LP Release: “Libertarians condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant”

Libertarian National Committee Executive Director Wes Benedict issued the following statement:

The Libertarian Party condemns bigotry as irrational and repugnant, and offers its condolences to the family of the woman killed in Charlottesville, Va.

There is no room for racists and bigots in the Libertarian Party. If there are white nationalists who — inappropriately — are members of the Libertarian Party, I ask them to submit their resignations today. We don’t want them to associate with the Libertarian Party, and we don’t want their money. I’m not expecting many resignations, because our membership already knows this well.

The Libertarian Party Platform states, “We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference, or sexual orientation.”

The Libertarian Party is tolerant and accepting, supporting civil liberties, gay marriage, and freedom of religion for all, including Jews, Muslims, Christians, and atheists. The Libertarian Party supports open borders, civil liberties, racial diversity, and free trade — things that white nationalists abhor.

I think many people in America are worried about jobs and security, and feel compelled to do something about it. Years of inflammatory messaging from Republican and Democratic leadership have poisoned the well of civil discourse, and unfortunately, much of what the extremists on both the left and right are asking for will make matters worse.

Republican leaders have demonized immigrants and free trade, and have scared people into thinking that free trade and immigration will cost current citizens their jobs and their standard of living. Yet countries with free trade and immigration have the highest standards of living in the world, and those without freedom of movement and exchange have the lowest. If politicians are truly interested in improving American prosperity, they need to brush up on their understanding of “gains from trade” and “comparative advantage,” then stop goading their supporters into supporting counterproductive policies. Protectionist policies are irrational and cowardly, and will make America weaker.

Democratic leaders have demonized businesses and denounced people who support eliminating minimum wage and licensing laws. Ending the minimum wage will make it easier for everyone to get a job, especially those with the least skills who most desperately need to gain work experience. Ending licensing laws will make it easier for everyone who still can’t get a job, or who feels underpaid, to start their own businesses.

Democratic and Republican leaders have supported billions of dollars in subsidies for billionaires like Elon Musk and the wealthy who can afford his cars and solar panels, while driving up the cost of cars and electricity for middle-class and low-income Americans. It’s no surprise that disaffected people on both the left and right mistrust big business. All corporate welfare should be eliminated

More government is not the answer for those who are scared and hurting on the right or the left, and violence between the two groups is certainly not the answer.

The Libertarian Party has whites, blacks, browns, gays, heterosexuals, Christians, atheists, Muslims, and Jews in its leadership, as candidates for public office, and within its membership. Libertarians work together peacefully and oppose the initiation of force to achieve social or political goals. Libertarians don’t all agree on the meaning of life, or which behavior is proper or moral, but we do agree on the proper role of government in our lives.

Race wars, class wars, religious wars, and even foreign wars are not inevitable. Stay home from the protests and check out the Libertarian Party. A more Libertarian America will be a more prosperous, peaceful, and diverse America.

Source:https://https://www.lp.org/libertarians-condemn-bigotry-irrational-repugnant/

108 thoughts on “LP Release: “Libertarians condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant”

  1. Anthony Dlugos

    “The Libertarian Party supports open borders, civil liberties, racial diversity, and free trade — things that white nationalists abhor.”

    Ouch, Andy.

    Oh, well. You still have President Cheeto defending your peeps as we speak.

  2. Andy

    I do not support Trump, and I do not have any “people” that Trump is defending.

    I do question what this has to do with property rights and the Non-Aggression Principle.

    If libertarians actually believe in property rights, and the NAP, this includes freedom of association, which includes the right to not associate, for any reason, including because a person is a bigot.

    Not agreeing with the individual right to disassociate leads to having a so called “Libertarian” candidate for President like Gary Johnson, who thinks that the government should force private bake shop owners to bake cakes for gays.

  3. Andy

    How come LP national has not put out any press releases condemning leftist groups like Antifa for stopping free speech on public property, and for destroying public and private property?

    Using violence to stop Milo from speaking at a college where he was invited to speak, and to stop Unite the Right from speaking in a public park is OK, or not?

  4. Anthony Dlugos

    “How come LP national…blah, blah, blah…”

    Because this press release was about expressing condolences to the family of the woman killed and, most pressingly for the LP itself, ridding ourselves of our particular problem with nationalists, xenophobes, and racists.

  5. Thomas L. Knapp

    Actually, LNC chair Nick Sarwark specifically publicly condemned Antifa’s “use of violence to stop or disrupt” Yiannopoulos’s speech as “despicable behavior.”

    Unite the Right wasn’t there to “speak in a public park.” They arrived in the middle of the night by torchlight and assaulted people in that park, then came back the next day clearly looking for another fight. They just expected the police to swoop in and keep them from getting their asses kicked when they got that fight, so now they’re whining.

  6. NewFederalist

    Asking “white nationalists” to resign is fine. How about the same for “black nationalists” or “brown nationalists” or any other color of “nationalists”?

  7. Andy

    I think that it is a shame that that woman was killed. That was a terrible tragedy, it is possible that it would not have happened if the leftists had not initiated violence, and/or if the police had done their freaking job and not been ordered to stand down.

    Regardless, my condolences to the family of the woman who died in this horrible event.

  8. Paul Grad

    While it might be possible for a libertarian to be a bigot or racist, the universality of the libertarian philosophy virtually precludes it. Libertarians hold that the inalienable Natural Rights Jefferson warrants in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration apply to all men, at all times, in all places. These Rights are part of human consciousness, which is why their violation, by murder, theft, and enslavement, has been almost university condemned in most societies.
    I don’t believe in races, although isolation in pre-industrial society may have produced talents and abilities particular to one geographically-isolated group, and quirky characteristics that might belong to a specific group (like black men having a superiorly-designed kneecap in comparison to white men which enables them to run somewhat faster). Such racial specifics will quickly dissipate in the near future in the current world of intermarriage and intercontinental travel and relocation. A closed culture that valued drumming ability over anything else might, over the course of a thousand years, produce drummers who were genetically far more talented at drumming that the average human, but once that populace intermarried, that group ability would quickly be dissipated in the gene pool.
    Mankind has divided himself up religiously, nationalistically, politically, and even racially. Every group, save the non-racist libertarians, has their fixed ideology that they won’t abandon until death. A racist has an ideology that immediately divides mankind into groups; it is all based on thought. I don’t consider libertarianism an ideology; more like a recognition of deep political and economic truths based on man’s unique form of consciousness that apply to all people. Libertarianism is the only non-ideological political philosophy, and the only ethical one since it’s based on Inalienable Rights and the NAP, although praxeology itself (the mechanism of the market) is not value based. Capitalism is non-ethical but mechanical, but arises naturally out of the Property Titles which themselves arise out of Natural Rights theory.

  9. Andy

    Saying that the Libertarian Party supports “open borders” is untrue. The platform specifically states that it is appropriate to deny entry to people who pose a threat to, “safety, health, or property,” (without this, it would mean that people infected with Ebola could waltz in, as could Chinese tanks, or violent criminal gang bangers, and that unlimited numbers of people from around the world could establish voting rights here, and start interfering in this country’s election, and given that we live in a welfare state, anyone could waltz in and collect welfare) and this would remain a valid concept well within libertarianism even if some left wingers were to change it, because libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion, leads to anarcho-capitalism, which means that all land would be privately owned, which means that the borders of said privately owned land would only be as “open” as the property owners wanted it to be.

  10. Andy

    Let’s say that a Libertarian who was also a Christian owned a bake shop. The bake shop does not accept any taxpayer subsidies. Let’s say that one day, a member of the Church of Satan walks into the bake shop, and tells the bake shop owner that they would like to purchase a cake for their annual Church of Satan picnic, and they want to order a cake that has an upside down pentagram on it that says. “Hail Satan” over top of it. Let’s say that the bake shop owner refused to bake such a cake, and they told the Church of Satan member to get the he’ll out of their bake shop.

    This would be a clear case of discrimination based on religion.

    Should the bake shop owner be forced to bake a cake for the Church of Satan member?

    Would you say that the bake shop owner is not a real Libertarian if they refused to bake a cake for a member of the Church of Satan, and if they told the Church of Satan member to get out of their bake shop?

  11. Thomas L. Knapp

    Yes, the platform has an anti-libertarian poison pill added on to the end of its immigration plank by Republican infiltrators. But we’ll get that fixed, and in any case the platform is superseded by the party’s statement of principles in any case where the two conflict.

  12. Andy

    Tom, you can change what you claim is a “poison pill,” (although many would disagree with you) but this would not invalidate the point. There is nothing that I said that is inconsistent with libertarian philosophy.

  13. paulie

    Because this press release was about expressing condolences to the family of the woman killed and, most pressingly for the LP itself, ridding ourselves of our particular problem with nationalists, xenophobes, and racists.

    That should have been obvious…

  14. paulie

    Asking “white nationalists” to resign is fine. How about the same for “black nationalists” or “brown nationalists” or any other color of “nationalists”?

    I think that’s covered in the platform quote. The reason white nationalists are specifically mentioned is

    1) Some of them such as Cantwell and Invictus have been associated with the LP
    2) They were also prominently associated with this rally which turned to violence and
    3) Murder, which is all over the national news right now

    If that same set of facts applied to black or brown nationalists it would make sense to call them out specifically, but it doesn’t.

  15. paulie

    Yes, the platform has an anti-libertarian poison pill added on to the end of its immigration plank by Republican infiltrators. But we’ll get that fixed, and in any case the platform is superseded by the party’s statement of principles in any case where the two conflict.

    Great point.

  16. Anthony Dlugos

    “But we’ll get that fixed…”

    I’ll help. I don’t want to have to have default to the statement of principles in order to make it loud and clear to the white nationalists and xenophobes that they are not welcome in the LP.

  17. Andy

    How is it not libertarian to say that a person infected with Ebola or some other deadly disease should not be able to cross into the land territory known as the USA, because that person poses a risk to health?

    How is it not libertarian to say that Chinese tanks should not be able to cross the border if the USA because they pose a risk to health, safety, and property?

    How is it not libertarian to say that MS-13 gang members, or radical jihadist, should not be able to cross the borders of the USA because they pose a risk to health, safety, and property?

    How is it not libertarian to say that people entering the country under the Refugee Resettlement Act, which is a government welfare program (ie-it uses taxpayer funds to transfer money from one group of people to another), should not be able to cross the borders of the USA because the program is a threat to the property of Americans (once again, it is a taxpayer funded welfare program)?

    Also, am I correct or not that if you take libertarianism to its logical conclusion, that it leads to an ancap society where all land is privately owned, and that it would be at the discretion of property owners as to what their migration/immigration/entrance policy would be, which means that the ancap society would in fact not have open borders, it would have private property borders, unless there was unclaimed land, which, as soon as somebody homesteads it, it would no longer remain open?

    Being that we do not live in an ancap society, the state is providing multiple functions that would still exist in an ancap society (not all state functions of course), such as the construction and/or maintainence of public infrastructure, courts, police, fire fighting, military, etc…. If we lived in an ancap society, police and military would be taken over by people bearing arms on their own, and/or forming militias, and/or by private security companies. One thing that people bearing arms, either on their own, or as a part of a militia, or as a private security company, would be defending property borders. So defense of property borders would still exist in an ancap society, which would mean denying some people entry to property, or throwing people out of property.

    If you think that everyone on the planet is entitled to full use of taxpayer supported property in the present day USA, what you are saying is that unlimited numbers of people (remember, there are over 7.5 billion people in the world, and the USA has a population of 325 million, which makes it number 3 in world population), including those with communicable diseases, should be able to come here and have full use of all of the common spaces, infrastructure, and government services that are presently available to people known as American citizens, so this means that under this line of thinking, everyone in the world, should have full access to the roads, parks, sewage system, water, utilities, public schools, public libraries, taxpayer subsidized healthcare, Social Security, food stamps (EBT), etc….

    Once here, these people can become American citizens, and any offspring they have here become automatic citizens under the current birthright citizenship, which means that all of these people will be able to become registered voters (and remember, since you say that anyone should be able to waltz in with no questions asked, we are talking 10’s of millions of people in just a few years), which means that they gain access to the political system in this country, which means that they can gain political power, and if this does not alarm you, it must mean that you really believe that those government employees who run the naturalization classes are going to do a great job teaching all of these people about the US Constitution, and why concepts like limited government, a free market, and the right to keep and bear arms are important, so when all of these 10’s of millions of people hit the voter rolls we will have millions more people voting for libertarian candidates and policies, and finally, we will be able to vote ourselves free, because all, or at least a majority of these new immigrants who came in under the “Allow Anyone To Enter, No Questions Asked Act,” will vote for libertarian candidates and ballot issues. This will lead us to Libertopia, because millions of libertarians from aroundcthevworld will come here, and the ones who are not libertarians will magically transform into libertarians once they get here.

  18. Andy

    Questions for everyone who clicks this thread:

    Should human interaction be voluntary, or involuntary?

    If you answer that human interaction should be voluntary, then do you agree, or disagree, that voluntary human interaction means that individuals should be free to discriminate against whoever they want, for whatever reason (note that I am not talking about the government, as I think that the government should treat everyone who is a citizen of the country equally under the law, and I would extend this to corporations who receive taxpayer subsidies)?

    If you disagree that human interaction should be voluntary, which means that individuals do not have the right to discriminate, then can you explain how this is congruent with the Non-Aggression Principle?

  19. robert capozzi

    aj: Should human interaction be voluntary, or involuntary?

    me: It should be as voluntary as possible while maintaining a semblance of domestic tranquility.

  20. Tony From Long Island

    Andy

    How is it not libertarian to say that MS-13 gang members, or radical jihadist, should not be able to cross the borders of the USA because they pose a risk to health, safety, and property?

    Please stop talking about things you do not understand. The overwhelming majority of MS-13 joined AFTER they were in the U.S. Before about three months ago, you probably had never even heard of MS-13.

  21. Tony From Long Island

    Andy:

    , it is possible that it would not have happened if the leftists had not initiated violence,

    *sigh*

  22. JamesT

    My comment for this. Is good for them. This whole situation is disgusting. Cantwell and Invictus are absolute disgraces. Cantwell was always bad news. I hope the LP is more thoughtful of who they choose to speak at local events more often. I really hate Cantwell. You should read some of the stuff he’s written in the lats year it will make your blood boil. What a loser.

  23. Anthony Dlugos

    “Cantwell was always bad news.”

    There’s a not-insubstantial segment of the Libertarian movement and party that is not attracted to the philosophy, they are attracted by the dogmatic way our message is frequently delivered.

  24. robert capozzi

    ad,

    Yes! This is why I’m not surprised that NAPsters like Cantwell and Invictus have moved on from being L extremists to alt-right extremists. They apparently resonate first and foremost with extremism, which vociferously oversimplifies the human condition, demanding the world bend to their twisted worldviews. I would not be surprised that they have some deep-seated emotional wound that such extremist acting out somehow temporarily alleviates. Being L was quite extreme enough for them, so they go where the action is more “thrilling.”

  25. JamesT

    A lot of LP people were there because it was “anti-establishment.” Then Trump or Sanders were “anti-establishment” so they went that way. I think the transition that a lot of activists go through is because they have the “natural born fanatic” personality type. People like that tend to go all over the place and are transient in their affinities. I’m not saying this to defend the gov’t but all crazy people sound the same. White nationalists are like “it’s all cause of the jews.” Feminists are “its all be cause of men.” Socialist are like “its all because of rich people.” Libertarians are like “its all because of gov’t bureaucrats.” Anti-NWO people are like “its all because of the Illuminati.” Take out the perpetrator and you have the same mindset. I’m not saying the gov’t doesn’t do terrible things, or men haven’t or rich people haven’t. I’m saying people are looking for a group to blame for all their life problems. Cantwell went from the nebulous gov’t to the jews/blacks. Its the same mindset just different focus. Libertarians should remember this and not fall it simplistic “its all cause of the gov’t.” Even if we ever achieve ancapistan life will have tons of problems and people doing wrong. it will probably be a bit better, because competition vs monopoly, but its not gonna be “libertopia” and thinking otherwise is fanaticism and searching for an other to blame for the lack for utopia. Idk so many libertarians got culty and fanatic. Like refusing to associate with anyone who isn’t libertarian. Mostly advocated by Molyneux who then turned alt-right and I think there have been enough exposes on how his organization is run. This is reason # 5 million why I’m too frustrated with the general liberty movement to be involved anymore.

  26. paulie

    There’s a not-insubstantial segment of the Libertarian movement and party that is not attracted to the philosophy, they are attracted by the dogmatic way our message is frequently delivered.

    I think you are correct. Even Michael Cloud, who is rather radical himself, called it a “macho flash” phenomenon. Many people, including some radicals, have noted this effect.

  27. paulie

    My comment for this. Is good for them. This whole situation is disgusting. Cantwell and Invictus are absolute disgraces. Cantwell was always bad news. I hope the LP is more thoughtful of who they choose to speak at local events more often. I really hate Cantwell. You should read some of the stuff he’s written in the lats year it will make your blood boil. What a loser.

    I’m not fond of classifying people as winners and losers, and I try to hate bad ideas and actions rather than individual people, but generally you are correct.

  28. paulie

    I’m saying people are looking for a group to blame for all their life problems. Cantwell went from the nebulous gov’t to the jews/blacks. Its the same mindset just different focus. Libertarians should remember this and not fall it simplistic “its all cause of the gov’t.” Even if we ever achieve ancapistan life will have tons of problems and people doing wrong. it will probably be a bit better, because competition vs monopoly, but its not gonna be “libertopia” and thinking otherwise is fanaticism and searching for an other to blame for the lack for utopia.

    Good point..I agree.

  29. JamesT

    Paulie he said s on his show that he “felt where Dylan Roof was coming from.” Also “the jews were behind communism and we should kill them all.” Someone posted the SPLC link about him on FB the other night. You can read actual quotes from him there.

    https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/christopher-cantwell

    I’m okay calling him a loser. Normally I wouldn’t personally insult people but I think we are in the clear. I also know people at FSP that had all kinds of stories about him but that’s hearsay. So I probably shouldn’t go into it.

  30. paulie

    I find a lot of Cantwell’s words and now actions to be despicable. As with everyone else I try to maintain hope that he can redeem himself. In his case I am not very optimistic.

  31. Pingback: Orlando Sentinel: ‘Goat-blood drinking Orlando man had key billing for Charlottesville rally’ | Independent Political Report

  32. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    August 16, 2017 at 06:50
    ‘aj: Should human interaction be voluntary, or involuntary?’

    me: It should be as voluntary as possible while maintaining a semblance of domestic tranquility.”

    This falls inline with my point.

    Interactions between humans should ideally be 100% on a voluntary basis. If you agree with this, than you have to acknowledge that people make discriminatory decisions in their lives on a regular basis. Who they associate with, who they do business with, who they sit by on a bus, who they invite into their home, etc…

    So saying that it is outside the bounds of libertarianism for individuals to make discriminatory decisions is just flat out not true. I completely agree that the government that people live under should treat people equally under the law (although this does not always happen in reality), but this has nothing to do with the voluntary decisions of private individuals.

    Part of the rationale behind libertarianism is that people should be free to make their own choices in life,
    so long as they are not initiating acts of violence, theft, or destruction of property, which means being able to voluntarily associate, or not associate, with whoever they want, for whatever reason.

    I noticed that nobody bothered to answer my question above about a Libertarian Christian who owns a bake shop being asked by a Church of Satan member to bake a cake for them that has a Satanic message written in the icing, and the Libertarian Christian refusing to do this. This would be a clear case of religious discrimination. So, once again, my questions are as follows:

    1) Should the Libertarian Christian be forced to bake a cake for the Church of Satan member?

    2) Would you say that the Libertarian Christian is not a real libertarian because they engaged in religious discrimination against the Church of Satan member?

    Let’s see how many posters here have the guts to tackle these questions, as well as my questions about whether or not human interactions should be voluntary.

  33. Thomas L. Knapp

    “How is it not libertarian to say that a person infected with Ebola or some other deadly disease should not be able to cross into the land territory known as the USA, because that person poses a risk to health?”

    Well, it wouldn’t be unlibertarian for the owner of the particular piece of property in question to forbid that person to cross onto his land.

    “The land territory known as the USA” has no specific owner. Some pieces of it are privately owned, and the rest are being squatted on and withheld from homesteading by a criminal gang whose diktats/turf claims no one, including that Ebola patient, has any obligation whatsoever to obey/respect.

  34. Thomas L. Knapp

    “1) Should the Libertarian Christian be forced to bake a cake for the Church of Satan member?”

    No.

    “2) Would you say that the Libertarian Christian is not a real libertarian because they engaged in religious discrimination against the Church of Satan member?”

    No.

    Let me know when a bunch of “Libertarian Christians” show up in Charlottesville, having announced that they plan to beat the shit out of anyone who thinks it’s OK to bake cakes for Church of Satan members, and maybe there will be something relevant to discuss.

  35. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “me: It should be as voluntary as possible while maintaining a semblance of domestic tranquility.”

    This also falls inline with my point about immigration. Declaring to the planet that the borders of the land territory of the USA are completely open, and that anyone could waltz in, no questions asked, under the current context in which we live, which includes a welfare state, mass democracy, forced association laws,
    and lots of government common spaces/infrastructure/services, would have disastrous results, which would cause a massive disruption to domestic tranquility.

    Does anyone out there really believe that 10’s of millions of people showing up here and just popping in with no questions asked, within a few years of the hypothetical “Open the Borders Act” being passed,
    would not cause a major disruption to the lives of people already here, especially given our present situation with all of the other factors in places that I mentioned above (welfare state, etc…)?

    Would this not lead to even more clashes between groups of people than we have now? Would this not lead to even more people draining public services/resources? Can you imagine how bad the traffic jams would be? Can you imagine how angry a lot of the existing population would be about this?

    The only way I could see something like an “Open the Borders Act” not causing a complete disaster would be if it was done as the final stage of a transition from a society with a state, to an anarcho-capitalist society, where government relinquished control over land and borders to private property owners.

    We are so far from achieving anything like this that discussing it is a far of hypothetical. Libertarians have not even demonstrated an ability to takeover a small city/town council, well not since Big Water, Utah, back in the 1980’s, and that did not last very long. The only example of a libertarian community is Porcfest in New Hampshire, and that only lasts for one week.

    So it is rather absurd for libertarians to suggest that it is a sound policy in our present conditions for the government to announce to the world that anyone can enter, no questions asked, when libertarians have failed to fix any other the other problems that we need to be fixed in order for such an immigration policy to not have disastrous results which would actually lead to more government, and to libertarians being marginalized to an even greater extent than we already are.

    I think that the real issue here is that a lot of libertarians are just lazy. Most libertarians won’t go out in the real world and do the hard work that needs to be done if they want to be successful. Rather than going out and actually ending the welfare state, or doing anything else that would create a society where it would even be possible for libertarians to enact a libertarian immigration policy, it is a lot easier to sit on a computer and pontificate about how government borders should not exist. The average libertarian spends more time typing messages online, or pontificating at their monthly supper club, where they preach to the choir, or debate among themselves, than they do engaging in any real world politics.

    Real world politics is hard work. It is a lot easier to just sit around spouting “radical” statements so you can feel good about yourself without having to actually do anything of substance.

  36. Andy

    Tony From Long Island said: “Please stop talking about things you do not understand. The overwhelming majority of MS-13 joined AFTER they were in the U.S. Before about three months ago, you probably had never even heard of MS-13.”

    I heard about MS-13 a long time ago.

    The question remains as to should any common criminal or gang of criminals, be able to just waltz in, no questions asked?

    The same goes for people with communicable diseases. If one thinks that it is a big imposition to have people screening for those with communicable diseases, and to keep these people out, at least as much as possible, then this means that people with Ebola or other deadly diseases could just waltz in with no questions asked.

    The same would go with Chinese tanks.

    This would be like if we were all sitting around a campfire in the woods somewhere, and there were some snakes coming toward where everyone was sitting around the campfire. Then I said, “Hey, there are some snakes coming are way. We ought to do something about this.” but then somebody else piped in and said, “No dude, those snakes haven’t hurt anybody. They should have the right to share the warmth of the campfire too. Those snakes just want to seek a better life. What, are you some kind of anti-snake bigot? Chill out and share the love, bro.” Then several campers end up with snake bites, and people wonder why.

  37. paulie

    The question remains as to should any common criminal or gang of criminals, be able to just waltz in, no questions asked?

    Because the US regime is not the legitimate owner of the whole country, so it has no legitimate right to say who can come in and who can’t. Only legitimate property owners can say who is trespassing and who isn’t, and only on property that they personally or jointly legitimately own. You know this answer, because it has been given to you countless times. Yet you keep asking the same stupid question.

  38. paulie

    “How is it not libertarian to say that a person infected with Ebola or some other deadly disease should not be able to cross into the land territory known as the USA, because that person poses a risk to health?”

    Well, it wouldn’t be unlibertarian for the owner of the particular piece of property in question to forbid that person to cross onto his land.

    “The land territory known as the USA” has no specific owner. Some pieces of it are privately owned, and the rest are being squatted on and withheld from homesteading by a criminal gang whose diktats/turf claims no one, including that Ebola patient, has any obligation whatsoever to obey/respect.

    Exactly. And none of this should be new to Andy.

  39. Tony From Long Island

    Andy

    The same would go with Chinese tanks.

    Let me know when one comes rolling into El Paso, and then we’ll talk.

    Your hypotheticals are just as delusional as your reality.

  40. Anthony Dlugos

    wow. he sounds mentally unhinged.

    Did Hitler or Mussolini cry when they didn’t get their way?

    Very sad what’s become of Nazis these days.

  41. Anthony Dlugos

    Robert C,

    “This is why I’m not surprised that NAPsters like Cantwell and Invictus have moved on from being L extremists to alt-right extremists. They apparently resonate first and foremost with extremism, which vociferously oversimplifies the human condition, demanding the world bend to their twisted worldviews. I would not be surprised that they have some deep-seated emotional wound that such extremist acting out somehow temporarily alleviates. Being L was quite extreme enough for them, so they go where the action is more “thrilling.”

    100% agreement.

  42. Mark

    Invictus did not devolve from L to altreich. He was a card carrying member of the National Socialist Movement (nsm88.org) when he lived in Chicago, years before he was ever in the LP. His entry into the LP was calculated, because the party was big enough to give him a substantial platform but small enough that he did not become an insignificant blip in it when he declared himself a candidate for it Senatorial nomination as he would have in the Republican Party. He temporarily tailored some of his rhetoric to be libertarian, but only in some settings and not others, and not on all issues.

    It’s hard to say whether Cantwell just kept his now overt racism under wraps until recently or has in fact devolved in that direction. He always thrived on being shocking, so it’s not all that surprising that he went that route.

  43. Chuck Moulton

    Andy,

    I agree with you that individuals and businesses should be able to freely associate (and not associate — i.e., discriminate) with anyone they want.

    It does not follow that government should therefore be allowed to discriminate. Your assumption that government owns all the land in the United States and can therefore discriminate like a private landowner is deeply flawed.

    People have repeatedly corrected you on this point. As before, I am forced to conclude that either 1) you can’t read, 2) you are purposely ignoring rebuttals so you can remain ignorant, or 3) you are too stupid to digest facts and logic. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume (2)… i.e., that you are trolling.

  44. dL

    “This is why I’m not surprised that NAPsters like Cantwell and Invictus have moved on from being L extremists to alt-right extremists. They apparently resonate first and foremost with extremism, which vociferously oversimplifies the human condition, demanding the world bend to their twisted worldviews.

    School boy guilt by association argument that would flunk Freshmen Philosophy 101

  45. dL

    Libertarians are like “its all because of gov’t bureaucrats.”

    That’s not my position. I also categorically reject the proposition that anti-state radicalism and white nationalism share the same mentality. Total guilt by association BS.

  46. dL

    Let me know when a bunch of “Libertarian Christians” show up in Charlottesville, having announced that they plan to beat the shit out of anyone who thinks it’s OK to bake cakes for Church of Satan members, and maybe there will be something relevant to discuss.

    Allow me to further add that discovering a bunch of Church of Satan members going around demanding Christian fundies bake them a cake will be the first time that has happened 🙂

    #hailSatan

  47. Anthony Dlugos

    “His (Invictus) entry into the LP was calculated, because the party was big enough to give him a substantial platform but small enough that he did not become an insignificant blip in it when he declared himself a candidate for it Senatorial nomination as he would have in the Republican Party. He temporarily tailored some of his rhetoric to be libertarian, but only in some settings and not others, and not on all issues.”

    I don’t know the man or anything more than some general details of the Florida situation, but this strikes me as the most likely explanation.

    I’ll also add that, in his fare thee well speech, he made it a point to say that we should have nominated Petersen and Sharpe, and no I don’t think that is for philosophical reasons.

  48. robert capozzi

    dL: School boy guilt by association argument that would flunk Freshmen Philosophy 101

    aj: Interactions between humans should ideally be 100% on a voluntary basis. If you agree with this, than you have to acknowledge that people make discriminatory decisions in their lives on a regular basis. Who they associate with, who they do business with, who they sit by on a bus, who they invite into their home, etc…

    me: I believe there is much confusion around the concept of “guilt by association.” There are at least 2 forms of GbA: Legal and political. I’m probably with both of you in the legal sense: if dL’s brother is a bank robber, legally I would oppose the idea that dL is a criminal like his brother.

    Politically, however, if Andy is a notable L activist, and he’s photographed at a Richard Spencer speech, it’s an association that reflects poorly on Andy and, by inference, the entire LM if he is publicly identified as a L activist.

    Similarly, if anyone does research on Cantwell, anyone can see that he’s a long time L, prominent NAP promoter, and a former L candidate for office.

    He’s now on tape spewing hate in the VICE documentary on C’ville. That can’t be taken back, sadly.

    This is all politically quite bad for Ls. He may be more damaging than Timothy McVeigh was, who iirc voted Harry Browne and may have been an LP member.

    Gee, I’d think this would be non-controversial and a near-universal understanding, but somehow it’s not for NAPsters and dogmatic Ls. My theory about why so many Ls are blind to this sort of thing is this assumption that L-ism is “logic based,” and that everyone should be as logical as NAPsters are.

    While there are MANY logic flaws in NAPsterism, the even BIGGER flaw in this line of thinking is to assume that the human condition is (or even should be) 100% logical. This is an absurd assumption!

    Logic is an important tool, but it’s one of many tools we use to make our way through the world.

    It may well not be fair to associate McVeigh, Cantwell, and Invictus as representative of all of L-ism. I certainly don’t, but I see how and why it happens.

  49. Anthony Dlugos

    RCapozzi,

    Very good post.

    100% correct!
    “Gee, I’d think this would be non-controversial and a near-universal understanding, but somehow it’s not for NAPsters and dogmatic Ls. My theory about why so many Ls are blind to this sort of thing is this assumption that L-ism is “logic based,” and that everyone should be as logical as NAPsters are.

    While there are MANY logic flaws in NAPsterism, the even BIGGER flaw in this line of thinking is to assume that the human condition is (or even should be) 100% logical. This is an absurd assumption!

    Logic is an important tool, but it’s one of many tools we use to make our way through the world.”

  50. Anthony Dlugos

    You might even be underestimating the flaw. Some NAPsters seem to concede humans aren’t 100% logical, but that its the LP’s job to turn them into such logic machines…in the 3 or 4 months of a political campaign. Or to use political campaigns as hard target searches for such needle-in-a-haystack FORTRAN processors.

  51. robert capozzi

    ad,

    Great clarification.

    The impulse to convert is a powerful intoxicant. I even catch myself attempting to convert others to lessarchism, although it’s my practice, at least, to share ideas that I find more workable, but always open to another way of looking at things. I might even re-convert to NAPsterism if someone made a good enough argument for it.

  52. dL

    me: I believe there is much confusion around the concept of “guilt by association.” There are at least 2 forms of GbA: Legal and political. I’m probably with both of you in the legal sense: if dL’s brother is a bank robber, legally I would oppose the idea that dL is a criminal like his brother.

    They’re shouldn’t be any confusion. The logical fallacy of Guilt by association is of the form:

    X is a A
    X is also a B
    Therefore, all A’s are B’s.

    And the above form applies for any example, be it philosophical, legal, criminal, etc…

    Politically, however, if Andy is a notable L activist, and he’s photographed at a Richard Spencer speech, it’s an association that reflects poorly on Andy and, by inference, the entire LM if he is publicly identified as a L activist.

    If you want to make a bad optics argument, then I won’t disagree with you there. That is, the appearance of a tolerance for white supremacism can permanently ruin a reputation of a movement. On that matter, I unfortunately have to concur. But that was not the argument you were making above.

  53. dL

    You might even be underestimating the flaw. Some NAPsters seem to concede humans aren’t 100% logical, but that its the LP’s job to turn them into such logic machines…in the 3 or 4 months of a political campaign. Or to use political campaigns as hard target searches for such needle-in-a-haystack FORTRAN processors.

    My position is that libertarianism as a political economic critique is undoubtedly correct. However, libertarians themselves are no more wiser, moral or intelligent than anyone else. A world based on the libertarian ethic does not require Spock-like logical agency or Christ-like moral agency. It simply requires an agency capable of strategic thinking, i.e, an agency capable of playing games, which virtually all humans can do.

    That being said, empirically, it has hitherto been quite obvious that humans are mixed bag when it comes to liberty. In the academic literature one might describe this predicament as evolutionary biology getting in the way of rational game theory. It has been suggested before that libertarianism as a solution to a non-cooperative game is perhaps better suited for the AI bots.

  54. robert capozzi

    dL: On that matter, I unfortunately have to concur. But that was not the argument you were making above.

    me: Glad we agree on something so obvious.

    My “argument” that you quoted at 16:16 was a hypothesis that Cantwell and Invictus seem drawn more to angry extremism than to the ideas of either liberty or white separatism. Their apparent emotional imbalance was once quelled by the simplicity of the NAPster worldview, but — I speculate — the allure of angry hatred made another form of extremism more attractive to them.

    dL: X is a A
    X is also a B
    Therefore, all A’s are B’s.

    me: This REALLY oversimplifies. Making it more concrete, this may illustrate

    Woods is a NAPster.
    Woods is a civil war revisionist.

    I would NOT say All NAPsters are civil war revisionists. Many are not.

    Nor would I say:

    Woods is a civil war revisionist.
    Duke is, too.

    I would not say Woods is a white separatist just like Duke is

    What I WOULD say is: It’s a real bad idea from an optical perspective for a public libertarian intellectual like Woods to promote ideas similar to Duke’s on the Civil War because others will easily associate Woods and libertarians with the odious, hateful ideas of Duke’s.

    This is also not to say that all revisionism is incorrect. Indeed, there is much truth in revisionism. I don’t buy the Big Picture they offer, but that doesn’t mean that the revisionist perspective lacks all merit.

    I do question the motives of the revisionists, and I definitely question their disproportionate interest in ancient history.

  55. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “What I WOULD say is: It’s a real bad idea from an optical perspective for a public libertarian intellectual like Woods to promote ideas similar to Duke’s on the Civil War because others will easily associate Woods and libertarians with the odious, hateful ideas of Duke’s.”

    Robert, I have posted this here in the past. I hope that you will watch it and pay closer attention this time.

    Ron Paul did pretty well on explaining his view on the Civil War on black comedian DL Hughley’s show.

    Ron Paul: Civil War Didn’t Need To Be Fought–Could Have “Just Bought The Slaves & Freed The Slaves”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CigdTwwO7-I

  56. dL

    me: This REALLY oversimplifies.

    It was not an oversimplification. It was the general form of the fallacy.

    Making it more concrete, this may illustrate

    Well, the specifics of your original comment did not pertain to an associative fallacy re: civil war revisionism. It was more like this:

    X is a libertarian extremist(i.e, anarchist, NAPster, agorist etc)
    X is also a white supremacist
    All libertarian extremists are prone to forms of violent extremism.

    A softer version of something that was recently published at The Niskanen Center that made an accusation that all anti-staters are driven by hate that will eventually convert to violent racial hatred.

    What I WOULD say is: It’s a real bad idea from an optical perspective for a public libertarian intellectual like Woods to promote ideas similar to Duke’s on the Civil War because others will easily associate Woods and libertarians with the odious, hateful ideas of Duke’s.

    The problem w/ Woods is not his not his civil war revisionism which may or not be in line w/ Duke(I’ve no idea, I’m not a Woods scholar). He would rightly fire back “guilt by association.” And civil war revisionism itself in isolation is not enough to convict an entire movement. The problem w/ Woods is his very public association w/ Hans Hoppe who has written things no Mises fellow would dare try to defend in a neutral public forum. There’s an easy pattern to to deconstruct here that I’m pretty sure is likely going to be brought to light in the mainstream press(b/c of Charlottesville) in a broad implication a la the RP Newsletters circa 2008.

  57. Starchild

    Andy writes (August 16, 2017 at 12:02), in part, “Part of the rationale behind libertarianism is that people should be free to make their own choices in life, so long as they are not initiating acts of violence, theft, or destruction of property, which means being able to voluntarily associate, or not associate, with whoever they want, for whatever reason.”

    Well said, Andy. And this is precisely the reason why government border controls are un-libertarian and wrong – people peacefully crossing national borders are not initiating acts of violence, theft, or destruction of property, which means that they should be free to voluntarily associate with people living in the political jurisdiction to which they are seeking to emigrate, and people in that political jurisdiction should be free to voluntarily associate with them.

  58. Starchild

    Paulie writes (August 16, 2017 at 09:23), in part, “I’m not fond of classifying people as winners and losers, and I try to hate bad ideas and actions rather than individual people…”

    Same here. Besides being an irrelevant ad hominem attack, the problem with calling people “losers” is that treating losing as somehow shameful or worthy of insult promotes the idea that there is something positive, in and of itself, about winning. Defending winning as a free-standing value is an amoral philosophy that amounts to being an apologist for the powerful when they oppress the weak (“might makes right”). That fascist value may be held by morally stunted individuals like Donald Trump, but people who care about liberty and justice for all reject it.

  59. Starchild

    Robert Capozzi writes (August 16, 2017 at 06:50), “(Human interaction) should be as voluntary as possible while maintaining a semblance of domestic tranquility.”

    Because “domestic tranquility” is somehow improved by coercion? I guess there’s an argument to be made for that. My understanding is that there was relatively little petty crime in places like the Soviet Union, for instance – criminally-minded people there having plenty of opportunity to legally commit bigger crimes in the employ of the State.

    But those who put tranquility above liberty risk achieving the ultimate tranquility of the grave, when the tyrants they empower do what tyrants habitually do, namely commit mass murder.

  60. Starchild

    Using misguided individuals like Augustus Invictus and Chris Cantwell to attack extremism is fallacious. It’s like pointing to someone who falls in love with a cruel, hateful individual after previously being in love with a good, kind person, as evidence that falling in love is inherently bad.*

    Seeking radical change is not the problem. Seeking radical change in bad directions by promoting anti-freedom philosophies like racism and nationalism is the problem.

    *I’m not saying this is an exact analogy with regard to the two named persons; I suspect Mark is correct (August 16, 2017 at 15:54) that any libertarian tendencies Invictus may possess took a back seat to his white supremacist views from the get-go. Not sure about Cantwell.

  61. Starchild

    I’m also not comfortable with using the terms “revisionism” and “revisionist” as some kind of slur. Sometimes the conventional understanding of historical episodes is inaccurate and in need of reconsideration.

  62. robert capozzi

    dL: All libertarian extremists are prone to forms of violent extremism.

    me: Hmm. Help me understand how “I’m not surprised” becomes “all L extremists are prone….” in your mind.

    It sounds like you are hyper-defensive on this matter, leaping to conclusions that are not there.

    dL: And civil war revisionism itself in isolation is not enough to convict an entire movement.

    me: Again I point to the difference between LEGAL GbA and POLITICAL GbA. There’s no “convicting” here.

    It’s a question of optics. And amplitude. By this, I mean that not only have the Woods and the LvMI crowd taken stark and polemical stances on the Civil War. At times, they seem obsessed with the subject.

    I can certainly imagine that neutral parties curious about L-ism might find this a bizarre fixation. Don’t you?

    I certainly do.

    It’s somewhat interesting to expose historical myths. Fighting the Civil War all over again, however, seems really strange and even unhinged. Sharing this obsession with white separatists makes this even more questionable from the perspective of how they exercise judgment and discernment.

    The darker associations with Hoppe, North, the RP1 NewsletterGate, the Stormfront support are not LEGAL proof that there are outright haters in the L Tent, but it does call for scrutiny and the willingness to disassociate quickly and forcefully, as Benedict and Sarwark have in my judgment correctly done.

    Associating with Haters does not work on any level. Don’t you agree?

  63. Anthony Dlugos

    “Seeking radical change is not the problem. Seeking radical change in bad directions by promoting anti-freedom philosophies like racism and nationalism is the problem.”

    Just to clarify, I don’t think radical libertarians intentionally tend to draw in the lunatic fringe. As Robert C pointed out, the radical tendency is to wrongly assume everyone can think in a 100% logical fashion, ending up at Libertarianism.

    I think extremists just see a party advocating extreme change of any kind and think either, “that’s my kind of people” or “that’s a platform I can easily co-opt for my own nefarious purposes.

  64. paulie

    the radical tendency is to wrongly assume everyone can think in a 100% logical fashion, ending up at Libertarianism.

    Some radicals may think. I don’t.

    I think extremists just see a party advocating extreme change of any kind and think either, “that’s my kind of people” or “that’s a platform I can easily co-opt for my own nefarious purposes.

    Unfortunately that does happen.

  65. paulie

    My understanding is that there was relatively little petty crime in places like the Soviet Union

    There was plenty of domestic violence and rape. Stealing at work was so commonplace that people like my parents were considered weird if they didn’t do it. There was probably not very much pickpocketing – everyone made pretty much the same crappy salaries. It’s hard to say how much crime there really was because it was not reported in the news the way it is in say the US or Europe today. It certainly felt safe when I was a kid there, but if it wasn’t for the influence of violence in the news and movies etc in the US when I moved here it probably would have felt just as safe at that age. The outlawing of normal commerce spawned a mentality in people that what is legal and what isn’t does not matter, which has carried over into the present, creating a gangster economy that eventually spawned a more or less openly gangster regime.

  66. robert capozzi

    ad: …the radical tendency is to wrongly assume everyone can think in a 100% logical fashion, ending up at Libertarianism.

    me: I am so bold as to say that NAPsters themselves don’t and can’t think 100% logically. They have set themselves up for failure with this construct of theirs.

    Logic itself is emotional! That’s because humans are at root emotional. We learn logic and are trained that it is true. We accept it emotionally, and that acceptance is reinforced through repeatedly experiencing that for many aspects of our lives, logic works. And that’s great.

    Many NAPsters unfortunately use flawed logic to say that if logic works in simple, mechanical matters, it should work for all aspects of the human condition. On reflection, we can see that this is a leap of faith, a curiously illogical one at that!

    The aperture of the NAPster lens is profoundly narrow, missing the forest for (not the trees, but) a single tree.

  67. robert capozzi

    Starchild: Using misguided individuals like Augustus Invictus and Chris Cantwell to attack extremism is fallacious.

    me: It doesn’t seem like a fallacy to me. Both were L extremists. Both are now white separatist extremists. Not all L extremists become white separatists, however.

    There has, however, been a tendency among the more extremist NAPster Ls to gravitate toward what’s now been labeled the alt-right. This is nothing new. Many of the early Ls in the 60s and 70s were coming from JBS-type roots, for ex.

    Here’s a way to think about it: If one is going to be an extremist, there is a MUCH smaller margin for error. Taking extremist positions require a much higher bar for proof. Sagan’s ” “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is wise counsel.

    I invite you to listen to some of Alex Jones’s rants. He often makes extraordinary claims. He often says he has proof; he says it with great conviction. And, open minded as I am, I listen for the proof and almost always hear snippets of factoids and innuendo.

    I generalize, but in my experience, extremists of various stripes often behave in a similar manner.

    Donald Trump may well be a Russian agent. Barack Obama may well be a CIA Manchurian candidate. Etc.

    I’ve not heard the extraordinary evidence for these and other wild claims. Not surprisingly, my skepticism increases about most of the statements made by those who make extremist statements that are largely unsubstantiated.

  68. paulie

    It was the weight lifting jab Paulie that brought it on.

    Christopher says that he is training himself for battle in the streets in defense of the white race in a global race war. But the mundane reality is more likely to be that he is training himself for some hard time behind bars if he keeps following the path he is on. That’s not really a jab; prison rape is a horrible thing and by no means something to make light of. On the other hand, it’s also a fact that there is a lot of consensual sex, most of it between men who are exclusively or primarily identified as straight, within prisons. It’s also a fact that there is a large gay underground in the nominally homophobic white supremacist movement. And, it’s a fact that there is a gay subculture in bodybuilding. None of that is meant to imply in any way that all or most or even a substantial minority of bodybuilders are gay, or nazis, or gay nazis on the downlow who are going to end up having lots of homosexual intercourse – consensual or otherwise – in prison. That would be absurd. But, in the particular case of Christopher Cantwell, while I have no idea whether any of those apply, I would not be surprised if they do.

  69. robert capozzi

    Pf, yes.

    Are you kidding, or do you have extraordinary evidence that DJT is a Russian agent?

    Was Obama a CIA plant, too?

  70. paulie

    Are you kidding, or do you have extraordinary evidence that DJT is a Russian agent?

    Of course. There’s so much of it, I have a hard time believing anyone still has any doubts.

    Was Obama a CIA plant, too?

    Dunno. But Trump is a FSB plant, 100% guaranteed.

  71. robert capozzi

    PF, given your generally sober approach, I have to believe you are pulling my chain.

    If it’s guaranteed, then you’d think he’s already be hung for treason!

    Was he recruited on the mean streets of Queens? Perhaps they got to him at Wharton? When was he compromised?

  72. paulie

    PF, given your generally sober approach, I have to believe you are pulling my chain.

    Nope.

    If it’s guaranteed, then you’d think he’s already be hung for treason!

    It’s taking its time to work through the legal system. We’ll see if he ends up being able to get away with pardoning himself, which he has threatened to do.

    Was he recruited on the mean streets of Queens? Perhaps they got to him at Wharton? When was he compromised?

    There are indications going back to the 1980s. As you might expect with him, greed, vanity and blackmail were all compromising factors.

  73. Tony From Long Island

    Wasn’t the discrimination lawsuit against him from the 70’s? His father taught him well!

  74. Paul

    Yes. It was brought back up again later when Donald Trump was in charge of the company even though his father still technically owned it as he had not yet died. There are many other indications of his racism ranging from his ordering black employees off the casino floor when he was visiting, to his vendetta against the wrongly accused Central Park five, to his birtherism and his insistence that a judge must be biased because he is Mexican-American, to the disgraceful bigotry-laced presidential campaign and administration.

    And of course, he has always had a slavish devotion to his father, who besides the persistent rental discrimination was also unmasked as a Klansman at a street brawl in NYC decades earlier. But we were talking about his involvement with Russian interests here, not his racism – although, the two are now linked, by way of the Putin regime’s promotion of racist, fascist and nationalist movements in Europe, the US, and globally.

  75. dL

    me: Hmm. Help me understand how “I’m not surprised” becomes “all L extremists are prone….” in your mind.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

    It sounds like you are hyper-defensive on this matter, leaping to conclusions that are not there.

    it sounds like you are slightly annoyed having to yet once again bust up my own insinuated conclusion leaps

  76. JamesT

    It worked in American History X. Given Cantwell’s crazy personality I wouldn’t be surprised if post-prison he ends being like a crazy antifa or something.

  77. robert capozzi

    dL,

    Not annoyed, but frustrated by your frequent deflections, in truth. Personally, for me truth is all. That you refuse to engage leaves me no choice to assume you are deflecting on purpose.

    pf,

    I certainly see that it’s possible that DJT is compromised. It’s your 100% certainty that has me curious. Do you have some inside information. Have you been hanging out at Mar-a-lago? Perhaps caddying at Bedminster?

  78. paulie

    No, only public sources. It’s way too much for me to try to type up though. However, the pattern is so blatantly obvious that I’m surprised how anyone who has spent any serious time on it has any doubts. It may not be legally proven, at least yet, but it’s pretty damn obvious.

  79. Pingback: Former Libertarian, now fascist, Christopher Cantwell gathers national attention | Independent Political Report

  80. dL

    Not annoyed, but frustrated by your frequent deflections, in truth. Personally, for me truth is all. That you refuse to engage leaves me no choice to assume you are deflecting on purpose.

    lol, Bob. When you write something like:

    Hmm. Help me understand how “I’m not surprised” becomes “all L extremists are prone….” in your mind

    I note this is what you actually wrote:

    Yes! This is why I’m not surprised that NAPsters like Cantwell and Invictus have moved on from being L extremists to alt-right extremists. They apparently resonate first and foremost with extremism, which vociferously oversimplifies the human condition, demanding the world bend to their twisted worldviews.

    If you fail to see how that above statement can’t be simplified to
    L extremists are prone…

    Then I merely provided a handy link to the Free Dictionary to brush up on your language skills. Not deflection. More like a helping a brother out…

  81. dL

    Of course. There’s so much of it, I have a hard time believing anyone still has any doubts.

    Trump is a Russian intel plant? Yeah, I have doubts…

  82. robert capozzi

    dL, to play your dictionary game:

    “PRONE: likely to or liable to suffer from, do, or experience something, typically something regrettable or unwelcome.”

    “Likely” to me means certainly more than half the time. “Not surprised” to me means maybe 5-10%, maybe less.

    I trust that clears the matter up?

  83. paulie

    Trump is a Russian intel plant? Yeah, I have doubts…

    I don’t feel like arguing about it. Too much typing. But the evidence for active, ongoing collusion is overwhelming and continues to mount. Trump personally, and many of his top aides, all involved with the Putin gang. Before, during and after the election. Going back years and even decades with some of them, including Trump himself. There’s circumstantial evidence of payoffs to Trump, actual evidence of payoff to Manafort, reasons to suspect that Putin has blackmail info on Trump and several others in his circle, and it’s already public record that Trump has been manipulated with flattery by Putin.

    I don’t know why some people are so determined to not see Putin’s hand up Trump’s ass to the elbow when Trump’s lips move; it seems like that would be a hard thing to miss, but I have better things to do than write a book to try to prove it. And it’s not the sort of thing that lends itself easily to quick discussion. Like 9/11 or the JFK assassination, some people will spend a lot of time arguing about it, but I won’t. The policy implications are the same regardless, so there are better things to talk about.

  84. robert capozzi

    paulie August 17, 2017 at 09:37: 100% guaranteed.

    pf just now: … *circumstantial* evidence of payoffs to Trump, … *reasons to suspect* that Putin has blackmail info on Trump…

    me: Do you care to amend “100% guaranteed”? It’s one thing to say “it sure is looking more and more likely that Trump is a Putin puppet,” another to say “100% guaranteed,” yes?

    I’m certainly not in any way defending Trump. I’d love to see him out, although I’m not sure Pence would be much of an improvement, and in some ways he could be more destructive than Trump has been.

    I am defending the truth and the presumption of innocence, and it appears to me, PF, that you do not. The extremist mindset has a tendency to catastrophize, in my experience.

  85. paulie

    Do you care to amend “100% guaranteed”?

    No. There are way too many different, separate indicators for it to all be coincidence. Again, I don’t want to spend a bunch of time going over what all they are.

    I’d love to see him out, although I’m not sure Pence would be much of an improvement, and in some ways he could be more destructive than Trump has been.

    Agreed, Pence has his own set of problems. He may also well be involved in at least the coverup so theoretically he could be out too.

    presumption of innocence

    I’m not a juror, judge, prosecutor or defense attorney in some formal court proceeding, we are speaking informally and colloquially here.

  86. dL

    I don’t feel like arguing about it.

    I gave no indication that I was looking for an argument on the topic.

  87. dL

    “Likely” to me means certainly more than half the time. “Not surprised” to me means maybe 5-10%, maybe less.

    Glad you cleared that up, Bob…

    Given a correlation that may or may not be above 5% between libertarian extremism and other forms of extremism, I’m not surprised that NAPsters like Cantwell and Invictus have moved on from being L extremists to alt-right extremists. They apparently resonate first and foremost with extremism, which vociferously oversimplifies the human condition, demanding the world bend to their twisted worldviews.

  88. robert capozzi

    dL,

    You’re welcome.

    Cantwell and Invictus are not the first NAPster extremists to go alt-right. Recall Bob Wallace, LewRockwell.com poster, did so, too, iirc. We’ve had RP1’s NewsletterGate, where haters infused hate-messaging in with a L message. It’s outlier behavior, not the norm, but not uncommon and — unfortunately — it’s all too often done with a high profile.

    Extremism is different from radicalism, as I see it. Radicalism is a dispassionate, open-minded search for truth. Extremism is emotionally charged, and generally involves a closed mind advocating extreme changes to the social order. Being off balance, the extremist does seem more likely than the radical to lurch violently in another direction.

  89. paulie

    All the national LP is doing is asking people to resign. If they were really serious about this, they’d be kicking people out.

    That’s not allowed under the current bylaws. As for whether we should go there, I can easily see a LP inquisition to determine who is or isn’t serious about their membership oath spinning out of control. From my reading of history, parties that have gone down this route have not done well in the long run. We talk about “purges” in the LP all the time, but in reality those consist of people purging themselves as they come to feel unwelcome. Literal purges would be a whole different thing.

  90. Pingback: Paul Frankel: Why Libertarians need to denounce the Alt Right and white nationalists and don’t need to worry about libertarian socialists and antifa | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply

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