Caucus what to do, since I am not a member.

    My own position is that the LP should support “repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material.”

    The problem with real* child porn is not that it is sexually explicit material. The problem with real child porn is that it is evidence that those producing, trading in, or possessing it have either committed, or are accessories after the fact to, sexual assault. They should be charged with those actual crimes — and if the victims want to monetize the evidence as a way of getting some restitution, they should be free to do so.

    As well as being the morally correct position, it is my position that that would tend to reduce the demand for NEW material of the type (why would someone put themselves in position to be charged with a crime when there’s legally available material of that sort?), and the crimes attending production of such NEW material. The research I’ve seen on the effects of porn on sex crimes are inconclusive, but it seems to me that there’s some chance that a pedophile who could get legal porn catering to his or her tastes (and in doing so make restitution to some other pedophile’s victims instead of rewarding the criminals) might refrain from actual sexual assaults.

    *A lot of people don’t know it, but it is also illegal to make FAKE child porn, i.e. computer-generated porn not involving real people, or porn with adult actors who look like or are portrayed as children.

    Not something I’d go out of my way to make a marquee issue, but as with all issues, the party should be RIGHT on it rather than WRONG on it when it comes up.

  46. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Tom you and I are in agreement very much that there is a separate crime being committed. Because of persons using the LP to promote such beliefs I felt we really needed to be very clear. I have seen such promotion. While yes, using other parts of the platform a distinction can be made – as you noted – this is a subject that is a taboo black hole. There rarely is time for that, so making the nuance in the plank is a good idea IMHO and for the other reasons. Yes, there is something unique about this topic that is not present in others. Others may disagree but it certainly doesn’t deserve the demonization it received here, but I have come to expect that. If I said the sky was a certain shade of blue certain people would lose their shit. That’s life in the LP unfortunately.

    You might be interested in this change we made to the Children’s Rights plank (the last part was added):

    ==Children are human beings and, as such, have all the rights of human beings. Because the exercise of some rights requires the ability to understand the possible consequences from actions, some rights may not be realized until an appropriate level of comprehension and responsibility is reached. Until such time, rights are placed in the custodianship of a guardian who is entrusted to exercise these rights on behalf of the child. Children must always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians and assuming all the responsibilities of adulthood. The path for full acceptance of all rights and responsibilities (also known as “emancipation”) must be easy and clear.==

    There is a distinction between rights in guardianship and afterwards. There is a difference in exercise of those rights between children and adults. And the reality is that predation on children by adults does happen, and some people have used the LP to appear to promote that. We want a clear radical position – not have to battle on a hill for something we don’t defend. I wish we came up with better language at the meeting, but I expect that will happen next time.

    The same thing happened in LPCO with freedom of association. We couldn’t come up with good wording and it took a year.

    The tendency for demonization and personal attack in this Party from a certain few mentioned or in this thread is toxic. I simply disassociate from such.

    People can be wrong in our opinion without being evil or deserving of spite.

  47. Caryn Ann Harlos

    And Tom you have been very helpful. I think through this discussion there is an important distinction that can be made and can be applied here. You turned on a light bulb for me. I appreciate the discourse.

  48. Thomas L. Knapp

    Caryn Ann,

    Well, if I’ve been of help I am glad. The Radical Caucus had a strong positive effect at the 2016 convention and I look forward to that being the case in New Orleans as well.

  49. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Yes you have. In much the same way your Stockholm Libertarianism article helped me frame things.

    We are imperfect human beings trying to find the best way to express liberty. Sometimes we disagree – like many of us did on the gay marriage issue on whether the LP should have supported the Supreme Court decision or only push for complete removal of the state (you saw that thread where I used to think one way and Nick Sarwark persuaded me of another). We have to grant each other the room to do this in good faith when we are dealing with people of good faith. I wear my heart on my sleeve, I don’t deny it.

  50. paulie

    As well as being the morally correct position, it is my position that that would tend to reduce the demand for NEW material of the type (why would someone put themselves in position to be charged with a crime when there’s legally available material of that sort?), and the crimes attending production of such NEW material.

    LOL, that’s an easy one…because porn consumers like to see new stuff, not jack off to the same exact stuff they have already seen more times than they can count. The demand for new production of any genre of porn – never mind if it’s something you personally like, are neutral on, find mildly distasteful or completely abhorrent – will not go down because there is already plenty of the same kind of porn available. For proof, see any subcategory of porn in existence; there is already plenty of it in circulation, and in most cases available for free (probably in pretty much all cases if you look long and, erm, hard enough) yet people are still making money making new stuff in that same genre.

    it seems to me that there’s some chance that a pedophile who could get legal porn catering to his or her tastes (and in doing so make restitution to some other pedophile’s victims instead of rewarding the criminals) might refrain from actual sexual assaults.

    It depends on the individual. For some, watching porn of some given type satisfies cravings that would otherwise only be satisfied by going out and seeking X in real life. For others, it’s more like the scenario that prohibitionists trot out, in that porn just stimulates the constant seeking out of same real life sexual experiences as depicted in that porn and the delusion that all (men, women, children, animals) secretly want what you want.

  51. Caryn Ann Harlos

    And yes, I concede upfront. I have a visceral reaction to the idea of adult predation on children- its like contemplating the visage of the devil. If that is one of my faults, I will take it above some others. My position comes from a place of sincere intentions of good will, even if some think I am very wrong.

    Predation is a real problem and we have already seen the LP be hijacked for other underbelly views. All I want is for our actual message of liberty to shine clear. It is a good intention and a place of caring. I don’t have all the answers. I’m in the same struggle to figure everything out. I don’t have it figured out.

    Have a good night everyone, I am out.

    I believe I have explained my position and the concerns that other raised. Rather than attack, good exchange and conversation is what we need to be modeling. We all come from a place of loathing aggression and violation of rights.

  52. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    If only Ms. Harlos would answer this question I’m sure all the pro-choicers who think there’s something very screwy going on with the LPRC. FRAUD – deceptive and fraudulent manipulation – is the other thing Libertarians are against, after all. And to protect liberty we must oppose ideological bullshit artists.

    These questions are about the abortion issue, though deception there taints everything else.
    In short, what is going on with LPRC’s “radicalism”?

    * Is it Harlos and others recruiting lot of people who just left the GOP who think calling themselves “libertarian” automatically makes them radical? But a lot of them really are quasi-libertarian abortion prohibitionists?

    * Is Ms. Harlos constantly sending subtle guilt-trip, “I’ll quit the party if it doesn’t get rid of the abortion plank” messages which all the hard core radicals she’s blocked never see? (Some people send me screen shots of such messages from time to time.)

    * Does Ms. Harlos work hard to recruit abortion prohibitionists to her platform meetings so she can zap the abortion plank?

    Too many people suspect one or more of the above.

    Many abortion prohibitionists in the LP are extremely deceptive, refusing to admit they think it’s murder and they want the law to treat it as murder. So it should be understandable how PISSED OFF some of us get at what we suspect they’re doing, you know like two of the leading anti-abortionists diddling the boys with their cleavage photos to get attention and be “popular”. Or things mentioned in questions above.

    Imagine if 10% of the party REALLY wanted gun control or drug control and kept using suspicious euphemistic phrases and questionable claims and strategies to communicate their desires and intentions. To paraphrase and dramatize one: “As an anarchist I don’t know WHAT I’d do about those murdering abortionists/gun owners/pot smokers/etc. in an anarchist society.” Then you’d see some real fireworks.

    So let’s hear Ms. Harlos opinion on ideological fraud, in the framework of questions asked above…

  53. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Tom: It occurred to me while doing the dishes that most of your accusations of anti-semitism were on the Libs4peace yahoogroup which is still up, if no longer active. FB group is active today.

    I did a quick search and found one example of a Knapp comment from January 2004 when a lot of people were hypersenstive about what was or wasn’t anti-semitism. This was before Walt and Mearsheimer’s bestselling book “The Israel lobby” broke the silence on the issue of Israeli undue influence on US policy and Zionists and later Israel’s land grabbing policies since 1918. After that all the big peace groups started organizing big protests at AIPAC’s annual conference which previously just a few hard core local peace groups had done previously.

    Anyway, your criticism isn’t quite as direct as I remember. So my apologies for saying you were screaming. In fact I see it was Steve Sass and Aaron Biterman who were doing the screaming before we finally blocked them. So this is an example of your comments which were more about areas of disagreement than any kind of blatant bigotry. (We can revisit those issues and debate them ad naueam if you choose 😉

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/libs4peace/conversations/messages/4341

    “If you could be bothered to STOP
    TALKING LIKE ONE, I’d be inclined to think that you aren’t. But that’s
    something you don’t seem disposed to do … and as a purely practical
    matter, when you talk like an anti-semite, the fact that you ARE talking
    like an anti-semite harms the cause you are trying to advance. Which
    particularly pisses me off when it happens to be the same cause that *I*
    am trying to advance.”

  54. Andy

    Dismantling government is like dismantling a bomb. Pull out the wrong wires at the wrong time and it can blow up in your face.

    This is why it is completely idiotic and anti-libertarian to advocate in favor of “open borders” when we live in a society that has a welfare state, forced association, and mass democracy, so under this context, advocating “open borders” is inviting an army of people to enter the land mass and to extract wealth from the existing population via Marxist wealth redistribution and use of other taxpayer funded resources, and once obtaining citizenship (the program for which is being run by enemies of liberty), these people can vote against the interests of much of the existing population, and to top things off, those among the existing population are forced to associate with these people, not only in common spaces, but even when it comes to where people live and in business dealings, as per anti-discrimination laws.

    So what we have today is NOT really free market based immigration, but rather the STATIST migration of an invading army of Marxist and/or theocratic welfare leeches (at least for the most part, as in a super-majority of modern day so called immigrants) who are here to be used as tools by leftists and New World Order types in order to advance their socialist, gun grabbing, global government agenda. It is a demographic replacement program which is meant to meant destroy Western Civilization.

    The PURIST libertarian position on borders/migration is that all land should be privately owned, and that migration policies should be set by landowners. A purist libertarian anarcho-capitalist society would have all land in private hands, no welfare state, no forced association laws, and no democratic elections (unless they were held by voluntary associations), and it is only under these conditions that you could eliminate state control over borders/migration/Naturalization policies, without creating a disaster, as under this context, the state would no longer exist, as you would have an anarcho-capitalist society.

    Calling for the government to “open the borders” under our current system, which includes a welfare state, forced association laws, and mass democracy (with loose standards for citizenship and voting), is a call for DISASTER, and it is NOT libertarian at all, as it is inviting hordes of NON-PEACEFUL people to flood into the land territory to take advantage of the welfare state and the public infrastructure, and to join the body politic, where they can gain influence in government and/or be used as pawns by those trying to influence policy decisions and/or swing elections (do a search for ethnic block voting), and where they are forced integrated into society, against the will of much of the existing population.

    It is no coincidence that Marxists and New World Order globalist types call for “open borders” and mass immigration under our present conditions. Any self described libertarian ought to no better than to do this, without first addressing the issues I brought up above, as in that it could only work in an anarcho-capitalist society, which would NOT have “open borders,” but rather, private property borders.

  55. dL

    The tendency for demonization and personal attack in this Party from a certain few mentioned or in this thread is toxic. I simply disassociate from such.

    Well, one person on this forum engages you in a long running series of ad hominem attacks. However, FYI: one should expect to encounter push back if one communicates a “what about the children” defense of libertarian error on core issues, whether the issue be porn, guns, drugs etc.

  56. Thomas L. Knapp

    “LOL, that’s an easy one…because porn consumers like to see new stuff, not jack off to the same exact stuff they have already seen more times than they can count.”

    You’re leaving one factor out: Most porn consumers don’t face the prospect of prison for seeing the new stuff. If they were allowed to see such old stuff as the victims released, and content that was either digitally generated without real actors, or that had adult actors convincingly portraying the under-aged, my guess is that most of them would go for that stuff rather than for the stuff that would get them an accessory to rape charge.

  57. Thomas L. Knapp

    Carol,

    Thanks for demonstrating that you couldn’t back up your accusation (presumably if you could have, you would have posted me actually calling someone an anti-semite for criticizing Israel as you claimed).

    I know you too well to expect you to retract the false accusation even after disproving it yourself, but disproving it is enough.

  58. paulie

    If only Ms. Harlos would answer this question I’m sure all the pro-choicers who think there’s something very screwy going on with the LPRC.

    Nothing screwy going on as far as I can tell. But I am curious who these people supposedly doing all this wondering are, other than Carol Moore?

  59. dL

    The problem with real child porn is that it is evidence that those producing, trading in, or possessing it have either committed, or are accessories after the fact to, sexual assault.

    I would dispute that viewing/possessing the image below makes me an accessory after the fact to, say, the murderous war assault on children in Yemen. The criminals are the ones who manufacture the war, not the ones who view its depiction.

    [GRUESOME WARNING]
    http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Yemen-child-casualty.jpg

  60. paulie

    You’re leaving one factor out: Most porn consumers don’t face the prospect of prison for seeing the new stuff. If they were allowed to see such old stuff as the victims released, and content that was either digitally generated without real actors, or that had adult actors convincingly portraying the under-aged, my guess is that most of them would go for that stuff rather than for the stuff that would get them an accessory to rape charge.

    You are probably correct. As long as new material is coming out, most of them probably will not care too much if it is digital simulation or young looking adults playing children, at least not to the extent of going to prison.

  61. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    TOM: I think I made an apology for alleging your were screaming when the activity clearly more was implying. 🙂

    Paulie: Join Pro-Choice Libertarians and read back through a year of posts. (Open to pro-choicers only.) And then of course there’s all the naughties at the Audacious Caucus.

    We were cutting Ms. Harlos some slack the last 6 odd months til the still mysterious rejection of even the current LP abortion plank filled with obeisance to the consciences of abortion prohibitionists which does manage to mention “keep the govt out of the issue.”

    As for giving individuals a hard time, I guess I’m so used to guys doing it to me and other women online for so many years in so many forums, boundaries have just evaporated into nothingness. Or maybe it’s tough love: if you want to be a REAL libertarian stop lying and stop supporting prohibitionist goals…

    Again, who are these “radicals” who don’t give a dam about the freedom of half the human race? Evidently almost everyone here who posts here too. sigh…

  62. NewFederalist

    “Again, who are these “radicals” who don’t give a dam about the freedom of half the human race? Evidently almost everyone here who posts here too. sigh…” – Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Would you care to amplify and clarify that remark? I don’t understand.

  63. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    NewFederalist. Just seems like here few people support abortion rights when issue comes up. I even noticed that in the Petersen article where anti-abortionism is one of his biggest issues. Just frustrating…

  64. Kim Ruff

    Howdy.

    There’s some misinformation posted here, there, and everywhere about the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus, the events that transpired, and what happened to our proposed reproductive rights plank, and the amendments made to our criminal and civil laws plank. As the current Vice Chair and Arizona State Coordinator, as well as member of the 2016-17 Platform Committee, and fellow attendee of our recent digital convention held on June 24th, I would like to correct these misapprehensions.

    The Platform Committee consisted of Caryn Ann Harlos (Chair), Kim Ruff (Secretary), Gregory Faust, Steve Scheetz, and for a spell, Alexandra Coe (though she ended up leaving when her Board position as State Coordinator of Florida was revoked after discovering she was a registered Republican. That’s neither here nor there, that’s just by way of explanation for her untimely departure from the PlatComm.)

    All the changes recommended by the committee were made unanimously with the sole exception of the addition of 1.6 Reproductive Rights, whose language reads:

    “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views
    on all sides, we believe that the state should be kept out of the matter. The state must
    repeal all existing laws that restrict, regulate, or impose civil or criminal penalties on
    providers and patients for the production, distribution, or use of contraceptives,
    abortifascients, or abortion procedures. Additionally, the state must not require medical
    professionals to provide their patients with any contraceptives, abortifascients, or
    abortion procedures. Further, we oppose public funding of any contraceptive or abortion
    procedure for the same reason we oppose public funding of any medical procedure or
    service.”

    This plank was co-authored by Caryn Ann Harlos and I. Caryn Ann has never made any misrepresentations regarding her personal pro-life stance, but she felt it was our duty — along with the rest of the PlatComm — to draft a reasonable, well-articulated plank to offer to our members to allow them to decide if they wanted it added to the LPRC Platform.

    We drafted a comprehensive report outlining the recommended additions, deletions, and revisions, and submitted it to our membership 60-days in advance of our Convention in accordance with our own bylaws. It was available for anyone to view on our website in the section for PlatComm Minutes. It was also appended to all three of our published, and emailed, notices regarding the Digital Convention.

    As advertised well in advance, we held our Digital Convention on Saturday, June 24th, 2017 at 2pm EST. We had 21 members present, 19 of which were eligible to vote. As Chair of the PlatComm, Caryn Ann presented all the planks in a professional manner. The only time things got emotional was later, when we discussed the revision to the Civil and Criminal Laws plank. I will get to that shortly, but to finish on the Reproductive Rights plank.

    We brought forth the motion to adopt the plank. A motion to amend was offered — strike all the language after the first sentence. The motion to amend passed. The motion to adopt the amended plank was then brought forth. The motion failed. At no point in time did Caryn Ann speak against the motion. In fact, several other members of the LPRC were vocal in their criticism of adopting an abortion plank, for myriad reasons ranging from morality to messaging.

    Long story short, Caryn Ann did her due diligence in presenting an option to the membership, advertising it ahead of time, and ensuring members were well aware in advance of the Convention itself. The reality – so much less salacious than these rumors would have you believe – is that the majority of the members present at our Digital Convention did not want the plank. Period.

    Insofar as the Civil and Criminal Laws plank goes, the one change we proposed that was controversial was adding the word “consensual” to subsection e, changing it to: “The repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of consensual sexually explicit material.”

    Some members agreed, some did not. During the discussion, one of the members said something that upset Caryn Ann (details of which are inconsequential and truly between her and the other member),, so she excused herself for a few minutes to compose herself and asked me to take over in her stead. When she returned, we moved to reconsider, the motion passed, we put the motion back on the table, moved to divide the question separating out the offending subsection from the balance of the plank, approved the majority of the plank, and then moved to remove the offending subsection.

    Our rationale for removal was simply this: since we could not seem to agree on what the appropriate language was, though many of us felt the existing language created a philosophical loophole permitting production of child pornography, snuff films, etc., we chose to simply remove it so that a future PlatComm (which we appoint yearly) could flesh out something better. In other words: better to remove it entirely than adopt something sloppy or keep something that permits activities that violate the NAP.

    Thank you for your interest in the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus! If you’re interested in joining so that you can get directly involved and participate directly in our events and processes, you can do so here:

    http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/join

  65. Thomas L. Knapp

    “As advertised well in advance, we held our Digital Convention on Saturday, June 24th, 2017 at 2pm EST. We had 21 members present, 19 of which were eligible to vote.”

    Kim and/or Caryn Ann,

    Is there anywhere I can get information on how this digital convention was conducted, e.g. what kind of software and interface were involved, how credentialing was handled and voting integrity protected, etc.? I’m interested for historical/technical reasons — I organized what was, so far as I know, the first online political party convention back in 2006 and want to see what the state of that art looks like now.

  66. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Hi Tom, I am probably better to answer as I was on the Convention Committee and did the credentialing. We used a paid version of Zoom – very inexpensive and feature rich. We required registration for the meeting and a registration link was sent out which generated a unique ID. We checked the registrations against our membership rolls and had a credentials list ahead of time. Also we enabled video and most of the members were also able to be visually seen and nearly everyone spoke at one time or another.

    Zoom has a hand raise feature that was used for voting- we had someone assigned to be vote teller.

  67. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I would like to correct one item in Kim’s very thorough narrative. I abstained on the plank when voted in committee as I did not want anything coming out with an opposing vote. Plus I favoured it going before the members even if I would not vote for it to be adopted. Because of my personal views, and in the abundance of caution, I passed the presentation of this plank to Kim so as not to compromise the integrity of the argument. I did speak very briefly against it and let it be. Other members were vocally opposed. One member had a prepared speech opposed. I knew of nor planned for any of that ahead of time as I expected it pass easily. I was surprised it did not.

    The assertions made here are quite simply fabricated rank gossip as regards this plank. I did above and beyond to get it fairly presented to the point of insisting that the Platform Committee write one- each and every single member of the Platform committee present at the end (Ms. Coe had already been removed) will say that. Anything to the contrary asserted about my involvement with this plank is without knowledge and is malicious gossip and just goes to show that attempting to handle above and beyond fair is treated with contempt by one person. Well there are pro life libertarians. We exist. I did my duty to make sure this was a member decision and not mine. I doubt this will stop the blatant myth making on the abortion plank which is disgusting honestly and the sort of thing we really need to not tolerate in our party. Differences of opinion are one thing. Smear campaigns are another.

    And yes once again I will cast my tokens for deletion next convention. I am on the Platform Committee of National as well. I screened every single person I voted for on that committee on their views of deleting the plank. Ah ha! I screened to be sure no one was on a single issue crusade to delete. I don’t believe any deletion of that should ever come out of the Platform Committee and I will vote against any such deletion if it is attempted. Why? Because the issue is such that I believe it needs to come directly from the delegates and not through a committee – particularly committees that have been routinely distrusted by members due to their lack of transparency.

    The truth isn’t as sexy as a fabrication.

  68. dL

    The truth isn’t as sexy as a fabrication.

    I tend to agree. However, please note my objections to your position were not based on hearsay but what you wrote in this thread.

  69. NewFederalist

    “NewFederalist. Just seems like here few people support abortion rights when issue comes up. I even noticed that in the Petersen article where anti-abortionism is one of his biggest issues. Just frustrating…” – Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Thank you. I always believed that the majority of self described L/libertarians were “pro-choice” as opposed to “pro-life”. Perhaps I am wrong.

  70. dL

    Thank you. I always believed that the majority of self described L/libertarians were “pro-choice” as opposed to “pro-life”. Perhaps I am wrong.

    Pro-choice/AoD. However, the topic issue discussed had nothing to do w/ abortion. Turning every issue into an abortion discussion would only be slightly less annoying than turning it into an immigration one.

  71. paulie

    Great video from Liberty Hangout.

    You just contradicted yourself. If it comes from “Liberty” Hangout, how could it be any good at all? That’s before I even read the silly title.

  72. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Thanks to Kim for her version. I only could go by others I heard from others who actually were participants.

    As for abortion issue, i think the most likely explanation remains that the anti-abortion contingent somehow, perhaps merely by seeing adverts, decided to pack the meeting to make radicals look anti-abortion. I still can’t believe any large group of radicals has a majority of people who want the government sniffing around their menstrual periods and medical visits or those of their girlfriends/wives/mistresses/daughters.

    And I have to assume that most libertarians – even “radicals” and people here – are totally unaware of the massive number of regulations and laws being promoted by people whose motivations and modus operandi often are perverse. If you really care to learn something about the issue see http://pro-choicelibertarians.net/links/ And see lots of them under the following categories:
    Libertarian views — Polls –
    Medical facts and statistics — Legislation vs. abortion — Court Decisions –
    Republican prohibitionists’ motivations — Republican prohibitionists’ actions –
    Consequences of prohibition for women —
    Consequences of prohibition for fetuses –
    Pro-choice activism — Personal stories

    Perhaps next time the LPRC platform committee can preview controversial planks on the discussion FB page and even do polls on them. (Of course those always get packed by anti-abortion fanatics. sigh.) I just can’t believe a truly representative body of radicals would have voted to get reject an essentially pro-choice abortion platform plank.

    Thus the assumption that it must be a nefarious plot!! And who but the most high profile “pro-life” individual would be suspect, especially if they are the platform chair. Guess it just goes with the territory.

  73. paulie

    As for abortion issue, i think the most likely explanation remains that the anti-abortion contingent somehow, perhaps merely by seeing adverts, decided to pack the meeting to make radicals look anti-abortion.

    Sounds like BS to me. Who are the people who you allege are some kind of plants? Can you name any names?

  74. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Send me a list of the people who voted against putting both planks in the platform and I’ll do an in depth investigation, complete with interviews.

  75. langa

    The beauty of libertarianism is that, on any given issue, the correct libertarian position is obvious and can’t really be disputed (at least not in good faith, anyway). It is simply whatever position that results from applying the NAP.

    However, there are a few issues where the application of the NAP is not so simple and straightforward. This is because the NAP was designed to settle issues involving adults of sound mind. Therefore, when issues arise that involve other entities (e.g. children*, fetuses, non-human organisms, or adults with severe mental problems), it is reasonable for good faith libertarians to have disagreements about whether/how the NAP should be applied.

    To take one of these issues (e.g. abortion), where there is no indisputably correct libertarian position, and then use it as a litmus test for determining if someone is a “real” libertarian, is simply ridiculous.

    *To be clear, when I say issues that “involve” children, I am referring to issues that directly involve children (e.g. debates about age of consent, or the legitimacy of corporal punishment). These are issues where libertarians can reasonably disagree. This does not include the generic “what about the children” objection that dL mentions above.

  76. Thomas L. Knapp

    What langa said, except for the first paragraph (I see it the opposite way — the NAP doesn’t tell you what “the correct libertarian position” is; it only tells you if a position ISN’T libertarian).

  77. Pro-Choice Libertarians

    Those who can so blithely discuss whether women should be forced to carry unwanted, deformed, or life threatening pregnancies to term don’t understand:
    a) many women will fight for their freedom to abort as fiercely as men will for their right to carry guns
    b) states already are prosecuting women for natural miscarriages and making it so difficult to get abortions that they are having them in the 20th week instead of the 6th or 8th week. Investigate the issue because abortion prohibition tyranny may apply to you or your loved ones, friends, etc. someday.

    http://pro-choicelibertarians.net/links/ And see lots of articles under the following categories:
    Libertarian views — Polls –
    Medical facts and statistics — Legislation vs. abortion — Court Decisions –
    Republican prohibitionists’ motivations — Republican prohibitionists’ actions –
    Consequences of prohibition for women —
    Consequences of prohibition for fetuses –
    Pro-choice activism — Personal stories

  78. Tony From Long Island

    Pro: ” . . . . .a) many women will fight for their freedom to abort as fiercely as men will for their right to carry guns . . . . ”

    I am a male who is strongly pro-choice and will also fight to make gun ownership as difficult and limited as possible.

  79. Thomas L. Knapp

    The implicit claim to represent all people with two X chromosomes and a functioning uterus is petty identity politics, not libertarian principle.

  80. paulie

    Also not accurate. There is a variety of positions on abortion/abortion prohibition among women just as there is among men.

  81. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    July 6, 2017 at 07:17
    Pro: ‘ . . . . .a) many women will fight for their freedom to abort as fiercely as men will for their right to carry guns . . . . ‘

    I am a male who is strongly pro-choice and will also fight to make gun ownership as difficult and limited as possible.”

    You may be a male, but if you don’t support the right to keep and bear arms, you are not a real man, nor are you someone whose opinions should be taken seriously by any libertarians. I doubt any libertarians take any of your opinions seriously anyway, and this is just further evidence of that.

    I strongly support the right to keep and bear arms, and I consider it to be among the most important political issues, possibly THE most important political issue.

    If you have no right to keep and bear arms, or if this right is severely restricted, then talk of liberty is just that, talk, as in you don’t really have the means to back any of it up and actually defend liberty.

  82. Andy

    langa said: “To take one of these issues (e.g. abortion), where there is no indisputably correct libertarian position, and then use it as a litmus test for determining if someone is a ‘real’ libertarian, is simply ridiculous.”

    BINGO!

    Note that the primary founder of the Libertarian Party, David Nolan, who was pro-choice on abortion, did not consider abortion to be a definitional issue for libertarians.

  83. Tony From Long Island

    Andy (referring to me)

    ” . . .You may be a male, but if you don’t support the right to keep and bear arms, you are not a real man . . . ”

    It took me a few seconds to stop laughing. Nonsense like this is the second reason no one takes you seriously (the first is obvious).

    Someone with your frazzled mental state owning a firearm is a serious problem.

    But what do I know. . . I’m apparently not a real man.

  84. Pro-Choice Libertarians

    Enough women are willing to fight for their freedom against the patriarchs who want to keep women down and make it more difficult for more competent women to compete for jobs they are taking from less competent males.

    Lots of women come over to the pro-choice side when it’s their life or that of their daughter or grand-daughter at stake. Of course, a lot of them do it secretly and keep hypocritically talking the pro-life line. Others do it openly when young but become pro-life later when it’s more convenient.

    And then there are all those pro-life guys who get women pregnant and marry them or support the child for $600 a month for 18 years. Right?

    So what women and men say and what they do when the chips are down are very different things. That’s the way it is in the real world…

  85. dL

    To take one of these issues (e.g. abortion), where there is no indisputably correct libertarian position,

    Well, there a quite a few indisputably non-libertarian positions vis a vis abortion. To wit, the pro-life position demanding both (1) a forced responsibility to carry an embryo to term AND (2) a forced guardian welfare responsibility for the child. So, something like the old practice of “exposure” would have to be legal in “libertarian pro-life” regime. Whereas in a AoD regime, you could sanction in a libertarian consistent way the practice of exposure.

  86. Tony From Long Island

    Who is this “pro-choice” guy talking about the “real world?”

    In the “real world,” some women are pro-choice and some are pro-life. Your soap box is a little high today.

  87. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    You may be a male, but if you don’t support the right to keep and bear arms, you are not a real man

    I’m so confused! Since I support the right to keep and bear arms, does this make me a “real man”?

  88. Andy

    Tony, how are people supposed to fight a revolution if they do not have guns?

    Can you picture Tony in a pub back in the 1700’s, surrounded by a group of revolutionaries? Tony says something like, “Gee guys, I think that King George should make it harder for people to get gets. Maybe he should even ban them. Only the King’s troops should have guns.”

    Tony would have been thrown out of the pub on his ass.

  89. dL

    You might want to get a dictionary and look up the meaning of “indisputably.”

    something than can only be challenged by resort to sarcasm?

  90. Thomas L. Knapp

    dL,

    I am not going to argue the issue of abortion. However, I will point out that your use of the word “forced” in your “indisputable” example is HIGHLY disputable.

  91. dL

    and then use it as a litmus test for determining if someone is a ‘real’ libertarian, is simply ridiculous.

    I generally don’t. But it a pro-life position is a pretty reliable indicator for future litmus test failure…

  92. dL

    “forced” in your “indisputable” example is HIGHLY disputable.

    Tom, I concede that “forced” indeed is not a consensus term for “do it..or else(prison).” For example, proggies often scoff at the use of the term “forced” vis a vis taxes. As in: ” silly libertarian, no one is forcing you to pay taxes.” Nonetheless, I find “forced” to be an apropos description for “do it..or else.”

  93. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    Nonetheless, I find “forced” to be an apropos description for “do it..or else.”
    —–

    And I don’t find it an apropos description for “did it, nobody forced you to do it … and hey, there are consequences that we’ve decided you don’t get to kill to wiggle out of.” Which, given some answers to the question of the personhood status of the thing being killed, is one way of “disputing” that allegedly “indisputable” position characterization.

  94. dL

    and hey, there are consequences that we’ve decided

    interesting…that’s the exact same line proggies use vis a vis taxation and force. My rejoinder to that is: who is “we”? Rest assured I haven’t decided in this instance that if the condom unintentionally breaks, you are obligated to not only bring an embryo to term but to be parental guardian for the next 18 years.

  95. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    who is “we”?
    —–

    The same “we” who you assert are “forcing” someone (in the sense of initiation of force, i.e. aggression) if they step in to a situation to defend what they believe to be a person against what they believe to be aggression.

    It may be that you are right that what their position on the matter is non/anti-libertarian.

    It is, however, a country mile away from being “indisputably” non/anti-libertarian.

  96. dL

    The same “we” who you assert are “forcing” someone

    No, I think the “we” in this instance are those who have decided that (1) all consensual sex acts are an implicit contract for parenthood and (2) life begins at conception personhood.

    It is, however, a country mile away from being “indisputably” non/anti-libertarian.

    I would be interesting to read a libertarian defense of post-birth parental obligation if carrying the embryo to term was done against the female’s will. The “personhood” obligation to give birth(not to kill) and the parental obligation post birth are two different things.

  97. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    I would be interesting to read a libertarian defense of post-birth parental obligation if carrying the embryo to term was done against the female’s will.
    —–

    That’s not a defense I would try to make or that I agree with, but in broad outline it would amount to “you made your choice when you had sex, and that choice entailed the consequential obligation to not kill any resulting fetus (presumably on personhood from conception claims) and in fact to accept responsibility for that fetus until it is capable of taking full responsibility for its own survival and actions.”

    Note that “libertarian” /= “correct.” Non-aggression as a constraint is contextual to conclusions as to particular facts. A libertarian anti-abortion/parental obligation argument is not necessarily RIGHT, but if it is predicated on non-aggression as applied to a particular factual premise, it IS libertarian.

  98. Chuck Moulton

    I’m an on again / off again radical caucus member… off currently. I woupd continue as a radical caucus member, but when my dues lapse no one bothers to tell me that and ask me for a donation. I have zero desire to keep track of my expiration dates for 30 different organizations. That’s why I become a life member whenever possible and often inadvertantly lapse whenever that isn’t possible.

    As I am not currently a radical caucus member, I have no dog in this fight. Even if I were a member, I let others squable about platform issues. It’s not my conparative advantage.

    I’m pro-choice, but I would rather if the whole issue went away. People on both sides are single issue voters, so whenever you open your mouth (or stay silent) you alienate 20% of the electorate.

    As for the other plank, I think the LP platform took a huge step backward when the children’s rights plank was eliminated in 2002 (or 2000?). I am a life member of NYRA (an organization I support which made it easy for me to donate, unlike the radical caucus) and have always found their positions and membership to be very libertarian-leaning.

    Age of consent is a tricky issue. I favor rebuttable presumptions over bright line rules. I don’t think I should need to ask for an ID whenever I see an attractive university student or do exhaustive research before looking at a picture. For those of us who find it difficult or impossible to get dates, porn is a necessity for biological imperatives.

    Most people find the 18-25 range far more physically attractive than 40+. There will be errors (the occasional minor) when looking at amateur (or even professional) porn, and it does not help society to throw people in prison for looking at pictures — you are removing a productive member of society, destroying a life, and taking taxpayer money to pay for a ward of the state.

    It is rape to have sex with a retarded person (who by definition cannot give consent). That condemns retarded people who are physically (but not mentally) mature to a sexless life. I have near 40 year old friends who are regularly mistaken for 12 year olds (due to their physical characteristics). I don’t consider their boyfriends or husbands or people who find them attractive bad people.

    Rape is a problem. Sexual assault is a problem. Sexual exploitation is a problem. It demeans those other issues to put looking at pictures in the same category.

  99. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Chuck, we have a really good children’s rights plank I believe. I will get with you on Radical Caucus membership – basic membership has no dues. Voting membership has dues (we financially support candidates with a good chunk of that).

  100. langa

    I see it the opposite way — the NAP doesn’t tell you what “the correct libertarian position” is; it only tells you if a position ISN’T libertarian

    Well, in theory, I suppose you’re right, but in practice applying the NAP to a particular issue almost always results in one correct libertarian position, by process of elimination. For example, on immigration (sorry, Andy) the correct libertarian position is open borders, simply because every other position violates the NAP. A similar dynamic occurs on virtually every issue. The NAP allows lots of room for discretion when it comes to personal action, but very little when it comes to political action.

  101. langa

    a pro-life position is a pretty reliable indicator for future litmus test failure…

    It’s funny that you say that. I have noticed sort of the opposite: that the more time a person spends talking about the abortion issue, the less libertarian they tend to be on other issues. For example, the Cato/Reason crowd. Guys like Nick Gillespie, Matt Welch, David Boaz, and so forth. They never miss a chance to highlight their strong belief in a woman’s right to an abortion, and they frequently frame that belief as an essential tenet of libertarianism. But on plenty of other issues, they’re not exactly the most principled libertarians.

  102. Thomas L. Knapp

    langa,

    “the more time a person spends talking about the abortion issue, the less libertarian they tend to be on other issues”

    I’ve anecdotally noticed that too — and it doesn’t matter which side of the issue they’re on. Once abortion becomes their one big issue, it seems like everything else subordinates to it. For example, the late Doris Gordon of Libertarians For Life argued that a drug (RU-486) should be outlawed even though it had applications other than abortion, because as long as it was available it would be used for abortion. My counter-argument was that the same kind of argument could be used to justify gun control, but that didn’t cut any ice with her because all she cared about was abortion.

  103. Bondurant

    @ Andy

    Why do you consistently allow yourself to be baited so easily by trolls like the Democrat from LI?

  104. dL

    Guys like Nick Gillespie, Matt Welch, David Boaz, and so forth. They never miss a chance to highlight their strong belief in a woman’s right to an abortion

    Actually, all 3 by and large rarely address the topic as a focal point. You will not find Nick or Matt in the tagged abortion articles at Reason.
    http://reason.com/tags/abortion

    I think Elizabeth Nolan Brown is the resident pro-choicer at Reason. And she generally does good work on “the war on sex” sex-trafficking bullshit.

    RE: Boaz on abortion. LOL. Boaz is the inspiration for the current wording of the LP abortion plank. Below is the definitive Boaz position on abortion as spelled out in the Encyclopedia Britannica (he has no definitive position).

    http://blogs.britannica.com/2010/10/libertarianism-and-abortion-same-sex-marriage-and-the-tea-party-5-questions-for-cato-institute-executive-vice-president-david-boaz

    I do think a libertarian can believe that the proper role of government is to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property, and interpret that to include protecting the life of the unborn child. American libertarians tend to prefer federalism and would thus probably prefer to leave the decision on abortion and other possible crimes to the states; but that’s not a first principle. Most libertarians believe that the woman’s right to control her body should prevail, but some do think the state should protect the potential life of a fetus.

    So, you are going to have find better examples of rabid pro-choice libertarians who have gone off the reservation.

  105. dL

    That’s not a defense I would try to make or that I agree with, but in broad outline it would amount to

    Yeah, I’m well aware of the reasoning. However, the simple rejoinder is: “a choice to have sex” is not a choice to agree with the premises of that argument. Generally, other people deciding what your own choices entail can pretty much “justify” anything. And I hear that variant of “argument” all the time. For example:

    When you make a choice to drive on the roads, that choice entails dutifully obeying the police in the event of being stopped. Failure to fully comply w/ the demands of a police officer risks whatever consequences that accordingly may occur. If you don’t like it, don’t drive.

    Oh, there’s about 100x different variants of that argument that I can cobble together from the proggies and the cons on just about any issue. The fallacy, however, is easy to spot. I may choose to obey the cop, but I choose to obey out of fear of being shot, not because of some obedience to someone else’s ethical duties of what choosing to drive on the road entails.

    For the pro-life position, there two explicit categorical imperatives(unconditional ethical duties) at the heart of that argument which I reject. One, the unconditional duty to recognize life begins at conception personhood. Two, the unconditional duty of parental guardianship. The first I reject outright. To equate an embryo w/ an infant is a form of a continuum fallacy. There are distinct states. I define personhood as something that begins at birth. The second is a conditional duty. It is conditioned on the parents being willing parents. Absent the requirement of the first duty, the childbirth event is evidence of “willful” intent. Hence, a duty of parental obligation follows.

    Now, strictly speaking, neither the two duties above nor the rejection of them have anything to do w/ libertarianism. However, enforcing by law (1) and (2) on everyone is non-libertarian. I would object to a no-NAP-violation defense of (2) on the grounds of it being a type of Argumentum ad baculum fallacy, given the failure to comply carries a threat of force.

  106. Tony From Long Island

    Bondurant: ” . . . . .Why do you consistently allow yourself to be baited so easily by trolls like the Democrat from LI? . . . ”

    Bono, my friend. I am a democrat now and, yes, I am from Long Island. However to describe me as a troll is to really extend the meaning of Troll more than a bit past its meaning.

    My posts are rarely off-topic. I was an LP member for almost 20 years. Yes, I verbally spar with Andy as often as I can to call him out on his conspiracy crap, his xenophobia and his inconsistent non-libertarian statements. That does not make me a troll.

    Andy said I am less than a man for supporting gun regulation. Is that not trolling also? He fills up these boards with rambling and incoherent conspiracy nonsense. Is that not trolling?

    So stop overusing the word. It’s very Trumpian behavior 🙂

  107. Tony From Long Island

    Andy:

    ” . . .Tony, how are people supposed to fight a revolution if they do not have guns? . . . . ”

    Simple. We aren’t “supposed to” and we aren’t going to either. This is not 1776. That’s your libertarian fantasy bubble talking again.

    Also, I don’t recall ever saying firearms should be banned outright. In fact, I’ve never said that.

  108. Tony From Long Island

    Bono: I also wasn’t aware that this is a “libertarians only” forum. Anyone who is not 100% LP party line is a troll? Give me a break!

    I can’t take back my votes for Gary Johnson in 2012 or 2016 . . . and I don’t want to either.

  109. Thomas L. Knapp

    dL,

    You seem to want to argue about abortion. I don’t. My sole and entire point was that you were incorrect to describe a (not the) libertarian position on the subject as “indisputable.”

    But, as another side note, no, acceptance of life from conception personhood is not a categorical imperative for a pro-life (or, rather, anti-abortion — while the two overlap, they are not precisely the same thing and both have variants) position. There are advocates against abortion who place personhood at “quickening,” or at detectable brain activity, or at some other point, possibly even a point as obviously arbitrary as your “if it’s one one side of the cervix, it’s not a person; if it’s on the other side of the cervix, it is.”

  110. Tony From Long Island

    I may be a registered democrat – and almost always vote DEM in my local and house races, but I have only one time voted for a Democrat for POTUS – 2008.

    I also accidentally voted for Gov. Johnson on the “Independence Party” line instead of the LP line last November. That should qualify me to post here 🙂 . . . . Independent . . Independence . . . close enough! . . .

    . . . btw . . I am not touching the abortion issue today! Too stressful!

  111. dL

    You seem to want to argue about abortion.

    I rarely bring it up on my own. But I will respond when the issue is brought up.

    There are advocates against abortion who place personhood at “quickening,”

    Yeah, that’s essentially Roe v Wade. However, I haven’t met many pro-lifers(or anti-abortionists) who r OK w/ or tolerate Roe v Wade.

  112. Tylor Reinhardt

    Hey, this just a request for any active podcasts I might not be aware of. I have a bunch of libertarian podcasts I follow, as well as a bunch of other ones like WSWS (4th international, socialist equality party, ect)

    I just like to listen to a wide range of viewpoints.

    Thank you! 🙂

  113. langa

    So, you are going to have find better examples of rabid pro-choice libertarians who have gone off the reservation.

    Actually, I don’t have to provide any examples (especially given that you have offered no examples for your assertion that “a pro-life position is a pretty reliable indicator for future litmus test failure”). However, if you want some examples, how about the “Randroids” (from ARI, etc.)? Like their idol, they’re militant supporters of abortion rights, but they also go way “off the reservation” on many issues, especially foreign policy issues.

  114. langa

    Russia’s Global Anti-Libertarian Crusade
    How Vladimir Putin’s desire for domination and acceptance is scrambling American politics.
    Cathy Young from the August/September 2017 issue

    I assume this is the same warmongering Cathy Young who repeatedly criticized Ron Paul in both 2008 and 2012 for his supposedly “unrealistic” ideas about foreign policy noninterventionism.

    I’m not surprised she’s trying to portray Russia as negatively as possible. That makes it a lot easier to drum up support for military action against them.

  115. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    July 7, 2017 at 07:20
    Andy:

    ‘ . . .Tony, how are people supposed to fight a revolution if they do not have guns? . . . . ”
    Simple. We aren’t “supposed to” and we aren’t going to either. This is not 1776. That’s your libertarian fantasy bubble talking again.”

    If we were back in the 1700’s, you’d have been a Tory/Loyalist to the British Monarchy, and I’d have been a Revolutionary, shooting at the Redcoats (I apparently had ancestors who were in fact American Revolutionaries, and who did in fact fight in the revolution).

    We are long over-due for another revolution in this country.

    “Also, I don’t recall ever saying firearms should be banned outright. In fact, I’ve never said that.”

    You said that you want to restrict firearms. I favor repealing all firearms restrictions.

  116. paulie

    I’m not surprised she’s trying to portray Russia as negatively as possible. That makes it a lot easier to drum up support for military action against them.

    She is not drumming up support for military action. Did you actually read the article? And her portrayal of the gangster Putin regime and its activities both at home and abroad is if anything understated. What specifically do you disagree with?

  117. Thomas L. Knapp

    Cathy Young was born Yekaterina Yung and lived in Moscow until she was 17. That and her ongoing focus on Russia since moving to the US in 1980 doesn’t mean she’s always right about it, but is a good indicator that she puts more interest in, and likely has more detailed insight on, the subject than the average Cathy.

  118. DJ

    paulie
    July 8, 2017 at 06:46

    I’m not surprised she’s trying to portray Russia as negatively as possible. That makes it a lot easier to drum up support for military action against them.

    She is not drumming up support for military action. Did you actually read the article? And her portrayal of the gangster Putin regime and its activities both at home and abroad is if anything understated. What specifically do you disagree with?
    …………………

    I read most of it. It got redundant, but, it looked to me like she was “making it easier to drum up military support”….. not the same as “trying to drum up military support”.

    What do I disagree with? US involvement in others affairs. Period. Trade with all ally with none, no matter what a persons political affiliation. I sometimes agree with your take on things, but not this time. Calling others names, (gangster Putin) could be said to be “drumming up support” for vilifying someone whose (reported) behavior you find offensive. Does that mean you are calling for action by others to assuage (or defend) your opinion using force (military action), or the power of perception by using derogatory terms, clearly intended to ‘sway opinion’?

  119. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Chuck M. wrote: “I’m pro-choice, but I would rather if the whole issue went away. People on both sides are single issue voters, so whenever you open your mouth (or stay silent) you alienate 20% of the electorate.”

    CM: It would go away if the Fetus Fetishers would stop harping on it all the time! Causing those who recognize men and women should have reproductive rights to fight back. BLAME THE STATIST AGGRESSORS, please!!!

    Chuck M. wrote: “Age of consent is a tricky issue. ..etc” and Caryn Ann on http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/platform “Families and Childrens Right.”

    The LPRC does have a pretty good statement on Childrens Rights. The one thing I would add or make more explicit relates to: “Children must always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians and assuming all the responsibilities of adulthood.”

    The missing issue Rothbard talked about and may be in some past LP platform is child’s right to divorce parents when they reach “age of reason” when can give a cogent reason, which he said was around 7 years old, or younger for cases of more obvious neglect or abuse neglect or abuse. It should include the child’s rejection of competency, lifestyle, religious, discipline, etc issues and be established over a period of time (so it’s obvious the child isn’t just being petulant). Parents should know they don’t own their children and can’t mold them any way they want. Or heap minor but chronic psychological abuse on them and get away with it for even 12 or 13 years!

  120. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ==We believe that families and households are private institutions which must be free from government intrusion and interference. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, however they do not have a right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find others willing to assume guardianship. Accordingly, we oppose all laws that impede these processes, notably those restricting private adoption services, or those forcing children to remain in the custody of, or removing them from the custody of, their parents against their will.===

  121. dL

    especially given that you have offered no examples for your assertion that “a pro-life position is a pretty reliable indicator for future litmus test failure”

    Easy broad swath example…paleolibertarianism

    However, if you want some examples, how about the “Randroids”

    Randriods are objectivists and generally do not identify as libertarian. Indeed, true to the sentiments of their original queen bee, they are often overtly hostile to the term. Randrioids tend to align w/ the Republicans, which means, in practice, they really aren’t all that militant about abortion, rhetoric notwithstanding.

    HINT: “National Defense Libertarian” clique might be a fruitful place to look for pro-choicers who have gone off the reservation. There was one idiot in that group who immediately comes to mind.

  122. Thomas L. Knapp

    Alicia Dearn of Missouri is “testing the waters” for a US Senate run.

    Some may remember Dearn as the candidate for the Libertarian Party’s 2016 vice-presidential nomination who tearfully dropped out and endorsed William Weld.

    Trivia: If Dearn runs for Senate, she will be the second female Missouri Libertarian to have run for Senate and for the LP’s VP nomination. The first Missouri Libertarian woman to do both of those things, Tamara Millay, has endorsed her and contributed to her exploratory campaign.

  123. dL

    I assume this is the same warmongering Cathy Young who repeatedly criticized Ron Paul in both 2008 and 2012 for his supposedly “unrealistic” ideas about foreign policy noninterventionism.

    Yes. She wrote a piece in 2012 that was so bad that I took the time to fashion a response.
    [Cathy Young. Smells like a Neocon]
    https://rulingclass.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/cathy-young-smells-like-a-neocon/

    When she wrote this hit piece on Edward Snowden back in 2013, I started thinking–given her background–that she actually smells more like a spook.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/24/the_company_snowden_keeps_118930.html

  124. tylor reinhardt

    Hi Paulie,

    Thanks! Um, i’m specifically asking about podcasts because I’m spending a lot of time offline and so I spend a lot of time, hours and hours, listening to podcasts.

    Also remember, listening or reading isn’t necessarily an endorsement.

  125. langa

    She is not drumming up support for military action.

    Of course she is. She’s a hawk. Drumming up support for military action is what hawkish journalists do. (In fairness, she has done some good work on other topics, such as debunking the “rape culture” hysteria that the MSM is so determined to promote.)

    Did you actually read the article?

    I skimmed it. It’s what I would expect: demonization, intended to whet the public’s appetite for future military action. Admittedly, she doesn’t go as far as to call for such action. However, she does call for economic sanctions, which are typically a precursor for future military action.

    If you have any doubt that such military action is her desired endgame, check out dL’s link above, or check out this link to another 2012 Young article:

    https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2012/03/08/cathy-young-ron-pauls-superpower-in-retreat-doctrine-is-wrong

    In that article, she goes full neocon, as in this quote:

    …the radical anti-interventionism championed by Paul — withdrawal from NATO, the closure of all U.S. bases abroad, and generally the end of American “meddling” — goes far beyond prudence. It is profoundly reckless, not only ignoring the unanticipated consequences of a drastic upset in the global balance of power but often taking a stunningly naive view of human affairs.

    Later, she goes on to caution us that:

    The world is not a libertarian place; it is filled with regimes that respect force above all. A superpower in retreat would not be loved for “minding its own business” but viewed with contempt and constantly tested for weakness.

    Do these sound like libertarian views to you?

    And her portrayal of the gangster Putin regime and its activities both at home and abroad is if anything understated.

    Look, Putin is a bad guy. I get it. I feel sorry for the Russian people who have to live under his rule (just as I feel sorry for my fellow Americans who have to live under Trump’s rule). But this idea that Putin is on some kind of crusade to take over the world is just hysteria, plain and simple. In the time that Putin has been in power, America’s meddling in other countries’ affairs has dwarfed that of Russia, by at least a full order of magnitude. Yet Young is not worried by that. On the contrary, she views such American meddling as a good thing, and wants it to continue. As I said, she’s a hawk, and everything she says about foreign policy (and especially about Russia) should be viewed with skepticism, at the very least.

    What specifically do you disagree with?

    Specifically? I certainly disagree with her call for economic sanctions, which frequently lead to military action, and even when they don’t, generally serve to harm the citizens of the target country more than the rulers. But more generally, I disagree with demonization efforts that are clearly intended to set the stage for future military actions.

  126. langa

    Cathy Young was born Yekaterina Yung and lived in Moscow until she was 17. That and her ongoing focus on Russia since moving to the US in 1980 doesn’t mean she’s always right about it, but is a good indicator that she puts more interest in, and likely has more detailed insight on, the subject than the average Cathy.

    I don’t doubt her knowledge. Rather, what I question is her motivation, which doesn’t seem to be peace.

  127. langa

    Easy broad swath example…paleolibertarianism

    The problem with the paleos stems not from their specific views on abortion, but rather with their general belief that culture and libertarianism can’t be separated — and that problem plagues not only paleos, but all “thick” libertarians, most of whom are more of the “left” libertarian variety, and hence, much more likely to be pro-choice than pro-life.

    Randriods are objectivists and generally do not identify as libertarian. Indeed, true to the sentiments of their original queen bee, they are often overtly hostile to the term.

    While it’s true that Rand herself, and many of her acolytes, reject the term, they do so mainly out of vanity, rather than out of any fundamental philosophical disagreement. In fact, Rand stressed the NAP just as much, if not more, than Rothbard, or any other leading libertarian theorists. Further, Rand (and Ojectivism) is cited as a major influence by many prominent libertarians, including Roderick Long, Walter Block, and even LP founder David Nolan.

    Randrioids tend to align w/ the Republicans, which means, in practice, they really aren’t all that militant about abortion, rhetoric notwithstanding.

    “Rhetoric notwithstanding” misses the point, which was that those who spend a lot of time talking about abortion tend to not be all that libertarian on other issues.

  128. dL

    The problem with the paleos stems not from their specific views on abortion

    Well, I wrote “pro-life was a pretty reliable indicator, a signal, a notification warning, if you will. I didn’t say pro-life –> authoritarianism(sufficient condition logical relationship). And as it turns out in the case of the paleos, the indicating signal was indeed reliable. Case example stands.

    which was that those who spend a lot of time talking about abortion tend to not be all that libertarian on other issues.

    Well, it depends. But that certainly is the case for this nutjob
    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/04/libertarians-united-against-fascism-to-the-cowardly-collaborators-of-the-libertarian-party-of-florida-and-a-call-to-action-against-them/#comment-1629063

  129. paulie

    She wrote a piece in 2012 that was so bad

    So what? Suppose she wrote the story I linked to under a pseudonym, what exactly did she get wrong?

  130. paulie

    What do I disagree with? US involvement in others affairs. Period.

    So do I. I extend that to any regime. Putin’s gang is clearly trying to get involved all over the world. The want to “make Russia great again” and see themselves as an extension of medieval crusades at the same time. On the one hand, given Russia’s history, they have a justifiable fear of invasion from outside. Russia has been invaded many times and has fought tooth and nail for independence and survival at great cost over and over. On the other hand they are trying to use military/industrial employment and wartime fervor/nationalistic pride to deflect from a lopsided economy in which the average Russian makes and owns less than the average Indian while a few billionaires own most of the country’s wealth. And, they want their super-wealthy class to be able to play freely in every corner of the world.

    Calling others names, (gangster Putin)

    Accurate description =/= calling names.

    vilifying someone

    I’m not vilifying anyone. Calling villains what they are is not vilifying.

    Does that mean you are calling for action by others to assuage (or defend) your opinion using force (military action)

    If by others you mean any foreign regime, including the US, absolutely not.

  131. paulie

    She is not drumming up support for military action.

    Of course she is.

    She explicitly says otherwise in the article.

  132. paulie

    But this idea that Putin is on some kind of crusade to take over the world is just hysteria, plain and simple. In the time that Putin has been in power, America’s meddling in other countries’ affairs has dwarfed that of Russia, by at least a full order of magnitude.

    His ambitions have so far been checked by availability of resources. That situation is not necessarily permanent, especially with his corrupt friend/stooge Trump in office.

  133. paulie

    Hi Paulie,

    Thanks! Um, i’m specifically asking about podcasts because I’m spending a lot of time offline and so I spend a lot of time, hours and hours, listening to podcasts.

    My comment was not related to yours. I don’t really listen to podcasts much so you would have to ask someone else. Actually, lately I have been keeping sound turned off on my computer almost all the time as many sites just started playing videos when I am sitting in public places with no warning or authorization. Or some porno that I was downloading the night before and forgot about just starts playing all of a sudden. I don’t mind, but I try to be at least somewhat considerate of others. I really don’t turn sound on except temporarily for porn or music. Only very rarely for political broadcasts.

  134. langa

    She explicitly says otherwise in the article.

    Yet she also explicitly calls for economic sanctions which, as I said, usually act as a prelude to military action. That call, combined with the hawkishness that she has demonstrated in many other articles, makes it hard to see her “saying otherwise” in this article as anything other than disingenuous. If you haven’t already, go back and read the Dallas News article I linked above (it won’t take you long; it’s much shorter than her anti-Putin screed). Then tell me that you honestly believe she would oppose military action against Russia.

  135. langa

    His ambitions have so far been checked by availability of resources. That situation is not necessarily permanent, especially with his corrupt friend/stooge Trump in office.

    When Putin (or any other political leader) actually takes aggressive actions against other countries (or against their own citizens, of course), I have no problem with libertarians criticizing them for it. In fact, I applaud such criticism. But when it comes to wild speculation about what someone might theoretically do, that strikes me as hysterical demonization, especially when it comes from a hypocritical hawk like Young, who applauds the U.S. for doing the same things (and much worse, in fact) that she excoriates Putin for.

  136. paulie

    There’s a big difference between

    “Aside from a verbal commitment to liberal democracy and the rule of law, what can Western countries do to curb Russia’s anti-liberal influence without risking military conflict? Economic sanctions—particularly when they target the Russian political elite and its properties abroad, as opposed to targeting ordinary Russian consumers—can be more effective than they are often believed to be. ”

    And sanctions as siege as you are discussing. I am not in favor of either, but you are exaggerating to say the least.

    The actual things she calls for are largely non-governmental actions.

    have no problem with libertarians criticizing them for it. In fact, I applaud such criticism. But when it comes to

    It’s hardly wild speculation. It is in fact what Russian nationalists who are the base of Putin’s support openly call for. It also helps to apply logic and the study of history. How do authoritarian leaders maintain their popularity? What restores the wounded pride of a former superpower? Why is the Putin regime aiding authoritarian far right and far left parties around the world?

  137. langa

    …you are exaggerating to say the least.

    On the contrary, you are being far too charitable toward Young. Again, given her statements elsewhere, are you denying that she is a hawk? Or are you suggesting that when hawks advocate economic sanctions, that is not usually a precursor to military action?

    It’s hardly wild speculation.

    Sure it is. The whole article consists of rumors and speculation. She presents virtually no solid evidence for any of her theories. On the other hand, there is a mountain of solid evidence about the “ambitions” of the U.S. But does that concern her? Nope. She thinks such ambitions are wonderful. She sees any talk of curbing them as “dangerous” and “naive” in the extreme. This article, like just about everything she writes on the subject of foreign policy, is pure war propaganda, plain and simple.

  138. dL

    [She wrote a piece in 2012 that was so bad…]

    So what? Suppose she wrote the story I linked to under a pseudonym, what exactly did she get wrong?

    Well, I laid out exactly what she got wrong.
    https://rulingclass.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/cathy-young-smells-like-a-neocon/

    The thesis of my old essay was that someone who serves as an apologist for naked US aggression abroad will do the same for violations here at home. Sure as rain. So, when she later wrote this hit piece on Snowden:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/24/the_company_snowden_keeps_118930.html

    Thesis confirmed.

    RE: this recent piece [Russia’s Global Anti-Libertarian Crusade]
    http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/07/russias-global-anti-libertaria

    if written under a pseudonym and not attributed to Cathy Young. What’s wrong with it:

    It operates on two premises:

    (1) Russia’s is the prime mover in the global Anti-Libertarian Crusade
    (2) The United States overall is a libertarian force for good.

    Well, I reject those two premises. Instead, I would stipulate:

    (1) Russia’s global anti-libertarian crusade is a puny wannabe next to America’s global anti-libertarian crusade
    (2) The United States is not force for good.

    From my premises, Young’s piece reads like a playbook to strengthen Putin, to reignite a second cold war. And while that would be good business for Cathy Young’s career, most Americans should be worrying about the actions of their own government over whatever Vladimir Putin is doing.

  139. paulie

    Or are you suggesting that when hawks advocate economic sanctions, that is not usually a precursor to military action?

    I stand by exactly what I said. She mentions a specific kind of sanctions, one least associated with being a precursor to military action, as one of a number of things to do about it – and not one I agree with.

    The whole article consists of rumors and speculation.

    I disagree. Based on reading a lot of things elsewhere, including in Russian, I think she gets it right.

  140. langa

    She mentions a specific kind of sanctions, one least associated with being a precursor to military action, as one of a number of things to do about it…

    Well, you can believe her if you want, but I find it interesting that you are so willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, since you often refuse to do the same for others. For example, back when we were discussing BLM, I remember you saying that “all lives matter” shouldn’t be taken at face value. Rather, you said we should “read between the lines” and conclude that the person saying it is probably a racist and/or a fan of police brutality. But now, when a known hawk writes a lengthy diatribe on the evils of a foreign country, one which concludes with a call for economic sanctions (but no explicit call for military action), we’re supposed to forget about reading between the lines and take her at face value? Strange.

  141. paulie

    I think you are mischaracterizing what I said about “all lives matter.” I said that many of the people who say that really do mean in fact ALL lives matter, including black lives. However, a non-insignificant number of those who say it are using it in a dismissive way to say that the concerns about police violence and its disproportionate impact on black people are misplaced and/or that all or most of those who say “black lives matter” are implying that other lives don’t (a few are, but not most). What’s more I said that regardless of the intent of the people saying it that is how “all lives matter” comes across to those who are dealing with their lives and their families’ and neighbors’ lives mattering little or not at all when it comes to the police or the media or the “justice” system.

    As for Cathy Young, I haven’t read enough of her stuff to judge whether there was a hidden context. Maybe there was, but I am going by just this particular article. I think she is right about the Putin regime and its global agenda and at least some of the ways to deal with it. I differ with her on any government imposed economic sanctions.

  142. Tylor Reinhardt

    My comment was not related to yours. I don’t really listen to podcasts much so you would have to ask someone else. Actually, lately I have been keeping sound turned off on my computer almost all the time as many sites just started playing videos when I am sitting in public places with no warning or authorization. Or some porno that I was downloading the night before and forgot about just starts playing all of a sudden. I don’t mind, but I try to be at least somewhat considerate of others. I really don’t turn sound on except temporarily for porn or music. Only very rarely for political broadcasts.

    —————————————————————————

    No problem. I receive e-mail notifications and it said it was from you, that’s why I thought it was from you. I read a lot of the articles here but haven’t been responding a lot lately. Sorry for the mix up.

    I listen to a lot of podcasts because sometimes it’s convienant because all I have right now is my smart phone. Like I’m using it right now in fact.

  143. Andy

    “Tylor Reinhardt
    July 7, 2017 at 16:13
    Hey, this just a request for any active podcasts I might not be aware of. I have a bunch of libertarian podcasts I follow, as well as a bunch of other ones like WSWS (4th international, socialist equality party, ect)

    I just like to listen to a wide range of viewpoints.

    Thank you! ?”

    If you want to listen to a good libertarian podcast, I highly recommend checking out The LAVA Flow with Rodger Paxton.

    http://thelavaflow.com/

  144. Tony From Long Island

    ANDY:

    ” . . .If we were back in the 1700’s, you’d have been a Tory/Loyalist to the British Monarchy, and I’d have been a Revolutionary, shooting at the Redcoats

    . . . pure mindless speculation . . . what is your fascination with shooting people about?

    ” . . . I apparently had ancestors who were in fact American Revolutionaries, and who did in fact fight in the revolution

    And?

    ” . . .We are long over-due for another revolution in this country. . .”

    You are long overdue for a psychiatric evaluation.

    ” . . .You said that you want to restrict firearms. I favor repealing all firearms restrictions.

    . . . . Yes, I do – particular from mentally unstable like you who advocate violence.

    Do you still stand by your ridiculous position that I am not “a real man” simply because I support regulating firearms? Your need to prove to the world how big your pistol is – is disturbing.

  145. paulie

    No problem. I receive e-mail notifications and it said it was from you, that’s why I thought it was from you.

    I did post on this thread right after you, but not related to your comment. I don’t use a smart phone so the only way I get anything online is to break out my laptop. A lot of the places I do that are public places, so I try to keep the sound off most of the time.

  146. paulie

    Knew this was coming from ole Hat Trick

    Raimondo? I didn’t know that nickname for him, but it does seem to fit.

  147. langa

    Raimondo? I didn’t know that nickname for him, but it does seem to fit.

    I don’t understand the nickname, but in any case, you should read the article. It makes a lot of good points, to go along with the ones dL and I made on this thread.

  148. paulie

    Raimondo is way, way, way off on the subjects of Trump, Putin, and related questions. It’s not “phobia” when it is warranted.

  149. Thomas L. Knapp

    Raimondo got upset when I referred to his “man crush” habit — he thought it was meant as a homophobic thing. I guess he’s not up on current slang.

    He jumps from infatuation to infatuation. Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Chuck Hagel, Ron Paul, Donald Trump. Domestically, it’s always a Republican (although he followed Buchanan to the Reform Party) who he’s convinced himself is either a paleocon or a “realist” that paleocons can work with. And when he doesn’t have a domestic date, Putin is his foreign idol of choice.

    He seems to be among those Rothbardians who switched their brains off when Rothbard died and just sort of kept trucking in the idiotic direction he had been heading in when he kicked the bucket.

  150. langa

    A lot of people think Raimondo has changed, but I disagree. He has always been a bit dubious on domestic politics, as in, for example, his longstanding affinity for Pat Buchanan. But at the same time, his analysis of foreign policy has almost always been razor sharp, and I don’t think that’s any less true now.

  151. langa

    Putin is his foreign idol of choice.

    I don’t think swatting down the crazy conspiracy theories being propagated by the DNC (and now, apparently by Reason, as well) means that he has a “man crush” on Putin.

    It just means he has an IQ higher than 80.

  152. langa

    TK, read Young’s article. Then read Raimondo’s. Then tell me whose brain has been switched off.

    Raimondo may have been too eager to give Putin the benefit of the doubt in the past, but that has nothing to do with this case, where he’s absolutely right. Young’s piece is 100% war propaganda.

  153. dL

    Raimondo? I didn’t know that nickname[Hat Trick] for him, but it does seem to fit.

    It stems from a “Ask Knapp” question I posed vis a vis Trump’s bombing of Syria over alleged chemical weapons use. I facetiously posed a multiple choice question consisting of 3 different reasons Trump’s duped supporters might use to rationalize it. And lo and behold Raimondo used all 3…within a week’s time. Quite a shameless feat.

  154. dL

    Raimondo. Hates the sinner. Loves the sin. In other words, although he hates the neocons, he often argues just like one(heavy reliance on the use of the false dilemma and cognitive dissonance). A dispassionate observer would have hard time differentiating between which would be worse: his paleo authoritarianism or his political enemies’ perpetual war drum beating.

    Putin: I recently watched Oliver Stone’s “The Putin Interviews.” Putin’s deconstruction of American foreign policy was was often quite Chomskyan, spot on. His deconstruction of his own rule, however, was much less convincing, to say the least.

  155. langa

    A dispassionate observer would have hard time differentiating between which would be worse: his paleo authoritarianism or his political enemies’ perpetual war drum beating.

    That’s an easy one. In any “which is worse?” scenario involving war, the answer is always that war is worse.

    War is the absolute and simultaneous negation of every libertarian principle — and every principle of basic human decency, for that matter. There is no greater evil.

  156. dL

    That’s an easy one. In any “which is worse?” scenario involving war, the answer is always that war is worse.

    paleo authoritarianism is war…Raimondo wants to take all the troops overseas and put them on the border. And they would not be there to play bingo. I’m not interested in living in fucking east germany. However, because i do not live in Raimondo’s world of false dilemmas, I don’t have to choose b/t East Germany and Bill Kristol.

  157. langa

    paleo authoritarianism is war…Raimondo wants to take all the troops overseas and put them on the border. And they would not be there to play bingo.

    I’m no fan of any sort of immigration restrictions, as I’ve said many times. But if you think some idiotic border fence is as bad as, say, the atrocities that the U.S. military has committed in the Middle East — or that it’s even close — then you have a very warped perspective, to say the least.

  158. dL

    But if you think some idiotic border fence

    Did I say border fence? I’m pretty sure I said military occupation…

    Raimondo wants to take all the troops overseas and put them on the border. And they would not be there to play bingo.

    Yep. That’s what I said.

  159. Starchild

    Carol Moore writes, (July 8, 2017 at 13:45),

    The LPRC does have a pretty good statement on Childrens Rights. The one thing I would add or make more explicit relates to: “Children must always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians and assuming all the responsibilities of adulthood.”

    The general thrust of the language adopted by the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus works for me too, but I agree with Carol that it could use more discussion and refinement. For instance, it appears to suggest that in terms of legal rights, establishing maturity and ending legal dependency is an “all-or-nothing” package deal. But that’s not usually the way child-rearing usually works in practice. In practice, parents tend to gradually surrender more responsibility and autonomy to children as they get older.

    It seems to me that children ought to have some legal rights not simply to establish their maturity as a full and permanent matter, but to negotiate for some greater rights short of full legal independence.

    Consider for instance a situation in which mom and dad (or dad and dad, or mom and mom and dad, or whatever) split up, and one parent has primary custody and legal responsibility for making major decisions on the child’s behalf, but the child wants a different parent or guardian to have equal custody. Neither the child, nor the custodial parent/guardian, want the custodial parent/guardian to have no legal responsibility for the child. But they disagree on where the legal boundaries should lie. Or to take a perhaps more controversial example, say a child simply doesn’t want to take the school courses that a parent says he or she must take. Again neither party wishes a full legal separation, but they have an irreconcilable difference of opinion. To say that the only way a child can resolve this difference of opinion in his or her favor is by using the “nuclear option” of threatening full separation seems like inviting tragic and unnecessary breaches or unhappiness.

    Also, just as a child should have the legal right to seek greater or total independence, a parent should have the legal right to put a child up for adoption, or seek to seek to lessen by some amount their legal obligations and prerogatives with regard to the child. Of course if no willing and qualified individual(s) can be found to take their place, they should still be stuck with the legal responsibility until the child becomes an adult (which in my view occurs with puberty, but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms).

    On this basis, with a child having the right to an adult legal representative or advocate to make their case in discussions, I think fairer and more nuanced status negotiations could take place. If for instance, a parent and child agreed to a plan in which the child would remain a legal dependent overall, but would be granted legal authority to make certain decisions for himself, for example choosing to use a drug, choose a particular sexual partner, or drive a car, etc., over a parent’s objections, I think such consensual, private agreements should be recognized and upheld by the State.

  160. paulie

    read Young’s article. Then read Raimondo’s. Then tell me whose brain has been switched off.

    Clearly, Raimondo’s.

    Young’s piece is 100% war propaganda.

    The only part she gets wrong is the support for government imposed sanctions, and even then she makes it clear that she is not in favor of the kind of sanctions that impact ordinary Russian people at home.

    Raimondo is too cuddly with authoritarianism.

    Indeed!

  161. paulie

    Putin: I recently watched Oliver Stone’s “The Putin Interviews.” Putin’s deconstruction of American foreign policy was was often quite Chomskyan, spot on. His deconstruction of his own rule, however, was much less convincing, to say the least.

    Exactly. Same can be said of the reporting on RT.

  162. paulie

    paleo authoritarianism is war…Raimondo wants to take all the troops overseas and put them on the border. And they would not be there to play bingo. I’m not interested in living in fucking east germany. However, because i do not live in Raimondo’s world of false dilemmas, I don’t have to choose b/t East Germany and Bill Kristol.

    Excellent point, fully agreed.

  163. paulie

    But if you think some idiotic border fence is as bad as, say, the atrocities that the U.S. military has committed in the Middle East — or that it’s even close — then you have a very warped perspective, to say the least.

    You think it stops at a border fence? The whole Mexican drug war, which has killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of people already – many in horrific ways – is just one of the consequences of trying to control the flow of goods and people across the US-Mexico border. Labor and goods will find a way to meet the demand, no matter how much blood ends up being spilled in the process.

  164. dL

    read Young’s article. Then read Raimondo’s. Then tell me whose brain has been switched off.
    Clearly, Raimondo’s.

    Both of their brains have been switched off for some time. It is a false dilemma to have to pick the lesser of two evils, here. My advice is to treat the paleo v neocon war just like Sergio Leone treated the civil war in TGTBATU***

    *** a stupid, pointless war between sides who were both wrong

  165. langa

    What “crazy conspiracy theories” is Reason pushing?

    The ones that make up about 95% of Young’s article. I could list them all, but fortunately, Raimondo has saved me the time, by doing it himself. Just read his article. And, BTW, it doesn’t matter whether you or I agree with all of the things Raimondo has said about Trump, or even about Putin, in the past. The point is that what he says in this particular article is spot on. (The only thing I think he gets wrong is his claim that Russia is “just emerging” from Communism. Of course, it’s actually been about a quarter of a century since the breakup of the Soviet Union. But other than that, Raimondo nails it.)

  166. langa

    The only part she gets wrong is the support for government imposed sanctions…

    That’s the only policy recommendation that she gets wrong, mainly because it’s the only policy recommendation she makes. As for the rest of the stuff in the article, it’s not so much “wrong” per se, as it is a bunch of completely unsupported assertions, rumors, and gossip that can’t technically be proven right or wrong. But then again, that’s the whole point of it. It’s like the claims of Iraqi WMDs, or climate change, or any of the other dozens of minimal to nonexistent threats that government (or, in this case, “private” journalists) use to scare people into going along with war/tyranny.

  167. langa

    You think it stops at a border fence? The whole Mexican drug war…

    Please provide me a link to where Raimondo has ever supported a drug war (either foreign or domestic). If drugs were legalized in the U.S., there would be no incentive to smuggle them over the border, fence or no fence (though of course the fence would still be bad, for other reasons).

  168. langa

    paleo v neocon

    Sure, they’re both wrong, and that shouldn’t be forgotten. But to use that fact to imply that they are equally wrong, as in saying that Raimondo is no better than Bill Kristol, is to lose perspective.

  169. paulie

    Perhaps Cathy Young wrote something along the lines of Bill Kristol somewhere else but not in the article I referenced.

  170. paulie

    Please provide me a link to where Raimondo has ever supported a drug war (either foreign or domestic). If drugs were legalized in the U.S., there would be no incentive to smuggle them over the border, fence or no fence (though of course the fence would still be bad, for other reasons).

    He does not have to support the drug war. The drug war exists, and will probably not go away for some time. Supporting placing troops, a wall, and other resources at the border means intensifying the drug war, while it exists. Making migration north more difficult means more human fodder for the cartels. And so on.

  171. paulie

    That’s the only policy recommendation that she gets wrong, mainly because it’s the only policy recommendation she makes.

    It’s not. Reread that section. She makes several recommendations, mostly for nongovernmental action.

    As for the rest of the stuff in the article

    It’s right on the money.

  172. paulie

    The point is that what he says in this particular article is spot on.

    Young’s article is much more accurate.

  173. Thane Eichenauer (@ilovegrover)

    DJ> https://www.kidrockforsenate.com/

    My neice’s plumber told me that Kid Rock (Crypto member of the Guns, Whiskey and Weed party) is running against Marcia Squier (Independent). [FYI: in Michigan]

    https://www.facebook.com/MarciaSquier4Senate/

    Kid Rock is for better or worse running as a Republican.

    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G18/MI

    “I don’t smoke much weed, it makes me dumb. But they should legalise and tax everything: pot, cocaine, heroin. Has it not been proven that people will always find a way to get what they want?

    I’m always buying more guns. I have everything from a Civil War cannon to an MP5 machine gun and old police guns. If someone invades your house, yeah, you can shoot them. I don’t think crazy people should have guns.”

    http://rare.us/rare-politics/is-kid-rock-conservative-libertarian-or-just-all-american/

  174. DJ

    Kid Rock is for better or worse running as a Republican.
    ………………

    It should prove entertaining if nothing else. His demeanor would sure upset the suits and self aggrandized stuffed shirts that consider themselves special. LOL. I bet the Democraps and Republitards are going into full protection mode of their little circle of crony’s. His strongest opponents will be Republitards.

  175. Andy

    “paulie
    July 13, 2017 at 08:27
    I like his music, but politically he is a trumptard.”

    I think that Kid Rock, aka-Bob Ritchie, is a guy who has some libertarian instincts, but he does not have enough information, and has not given enough thought to philosophy, to actually be a libertarian.

    I bet that if I could spend some time hanging out with him that I could talk him into flipping to libertarian.

  176. paulie

    Like I said I like his music. If you think you can convince him to be a libertarian you are welcome to try. I don’t know if you would get through his handlers or not but nothing wrong with trying.

  177. Tony From Long Island

    You pick one line from a guy who has recorded a dozen or so albums and proclaim him a libertarian . . . . *sigh*

    I bet that if I could spend some time hanging out with him that I could talk him into flipping to libertarian.

    He likely would point and laugh . . . . Though it’s much easier convincing a multimillionaire to become a libertarian than the average joe.

  178. Andy

    I did NOT proclaim Kid Rock to be a libertarian, I said that I think that he has some libertarian instincts, and that he could potentially become a libertarian IF he spent more time researching issues and philosophy, and/or IF he met somebody like me who could point him in the right direction.

    He has already spoken out against the drug war, and in favor of gun rights, and he called the IRS “bastards” and acknowledged that there are crooked cops. So I would say that he is already part of the way there.

  179. DJ

    From wikipedia

    He has sold 25 million albums in the US as of December 2013, and over 35 million worldwide.
    ………..

    I like some of his music https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBi0bAJJh6k in particular, but, more importantly I like his attitude https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voaGM4CMQ9c, and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__HPfmvaWRw

    That aside I’m anxious to see how the “elite” treat him during the campaign and I hope he’ll call them out on their BS. I do think he’s more libertarian than Republican. Not sure how he couldn’t be aware of that though since the internet is pretty good at providing ideology profiles and surely he uses the internet.

  180. Andy

    DJ said: ” I do think he’s more libertarian than Republican. Not sure how he couldn’t be aware of that though since the internet is pretty good at providing ideology profiles and surely he uses the internet.”

    Kid Rock is a rich guy who has other things going on in his life that occupy most of his time. He’s got his music, family, friends, partying, hobbies, etc… He probably does not sit around thinking about politics and researching issues and philosophy much. He also probably does not know anyone in person who is a libertarian.

    There are lots of people out there who would probably be libertarians (not a majority of the population, but still, a good chunk of people), if they knew what it was, and/or if they saw that the Libertarian Party and movement was going somewhere. If the Libertarian Party was not such a dysfunctional organization, I believe that we could have a lot more of these people firmly on our side right now.

  181. DJ

    Andy: He probably does not sit around thinking about politics and researching issues and philosophy much.

    Wonder what made him decide to run for the senate? He must have some inkling that something ain’t right.

  182. Andy

    “DJ
    July 13, 2017 at 18:41
    Andy: ‘He probably does not sit around thinking about politics and researching issues and philosophy much.’

    Wonder what made him decide to run for the senate? He must have some inkling that something ain’t right.”

    Yes, he may know enough to know that something is not right, but this does not mean that he sits around reading books on philosophy, economics, history, etc…, and that he spends hours online researching political topics.

    Also, keep in mind that he’s been subjected to the same programming that everyone else is, from the mainstream media, to the government controlled education system, to family and other people you know. Most of the systems that are in place program people to NOT be libertarian. It takes some effort to break this mass conditioning.

  183. DJ

    Yes the programming is a BIG problem and is at the heart of my beliefs on how to change the direction we’re headed. Sow seeds, some will bear fruit.

    But back to my original point; Something made him see enough to decide to throw his hat in the ring. If he surrounds himself with political types to help his campaign maybe, just maybe, his eyes will be opened, especially if those political types are already established. They will confuse him with their rhetoric, which when looked at closely will reveal there is NO discernible differences between D’s and R’s, especially at the national level. That is what made me (ultimately) ‘see the light’. Not that I hold out a lot of hope for him, or many others for that matter, but that article (posted above) that questioned his ‘philosophy’ may make him question his true leanings….. at some point. And don’t forget, Trump wasn’t/isn’t exactly what one would call philosophically astute.

    Or, he may just decide it ain’t worth the hassle to even continue, because he will get hassled from media, D’s and R’s. But I hope he stays around long enough for some good digs at the idiots already in DC.

  184. Thane Eichenauer (@ilovegrover)

    Tony From Long Island,
    I won’t call Kid Rock a libertarian, the label doesn’t change what his positions are.

    “Talk about freedom, talk about faith, they talking ’bout taking my guns away,” Rock sings.
    “They talk about the greedy, talk about the poor
    They talking ’bout sending my daughter to war
    Talk about spending, talk about pay, they talk about defending the NSA.”
    from his song “Ain’t Enough Whiskey” -> https://youtu.be/4Q9pyh-nNd0

    http://rare.us/entertainment-and-culture/rare-exclusive-kid-rocks-new-ode-to-america-is-the-peoples-anthem-youve-been-waiting-for/

    Rock told The Guardian in January
    “I don’t smoke much weed, it makes me dumb. But they should legalise and tax everything: pot, cocaine, heroin. Has it not been proven that people will always find a way to get what they want?”
    https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jan/03/kid-rock-this-much-i-know

    As far as Republican US Senators go I’d put in $1,000 to trade in either John McCain or Jeff Flake for Kid Rock if I could.

  185. paulie

    Drumpf supporter. Therefore, most likely has fucktarded views not discussed above such as “Bomb All the Moozlems” or “Deport all the Messikins” or “Tax the shit out of imports” etc. Most likely quite a few of them.

  186. Thane Eichenauer (@ilovegrover)

    paulie,
    If you have 4 minutes (and 8 seconds) to spare you might watch the official music video for the song “Amen” by Kid Rock (URL below).
    It won’t necessarily disprove all of your completely speculative assumptions about his beliefs and positions. Then again it just might, after a moment of reflection, cause you to be reticent about repeating all the ones you mentioned above.

    He didn’t exactly disclaim “Tax the shit out of imports” but I am sure that was only be cause it takes a super-genius to write a catchy refrain on the topic.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XfKGI2o_VQ

  187. dL

    I like his music, but politically he is a trumptard.

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/16/ted-nugent-discusses-possible-u-s-senate-race-in-2018/

    Ted Nugent vs Kid Rock in the GOP Senate primary! A preemptive Ted Nugent campaign negative attack ad against Kid’s “And all my heroes at the methadone clinics” followed by Kid’s counter attack mocking Ted’s politically correct explanation for “journeying to the center of his mind” would be worth the price of admission. Heroin and LSD dominating Michigan republican politics.

  188. paulie

    It won’t necessarily disprove all of your completely speculative assumptions about his beliefs

    I haven’t made any. I only said that there is probably a reason or several that he likes Drumpf. It’s completely possible to hold libertarian-leaning positions on some issues as mentioned above and other positions completely antithetical to human freedom at the same time. I don’t know specifically which issues he takes Drumpf-like positions on but I would be surprised if there aren’t a few that put him at odds with us.

  189. langa

    …most likely has fucktarded views not discussed above such as “Bomb All the Moozlems” or “Deport all the Messikins” or “Tax the shit out of imports” etc.

    Not necessarily. Walter Block is on record as opposing all foreign intervention, all restrictions on immigration, and all restrictions on trade, yet he still supported Trump, strictly on the (misguided) “lesser of two evils” principle. It seems entirely possible that Kid Rock made the same mistake.

  190. langa

    Possible but unlikely.

    I agree it’s unlikely that Kid Rock is as consistently libertarian as Block. But I do think it’s pretty likely that he voted less for Trump, and more against Hillary. In fact, I think that’s true for a lot of Trump supporters (and vice versa for a lot of Hillary supporters).

  191. Andy

    “paulie
    July 14, 2017 at 07:44
    ‘It won’t necessarily disprove all of your completely speculative assumptions about his beliefs’
    I haven’t made any. I only said that there is probably a reason or several that he likes Drumpf. It’s completely possible to hold libertarian-leaning positions on some issues as mentioned above and other positions completely antithetical to human freedom at the same time.”

    The Libertarian Party has not nominated a presidential ticket that has had anyone on it who was plausible as a libertarian since 2004. Who was Kid Rock supposed to vote for this year? Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. LOL!

    I am not saying that voting for Trump was a great thing to do (and I did NOT vote for Trump, nor did I vote for Johnson), but when the Libertarian Party is continually fucking up, and can’t seem to get its shit together, can we really blame people for seeking other options, and going with one of the major party candidates?

    The Libertarian Party has lost its moral high ground, so we really can’t blame people with libertarian leaning for going elsewhere.

  192. dL

    I agree it’s unlikely that Kid Rock is as consistently libertarian as Block. But I do think it’s pretty likely that he voted less for Trump, and more against Hillary.

    Kid Rock has had openly pro-military, pro-republican views for some time now. He revealed himself to be a Bush republican way back at the start of the Iraq war. Old news.

  193. Andy

    ” Walter Block is on record as opposing all foreign intervention, all restrictions on immigration, and all restrictions on trade,”

    I recently saw an interview with Walter Block, where he added a provision to his immigration stance, that is, he supports unrestricted immigration IF the welfare state is ended at the same time.

    If I find the video where he said this I will post it here.

  194. Andy

    “dL
    July 14, 2017 at 12:08
    ‘I agree it’s unlikely that Kid Rock is as consistently libertarian as Block. But I do think it’s pretty likely that he voted less for Trump, and more against Hillary.’
    Kid Rock has had openly pro-military, pro-republican views for some time now. He revealed himself to be a Bush republican way back at the start of the Iraq war. Old news.”

    This is true. However, I think that there’s a chance that Kid Rock could be talked out of this stance IF he were to be exposed to all of the lies that have gone into the military adventurism that has gone on over the decades.

    Maybe I, or somebody else, could talk to him about why an interventionist foreign policy is a bad idea, and why people should not blindly support the military, and about how the government lies to get people to go along with wars, and how the banks and the military-industrial-complex profiteers from wars and from big military budgets, and maybe he’d change his mind on this. Maybe he would not change is mind.

    I think that it would be worth a try, as he appears to be a guy who already has some libertarian leanings. I agree that there are people out there who will never be libertarians, no matter what libertarians do, but there are also a lot of people out there who could be potential supporters, so I would not necessarily write somebody off for being bad on one or a few issues, as sometimes you can get people to change their minds.

  195. Tony From Long Island

    Andy

    This is true. However, I think that there’s a chance that Kid Rock could be talked out of this stance IF he were to be exposed to all of the lies that have gone into the military adventurism that has gone on over the decades. . . .

    Sometimes you come across as very naïve . . . .usually you come across as all-out nuts. This time just very naïve.

  196. DJ

    Republican rocker Kid Rock coyly teased a run for the United States Senate on his social media this week. Though his formal candidacy is uncertain, in the age of a Trump presidency, officials – including Senator Elizabeth Warren – are taking the rocker at his word.

    I have had a ton of emails and texts asking me if this website is real… https://t.co/RRVgISDFeq The answer is an absolute YES. pic.twitter.com/uYCUg6mjW1
    — Kid Rock (@KidRock) July 12, 2017

    Stay tuned, I will have a major announcement in the near future – Kid Rock

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/kid-rock-teases-michigan-senate-run-what-are-his-politics-w492317?utm_source=rsnewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=daily&utm_campaign=071417_15

  197. DJ

    Tony From Long Island
    July 14, 2017 at 13:36

    Andy

    This is true. However, I think that there’s a chance that Kid Rock could be talked out of this stance IF he were to be exposed to all of the lies that have gone into the military adventurism that has gone on over the decades. . . .

    Sometimes you come across as very naïve . . . .usually you come across as all-out nuts. This time just very naïve
    ……………..

    You come across as someone who never has anything to say worth saying. Maybe you could talk to somebody about why they should feel like you do…..oh, wait- you do that on every thread Andy posts on.
    Maybe you should start your own I hate Andy blog. Oughta be a real winner for readers, what with all the info you provide.

  198. Tony From Long Island

    I guess you only read the posts where I criticize Andy. There are plenty of others that don’t. This has been discussed ad nauseum.

    I call out xenophobic conspiracy theorists. Oh well.

    Have a good weekend. I’ll be back Monday. I know you’ll be waiting with baited breath.

  199. Andy

    DJ, i have been involved in Libertarian activism for 21 years. I have personally gathered somewhere in the ballpark of 75,000-80,000 on Libertarian Party ballot access petitions, and I have gathered I do not even know how many thousands more signatures on various pro-liberty ballot initiatives, referendums, etc… I have also manned multiple libertarian outreach tables, and I have talked about politics with I don’t even know how many people, both in person and online.

    When it comes to doing libertarian outreach, and in particular, engaging people in person, I would say that I am an expert, and I am certainly far from naive.

    I am well aware of the fact that a lot of people reject various libertarian issue stances, and that a lot of people reject libertarianism in general.

    I did not say that Kid Rock is a libertarian, and I was already aware of him being a big “support the military” guy, which usually translates to supporting imperialism.

    I do not know if his mind could be changed on any issues, or if he would ever join or vote for the Libertarian Party, but given that he has already expressed some libertarian sentiments, I think that it is possible that he could be persuaded to come over to our side. Given my vast experience in talking to people about the Libertarian Party, and libertarianism, I think that if I had the chance to talk to him, that I MIGHT be able to get him to come over to the Libertarian side, but I can’t guarantee it. I would say I would have a better chance at recruiting him than I would some celebrity who has expsessed little or no libertarian sentiments.

  200. DJ

    Andy, I don’t doubt your qualifications, or sincerity. I find it degrading to posters who continually attack you personally. I will say I disagree with your stance on immigration and leave it at that.

    I suffered that same kind of treatment on a political message board I used to frequent AFTER I declared my self to be ‘a’ libertarian, (though no ties to ANY party which I would be happy to discuss at length with anyone. Suffice it to say I’m not a joiner to anything since it requires group think which I abhor) which was just a few short years ago during Obama’s first campaign. Prior to that I had stood up for ‘conservative’ beliefs, but, two other posters and my oldest son led me to be aware of Ron Paul, so, though I had (for many years) paid attention to politics I started paying closer attention and asking why, in my lifetime, (I’m 69 now, about 59 when I had the awakening) I’d seen NO discernible difference between the two major fuck ups except in their rhetoric. Then I looked at some history not taught in school (at least in my time) and I did read 1984 when I was in the 8th grade. I looked at the federal reserve act, the income tax (and history of it) then the near genocide of natives here, the truth about Pearl Harbor, JFK, 9/11, ww2 and 1 the continuous boogie man rhetoric, Vietnam, communism, NSA, Homeland Security Act and the incessant borrowing what congress can mint and charging “We the people” with paying for their vote buying with interest paid, Nixon and the gold standard, selling our soul (and troops) to Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., etc.

    I think ANY person with intellectual honesty when confronted with facts will look elsewhere for a political home. Although I have had some back and forth with devout Republican Christians (on a number of issues, but war mostly) and have to say, intellectual honesty is hard to come by for many.
    As for Kid Rock running as, or being, a Republican I don’t think it makes much difference. See the above article I linked to. As long as the pot is stirred I’m good to go. Of course I’d love for “celebrities” not be afraid to embrace their libertarian beliefs publicly, but, as you pointed out there’s a lot of damaged info to cut through. Like I said, originally, there are “political profile” tests/charts available IF they are truly interested. Bringing that (political profile charts) up, my older brother had me do one years ago which concluded I was more libertarian in my beliefs than I was ‘willing to admit’…..LOL, but, looking back at my past I knew it had to be true because I’ve ALWAYS stood up for individuals, rarely if ever did I try to defend a group.

  201. paulie

    The Libertarian Party has not nominated a presidential ticket that has had anyone on it who was plausible as a libertarian since 2004. Who was Kid Rock supposed to vote for this year? Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. LOL!

    Literally anyone would have been better than Drumpf. Drumpf is the absolute worst of the worst. He will easily end up as the worst president of all time and was the absolute worst choice on the ballot last year.

  202. paulie

    Kid Rock has had openly pro-military, pro-republican views for some time now. He revealed himself to be a Bush republican way back at the start of the Iraq war. Old news.

    Indeed, it is.

  203. paulie

    I recently saw an interview with Walter Block, where he added a provision to his immigration stance, that is, he supports unrestricted immigration IF the welfare state is ended at the same time.

    As a Rothbardian, Block should know better than to embrace Stockholm Syndrome libertarianism. Of course, in his senile years, Rothbard himself contradicted himself on this point when it came to (im)migration, and his acolytes have copied the blunder.

  204. dL

    I recently saw an interview with Walter Block, where he added a provision to his immigration stance, that is, he supports unrestricted immigration IF the welfare state is ended at the same time.

    As a Rothbardian, Block should know better than to embrace Stockholm Syndrome libertarianism.

    So he now supports open immigration if and only when people stop seeking special rents, privileges and transfers from the state. LOL. He might as well make the following announcement:

    “I will refrain from libertarian error if and only when pigs begin to fly.”

  205. langa

    I’m skeptical that Block has changed his position on immigration. He rarely changes his mind, and when he does, he usually makes a big deal about it. Yet a Google search reveals plenty of articles supporting open borders, and nothing saying that such support is contingent on the simultaneous end of the welfare state. So, unless Andy (or somebody else) can furnish a link to this alleged change of heart, I’m just not buying it.

  206. Thomas L. Knapp

    langa,

    I agree. That “debate” looks more like Block trying to be nice to a lightweight than like Block losing an argument. For some reason (possibly as simple as “Lew likes him”), he just didn’t seem interested in slapping Bionic Mosquito around in public.

  207. Andy

    langa, I will have to search for the video again, but I think Block actually said that government immigration restrictions could be lifted with the provision that everything had to be privitized, as in mass privatization of land and resources currently held by government.

    I was thinking, “Hey, that is basically the same position as Rothbard and Hoppe.”

    I will search for the video later, but it may have been the one where Walter Block debated Augustus Invictus.

  208. Darcy G Richardson

    Given the troubling lack of transparency during his 2012 and 2016 presidential campaigns, as well as the opaqueness of his Our America Initiative, the 501(c)(4) that he created with Ron Nielson in 2009, I guess it’s not entirely surprising to see ex-Gov. Gary Johnson coming to the defense of dark money in American politics.

    http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/rules-combatting-dark-money-in-politics-facing-growing-opposition/article_9a16b191-d0b4-53ab-af75-cc4d89e56960.html

  209. langa

    …I think Block actually said that government immigration restrictions could be lifted with the provision that everything had to be privitized, as in mass privatization of land and resources currently held by government.

    Well, I have heard Block say that even though he supports open borders, he understands that it might cause some problems, and that those problems could be solved by privatizing all government resources.

    However, that’s not the same thing as saying that he would not support open borders without full privatization. Libertarian anarchists (by definition) all agree that government shouldn’t own anything (and even minarchists would undoubtedly say that government should only own a tiny fraction of the land it currently claims to own). But that doesn’t mean that there is any universal agreement on how government should manage “public” land, as long as it is still considered to be the owner of such land.

    …it may have been the one where Walter Block debated Augustus Invictus.

    I haven’t watched that debate, but I am pretty sure I have seen at least one interview that Block has done since then, where he repeats the argument I outlined above (that he still supports open borders, and that the solution to any problems that might be caused by open borders is to push for privatization, rather than immigration restrictions).

  210. Thomas L. Knapp

    Looks like we’ll find out where Block stands pretty soon. From “Bionic Mosquito’s” latest piece:

    Walter Block is having published a new piece on immigration, where he considers arguments from both Hans Hoppe and me. He has promised to send a link once it is available online. I have quickly scanned a draft but have decided not to address it as Walter has rightly asked me not to cite anything until it is formally published.

    My guess is that Block will (very politely, as is his habit) stick with the libertarian position on immigration rather than falling for Hoppe’s authoritarian twaddle.

  211. Chuck Moulton

    Many open borders advocates respond to the welfare state canard by suggesting a less restrictive alternative than closed borders would be open borders prohibiting immigrants from utilizing the welfare state. That should be acceptable to broken record “but the welfare state!!” immigration restrictionists and most immigrants would still find immigration attractive with no welfare possibilities.

    But that is not the same thing at all as being against open borders even with the welfare state still in place. It is a rhetorical technique to separate the wheat from the chaff… in fact, most immigration restrictionists who harp on the welfare state immediately find another excuse for opposing immigration with their argument torn down — because the actual reason they oppose immigration is that they are rascist, so any excuse putting a fig leaf over that will do.

    Block, Caplan, and most other open border advocates will support open borders with or without a rollback of the welfare state. No particular orderism FTW.

  212. dL

    Many open borders advocates respond to the welfare state canard by suggesting a less restrictive alternative than closed borders would be open borders prohibiting immigrants from utilizing the welfare state.

    That would be the Friedman hypothesis. I don’t adhere to it, but it goes something like this: “Because of the welfare state, legal immigration would be harmful but illegal immigration would be beneficial.” The Friedman policy was by and large the de fact immigration policy of the US during the 1990s. Cut off welfare transfers and services to “illegal immigrants.” Relatively light enforcement RE: border control and deportations. The 1990s were an economic boom period in the United States.

    The problem w/ the Friedman hypothesis: it relies on a discretionary enforcement of laws on the books. But as we have seen, yesterday’s light enforcement becomes today’s crackdown. Philosophically, libertarians should have a major problem w/ the state designating classes of people as being “illegal.” That’s a nazi tradition.

    But that is not the same thing at all as being against open borders even with the welfare state still in place.

    No it is not. But I personally refrain from using a line like “If you have a problem w/ immigration and the welfare state, then end the welfare state.” That’s because The State < --> The Welfare State. You don’t end “the welfare state” unless you end the state. They are one in the same. If you look at the structure of the bureaucracy of the US government, from the congressional committees/subcommittees, the Executive branch bureaucracies, the military, and all those 3 letter acronyms…you tell me if that’s about income transfers to single mothers, hippies and immigrants OR economic rent transfers to special interests.

    in fact, most immigration restrictionists who harp on the welfare state immediately find another excuse for opposing immigration with their argument torn down — because the actual reason they oppose immigration is that they are rascist, so any excuse putting a fig leaf over that will do.

    Yes. Indeed, quite a few immigration restrictionists are typically on are government welfare programs..social security and medicare. Social Security is by far the biggest government pure income transfer program. The welfare state objection is a complete canard. Historically, immigration restrictionism is rooted in racism, bigotry, xenophobia and a pretense to use the state as means to mold a specific social character.

  213. Tony From Long Island

    DJ:

    Andy, I don’t doubt your qualifications, or sincerity. I find it degrading to posters who continually attack you personally. I will say I disagree with your stance on immigration and leave it at that.

    DJ, you will likely eventually grow tired of Andy. I also don’t doubt his sincerity. That’s actually what’s most scary about the crazy nonsense he often spews. You will also find that there very rare occasions where I agree with Andy and I say so in a post.

  214. Tony From Long Island

    Paulie

    Literally anyone would have been better than Drumpf. Drumpf is the absolute worst of the worst. He will easily end up as the worst president of all time and was the absolute worst choice on the ballot last year.

    I couldn’t agree with you more on this. Very slowly over the next 3 and a half years some of his cult members will escape from their MAGA haze and realize exactly who they were supporting. Saying a president will be worse than Warren G Harding, James Buchanan or Richard M Nixon is really saying something.

  215. DJ

    Tony, I’m already tired of the personal attacks. I may eventually grow tired of Andy. Already and eventually may meet at some point.

  216. Andy

    Paul said: “Literally anyone would have been better than Drumpf. Drumpf is the absolute worst of the worst. He will easily end up as the worst president of all time and was the absolute worst choice on the ballot last year.”

    The same could be said of Hillary Clinton. Gary Johnson was no “prize” either, and for those of you who think that he was was some big improvement over Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, keep in mind that Bill Weld was his VP running mate, and he said that if he became President, that Weld not just be his VP, he’d be his co-President. Bill Weld is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which means that he’s an establishment shill, and he has a long record of being a warmonger, and supporting the police state. There were actually a few issues where proposals put forth by Johnson/Weld were actually WORSE than the same positions taken by Donald Trump, such as Johnson/Weld coming out in favor of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is something that the national Libertarian Party had officially condemned in a press release back in 2015. Johnson/Weld said that they wanted to make Mitt Romney Secretary of State if they got elected, and the people who they were talking about appointing as judges were not even remotely libertarian.

    When the Libertarian Party puts out such a weak ticket as Johnson/Weld, don’t be surprised when people who have libertarian and/or anti-establishment leanings don’t come flocking in, as they either don’t vote, or vote for somebody else, including chosing between whom they perceive to be the “lesser of two evils” between the Democrat and the Republican.

    Yes, I know that Jonson/Weld got 3% pf the vote, which is a record for the LP in a presidential race, but as I have pointed out here before, this had more to do with the unique dynamics of the election, with a record level of disgust with the major parties, and no other minor party or independent presidential ticket that appeared on as many ballots, or that raised as much money. Jill Stein was the closet competitor to Gary Johnson, and she is not a well known person, and her campaign raised a bit over $3 million while the Johnson campaign had over $10 million, plus the Johnson campaign had another $2 million spent on its behalf in Super PAC money (I don’t think that Stein had any PAC money spent on her behalf). Stein appeared on the ballot in 44 states plus DC, while Johnson appeared on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC (and most of the ballot access work was handled by the LNC and/or the state parties, and the LP went into the election season already having ballot access in more states than the Green Party, and the LP has in fact always had ballot access in more states than the Green Party). The fact of the matter is that the bulk of Johnson’s votes were not so much votes for Johnson, or for the Libertarian Party, or for libertarianism (which is widely acknowledged that Johnson/Weld did a poor job of representing, as if anything, they misrepresented libertarianism in multiple instances), as they were PROTEST votes against the major party candidates.

    If the Libertarian Party is going to put out candidates who are as bad as the major party candidates, or not a whole lot better than the major party candidates, then there really is not much point in the Libertarian Party even running candidates, or even existing.

  217. Andy

    Tony From Long Island said: “DJ, you will likely eventually grow tired of Andy.”

    Notice how Tony has been attacking me ever since he arrived on this forum, and notice how Tony adds little to the conversation here beyond attacking me, as in most of his comments are geared toward attacking me.

    Why does Tony even come here at all? He’s not even much of a minor party or independent candidate guy, as a self professed Democrat who allegedly used to vote Libertarian.

    Also, notice how even when I am not posting here, he has made comments to the effect of, “When is Andy going to chime in with some crazy conspiracy theory?” as though Tony does not have much to say when I’m not here to attack.

  218. Tony From Long Island

    Andy

    Pauiel said: “Literally anyone would have been better than Drumpf. Drumpf is the absolute worst of the worst. He will easily end up as the worst president of all time and was the absolute worst choice on the ballot last year.” . . .

    ANDY: The same could be said of Hillary Clinton. Gary Johnson . . . . .

    Which are you referring to? That anyone would have been better than . . . . or will wind up as the worst president of all time? You would be wrong on both, but if you were referring to the former, it would make no logical sense. You can’t say “anyone would be better than . . .” about more than one person.

    You really are a one trick pony, though. You keep regurgitating the same exact arguments and points over and over. No one here ever really backs you up on them. Your constant attacks on Johnson / Weld are just strange.

    Would a President Johnson be a statesman? No. Worse than Trump? Really?

  219. Tony From Long Island

    Andy – you only seem to read my posts that refer to you. There are plenty of others.

    I have not attacked you from the moment I started posting on here. I’ve attacked you since the first time I noticed you spew your Sandy Hook garbage. I will continue to do so. You give libertarians a bad name. You are the stereotype of a Nutjob libertarian. I urge you to leave the LP as soon as possible.

    I don’t admit to formerly only VOTING Libertarian. I was a dues paying MEMBER of the LP for almost 20 years. Whether you believe me or not is really not a concern of mine. I’m sure my name is somewhere on some LP database. I have also been in a long correspondence with a former NY statewide candidate (who will remain nameless).

    I have posted ad nauseum some of my positions that are still libertarian. I am 100X more libertarian than YOU are on immigration. My position on foreign intervention is much more libertarian than democrat. My policy on incarceration and the drug war is much more libertarian than democrat.

    My differences with libertarian philosophy, can not be reconciled. I do not believe that Taxation is theft. I think the income tax is legal and patriotic. I interpret the 2nd Amendment to (correctly) allow regulation of firearms..

    So, am I a libertarian? No. Not anymore. But there are areas that overlap with them and I always am vocal about ballot access and debate participation issues.

    Read everything I wrote, not only when I attack you.

  220. paulie

    Philosophically, libertarians should have a major problem w/ the state designating classes of people as being “illegal.” That’s a nazi tradition.

    Exactly!

  221. paulie

    Saying a president will be worse than Warren G Harding, James Buchanan or Richard M Nixon is really saying something.

    Far worse than all of them and all the rest that you didn’t mention put together.

  222. paulie

    Andy 2017/07/17 at 10:34 am TL; DR but I do stand 100% by the quote from me at the beginning of your lengthy comment. Yes, I am serious and no, I am not exaggerating.

  223. paulie

    ANDY: The same could be said of Hillary Clinton. Gary Johnson . . . . .

    Hillary Clinton would have been better than Drumpf. Gary Johnson, while far from a perfect libertarian, would have been much, much better than Drumpf. If someone could have revived Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao, any of them would have still been better than Drumpf. Drumpf is not only going to end up as the worst leader in US history, but also as the worst leader in the history of any nation at any time. We will be very, very lucky if he does not launch the nukes and end all life on earth that is more highly evolved than his spiritual cousin, the cockroach (with apologies to actual cockroaches).

    You really are a one trick pony, though. You keep regurgitating the same exact arguments and points over and over. No one here ever really backs you up on them. Your constant attacks on Johnson / Weld are just strange.

    True that….

  224. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    I suggest looking to chemistry for something to alleviate your Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    Yeah, he’s bad.

    So far, not any worse than most.

    Could he GET worse? Yeah, in a hurry.

    Maybe he will, maybe he won’t. He seems inclined to, but the failing institutions of what’s left of a republic seem to be successfully resisting his worst tendencies so far, and may be able to do so for the long haul.

  225. paulie

    I think Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real phenomenon, but not the one most people who use the term mean. Instead, it is they who have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    So far, not any worse than most.

    Already worse than most. Not the most destructive yet. That’s only because he’s just getting started.

    Could he GET worse? Yeah, in a hurry.

    Maybe he will, maybe he won’t. He seems inclined to, but the failing institutions of what’s left of a republic seem to be successfully resisting his worst tendencies so far, and may be able to do so for the long haul.

    I must admit to pessimism there.

  226. paulie

    . I interpret the 2nd Amendment to (correctly) allow regulation of firearms..

    Suppose it said “a well educated populace being necessary to the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear books shall not be infringed”… would you interpret that to mean that only those the government deems to be well-educated should have the right to have books? Why would the government need a constitutional amendment to specify that government-organized troops should have the right to have guns – wouldn’t that go without saying? Is there some wiggle room in “shall not be infringed”?

  227. paulie

    The welfare state objection is a complete canard. Historically, immigration restrictionism is rooted in racism, bigotry, xenophobia

    True!

  228. Tony From Long Island

    Paulie:

    ” . . . .Is there some wiggle room in “shall not be infringed”? . . . “

    I do like your clever comparison (which you have used before) . . . however, there is a LOT of wiggle room since the Amendment does not state which kind of firearm, how many, etc.

    would you interpret that to mean that only those the government deems to be well-educated should have the right to have books?

    I don’t say that the 2nd Amendment allows the government to say WHO should own guns (with some very limited exceptions). I interpret is as allowing the government to decide WHICH firearms any citizen can own, how many, how much ammo, etc. . . .

  229. DJ

    I interpret is as allowing the government to decide WHICH firearms any citizen can own, how many, how much ammo, etc. . . .
    ………….

    Shall not be infringed.
    How do you interpret that?

    There are no caveats and no wiggle room. Can you provide evidence from the founders own words that supports your interpretation? Can you provide evidence about “which” weapon is determined to be acceptable? The phrase The right of the people to keep and bear arms doesn’t mention it. I don’t recall anything about how much ammo either. But, I’ll admit to being self educated. Maybe I misread the instructions that came with the document. Oh wait….

  230. Tony From Long Island

    The right to own a firearm shall not be infringed. It’s rather plain English.

    The type or firearm? Not mentioned. Amount of Firearms? Not mentioned. Amount of Ammo? Not mentioned.

    Every amendment has limitations. There are limitations on free speech. There are limitations on searches and seizures . . . But wait . . . The first amendment does specifically say I can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater! So, you can’t restrict it. . . That sounds just as ludicrous to me as someone saying . . well the 2nd Amendment does say that I can’t own an AR-15 for shooting squirrels, therefore I can.

    If you want to strictly follow the founders, limit gun ownership to only which type of firearm was available in 1789. Yeah, that sounds ridiculous too.

  231. Tony From Long Island

    Obviously you know I meant to say “first amendment does NOT specifically say . . . ”

    I hate doing correction posts, but I felt this one was necessary.

  232. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The type or firearm? Not mentioned. Amount of Firearms? Not mentioned. Amount of Ammo? Not mentioned.”

    They weren’t mentioned in the amendment, but we can see what they meant by its implementation. Under the Militia Act of (IIRC) 1789, every able-bodied adult white male was required by law to keep, and to maintain in working order, a state of the art assault weapon of the time (either a rifle or musket), as well as 40 rounds of ammo and the powder to shoot it.

    The equivalent today would be requiring every able-bodied adult American (since we’ve done away with legal discrimination on the basis of race and sex) to keep an M4A1 and two loaded magazines.

  233. dL

    So far, not any worse than most.

    Depends on who you are. If you are “undocumented,” he is certainly worse than most.

  234. paulie

    however, there is a LOT of wiggle room since the Amendment does not state which kind of firearm, how many, etc.

    No, because a plain language reading would make a restriction on types of number of firearms an infringement, and ammunition is what makes firearms functional for their intended purpose. If you prefer an original intent reading, the debates around the adoption of the bill of rights make it clear that the purpose was to have a citizenry that was militarily on par with the military.

    I interpret is as allowing the government to decide WHICH firearms any citizen can own, how many, how much ammo, etc. . . .

    How would that not be an infringement?

  235. Tony From Long Island

    Paulie: ” . . . .
    I interpret is as allowing the government to decide WHICH firearms any citizen can own, how many, how much ammo, etc. . . .

    How would that not be an infringement? . . . . ”

    It does not infringe in any way a citizen’s right to own “A FIREARM”

  236. Tony From Long Island

    TK:

    The equivalent today would be requiring every able-bodied adult American (since we’ve done away with legal discrimination on the basis of race and sex) to keep an M4A1 and two loaded magazines.

    Thanks for pointing out just how ridiculous that sounds 🙂

    Are you going to also complain that the Affordable care act forces people to buy something they don’t want? I certainly don’t want to buy an M4A1 or whatever that is . . . 🙂

  237. paulie

    If you want to strictly follow the founders, limit gun ownership to only which type of firearm was available in 1789. Yeah, that sounds ridiculous too.

    Of course it does. Freedom of the press isn’t limited to the type of printing press in use in the 18th century, either. What’s important isn’t the technology but the function it serves. The intended function of the 2nd Amendment was that the ordinary people retain military parity with the government, as a check on the tendency of government to become tyrannical.

  238. paulie

    It does not infringe in any way a citizen’s right to own “A FIREARM”

    But it does not say “a firearm”; it says “keep and bear arms” … so yes … a limit on the number is in fact an infringement.

  239. paulie

    Are you going to also complain that the Affordable care act forces people to buy something they don’t want?

    I also oppose requiring anyone to buy and own guns. But it’s equally clear that limits on the type of number of arms someone may keep and bear are an infringement of that right.

  240. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Thanks for pointing out just how ridiculous that sounds”

    Well, the Supreme Court (in US v. Miller, the case that’s usually cited in justification of gun control) ruled that the 2nd Amendment ONLY applies to weaponry that has a military use. That is, the government gets to decide whether or not you can have a fowling piece to hunt grouse with, but it gets no say whatsoever in whether or not you can have a bazooka, a Stinger missile, or a self-propelled howitzer.

    I disagree with the premise of the Militia Act (it was a form of conscription), and I disagree that the constitutional power of the government extends to regulating e.g. sporting guns. But there is absolutely, positively no historical doubt whatsoever that the framers and ratifiers of the 2nd Amendment intended it to provide for the average citizen to be at least as well-armed as any likely foreign military invader. So today, that would mean the average citizen should be allowed, even expected, to own the equivalent of the AK74M, the Russian standard service rifle. 5.54x39mm cartridge, selective fire, maximum rate 600 rounds per minute, sustained rate 100 rounds per minute, 30-60 round magazine.

    If that doesn’t sound good to you, instead of trying to shoehorn new, novel, and easily falsifiable intent into the 2nd Amendment, why not propose its repeal or modification? Sure, getting 2/3 of both houses of Congress to propose, and 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify, such an amendment would be an uphill fight, but at least you would be operating in the real world instead of fantasy land.

  241. Tony From Long Island

    The “assault weapons ban” was never ruled to be unconstitutional (if I remember correctly). It just lapsed (why it had a sunset is beyond me). So I don’t think I’m living in a fantasy land. Trying to get the 2nd Amendment amended (as you propose) is much more of a fantasy. The 2018 Blue Wave might actually allow that to be reinstated on January 19k 2021.

  242. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tony,

    Here are the problems, aside from the fact that yes, it is unconstitutional, with reinstating the ban.

    1) Even if it worked, it would have a negligible effect on crime. Last time I check, the weapons it targets (basically any weapon that looks scary, even though it has precisely the same operating action as a regular hunting rifle) are used in something like 1/3 of 1% of crimes involving guns.

    2) It won’t work. Those who have “assault weapons” will keep them. Those who want “assault weapons” will get them. At the margins, a few people will get arrested for having them, and a few cops will get killed trying to arrest people for having them, but otherwise it will remain business as usual.

    More than 100 million Americans own more than 300 million guns. Want to fuck with those people? Try it and see what happens.

  243. Tony From Long Island

    From what I remember, the “assault weapons ban” had no confiscation clause.

    It was a weak bill, but a good start . . . . .

    My work day is over . . . I knew I’d be opening a can of whoop ass on myself, as usual 🙂 Until tomorrow . . .

  244. dL

    f that doesn’t sound good to you, instead of trying to shoehorn new, novel, and easily falsifiable intent into the 2nd Amendment, why not propose its repeal or modification?

    Alternatively, how about restricting what people in costumes and uniforms can carry to what one might consider reasonable for ordinary civilians? If X is unreasonable for joe blow to possess, why is then not likewise unreasonable for it to be in possession of officer/soldier joe blow?

  245. DJ

    “assault weapons ban”

    infringe
    verb break, violate, contravene, disobey, transgress The film exploited his image and infringed his copyright.
    infringe on or upon something intrude on, compromise, undermine, limit, weaken, diminish, disrupt, curb, encroach on, trespass on It’s starting to infringe on our personal liberties.

  246. DJ

    Baseball bats need to be banned. Trains, planes and cars also need to be banned. Martial arts likewise.

  247. langa

    Saying a president will be worse than Warren G Harding, James Buchanan or Richard M Nixon is really saying something.

    Harding is actually one of the “best” (that is, least bad) of all the Presidents. Definitely top 10, maybe top 5.

    As for Trump, he’s going to have to really pick up the pace of death, destruction and tyranny, if he has any hope of catching Lincoln, Wilson or FDR.

  248. Tony From Long Island

    Langa: ” . . . .Harding is actually one of the “best” (that is, least bad) of all the Presidents. Definitely top 10, maybe top 5. . . . ”

    I don’t know on what planet you read that one. . . . He might be in the top 10 of “least qualified” or “most scandal-plagued.” The only place I can imagine him being in any top 10 of best presidents would be at the headquarters of the Warren G. Harding fan club.

  249. Tony From Long Island

    DJ

    infringe
    verb break, violate, contravene, disobey, transgress The film exploited his image and infringed his copyright.
    infringe on or upon something intrude on, compromise, undermine, limit, weaken, diminish, disrupt, curb, encroach on, trespass on It’s starting to infringe on our personal liberties.

    Tony: *yawn* Trying to parse that made me sleepy. If you are going to copy and paste from google or bing, try to make somewhat readable.

  250. paulie

    As for Trump, he’s going to have to really pick up the pace of death, destruction and tyranny, if he has any hope of catching Lincoln, Wilson or FDR.

    He has plenty of time, and lots and lots of motive and opportunity. Plus technology that they only dreamed of, if that.

  251. paulie

    The “assault weapons ban” was never ruled to be unconstitutional

    Many things are unconstitutional despite the misinterpretations of the courts, which are piled on top of each other like in a game of telephone to compound over time. Furthermore, Knapp is correct that it would have a negligible effect on crime if it worked, and that it won’t work because mass numbers of people will not comply.

  252. DJ

    Tony: *yawn* Trying to parse that made me sleepy. If you are going to copy and paste from google or bing, try to make somewhat readable.
    ……….

    Truth can be hard to read, especially for those who choose to deny it. I made the mistake of believing you’d appreciate a formal definition to help your inability to comprehend (read) shall not be infringed. To KISS it, though it is pretty straight forward, I’ll use an excerpt.

    infringe as a verb
    intrude on, compromise, undermine, limit, weaken, diminish, disrupt, curb, encroach on, trespass on It’s starting to infringe on our personal liberties

    I’d say ANY parsing of words to intentionally misinterpret is done by those who can’t comprehend simple English and choose to get sleepy in order to have an excuse to not see the truth.

  253. Libertydave

    People who use the example of “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater,” as an example of a restriction on the right of free speech are wrong.

    This is not an example of free speech being restricted; it is an example of holding someone responsible for their actions.

    It is not illegal for someone to yell fire in a crowded theater if the theater is really on fire. Or do you believe people should be punished for trying to warn others of danger. It is only illegal if there is no fire and the person who yells knows this. This is called fraud, and it is not a restriction on speech. It is holding someone responsible for their action of using freedom of speech to harm other people or their property.

    People who use the above example to restrict other rights such as gun ownership are just as wrong.

    The right to own and bear arms is a right protected by the constitution just like the right to free speech and religion. All though we all know how the government likes to ignore the constitution.

    Much like the example of free speech above, owning and carrying a gun should not be a crime. Using a gun to harm other people or their property should be.

  254. Tony From Long Island

    Paulie: ” . . . .Many things are unconstitutional despite the misinterpretations of the courts . . . ”

    Paulie, my friend, something is unconstitutional when the Supreme Court says it is (or declines to review a lower court order saying so). End of story.

  255. Tony From Long Island

    LibertyDude

    People who use the example of “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater,” as an example of a restriction on the right of free speech are wrong.

    This is not an example of free speech being restricted; it is an example of holding someone responsible for their actions.

    Although I disagree with you, Here’s another example of a constitutional right having exceptions. Your home is being searched via a valid warrant. The warrant calls ONLY for the seizure of – say – your television. However, if while they are searching your home, they come across a Tin Foil Hat that they know to be stolen in plain view, they can legally seize it without a warrant. If they see a loaded handgun on the kitchen table (the room where the TV they want is located) they can seize it if it’s not licensed.

    There are hundreds of exceptions to the 4th amendment’s warrant requirement.

  256. Tony From Long Island

    DJ – no matter how many synonyms or definitions you want to use, it doesn’t change the fact that gun regulations do not “infringe” on your right to own A GUN.

  257. Libertydave

    Tony From Long Island

    Your comment about the exception to the fourth amendment is actually included in the amendment itself. The first and second amendments have no exceptions included in them.

    In your example above if the police see stolen property in plain sight, that is called probable cause and is included in the 4th amendment. They still have to prove it is stolen property in court or they should have to give the property back. As far as seizing the gun for a lack of a license, this is an example of the government ignoring the constitution.

  258. paulie

    Paulie, my friend, something is unconstitutional when the Supreme Court says it is (or declines to review a lower court order saying so). End of story.

    BS. They’ve built misinterpretations on top of other misinterpretations in multiple layers. In some cases they just make things up which bear no relation at all to either the plain text or original intent.

  259. paulie

    gun regulations do not “infringe” on your right to own A GUN.

    The actual term is “right to keep and bear arms” – plural – so by definition, they do.

  260. Libertydave

    Tony From Long Island;

    Requiring a license means you have to ask the government for permission to do something.

    A right means that you don’t have to ask anybody for permission to do what you have a right to do.

    There for requiring a license to own a gun or carry a gun means that the government is ignoring the constitution, that states outright that to own and bear arms is a right.

  261. Tony From Long island

    Paulie:

    gun regulations do not “infringe” on your right to own A GUN.

    The actual term is “right to keep and bear arms” – plural – so by definition, they do.

    Nice pick up. But they don’t infringe on your right to own GUNS. They type is not specified.

  262. DJ

    they can seize it if it’s not licensed.

    Shall not be infringed, even though nanny statist and figures of authority who have an agenda contrary to liberty will use force to enforce their stained views ignoring how it will come back and bite them eventually.
    Every civil liberty ignored or circumvented by the statist is on the wrong side of History, aka Then they came for me. And they will.

  263. Tony From Long island

    LibertyDude

    Your comment about the exception to the fourth amendment is actually included in the amendment itself. . . . . In your example above if the police see stolen property in plain sight, that is called probable cause and is included in the 4th amendment.

    You are misreading the Amendment. the WARRANT had to be based on probable cause. The Supreme Court has carved out what is called the “Plain View Exception.” There are dozens of others.

  264. paulie

    Nice pick up. But they don’t infringe on your right to own GUNS. They type is not specified.

    That’s like saying you have the right to free speech, but the government can regulate what you say. After all you can still talk as much as you want but the regulations only apply to what you say. Or, suppose the argument was that you can say whatever you want but the government can regulate how much or how often you can say. Hey, it’s not taking away your free speech, just regulating the amount.

    When you limit what type of something someone can have, or how many, that’s an infringement on that ownership right, no matter how you cut it. By definition. Any regulation limits that right in some way or another. Any limit on a right is an infringement of that right. That’s right in the dictionary definition, which is why DJ put you to sleep with the dictionary definition earlier.

  265. Andy

    I previously criticized Tony From Long Island for his weak stance on the right to keep and bear arms, going so far as saying that he’s not a real man. Why did I say this? Because if one does not support the right to keep and bear arms, what one is actually saying is that the government should have a monopoly on the ability to use force, or, at least have such an advantage on the use of force, that armed resistance to the state is not possible. I asked Tony how armed revolution is possible if the right to keep and bear arms is restricted, and his response was along the lines of (the following is not an exact quote, but is close enough), “Why would anyone want to engage in an armed revolution against the government?” The fact that Tony would ask a question like this, as if the concept of revolting against the people calling themselves government was alien to him, illustrates that Tony is one of those people who doesn’t mind be a slave. He does not mind being subject to a government that claims ownership of his life, which tells him what to do, and which routinely lies and violates its own laws. Sure, he may complain once in awhile about various policies, but he does not really have the backbone to do anything about it, nor does he have a problem with being subject to the rule of the men and women known as government officials, even though it should be blatantly obvious to all that these men and women calling themselves government officials lie and break very laws that they swear and oath to uphold on a regular basis.

    I do not like the idea of being subject to anyone, and I particularly do not like the idea of being subject to a government which routinely lies, and violates its own laws which are supposed to put limitations on its power. So yes, I support the right of revolution, which includes the right of armed resistance to the state. Unfortunately, there are too many weak minded, weak willed people in our society today, who like being ruled and controlled, and/or who lack the necessary spirit of resistance to do anything about it even if they are not happy about being ruled and controlled, or the manner in which they are being ruled and controlled.

    Tony reminds me of the people to whom Samuel Adams was referring to in the following quote: “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

  266. Tony From Long island

    LibertyDude

    Therefore requiring a license to own a gun or carry a gun means that the government is ignoring the constitution, that states outright that to own and bear arms is a right.

    Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, you are mistaken. . . . . and by advocating gun ownership by everyone without licensing, you have exposed yourself as even beyond the normal gun nut. You can have a conversation with a gun rights supporter. I do that often. You, though, are waaaaaaaay out there.

  267. Tony From Long Island

    Paulie: ” . . . .That’s like saying you have the right to free speech, but the government can regulate what you say. . . . ”

    As I pointed out before . . there are some things you can’t say. You can not threaten the life of the President. Sure. . . you can say it . . .but you’ll pay the consequences . . . Sure you technically CAN murder someone . . but you’ll pay the consequences.

  268. Tony From Long Island

    Andy . . we already know you are a nut job. Stop proving it daily. By the way . . .right now it’s 2017, not 1775.

    Your tin foil hat is due for a replacement.

  269. Tony From Long Island

    You all have to admit, though, that it takes some balls to be the only one advocating STRONG gun regulation on a board of almost all Libertarians . . . . And Very intelligent libertarians at that (with some obvious exceptions)

  270. Libertydave

    Tony From Long Island;

    Do you really believe that restricting the right to own and bear arms makes criminals any less dangerous?

    If somebody want to hurt someone else, restricting the right to own and bear arms won’t stop them. All is does is take away an effective way for the victim to defend themselves.

    Also the Supreme Court is made up of people who can be corrupted by power just like anybody else. And as far as I have been able to see judges are some of the most corrupt government officials there are.

    Just because they ignore the constitution like all other corrupt government officials doesn’t make them right.

    You also imply that because of my beliefs, that there is no reasoning with me. I have been reasonable and polite in my discussion here about gun rights. If you think I am wrong the use logic and reason to convince me otherwise. Calling me names and saying you can’t talk to me is saying that you can’t prove me wrong and you don’t want to admit it.

  271. dL

    I don’t know on what planet you read that one. . . . He might be in the top 10 of “least qualified” or “most scandal-plagued.” The only place I can imagine him being in any top 10 of best presidents would be at the headquarters of the Warren G. Harding fan club.

    Harding is one of the few relatively noninterventionist presidents that have held office.

  272. dL

    You all have to admit, though, that it takes some balls to be the only one advocating STRONG gun regulation social control regulation on a board of almost all Libertarians . . . . And Very intelligent libertarians at that (with some obvious exceptions)

  273. paulie

    Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, you are mistaken. . . . .

    Suppose a terrorist blew up the Supreme Court while it was in session, killing all the justices. Trump gets to pick all 9 and he does. The case then comes up asking whether whatever Trump does is by definition legal as long as he is president. The 9 justices all picked by Trump rule that yes, whatever he does is by definition legal. Does that mean it is now all of a sudden constitutional for the president to rule by decree and do whatever he wants? I would say no, it is not. What do you say?

    and by advocating gun ownership by everyone without licensing,

    A license is by definition a type of infringement. If I had to get a government license to speak then speech wouldn’t really be free, for example. It would be infringed, just as gun ownership rights are infringed by any kind of license or regulation.

    Incidentally, it seems that the real gun nuts – the ones that believe their clique should have a monopoly or near-monopoly on all the guns – have done a successful job of persuading a lot of people that the sane position on guns – a level “playing” field – is the one that’s “nuts”. Well, nuts to that!

  274. Tony From Long Island

    dL ” . . .Harding is one of the few relatively noninterventionist presidents that have held office. . . .”

    He didn’t have enough time . . . . . . . is that the ONLY thing that makes a good president?

    by the way . . . you didn’t need to correct my post. I had it right the first time. No need to prove how condescending you can be, but thanks anyway.

  275. paulie

    advocating STRONG gun regulation

    Which ones exactly? You did say that the “assault” weapons ban was just a weak start, but not just how far exactly you want to go.

  276. paulie

    Also the Supreme Court is made up of people who can be corrupted by power just like anybody else. And as far as I have been able to see judges are some of the most corrupt government officials there are.

    Just because they ignore the constitution like all other corrupt government officials doesn’t make them right.

    Exactly.

  277. Tony From Long Island

    Liberty Dude, you were very reasonable until you proclaimed that there shouldn’t even be gun licenses. That’s beyond the realm of normal. I can get very passionate about this issue, but I think I did a good job of keeping it in check today.

    Alas, my work day is over and I must go. I know you are all very said. Your punching bag is gone!!!

    I consider you all my friends anyway (except Andy of course) . . . until Tomorrow . . . . . . .

  278. wolfefan

    When in a discussion some people are speaking prescriptively and some people are speaking normatively, no one makes any progress.

  279. Libertydave

    Tony From Long Island;

    You stated: “Liberty Dude, you were very reasonable until you proclaimed that there shouldn’t even be gun licenses. That’s beyond the realm of normal.”

    At one time it was normal to believe that the world was was flat. Just because most people believed that the world was flat didn’t make them right.

    People today believe that licensing laws make them safer. Just because people believe this doesn’t make them right. All it does is give the government the power to create and enforce monopolies.

  280. dL

    He didn’t have enough time . . . . . . . is that the ONLY thing that makes a good president?

    well it beats imperialism, mass murder and war crimes…

  281. dL

    When in a discussion some people are speaking prescriptively and some people are speaking normatively, no one makes any progress.

    I tend to speak descriptively vis a vis gun prohibition. In practice, gun prohibition is discretionary power social control. Some people get to have to guns, others don’t. Gun control is used as a legal weapon against the marginalized, minorities and other vice behaviors that some find morally objectionable. For example , get caught w/ a blunt…hmm, maybe no big deal. However, get caught w/ a blunt AND a gun…whoa, a felony crime that is going to land you in the criminal justice system. The implications of that beyond possibly doing time entail loss of employment opportunity, travel liberty(tough for the average joe to travel abroad w/ guns and drug conviction) and potential for severe loss of liberty in the event of a repeat offense. Descriptively, Tony’s “Arm the state, disarm the citizenry” prescription== vice crime catalytic accelerant*** that results in a fill the prisons prosecutorial power. And that’s an undebatable fact.

    *** Gun vice crime + Other [fill in the blank] vice crime==

    Police Brutality!

  282. Daemon Sims

    Rock DeLaFuente, 2016 presidential candidate of the Reform Party, owner of San Diego used car dealership, running as a Republican for Mayor of New York, hoping to follow in the footsteps of Republicans Mike Bloomberg and Rudolph Giuliani.

    Standing in his way, Louis C.K. look-alike Walter Iwachiw, also a 2016 presidential candidate and winner of the lesser known candidates forum.
    https://www.c-span.org/person/?walteriwachiw

    How honored must the people of New York be to have the opportunity to vote not just for one, but two, presidential candidates for mayor.

  283. Bondurant

    Licensing is not required to own a gun here in Arizona and any city here is safer than places with strict gun control and licensing measures that don’t prevent violent crime.

  284. Deran

    I have to point out that even if something happened to SCOTUS, all cases start out in lower courts and they could put a hold on a case. And I imagine if POTUS tried to nominate all nine new SC justices at one time the lower courts and the circuit courts would put the kabosh on a mass appointment.

  285. Andy

    Tony From Long Island said: “Would a President Johnson be a statesman? No. Worse than Trump? Really?”

    Some people here obviously have more faith in Gary Johnson than I do, but just for sake of discussion, let’s say that Gary Johnson is better than Donald Trump. Even if this is true (which I would not assume), Gary Johnson is still far from being a legitimate libertarian, but the more important thing to keep in mind is that Gary Johnson’s running mate, “Wild” Bill Weld, and don’t forget that Gary Johnson said that Weld would be more than his Vice President if he had been elected, that Weld would be his co-President. If the unlikely scenario of Gary Johnson winning the presidential election had happened, I’d bet that Bill Weld would be the one who’d actually be running things. I don’t think that we’d be any better off with Bill Weld, and I remain skeptical about Gary Johnson.

  286. Andy

    Chuck Moulton said: “But that is not the same thing at all as being against open borders even with the welfare state still in place. It is a rhetorical technique to separate the wheat from the chaff… in fact, most immigration restrictionists who harp on the welfare state immediately find another excuse”

    The existence of the welfare state is not an “excuse” to oppose mass immigration, it is an example of rational self interest.

    “because the actual reason they oppose immigration is that they are rascist, so any excuse putting a fig leaf over that will do.”

    Freedom of association, which we do not really have in this country anymore, also means the right to NOT associate, and people don’t need a reason for this.

    Under anarcho-capitalism and property rights, land owners would be free to discriminate against whoever they want, for whatever reason.

    “Block, Caplan, and most other open border advocates will support open borders with or without a rollback of the welfare state. No particular orderism FTW.”

    Which shows that they are completely detached from reality and have absolutely no idea how to go about implementing the philosophy which they claim to represent.

    Welfare state plus mass democracy plus mass immigration DOES NOT EQUAL freedom.

  287. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    July 17, 2017 at 12:11
    Paulie,

    I suggest looking to chemistry for something to alleviate your Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    Yeah, he’s bad.

    So far, not any worse than most.

    Could he GET worse? Yeah, in a hurry.

    Maybe he will, maybe he won’t. He seems inclined to, but the failing institutions of what’s left of a republic seem to be successfully resisting his worst tendencies so far, and may be able to do so for the long haul.”

    Wow, I agree with Tom here.

    There are plenty of things wrong with Trump, but the same could be said about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, John Kerry, George W. Bush, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and all of the other Democrats and Republicans who become President, or who came close to becoming President.

    Will Donald Trump get us into World War III? Maybe, but Hillary Clinton could have done the same.

    We survived Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Hopefully we will survive Donald Trump.

    I just see no reason to freak out and act like he is any worse than any of the other shitheads who have occupied the Oval Office.

  288. Andy

    “paulie
    July 17, 2017 at 12:08
    ‘ANDY: The same could be said of Hillary Clinton. Gary Johnson . . . . .’
    Hillary Clinton would have been better than Drumpf.”

    LOL! Look up bitch in the dictionary. They could have a picture of Hillary Clinton as the definition.

    “Gary Johnson, while far from a perfect libertarian, would have been much, much better than Drumpf.”

    You are acting like Gary Johnson would have been running anything. If Gary Johnson had been elected, his administration would be the “Wild” Bill Weld Show, as in Mr. CFR, Mr. Bush and Clinton lover. Mr. Mitt Romney crony, and Gary Johnson also said that he wanted to nominate Mitt Romney as Secretary of State. Libertarians should be happy that Gary Johnson did not get elected (not that he ever stood a chance anyway). If Gary Johnson had been elected, it would have permanently destroyed the reputation of the Libertarian Party, and libertarianism in general.

  289. langa

    I don’t know on what planet you read that one. . . . He might be in the top 10 of “least qualified” or “most scandal-plagued.” The only place I can imagine him being in any top 10 of best presidents would be at the headquarters of the Warren G. Harding fan club.

    The only two books I know of that rate the presidents from a libertarian perspective are “Reassessing the Presidency” by John Denson (ed.) and “Recarving Rushmore” by Ivan Eland. Both books rank Harding in the top 10. In fact, the Denson book has a chapter by two economics professors who rank the presidents strictly on the basis of economics, and they rank Harding as the best ever. This is largely because of his brilliant handling of the Depression of 1921. It started out much the same way that the Depression of 1929 started, but it lasted barely over a year. Harding deserves much of the credit for this, as he refused to try to “stimulate” the economy. Instead, he simply cut taxes and spending, and allowed deflation to run its course. It’s too bad fools like Hoover and FDR didn’t follow his example.

    In addition to that, Harding did a number of other things that were good from a libertarian perspective. For example, he pardoned Eugene Debs, and 23 other political prisoners that Wilson had locked up. He refused to allow the U.S. to join Wilson’s idiotic League of Nations, and he negotiated separate peace treaties that were much more reasonable than the draconian Treaty of Versailles. He also sponsored the Washington Naval Conference, which resulted in the world’s first international disarmament agreement.

    Of course, he also did some bad things, like all presidents do. But compared to the horrible things done by many presidents (especially the ones typically rated as “the greatest” by the mainstream historians), things like the “Teapot Dome” scandal are small potatoes.

  290. langa

    Speaking of Bill Weld, the other day, while looking for something else, I stumbled across this snippet from the April 1992 edition of the Rothbard-Rockwell Report:

    William Weld, the “libertarian” governor of Massachusetts touted for 1996 by the Cato Institute and the Wall Street Journal, denounced Pat Buchanan on Super Tuesday. Not for “homophobia”, as one might expect, but for his “isolationist”, America First foreign policy. Weld praised the New World Order and said that “not one” American soldier should be brought home from overseas.

    This is the “original libertarian” that Johnson wanted to be his “co-president”.

  291. Tony From Long Island

    Andy

    ” . . . .Some people here obviously have more faith in Gary Johnson than I do, but just for sake of discussion, let’s say that Gary Johnson is better than Donald Trump. Even if this is true (which I would not assume), Gary Johnson is still far from being a legitimate libertarian, but the more important thing to keep in mind is that Gary Johnson’s running mate, “Wild” Bill Weld . . . . ”

    I was going to make the same response to Langa . . . . I don’t rate presidents based on a “libertarian perspective” or any other perspective. You can’t give him any credit for economic greatness based on two years in office. There is more to a president than whether or not they carry out policies you like.

    I put my country before my party when it comes to such matters. Warren Harding was a terrible president, whether or not he did a few libertarian things or not. He was ill-qualified, inept, over his head, corrupt to the bone, morally questionable and historically irrelevant.

    My “Trump Derangement Syndrome” has nothing to do with the fact that he is a Republican (since he really isn’t – he’s just an opportunist.). He is a despicable human being. He is an awful representative for the American People. He is uncouth. He acts like a petulant 7th grader. He has absolutely no policy depth whatsoever. He has no clue of basic protocol and couldn’t care less if someone informed him.

    I would prefer Mike Pence as president 1000 times over Trump, even though Mr. Pence would probably be able to actually enact dozens of policies I oppose vehemently.

    Andy, you carry on incessantly about Bill Weld and the scary CFR (as though having a relationship with a foreign country is the equivalent of scarlet fever). Seeing no difference between Gary Johnson (or BIll Weld) and Donald Trump shows just how detached you are from reality.

    Try a different perspective once in a while. If I made a list of what I consider some of the best presidents this nation has had there wouldn’t only be Democrats on it.

    Oh yeah . . Langa . . . you reminded me that I have wanted to read “ReCarving Rushmore.” I really should. I remember reading a review when it came out.

  292. Michael H Wilson

    I need a quiet room where I can let my head explode. I am seeing a number of Libertarian candidates who are supporting non-libertarian ideas. After all these years all I can do is shake my head in disbelief and cry, or maybe get drunk.

  293. Tony From Long Island

    I know. . .it’s shocking that candidates can think for themselves and not spew out party doctrine 100%. I have never met a candidate (or party) that I agree with 100% of the time.

    If there was an LP candidate(or any party candidate) who ran on the party platform 100%, they are either lying or have lost the ability to think for themselves.

  294. paulie

    I have to point out that even if something happened to SCOTUS, all cases start out in lower courts and they could put a hold on a case.

    What do you mean by hold? Suppose in the above scenario the Trump administration decreed that anything the president does is by definition legal. Someone would take that case to court, and the court would issue an injunction. That injunction would get appealed, and work its way up to the Supreme Court. How long of a hold can the other levels of courts put on it? I think they are supposed to rule in a “timely” manner, but I’m not sure if that is precisely defined anywhere.

    And I imagine if POTUS tried to nominate all nine new SC justices at one time the lower courts and the circuit courts would put the kabosh on a mass appointment.

    How so? If there is a vacancy on the court the president is supposed to nominate a replacement; if there are nine vacancies at the same time, what legal theory suggests that there shouldn’t be nine nominations at the same time?

  295. paulie

    I don’t think that we’d be any better off with Bill Weld,

    Than with Drumpf? Yes we would. We would be better off with Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Caligula, or Kim Jong Un than we are with Drumpf, too.

  296. paulie

    The existence of the welfare state is not an “excuse” to oppose mass immigration, it is an example of rational self interest.

    Nope. It’s an excuse, and a bad one.

    Freedom of association, which we do not really have in this country anymore, also means the right to NOT associate, and people don’t need a reason for this.

    So we have a right to not associate with border patrol and Immigration and Custom Enforcement? Did not know. Thanks!

    “Under anarcho-capitalism and property rights, land owners would be free to discriminate against whoever they want, for whatever reason.”

    Luckily the regime is not a legitimate property owner of the whole country, but then you already knew that.

    “Which shows that they are completely…”

    …correct.

  297. paulie

    Oh yeah . . Langa . . . you reminded me that I have wanted to read “ReCarving Rushmore.” I really should. I remember reading a review when it came out.

    I recommend it as well.

  298. paulie

    LOL! Look up bitch in the dictionary. They could have a picture of Hillary Clinton as the definition.

    Look up Antichrist in the Book of Revelations. Pretty sure that is a picture of Donald J. Trump Sr.

    You are acting like Gary Johnson would have been running anything. If Gary Johnson had been elected, his administration would be the “Wild” Bill Weld Show, as in Mr. CFR, Mr. Bush and Clinton lover. Mr. Mitt Romney crony, and Gary Johnson also said that he wanted to nominate Mitt Romney as Secretary of State. Libertarians should be happy that Gary Johnson did not get elected (not that he ever stood a chance anyway). If Gary Johnson had been elected, it would have permanently destroyed the reputation of the Libertarian Party, and libertarianism in general.

    …Which would still be a lot better than Drumpf.

  299. paulie

    I just see no reason to freak out and act like he is any worse than any of the other shitheads who have occupied the Oval Office.

    I’m not acting. We really are a lot less safe with president Biff Tannen in charge of the nuclear launch codes than any of the other assholes you mentioned. Yes, any one of them could start a global war, but with Drumpf the chances went up exponentially.

  300. Tony From Long Island

    Love that pic! Biff Co. has it’s own Trump Tower too. . . . Marty almost jumped off the roof!!!

  301. NewFederalist

    Wow! I just read the last seventeen trillion posts on this thread! (Okay, it only SEEMED like than many!) I wish I had invested the time in watching “Monk” reruns instead!

  302. paulie

    Wow! I just read the last seventeen trillion posts on this thread! (Okay, it only SEEMED like than many!) I wish I had invested the time in watching “Monk” reruns instead!

    Next time you’ll know better.

  303. paulie

    It can’t hurt to name a few and identify what their divergence is.

    I’ve heard that some of them prattle nonsense about the nonexistent “white genocide.” Fortunately not very many.

  304. Andy

    “langa
    July 19, 2017 at 03:12
    ‘Speaking of Bill Weld, the other day, while looking for something else, I stumbled across this snippet from the April 1992 edition of the Rothbard-Rockwell Report:’

    William Weld, the “libertarian” governor of Massachusetts touted for 1996 by the Cato Institute and the Wall Street Journal, denounced Pat Buchanan on Super Tuesday. Not for “homophobia”, as one might expect, but for his “isolationist”, America First foreign policy. Weld praised the New World Order and said that “not one” American soldier should be brought home from overseas.”

    They hit the nail on the head here. I know that Rothbard wrote an article where he slammed Bill Weld. I’m not sure if this is from the same article or not.

  305. paulie

    Not for “homophobia”, as one might expect

    Of course, leave it to them to put homophobia in scare quotes as if it was somehow not real.

  306. paulie

    It can’t hurt to name a few and identify what their divergence is.

    I’ve heard that some of them prattle nonsense about the nonexistent “white genocide.” Fortunately not very many.

    There are also some Trumptards. Some but not all of them are the same as the ones prattling nonsense about “white genocide.”

  307. Daemon Sims

    While our President plays with his wrestling action figures and watches pee videos on pornhub, the man once thought to be the independent answer, lays in a hospital room with terminal cancer.

  308. Michael H Wilson

    Tony from Long Island maybe where you live it is okay for Ford sales people to push Chevys. Yea, I know that runs against your idea of closing the sale, but I didn’t think we were paying to put Republicans in office.

  309. Andy

    Here’s another story about the 1,400 English girls who were sexually abused by Muslims in Rotherham.

    COMING TO A CITY NEAR YOU, MUSLIM RAPE GANGS, brought to you by New World Order globalists and Marxists, and cheered on by left libertarians.

    Rotherham: 1400 White Girls Sexually Abused by Muslims

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLxzeJZq78s&t=117s

  310. Andy

    “paulie
    July 19, 2017 at 15:24
    ‘I just see no reason to freak out and act like he is any worse than any of the other shitheads who have occupied the Oval Office.’
    I’m not acting. We really are a lot less safe with president Biff Tannen in charge of the nuclear launch codes than any of the other assholes you mentioned. Yes, any one of them could start a global war, but with Drumpf the chances went up exponentially.”

    World War III could just as easily happen with psycho bitch Hillary Clinton in office, or with Jeb Bush, or with “Wild” Bill Weld (who’d have been running the show in the unlikely scenario that “Goofy” Gary won the election). .

    If World War III breaks out while Trump is President, it may even not be so much because of Trump, but rather because of other events that happen and Trump just happens to be the one in office. The same thing could happen with any of these assholes.

    Hopefully World War III will not break out, and we will survive the Donald Trump presidency.

  311. Tony From Long Island

    Andy

    Another mysterious death to be added to the Clinton Body Count list.

    *sigh* — the conspiracy theorist strikes again . . . .

  312. Tony From Long Island

    Michael Wilson

    Tony from Long Island maybe where you live it is okay for Ford sales people to push Chevys. Yea, I know that runs against your idea of closing the sale, but I didn’t think we were paying to put Republicans in office.

    OK, so what is the amount of Libertarian Doctrine a candidate has to regurgitate to be acceptable to you? 100%? Is 90% OK? How about 80%

  313. Tony From Long Island

    Andy

    Here’s another story about the 1,400 English girls who were sexually abused by Muslims in Rotherham.

    COMING TO A CITY NEAR YOU, MUSLIM RAPE GANGS, brought to you by New World Order globalists and Marxists, and cheered on by left libertarians.

    Andy proves again why is his a xenophobic racist who is an embarrassment to the Libertarian Party.

  314. dL

    OK, so what is the amount of Libertarian Doctrine a candidate has to regurgitate to be acceptable to you? 100%? Is 90% OK? How about 80%

    100%. It’s a pretty simple one-line summary doctrine…”we don’t need your fucking permission.”

  315. dL

    https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1358

    Interesting to see what the US Army War College is turning out these days to rationalize increases in military defense spending. Here it is merely to maintain military advantage in more competitive “post-US primacy” world whose defining characteristic is “resistance to authority.” If a libertarian makes the case that the War on Terror is purely about political economic control, that libertarian need not cite Bastiat. He/she can merely cite the US Army War College.

    #straightFromTheHorsesMouth

  316. Tony From Long Island

    dL :

    100%. It’s a pretty simple one-line summary doctrine…”we don’t need your fucking permission.”

    What does that even mean?

    Expecting a candidate to follow some sort of political dogma 100% to the word is unreasonable and quite strange actually. I’ve never had an urge to vote for a Robot. Everything in life has nuance.

  317. dL

    What does that even mean?

    lol. for those w/ lacking vocabulary skills, I’m willing to help a brother out

    per·mis·sion
    /per’miSHen/
    noun
    consent; authorization.

    “they had entered the country without permission”
    synonyms: authorization, consent, leave, authority, sanction, license, dispensation, assent, acquiescence, agreement, approval, approbation, endorsement, blessing, imprimatur, clearance, allowance

  318. paulie

    Another example of peaceful people crossing borders?

    As you know, that is a canard. Yes, criminals cross borders all the time. Sometimes those borders are international, sometimes they are state, city, county, borough or other borders. The fact that criminals cross borders does not justify having migration quotas or costumed thugs harassing people or travel permits as a requirement for crossing any of those kinds of borders, including of course international borders as much as any of the others.

    Likewise, you also already know that collective punishment of large groups of people for crimes committed by someone else who happens to be of the same religion, “race,” ethnicity or nationality as them is completely contrary to libertarian principles. You can’t penalize individuals for crimes that someone else committed or crimes that you think they might, maybe commit, perhaps. But then you know all this, so why do you keep posting such nonsense? It’s not like we haven’t been over this too many times to count and it’s not like this isn’t libertarianism 101.

    And seriously…you are linking to Pamela Geller? Did you turn into Eric Dondipshit while I wasn’t looking? Jeez.

  319. paulie

    Gee, I can’t fathom why anyone would not want these people in their country.

    When you come to own a country, let me know. Until then, those decision should belong to individual property owners, not “countries” (regimes).

  320. paulie

    1400 White Girls

    Why is it relevant that they are “white”? That should be a big clue if you haven’t been completely brainwashed yet by the racist scumbags whose garbage you are watching, listening to, reading and repeating here.

  321. paulie

    World War III could just as easily happen with psycho bitch Hillary Clinton in office, or with Jeb Bush, or with “Wild” Bill Weld (who’d have been running the show in the unlikely scenario that “Goofy” Gary won the election). .

    No, not nearly as easily. Far more easily with Drumpf.

    If World War III breaks out while Trump is President, it may even not be so much because of Trump, but rather because of other events that happen and Trump just happens to be the one in office.

    Yes, that could happen, but it’s far more likely that it will happen due to the fact that the absolute worst of the slimy turds running in the D and R primaries or in the general election, in this or any other year, in this or any other country, managed to worm his way into office. That is, the far higher likelihood is that it will be HIS fault, not the fault of any events he finds himself in.

    Hopefully World War III will not break out, and we will survive the Donald Trump presidency.

    I do have some hope of this, but not very much.

  322. paulie

    Another mysterious death to be added to the Clinton Body Count list.

    Old and irrelevant news. It’s time to focus on the Putin-Trump Gang Body Count now.

  323. paulie

    100%. It’s a pretty simple one-line summary doctrine…”we don’t need your fucking permission.”

    What does that even mean?

    Seems like it should be pretty to understand to me, especially for someone who was an LP dues paying member for years and still sometimes votes for LP candidates and spends a lot of time here.

  324. Tony From Long Island

    Yes, but I don’t get it on the context of the question he was answering. Whose permission? The question was about how libertarian must a candidate be. If the candidate is only 90% then the candidate won’t get his vote? I don’t know what the “permission” means in that context.

    Maybe I’m having a brain fart . . .

  325. paulie

    The government’s permission, or anyone else’s. If you (generic you) are not initiating force or coercion you should not need anyone’s license or go-ahead to do whatever you want to do. In other words if there is no victim there is not a crime and there is no business for the state to involve itself. The state has no business in regulating or licensing or limiting any mutually consenting activity, no business monopolizing or cartelizing anything, no business redistributing money, and so on.

  326. Tony From Long Island

    I know what the NAP means. I don’t always agree with it. I just had no idea what he meant by that in context to the question he was answering with regard to how libertarian candidates should be.

  327. Libertydave

    I find it amazing that the admins here will delete other peoples comments filled with bigotry and lies but allow Andy to post the same. His comment about the rape in Idaho is a lie told by the bigots in Idaho trying to stop the relocation of refuges to their area. This indecent that took place over a year ago was about three children bullying another child. There was no rape and there was no knife.

    Maybe it is time for Andy’s friends to have an intervention with him. The way he is acting because of his bigotry is doing more damage to the libertarian cause and the reputation of this site than any good he has done in the past.

    If you can’t treat him like the other trolls on this site at least remove his administration privileges before this site gets labeled a hate website.

  328. paulie

    If you can’t treat him like the other trolls on this site at least remove his administration privileges before this site gets labeled a hate website.

    I’ve seen nothing outside IPR guidelines in his posts. Some of his comments are borderline, and there was significant sentiment among IPR writers/editors to quarantine such material into separate “special” threads and/or to issue a formal warning to tone it down; however it was not unanimous. What has happened instead is that a lot of other people have chosen to voluntarily leave IPR, or stop posting articles here, or post a lot fewer articles and comments than they used to. This includes several formerly active IPR authors/editors. I myself find it to be one of the things that demoralizes and demotivates me and makes me less eager to post new articles. But again the problem has been far more with many of the comments than with the articles.

  329. Tony From Long Island

    Paulie, you sometimes come across as an Andy apologist. You’d rather lose decent posters and commenters than stop Andy from his disgusting delusional behavior.

    You often say that you know Andy personally and that you have never heard him say racist things. We hear him say racist things every single day and I don’t know him personally – nor do I ever want to.

    I like the articles you post. I hope you don’t get demoralized, but the root cause of it all is obvious. Just my 2cents.

  330. paulie

    Paulie, you sometimes come across as an Andy apologist. You’d rather lose decent posters and commenters than stop Andy from his disgusting delusional behavior.

    No, I’d rather not. But the problem is more with Andy’s comments, not so much his articles.

    You often say that you know Andy personally and that you have never heard him say racist things.

    I’ve known him since 2004 (and known of him for several years before that) and have worked and travelled with him all over the country. He has never used slurs around me, nor have I ever seen him treat any individual differently due to “race,” nationality, ethnicity or religion in real life. We have stayed in and worked in all sorts of neighborhoods, including a lot of majority black areas, majority Hispanic areas and so on. A lot of our co-workers and people we have subcontracted for or subcontracted to have been non-“white” and again I have not seen Andy behave in any kind of bigoted manner with any of them. I have not seen him act in a prejudiced way with restaurant or motel employees or other people we have had those kinds of dealings with based on their background.

    Yes, a lot of the garbage that he parrots on here makes him sound like a bigot, but I think it’s more that he has brainwashed himself with crap that is put out by bigots than that he is one himself… I think he just doesn’t realize the extent to which the motive for these people saying the things they say is bigotry, as he takes their ranting at face value, internalizes it and spreads it around and just fails to realize that he comes off as a bigot himself in the process.

    I hope you don’t get demoralized

    I already am. You may have noticed I have not been posting articles lately. I am just not inspired. Whenever I do manage to get inspired it doesn’t seem to last for very long anymore.

  331. dL

    I find it amazing that the admins here will delete other peoples comments filled with bigotry and lies but allow Andy to post the same.

    The policy is deletion of impersonation spam and anonymous white supremacist spam. In this instance you know exact identity of the person making the comments.

  332. paulie

    I also 86 racist comments that are filled with slurs, name-calling, and things of that nature. If someone wants to try to make a rational argument for a racist point of view I don’t delete those, unless it’s obviously part of a repeated pattern where someone starts out trying to sound rational than quickly devolves to slurs, trolling and other typical crap .

  333. Daemon Sims

    Look out Libertarians and Greens, you might have some competition.

    Omaha’s favorite son, St. Senator Bob Krist, a man who 95% of the town thinks is an obese man from the Northeast, wants to run for Cornhusker Governor.

    Not only that, Bob wants to leave the GOP and start his own grand old party. The name, still undetermined.

    Any suggestions from the peanut gallery?

    Kristy Kreme Party? Cornhuskers for Bob Party? Bobbing for Cornhusks Party? Cornhole Party? Cornholio?

    Whatever it’s called, it’s sure to be an electoral smash for years to come.

  334. dL

    I know what the NAP means. I don’t always agree with it. I just had no idea what he meant by that in context to the question he was answering with regard to how libertarian candidates should be.

    It has nothing to do w/ NAP(something I don’t even subscribe to). DNYFP is a simple distillation of what a libertarian platform would say. I do not view libertarianism as a dogma. It begins w/ a simple presumption of liberty(a liberal presumption, btw) and then exposes the dogmas of can’t do this or can’t do that as BS. So it goes something this.

    X gives a long-winded dissertation on why we must have gun control. The proper libertarian response:

    Don’t need your fucking permission.

    Y gives a long-winded disquisition on why we must have prior restraint on trade. The proper libertarian response:

    Don’t need your fucking permission.

    Z gives a dogmatic regurgitation on why must have immigration/border control. The libertarian response:

    Don’t need your fucking permission.

  335. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I was notified today that my request for a press pass to Politicon has been accepted. I’ll try to post something about it this weekend, and then I’ll write up something after the event, and possibly during the weekend.

    Here’s a link to the event:

    https://www.politicon.com/

    Austin Peterson will be there, along with some of my favorite providers of Falke News. I’m going to practice behaving starting right now!

  336. langa

    Paulie, you sometimes come across as an Andy apologist.

    Perhaps, but you, Tony, sometimes come across as an apologist for the state, which is far, far worse. Andy merely “offends” people, who voluntarily choose to read this website. The state brutally murders people every single day.

    I find it amazing that the admins here will delete other peoples comments filled with bigotry and lies but allow Andy to post the same.

    This is one reason why I have always been opposed to the idea of banning posters and/or deleting comments in the first place. It’s always sold as a way to combat “trolls”, but it soon heads down a slippery slope to calls for banning/deleting anything unpopular, turning the site into an echo chamber.

    Yes, some of the comments Andy makes are ridiculous, but so are some of the comments made by other regulars. In fact, if Paulie started deleting every absurd comment, he would have to start with some of his own (e.g. “Trump is literally worse than Hitler/Stalin/Mao, etc.”) which are even crazier than Andy’s.

  337. dL

    Plumbliners and the purity police

    No need for a purity police when we have you, Bob. Diligently on the look out to inform us of any perceived violations. Your linked video showed in my youtube preferences two days ago. Part III is actually the one that deals w/ UBI.

  338. dL

    Perhaps, but you, Tony, sometimes come across as an apologist for the state, which is far, far worse. Andy merely “offends” people, who voluntarily choose to read this website. The state brutally murders people every single day.

    Actually, I would rather deal w/ honest apologists for the state than those who engaged in the libertarian/taxpayer case for Communist East Germany. One is honest opposition. The other is subversive expropriation.

    This is one reason why I have always been opposed to the idea of banning posters and/or deleting comments in the first place….but it soon heads down a slippery slope

    Moderating spam, impersonation spam, and the use of racial epithets is not a slippery slope to anything. However, an unmoderated forum is a downright greasy slick path to abandonment.

  339. langa

    One is honest opposition. The other is subversive expropriation.

    Paulie (who knows Andy much better than I do, and, I suspect, than you do) says that Andy honestly believes everything he says on here. I see no reason to doubt that assessment.

    Moderating spam, impersonation spam, and the use of racial epithets is not a slippery slope to anything. However, an unmoderated forum in a downright greasy slick path to abandonment.

    There is a difference between deleting comments because they are spam* and deleting comments simply because you disagree with the viewpoint being expressed. However, while this distinction is obvious is theory, in practice, it tends to evaporate rather quickly, as Liberty Dave’s comments on this thread demonstrate. This is the “slippery slope” I was referring to.

    *”Spam” has a number of defining characteristics, none of which have anything to do with the substantive content of it. For example, spammers tend to post the same things over and over again, on multiple threads, including threads that have nothing to do with the subject of the spam. Also, they tend to avoid engaging in any sort of back-and-forth dialogue, choosing instead to simply ignoring any replies to their posts. Now, while some of Andy’s comments meet this definition of spam, many of them do not, and in any case, Liberty Dave (and Long Island Tony) do not seem to be arguing that Andy’s comments should be deleted or that he should be banned on the basis that he is a spammer. Rather, they argue against him strictly on the basis that they dislike the content of his comments, which they find “racist” or “delusional” or whatever.

  340. Tony From Long Island

    dL

    X gives a long-winded dissertation on why we must have gun control. The proper libertarian response:
    Don’t need your fucking permission.

    Y gives a long-winded disquisition on why we must have prior restraint on trade. The proper libertarian response:
    Don’t need your fucking permission.

    Z gives a dogmatic regurgitation on why must have immigration/border control. The libertarian response:
    Don’t need your fucking permission.

    Yeah . . . uhh . . .good luck with that. . . .

  341. dL

    Paulie (who knows Andy much better than I do, and, I suspect, than you do) says that Andy honestly believes everything he says on here. I see no reason to doubt that assessment.

    Expropriation is not a synonym for dishonest.

    There is a difference between deleting comments because they are spam* and deleting comments simply because you disagree with the viewpoint being expressed.

    Agree.

    However, while this distinction is obvious is theory, in practice, it tends to evaporate rather quickly. as Liberty Dave’s comments on this thread demonstrate…

    False. Unless LibertyDave is moderating comments he disapproves of, LibertyDave’s comments do not demonstrate anything.

  342. dL

    Yeah . . . uhh . . .good luck with that. . . .

    What, is Agent Smith going to materialize and use the matrix to sew our mouths shut?

  343. Tony From Long Island

    Langa

    Perhaps, but you, Tony, sometimes come across as an apologist for the state, which is far, far worse. Andy merely “offends” people, who voluntarily choose to read this website. The state brutally murders people every single day.

    Did you say something? I was yawning. Don’t break your soapbox while pontificating. . . .

    There is a difference between deleting comments because they are spam* and deleting comments simply because you disagree with the viewpoint being expressed. However, while this distinction is obvious is theory, in practice, it tends to evaporate rather quickly, as Liberty Dave’s comments on this thread demonstrate. This is the “slippery slope” I was referring to.

    You do make a very good point here. There is a slippery slope. I do get conflicted when I propose barring Andy from posting his nonsense. However, the people who run IPR should also think about whether that one single person is driving away people who otherwise would add much to the debates.

  344. DJ

    However, the people who run IPR should also think about whether that one single person is driving away people who otherwise would add much to the debates.
    …………..

    Self awareness is a good thing.

  345. DJ

    Yeah . . . uhh . . .good luck with that. . . .
    …………….

    Disbelief makes it no less true.

  346. Tony From Long Island

    It’s not a matter of belief or disbelief. Its the fact that you are not going to make much progress or win any debates by simply blabbing “don’t need your fucking permission.” I might have loved that when I was 20 years old and walked into the performers entrance of Lincoln center wearing black jeans, a pony tail and a Metallica shirt while carrying my tux in a garment bag (just to say I don’t need your fucking permission to conform). As an actual adult, however, not so much . . . . So, . . . good luck with that.

  347. Tony From Long Island

    Jill: See? Something else we agree on. Roger Stone is a slime ball 🙂

  348. dL

    I might have loved that when I was 20 years old and walked into the performers entrance of Lincoln center wearing black jeans, a pony tail and a Metallica shirt while carrying my tux in a garment bag (just to say I don’t need your fucking permission to conform). As an actual adult, however, not so much . . . . So, . . . good luck with that.

    Hard to believe anyone can still persist w/ the “serious adult” line these days. With a straight face, of course.

  349. Libertydave

    DL states; “The policy is deletion of impersonation spam and anonymous white supremacist spam.”

    Good to know, only comments by racial bigots who the admins don’t know are deleted. Comments by religious bigots and racial bigots the admins know are OK.

  350. Tony From Long Island

    dL,

    The #Resist movement, as far as I am involved, is about not allowing that buffoon’s behavior to become normalized. We can’t allow kids that are, say, 12-18 to think this is what a normal president does.

    So, yeah, I still try to act like a “serious adult.” and expect elected officials to also. I am not always successful, but I try.

  351. Andy

    langa said: ” Now, while some of Andy’s comments meet this definition of spam,”

    I have NEVER posted spam here, and I in fact have NEVER posted spam anywhere. If I post something, it is because it is relevant to a topic being discussed, and/or to the article that started a discussion thread.

    I am a no bullshit kind of guy.

  352. Andy

    Tony From Long Island: “You do make a very good point here. There is a slippery slope. I do get conflicted when I propose barring Andy from posting his nonsense. However, the people who run IPR should also think about whether that one single person is driving away people who otherwise would add much to the debates.”

    I have been posting at IPR since this site started back in May of 2008, and I was a regular poster at the site that was the forerunner to IPR, Third Party Watch, and the one before that, the old Hammer of Truth. There may have been one before that as well.

    Tony, you are a relative newcomer here, unless you posted here in the past under other names, which would not surprise me.

    I don’t even know why you come here at all since you are a self professed Democrat and not a minor party or independent candidate guy. You claim to have been an LP member a long time ago. Whether this is true or not I don’t know, but for the sake of discussion, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You are not in the LP anymore, and you have expressed a lot of views that are far out of line with the Libertarian Party, and libertarianism. Sure, you might still have a few views that a similar, but so do a lot of people.

    You are not a real minor party or independent candidate enthusiast, so why do you come here at all?

    I have never really been a fan of baseball, so you don’t see my posting comments on baseball websites.

    I don’t post on websites that are about news going on in the Democratic or Republican party, and where all of the posters are hardcore Democrats or Republicans.

    Most of the time you spend posting here is either spent attacking me, or attacking anyone who is actually a libertarian in general (like your attacks against Darryl W. Perry, which went so far as knocking his radio shows, even though you admitted that you’d never even listened to them).

    I was here long before you, and I am damn sure am not going to change anything to appease you. If you don’t like it, go to your safe space and cry like a baby and stop coming here.

  353. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: “I am a no bullshit kind of guy.”

    I didn’t know you told jokes too . . .

  354. Tony From Long Island

    Andy

    I have been posting at IPR since this site started back in May of 2008, and I was a regular poster at the site that was the forerunner to IPR, Third Party Watch, and the one before that, the old Hammer of Truth. There may have been one before that as well.

    How long you have been posting xenophobic, racist, anti-libertarian nonsense (as well as ultra nut job conspiracy theories) makes you look worse, not better.

    I don’t even know why you come here at all since you are a self professed Democrat and not a minor party or independent candidate guy

    I guess that – like many – you selectively read my posts. Having voted for a major party candidate for POTUS only once since I was 18 years old in 1992 is good enough for me to post here.

    I don’t even know why you come here at all since you are a self professed Democrat and not a minor party or independent candidate guy

    I know it must be fun to read my attacks on you, but – again – those are not my only posts. As for DWP, I have listened to some stuff on soundcloud, but could only stand a few minutes at a time

  355. Tony From Long Island

    That third comment was supposed to an answer to

    Most of the time you spend posting here is either spent attacking me, or attacking anyone who is actually a libertarian in general (like your attacks against Darryl W. Perry, which went so far as knocking his radio shows, even though you admitted that you’d never even listened to them).

    My copy and paste skills were lacking!

    Oh yeah . . Andy . . .I have been posting here since Around January of 2016. I have never posted under any name because 1) I don’t own a computer or smart phone 2) was locked up until March of 2013 and 3) didn’t have a job with the ability to post until January of 2016. I don’t even know how to use an IP anonymizer. My IP should always be the same for every post.

    I have no need to attack you under different names. There are already enough people who can see you for what you are and call you out on it.

  356. dL

    The #Resist movement, as far as I am involved…

    The #Resist movement, as far as I can tell, is right-wing, neo-McCarthyite witch hunt. Complete joke. However, the reaction to Trump is a red herring vis a vis your original claim: presidential politics requires serious adult campaigns. Clearly, it does not. Don’t move the goal posts.

  357. Tony From Long Island

    Clearly it does not because Donald Trump made it that way? That’s the entire belief that needs to be resisted.

    “Right-wing neo-McCarthy witch hunt???” What the hell are you talking about? I don’t know what “resist” movement you’re talking about. I would say that 99% of the people involved in it are either hard left or lean left.

  358. dL

    Clearly it does not because Donald Trump made it that way? That’s the entire belief that needs to be resisted.

    (1) No, you said you can’t get far politically unless you run a “serious adult” campaign. Well that’s verifiably false. When that’s pointed out, you move the goal posts to the another topic of resisting those who have succeeded despite not running non-serious adult campaigns. A logical fallacy.
    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving_the_Goalposts

    “Right-wing neo-McCarthy witch hunt???” What the hell are you talking about? I don’t know what “resist” movement you’re talking about. I would say that 99% of the people involved in it are either hard left or lean left.

    Give me examples of this “hard left” you are referring to. I read the hard left(no, cable news is not the hard left). The majority consensus that I read regards “hashtag resist” as a corporate democrat neo-McCarthyite witch hunt. Now that’s not to say there isn’t a profound resistance to Trump on the hard left, but the politics of the hard left does is far removed from the political sentiments you express on this forum. You ain’t the hard left, brah.

  359. robert capozzi

    dL: Diligently on the look out to inform us of any perceived violations.

    me: Not diligently. Just passing it on when I see NAP violations that may be of interest.

    Did you watch Munger’s appearance on the RUBIN REPORT? I think I agreed with everything Munger said, which is pretty impressive, in a way. A person of his academic stature, along with his NC guv bid as an L, might be eye-opening for NAPsters. His endorsement of UBI was especially insightful, I thought, but I wonder how NAPsters feel about it.

    I’d think they would be livid.

    Am I wrong?

  360. dL

    Did you watch Munger’s appearance on the RUBIN REPORT?

    Yes, in part.

    I think I agreed with everything Munger said, which is pretty impressive, in a way. A person of his academic stature, along with his NC guv bid as an L, might be eye-opening for NAPsters.

    I have known about him for years.

    His endorsement of UBI was especially insightful, I thought, but I wonder how NAPsters feel about it.

    I’ma Georgist. Obviously, in principle I’m not opposed to something like a UBI if it is crafted correctly:

    (1) derived from land ground rents
    (2) replaces all other forms of taxation

    However, I’m opposed to most UBI schemes being floated b/c
    (1) the streams would not be derived from ground rents.
    (2) It would not replace anything. It would simply be added on top to the current system. So it would be a welfare state subsidy in competition w/ other welfare state subsidies.
    (3) It would not be an unconditional program. You would have to qualify for it. Citizen, no criminal record, likely have to pass drug piss tests, etc. So those who do not qualify for it(those at the margins) would find it much more difficult to make ends meet w/o the subsidy. It would make them much worse off.
    (4) Given the 3 bullet points above, UBI==bribe. You have given up trying to reform the catastrophic liberal violations of political economy and simply resort to a quasi-universal “poor man’s plunder” that would actually not be universal and would exclude the unqualified poor. And they will call this “social justice.”

  361. langa

    Expropriation is not a synonym for dishonest.

    I assumed your reference to “subversive expropriation” (as opposed to “honest opposition”) was meant to denote an intentional hijacking of libertarianism. My point was that Andy doesn’t see himself as a hijacker. However, regardless of intentions, the fact remains that the actual impact of Andy’s ranting is minuscule, whereas the actual impact of the state’s violence is enormous. Hence, being an apologist for the state is something far worse than being an apologist for Andy’s rants.

    Unless LibertyDave is moderating comments he disapproves of, LibertyDave’s comments do not demonstrate anything.

    Sure they do. Go back and read the comment that you were responding to. I said that banning/deleting leads to “a slippery slope to calls for banning/deleting anything unpopular, turning the site into an echo chamber.” Clearly, Liberty Dave is calling at least for Andy’s comments to be deleted, and possibly for him to be banned. So, his comments do, in fact, demonstrate said slippery slope.

  362. langa

    Did you say something? I was yawning. Don’t break your soapbox while pontificating. . . .

    So, you completely freak out over someone posting some silly conspiracy theories, or Trump calling people names, but you are apathetic to the point of boredom when it comes to the actual violence committed by the state. Unfortunately, this attitude is all too common these days. It reminds me of the mainstream media who, for example, excoriate anyone who uses racist epithets (like “raghead” or “camel jockey”) to refer to people in the Middle East. Yet they have no problem whatsoever with warmongers who advocate murdering those exact same people in the Middle East. Name-calling is literally considered to be worse than murder.

    …the people who run IPR should also think about whether that one single person is driving away people who otherwise would add much to the debates.

    Andy is not “driving away” anyone. If people choose to read his comments and then get upset by them, that’s their own fault. Personally, when I read one of Andy’s immigration comments, I have the same reaction as I do when I read one of Paulie’s Trump comments (or one of your gun control comments). I usually roll my eyes, and move on to the next comment. Occasionally, I respond, and point out the flaws in it. But what I don’t do is freak out, and say something like, “OMG!!! How dare anyone be allowed to post such vile garbage!!!” Anyone who is incapable of encountering arguments that they disagree with (even ones that they strongly disagree with) really doesn’t belong on a political forum, and as far as I’m concerned, IPR is better off without them.

  363. langa

    Did you watch Munger’s appearance on the RUBIN REPORT?

    No. I have better things to do than listen to pseudo-libertarian babbling.

    His endorsement of UBI was especially insightful, I thought, but I wonder how NAPsters feel about it.

    I’ve told you before how I feel about UBI (as well as “the negative income tax” and other, similar schemes). In case you’ve forgotten, I think it makes no sense to think that “justice” can be achieved by programs that arbitrarily redistribute wealth, with no regard for, or even any way of determining, whether or not such wealth was obtained through legitimate means. Even assuming that the current distribution is unjust, there is no way of determining that the new distribution would be any less unjust.

  364. Daemon Sims

    Anyone else see the Mayor of Minneapolis’ Press Conference taken over by WE THE PEOPLE?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-M0MZU7o10

    Here she is gloating about non-existent accomplishments and “putting the safety of our residents first”, while one of her out-of-control officers killed a poor Australian woman IN COLD BLOOD. Poetic Justice when WE THE PEOPLE interrupted and demanded she resign.

    She is just as culpable as the Chief of Police. This ends the political career of the smug wretch who looks an awful lot like Nurse Ratched.

    Aside: Is it just me or does her stupid hand gestures make the interruption THAT much better?

    All I can say is Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish.

    BYE BYE BETSY,
    BYE BYE BETSY
    (repeat)

  365. dL

    However, regardless of intentions, the fact remains that the actual impact of Andy’s ranting is minuscule, whereas the actual impact of the state’s violence is enormous. Hence, being an apologist for the state is something far worse than being an apologist for Andy’s rants.

    In my world, anyone who argues for state control/authority over liberty of movement and freedom of association is a statist. The only thing worse is to claim that crap is libertarian. That’s “Freedom==Slavery” BS. So, yes, I rather argue w/ self-admitted statist than an acolyte of George Orwell. That being said, in practice there probably isn’t much difference between the two. I would fully expect the statist to resort to doublethink at some point. Just as I fully expect the Hoppeans to drop the pretense of libertarianism at some point.

    Sure they do. Go back and read the comment that you were responding to. I said that banning/deleting leads to “a slippery slope to calls for banning/deleting anything unpopular, turning the site into an echo chamber.” Clearly, Liberty Dave is calling at least for Andy’s comments to be deleted, and possibly for him to be banned. So, his comments do, in fact, demonstrate said slippery slope.

    FYI: You are starting to take the lead in terms of complaining about the content of other people’s posts.

  366. dL

    Anyone else see the Mayor of Minneapolis’ Press Conference taken over by WE THE PEOPLE?

    No, but glad you posted that. Shameless exhibition by that mayor until she was so thankfully interrupted by righteous outrage.

  367. langa

    FYI: You are starting to take the lead in terms of complaining about the content of other people’s posts.

    “Complaining about the content” of a post is one thing. Asking for that post to be deleted and/or for its author to be banned is a far different thing.

  368. robert capozzi

    d L, Langa,
    It sounds like you both agree that Munger is off the NAP reservation. What is the appropriate response to such transgressions? Renouncement? Denunciation? Removal from the party? Something else?

  369. dL

    It sounds like you both agree that Munger is off the NAP reservation. What is the appropriate response to such transgressions? Renouncement? Denunciation? Removal from the party? Something else?

    Bob, the only thing I’m partial to denouncing is your apparent reading comprehension, given that I obviously criticized UBI from the perspective of its social justice claims(zero sum behavioral social control game that would make the unqualified poor worse off), and perhaps the only thing I might consider renouncing is ever again responding to your comments…a complete waste of time.

  370. Andy

    dL is the one who is arguing in favor of more government when it comes to immigration, because today’s immigration is not free market, it is welfare state driven. dL is basically a leftist who learned a little economics and now thinks that he’s a libertarian, but he still advocates for state violence since his immigration stance increases the welfare state and causes forced association, that is association at gun point. Hordes of non-peaceful people (ie-Marxists, theocrats, welfare leeches, criminals) entering a land mass, over the objection of most of the present occupants (ie-the rightful property owners), and receiving stolen funds (via taxation for welfare programs), and being forced integrated into society is NOT a libertarian immigration system.

    The fact of the matter is that as long as coercive government exists, it is impossible to have a purely libertarian immigration system, but as long as government does exist, such policy should not attract people with hostile ideologies (ie-Marxists, theocrats, welfare leeches, criminals) into a land territory, especially when it is being done against the will of a large segment of the existing population.

  371. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    There’s no shame in not being a libertarian. If you really are convinced that libertarianism is incorrect, fly your authoritarian flag and fly it proudly. You would be wrong, but you would not be dishonest.

    There is, however, shame in pretending that the anti-libertarian position is the libertarian position, as you’re doing. That’s like pissing down people’s backs and trying to convince them it’s raining.

  372. dL

    dL is basically a leftist who learned a little economics with a graduate-level understanding of economics and now thinks that he’s a libertarian who has been a libertarian since he was a teenager, originally by way of Ayn Rand & Milton Friedman.

  373. robert capozzi

    dL: I obviously criticized UBI from the perspective of its social justice claims

    me: You have pretty unique positions personally, so I grant you may not be the best person to ask what the LP should do about public violators of the platform and SoP. The rigidity that some NAPsters display seems untenable to me, but there may well be a good reason why the LP is setup as an extremely narrow ideological institution.

    I’ve never heard a good reason for this stance. It does seem to preclude a person of Munger’s stature, which makes no sense to me. Munger offers a pretty compelling explanation for the LP’s dysfunction in this RR appearance.

  374. langa

    The rigidity that some NAPsters display seems untenable to me, but there may well be a good reason why the LP is setup as an extremely narrow ideological institution.

    You know, it’s interesting that you say that. I was just explaining my thoughts on that on another thread:

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/07/paul-stanton-perhaps-working-with-white-nationalists-is-not-the-best-approach/#comment-1634958

    As for your earlier question about what should be done about Munger’s advocacy of UBI, unfortunately, there’s not much that can be done. It would be nice if the NC LP would publicly repudiate his position, and make it clear that UBI is incompatible with basic libertarian principles. However, I’m certainly not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. Based on my limited interactions with them, the NC LP does not strike me as a bastion of principled libertarianism.

  375. langa

    Well, I’m feeling kind of bored, so why not kill some time by dissecting one of Andy’s crazy immigration rants?

    …his immigration stance [open borders] increases the welfare state…

    Nope. The welfare state operates completely independent of immigration policy. Even if Trump managed to build his stupid wall, there would still be a welfare state. Of course, I’m sure you’ll say, “Yes, but it will be bigger if we let in more immigrants, since most of them are pro-welfare, so they’ll vote to make it bigger.” First of all, most native-born Americans are also pro-welfare, so it would probably get bigger anyway. Second of all, even if you’re right that immigrants will vote to make it bigger than it otherwise would be, that means you have a problem, not with immigration, but with democracy.

    In fact, almost all your arguments against immigration (increases the welfare state, leads to more gun control laws, etc.) are actually just arguments against democracy, since they’re all based on immigrants “voting away” our freedom. But what does it matter if our freedom is being “voted away” by immigrants, or by native-born citizens? Now, if you want to make the argument that democracy leads to tyranny of the majority, and is therefore incompatible with libertarianism, that would be a reasonable position. Unfortunately, that would also undercut your argument for restricting immigration, which is based on majority rule. Quite a conundrum, huh?

    …causes forced association, that is association at gun point.

    Wrong again. On your own property, you are free to choose whether or not to associate with immigrants. You just don’t get to impose your choice on everyone else.

    …over the objection of most of the present occupants (ie-the rightful property owners)…

    First of all, if occupancy is the standard for determining who “owns” public property, why limit it to “present” occupants? After all, immigrants (documented or undocumented) are occupants, and the ones who come in the future will also be occupants. So, if it is legitimate for the present occupants to impose their will via majority rule, why isn’t it legitimate for future occupants to impose their will via majority rule?

    Second of all, as I have asked you many times before, if majority rule is valid when it comes to immigration, why isn’t it also valid for other issues? Most of the “present occupants” of the U.S. support at least some restrictions on gun ownership. Does that mean gun control is the libertarian position? Most of the “present occupants” of the U.S. support keeping most drugs illegal. Does that mean drug prohibition is the libertarian position? Most of the “present occupants” of the U.S. support at least some minimum wage laws. Does that mean the LP should support them, too? I could go on and on, but why bother? You’ll just dodge these questions, as you always do, because you have no answer to them.

  376. Andy

    “langa
    July 23, 2017 at 01:19
    Well, I’m feeling kind of bored, so why not kill some time by dissecting one of Andy’s crazy immigration rants?”

    This should not take very long since I have never made or said anything that was “crazy” about immigration in my life. My immigration stance is 100% rational, and 100% inline with libertarian principles. I favor abolishing the government, which means that all land would be privatized, so who can immigrate where would be a function of the free market, as in it would be up to property owners. If there were any open land that is unclaimed, then it could be settled by homesteaders (of course with over 7.5 billion people in the world, I’m not sure if there would be many, if any, places like this).

    Given that we have a government, which has welfare programs, forced association, and mass democracy (where rights are restricted and or voted away at the ballot box), I support an interim immigration policy that wards off Marxists, theocrats, welfare leeches, criminals, and other NON-peaceful people, as well as those with communicable diseases. Non-peaceful people crossing borders is NOT immigration, it is an invasion. I support immigrants who understand and love freedom, and who come here to be self sufficient. When you examine welfare statistics and voting patterns, you will find that the majority of modern day immigrants do not fit this category. When you examine crime statistics, you will find that some modern day immigrant groups commit crimes at a rate that is higher than that of most of the native population.

    There is a BIG difference between PEACEFUL people crossing borders and NON-peaceful people crossing borders. If you don’t understand this difference, you are the one who needs to pull your head out of your ass.

  377. dL

    I’ve never heard a good reason for this stance. It does seem to preclude a person of Munger’s stature, which makes no sense to me. Munger offers a pretty compelling explanation for the LP’s dysfunction in this RR appearance.

    Ok, take Munger’s Directional vs Destination paradigm. From a purely practical standpoint, I would dispute that some of the directions he is aiming at would be an actual improvement. For example, I can foresee a U-Turn vis a vis government vouchers. Why? Because you are getting the state involved in private education by doing that. At another point in that video, Munger elaborated on the importance of “freedom of association safe spaces.” Well, government vouchers could potentially imperil private education safe spaces. If an institution doesn’t take the vouchers, it is at a competitive disadvantage to one that does. If an institution does take voucher students, how long before the state starts meddling its administration? The argument that would invariably be used: “well, b/c it is financed, in part or in whole, by government money, it isn’t really a private school.” Indeed, I could imagine a primary source of the “get the government involved” crowd would be rent-seeking by voucher schools themselves as means to create a regulatory barrier of entry. Now that’s thinking like a libertarian(as opposed to say a classical liberal).

    Now, I can support “directionalism” in the instances that would have clear improvement. For example: raising the personal exemption on taxes. However, that doesn’t really excite the classical liberals( a species that tends not to get too excited about an issue unless there is a money lobby behind it).

  378. robert capozzi

    Langa,

    Thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree that associating in any form has its downside. If an associate veers too far off tangent, the association could be damaged reputationally. No question.

    As Munger says on the vid, some LP meetings can descend into debates about private nukes. So it’s also possible that the flaw is with the association itself!

    As for NC, isn’t Sister Hogarth still there? She always struck me as a True Believing NAPster.

    dL,

    Yes, it’s certainly possible that directionalism could lead to failures or sub-optimal results. I note that in life there is almost never reward without risk. Attempts at change almost never work out EXACTLY to plan, at least in my experience. Instead, change can lead to catastrophic failure, moderate failure, mixed results, moderate improvement, and the occasional smashing success.

    Has your experience been markedly different?

    I would submit that politics is like life in this way. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. I would further submit that advocating extreme destinations in politics is really not “venturing” anything. It’s inconsequential posturing that may well feel good to the poseur.

  379. Jonathan Makeley

    Ok. Hadn’t got notification that I was confirmed. Thanks for letting me know.

  380. dL

    dL,

    Yes, it’s certainly possible that directionalism could lead to failures or sub-optimal results. I note that in life there is almost never reward without risk. Attempts at change almost never work out EXACTLY to plan, at least in my experience. Instead, change can lead to catastrophic failure, moderate failure, mixed results, moderate improvement, and the occasional smashing succes

    It’s not a mere possibility; it’s a near certainty. And you are gambling w/ other people’s chips.

  381. Thomas L. Knapp

    “there may well be a good reason why the LP is setup as an extremely narrow ideological institution.”

    “The reason why” isn’t as important as “the fact that.”

    The Libertarian Party is what it is, and it was set up to be that way and to be very difficult to change from being that way.

    Pissing and moaning about it isn’t going to change it. People who want a different kind of party should go start the kind of party they want instead of whining about how they wish that a party that isn’t set up to change would change.

  382. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Every time one drives a car, one is taking a gamble that s/he won’t hurt another, or be hurt by another. That makes the case for not driving, too. Most Americans decide that risk is worthwhile. People could subsist in nature and get completely off the grid, but they choose not to.

    Destinational-ism is tantamount to living completely off the grid. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn’t seem to be making sad song better.

    TK,

    If one had a cousin, say, who was a raging alcoholic, whose life was in a tailspin, and s/he decided that a family intervention was appropriate, the drunk cousin MIGHT call that “whining,” too.

    Recognizing dysfunction is not necessarily “whining,” is it?

  383. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    If what you’re saying is that you have finally recognized your dysfunction, well, congratulations I guess. Next step: Doing something about it.

  384. robert capozzi

    TK,

    Nope.

    Yes, I have several dysfunctional patterns as we all do. NAPsterism, however, is no longer one of them! 😉

  385. dL

    Every time one drives a car, one is taking a gamble that s/he won’t hurt another, or be hurt by another. That makes the case for not driving, too. Most Americans decide that risk is worthwhile. People could subsist in nature and get completely off the grid, but they choose not to.

    Bob, weak analogies. My argument is not against taking risks. Instead, my argument is against taking virtually certain bad risks using other people’s chips. Two entirely different things.

  386. dL

    My argument is not against taking risks.

    A nice segue for Julian Assange’s definition of Risk:

    As an aside, I watched Risk which started broadcasting on Showtime over the weekend. The media buildup earlier this summer billed the re-edit(the first edit was screened at Cannes last year) as a Laura Poitras critical re-examination of the Wikileaks mission(the first edit supposedly was an unabashed celebration of Wikileaks).

    However, if it was Poitras’ intent to do a retroactive hatchet job, it is clear she didn’t have documentary source footage to piece one together. At least not on Assange. Assange simply does not come off bad at all. He certainly doesn’t come off as a ruthless prima donna in his dealing with his collaborators. The two “damning” Assange scenes really depend on your perspective of “identity politics.” It is clear Assange considered the rape charges against him as bogus identity politics attack. And it is clear Assange’s attitude clearly frustrated the Wikileaks lawyers. However, Poitras merely succeeded in showing a pattern of Assange’s dismissal of identity politics and not one of sexual predatory misuse of power.

    The last 10 or so minutes of the film, dealing w/ the 2016 election and Russia, is,I suppose, the major part of the re-edit. But that part established no Assange sympathy for Trump. And the problem w/ with including footage of the FBI testimony to Congress RE: Wikileaks collaboration w/ the Russian government is that the first 80 or so minutes of the film paints the US government as the bad guy. So, it doesn’t work.

    The weaknesses of the documentary are:
    (1) it is too short. The material demands something like a 5-part 2 hour episode series. Sarah Harrison/Snowden and the maneuver to the Ecuadorian embassy each easily demands separate episodes.

    (2) too close to the subjects. For example, Poitras’ relationship w/ Jacob Applebaum complicates the treatment of his alleged sexual misconduct. There is certainly an implication that she had the documentary goods on Jacob Applebaum, but she held back. And it is clear that for whatever reason she and Assange personally fell out(and it appears it was over the result of the 2016 POTUS election), she really didn’t have anything damning on him. Even with ~7 years of raw footage.

  387. robert capozzi

    dL: my argument is against taking virtually certain bad risks using other people’s chips.

    me: It is – I guess – possible that the risks Munger proposes are certain to be bad risks.

    However, this seems highly unlikely to me. He’s a man who certainly claims to want to maximize liberty AND he’s highly educated in economics and poli-sci.

    Is he some sort of agent, sent by the State to undermine the LM? Or perhaps he’s some kind of imposter with incoherent motives?

    Of course, I don’t suggest that based on his education that he is 100% correct. I am saying that — barring my questions being answered Yes — your “virtually certain” call seems overblown to me. Mungerism may well be a failing approach if tried, but it seems far more truth-based than NAPsterism, and therefore more likely to succeed, probably sloppily, as most social change happens in fits and starts.

    Using other people’s chips is really hard to avoid when undoing the State. Negotiation involves give-and-take. Insisting on one-direction-only makes for very difficult going at the table.

    Thanks for the JA clip. Makes sense to me. He’s done much to unmask the State, and it’s certainly risky business. NAPsterism, however, has accomplished next to nothing that I can discern, other than sewing confusion among its adherents.

  388. Thomas L. Knapp

    In addition to NAPsterism and Mungerism, are there any other philosophies that are virtually unknown outside the confines of your imagination.

    It is quite possible — in fact, it’s probably inevitable — that a candidate who supported a UBI scheme would be rejected by the party on the grounds that UBI is incompatible with the fundamentals of what the party stands for, and that a subset of same will consider any advocate of UBI to be something other than a libertarian as they define it. That doesn’t mean that everyone who considers that to be the case is going to want to brand an “H” for heretic on Munger’s forehead, etc. That phenomenon exists almost entirely in your head.

    Most of the libertarians I know, including the ones whose beliefs (very distantly) resemble your “NAPsterism” construct, understand that the subject of UBI deserves, and is going to continue to get, serious debate. I don’t know of many, if any, who dismiss its claim to libertarian provenance in the same peremptory way they would dismiss, say, the claim of “the Jews must be killed” or “maybe we should consider returning to race-based chattel slavery” to such a provenance.

  389. dL

    However, this seems highly unlikely to me. He’s a man who certainly claims to want to maximize liberty AND he’s highly educated in economics and poli-sci.

    Is he some sort of agent, sent by the State to undermine the LM? Or perhaps he’s some kind of imposter with incoherent motives?

    I detailed the problems with his (2) positions. Each from a practical, descriptive standpoint. Unfortunately, you felt the need to respond by stacking two logical fallacies on top of one another.
    One, he can’t be wrong because he has a PhD and his intentions are good. Logical fallacy.
    Two, anyone who disagrees w/ Munger is probably a conspiracy theorist. Logical fallacy.

  390. robert capozzi

    dL,

    This is important. One of us is severely misunderstanding the other.

    dL: “One, he can’t be wrong because he has a PhD and his intentions are good. Logical fallacy.”

    me: “Mungerism may well be a failing approach if tried,”

    Logical fallacy, yes. It certainly appears to be on YOUR part, yes? “[H]e can’t be wrong” vs. “Mungerism may well be a failing approach if tried….”

    Is there something unclear about “failing approach” to you? Or is it me who’s missing something? If so, what?

    As for conspiracy theories, I did also suggest it’s possible that “he’s some kind of imposter with incoherent motives.” There may well be other explanations that you might share about why and how a person of Munger’s stature would offer lessarchistic approaches to liberty maximization that explain how you are “virtually certain” that he’s incorrect.

    You just haven’t made the case.

    I’m open minded. Let’s hear your explanation.

  391. Thomas L. Knapp

    “There may well be other explanations that you might share about why and how a person of Munger’s stature would offer lessarchistic approaches to liberty maximization”

    On the one hand, I don’t want to presume to lecture you on the meaning of “lessarchistic,” since that’s another Capozzism and you’re entitled to define the meaning of terms you come up with.

    On the other hand, it seems to me that “lessarchism” would imply less archism. A universal welfare entitlement would seem to imply more archism, even if its grandest claims (e.g. replacing all other entitlements) were realized.

    That’s especially true given the likelihood that dL points out, to wit that it would not be TRULY universal, but rather conditioned on behavior approved of by the issuing authority as all past entitlements have been.

  392. robert capozzi

    tk: That doesn’t mean that everyone who considers that to be the case is going to want to brand an “H” for heretic on Munger’s forehead, etc. That phenomenon exists almost entirely in your head.

    me: Fair.

    I overstate for effect when I play that card. I’m surprised you don’t get that.

    Still, to me there is a sanctimonious tone I hear from NAPsters when ideas that don’t fit the NAPster approach are advocated by Ls. They are often castigated as “not L” by NAPsters.

    Surely you’ve seen that line of attack coming from the NAPster camp.

  393. Tony From Long Island

    Andy

    My immigration stance is 100% rational, and 100% inline with libertarian principles

    Says only one person on Earth . . .Andy.

    Trump would be proud of Andy’s immigration policy.

    I, however, want to make immigration as easy as possible with no quotas. Bienvenidos Todos! E Pluribus Unim.

  394. robert capozzi

    tk: …universal welfare entitlement…

    me: Again, I don’t see UBI as “welfare.” I actually prefer the term “citizen’s dividend” to “UBI.” I view nations as commonwealths, so a UBI is a shared dividend, as well as a recognition that jurisprudence is a highly imperfect method to provide justice for all.

    As I’ve explained before, property rights depend on a justice system to provides universal justice. Since jurisprudence is imperfect and in fact deeply flawed, a UBI is justified as a rough palliative to an inherently flawed system.

    Replacing the welfare and dirigiste state is third on my list of justifications. Munger puts it higher.

    I agree with both of you that the execution of a UBI is critically important. Structuring it properly could make all the difference on whether it was a relative success or failure.

  395. Thomas L. Knapp

    I’ve never seen any line of attack coming from the NAPster camp, because I’ve never met a NAPster, let alone a camp of them.

    Yes, I have heard some libertarians of particular orientations assert that people whose conclusions clash with those orientations are not, in fact, libertarians. In fact, I’ve often been one of them. The meaning of the word “libertarian,” and judgment as to who falls or does not fall within the definition and why or why not is certainly a debatable thing. But saying that someone is not a libertarian is along the lines of opining as to whether or not Bughouse is chess. It’s not castigation as such, it’s just an opinion as to the meaning of things. There will be traditionalists, purists, avant-garde experimentalists, etc. in any field with more than a few participants.

  396. paulie

    Trump would be proud of Andy’s immigration policy.

    Would he? I don’t know. For all the wild eyed ranting about the dangers and horrors of unchecked immigration, I have not had much success in nailing Andy down on policy specifics as to exactly which immigration control policies, real as well as proposed, he supports and which ones he opposes. Likewise, I haven’t had much luck in getting you (Tony) to answer exactly what your ideal gun “control” laws would be (you said “assault” weapon bans were an imperfect start, but not just how far you would like to go).

    Actually, the few times I remember that Andy has cited policy specifics on immigration, they were not very extreme vis a vis existing policy at all. It’s possible that he may actually be in favor liberalizing some aspects of current immigration law/enforcement, although I’m not sure about that. I think Andy just assumes that a lack of migration quotas and border enforcement would mean hundreds of millions of people immediately moving to the US, although all available evidence indicates that nowhere near that many even have the desire to move to the US much less would follow through on it if given the chance.

  397. dL

    This is important. One of us is severely misunderstanding the other.
    dL: “One, he can’t be wrong because he has a PhD and his intentions are good. Logical fallacy.”

    me: “Mungerism may well be a failing approach if tried,”

    Yeah, but I think the misunderstanding is between 6:50AM Bob Capozzi and 7:54AM Bob Capozzi.

    6:50AM Bob Capozzi’s actual quote:

    me: It is – I guess – possible that the risks Munger proposes are certain to be bad risks.

    However, this seems highly unlikely to me. He’s a man who certainly claims to want to maximize liberty AND he’s highly educated in economics and poli-sci.

  398. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    I have not studied Munger’s specific proposal yet, but most current UBI schemes contemplate merely creating a UBI as a replacement for current welfare entitlements, with the funding sources remaining the same, or at least POSSIBLY remaining the same (e.g. income tax). The sales pitches tend toward claims that reduced administrative overhead for qualifying people, administering the programs, etc. would produce savings. Is Munger’s case different?

    A “citizens dividend” would be a different kind of animal insofar as it would be premised on the idea that there should be prices levied on removal of things from the commons that “naturally” belong there (e.g. property in land, non-renewable mineral resources, etc.). And that, in turn, would take the argument down to a deeper reconsideration of what property rights mean, who has them, and in what particular things they have them.

    Personally, I don’t object to taking the argument there. While I am not a Georgist, I also haven’t found any fatal defect yet in their basic objection to current customs regarding property in land (and I’ve looked — Rothbard’s ham-handed attempt to dispose of the matter should have been particularly embarrassing to him). It may be that I diverge from the holdings of other NAPsters, as you call us, on that subject.

    I’m certainly looking forward to the argument about UBI, but in my opinion it would HAVE to go down to that deeper level to even hope for acceptance from me. Just going with the current sourcing for payments would be worse than re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, insofar as it would put all asses, instead of just some people’s asses, in those deck chairs, without doing anything about the big rip in the hull below the water line.

  399. Tony From Long Island

    Paulie:

    Not really in the mood today to get shouted at regarding gun regulation today. However, unlike the 2nd Amendment Zealots (and I don’t use that word as a pejorative here), I am not versed in every single court case and won’t post incredibly long-winded rants (my rants are generally short) 🙂

    I also don’t claim to be a policy expert. I take each proposal and weight it. I can’t give you my perfect gun regulation law. I’ll leave that to people with more expertise on the subject. However, if you throw out some suggestions, I can say whether I agree or disagree with them.

    I don’t advocate banning of all firearms and don’t know anyone who does. I support limits on the amount of ammo that can be purchased at one time. I support limits on what types of firearms can be owned. Since I am not an expert on every single firearm available, I can not give you more specifics.

    I have never fired a firearm and the closest I have ever been to one was when I was being arrested 🙂

    I don’t even support the bar of all felons from owning a firearm. It depends on the type of felony. I do support barring the mentally ill from owning a firearm but admit it is difficult to define who qualifies as “mentally ill.”

    That’s all I can give you for now . . . It’s Monday!

  400. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Gee, I’m sorry to have to belabor this, but:

    me: It is – I guess – possible that the risks Munger proposes are certain to be bad risks….However, this seems highly unlikely to me.

    IOW, it’s highly unlikely that Munger is CERTAINLY wrong. It is possible that he is wrong. Nowhere have I suggested that Munger cannot be wrong.

    The key word is “certain.”

    Look, things are quite informal in the Commentariat. You might not have been reading this all that closely. I miss things all the time, and appreciate it when others set me straight.

    You might give that a try. It feels good to me for me.

  401. dL

    Gee, I’m sorry to have to belabor this, but:

    IOW, it’s highly unlikely that Munger is CERTAINLY wrong.

    me, too. I didn’t say he was CERTAINLY wrong.

  402. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    July 24, 2017 at 08:09
    Andy

    ‘My immigration stance is 100% rational, and 100% inline with libertarian principles
    Says only one person on Earth . . .Andy.’

    Trump would be proud of Andy’s immigration policy.”

    There are major differences between my ideology and issue stances and those of Donald Trump, so he would not be thrilled.

    Your policies are closer to Hillary Clinton’s than mine are to Donald Trump’s.

    “I, however, want to make immigration as easy as possible with no quotas. Bienvenidos Todos! E Pluribus Unim.”

    So what about the property rights of the people already present, and what about shifting the voting demographics in the country towards more statism (as statistics show is happening with modern mass immigration), and what about this causing more people to end up on the welfare rolls (as statistics show is happening with modern mass immigration), and what about bringing in large numbers of people who have caused crime rates to go up (like the rape epidemic in Europe, and like is starting to happen here)? Oh, that’s right, you are a Democrat, so you don’t care about any of those things.

    Under private property anarcho-capitalism, you could make immigration as easy as possible, ON YOUR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY, but you would not have the right to push this ontp other people’s property, or on property that is jointly owned and the other property owners do not agree with you.

  403. robert capozzi

    dL: I didn’t say he was CERTAINLY wrong.

    me: True. You used the terms “near certainty” and “virtually certain.”

    Technically, you left yourself an “out” with “weasel words.” It certainly seems to me on its face that you are all-but-certain that this distinguished L academic is incorrect.

    Don’t get me wrong: I question the conclusions of NAPster profs like Long and Block, too, and it seems well within bounds for you to question Munger’s conclusions and judgments. To me, it is arrogant to have NEAR certainty about speculative conclusions, especially from credentialed fellow-traveling academics.

    Apparently, you feel otherwise, which is your right, of course.

    I’d don’t say that Rothbard’s nonarchic visions are impossible or even nearly impossible. Rather, I say they seem premature and too speculative for me to have any confidence that they work in theory, and in practice my sense is they come across to most as soapbox-lunatic material.

    In a sense, I envy your ability to have near certitude about such a thing. Still, my feedback is it rings hollow to me.

  404. Tony From Long Island

    Andy

    and what about bringing in large numbers of people who have caused crime rates to go up (like the rape epidemic in Europe, and like is starting to happen here)?

    More conspiracy crap. You are a total rube and fall for any crap that is spoon fed to you

    Under private property anarcho-capitalism, you could make immigration as easy as possible, ON YOUR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY, but you would not have the right to push this onto other people’s property, or on property that is jointly owned and the other property owners do not agree with you.

    What the hell are you talking about? Property rights?

    So what about the property rights of the people already present, and what about shifting the voting demographics in the country towards more statism

    Oh! So only libertarians can come here . . How very un-libertarian of you! That’s not surprising, though. You have the most un-libertarian immigration policy of anyone who posts on here. You get shot down on these points over and over and over and over yet you still make them.

    Your policies are closer to Hillary Clinton’s than mine are to Donald Trump’s.

    I’d love for you to point out where Mrs. Clinton advocated for completely open borders with no quotas. (Here’s a hint – she doesn’t).

    Your xenophobia is at a level almost unprecedented. You and Steve King should have an anti-immigration rally. You have pretty much the same views.

  405. dL

    Technically, you left yourself an “out” with “weasel words.” It certainly seems to me on its face that you are all-but-certain that this distinguished L academic is incorrect.

    “Near certainty” is not a weasel word. There is a distinction between not likely and impossible.

    It certainly seems to me on its face that you are all-but-certain that this distinguished L academic is incorrect.

    No, it means if one ran a simulation of the thing X times, most of the results would line up according to my prediction over time. But there could be outliers. So you would have a very risky experiment. And you are gambling w/ other people’s chips.

  406. langa

    Most of the libertarians I know, including the ones whose beliefs (very distantly) resemble your “NAPsterism” construct, understand that the subject of UBI deserves, and is going to continue to get, serious debate.

    Well, as a “NAPster” (that is, a libertarian), I think UBI is worthy of about as much serious debate as the “Fair” Tax or the “Cash for Clunkers” program — in other words, not much.

    I’m actually surprised by even the modest amount of traction UBI has gotten among libertarians. It seems to me to be just another attempt (much like Milton Friedman’s “negative income tax”) to “fix” the welfare state. That is a goal that strikes me as: A) impossible to achieve; and B) undesirable, even if it could be achieved.

  407. Thomas L. Knapp

    langa,

    There’s a difference between believing that a particular principle or constraint gives one an open and shut case against X, and believing that X is not worthy of serious debate.

    X demands serious debate (in which one side might be represented by rigorous application of your favored principle or constraint) when X is backed by a significant constituency within the debate milieu. At the moment, UBI’s significant constituency seems to be among intellectuals rather than among policy makers, but that could change.

    In the intellectual milieu, one important thing to realize is that your preferred constraint operates atop a substrate of more basic definitions that are very debatable and that bear on the issue at hand. Issues like “what is property? Is THIS property, and if so who owns it?”

  408. langa

    X demands serious debate (in which one side might be represented by rigorous application of your favored principle or constraint) when X is backed by a significant constituency within the debate milieu. At the moment, UBI’s significant constituency seems to be among intellectuals rather than among policy makers, but that could change.

    Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought “serious debate” was a reference to the need for libertarians to debate one another about whether we should support UBI (more on that below). On the other hand, if “serious debate” was a reference to libertarians opposing UBI in debates against non-libertarians, then I agree. We should make a serious effort to oppose UBI, especially if it continues to pick up steam among non-libertarians.

    In the intellectual milieu, one important thing to realize is that your preferred constraint operates atop a substrate of more basic definitions that are very debatable and that bear on the issue at hand. Issues like “what is property? Is THIS property, and if so who owns it?”

    Well, I can see two types of responses a libertarian supporter of UBI could make to the claim that UBI is incompatible with the NAP. One is the Georgist objection, but that debate has been going on among libertarians since the start of the movement, and I don’t see how the introduction of UBI really changes it. I don’t think the prospect of UBI is suddenly going to convince a non-Georgist to accept Georgism.

    The other, much more radical objection, is to argue that all current claims of property ownership are illegitimate, since it is basically impossible to demonstrate that any given piece of property has never been stolen from someone, or purchased with money that was stolen from someone, or purchased with money that was earned in a way that involved the use of stolen property, and so on. Of course, if we use that fact to conclude that all current property claims are, in fact, illegitimate, then libertarianism as a whole becomes largely incoherent, given its heavy reliance on property rights to resolve disputes.

    However, I don’t see what all that has to do with UBI, at least as it has so far been discussed. I’ve yet to hear a libertarian (or anybody else) argue for UBI on the basis that all property rights claims are invalid. Rather, the “libertarian” argument for UBI usually goes something like this: “Yes, the existence of the welfare state isn’t ideal, but look, it’s here to stay, whether we like it or not. So, instead of wasting time trying to get rid of it, we should just accept it and figure out how to make it work better, and that’s where UBI comes in.” That’s the sort of argument that, in my opinion, deserves little consideration, at least from a libertarian standpoint, as it’s little more than simply admitting defeat.

  409. Thomas L. Knapp

    langa,

    Well, that last argument IS a matter of serious debate among libertarians, and will likely remain so.

    Of course, there are people who seem to have gone off the libertarian reservation (as defined by adherents of the NAP) and just want to relax and learn to love the welfare state and try to keep it from affecting other issues that are important to them.

    But there are also incrementalists who convince themselves that this or that measure (“Fair” Tax, school vouchers and UBI being prominent among them) is a “step in the right direction” that will resolve toward “smaller government” in a way that can be a “stepping stone” to further reductions in the size/scope/power of the state. I disagree, but think it is both necessary and worthwhile to engage those claims.

    And finally, yes, there are the Georgists. I suspect you’re wrong on the UBI as a successful Georgist selling point insofar as it would offer a prospective solution to the problem of “who gets all these ‘ground rents’ and how does it dispose of them?” A “citizens dividend” that’s constructed on plausible commons property claims rings more sweetly in the libertarian ear than the prospect of the same old state apparatus relying on a “single tax.”

    I personally have rejected the UBI on both moral (NAP) and pragmatic (any kind of entitlement tends to make the issuing authority less vulnerable to being displaced, or even to public pressure on policy, because it can threaten to reduce or eliminate that entitlement to get its way) grounds. But not only do I see it as a subject for debate among libertarians, I see it as a vital one insofar as letting the wrong side carry the day on action/policy could be fatal to the movement.

  410. robert capozzi

    dL: So you would have a very risky experiment. And you are gambling w/ other people’s chips.

    me: Compared with what? The current trajectory?

    I see no evidence that many will buy into an experiment where the safety net will be abolished. Do you?

    The “chips” are already being gambled with!

  411. robert capozzi

    tk: A “citizens dividend” that’s constructed on plausible commons property claims rings more sweetly in the libertarian ear than the prospect of the same old state apparatus relying on a “single tax.”

    me: Yes, it does, for me, at least.

    I don’t consider myself a “Georgist,” per se, but I definitely can say that Georgism has merit and is not incorrect. It’s a paradigm that has coherence and some attractive qualities about it. It’s a perspective that I believe is sellable, and a UBI/citizen’s dividend could be a game changer.

    Libertarian positioning is, sadly, “heartless and hard right. Let them eat cake. Fuck the poor, they get what they deserve.”

    A UBI/citizens dividend COULD BE political jui jitsu, if well executed. The truth is redistribution over the past 40 years or so is from the rest of the country to DC. Why not cut the middleman out? Why not recognize that the jurisprudential deck is stacked in favor of those with means?

  412. dL

    me: Compared with what? The current trajectory?

    FYI: blowing another hole in the hull of a sinking ship doesn’t help things

  413. dL

    I don’t consider myself a “Georgist,” per se, but I definitely can say that Georgism has merit and is not incorrect. It’s a paradigm that has coherence and some attractive qualities about it. It’s a perspective that I believe is sellable, and a UBI/citizen’s dividend could be a game changer.

    Libertarian positioning is, sadly, “heartless and hard right. Let them eat cake. Fuck the poor, they get what they deserve.”

    I am. But I outlined here
    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/07/open-thread-for-july-2017/#comment-1634412

    why schemes posing as Georgist schemes likely will make the marginalized worse off. For example, do you think these people would qualify for some arbitrarily manufactured UBI?
    http://www.thaddeusrussell.com/podcast/2017/7/23/episode-17-david-feige

  414. robert capozzi

    dL: do you think these people would qualify for some arbitrarily manufactured UBI?

    me: I finally realized that politics and economics are all “arbitrarily manufactured.” It’s all social engineering. Unavoidable.

  415. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    I think that dL’s point (which he makes occasionally when it seems pertinent) is that what’s being sold as a “Universal Basic Income” would not in fact be “universal” and that we should therefore separate out that part of the proposal as, intentionally or not, propaganda.

  416. dL

    me: I finally realized that politics and economics are all “arbitrarily manufactured.” It’s all social engineering. Unavoidable.

    In other words, the Capozzi positioning: “heartless and hard right. Let them eat cake. Fuck the unqualified poor, they get what they deserve.”

  417. robert capozzi

    tk and dL,

    Ya know, I’m unfamiliar with the various permutations of UBI or citizen’s dividend proposals. As a general proposition, I think it should be universal, although I could imagine some reasonable exceptions.

    * Possibly immigrant non-citizens
    * Possibly non-native-born citizens
    * Possibly felons, possibly lifetime exclusions or exclusions while incarcerated

    I can imagine that those who choose to not have health insurance could have future UBI dividends garnished by the health care providers at some reasonable rate. I might even be open to some kind of national catastrophic or better health insurance being somehow incentivized in concert with a UBI/citizen’s dividend. In part, this is because denial of emergency service is illegal, as I understand it.

  418. dL

    I think it should be universal, although I could imagine some reasonable exceptions.

    LOL. In other words, the hard-right LessAnarchy positioning is: fuck the marginalized and the unqualified poor, they get what they deserve.

  419. Tony From Long Island

    Robert C: ” . . . .* Possibly felons, possibly lifetime exclusions or exclusions while incarcerated . . . ”

    While incarcerated makes sense, but if you want to continue creating a perpetual group of 2nd class citizens, fine. There are already hundreds of barriers hindering the formerly incarcerated from re-integrating into society.

  420. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    Presumably “universal” means “universal among members of the applicable polity.” Iraqi citizens, Indonesian citizens, et al. would not be part of the “universe” of a US UBI.

    On the other hand, within said polity, once you start making it conditional, it’s no longer “universal.”

    Have you passed your drug test this week, citizen? No? Well, no UBI check for you.

    Have you performed your required 10 hours of community service this week, citizen? Oopsie — no UBI check for you.

    Dear citizen, it has come to our attention that you failed to fulfill your civic duty to vote in last month’s municipal elections. Your UBI benefit has been suspended until after you (hopefully) cast your ballot as required by law in your party’s primary three months from now.

    In my opinion, to be “universal,” a UBI would have to be paid to incarcerated persons. It might have room and board costs subtracted from it, and it might be placed in an account that can’t be withdrawn from until the sentence is completed, but taking it away from convicts would create a perverse incentive to reduce UBI costs by caging as many people as possible on whatever pretext.

  421. robert capozzi

    tk,

    I like your idea about charging room and board for the incarcerated.

    My lean would be natural-born citizens get UBI, not naturalized. Sort of like President, you can enjoy the benefits of the US commonwealth by immigrating and becoming a citizen, but just not the UBI dividend.

    The idea of garnishing UBI dividends for health care services, and possibly other things, has a lot of appeal to me, too. In a sense, it might be viewed as a form of ex-post health “insurance.”

    This would not foreclose the possibility that a charity might pay for the health care, only that if someone chooses to not pay health insurance, they should recognize that they cannot free ride if they receive health care.

  422. dL

    dL,

    Should Canadians get UBI dividends?

    I dunno, Bob, are Canadians under US jurisdiction?

    My lean would be natural-born citizens get UBI, not naturalized. Sort of like President, you can enjoy the benefits of the US commonwealth by immigrating and becoming a citizen, but just not the UBI dividend.

    The idea of garnishing UBI dividends for health care services, and possibly other things, has a lot of appeal to me, too. In a sense, it might be viewed as a form of ex-post health “insurance.

    The more you move your lips, Bob, the more you make my case: UBI would be used as a right-wing behavioral control tool.

  423. dL

    Shifting to a new topic: can we expect a LP press release denouncing the American role in the global pig takedown of the darknet markets?

  424. langa

    I suspect you’re wrong on the UBI as a successful Georgist selling point insofar as it would offer a prospective solution to the problem of “who gets all these ‘ground rents’ and how does it dispose of them?” A “citizens dividend” that’s constructed on plausible commons property claims rings more sweetly in the libertarian ear than the prospect of the same old state apparatus relying on a “single tax.”

    Perhaps you’re right, although I get the sense that most libertarians who reject Georgism do so more on a theoretical basis, rejecting the Georgist claim that land is inherently different than other types of property, rather than on the practical basis of figuring out what to do with the money.

    I personally have rejected the UBI on both moral (NAP) and pragmatic (any kind of entitlement tends to make the issuing authority less vulnerable to being displaced, or even to public pressure on policy, because it can threaten to reduce or eliminate that entitlement to get its way) grounds.

    Well, I agree with both of those objections to UBI, and I would add a third one, which is similar to one of the problems with the “Fair” Tax. Just as the “Fair” Tax is designed to replace other taxes, rather than to reduce the total amount of taxation, as I understand it, UBI is designed to replace other welfare, rather than to reduce the total amount of welfare. Furthermore, in practice, just as the “Fair” Tax would likely end up as an addition to (rather than a replacement for) existing taxes, so too would UBI likely end up as an addition to (rather than a replacement for) existing welfare programs.

    When taken together, those facts mean that UBI would be a lateral move at best, rather than the “small step in the right direction” that its proponents envision. And that’s the very best case scenario, where it actually replaces existing welfare. In the much more likely scenario, where UBI merely serves as an addition to existing welfare programs, then it becomes a big step in the wrong direction.

  425. langa

    Libertarian positioning is, sadly, “heartless and hard right. Let them eat cake. Fuck the poor, they get what they deserve.”

    I don’t think that is the libertarian position on poverty. In fact, I don’t think there is a libertarian position on poverty, at least not per se, since poverty is an end, and libertarianism is concerned with means, not ends.

    It’s similar to the claim made by many leftists that libertarians aren’t concerned about inequality. Well, no, libertarianism isn’t concerned with inequality per se. Rather, libertarianism is concerned with what led to the inequality. If the inequality resulted from some form of government intervention that benefits some at the expense of others, then yes, that’s something to be concerned about (although the correct solution to such a situation would be to end the intervention, rather than continuing the intervention and then trying to ameliorate its effects with some type of ex post facto income redistribution scheme).

    On the other hand, if the inequality was simply the result of one person outcompeting another, fair and square, then no, that’s not something to be concerned about. On the contrary, it should be celebrated, as an example of the market rewarding those who have produced the most value.

  426. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    One of our candidates for governor here in CA for the LP is a man named Zoltan Istvan. Universal Basic Income is part of his platform. Although he’s really not terribly Libertarian, he’s very charismatic and will probably get some media attention. We’re hoping to work with him to mold a more Libertarian platform.

    Our last Regional meeting was about UBI, and it was quite an interesting topic. I don;t think Libertarians should write it off because the issue will continue to come up. The better we can understand and debate the issue, the more positive attention we can get for the LP.

  427. langa

    One of our candidates for governor here in CA for the LP is a man named Zoltan Istvan.

    Ah, the transhumanist guy? There’s a video of him, that I think was posted here on IPR, where he and John McAfee have a debate/discussion about several issues. He seems like an intelligent, though eccentric, guy, with some interesting ideas, but definitely not much of a libertarian on most issues.

  428. dL

    Perhaps you’re right, although I get the sense that most libertarians who reject Georgism do so more on a theoretical basis, rejecting the Georgist claim that land is inherently different than other types of property, rather than on the practical basis of figuring out what to do with the money.

    Classical economics held a distinction between land and capital goods. Neoclassical economics removed that distinction and treated land as just another capital good. A severe error IMO, leading to replacing the study of political economy w/ the study of economics largely as a utilitarian science.

    True, Henry George arrived at his theory from the classical perspective of differentiating land from capital. However, the work of Joseph Stiglitz re-derived Henry George’s theory from a neoclassical perspective. Dubbed “The Henry George Theorem,” Stiglitz showed that the aggregate result of government spending shows up in increased land values. Government Spending ~ (delta) land values.

    https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:148879

    Hence, the implication: ground rents ==efficient source of public goods financing.

    My propositions:
    (I) Georgism is a necessary condition(though not a sufficient condition) for a classically liberal state. The caveat is that Georgism really applies to a city-state model and not so much to a centralized federal government model.

    (II) Georgism is a liberal idea, not a libertarian one. However, Georgism is not necessarily incompatible with libertarianism. Here, I would reference the work of Fred Foldvary and the geolibertarian school of libertarianism.

    Side Note: A lot libertarians apparently subscribe to Austrian economics. However, I do not. I certainly don’t hold the position that something that violates a tenet of Austrian economics is thus automatically non-libertarian.

  429. dL

    The better we can understand and debate the issue, the more positive attention we can get for the LP.

    Bastiat in “Economic Sophisms” laid out the case that the role of the libertarian so to speak was to educate the dupes and hope for the best when it came to the “important people.” Hence, the best way to educate the dupes RE: UBI is to attack the duplicity of its social justice claims.

  430. robert capozzi

    L: I don’t think that is the libertarian position on poverty.

    me: Yes, it’s not. Positioning is different than position. Of course, L’s don’t technically “position” themselves as the “fuck the poor” party. Rather, that’s what non-Ls hear when Ls position themselves as in favor of abolishing the welfare state.

    L: libertarianism is concerned with means, not ends.

    me: Yes, NAPster L-ism does that. It’s really asking a lot of the rest of society. With no reference to outcomes, people are being asked to buy the benefits of freedom with no real reference to what that would look like. It’s an abstraction, and very large percentages of the population don’t think about politics in the abstract.

    This is exacerbated by the NAPster practice of speaking of massive changes, not incremental ones. Abstractions are more sellable in smaller chunks and through demonstration.

  431. Thomas L. Knapp

    “[NAP-based libertarianism is] really asking a lot of the rest of society. With no reference to outcomes, people are being asked to buy the benefits of freedom with no real reference to what that would look like.”

    Well, no. To the extent that a libertarian framework is NAP-based, it’s not geared toward selling the benefits of freedom. Rather, it is proposing a single moral constraint AGAINST something: “Anything goes, as long as it doesn’t involved the initiation of force.”

    NAP-based libertarianism sells a particular steak. All that we ask of libertarians who are instead selling the sizzle is to refrain from telling us how to cook the fucking thing.

  432. Thomas L. Knapp

    “This is exacerbated by the NAPster practice of speaking of massive changes, not incremental ones. Abstractions are more sellable in smaller chunks and through demonstration.”

    You seem to be mixing one debate (NAP-based libertarianism versus consequentialist libertarianism) with another (incrementalism versus immediatism). They’re not the same thing. There are NAP-based incrementalists and there are minarchist immediatists.

  433. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Bastiat in “Economic Sophisms” laid out the case that the role of the libertarian so to speak was to educate the dupes and hope for the best when it came to the “important people.” Hence, the best way to educate the dupes RE: UBI is to attack the duplicity of its social justice claims.

    Very well said!

  434. robert capozzi

    tk: You seem to be mixing one debate (NAP-based libertarianism versus consequentialist libertarianism) with another (incrementalism versus immediatism). They’re not the same thing. There are NAP-based incrementalists and there are minarchist immediatists.

    me: Great point. However, I don’t know of any NAPsters who are incrementalists. NAPsters will, in my experience, TOLERATE incrementalism, but they generally want an explicit abolition of State functions, or in some cases ALL State functions.

    NAPsters — also in my experience — won’t accept any backsliding on any front. Most NAPsters I know would not accept, for ex., a budget plan that cuts spending overall, but a $1 increase in any one line item would be a non-starter. Similarly, a cut in taxes that led to one person experiencing a $1 increase in taxes would not pass NAPster muster.

  435. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    Well, of COURSE any group of people that exists entirely or almost entirely in your imagination is going to display whatever characteristics you want them to display. I was trying to take “NAPsterism” seriously as if it was a real-world phenomenon and apply it to its closest real-world analogs.

  436. paulie

    Great point. However, I don’t know of any NAPsters who are incrementalists. NAPsters will, in my experience, TOLERATE incrementalism, but they generally want an explicit abolition of State functions, or in some cases ALL State functions.

    So where is the contradiction? My ultimate goal is abolition of the state, but I don’t see any way to get there in one fell swoop besides a collapse/doomsday scenario, which is very suboptimal in its own way. If it can be done, gradual dissolution/fading away of the state would be better. I think that makes me an incrementalist, as in doing away with the state by increments. I see it as a few drops of water breaking their way through a hole in the dam, or a blade of grass breaking through the sidewalk. It will lead to more and more until the facade of stone falls away.

  437. robert capozzi

    pf,

    It’s not a matter of “contradiction.” It’s a matter of political positioning and optics. You may well be the rare NAPster incrementalist; you are certainly tolerant of incrementalism, perhaps more than most NAPsters.

    While I’m familiar with your POV, I’m not sure whether you generally advocate incremental change without reference to abolition or not. Optically, if one advocates a 5-year plan to abolish the Air Force or Social Security, that I suggest sounds like abolitionism to most.

    Other than possibly PF, I don’t know of other NAPster incrementalists. There probably are some, to be clear, though in broad strokes most NAPsters I know are either explicit, immediate abolitionists, or phased abolitionists. Politically, I see very little difference between the two views.

    TK,

    If you don’t like the term NAPster, how about NAP adherents, or possibly NAP-herents? It seems odd to me that you and others seem to object to my short-hand, but I do prefer to keep my posts in a “safe space” for others! If NAPster is a micro-aggression, I’m more than happy to lose the term.

  438. Thomas L. Knapp

    Incrementalism and abolitionism aren’t opposites, because they’re not about the same thing. Incrementalism is about process, and its opposite is immediatism. Abolitionism is about end state, and its opposite is conservatism (or possibly, to prevent other cross-bleed of unrelated terminology, preservationism).

  439. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    It’s not that I “don’t like” NAPster, it’s that the definition of the term seems to be “whoever RC disagrees with about something at any given moment, with the characteristics to be filled in using the why, what about, etc. of that moment.”

  440. robert capozzi

    tk,

    Interesting distinctions. To use your terms, most NAPsters I encounter are abolitionists for most if not all government, (“when instituted”). Some NAPsters are immediatist abolitionists and others are incremental abolitionists.

    I, in a sense, am an abolitionist, as in theory I believe in asymptotic anarchism in the long run. I’m agnostic on whether actual anarchism is viable, but future generations would be in a better position to assess its viability once the State was reduced to a nightwatchman status.

    As a lessarchist, I favor a number of political means to maximize individual liberty and minimize the State over time. Those political means necessarily mean they can be sold in the Public Square. Unripe, unproven ideas cannot be sold, in my judgment.

    Personally, I’m more interested in making near-term progress as a means to build lessarchistic momentum. In my judgment, NAP adherence hamstrings the ability of the lessarchist train to even leave the station! The NAP lacks the flexibility and nuance necessary to address a multi-dimensional challenge, which in this case is creeping statism.

  441. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    Well, that’s just it: It’s hard to get any more flexible than non-aggression based libertarianism. Under it, anything goes except for one thing.

    It’s like saying “here’s $5000 to go buy yourself a new wardrobe to replace your existing one. Anything you like, as long as there’s no chartreuse. Bell bottoms and a paisley shirt, fine. Tuxedo, great. Formal ball gown, knock yourself out. Black, white, gold, purple, red, mauve, burnt umber, pink with purple polka dots, kelly green, forest green, moss, anything goes, except chartreuse. As for your existing wardrobe, the chartreuse items have to go. All at once or a little at a time, it’s all good, but we’re always getting rid of chartreuse, not buying more chartreuse stuff.”

  442. robert capozzi

    tk,

    I see your point, and that seems true enough on one level.

    On the level of American politics 2017, however, the perception of NAPster policies and the approach NAPsters take toward politics is anything but flexible. To the extent non-Ls have some familiarity with NAPsterism, it’s viewed as utopian and unworkable, too extreme to even give serious consideration as a governing philosophy.

  443. dL

    To the extent non-Ls have some familiarity with NAPsterism it’s viewed as utopian and unworkable, too extreme to even give serious consideration as a governing philosophy.

    What the public thinks of Napster:
    A once successful free music sharing service in the late 90s/early 200s sued out of existence and later reborn as a rebranded rhapsody music service

    https://www.law360.com/articles/492033/rhapsody-sues-streaming-site-over-napster-trademark

    And Bob’s public claim/ expropriation of the term “Napster” outside the purview of a modest political forum would likely land him in hot legal hot water b/c Rhapsody International considers the “Napster” trademark to be its most valuable asset.

  444. Just Some Random Guy

    More info on the schism within the GPUSA :

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/21/green-party-growing-pains-our-own-crisis-of-democracy/

    So the internal conflict is about the fact that several black candidates lost an internal election and some see it as racist? Maybe, just maybe… those candidates just weren’t seen as being as good as the others, and their skin color was coincidental?

    This just goes to show how nonsensical many of the complaints about lack of representation or whatever for minorities is (note I said ‘many,’ not ‘all’), when even the groups complaining about those things are getting hit with those accusations.

  445. Ad Hoc

    No, that’s only a small part of the conflict in the GP. A bigger rift is over the “DemoGreen” tendency aka Safe States Strategy which was manifested in the 2004 Cobb campaign, and brought back by Jill Stein – with the same David Cobb serving as her campaign guru – with her much-publicized recount efforts after the most recent presidential election.

  446. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Would it make you feel less ill-at-ease if I used “NIOFsters” or “NAP-herents”? 😉

  447. dL

    Would it make you feel less ill-at-ease if I used “NIOFsters” or “NAP-herents”?

    The lawyers wouldn’t be coming after me, Bob…

Leave a Reply

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