A few months ago, LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra stirred controversy with his remarks about the military (see Arvin Vohra: ‘An Open Letter to Current and Former Members of the U.S. Military (Please forward to any who may be interested)’ and Vohra responds to criticism again, as well as here, here, here, and here.) At the time, some members of the party including one or more member(s) of the LNC called for his removal from party leadership. Vohra has continued to stir controversy with sharp statements about government schools, welfare, and other topics, but the outrage has now reached a new level as he has delved headfirst into the controversial topics of age of consent laws and potentially other laws regulating who is allowed to have sex with whom and under what circumstances.
Here are a few examples of what Arvin Vohra has been posting on facebook about these issues in the last few days:
And, in part:
The laws have not succeeding in protecting society from the consequences of not-ready-sex. There is more to sex than emotional readiness. Financial readiness also matters. If you can afford neither birth control nor educational expenses, you aren’t financially ready for sex. Today’s government funded culture, which views age as the sole factor in readiness, leads to a massive welfare state. 90 percent of parents use government (welfare) schools, as living proof that they were not financially ready for sex. Millions of others use food stamps and welfare checks, more proof that they were not ready for sex.
Responses have poured in from around the country such as this one from Washoe County Libertarian Party, via Comstock Libertarians:
David Colborne shared Washoe County Libertarian Party’s post.
Leadership is ultimately accountable to the membership. Love us or hate us, support us or oppose us, but don’t think you can do nothing.
Washoe County Libertarian Party
In light of recent unfortunate comments by a specific member of the Libertarian National Committee, now is a good time to explain how to hold the leaders within the LP accountable.
If you have an issue with county LP leadership, or are interested in becoming part of the team, come to our county convention in Reno at the end of January:
http://washoe.lpnevada.org/2018_county_conventionIf you have an issue with state LP leadership, or are interested in becoming part of the team, come to our state convention in Las Vegas at the beginning of March:
http://www.lpnevada.org/2018_state_conventionFinally, if you have an issue with national leadership, especially a very particularly tactless individual, or are interested in becoming part of the team, come to the national convention in New Orleans at the end of June:
https://libertarianconvention.org/See you soon!
Sincerely,
David Colborne
Chairman, Washoe County Libertarian Party
Vice-Chair, Libertarian Party of Nevada
And Trent Somes III / Libertarian Youth Caucus:
Libertarian Youth Caucus
January 11 at 8:47pm ·
Our statement on Arvin Vohra’s recent comments:“Good evening. My name is Trent Somes. I’m the National Chairman of the Libertarian Youth Caucus. The Board of Directors has asked me to make the following statement on behalf of the organization:
As the largest youth organization within the party, the Libertarian Youth Caucus formally condemns the comments made by the LNC vice chairman, Arvin Vohra. After alienating trans people, low income individuals, public school teachers, and members of our country’s military over the past few months, his most recent posts to social media give legitimacy to pedophiles and their apologists. Mr. Vohra’s comments demonstrate that he is a poor representative for the Libertarian Party and its guiding ideals of both individual freedom and personal responsibility. Therefore, the Libertarian Youth Caucus calls for his immediate resignation as Vice Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee.”
And, of course, the controversy has reached the LNC list itself. The messages about this are by no means done at this time, and may well just be starting, but here’s what’s been posted about it on the LNC so far:
- Open Letter to Arvin Caryn Ann Harlos
- Responsible Leadership / Re: Arvin Vohra / Re: Suspend Arvin / Re: Arvin Vohra Starchild
- Arvin Vorha’s Latest Comments Starchild
- Open Letter to Arvin
Joshua Katz - Age of Consent and Statutory Rape. WTF. Caryn Ann Harlos Includes remarks of recently resigned LNC alternate Ken Moellman
- Formal Complaint Against Mr. Arvin Vohra, Vice Chairman, per LNC Policy Manual Section 2.01 Subsection 4 Offensive Behavior Prohibition and Request for Removal as Vice Chair of the LNC Caryn Ann Harlos
- Consent Arvin Vohra
- Consent Caryn Ann Harlos
- Consent Daniel Hayes
- Consent Daniel Hayes
- Age of Consent and Statutory Rape. WTF. Caryn Ann Harlos
- Consent Caryn Ann Harlos
- Movement solidarity
Starchild - Consent Joshua Katz
- Age of Consent and Statutory Rape. WTF. Patrick McKnight
- Age of Consent and Statutory Rape. WTF. Elizabeth Van Horn
- Age of Consent and Statutory Rape. WTF. Caryn Ann Harlos
- Age of Consent and Statutory Rape. WTF. Caryn Ann Harlos
- Question for Arvin
Caryn Ann Harlos - Age of Consent and Statutory Rape. WTF. Elizabeth Van Horn
That’s it as of this time, but stay tuned for further developments.
Caryn Ann Harlos writes:
—–
Now that you have those of us who are regional representatives having to
spend our long weekend on your exhibition rather than our families – I have
a question.
If X number of states ask you to resign, will you? And what is that number?
Or would a no confidence statement from the affiliates mean nothing?
—–
I would be interested in seeing a public petition asking Arvin to resign. That way I have a handy list of people who will never, ever, ever get my support for any party office again.
Nobody made you spend your weekend on this petty-ass bullshit, Caryn Ann. You decided to do that. Shame on you.
How about Women for LP Chair and Vice Chair? I’m SO sick of guys fighting for and vs. the current male ones. And I do think two terms enough for both of them anyway.
(Note: IMHO pink hair should be a disqualifier since it will start the same nutty disputes as the current ones.)
Start thinking about it, women!!
It really is frustrating to see so many “libertarians” freaking out over a Libertarian saying libertarian shit. Even supposed radicals are acting as though he has done something wrong. What is the point of this whole thing if we can’t even say age of consent laws are anti-liberty?
On the other hand, does anyone outside of Libertarian Party Facebook groups give a shit? I’m gonna guess that the answer is no. I guess I can take a little comfort in that.
Not surprised, no coverage of the elected Miami-Dade Libertarian and Augustus Invictus supporter making similar comments:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10211475654351638&id=1371765339
Tom, my Region wished me to and my duty is to them and what I think is their best interest and my own convictions.
You don’t agree. Understood.
But I stand in front of my own mirror.
For some it is an inability to soberly assess the real libertarian issues with age of consent laws (which do nothing to protect adults who cannot consent like my mentally disabled aunt). It is not for me. It is the utter lack of judgment, clarity, nuance, responsibility, and utter tone deafness. I don’t support mandatory and arbitrary collectivist age of consent laws. I don’t support that many young men have had their lives wrecked and are permanently on sex offender registries (I don’t support such registries at all). That isn’t the point.
Anyone trying to claim I am a “radical” (their use of scare quotes not mine) that is only one until it is time to say radical things is engaging in misrepresentation. One may disagree with my conclusions without smearing my stated rationale.
My state Chairs have been reaching out. I don’t think it is relevant to them that you think I should ignore their requests to their elected representative.
Here we have radicalism in full bloom.
Oh excuse me. “Libertarian” and “supposed radical.”
pfffttt
Good thing my identity isn’t dependent upon the ratification by others.
Doesn’t mention Arvin, but seems relevant:
Brian W. Ryman
January 13 at 4:18pm
Much of what the Libertarian philosophy entails is outrageous.
That is- it outrages the people with a vested interest in the status quo. It outrages the government employee who sees us as wanting to put him out of work. It outrages the welfare recipient who sees us as wanting to deprive him of needed sustenance. It outrages the corporatist who sees us as wanting to throw him to the wilds of competition through free trade. It outrages the citizens who recognize that a centralized defense can be a benefit to a nation. It outrages the people who see the state as the only protection from those who would steal, rape or murder.
We need to counter this outrage with understanding and deal with the underlying fears on which this outrage is based. We need to make clear that we don’t want anyone to be put out of work but desire that they have the opportunity to work in constructive fields that bring real social value. We need to show that we care for people and want them to receive their sustenance, not through being servile to an uncaring state, but as beneficiaries of a thriving free market with its opportunities and with its bountiful un-coerced charity. We need to show that we encourage entrepreneurship and will lessen the state’s burdens to enable more businesses to thrive. We need to show how a military based on defense instead of international adventurism and interventionism will lessen conflict around the world and make us safer and more free. We need to show that the legal system should not be involved in victimless crimes and in relationships between consenting adults, but should focus on real crimes against persons and property.
Instead of doing what we need to do to counter this outrage with reason, some in our party have decided to feed off the the energy generated by emotions. They make more and more inflammatory statements and double down on outrage. They seem to think that showing a reserved, thoughtful approach is a compromise to our principles. They make their case by insulting others who disagree and label anyone in government or the military as a welfare whore. This is no way to win people over.
I urge people to consider how they present themselves- especially when they are presenting themselves as representatives of the party or the philosophy of libertarianism.
Libertarianism is more than outrageous. It is compassionate, caring, loving, giving and kind. Please don’t lose sight of our core values or beliefs.
I commented on this yesterday in the open thread. I thought it was very strange social conservative case for for abolishing age of consent laws, in that Arvin seemed to blame them for the spectre of premarital fornication. A ludicrous position. But one I would ordinarily laugh off without a second thought.
However, it appears even a social conservative case for eliminating age of consent is too much for a certain set within the LNC. Given that most social cons are now giving Trump a pass on paying hush money to porn stars–ostensibly signifying social cons no longer consider tail chasing extra-marital sex to be public business–it appears this LNC set is intent on making the LP the new home for a dwindling cadre of disenfranchised social cons who now find the GOP too liberal. LOL.
AV: Nor are age of consent succeeding in protecting either minors or society. Instead, they have created a bizarre culture that says “Teenagers fornicating is totally moral – let’s give them tax-funded condoms to encourage it.” Minors have not been protected from the consequences of too-early sex. Face it: if minors are not old enough to consent to sex, they aren’t old enough to consent to sex with each other. Morally and psychologically, not ready for sex means not ready for sex. An 11 year old who is not ready for sex is not “ready to have sex with 11 year olds.” He or she is mentally not ready for sex at all.
And before you say, “It’s not just about readiness, it’s about power differential LOL!!!”, please explain why you think it’s okay for two five year olds to have sex with each other. It’s not just about power. It is absolutely about readiness.
The laws have not succeeding in protecting society from the consequences of not-ready-sex. There is more to sex than emotional readiness. Financial readiness also matters. If you can afford neither birth control nor educational expenses, you aren’t financially ready for sex. Today’s government funded culture, which views age as the sole factor in readiness, leads to a massive welfare state. 90 percent of parents use government (welfare) schools, as living proof that they were not financially ready for sex. Millions of others use food stamps and welfare checks, more proof that they were not ready for sex.
Paulie: Arvin, 1. It’s a mix of both readiness and power differential 2. Not all sex is reproductive and not all children are or need to be raised by their birth parents 3. We need to demonstrate productive alternatives to government education (and government welfare), not poverty-shame everyone who ever uses anything including government schools as “not ready for sex” which makes us look ridiculous to use a mild term.
Not sure what Bryan’s point is, but if he was writing in reference to Vohra’s periodic delusional rants, it really doesn’t matter. If the party was of any consequence on the political scene, Arvin would have been tossed out on his ass long ago, and since the party is not of any consequence at this point, it doesn’t matter what he says.
AD,
I think his point stands on its own and independently of the existence of either the LP as such or Arvin Vohra as a person. They are just examples of what he addresses. I think his last two paragraphs sum up his point quite well.
Yes, because the standard behavior today for “serious and electable politicians” is porn star chasing white supremacism.
Here’s the biggest problem with Arvin’s dopey comments on age of consent laws, vis a vi the Libertarian PARTY: its not even close to the most pressing problem in any jurisdiction anywhere in this country, up to and including the ultimate jurisdiction of the federal government.
Hell, its not even close to the most pressing problem in any jurisdiction in the subset of policy problems regarding “sex crimes.”
Its “No Particular Orderism” on steroids, and a good way to demonstrate to 99.9999999% of the voters that as a political party you’re just not a serious option.
“Yes, because the standard behavior today for “serious and electable politicians” is porn star chasing white supremacism.”
White supremacism is not a fatal flaw for a candidate, nor is chasing porn stars.
Arguing that age of consent laws are nonsensical makes you a social pariah, and a dead duck in prison.
I personally wouldn’t engage in sexual behavior with a teenager, but, it’s been the norm a lot longer than it hasn’t been. Alleged civilization is what made it ‘wrong’. The same alleged civilization that believes in manifest destiny as a redeemable quality while butchering opponents, sometimes pre-emptively, using unfounded claims creating fear getting the follower monkeys on board.
Not that it makes any difference. The Libertarian Party doesn’t stand a snow balls chance in hell of acquiring power. So, why should people not express their beliefs? Is that not Libertarian? Even if a Libertarian was elected POTUS nothing would change other than a bully pulpit to espouse beliefs.
Everyone here would be much better served by ensuring you leave your space a little better than you found it by encouraging libertarian thought in basic education to those you have influence with. Sow seeds, some will bear fruit.
It’s taken several lifetimes to get where we are. Anyone with the tiniest bit of experience knows it takes longer to build something than it does to tear something down. So,let’s arbitrarily use US History as a starting point of building, then tearing down. Do any of you really believe it’s going to change in your life time? We got to where we are through incremental steps (seeds sown). The fruit is being borne as we live and breathe.
ANY abrupt change will be disastrous (catastrophic) it cannot be helped/changed which leaves incremental, sow seeds, they will bear fruit. That’s how we got to where we are.
Big government and little us – the ultimate power differential.
Libertarians should not be afraid to address controversial topics. I understand where some people are coming from with their outrage, but I do not think the LP should turn into a party where people are afraid to speak their mind, or to address issues of controversy from a libertarian perspective, including issues where Libertarians are divided.
How about removing LNC members for some of the other shenanigans I have seen go on over the years (I could go on with a list, but I do not feel like doing that much typing)? How about removing LNC members who unnecessarily funnel disproportionate amounts of donor money to non-libertarian mercenary petitioners, which kills LP field outreach, instead of putting together teams of actual libertarian Libertarians to represent the party to the public during ballot access drives?
I will say that libertarianism is about property rights and the Non-Aggression Principal, and that is it.
Is that because you were Boered of education?
“Andy
January 13, 2018 at 21:21
I will say that libertarianism is about property rights and the Non-Aggression Principal, and that is it.”
“Gina
January 13, 2018 at 21:31
Is that because you were Boered of education?”
I was typing on my phone, which has autocorrect, which actually leads to more errors, and I don’t really like typing on the phone in the first place.
Should read, “Principle” above.
Yes, you phoned it in and you got pun-ished for it. Educational boards are a common form of punishment administered by principals (with or without principles) to school aged children. I often had a hard time sitting through school myself, as I was bored of education and thus received the board of education at the hands of the principal. That, in turn, would make it even harder to sit through school the next day…
I’m going to go ahead and bet $69.14 that Arvin will not get another term as Vice Chair. Anyone want to take that bet? I’ll give 69:14 odds against another term for Vohra.
NAPsterism cannot accommodate the concepts of appropriate and inappropriate. It cannot calibrate. Therefore, it cannot do politics in any meaningful sense.
This is Exhibit A.
Personally, I would rather have a rep as a libertarian advocate than a white supremacist if I were to find myself in jail. You know, if I was concerned about my safety or the virginity of my asshole.
“…or the virginity of my asshole.”
So Arvin’s a virgin, you are saying?
I’m saying woe to Donald Trump’s electable jello azz if he ever found himself in jail…You know, if we are resorting to jailhouse warnings about what comes out of moving lips
I noticed some of those so outraged over this had a lot more trouble distancing themselves from, and in some cases went through great trouble to defend, associations with nazis.
Caryn Ann,
You write:
“My state Chairs have been reaching out. I don’t think it is relevant to them that you think I should ignore their requests to their elected representative.”
Oh, I don’t think you should ignore their requests. I think you should let them know that they’re acting like fucking idiots and should stop damaging the party by turning Facebook discussions among Libertarians into “OMG! What will the public that will never notice or care about this think? We must PURGE!” nonsense.
As their elected representative, you owe them honesty, not just obeisance.
Quoth AD:
“Here’s the biggest problem with Arvin’s dopey comments on age of consent laws, vis a vi the Libertarian PARTY: its not even close to the most pressing problem in any jurisdiction anywhere in this country, up to and including the ultimate jurisdiction of the federal government.”
Here’s the biggest problem with your notion of what’s the biggest problem:
Vohra is discussing libertarianism, with libertarians, in libertarian groups. He’s not describing it as “the most pressing problem in any jurisdiction anywhere in this country.”
Your “biggest problem” with Vohra isn’t a problem at all. To quote one of the greatest police officers of all movie-dom, “You give me that juris-my-diction crap, you can cram it up your ass.”
Luke,
You write:
“I’m going to go ahead and bet $69.14 that Arvin will not get another term as Vice Chair. Anyone want to take that bet? I’ll give 69:14 odds against another term for Vohra.”
No thanks. I’ve learned the hard way never to bet against an LP national convention doing fuck-stupid things.
From FB comments on this post
Libertarian Party Nihilist Caucus commented on Independent Political Report’s link.
Libertarian Party Nihilist Caucus
January 14 at 7:13am
He continues to push the Libertarian Party into the void…but it doesn’t matter.
“The laws have not succeeding in protecting society from the consequences of not-ready-sex” Actually, the legislation and funding, in one large city, supplying teenage girls via the public schools with Norplant implants (it’s a birth control agent) drastically reduced the teenage pregnancy rate.
It appeared to me that there was a much harsher attack by Vohra on parents who choose to send their children to public schools.
Having said this, the LNC has been presented, so far as I can tell, with a formal complaint asking that an LNC officer be suspended.
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:45 PM Merissa Hamilton wrote:
> *To: LNC Committee, Regional Representative Region 1 Caryn Ann Harlos,
> Chairman Nicholas Sarwark, and the Judicial Committee Chairman of the LNC*
>
> In reviewing the LNC Policy manual, it is clear Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra has violated LNC Policy Manual Section 2.01 Subsection 4. The Policy states that complaints against LNC Board Members should be brought to the LNC and Judicial Committee Chairman for review by the LNC. Please consider this
letter as my formal complaint of violation of LNC Policy Section 2.01 Subsection 4 by Vice Chairman Mr. Arvin Vohra.
>
Please review the attached letter for the specifics of my complaint against Mr. Vohra. Thank you in advance for your review, appropriate action and response.
>
> In Liberty,
> Merissa Hamilton, Libertarian Party Member
There is now a duty of the LNC to act. Of course, doing nothing is an action. With respect to “I have to ask my region” LNC members should consider if they did that before voting on the budget.
Hopefully matters are resolved before states start threatening to disaffiliate.
Any state affiliate that would threaten to disaffiliate over Facebook posts they don’t like, from an individual they elected and that they are free to un-elect six months from now, should be shown the door and begged to walk through (assuming their own leadership isn’t driven out and replaced by people who don’t mistakenly believe that whining about Facebook posts they don’t like is part of the job description).
As far as Caryn Ann’s Open Letter: She ends with these words:
I chose not to have children for a reason.
I’m pleased she was able to make that choice for herself. Too bad she spends so much time trying to deprive other women of that option.
There is nothing wrong with calling for somebody’s removal from office, or asking somebody to resign, if they did something to merit such action.
I do not think that Arvin did anything here to merit him being removed from office, or resigning. Age of consent has long been one of the most hotly debated topics in libertarian circles.
“There is nothing wrong with calling for somebody’s removal from office, or asking somebody to resign, if they did something to merit such action.”
Holy sh*t Andy just typed something that makes sense.
Jill,
Interesting claim. Any backing for it?
There is now an explicit motion to suspend Arvin Vohra as Vice Chair. That’s apparently based on a detailed letter from Merissa Hamilton, a letter that did not get forwarded. I will search for it.
The motion and cover letter, on the LP-Business email list, reads:
On Jan 14, 2018 4:52 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn wrote:
I make a motion to suspend Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws.
Three of the four state affiliate chairs in Region 3 are now backing this motion. I told Region 3 that I’d need at least 3/4 of the region in accord to make the motion to suspend Arvin. That percent was reached last night.
When I volunteered my time and energy to be a Regional Rep on the LNC, I didn’t do it under the circumstances of, “only if convenient”. I’m doing this because I care about giving a voice to the many LP members who are running for office, getting out the vote, and spending their hard-earned money working toward electing libertarians.
These are the people that make up the Libertarian Party. It is their voice that I represent.
So, it is with calm resolve that I make this motion.
—
Elizabeth Van Horn
LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
http://www.lpcaucus.org/
Knappies: See Caryn Ann wrote open letter llinked above. Last line: “I chose not to have children for a reason.” http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011317.html
Good Lord! Libertarians(?) who allegedly support individual rights having a problem in their “groups” because someone voiced an opinion? SMH….. so much for the Libertarian Party espousing freedom. LOL, and you wonder why there is a problem?
It seems to me Arvin was pretty normal before the brouhaha on his clumbsy statement on morality and soldiers. The fact that the alt-right created “LP Veteran Caucus” viciously came after him and even allowed a “joke” threat against him certainly didn’t help. See it here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10160051354235599&set=p.10160051354235599&type=3&theater
Evidently he’s remained quite pissed off every since, and why shouldn’t he when it’s pretty obvious some of the criticism was from people who don’t like Muslim/Sihks/Hindus/some-kinda-brown-furrener dissing the US military. It is pretty annoying, obviously, and he should practice self control on some of his rapid response posts and tweets.
But his behavior should not mask the fact that there are a lot of quasi libertarian conservatives trying to make the LP a more conservative party and they want to teacha lesson to anyone who disagrees with them – or rattles their altright and/or conservative cage too much.
You can see current LNC thread discussion here. http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/thread.html Some LNC members do so see it in part just partisan outrage from people who can’t deal with the implications of libertarian principles – especially when such discussion allegedly jeopardizes their delusions of grandeur about being a big fish in a growing party pond.
http://www.votevohra.com
Meanwhile, Vohra is running for US Senate in the same race as Chelsea/Bradley Manning, whose recent announcement received significant coverage. Vohra has a good website.
Carol,
Yes, I know what she wrote.
And I know what Jill asserted.
I was asking Jill if she had any basis for the assertion.
Thomas, it’s no secret that Caryn Ann is pro-life,. I guess my comment was catty and probably unnecessary, but I found the irony to be astounding.
I noticed that, too…
It’s the usual suspect cadre ensuring the LP remains a safe space for the next republican who will head the LP ticket.
“Jill Pyeatt
January 14, 2018 at 23:37
Thomas, it’s no secret that Caryn Ann is pro-life,. I guess my comment was catty and probably unnecessary, but I found the irony to be astounding.”
I don’t see how Caryn Ann’s comment in any way contradicted her pro-life position. Is abortion the only way that a woman can chose to not have kids? Unless a woman is raped, women have plenty of control over whether or not they have kids (without even bringing abortion into the equation).
Also, aren’t 51% of babies female? Is it pro-women’s rights to abort female fetuses?
Jill,
There’s a difference between holding a political or philosophical position and “spending so much time” (or any time at all) trying to make that position law or otherwise forcibly implement it.
I know that she’s written an article or three explaining her point of view on the subject, but I’m unaware that she spends much time bombing, or even marching in front of, clinics.
If she had time to do stuff like that above and beyond everything she does in the party, right down to carrying water for this ignorant time-wasting “OMG! Arvin Vohra said something I don’t like on Facebook! He must be removed!” nonsense — the only question about which is whether it’s an external or internal sabotage attempt — I’d be even more impressed with her
Sir Thomas: Oh you meant “Too bad she spends so much time trying to deprive other women of that option.”
Jill, you were NOT being catty. You were just reflecting your knowledge of some or all of the below. If I ever re-do Carol Moore.net into wordpress I’ll have to assign Harlos a whole expose page so I don’t have to search my memory for all the relevant details, some of which are below. Though at least I should do a FB article, though I hate to do it and leave out those precious screen shots that so titulate some male libertarians.
First, Harlos self-promotional styles makes some things she says even ONCE stand out in the memory for years as if she had bright pink hair. 😉
Second, the facts are that she started her LP career under her Christian pro-life advocacy name “Dee Dee Warrent” immediately trying to organize the removal of the abortion plank on the pro-life FB page. I mean the woman admitted in a radio interview she used to (effectively) troll other Christian women to get them to admit they had had abortions so she could make them feel as bad about it as she came to feel about her two abortions after someone trolled her to feel bad about it.
Third, there was 2015 article here which still is widely distributed among prohibitionists: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/08/caryn-ann-harlos-abortion-and-the-libertarian-conscience/
Fourth, there have been controversial debates all over FB and elsewhere about what she believes and her various versions of it which still leave many pro-choicers questioning her real agenda.
Fifth, she’s been on Platform Committees of CO LP, National LP, Radical Caucus. She now denies she’s promoting dumping the plank – or taking out the “keep the government out” language? But she doesn’t HAVE to promote any more, we ALL know she’s a flagrant anti-abortionist and those influenced her can just look at her face to know how to vote on that – any other issues?
Am I exaggerating her powers of manipulation and persuasion? Perhaps. But she’s obviously more politically adept than, say, poor ranting and raving Mr. Vohra.
Ok, I won’t play with Knapp’s name:
RE: “carrying water for this ignorant time-wasting “OMG! Arvin Vohra said something I don’t like on Facebook! ” Here’s another example. I mean it’s pure politics, since she also plays the “I’m not sure what to do card”
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011402.html
“An Oregon Libertarian has already rescinded his candidacy. No one member
has the right to FORCE others to be saddled with this, and that is
precisely what Arvin has done – removing consent and determination from our
candidates and peers.”
IMNSHO abortion ain’t good, but, the libertarian position should be; It ain’t anyone’s business except those involved and the gov’t should NOT be involved.
To paraphrase Harlos from my quote above: No one member has the right to FORCE others to be saddled with pink haired boobie flashers, and that is precisely what Harlso has done – removing consent and determination from our candidates and peers.”
The irony is so delicious…
Gosh, no one can say anything that exciting about me. Just that I’m a bad tempered, expose loving, wastrel… (I still haven’t written than 100 million best seller!!! sigh.)
Carol,
In other words, she has pink hair, you don’t like her, and you support an LP position of “keep the government out of investigating and prosecuting clinic bombings and doctor assassinations.”
Don’t freak out. Arvin has a “oped on this” coming out soon in https://71republic.com/
Here’s a rational – stupid meme-free – iteration of Arvin’s thoughts relevant to it:
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011437.html
I don’t see the issue here.
Overhauling – if not completely abolishing – Age of Consent laws is a discussion we’ve long had in the Libertarian Party. By creating – and enforcing – laws based on completely arbitrary criteria (in this case, how many revolutions an individual has been on this earth for), we rob the citizenry of self-ownership and personal responsibility. This is definitely a discussion we should have, and one we should not shy away from strictly because someone – somewhere – is going to conflate us wanting to open this dialogue (we do) with advocating pedophilia (we don’t.)
Speaking of self-ownership and personal responsibility, those that are objecting here I have to ask: are you objecting for your own sake, or because you are worried how others will perceive his fiery rhetoric? If the former, I respect your position and opinion. If the latter, isn’t it exactly this mentality – we must shield, protect, and insulate others from harm – that manifested in the very Nanny State we supposed wish to see abolished?
(BTW: I am no longer on FB, I am not affiliated with any groups or organizations within the LP, I neither hold nor desire a position within the LP/LNC, and I have zero intention of running for office — just in case you think I’m grandstanding for the sake of courting the vote.)
Thank you, Carol, you explained my reasoning well.
But, Thomas, where did this come from? ” you support an LP position of “keep the government out of investigating and prosecuting clinic bombings and doctor assassinations.”
I certainly don’t think the government should stay out of doctor murders and abortion clinic bombers. That’s the kind of pro-life activity that I’m the most afraid of.
“I certainly don’t think the government should stay out of doctor murders and abortion clinic bombers.”
That’s what the LP’s platform calls for .
“Overhauling – if not completely abolishing – Age of Consent laws is a discussion we’ve long had in the Libertarian Party.”
I know. Its pretty pathetic when the voters we’re supposed to be trying to appeal to clearly don’t consider it an issue of pressing concern, but we’re going to insist it is. Its almost like we don’t give a sh*t what voters think is important. Is it a wonder why we have a record of essentially total failure?
‘Speaking of self-ownership and personal responsibility, those that are objecting here I have to ask: are you objecting for your own sake, or because you are worried how others will perceive his fiery rhetoric?”
I’m objecting because Age of Consent laws and whether or not they should be abolished, abridged, or altered is not something the voters are concerned with in any jurisdiction in this country, up to and including the federal jurisdiction. What the Libertarian Party members think are important issues is irrelevant. What the voters think are important issues are.
“I am not affiliated with any groups or organizations within the LP, I neither hold nor desire a position within the LP/LNC, and I have zero intention of running for office…”
Good. You are not cut out for electoral politics. That’s not meant as an insult. Frankly, you probably feel that appealing to what the voters find important and providing viable libertarian solutions in those policy areas is beneath your intellect. I respect you for being introspective about that.
“…just in case you think I’m grandstanding for the sake of courting the vote.”
lol. Don’t worry. I don’t think anyone willing to broach the subject of abolishing Age of Consent laws is courting any votes at all. Just don’t get locked up in a men’s prison. They don’t tend to countenance such philosophical musings.
So there is a motion to suspend for this, but nothing for the state party that has multiple members with neo-nazi and white-nationalists associations?
Anon-Tipper,
If I recall correctly, there was a motion on Florida that received no seconds. So far as I know, this one hasn’t any seconds either.
I love IPR, but it does have a tendency to make teapot tempests look bigger than they are. There aren’t 100 people in the world, or 50 LP members without ulterior motives, who give a tinker’s damn about this.
“Its pretty pathetic when the voters we’re supposed to be trying to appeal to clearly don’t consider it an issue of pressing concern, but we’re going to insist it is.”
In some polities, at some times, it is in fact an issue that voters consider to be of pressing concern.
For example, the case in Georgia back in 2007 or 2008 (a 19 year old receiving a long prison sentence for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend) that led to bizarre things like Bob Barr demanding that the state government distribute child porn at taxpayer expense.
Co-sponsored thus far by Elizabeth Van Horn and Patrick McKnight, and other region reps are polling their states. That’s if I haven’t missed any.
Arvin’s online already:
https://71republic.com/2018/01/15/questioning-age-of-consent-laws-in-america-arvin-vohra/
DJ, if somebody commits murder, it is nobody’s business? If somebody hires a hitman to commit muder, it is nobody’s business except for them and their hitman?
Given that government has a monopoly on criminal justice, is the libertarian position that the government should not arrest murderers, or people who hire hitmen to commit murders?
Now I would agree that the society in which we live is so screwed up in so many ways, that going after abortion is not the best strategic priority, but this does not erase the moral/philosophical question about the issue. Is abortion murder? When does life begin? Dodging these questions is a cop out.
There was discussion of Florida. I don’t remember a motion, even without a second.
It feels to me like very few LP activists really care about being taken over by racists, know how to recognize it and even begin to have a clue how to fight back. I hope my fellow LP members prove me wrong but so far the response is extremely discouraging.
I wouldn’t say that. Among the things Arvin has said is that parents who receive any type of government assistance at any point or even send their kids to public school are not financially ready to have kids in the same sense that 5 year olds aren’t emotionally ready to have sex. He said that if a 14 year old does have kids he would rather that the other parent be an adult with a job, presumably one that will allow the child(ren) involved to go to private school. These aren’t just sentiments that put off converts from the GOP or the right-leaning side of politics in general.
She’s been Chelsea Manning for quite a while now. Anyone who still calls her Bradley is just being an asshole on purpose. Vohra has expressed that he is honored to be running in the same race, although they do have clear policy differences on various issues such as economic issues etc so he will stay in the race. He said this is the first time of his several runs for office that he is running against someone he feels honored to be in the same race with.
“Among the things Arvin has said is that parents who receive any type of government assistance at any point or even send their kids to public school are not financially ready to have kids in the same sense that 5 year olds aren’t emotionally ready to have sex.”
And he has a point, although he takes it a little further than I would.
The existence of government schools paid for by everyone, not just parents, distorts the incentives. It removes a natural financial responsibility burden from the decision, encouraging people who can’t meet that burden to have kids anyway. Or, to put it a different way, intentionally or not it is an instance of social engineering.
I am generally not in favor of removing an LP party officer for making political statements that are within the Libertarian Quadrant of the Nolan Chart. I am opposed to adults engaging in sexual acts with children, but there is debate over how you define child. If we lived in an ancap society, covenant communities could set community guidelines for age of consent via contract, as in if you want to live in or visit a covenant community, you sign a contract agreeing to abide by the age of conscent in that community, and the penalties for violating this would be spelled out in the contract.
Another possibility for handling age of consent disputes in an ancap society could be to leave it to vigilante justice and private courts with fully informed jury trials.
Having said this, what if Arvin or another LNC member spouted racial or ethnic slurs, but they did not do so in a manner that violated any libertarian principles? I am not saying that I think that anyone should do this (I think it would be bad marketing), I am just posting the question as a hypothetical.
If I wanted to be in party whose officers and candidates tell gay people they’re morally indistinguishable from child molesters, I could have been a Republican.
“Having said this, what if Arvin or another LNC member spouted racial or ethnic slurs, but they did not do so in a manner that violated any libertarian principles?”
What he’s actually said is not that far removed from that hypothetical example.
In the book “The Land Where the Blues Began” by Alan Lomax, there is a very interesting discussion about the economic value of young woman who had already had a child in comparison to a woman who hadn’t. This was of course during the share cropping era before mechanization. At that point in time and place children were being encouraged to have sex. What I find intellectually interesting is how societies views change on subjects depending on societies needs.
Joshua Katz has cosponsored the removal motion, which by my count is 3. He has however reserved the right to speak against it in debate and Nick Sarwark said he agrees Joshua would continue to have that right. Joshua also expressed his preference for an electronic conference meeting rather than an email ballot to address the issue.
Andy
January 15, 2018 at 13:45
DJ, if somebody commits murder, it is nobody’s business? If somebody hires a hitman to commit muder, it is nobody’s business except for them and their hitman?
Given that government has a monopoly on criminal justice, is the libertarian position that the government should not arrest murderers, or people who hire hitmen to commit murders?
Now I would agree that the society in which we live is so screwed up in so many ways, that going after abortion is not the best strategic priority, but this does not erase the moral/philosophical question about the issue. Is abortion murder? When does life begin? Dodging these questions is a cop out.
………………
DJ
January 15, 2018 at 12:24
IMNSHO abortion ain’t good, but, the libertarian position should be; It ain’t anyone’s business except those involved and the gov’t should NOT be involved.
……………….
Notice I said: IMNSHO abortion ain’t good.
I personally am against it.
That doesn’t give me the right to tell someone else what decision they should make and it certainly doesn’t give the gov’t the right, either way, for or against. That is not it’s job, per it’s rules (the Constitution)
The gov’t should not be involved. IF the party’s involved don’t complain what’s the problem?
Consensual is consensual. IF an outsider has a problem, well, they have a problem to take up with the involved party’s. IF ‘harm’ to another happens then there is just cause for retaliation, or, an outsider ( a nanny statist) can sue, right? What if the outsider perpetrates a violence on those who consented? What grounds would an outsider claim? Murder? Self defense? Property rights? How do you prove that? When does life start? That’s the argument and there are differing opinions. Should a gov’t (you don’t trust) be the arbiter of that decision made by consensual people? Why? What moral high ground does it claim in this matter? Or, should it just be accepted because it is, after all, the gov’t.?
It’s ALL about an education founded in Truth, which is a constant. Our current (and past several generations) haven’t had that privilege and we’re living the results.
It comes down to the same argument in the other discussion you and I are having: When you demand your pet peeve be enforced it means you have to accept one (or more) you don’t like “forced” on you, just like this would be being “forced” on another. Forcing one’s will on another is the root of ALL conflict.
Gov’t should not be involved because the gov’t can’t be trusted- we’re living the results of trusting gov’t as we speak.
The bright side? Sow seeds. They will bear fruit.
Wasn’t it George Washington who said that?
Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter to James Madison, Mar. 2, 1788
“paulie Post author
January 15, 2018 at 17:56
Joshua Katz has cosponsored the removal motion, which by my count is 3. He has however reserved the right to speak against it in debate and Nick Sarwark said he agrees Joshua would continue to have that right. Joshua also expressed his preference for an electronic conference meeting rather than an email ballot to address the issue.”
I find it really pathetic that considering all of the shenanigans that have happened on the LNC over the years, and considering that the LNC has refused to put any effort into putting together teams of actual Libertarians to represent the LP to the public during the course of ballot access drives (much like the party has actual Libertarians working at the national office, rather than just hiring non-libertarian mercenaries to work at the national offfice), and considering that the LNC has continually unnecessarily funneled disproportionate shares of LP donor more to non-libertarian mercenary petitioners, who have misrepresented the LP to the public (as in they lied to get people to sign, or they misinformed people about the LP due to their own ignorance), and who are poor representatives who do no field outreach even when they aren’t flat out lying or misinforming people out of ignorance, and yet there is no call to remove anyone from office for this far more serious, and far more damaging offense.
The Libertarian Party gets little TV coverage, little radio coverage, and little newspaper cover, so the party is not reaching a whole lot of people through these mechanisms. The Libertarian Party can reach people online, but even there, the LP is falling short, and this is pretty apparent when you examine website traffic and the number of views on YouTube (the national LP has had a YouTube channel since 2006, yet it only has around 8,000 and something subscribers (which is pathetic), and most of the videos have very few views. This leaves only one other primary method for Libertarians to reach the public, and that is by Libertarians actually going out and talking to large numbers of people in person. How many Libertarians actually go out and do this? Very few. The main opportunity that the Libertarian Party has to engage large numbers of the public in person is during the course of ballot access drives, so one would think that if the party was really trying to get ahead, and get the most bang for its donors money, it would use the ballot access drives as opportunities to do lots of in person, “boots on the ground” public outreach while in the course of gathering petition signatures to place Libertarians on the ballot. This makes sense, right? I mean the party has to collect thousands and thousands of petition signatures, which means that a lot more people need to be asked to sign than the number of signatures required, so this would be a great opportunity to get a Libertarian message out to the public, so one would think that the Libertarian Party would want to have as many actual libertarian Libertarians out doing this important work as possible, just as the Libertarian Party has actual libertarian Libertarians working at its national office. Well, one would think that this would be the case, if the people running the Libertarian Party were actually trying to get the party ahead, but since they are apparently not serious about getting ahead, this is not reality. Reality is that they don’t even try to make the ballot access drives outreach oriented (and if you think that this is “too hard” or “too much work,” you don’t know about which you are speaking), and they unnecessarily funnel the majority of LP ballot access donor money to people non-libertarian mercenaries who don’t give a rat’s ass about the party or the cause beyond doing the bare minimum to get a paycheck, and who generally do inferior work as compared to when actual Libertarians do the job. I have been blowing the whistle about this for several years now, and still nobody does anything about it (and few even act like they give a shit).
No wonder the Libertarian Party does not get anywhere.
” LP donor more”
Should read, “LP donor money…”
How many people work for the LNC national office? I think they have something like 12-15 national office staffers, and as far as I know, all of them are actual libertarian Libertarians (as in they are all people who, to the best of my knowledge, could plausibly be considered to be libertarians).
Should the 12-15 or so LNC national office staffers be replaced with non-libertarian mercenaries? Should they hire mercenary Democrats, or mercenary Republicans, or apolitical mercenaries to work as LNC office staffers? Should they just post an ad on Craigslist, and hire anybody, or hire one non-libertarian mercenary, or posts an ad on Craigslist to hire random people, or who hires random people off the street, to work as LNC office staffers? Should the rest of the party not even know who any of these LNC non-libertarian mercenary office staffers are?
I would think that if the LNC office staffing were handled like LP ballot access petitioning staffing has been handled over the years, that LP members would be outraged, and that they’d be calling for the heads of those responsible (as in those responsible for handling the office staff like this would find themselves removed from their positions in the party).
If what I described above is not acceptable for hiring LNC office staff, why should it be acceptable when it comes to putting together “staff” for LP ballot access drives? Reality is that the Libertarian Party ballot access petitioner is the public face of the party for a lot of the public (although the word libertarian has gotten more popular over the last 10 years (thanks in large part to Ron Paul), most of the public still has no idea what the Libertarian Party is doing), and the Libertarian Party ballot access petitioners come in contact with more people in “meat space” than anyone in the party, so one would think that the people put in charge of dispersing donor funds would take executing these drives more seriously than they do, and given that the LP is largely shut out (not given a fair amount of coverage) of the mainstream media (TV, radio, newspapers), and that this will not likely change anytime soon, if ever, that the party would put an even great emphasis on field outreach, yet the party sabotages its own field outreach by funneling most of the field outreach money to non-libertarian mercenary petitioners, and the people running the party put no effort into changing this.
So the Libertarian Party can hire a full office staff of actual libertarian Libertarians, but when it comes to ballot access work, which involves engaging with large numbers of the public in person, the party just can’t seem to find hardly any Libertarians to do this. I call bullshit on this.
Where is the outrage over this? This issue is a hell of a lot more important than the comments made by Arvin Vohara on Facebook,
If anyone out there thinks that I am wrong about anything I said in regard to ballot access drives, I challenge you to a public debate on this issue. The debate could either be held as one of those online video debates (it could be posted to YouTube), or it could be held at an LP meeting somewhere, and put on video and posted online. I am willing to travel for such a debate, but I don’t want to go too far out of my way (unless somebody offers to help pay for the travel), but I am willing to drive 2 or 3 hours or so. I will probably attend the national convention in New Orleans this coming May, so this debate could be held there, but if it is, I’d like for the debate to be held prior to when when the party officer votes happen, and I’d like for as many delegates as possible to watch the debate.
So if anyone reading this thinks that I am wrong about anything, here is your chance to debate me in public and prove that I am wrong. I have been following this stuff closely for a long time (and I’ve got lots of “dirt” that I could expose), and I am confident in my position.
So if anyone out there thinks that I am wrong, let’s have it out in a public forum, and let’s let the LP donors decide who is right.
“or hire one non-libertarian mercenary, or posts an ad on Craigslist to hire random people, or who hires random people off the street,”
Should read, “or hire one non-libertarian mercenary, who posts ads on Craigslist, or who hires random people off the street, and who then pockets an ‘override’ off them them..”
Jill Pyeatt wrote: “I don’t think the government should stay out of doctor murders and abortion clinic bombers. That’s the kind of pro-life activity that I’m the most afraid of.”
I think arson, bombing and murders are more than adequately covered elsewhere in the philosophy and platform.
But I’d sure like to see the LP Platform committee discuss language like “We are opposed to “prol-life” and/or “abortion prohibitionist” activists burning and bombing abortion clinics and assassinating clinic doctors and staff.”
🙂
Carol,
I’m an alternate on the platform committee. If someone wants to amend the abortion plank so that it actually takes a position instead of being contentless emotive gobbledygook, get the language to me and I’ll see if I can get a full member to propose it.
Kim Ruff: Sorry you aren’t up for being involved in LP right now. I sort of remember some past problems and can imagine what some others might be.
There definitely is a lot of problematic (mostly male) alpha male/macho flash/brawling behavior in LP and I have quit activism a number of times because of it.
But I do like a good debate and even a brawl from time to time which is why I’ve always remained engaged on line.
However, I know most women are more mature than me and prefer not to engage in such silly activity.
Sigh…
Mr Knapp wrote: “I’m an alternate on the platform committee. etc”
Thanks you kind sir. We do have at least two other advocates on the platform committee so our group will have to start discussing making it more hardcore a) but remove one of the two statements written to make pro=lifers feel better and b) itemizing the kind of bad laws being passed. The latter being our business, after all!
I suspect that any amendment attempts to the abortion plank will fail because the party seems split enough for there not to be 2/3 support for any particular change. That’s probably why we’re stuck with this mealy-mouthed plank in the first place.
Personally, I wish the party would either bite the bullet and firmly take one of the libertarian positions on the issue, or else delete the plank since the issue is about as relevant to today’s politics as the Lunar Treaty or personal nukes.
Good meme posted by Tom Knapp at 20:18 on 1/15/18. Sad but true point.
tk: Lunar Treaty or personal nukes
me: In your heart of hearts, would you like the old platform back with these and other irrelevant passages back in? 😉
Hello all –
I haven’t been able to read all the comments and linked posts, so my apologies if someone has already addressed my questions. WRT age of consent laws, could a libertarian explain to me what Arvin’s position in favor of their abolition means for children of, say, 10 years old or 5 years old? I’m also not clear if Arvin is referring to age of consent simple WRT sexual intercourse alone or if he extends the logic to the ability to enter into any kind of contract. I recognize Tom Knapp’s point that a lot of this is inside baseball, but at the same time it becomes a real issue for those of us who live in areas (for me, Northern VA) where LP candidates regularly run and could theoretically be elected.
“WRT age of consent laws, could a libertarian explain to me what Arvin’s position in favor of their abolition means for children of, say, 10 years old or 5 years old?”
It means that a prosecutor would have to convince a jury that the 10 or 5 year old wasn’t competent to consent instead of just pulling the VERY SPECIAL MAGIC NUMBER 18 out of a hat.
Do you think any jury would buy “that five year old was competent to consent and did so?”
RC,
No, I don’t want those issues back in the platform.
In fact, as you may remember, I prefer a one-sentence permanent “always less, never more government” platform with a program of 3 to 5 specific issues for each election cycle. That way we’re talking about what people care about at the moment.
Coupla things on TK’s meme:
– I think he was referring to Weld on the terrorist watch list, not an “enemies list.”
– “No biggie” seems inaccurate, since Weld got a lot of static from the convention to election day.
– Weld was midstream in an election season in which the profile of the LP was raised the profile of Ls at least an order of magnitude higher if not more. That sort of effectiveness buys a lot of good will from most onlookers, particularly when the “infractions” were contained to discrete issues. Rules are bent for outperformers in most things in life.
– Arvin is a party functionary. Bringing up extreme, inappropriate, theoretical elaborations on the Meaning of the NAP doesn’t seem like a good use of his time. Populating the public record with his semi-official musings has no upside and tons of downside.
wolfefan,
You write:
“at the same time it becomes a real issue for those of us who live in areas (for me, Northern VA) where LP candidates regularly run and could theoretically be elected.”
In most elections, age of consent won’t be an issue.
In some elections it might — and in such elections, I think the LP is well-positioned to appeal to the public.
Usually when it comes up as an issue, it’s because some 18-year-old is going to prison for consensual sex with their 17-year-old girlfriend or boyfriend. Most people understand that that’s unjust, and if you’re running against a former prosecutor who railroaded a lot of teenagers with related stuff like sexting charges, it’s hay-making time. Most people can picture themselves as jurors and know that they would be responsible about it. They would never let some asshole get away with claiming a 2-year-old consented, and they would tend to believe that a 16-year-old did if that 16-year-old was allowed to testify to that effect.
“I think he was referring to Weld on the terrorist watch list, not an ‘enemies list.'”
“The” (actual there are several) “terrorist watch lists” are secret government enemies lists. They’re secretly held, there’s no way to know whether you’re on one until and unless you get e.g. stopped from boarding a plane or why even then, and there’s no appeal to get off of one if you end up on one.
Weld publicly held that if some bureaucrat decides he doesn’t like the cut of your job and sticks your name on a list, you are no longer entitled to due process or to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights.
Weld made the LP look like a bunch of fascists. Worse, he made the LP look like a bunch of gullible idiots. And it was our own fault, since we new he was a faithless, feckless, lying sack of shit when we nominated him.
As I mentioned previously, I thought his (socially conservative) rationalizations for the position were ludicrous. However, I don’t think the butt hurt was over the rationalizations but rather the position itself. My glance at the LP mailing list indicated it was the usual suspects, the same ones who were outraged over his previous military comments…the LNC SJW contingent.
Weld has a weak history on due process. Among other things, he was a 2005 signatory to “Open Letter” against sun setting the Patriot Act. If the LP can’t make the Patriot Act a litmus test, then the LP is simply not a libertarian party. Period. Unlike Bob Barr, who at least had to feign a mea culpa, Weld, to the best of my knowledge, was never even challenged on it.
wolfefan, are you saying–with a straight face—that the good citizens of Northern VA are concerned with the spectre of legitimizing sexual assault on small children?
dL said: “Weld has a weak history on due process. Among other things, he was a 2005 signatory to “Open Letter” against sun setting the Patriot Act. If the LP can’t make the Patriot Act a litmus test, then the LP is simply not a libertarian party. Period. Unlike Bob Barr, who at least had to feign a mea culpa, Weld, to the best of my knowledge, was never even challenged on it.”
Bill Weld has a weak history on just about everything, from a libertarian perspective. The guy is an establishment shill (which should have been clearly apparent to all, given his membership in the CFR), and a complete piece of crap of a human being. The list of things wrong with Bill Weld is a long one, and it includes supporting both wars in Iraq, supporting eminent domain for corporate business interests, signing a gun control Bill as Governor of Massachusetts, lying and screwing over the LP of NY in 2006 in the Governor’s race, supporting Obamacare, endorsing George W. Bush (twice), Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush (in September of 2015), and John Kasich (in February of 2016), gushing over Hillary Clinton during the course of his run as the LP’s VP nominee, calling for assault weapons to be banned, and saying that handguns were a problems, as the LP’s VP nominee, saying that the IRS and the income tax should be kept as is, but promising people that their taxes won’t go up (yeah, I’m sure we can trust him), as the LP’s VP nominee, coming out in favor of taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood as the LP’s VP nominee (even the most ardent pro-choice Libertarians have traditionally opposed this), and, donating money to the Republican candidate for Governor of New Hampshire, who was running against a Libertarian Party candidate for Governor, in a race where the vote percent for the LP candidate for Governor determined whether or not the LP was to retain ballot access in 2018 in New Hampshire, to name just some of Weld’s offenses.
It really makes the Libertarian Party look bad for the party to have nominated Bill Weld as a candidate, and yes, there has been a backlash over this.
Has anyone been keeping up with whether my count is correct? 3 cosponsors on the removal motion so far?
He clarified that 5 year olds are emotionally unready for sex, but 14 year olds are. The line seems to be at puberty, at least more or less. He also clarified that anyone who can’t afford to send any actual or potential kids to private school (or have at least one of the parents stay home and homeschool) is “financially unprepared” for sex in the same sense as a 5 year old is “emotionally unprepared.” I haven’t seen whether he responded to my point that sex can be non-reproductive and that, if it is reproductive, there is not nor should there be the presumption that the birth parents necessarily have to be the custodial parents.
The following, however, are perfectly fine in Arvin’s POV as I currently best understand it:
Wealthy, successful 66 year old male seduces 13 year old girl and impregnates her. Takes full financial responsibility. Sends both the baby mama and her baby to private institutions of care and learning, never utilizing any form of government aid. It’s all private doctors, nannies and tutors all the way for his 90 lb, 13 year old sweetheart with pigtails, braces and a 69 IQ and her 9 lb baby alike.
Meanwhile, his 37 year old socialite wife becomes bored with her life of shopping, nail appointments and polo lessons, hears her biological clock ticking and decides to teach sex ed at a private boys middle school. Gets herself pregnant by one of her pupils, gets a divorce and a substantial alimony along with a mansion, and again the baby daddy and child both get fully taken care of financially and never darken the doors of a government school, hospital, or any type of welfare office for a single time in their lives.
Everyone lives happily ever after.
That is, everyone except those who can’t afford private schools, private doctors, etc. For them, it’s either a life without any kind of sex at all or, if they are (arguably) lucky, a chance to be chosen for sexual servitude by one of the upper class.
You think Harlos is in that category?
I think the problem in the current incarnation of Vohra’s arguments is that he appears* to be attempting to apply an algorithm to circumstances that are inherently human, and thus, dynamic.
That sort of “if criteria x and y are true, then z is the permissible outcome” is elegant in theory, but in practice rids our society of common sense — which is precisely my issue with Age of Consent laws.
As Thomas Knapp has mentioned several times, Age of Consent laws designed to prevent pedophilia or situations like taking brainwashed child brides as they do in fundamentalist Mormon sects (if you haven’t read it, “Under the Banner of Heaven” by John Krakauer is a fantastic read), end up creating legislation that penalizes an 18 year old boy for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend strictly because she has failed to live as many minutes on this planet as he has. There needs to be far more humanity injected into our social relationships, which means we need to review situations on a case by case basis.
While I am personally in a situation where my post-divorce status precludes me the economic opportunity to send my children to private schools at this juncture in time, I don’t necessarily disagree that when we engage in behavior that has the potential to manifest in bringing another person into this world, we have an ethical duty to ensure we have the tools and resources at our disposal to take complete responsibility for raising that child…or take the necessary preventative measures to avoid pregnancy in the first place (e.g., abstinence, prophylactics, etc.) That’s personal responsibility.
We can do this by having this dialogue, reviewing the situations where our current mode of thinking and behavior have failed individuals and society, and engage in education to get people to think about it from this perspective. Hence, why I do not have issue with Vohra’s decision to discuss this topic.
That being said, each situation is unique and circumstances, like people, are inclined to be mutable and dynamic. Thus, “one size fits all” legislation or algorithmic thinking on specific issues should be eschewed in favor of case by case analysis and compassion.
Thoughts?
—
*I say “appears” because I haven’t had the opportunity to review the entire evolution of the discussion beyond whatever snippets are available here and on the LNC List. If memory serves me correctly, Vohra’s typical modus operandi is to take the most hardline stance and then, with the aid of social media crowd-sourcing, amend and revise his statements to soften the sharp edges of his rhetoric without losing the core principles that undergird his thinking. I’m rather curious to see where he ultimately lands.
Kim,
I think you’re right about Arvin’s method, and about the problem with “algorithmic” handling of the issue.
From my vantage point, the “common sense” you refer to, at the point where a matter becomes a criminal allegation, should be applied by a jury.
If a prosecutor believes that there’s been a rape — and that’s what it is when someone who is competent to consent has sex with someone who is not competent to consent — let him convince a jury rather than being able to just have a judge instruct the jury that a number pulled out of a hat by the legislature is the only thing they’re allowed to consider.
I have trouble imagining any jury in the US failing to convict a 35-year-old who has sex with a 2-year-old.
I strongly suspect that most juries would either acquit or hang on cases of seemingly competent 19-year-olds with seemingly competent 17-year-olds.
Thomas,
I agree, and I appreciate your feedback.
With respect to Vohra, I find his method completely fascinating from an academic standpoint. He throws a Molotov Cocktail in the crowd, people object, he refines, revises, and perfects before ultimately he ends up with a (generally) agreed upon statement that is easier to digest while retaining the core principle. It’s straight up the “Door in the Face” persuasion tactic Robert Cialdini discusses in his book, “Influence.”
tk: Weld made the LP look like a bunch of fascists. Worse, he made the LP look like a bunch of gullible idiots.
me: Perhaps for you and for those REALLY paying close attention to his answers to questions that were non-core issues for the J/W campaign. For most who heard Team Guv, that’s almost certainly NOT what they heard. They saw 2 ex-guvs making the case for a 3rd way, FC/SL. That sounded pretty compelling to very large percentages of the population, potentially even majorities.
Politics is more gestalt than a math equation.
If there was a problem with J/W 16, it was that GJ’s portrayal as a stoner. He looked burned out when asked about Aleppo, clueless, a deer in the headlines. For the campaign to REALLY break through to Perot-type impact, GJ — bless him for his efforts — needed a lot more coaching and handling. I personally like his contrite, aw-shucks personality, but he needed to develop more skills in the art of persuasion.
“That sounded pretty compelling to very large percentages of the population, potentially even majorities.”
Actually, 3.28%, minus the half million or so who would vote for the LP ticket if we ran a jar of mayonnaise and a used hair dryer.
How about it is legal for a 17 year old to have sex with his 16 year old girlfriend but it is suddenly child pornography(a sex crime) if the same merely takes a selfie of his girlfriend’s breasts?
Larger point: under zero tolerance regimes, prosecutors have used age of consent laws to build up a huge discretionary prosecutorial power enterprise.
“How about it is legal for a 17 year old to have sex with his 16 year old girlfriend but it is suddenly child pornography(a sex crime) if the same merely takes a selfie of his girlfriend’s breasts?”
Apropos of which, the regime in Denmark just arrested more than 1,000 people in their teens and 20s for sharing an image of two people of legal age having sex — the legal age for sex in Denmark being 15, but illegal to photograph until 18.
The arrests happened as a result of Facebook snitching out all those users — many of whom may not have even known the participants were minors when they received/re-shared the photo — to the AUTHORITAHS.
tk: Actually, 3.28%,
me: I said “pretty compelling,” not who voted for J/W. Most didn’t VOTE for J/W of course, but many thought they were qualified and had a plausible, interesting, respectable message.
Sorry that I wasn’t clear enough for you.
The LP shouldn’t be targeting nor wasting time on convincing people like Bob Capozzi. The LP should not be in the business of masking hard right, republican law and orderism with postmodernist gobbledygook.
RC,
You seem to have an odd definition of “compelling” — “causes people to say ‘oh, that’s nice,’ before supporting its opposite” or something like that.
My assumption is that something which is “compelling,” um, compels.
“My assumption is that something which is “compelling,” um, compels.”
In that case, a radical libertarian message isn’t even compelling…among Libertarians, particularly not when there is a qualified moderate ticket available.
“The LP shouldn’t be targeting nor wasting time on convincing people like Bob Capozzi.”
And as I alluded to above, the universe of voters and/or potential voters convincible to enacting with alacrity a radical libertarian platfform which includes discussing the abolishment of Age of Consent laws is the null set. Zip, zero, nada. In fact, most radicals understand this, which is why they default to the lunacy that winning elections should not be the goal of the Libertarian Party.
btw: That’s not liberal or libertarian reasoning…at all. It’s authoritarian. To the extent the above may start out with such a relatively simple form, it will end up resembling something like:
“if (t && u && v && w && x && y || a && b || c && d & !e || f && g && !h || j && !k && !l && !(m || n) && (p || q || r) && !s) then z is the permissible outcome
My experience is that if people want a republican, they will vote for a republican. You would think that would be a trivial observation.
Anthony,
You constantly describe what you seem to consider to be a problem with libertarianism.
If libertarianism doesn’t work for you, why would you be interested in a political party based on it?
Prediction: The “the universe of voters and/or potential voters convincible to enacting … the abolishment of Age of Consent laws” vis a vis child porn will be a plurality or majority in Denmark in the next election cycle now that their kids are getting arrested for having photos of their peers having legal sex.
Maybe. Unfortunately, Denmark has become more socially conservative with the rise of the hard right people’s party.
“My experience is that if people want a republican, they will vote for a republican. You would think that would be a trivial observation.”
Depends on the constellation of issues focused on by the candidate, and the current political climate. Given the wide swath of area in the middle ceded by the two dinosaur parties, and they constant partisanship, it is not a crazy idea to suggest that a moderate libertarian message, one that might be termed an old-school roughly liberal Republican message would have huge potential.
Disagree with that if you’d like, but one thing is for damn sure: that is a far more reasonable position than the idea that there is a stomach among the voters/potential voters for a radical libertarian message. Which is a straight-up delusion.
Yeah, but that whole area of the world seems to customarily be a little less hung up on numbers drawn out of hats. Wasn’t Denmark sort of the capital of “barely legal” porn back in the 70s when child porn law was less developed? They’re not going to like their kids (of legal age of consent most likely, since that age is 15) getting hauled off to jail and threatened with years in prison for having cell phone photos of other kids of legal age of consent. So I’m expecting a movement to lower the photography consent age to the sex consent age at the very least.
As an aside, given that the world is de facto borderless with respect to digital goods at this point (even the countries with extensive state firewalls, etc. have trouble controlling much), it seems to me that porn from the least restrictive states is going to flow pretty freely into the most restrictive states, and that attempts to stop it are likely to work out like alcohol prohibition.
“the idea that there is a stomach among the voters/potential voters for a libertarian message”
The purpose of the Libertarian Party is to create that stomach. Doing so is the prerequisite to winning elections, since winning elections for a NON-libertarian message is exactly the opposite of the party’s goal.
“You constantly describe what you seem to consider to be a problem with libertarianism.
If libertarianism doesn’t work for you, why would you be interested in a political party based on it?”
I don’t have a problem with libertarianism. I have a problem with a libertarian political party that doesn’t make winning elective office its primary goal. all other considerations secondary.
So I would ask you why you would join a political party at all when the playing field of electoral politics dictates that you have to compromise your principles? In my opinion, if you find that unappealing, there are numerous avenues for delivering a message where you are not constrained by the current field of vision of your intended targets.
“The purpose of the Libertarian Party is to create that stomach.”
Nope. As I noted above, there are better avenues for such an uncompromising approach.
Your statement should work in the generic, and it does not. The purpose of any political party is to win elections. The fact that you single out the Libertarian Party for a different mission than what winning parties make their mission points out your problem.
Dinosaurs roamed the earth for 180 million years, easily the most long-lived rule of any species in earth’s evolutionary history. Your position that the LP should lag the GOP by ten years to position itself to take advantage of an imminent dinosaur extinction event is specious at best. What it really entails is that Donald Trump today is where the “LP mainstream” will be 10 years from now.
“The purpose of any political party is to win elections. The fact that you single out the Libertarian Party for a different mission than what winning parties make their mission points out your problem.”
I didn’t single out the LP for that different mission. The LP singled itself out for that different mission, in bylaws that were written and adopted long before I became a party member.
You can whine all day long that the purpose of the LP isn’t what you think it should be. Its purpose will remain its purpose until and unless you can get 2/3 of the delegates to a national convention to change that purpose.
That crass definition is not in any respectable textbook. The respectable definition usually follows along the lines of
Political parties serve at least four essential functions. They select candidates, inform and mobilize voters, help organize the legislative process, and serve as watchdogs on the party in power.
Indeed, anyone who blurted out “our only function is to win elections” would be savaged much more in the respectable press than someone who mused, “we need to re-examine age of consent laws.”
tk,
Generally, when I and most people use a modifier, there’s a reason for its use. I said “pretty compelling.”
IIRC, there were points in the campaign where GJ was polling over 10%. He was getting more and more buzz. If he were a master politician/communicator, perhaps that number would have continued to climb. Instead, he stumbled on Aleppo and a few other instances. He couldn’t get the polls over 15%, which could again have been a game changer. Getting in the debates could have altered history.
My sense is that there was a point where many were at least thinking about voting J/W. This may not impress you, or perhaps that wasn’t your perception. It was mine, at the time.
THAT has never happened before, for Ls. It has happened with Perot, Anderson, Wallace, and TR. I thought that was pretty cool.
For people like you and AJ, it is a source of shame and outrage. For you, my sense is you felt that the money changers were in the temple, and you and others needed to upend their tables.
“I didn’t single out the LP for that different mission. The LP singled itself out for that different mission, in bylaws that were written and adopted long before I became a party member.”
Where is this documentation that the mission of the party is to create a stomach for a radical message, as opposed to a stomach for a moderate message?
Even if I concede your point above
“Its purpose will remain its purpose until and unless you can get 2/3 of the delegates to a national convention to change that purpose.’
That purpose was effectively jury nullified last May in Orlando, if not at the 2012 Convention. Precedent sent, the original mission can be ignored.
dL,
Just to clarify, as I noted above,
“…winning elective office [is our] primary goal. all other considerations secondary.”
I didn’t say nothing else matters. I said everything else is secondary. Without a primary goal of winning elections, all this other stuff,
” inform and mobilize voters, help organize the legislative process, and serve as watchdogs on the party in power…”
becomes moot.
i.e., there is no organizing of the legislative process when you have no representation in Congress. This is so obviously accepted by the Democrats and Republicans, that its not even something they debate. Winning is hard-wired into their DNA. The rest of that crap comes later.
RC,
OK, I can buy your version of “compelling.”
No, it is not a source of shame and outrage for me that more voters considered, and pulled the lever for, Johnson/Weld. It’s a source of shame and outrage for me that we didn’t give them a ticket that was WORTH considering, and pulling the lever for.
Two washed-up Republicans, one of whom grew government spending and debt faster than Obama and one whose career kick-off was covering up for the Iran-Contra crooks and helping Rudy Giuliani build the surveillance state as a US Attorney (and who seems to have mostly gone downhill from there), don’t strike me as especially “compelling.”
“Where is this documentation that the mission of the party is to create a stomach for a radical message, as opposed to a stomach for a moderate message?”
It’s not about radical or moderate. It’s about libertarian or not libertarian.
“We want to continue the war on drugs, maintain the world’s most expensive and murderous military machine, and deprive people on secret government enemies lists of their due process and gun rights” is not libertarian, “moderate” or otherwise.
Apparently by “moderate libertarian” you mean “alternative to shuffleboard for Republicans who are so worn out and lame even the Republican Party doesn’t have a use for them any more.”
And I’m saying that if any candidate said that–winning is the primary objective, principles and ideals are secondary– they would be mocked and dismissed far more than for blurting out a libertarian principle here or there. Any such person who thought that out loud would be the butt of late night jokes, laughed out of the classrooms, the debates and the editorial board rooms. A politician that believes in nothing except getting elected is the worst tag a politician can have.
“And I’m saying that if any candidate said that–winning is the primary objective, principles and ideals are secondary…A politician that believes in nothing except getting elected is the worst tag a politician can have.”
Candidates from the two dinosaur parties and the parties themselves rarely even need to say it. In the real world of electoral politics, its a given. They reflexively and regularly constrain their principles and ideals in an effort to win. The ones who do it best are the ones who typically win office.
Its only in the LP where we actually have to get past this self-righteous stage where we think we can play the game of electoral politics and not make winning primary.
If you buy an NFL team, winning is your primary goal. Winning will help you sell t-shirts, but if you want to sell t-shirts more than win games, go buy a t-shirt company. THAT is the most trivial observation of them all.
Bingo. The Republicans and Democrats at least pretend to have principles of some kind behind their desire for power.
Anthony’s prescription is that we just worry about the power and hey, maybe the principles will magically come along after we get it. — let’s just pretend to be for whatever the other parties are for until one day we find ourselves magically carried to power on the shoulders of the public versus those other parties because REASONS.
Nobody who gets that vibe from the LP will be inclined to vote for our candidates. They want the party they choose to be for some things, and against other things. Sure, they will give endless passes to the power-mongers who put on a good “but it’s for the chillllllllllllllldren” show, but if that show goes away, so do the votes.
Case study: Mitt Romney.
His entire 2012 campaign was “I agree with Obama on everything, but it will work better with me than with him because I’m Mitt Romney. Just tell me what you want to hear, and I’ll say it, on to victory.”
You may remember how that worked out.
Apparently by “moderate libertarian” you mean “alternative to shuffleboard for Republicans who are so worn out and lame even the Republican Party doesn’t have a use for them any more.”
yes, but think of the cocktail parties!!
Somehow, Reason manages to discuss the issue of misapplied age-of-consent laws all the time, and nobody confuses it for condoning and endorsing actual child molestation. Nor do they run around equating child molestation with being gay.
A bright-line objective age of consent, actually *limits* government power in this field. Apparently some would prefer some nonsense of a judge trying to determine case-by-case how “mature” the victim seems. Which would be flagrantly unconstitutional and wholly arbitrary and subjective. It’s an absurd and abhorrent fantasy.
Whatever reasonable reforms to these laws you might think is justified– e.g. “Romeo and Juliet” clauses, which are already being widely adopted– Vohra went much further than that. Don’t sanitize and whitewash it: his answer to “should a 40-year-old be able to have sex with a 9-year-old?” was yes, at least if the parents approve. So custodial guardians who pimp out their pre-pubescent children, aren’t committing any real crime in his view. We’re not talking about two teenagers close in age sexting each other: child molestation is a real crime with real victims. It is beyond insane to deny that, and there’s absolutely nothing libertarian about it.
***[Mitt Romney’s] entire 2012 campaign was “I agree with Obama on everything, but it will work better with me than with him because I’m Mitt Romney. Just tell me what you want to hear, and I’ll say it, on to victory.”***
What a load of hogwash. You might not have found the differences between them compelling– I didn’t either– but that wasn’t anything close to the message Romney ran on.
Andy Craig
January 16, 2018 at 12:57
***[Mitt Romney’s] entire 2012 campaign was “I agree with Obama on everything, but it will work better with me than with him because I’m Mitt Romney. Just tell me what you want to hear, and I’ll say it, on to victory.”***
What a load of hogwash. You might not have found the differences between them compelling– I didn’t either– but that wasn’t anything close to the message Romney ran on.
……………
Not ver batim no. BUT, I saw an article during that time that compared their policy desires/beliefs and the only thing different were the words. That was ‘a’ determining factor in my looking at the past and determining there wasn’t a dimes worth of difference and that the left/right paradigm didn’t exist inside the beltway which led me to: “the only difference is the rhetoric used to sell the bullshit. It’s still the same destination just a different rate of descent, and, a hitting a brick wall at 90mph vs 91-100mph doesn’t do a lot less damage”. The main point(s) of contention for me is; they both (Party’s) subscribe to the same monetary policy which drives foreign policy which drives domestic policy. And they pretty much argue about who can best ‘manage’ them. Which, IF, the Constitution was adhered to those 3 items wouldn’t even be available for the main argument they have.
It was during that time I rescinded my 50 year declaration of being a Republican, reflected on ‘my’ past and determined “I” am libertarian. Never was a Republican in ‘principle’ only ignorance. In fact, I had a debate with a fellow poster on a message board I used to frequent about humans evolving. He didn’t think we did/do. I used my personal views (anecdotal I know) to ensure him, “I” had evolved from being Republican to being libertarian. And I use upper and lower case on purpose.
This argument is just one more reason I’ll never be associated with any Party. The chest thumping, I’m smarter than you, my way is best, my definition is better crap is funny to read, but hardly inviting.
Andy,
1) I watched the debates. Nearly every answer from Romney was “well, of course the president is pretty much exactly right on that, but I think I’m [better prepared because I ran Romneycare, have a better temperament to negotiate with foreign leaders because I was on the Olympic Committee, or some other variant of “because I’m Mitt Romney”]. I can count the number of times I remember him actually completely opposing Obama on anything on the fingers of one thumb.
2) I agree, there should be a bright line — either the prosecutor CAN convince the jury that the alleged victim didn’t or couldn’t consent, or the prosecutor CAN’T convince the jury that the alleged victim didn’t or couldn’t consent. You may have heard of it. It’s called “the American system of justice for every other type of offense.”
tk: It’s a source of shame and outrage for me that we didn’t give them a ticket that was WORTH considering, and pulling the lever for.
me: And which ticket would have possibly polled at over 10% and received over 3%? Perry/Colley? McAfee/Sharpe?
“Never” comes up for me, although it’s my practice to never say never. Something very close to never seems about right to me. You?
RC,
The question of whether or not a ticket is worth putting up and voting for is a prior question to how many people will actually vote for them — as you pointed out yourself in your definition of “compelling.” Only 3.x% actually did vote for them, your claim was that many more thought about it.
Vis a vis the Libertarian Party’s purpose, if a candidate doesn’t give voice to the principles embodied in the party’s statement of principles, there’s simply no point in running that candidate.
Being right isn’t enough. But it’s the first thing, because given the party’s purpose, the definition of winning without being right is “losing.”
Yes, TK, I agree that as structured as it is on NAPsterism, the LP should consider adding St. Jude to its branding. St. Jude is the patron saint of lost causes. As I came to understand the finer points of the depth charges put in at the founding, it became clear that I — as a non-NAPster L — was simply not welcome in the LP.
In the game of conversion, numbers mean less, as its more about the missionary him- or herself. Hectoring people that taxation is theft becomes more of a spiritual quest than it does about actually lowering taxes.
“In the game of conversion, numbers mean less, as its more about the missionary him- or herself. Hectoring people that taxation is theft becomes more of a spiritual quest than it does about actually lowering taxes.”
and a fully ironic “Amen!” to that.
RC,
I’d take the idea of NAPsterism as your nemesis more seriously if you hadn’t fled in horror when offered the lessarchism you claim to prefer in its place.
I haven’t read further yet to see if you or anyone else addressed this but same point I made to Arvin. There are plenty of sexual activities that can’t result in pregnancy, and for those that can, there are in fact lots of people who use prophylactics to reduce the chances considerably. For those who don’t believe abortion is murder, that could be an option in case prophylactics fail (and in some countries, such as most of the former Soviet bloc, it is actually the most common form of birth control). And even failing all that, suppose a child is born, there’s adoption, temporary custody etc etc. So it’s just nonsense to say that people who can’t afford private everything for their kids are “financially unprepared” for sex in the same sense that a five year old is “emotionally unprepared,” and more so than a 14 year old with a wealthy older lech…I mean, lover.
But even taking that contention at its face, are we also going to say that the 6-figure bureaucrat with a 401k and her small business owner husband with investments in government contractor stocks are just as “financially unprepared” to have sex as the government housing dwelling, welfare and food stamps receiving single mother?
We already had a US Senate candidate expressing something like this in Alabama, although even he didn’t extend it to nine year olds. It did not go over well.
TK,
I perceived your start up BTP as less a vehicle for lessarchists and more a vehicle for more extreme elements in the LP to express their discontent with the LP. IIRC, most/all the officers were non-asymptotic anarchists, including a dude who seemed to like “rebar” just a bit too much.
I also found its silo lessarchism too restrictive.
So I took a pass. Which seems like it was the right call, since it’s defunct.
You are two decades behind the times. That conventional wisdom(general election move to the center) went out of the window with Karl Rove.
well, you can try running this media buy past your donor class
RC,
Yes, I know that you managed to find an excuse to continue moaning about the LP instead of going with what you claimed you wanted. Like Dirty Harry said, excuses are like assholes. Everybody’s got one and they all stink.
dL,
I assume this is YOUR handiwork, yes?
That may well be YOUR perception of TeamGuv, and you validate your pre-conception with quotes (I’m guessing) that make your point.
I highly doubt that donor or voters had the same overall impression that you do. It wasn’t mine, certainly.
if the prosecutor can produce evidence…
That’s why the law is written the way it is. All parties have access to the same evidence, records of birth, that settle in an objective way whether there was an age for matters to proceed. When readers find an actual method of determining competence, let us know. Until then, the alternatives are daft.
Evidence that some older people are not mentally competent to consent to things is also well known.
“Evidence that some older people are not mentally competent to consent to things is also well known.”
Precisely. Judges and jurors evaluate competence all the time.
They evaluate it vis a vis trying minors as adults.
They evaluate it vis a vis emancipating minors who claim they are more responsible than their parents and better able to run their own affairs.
They evaluate it via chronological adults whose families claim they’re incompetent to care for themselves.
They evaluate it in accused murderers who plead not guilty by reason of mental defect.
They evaluate it all the time, on all sorts of issues.
But bring sex into it and all of a sudden drawing a magic number out of a hat is “objective” and the alternatives are “daft.”
You’re not usually prone to saying really stupid things, Dr. Phillies, but when you go for it you go all-in.
Excellent point.
You assume wrong. I’m mocking your(and Dlugos’) position…
That’s pretty much exactly what his campaign was. You know I end doing pretty much exactly what Obama would have done…I’ll just wrap some right-wing lip service around it to placate the conservative peckerwoods…
“Thomas L. Knapp
January 16, 2018 at 14:41
Andy,
1) I watched the debates. Nearly every answer from Romney was “well, of course the president is pretty much exactly right on that, but I think I’m [better prepared because I ran Romneycare, have a better temperament to negotiate with foreign leaders because I was on the Olympic Committee, or some other variant of “because I’m Mitt Romney”]. I can count the number of times I remember him actually completely opposing Obama on anything on the fingers of one thumb.”
The LP practically put Mitt Romney on its presidential ticket by nominating Bill Weld for VP. Weld is a crony of Romney, and is very Romney like.
Andy Craig said: “We’re not talking about two teenagers close in age sexting each other: child molestation is a real crime with real victims. It is beyond insane to deny that, and there’s absolutely nothing libertarian about it.”
I agree with Andy Craig here. I think that is room for debate when it comes to age of consent, but at some point, a line needs to be drawn, where you get into child molester category, and yes, that should be considered to be a crime.
Robert Capozzi said: “If there was a problem with J/W 16, it was that GJ’s portrayal as a stoner. He looked burned out when asked about Aleppo, clueless, a deer in the headlines. For the campaign to REALLY break through to Perot-type impact, GJ — bless him for his efforts — needed a lot more coaching and handling. I personally like his contrite, aw-shucks personality, but he needed to develop more skills in the art of persuasion.”
Remember that Gary Johnson was the experienced former two time Governor, and the guy with the professional campaign staff, and the guy whose pre-nomination campaign spent more than 10 times as much money as all of the other campaigns for the LP’s 2016 presidential nomination combined.
There was simply no excuse for Gary Johnson to have come off as unprepared and goofy as he did during the course of the 2016 campaign. This is about a lot more than the “Aleppo” moment. He came off like he really wasn’t taking it all that seriously, and did’t really care that much about building the Libertarian Party, the entire time, and this should have been apparent to anyone who followed his campaign pre-nomination.
Can we please stop rehashing 2016 all the time? It would be better to talk about the current issue at hand. 2016 is over, and Johnson has said he will not run again. The issue with Arvin is being hotly debated on LNC list, many state committees, numerous LP-related blogs, FB pages etc. Seems that there is plenty to talk about there without turning it into yet another rehash of the same gripes that have been expressed a thousand times on past threads about 2016, so why is that happening again?
dL: You assume wrong. I’m mocking your(and Dlugos’) position…
me: Droll. It’s too far from accurate to resonate.
https://www.thejacknews.com/politics/state-libertarian-parties-demand-removal-of-arvin-vohra-for-comments-on-child-molestation/
Apparently, the topic of Johnson has relevance to the topic.
RE Vohra. Vohra is a prolific facebook poster with a ton of posts, including quite a few recently on sexual consent. Just glancing at his timeline now, there is nothing on there that would make me sit up and cough in objection. The again, I generally don’t peruse facebook for hours as my go to source for moral outrage. I did scan the one posted on 1-12 or thereabouts(which has since been deleted or put behind a wall) that I had some disagreements with, though I don’t recall the alleged gay slur.
Vohra’s recently penned article at 71republic
https://71republic.com/2018/01/15/questioning-age-of-consent-laws-in-america-arvin-vohra/
from memory reads fairly close to that original facebook post I originally skimmed through. It starts off solid, then veers into into debatable territory(parents are the sole arbitrator of teen/child sexual readiness), then takes a social conservative U-Turn(pontificating on the relation between age of consent laws and sexual promiscuity), then jaunts into the old LP children’s plank(and by doing so, he puts himself at odds with what he wrote just a few paragraphs earlier) before ending on a gobbledygook moral judgment on sex and meaning.
Do I think it is the best argument for age of consent skepticism? Absolutely not. Do I think it merits his removal from the LNC. Absolutely not.
dull-witted audience, tho. It’s parodying what you and Dlugos think he should do. Only getting 3%(and failing to trigger the dinosaur extinction event), the TeamGov dream ticket obviously did something wrong.
I agree it has relevance. But when it becomes yet another thread that devolves into little else except 2016 rerererehash we’re doing something wrong. IMO.
dL: dull-witted audience, tho. It’s parodying what you and Dlugos think he should do.
me: Certainly I have my moments where my wit is dull. In this case, though, your parody so lacks any connection to reality that it does not work. For these things to work, it must ring at least somewhat true. Otherwise, it comes across like “Your Mother wears army boots” or other unclever, childish put-downs.
Strangely enough FB seems to be the opposite, it seems the controversy over Arvin is the only thing a lot of people want to talk about on a lot of L groups right now and keep putting up new threads about it constantly but here on IPR I put up one and only one thread about it and people want to use it to talk about 2016 more than anything else. Go figure, LOL.
“paulie Post author
January 16, 2018 at 20:59
Can we please stop rehashing 2016 all the time? ”
The delegates who are voting to nominate Johnson/Weld need to have their noses rubbed into it repeatedly, like dogs who crapped on the carpet.
“The delegates who are voting to nominate ”
Should read, “who voted to nominate…”
“His latest remarks, which he admits are partly intended to drive moderate supporters of former Gov. Gary Johnson out of the party, have roiled the small world of L.P. activists in the past few days.”
Interesting. I had kind of assumed they were more of an attempt to bait the peckerwood populists and so forth (e.g. the fake “Veterans Caucus”) and get them ranting so that everyone gets a really good look at what they are.
I guess it could be both, though, especially given that it’s the “moderate supporters of Johnson” types who have been hollowing out the LP for more than a decade and made it vulnerable to infection by e.g. the “alt-right.” When you consciously turn the LP into the Miller Lite of political parties (tastes great, less filling), you’re going to get the people who think they’re classing it up from PBR, not the people who can pronounce merlot.
well, watching Tucker Carlson sharpens the sphincter, not the brain…
In this instance, it was a natural progression. It starts with age of consent, child agency(admittedly, a difficult question, But it is a difficult one for any political philosophy). Then came “that’s a question that shouldn’t even be discussed by a political party.” Radicals are ruining the party. Of course, that leads to “no questions should ever be discussed.” The LP is just a feel good trailing indicator. That leads to Gary Jonson.
‘I guess it could be both, though, especially given that it’s the “moderate supporters of Johnson” types who have been hollowing out the LP for more than a decade and made it vulnerable to infection by e.g. the “alt-right.”’
wrong. Moderating our extremest message will grow the Libertarian Party in absolute terms, and that is a mathematical certitude. That process will surely marginalize all extreme positions, be they the Radical set or the alt-right. I might be personally sad to see good radicals marginalized, but as a pragmatic matter, if it marginalize the alt-right set too, then so be it.
The way to keep the party vulnerable to alt-right takeover is to keep in ideologically pure and thus small. As I have noted before, this is why Goat Blood Boy’s parting shot included his opinion that we should have nominated Petersen/Sharpe. That wasn’t for philosophical reasons. It was a recognition that nominating qualified moderate candidates rules out a lunatic like himself from the get-go. He might be able to bullsh*t his way through an argument that he is a libertarian (an argument he did make), but he surely can’t tell anyone he used to be a Governor.
I’ll put this another way: what percentage of Johnson/Weld’s 3.5% of the vote would be philosophically aligned with nationalism/alt-right sentiments? Surely less than 1 in 100 for sure.
The alt-righters don’t want a big tent libertarianism. It will surely drown them out. They’re the ones decrying the influx of Johnson-Weld “cultural marxists.’ Radicals may have other reasons for opposing Johnson/Weld, but the upshot is the alt-right insurgents and the radicals don’t want a political party in the traditional sense…they want a small religious sect arguing over who’s more libertarian.
“the radicals don’t want a political party in the traditional sense…they want a small religious sect arguing over who’s more libertarian.”
Um, no. Wejust want the party to be libertarian. Hopefully big-tent libertarian, but not threadbare “we advocate continuing the war on drugs and depriving people on secret government enemies lists of their gun and due process rights, vote for us because we’re just like the other guys ” Republicanism.
dL: well, watching Tucker Carlson sharpens the sphincter, not the brain…
me: Thanks for the heads up, Dr. dL. Are we to assume that you watch TC as well? Or have there been studies on the subject?
I watch TC and Rachel Maddow on occasion to get a sense where the right and left are on any particular subject. While they both sometimes school me on factual matters, I’m mostly watching the spin.
This helps me think about what a lessarchist in the Public Square could offer as a third way. Understanding the opposition’s positions and weak points is probably important IF one wanted to be in the mix.
Unfortunately, a vociferous minority of NAPsters have no real interest in being in the mix. Instead, their “political action” is to hold high the banner of the NAP and its full implications, regardless of how outrageous it might be.
Exhibit A: Vohra on the consent “issue.”
The way you get into the mix is by offering an alternative to what’s currently in the mix.
When attempting to break into a group of marketplaces already controlled by two players with pretty much the same product, and in which a plurality share in any given sub-market guarantees a period of monopoly, “hey, we’re just like them, only the swoosh on our shoe is aquamarine rather than blue-green or turquoise” isn’t a winning approach.
“We just want the party to be libertarian.”
I got it. I believe you are genuine in your beliefs there, no doubt.
If it makes you feel any better, this moderate thinks you’re right and the alt-righters/nationalists are wrong…on everything. I also think it doesn’t matter. As long as our internal party debates include a radical position, it rules out the overwhelming majority of people unwilling to associate with extremists.
Anarchism and radicalism have to be explicitly rejected it platform in some way. I’d be sad to see true-blue radicals leave the party on principle at that point, but what the party would gain would far outweigh its losses. Our goals would be much more quotidian, there is no doubt about it, but the person in prison for a marijuana offense only might prefer that we focus on the quotidian rather than the Utopian. Same goes for the innocent Yemeni under the threat of a drone attack via our war machine…I doubt that person has any interest in ensuring the Libertarian Party stays absolutely radical in its foreign policy messaging, willing to engage in coffee house debates about the free market provision of security while they continue to hide out in fear.
TK,
Yes, offering an alternative makes tons of sense to me. Surely you recognize that there’s a range of alternatives.
Abolishing consent laws is way out on the outer bounds, deeply fringe. It strikes me that positioning on the edge of the public square in a lessarchist direction is most likely to breakthrough.
Think about it: if GJ led with consent law abolition, he would almost certainly not get 3%. He might have gotten lower percentages than Bergland!
Anthony,
You’re conflating “radical” and “extremist.” They don’t mean the same thing. Get back to me once you’ve learned the difference.
RC, you write:
“Abolishing consent laws is way out on the outer bounds, deeply fringe. It strikes me that positioning on the edge of the public square in a lessarchist direction is most likely to breakthrough.”
As already discussed, whether or not it’s “way out on the outer bounds, deeply fringe” depends on where, to what degree, and in what context.
A century ago, the notion that a 14-year-old was too young to marry was “way on the outer bounds, deeply fringe” (I know women who were married at 14 much later than a century ago and who are still married 70+ years later). In fact, as of 1890, the age of consent in states that had any law on the books at all was generally 10-12, with Delaware the low outlier at 7.
Even 20 years ago, when I first wrote on the subject, I noted that, living in Missouri, I could move to Hawaii, meet a girl, legally marry her, then be subject to prosecution for statutory rape if I moved back to Missouri with her (age of consent in Missouri was, IIRC, 16, while in Hawaii it was 14). And it’s only been in the last 20 years that states have started moving their ages up and down to converge on 18.
Given that age of consent has lately pretty much been a constantly changing silly “draw a number out of a hat, below the number is a crime” game for quite some time now, I don’t consider it too terribly fringe to suggest that prosecutors merely prove their cases to juries (“this person was not capable of meaningful consent, therefore it is rape”) just like they have to do with other crimes. Basically, you are suggesting that every legal standard in the US except age of consent laws is “way out on the outer bounds, deeply fringe.”
“Think about it: if GJ led with consent law abolition, he would almost certainly not get 3%. He might have gotten lower percentages than Bergland!”
I wouldn’t suggest that any candidate lead with an issue that isn’t on the public’s front burner and/or that isn’t even part of the jurisdiction he’s running for a position in. Age of consent is decided at the state level. GJ leading with it would be like GJ leading with whether or not the town of Anyville should impose a 1 cent sales tax for fire protection.
“Anthony,
You’re conflating “radical” and “extremist.” They don’t mean the same thing.”
I’ll bet to the overwhelming majority of voters/likely voters, they do…and they surely do mean the same thing from the perspective that both are ruled out as tenable policy positions. It makes no difference whether either is right or wrong, not in the political arena.
Furthermore, that overwhelming majority of voters/likely voters is totally uninterested in learning about the difference. That doesn’t mean its not worth an organization of some kind parsing the difference. It just means that organization can’t be a political party.
tk: I don’t consider it too terribly fringe to suggest that prosecutors merely prove their cases to juries (“this person was not capable of meaningful consent, therefore it is rape”)
me: You have a lot more faith in jurisprudential theory and juries than I do, if I’ve gotten your perspective over the years. BUT…I’m skeptical that a courtroom determination is the same thing as the events that unfolded with an under-age person and an adult in a sexual context. “She told me she was 17,” and all that.
Surely I agree with you that the standards for consenting ages has changed. If some academics and lawyers want to debate a re-look at this issue, I’m more than OK with it. However, it makes NO sense that an LP officer feels its appropriate to bring the subject up for general public consumption.
tk: I wouldn’t suggest that any candidate lead with an issue that isn’t on the public’s front burner and/or that isn’t even part of the jurisdiction he’s running for a position in.
me: And yet you support the LNC’s VC pontifications on the subject.
“I’ll bet to the overwhelming majority of voters/likely voters, they do…and they surely do mean the same thing from the perspective that both are ruled out as tenable policy positions.”
Not even a little bit. In fact, most voters respond quite well to “radical” proposals when they are trotted out under a synonym to “radical” — “fundamental.” I suspect you’d have to go some time back in history to find a major party presidential candidate who didn’t use that word to describe one or more of his policy proposals, and gathered in voters who wanted radic … er, “fundamental” … changes.
I’m trying to remember the last presidential candidate who won an election by representing himself as middle of the road. Eisenhower, maybe?
“Surely I agree with you that the standards for consenting ages has changed. If some academics and lawyers want to debate a re-look at this issue, I’m more than OK with it. However, it makes NO sense that an LP officer feels its appropriate to bring the subject up for general public consumption.”
Bingo. Political sense right there.
Its perfectly okay for Reason magazine to commentate on the issue, as Andy Craig points out above. Its not okay for anyone associated with the LP to do so when its not a front burner issue, nor will it probably ever be in the political arena.
A party comprised of people with winning as a goal would understand that.
“However, it makes NO sense that an LP officer feels its appropriate to bring the subject up for general public consumption.”
Well, it wouldn’t make any sense if that had happened.
Debating libertarian ideas in libertarian Facebook groups isn’t “bringing the subject up for general public consumption.” The people who did that are the tantrum-throwing terrorists who demand that an officer they want removed be removed for debating libertarian ideas in libertarian Facebook groups.”
For the last year, they’ve made no bones about the fact that they’re trying to take over the LP in New Orleans this July and hope that stirring shit in this manner will help them do so. The LNC members and state LP officials who are negotiating with these terrorists shouldn’t ever be chosen for positions of trust or responsibility in the LP again. But neither should the terrorists they’re negotiating with.
In fact, most voters respond quite well to “radical” proposals when they are trotted out under a synonym to “radical” — “fundamental.” I suspect you’d have to go some time back in history to find a major party presidential candidate who didn’t use that word to describe one or more of his policy proposals, and gathered in voters who wanted radic … er, “fundamental” … changes.
Fine. I’m all for trotting out moderate libertarian positions and presenting them as radical. In fact, to the average voter, moderate libertarian positions ARE.
Even if said average voters become amenable to some libertarian position…re-legalization of all drugs, for example…it hardly follows that they are willing to vote for someone proposing to enact the entire constellation of radical libertarian proposals all at once.
tk: I’m trying to remember the last presidential candidate who won an election by representing himself as middle of the road.
me: Trump is a demagogue. His issues were all over the map. He SOMEHOW pulled it off, mostly because HRC was an awful candidate, and DJT was skilled at schoolyard taunts, put downs, and crowd-pleasing hyperbole. He’s a unique sort of showman.
I don’t see his election as a model from those interested in peace and freedom. Why? Because peace and freedom are aspirational notions. The hate that DJT pedaled was lowest-common-denominator manipulation.
Debating libertarian ideas in libertarian Facebook groups isn’t “bringing the subject up for general public consumption.”
Yes it is, if you are in a leadership position in the party. Unless you are stupid enough not to realize a debate on Facebook over abolishing Age of Consent laws where you’ve taken the position you’ve taken, is surely going to break out into the public sphere. Which is just another reason why he needs to be dumped.
RC,
I wasn’t referring to this last election. I was referring to pretty much every presidential election ever.
AD,
“it hardly follows that they are willing to vote for someone proposing to enact the entire constellation of radical libertarian proposals all at once.”
And I invite you to tell me where and when I ever suggested any such thing.
I’ve always advocated for Libertarian candidates to:
1) Understand that they don’t get to decide which issues are important in an election. The public decides that. The candidate just gets to address those issues. If the public is interested in immigration, national security, and welfare reform right now, the candidate is worse than useless if all he wants to talk about is Bitcoin, privatization of space exploration, and abortion. THOSE issues are ones he might work in edgewise if he thinks they will get him points with one constituency more so than losing him points with another, but the public decides what issues the election will revolve around.
2) Understand that their job with respect to the public is to sell a libertarian take on the important issues as defined by (1). Not “the” libertarian take — “a” libertarian take, as far as it seems voters might be willing to go.
3) Understand that their job with respect to the party is to give voice to the Statement of Principles. That doesn’t mean every proposal has to be “abolish this, abolish that.” But it does mean every proposal has to make the libertarian case against that which the candidate is calling to reduce or for that which the candidate is calling to implement, i.e. calling for a tax reduction needs to, if not in the exact words “taxation is theft,” explain why taxation is a bad thing, not just why 10% less might spur sales of soap.
All you are doing is making them and everyone else think you are a crazy obsessed stalker type.
Well, hopefully many/most of the delegates who voted Johnson/Weld have realized what a massive fuckup that was and are resolved to do better next time.
Rubbing their noses in it doesn’t really help vis a vis next time around because they shit the bed, then rolled around in it, and they pretty much either realize that or don’t, and if they don’t, they’re probably never going to.
On the other hand, when it comes to other issues that they’re wrong on, “hey, you shit the bed and then rolled around in it” seems like a decent way of calling their judgment on those other issues into question.
well, I can’t say I disagree with that at all, TK. That’s pretty damn well stated if you asked me.
When I start mouthing “we must have closed borders because of the welfare state” or “we must enforce restricted borders because of the rule of law,” then one can assume I probably watch Tucker Carlson. As of now, I have little use for his white identity politics butthurt schtick.
TK,
The general pattern in prez elections is to work the primary process toward their respective bases and then tack toward the middle of the road for the general election.
Even when candidates take edgier positions, they do try to make them at least semi-acceptable to the middle during the primaries. Or they speak in vague generalities about “border security,” or “single payer health services.”
There is a lot of nuance, code words, etc. to maintain viability while winking at the base.
Also, for the most part, campaigning for a second term is often pretty-darned middle of the road IN CONTEXT.
“Well, hopefully many/most of the delegates who voted Johnson/Weld have realized what a massive fuckup that was and are resolved to do better next time.”
Now you have to go and say something like that.
J/W are the only ones who came closest to fulfilling the requirements (1), (2), and (3) that you listed above.
Anthony,
Then the problem seems to reduce to this:
1) Arvin Vohra said some libertarian things in libertarian Facebook groups that some would-be takeover artists thought they could use to stir shit.
2) You blame Arvin Vohra rather than the shit-stirrers.
3) I blame the shit-stirrers, and the LNC/state party apparatchiks who are appeasing them, rather than Arvin Vohra, for the shit-stirring.
yep, I blame Vohra 100%.
It’s more or less the same cadre that wanted Vohra expelled from the LNC for his military comments. A right-wing PC/SJW contingent intent on a busy body campaign to find speech offensive to conservative ears. It includes that social con crank who wanted to use copyright laws to silence the Libertarian Nudist Caucus.
“J/W are the only ones who came closest to fulfilling the requirements (1), (2), and (3) that you listed above.”
J/W militantly worked against (2) and (3). They did pretty well on (1)
Some of the other candidates failed on (1).
From the perspective of the party’s purpose, (3) is non-negotiable. If a candidate doesn’t do that, running that candidate is at very best a waste of time.
Fair enough. I care far more about (1) than (2) or (3). I thought they handled (2) sufficiently, and (3) is a libertarian circle jerk I care about very little.
And the others were so bad on (1), the choice wasn’t even difficult. In fact, (1) is the non-negotiable one for me.
Wrong. That was the conventional wisdom 20 years ago. Karl Rove rewrote the playbook in 2000. In the internet, alt media, social media age, maximize base turnout on contentious issues(like gay marriage and immigration) ….the middle be damned
“Wrong. That was the conventional wisdom 20 years ago. Karl Rove rewrote the playbook in 2000. In the internet, alt media, social media age, maximize base turnout on contentious issues(like gay marriage and immigration) ….the middle be damned”
True. But even before that, a “tack to the middle” would still be characterized as heroically standing for “fundamental change,” even if the proposals on sale were just a cut in the top marginal rate on the income tax and some more money for “defense.”
Mainstream politician always try to set themselves up as a real alternative to, and a dramatic departure from the status quo, and the voters eat it up even though it’s not true.
The alleged “pragmatics” in the LP think that the LP should do exactly the opposite of what winning politicians do and play the Mitt Romney type “just like the other guy only better because we’re us” game. Which is maybe the fucking stupidest idea I’ve ever heard put forward in the annals of political strategery.
i.e, Bill Clinton.
Any potentially successful 3rd party run will entail (1) deep pockets (2) deep commitment to a few populist issues. The last one to come close to pulling it off was Ross Perot(the budget deficit, NAFTA were the issues). Bernie Sanders could have given it a good go in 2016.
The median voter theory relies on single peaked preferences and necessarily excludes 3rd parties. Scientifically, a move to the middle strategy for a 3rd party is DOA. Attempts to organize a move to a middle third party run(like Unity 08) have fizzled with a thud. I think John Anderson in 1980 is about the max result one could expect from that.
Some people seem to mistake my own take on campaigns as a party-flag-waving “you’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything” position.
That’s true as far as it goes.
But it’s also the position that you’ve got to stand for something because otherwise you’re just masturbating in public; even if you achieve orgasm, there won’t be any offspring in terms of policy results.
Hi Paulie!
Sorry I’m so late the respond; was busy.
I would like to clarify my statements about sexual activity and personal responsibility in light of your feedback.
I am cognizant that no prophylactic is a Fail-Safe. I have an IUD, my boyfriend has a vasectomy, and still there have been case studies where both measures have failed and sexual intercourse has resulted in pregnancy.
I am also fully aware as a 36 year old woman who has been sexually active since 17 that there’s a heck of a lot more someone can do in the bedroom (or kitchen or car or truck stop restroom) beyond penetrative sexual intercourse that qualifies as sexual activity, and that none of those manifest in pregnancy.
When I said we should be fully aware – and prepared – for the consequences of sex, I was not suggesting sex was only permissible for individuals who had a 401K, IRA, and six figure salary. I was simply saying that having a complete understanding of what the possible ramifications of one’s actions were and, at the very least, plan in case the unexpected occurred, is the responsible thing to do. I don’t think it’s altogether unreasonable to suggest an individual should give serious consideration to their opinion on matters and do their level best to take responsibility for their behavior as much as they reasonably can so as not to burden others who are not 100% willing to be part of their support network.
All that being said: nothing is a panacea and the best laid plans (about getting laid) don’t always come to pass. I was in a financial position to have kids when I did, but an unexpected, costly divorce that I am just now recovering from financially changed that. I am personally fortunate enough to have a wonderfully supportive family, but I am fully aware not everyone is. Not everyone was able to go to college like I was and leverage that education for a higher salary. I do not, even for a second, believe because I was privileged in many respects that I am entitled to engage in sex while others are not. All I am advocating for is being as aware, educated, and prepared as one reasonably can be. And even then: women still get raped and impregnated, so they should have the option of determining if they want to move forward with the pregnancy or terminate it safely with the aid of a trained medical professional.
And even so and after all that, what does it truly matter what I think? Even if I did actually think only a very specific subset of humanity should be permitted to have sex and that we should take a page from Buck v. Bell and force sterilize declared “imbeciles” (which in that case, was really just code for uneducated, impoverished, unmarried women) absolutely zero of my opinions end in, “there ought to be a law!”
This rolls right back into my original post from which you excised the snippet for commentary: humans, and their interactions, are inherently dynamic. One size fits all legislation and algorithmic thinking are cumbersome (at best) and dangerous (at worst.) This is why I believe every thought process that manifested in a law, backed up by the threat of the State’s gun, should be revisited, reviewed, and revamped.
Hope you’re doing well; it’s been a minute since we talked.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You go girl!!!!!! Excellent!!!!
The largest single use of a Presidential campaign at this point is to build a stronger party for the future. Part of this is selling the public on our positions. Part of this is creating stronger state and local organizations for future elections, in particular by sharing the donor, volunteer, and contact information generated by the campaign with state and local organizations.
By this standard, the Johnson/Weld campaign was a total and complete failure. Not only did the campaign not share the information, but under the agreement between the LNC and the campaign the information will never be released by the LNC beyond the LNC to the states.
“George Phillies
January 17, 2018 at 12:02
The largest single use of a Presidential campaign at this point is to build a stronger party for the future. Part of this is selling the public on our positions. Part of this is creating stronger state and local organizations for future elections, in particular by sharing the donor, volunteer, and contact information generated by the campaign with state and local organizations.
By this standard, the Johnson/Weld campaign was a total and complete failure. Not only did the campaign not share the information, but under the agreement between the LNC and the campaign the information will never be released by the LNC beyond the LNC to the states.”
I know that the Johnson/Weld list was at least officially released for the purpose of raising money for the LP of Ohio ballot access drive. I heard from two people who made a bunch of calls to that list that a bunch of the names on there that they called had no interest in the Libertarian Party (or in libertarianism in general), in that they were just Democrats or Republicans who only donated to Johnson/Weld because they are trying to influence the outcome of the presidential election.
I do agree with you that the Johnson/Weld campaign was a total failure. Unprincipled candidates getting a higher than normal vote total due to a record level of disgust with the major party candidates, and due to no better funded, higher profile, minor party or independent candidates being in the race, and none of the ones who were in the race having 50 state plus DC ballot access, is not a great accomplishment.
Getting votes for the sake of getting votes is meaningless, and this is what happens when principles are thrown under the bus, as Johnson/Weld did. The Libertarian Party could run say Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz for President in 2020, and the party would get a lot of votes, quite possibly more than Johnson/Weld got, but it doing this would be counterproductive to the cause of liberty.
Andy. I wish you’d stop.
You’re smarter than this.
………………..
Andy: The Libertarian Party could run say Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz for President in 2020, and the party would get a lot of votes, quite possibly more than Johnson/Weld got, but it doing this would be counterproductive to the cause of liberty.
…………………
Me: Are you talking for liberty for all? Or just the ones officially approved of?
How can you not see the irony of these statements when you call for restricting liberty of migration?
dL: When I start mouthing “we must have closed borders because of the welfare state” or “we must enforce restricted borders because of the rule of law,” then one can assume I probably watch Tucker Carlson. As of now, I have little use for his white identity politics butthurt schtick.
me: In the past, I’ve not gotten your sense of humor. Are saying you are so weak-willed that if you watch Carlson or Maddow, you will be persuaded by their arguments?
I’m not. Sometimes, I agree, sometimes I somewhat agree, sometimes I strongly disagree with both of them. Mostly I watch them to get a sense of where the left and right are coming from.
I find Tucker Carlson strange. He voted for Ron Paul in 1988, and participated in Paul’s Campaign for Liberty in 2008. Now, I know Ron is hardly the best on immigration, but he at least understands the economic arguments for open immigration. Tucker’s Faux News commentary is reflexively anti-immigrant, and with seeming zero recognition of the economic arguments.
Its almost like he is self-consciously playing to the Bill O’Reilly crowd.
dL: Wrong. That was the conventional wisdom 20 years ago. Karl Rove rewrote the playbook in 2000. In the internet, alt media, social media age, maximize base turnout on contentious issues(like gay marriage and immigration) ….the middle be damned
Me: I have a different perspective. W ran to the right of McCain and his father. At the same time, he immunized himself by offering his “compassionate conservative” vision, and a “humble foreign policy.”
He did NOT run as Roy Moore. He was within the mainstream of conservatives, probably perceived as less conservative than Reagan, more than his Dad. That’s non-threatening positioning. If he talked about gay rights or immigration, I don’t recall it being an emphasis, and my quick research validates my recollection.
Challenging consent laws is less threatening than private nukes, but it’s WAY out there in the stratosphere. 100% deal breaker.
iirc, Rove’s electoral strategy was to roll up the red states and energize the base in battleground states. Bush’s positioning was not to “tack right” that I recall. Rove may have done some micro-targeting on more contentious issues.
Anthony,
That’s how it works for a lot of people. They see an opportunity to stop being what they were and become something else.
Take Michelle Malkin, for example. In the late 1990s, she was frequently referred to as an up-and-coming “libertarian” writer. Then 9/11 came and she decided the money was in writing books about how it was cool to stick Japanese Americans in concentration camps and how the idea of someone named “Pedro” mowing her neighbor’s lawn makes her squat and pee in abject terror.
—–
W ran to the right of McCain and his father. At the same time, he immunized himself by offering his “compassionate conservative” vision, and a “humble foreign policy.”
—–
And as a result, he had to go to the Supreme Court to get the election result overturned.
TK,
That makes sense. This is an incredibly cursory of me, but IMHO his past is just too cosmopolitan to come off like he actually believes the brain-dead xenophobic flubdub he’s spouting.
I always thought Lou Dobbs would have been a more genuine and appropriate replacement for Bill OReilly.
AD,
I am reflexively pro-immigration. OTOH, I’ve yet to see a study that suggests the all-in costs of immigrants (including public education and “free” public health services) are outweighed by the benefits. Near as I can tell, this work simply hasn’t been done.
Also, employment rates last I checked are at levels not seen since the 1970s. Incomes have been stagnant for something like 2 decades. Whether this is due largely to immigrants is unlikely. I think it’s possible that it exacerbates the trends, which I don’t see as positive ones.
tk: And as a result, he had to go to the Supreme Court to get the election result overturned.
me: Cryptic. Please elaborate.
—–
I’ve yet to see a study that suggests the all-in costs of immigrants (including public education and “free” public health services) are outweighed by the benefits
—–
Whose costs and whose benefits?
As of around the turn of the century, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US Department of Health and Human Services, and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, immigrants (legal and illegal):
– Paid more per capita in taxes than native-born Americans;
– Consumed less per capita in government service costs than native-born Americans; and
– We statistically less likely to be charged with crimes than native-born Americans.
I don’t remember the exact date, just that I gathered the information to take on Pat Buchanan’s claims that the reverse was true on all three counts.
RC,
I don’t know what’s “cryptic” about the 2000 election. Gore won the election, Bush won the court case.
tk: – Paid more per capita in taxes than native-born Americans;
me: Double check that.
tk: – Consumed less per capita in government service costs than native-born Americans; and
me: I don’t believe that includes public schools and the emergency-room-as-primary-care facilities.
tk: – We statistically less likely to be charged with crimes than native-born Americans.
me: This seems right and valid to me. It disgusts me how anti-immigrant conservatives use a few horrible crimes by illegal immigrants to whip up anti-immigrant hatred.
tk: Gore won the election, Bush won the court case.
me: I’m aware. I’m just not sure what you meant earlier by “As a result…” Are you saying that Rove’s strategy and Bush’s positioning caused them to underperform or overperform?
when does this vote go down to remove Vohra?
“Are you saying that Rove’s strategy and Bush’s positioning caused them to underperform or overperform?”
If you have to go the Supreme Court to beat Al Gore just two years after his boss is impeached for lying about fucking interns in the Oval Office, I’d say you’re definitely under-performing.
You may recall the the positioning was much different in 2004. No more Mr. Nice Rove.
That’s Carlson’s schtick. Of course, the overwhelming consumer of government transfer payments and services is the majority demographic of Carlson’s audience: old people. Social security & medicare.
RE: economic stagnation. National security states are not prosperous. Well, they are for some people, but not the majority. The people who become prosperous in National Security states are people like ICE agent and CBP agents. Avg salaries ~ 100K, full government benefits. Talk about a welfare state!
It has nothing with perspective or interpretation; it has do with facts. Rove’s base strategy was fact. That the Bush campaign made opposition to gay marriage the fundamental issue of the 2004 campaign was a fact. Were you alive in 2004? Were you paying any attention? Jez…
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/us/the-2004-campaign-same-sex-marriage-urged-by-right-bush-takes-on-gay-marriages.html
It’s almost as if knowledge of political facts is inversely proportional to the amount of satellite/cable TV news one consumes. Almost as if one watches that carnival crap in order to erase the facts from one’s mind.
dL,
Your arguments don’t follow since SS has nothing to do with the economic costs of immigration. Ditto with the national security state.
When Carlson or Maddow point in a direction different from the positions I hold, I take the opportunity to reconsider my position in a new light, particularly if their views have at least SOME merit. What I don’t do is deflect or defensively offer non-sequiturs.
Highly recommended. Open-mindedness can be quite liberating.
I continue to hope for a reversal of SS, a winding down of the national security state (but not an abolition of it), and for a welcoming immigration policy. I don’t, however, believe that anyone can go anywhere regardless of citizenship status and that taxpayers should foot the bill.
Just because there is clearly economic advantages to allowing immigration, it does not follow that it’s a bad idea to restrict their activities that cost taxpayers. Indeed, that would INCREASE the net benefits of immigration!
“SS has nothing to do with the economic costs of immigration”
It does if you are comparing payments by, and government transfers to, immigrants to those of natives. Which is what you were doing.
dL,
We were talking about 2000, not 04.
He ran against McCain in the primaries. Obviously you missed that part.
Of course, the record shows that YOU YOURSELF was talking about 00. Scroll back up and see what YOU wrote:
dL: Wrong. That was the conventional wisdom 20 years ago. Karl Rove rewrote the playbook in 2000. In the internet, alt media, social media age, maximize base turnout on contentious issues(like gay marriage and immigration) ….the middle be damned.
me: Note that YOU said 2000.
Of course in 04 W and Rove threw the socialcons some red meat, although even there, it wasn’t an especially controversial at the time, since Kerry and Edwards opposed a federal legalization of same-gender marriage. It was still the case in 08, iirc, as Obama took that position, too.
Consider more discipline in your approach.
I did watch them at one time, back in the day of standard definition television. Back when I did regularly watch MSNBC. However, in a HD world, that shit is bad carnival…I got better things to do with my time.
tk: It does if you are comparing payments by, and government transfers to, immigrants to those of natives. Which is what you were doing.
me: We’ve got a severe disconnect today. I’m sure I don’t know what you mean.
Let me try this: I am still convinced that immigration should be encouraged. I am simply wondering whether the net benefits are overstated. If Carlson is correct on the narrow point that the studies that show the net benefits don’t include some major costs (education and health), the net benefits might be lower than otherwise believed.
If you know of a bulletproof study that DOES include the total costs, I would be in your debt.
AND…even if the net benefits are as good as Cato and others claim, it’s conceivable that they could be better still with better immigration policies.
And you apparently forgot the Bushies turned to their conservative base on the Supreme Court to win that election. The Rove base strategy started in 2000, ramped up in the 2002 midterms and then went overdrive in 2004.
Um, the difference was that Bush wanted to make it illegal at the federal level while Kerry opposed enforcing legality at the federal level. You were asleep back then…
“I am still convinced that immigration should be encouraged. I am simply wondering whether the net benefits are overstated”
And the net benefits would require honesty on both sides of the ledger. If you’re going to count every kid from Mexico City who gets a free lunch at school against immigrants, you’re going to have to count every old little old lady from Pasadena paying her rent and cable bill with a Social Security check against the native-born.
Bob’s open mind has liberated him from the responsibility of factual retention…
nah, I remember. In fact, I distinctly recall the Bush firewall in SC that relied in accusing McCain of fathering an illegitimate black child…
Andy Craig
January 17 at 11:46am
For those keeping track, the motion to suspend Vohra now has the requisite four cosponsors: Van Horn, McKnight, Katz, and Mattson.
excellent.
when do we get to tar and feather him for kicks?
Mattson is at-large. Are the others regionals?
“If you know of a bulletproof study that DOES include the total costs, I would be in your debt.
AND…even if the net benefits are as good as Cato and others claim, it’s conceivable that they could be better still with better immigration policies.”
The Cato Institute is compromised. They have people who push the globalist agenda and dress it up with libertarian language so naive and/or ignorant people buy it. I’m not saying that Cato never puts out any good material, I’m just saying that they mix it with crap and are too close to the corporate and DC “beltway” types, so I’m distrustful of them, and for good reasons.
tk: And the net benefits would require honesty on both sides of the ledger. If you’re going to count every kid from Mexico City who gets a free lunch at school against immigrants, you’re going to have to count every old little old lady from Pasadena paying her rent and cable bill with a Social Security check against the native-born.
me: All for it!
But I don’t know what you mean in the last clause. Did you really mean “native born” or do you mean “immigrants.” Or are you making some kind of meta point about cross subsidization in society at large?
There may well be a case for much-increased immigration, given the country’s demographics are rapidly aging. Some policies might optimize the net benefits of immigration and others might dampen it.
I see that Katz is at large as well.
I’m glad my regional rep didn’t co-ponsor the Appeasing Idiots Who Throw Tantrums Because Someone Posted Something They Didn’t Like on Facebook Act of 2018.
RC,
I don’t see that I was unclear at all.
If you’re going to compare net benefits between immigrants and native-born, that means comparing the receipts from, and the disbursements to, both immigrants and native-born. If the Mexican immigrant’s school lunch gets counted, so does the native-born little old lady from Pasadena’s Social Security check.
tk,
I see. Immigrants are incremental additions to the nation. You may miss that point, and assume that there’s a RIGHT to immigrate.
I do believe I view immigration as a privilege. I would say the nation clearly has benefited from immigration for most of our history. But as the State controls more and more of the economy, we COULD reach a point — particularly influenced by the current immigration policies — where immigration’s benefits are swamped by its costs.
To be clear, that’s not my position. I’ve not studied it closely enough. I do think it’s possible. My guess is immigration is still strongly a net benefit, but that its value to the nation as a whole has passed a point of diminishing returns.
Of course, I would stipulate that there are MANY measurement problems with analysis of this sort.
paulie: “For those keeping track, the motion to suspend Vohra now has the requisite four cosponsors: Van Horn, McKnight, Katz, and Mattson.”
Wow, I remember people telling others not to jump to conclusions and not to risk messing things up in Florida when presented with definitive proof that Ramsey is a neo-nazi with ties to white-nationalist organizations. Now, a dumb Facebook post is made (you can come down on either side of whether this was an appropriate message or not, the real questions, in my opinion, is whether this is suspension worthy and of greater importance to the Florida problem, which I think should be the main focus of the party) and these people are suddenly willing to do something.
I don’t think the LP really gets how serious this is, there are already news stories about Ramsey and I have seen a couple posts on reddit about Paul Stanon leaving the party. No one outside the party knows about Vohra, but they know about the Florida party’s antics.
From email chain on this:
“An Oregon Libertarian has already rescinded his candidacy. No one member has the right to FORCE others to be saddled with this, and that is precisely what Arvin has done – removing consent and determination from our candidates and peers.
-Caryn Ann”
There was a candidate in Florida who was asked in a debate between himself and candidate’s from other parties whether his party has a white supremacy problem, this was on a public radio station and archived on their site. Is this not a bigger problem?
“Many of you know me, but to those of you who do not, my name is Steve Scheetz, When the Roy Moore controversy came out, I was thinking “THANK the powers that be, WE don’t have this issue”
Our issues seem to be even worse, YOU endorsed a neo-nazi (does anyone know if he rescinded this?) that later organized a “rally” where someone was killed by a future hitler in a car.
paulie: “It feels to me like very few LP activists really care about being taken over by racists, know how to recognize it and even begin to have a clue how to fight back. I hope my fellow LP members prove me wrong but so far the response is extremely discouraging.”
Feels the same to me, just look at the amount of activity surrounding this vs. Florida.
I think I’m done with this “controversy,” honestly disgusted with the amount of attention it’s getting vs. the more pressing problems with Florida (neo-nazis, death threats, legal threats, etc.)
Secretary.
Paulie,
Yes. Officers are elected at-large.
FYI, apparently the motion is NOT yet on the floor. The four co-sponsors for an email ballot don’t agree on the cause, so they’re not all backing the same motion, nor are there the six sponsors for a motion to be decided in an electronic meeting. That comes from a reliable source on the LNC.
In any case, here’s the game and here’s the stakes:
The game is:
For those who have a problem with Arvin Vohra to get behind another candidate and try to replace him via election in New Orleans; or for those who have a problem with Arvin Vohra to try to convince the LNC to remove him.
The stakes are:
If Arvin’s opponents go the election route, they might win or they might lose, and life goes on.
If Arvin’s opponents go the LNC removal route and lose, maybe they’ll stop pulling this shit.
If Arvin’s opponents go the LNC removal route and win, then we get to go through this “appease the people throwing a tantrum because someone posted something they don’t like on Facebook” bullshit every couple of months until the sun burns out and Earth becomes a cold, dark, lifeless cinder.
Or, to put it a different way, you’re either for the party’s best interests, or you’re for removing Arvin Vohra. It’s one or the other.
dL,
In addition TC and RM, I listen to Sam Harris podcasts, generally when driving. I don’t always agree with him.
Do you disapprove of SH as well?
Is there a dL approved media source?
***If Arvin’s opponents go the LNC removal route and win, then we get to go through this “appease the people throwing a tantrum because someone posted something they don’t like on Facebook” bullshit every couple of months until the sun burns out and Earth becomes a cold, dark, lifeless cinder.***
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/08/thomas-l-knapp-time-for-libertarians-to-dump-bill-weld/
lol
AC,
While you may have a problem with what Vohra posted on Facebook, he did not publicly repudiate the party’s platform while representing it to the public.
I advocated removing Weld because he was not just not doing his job, he was doing the exact opposite of his job.
I have yet to hear any allegation that Vohra has not done his job, the details of which are right there in the bylaws.
We’re also talking about a situation that can only come up one time every four years. This is at least the third attack in a single year by the wreckers, one on the chair and two on the vice chair, in none of the three cases for repudiating or attacking the party’s platform or principles, nor for not doing their jobs, nor for e.g. financial malfeasance, violent crimes, etc.
Well, you know how the old soviet system worked. One day the purger, the next, the purged…
Apart from being a blood thirsty lunatic, he gives credence to the notion that atheism is itself just another religion.
slashdot… I would also recommend rational review, but i believe i did wear out my welcome there…
Vohra’s comments were both public and contradicting the platform. The only difference I see is whether or not Thomas Knapp counts himself among those offended. If he does, then the LNC should overturn the results of the convention a month before the election. If he doesn’t, than it’s outrageous and bad for the party for anybody to suggest the LNC should remove that person.
“Andy Craig
January 17, 2018 at 21:06
Vohra’s comments were both public and contradicting the platform. The only difference I see is whether or not Thomas Knapp counts himself among those offended. If he does, then the LNC should overturn the results of the convention a month before the election. If he doesn’t, than it’s outrageous and bad for the party for anybody to suggest the LNC should remove that person.”
This is rather ironic coming from Andy Craig, who was a big Johnson/Weld supporter, given that Johnson and Weld both made multiple statements that grossly contradicted the Libertarian Party’s platform, and they did this on national television. How come he never called for their removal?
” The four co-sponsors for an email ballot don’t agree on the cause, so they’re not all backing the same motion”
There are four co-sponsors of the only motion, which reads:
Elizabeth Van Horn elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org:
I make a motion to suspend Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair
under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws.
Thank you Elizabeth. I will co-sponsor this motion.
Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep Chair, NJLP
Therefore, I will cosponsor.
Joshua Katz
Alicia Mattson wrote: After spending time reading through the actual comments in question, I am willing to co-sponsor a motion for suspension.
The only proposed motion unambiguously has four co-sponsors, so it must roll forward to a vote. Once the LNC acts, people who do not like it can appeal to the Judicial Committee, as was done in the case of Lee Wrights. If Vohra is suspended, he can appeal to the Judicial Committee.
If any nominated presidential or VP candidate went on TV, or anywhere else, and said the things Vohra has, I’d be just fine with the LNC dumping them from the ticket.
I only mentioned the platform, because it was claimed Vohra didn’t contradict it, when that’s plainly untrue.
Andy Craig,
My biggest issue with this is how motivated people are when they couldn’t be bothered to fix other way worse problems with the party. After seeing these same people dismiss nazi propaganda and white genocide conspiracy theories, I’m just numb to any outrage over Arvin’s posts.
Here’s an idea. Why don’t we set up local LP groups that can figure out what the voters in their area are concerned about and address those concerns with well-researched and thought-out positions?
Not angels-dancing-on-pin jousting but actually addressing local spending, policing, taxes, and other things that voters care about.
@AT
I’m also dismayed by the lack of concern or action over the Florida Nazi infestation, and I was also appalled that a state LP appointed an outright white nationalist to the platform committee and some people don’t seem to think that’s a problem. But I will grant the LNC members, the reality that their options are more limited (and worse) when it comes to dealing with a state affiliate gone awry, vs. dealing with removing one of their own.
” But I will grant the LNC members, the reality that their options are more limited (and worse) when it comes to dealing with a state affiliate gone awry, vs. dealing with removing one of their own.”
Yes, I have to keep in mind that their options for Florida are basically pull the plug or to bury their heads in the sand and hope it gets fixed by the state party, it’s just sort of funny to read the moral outrage from some of them. I think the Arvin situation has been boiling for a while with some of them, so it mgiht have been a tipping point.
“I’m also dismayed by the lack of concern or action over the Florida Nazi infestation, and I was also appalled that a state LP appointed an outright white nationalist to the platform committee and some people don’t seem to think that’s a problem”
(btw, I hope you didn’t think I was implying that you were acting like the LNC members who dismissed these problems, I know you’ve been very critical here at IPR of what’s been going on in Florida.)
“There are four co-sponsors of the only motion, which” does not state a cause for suspension.
The bylaws require cause.
The four do not agree on that element of the motion.
Presumably they will get their act together on a version of The Appeasing Idiots Who Throw Tantrums Because Someone Posted Something They Didn’t Like on Facebook Act of 2018 so it can actually move forward to debate and a vote.
But they haven’t yet.
Or, rather, they hadn’t last night.
Andy,
Feel free to point out where Vohra contradicted the platform. I’ll wait.
Andy Craig said: “Andy Craig
January 17, 2018 at 22:28
If any nominated presidential or VP candidate went on TV, or anywhere else, and said the things Vohra has, I’d be just fine with the LNC dumping them from the ticket.”
But you were fine with Johnson/Weld calling for the federal government to appoint bureaucrats to a task force which would come up with a secret enemies list, and that once anyone was put on this list, without their knowledge or any explanation or notification or trial, they’d be denied their right to keep and bear arms?
You were OK with Bill Weld saying that assault rifles should be banned, and that handguns were a problem?
You were OK with Johnson/Weld saying that the US should sign on to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an an agreement that the an official LNC press release had condemned about a year before this?
You were OK with Gary Johnson saying that he was OK with the government coming up with a Universal Basic Income?
You were OK with Gary Johnson saying that private bake shop owners should be forced to bake cakes for people whom they do not want to bake cakes for?
You were OK with Gary Johnson pushing the Fair Tax, which is a 30% national sales tax (disingenuously pushed as being a 23% tax) which includes a rebate check, which essentially puts everyone on government welfare, and Bill Weld saying that the IRS and the income tax should be kept as is, but that we should promise people that their taxes will not go up (yeah, I’m sure we can really trust him….NOT!)?
You were OK with Johnson/Weld saying that the taxpayers should be forced to fund Planned Parenthood, something which even the most rabid pro-choice on abortion Libertarians have traditionally opposed?
You were OK with Johnson/Weld saying that if they were elected, they’d appoint Mitt Romney as Secretary of State?
You were OK with Johnson/Weld gushing over Hillary Clinton, and calling her a “wonderful public servant”?
I see some double standards here.
The motion may or may not be valid, because it fails to specify the cause, but there are not four motions, there is only one motion, the motion being the words I quoted.
On one hand, the motion may well need to have a cause specified in the motion, so that the accused can defend himself.
Attention Andy Craig!
To quote Knapp:
January 17, 2018 at 04:32
(Quoting Craig in Jack News:) “His latest remarks, which he admits are partly intended to drive moderate supporters of former Gov. Gary Johnson out of the party, have roiled the small world of L.P. activists in the past few days.”
Interesting. I had kind of assumed they were more of an attempt to bait the peckerwood populists and so forth (e.g. the fake “Veterans Caucus”) and get them ranting so that everyone gets a really good look at what they are…. End quote
So exactly where did he say what? I mean moderate Johnson supporters DO need a wake up call, but obviously Arvin’s wake up calls are counterproductive. sigh… Anyway, an officer admitting explicitly he wants to drive out such moderates in such harsh sounding language obviously is problematic.
Of course I lot of libertarians have attitude that if they can’t handle libertarians talking about basic libertarian principles like right to secession for anarchist and minarchists alike; fact of anarchists running about; womens and reprodouctive rights to freedom and equality under the law; down with welfare and militarism; etc. BUH BYE…
I liked this comment from Carol Moore on the Jack News article by Andy Craig:
“Libertarian National Committee Vice Chair Arvin Vohra’s comments since spring of 2017 too often have been poorly thought out at best and obnoxiously and destructively provocative at worst. He should resign from the comittee, compose himself/chill and put all his effort into his 2018 Maryland Senate campaign.
However, let’s not forget the context. What did he say or write before spring of 2017 that was so obnoxious? I keep waiting for evidence, if anyone wants to do a probably difficult search. Or just remember?
What happened in the winter and spring 2017? First there was an aggressive attack on the Libertarian Party of Florida and a Pennsylvania libertarian event by individuals who are best described as white nationalists, no matter their current claims to be just libertarian conservatives, or whatever.
Then Vohra wrote a poorly worded, and initially poorly defended, statement regarding the morality of soldiers, in line with his recommendation the LP do outreach to schools to warn kids the US might require them to become defacto murderers. At some point he may foolishly written all soldiers are murderers, but he did apologize for his angry statements to libertarians and the national committee.
That wasn’t good enough for the “LP Veteran Caucus” created by “former” white nationalist Ryan Ramsey. It not only called for him to be removed from the national committee but allowed a “joke” post to stand that threatened Vohra with gun violence at the 2018 convention in New Orleans. (A convention Ryan Ramsey later threatened he and his crew would protest and disrupt because having it in NOLA insulted the confederacy; he wanted to move it to the hallowed grounds of Vicksburg, MS. See https://libertarianheathen.com/…/from-nola-to…/ ) LP Veteran Caucus member and former Marine, LNC member Larry Sharpe jumped on the bandwagon calling for Arvin to be removed.
Some of us saw in all of this white and/or military-loving conservative nationalists getting all upset because a civilian of color, probably second generation Asian, dared to criticize the US military. (Civilian bashing is a militaristic trait I’ve seen from someof them; and most libertarians ARE lowly civilians!)
After this incident it was pretty much “off to the races” with Arvin and others trying to get rid of the white nationalists and anyone who tolerates them. Arvin obviously has been the least expert and most annoying and provocative of the critics of nationalist militarists (and often sexually uptight) conservatives.
Don’t forget Ramsey and these other white nationalists then supported the “blood and soil” white nationalist marchers in Charlottesville in August 2017. Worse, some allegedly ONLY conservative members fiercely supported use of “blood and soil” language by another high profile libertarian. This led to the “Libertarian National Committee Seeks to Expel White Nationalists” as JackNews itself reported. https://www.thejacknews.com/…/libertarian-national…/
Note that i have been very harsh with the white nationalists and defenders myself, making lots of mocking memes, posts, blog entries and emails exposing their non-libertarian views and actions. I just wish Arvin had controlled his temper and focused on those issues, instead of trying to turn off conservatives by bringing up the most outlier interpretations of hard core libertarian views. Especially those which he knows too little about to discuss coherently! (Thank heavens he didn’t mess with my favorite libertarian decentralist issue – secession!)
Thus, my thoughts on why Arvin Vohra should resign his LNC position and withdraw from the libertarian vs. conservative battles. He should concentrate on learning to promote libertarian issues effectively and doing a really great Senate campaign.”
Minor correction:
—–
Don’t forget Ramsey and these other white nationalists then supported the “blood and soil” white nationalist marchers in Charlottesville in August 2017.
—–
My recollection is that Ramsey derided and mocked that event starting well before it happened. I never did quite figure out why, except that he and Augustus Invictus had had some kind of breakup.
“My recollection is that Ramsey derided and mocked that event starting well before it happened. I never did quite figure out why, except that he and Augustus Invictus had had some kind of breakup.”
I think you’re correct about that. I think he does it to throw people off. He’s now is claiming that the alt-right are both leftists and government plants to make right wing people look bad. He is of course forgetting that the website he used to write blog posts for (attack the system or something like that) had links to alt-right websites on the side.
To continue my last comment…
It’s the same thing Miralles has done, on his radio interview he stated that Ramsey couldn’t be a white-nationalist because he condemned the united the right rally. It’s just a trick.
Anon-Tipper,
There’s never any telling with Ryan whether he’s being clever or being crazy. I remember one time when he told me that the FEDRUL AUTHORITAHS had shared with him that they were about to bust Nick Sarwark and then-LPF-chair Char-Lez Braden for being behind massive cyber attacks on all his electronic devices. Also, he claimed another time that (former Senate candidate) Paul Stanton and (former LPF chair/gubernatorial candidate) Adrian Wyllie were using LPF to launder tens of millions of dollars in some kind of illegally acquired money.
Not sure what he’s up to lately. Finally blocked him. His antics were cutting into my poker and guitar time.
Thomas L. Knapp,
Yeah, there’s either something extremely wrong with him or he’s just trying to see what sticks to get people to hate the same people he hates (Sarwark, Stanton, etc.) I think I saw some youtube video he posted (on the LP county official youtube page) of “proof” his phone was being hacked by marxist “interlopers.”
Actual removal is looking more and more likely, as opposed to merely a vote. Between the electronic meeting and the email ballot 7 different cosponsors with some overlap, although they are not necessarily all yes votes for removal. And see the latest exchange on LNC list:
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011573.html Vohra
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011574.html Hayes
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011575.html Vohra
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011576.html Adams
Paulie,
It’s important to understand that whether or not Vohra is removed isn’t the point.
The goal of the people who have been hyping this stuff for a year now — first versus Sarwark, now for the second time versus Vohra — wasn’t to actually get any removals. That’s incidental to their purpose.
Their purpose was to bait enough party members into having a cow that the LNC would feel forced to put on a public shit-show that could be used to further weaken the party.
Whether Vohra is removed or not, they’ve already won.
I’m not sure I understand. The people who want Vohra removed put him up to making his dopey comments lo’ these many months?
Anthony,
LNC members have been putting up dopey comments for as long as social media has existed. These guys’ game is to try to get as many gullible LP members to have a cow about it as possible so that the party will make itself look like a bunch of navel-gazing puritanical busybody idiots. Mission accomplished.
“LNC members have been putting up dopey comments for as long as social media has existed. These guys’ game is to try to get as many gullible LP members to have a cow about it as possible so that the party will make itself look like a bunch of navel-gazing puritanical busybody idiots.”
I’ll refer to what Charles Barkley said years ago about keeping unsavory characters away from his daughter: he only has to kill the first one.
Based on what Vohra said, I don’t think we have to worry about reasonable persons thinking we’ve become “puritanical busybod[ies].” If they consider his removal at all, they’ll probably think we’re doing the exact opposite: getting the party focused on what actually matters to voters, not navel-gazing about issues that don’t.
It’s ridiculous and false to conflate those wanting Vohra removed for endorsing child molestation, with Ramsey’s alt-right nonsense and the Tom Woods Avengers who tried to make a stink about Nick accurately calling a spade a spade wrt to the paleolibs.
There was never any substantial demand or desire among party members to remove Nick; indeed he’s still the favorite to win re-election (though if anything could drag him down, it’s his unhelpful snarky non-responses to Vohra’s insanity). There was never even a single LNC member who supported the idea, nor any state chairs or parties that I’m aware of. And it’s ludicrously false to imply Ramsey and his group have anything to do with the possible removal of Vohra. Him and his half-dozen goons might support it– I dunno, I don’t follow them– but they are not any substantial part of the apparent majority of party member who want Vohra gone.
Not looking good for Vohra:
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011573.html
“Some objectivists have similarly argued that when a person can take on the
responsibilities of adulthood, they have the right to make their own
decisions. I like that idea. I would extend it by saying that those who
cannot take on those responsibilities don’t have those rights. Those who
have kids they cannot afford, and then have 15 more they cannot afford, are
violating that. I don’t think the state should be involved. I also don’t
think the state should subsidize that behavior through welfare, as it has
been doing for decades (and yes, welfare does include government schools).”
You should lose your rights? Wow
Anon-Tipper,
That’s what I have been saying. Arvin is talking about a lot more than age of consent. He is saying that people who can’t afford to send their kids to private school should not be allowed to consent to sex, even though a lot of sex is non-reproductive, a lot of children are raised by someone other than their birth parents, etc, etc.
What next? Will we deem people who can’t afford a helicopter and a yacht to be incapable of consent because they use government roads within the presently existing system? That way we could have a planet of worker-serfs who are not allowed to have any kind of sex, reproductive or otherwise, unless they are picked out by one of the helicopter and yacht owning elite to be sexual servants and/or baby-carriers. Sort of a non-religious handmaid’s tale.
So, again, are you including, for example, Harlos or Hayes here?
paulie:
Yeah, his statements are just “yikes.” I wasn’t following this close enough and was blinded by my own anger that people weren’t this upset about other issues in the party.
I think now I’m at the point where I have no problem with him getting kicked out of the party, then with that problem gone, maybe people can focus on the other problems.
Paulie,
“So, again, are you including, for example, Harlos or Hayes here?”
No. They just let the people who fell for it bully them into this circus out of a misguided notion that “representation” means “representing whatever damnfool idea your constituents come up with” rather than representing their constituents’ interests.
“Based on what Vohra said, I don’t think we have to worry about reasonable persons thinking we’ve become ‘puritanical busybod[ies].’ If they consider his removal at all, they’ll probably think we’re doing the exact opposite”
Jesus fucking Christ. You don’t understand “reasonable people,” aka “voters,” at all, do you? What they’ll think they remember is that “the LP is the party of them thar PEDDO-files.”
“It’s ridiculous and false to conflate those wanting Vohra removed for endorsing child molestation”
See, even you fell for it.
The last two parts of the above comment were in reply to Anthony.
“I think now I’m at the point where I have no problem with him getting kicked out of the party”
Since that can’t be done, it really doesn’t matter whether or not you have a problem with it.
“That’s what I have been saying. Arvin is talking about a lot more than age of consent. He is saying that people who can’t afford to send their kids to private school should not be allowed to consent to sex, even though a lot of sex is non-reproductive, a lot of children are raised by someone other than their birth parents, etc, etc.
What next? Will we deem people who can’t afford a helicopter and a yacht to be incapable of consent because they use government roads within the presently existing system? That way we could have a planet of worker-serfs who are not allowed to have any kind of sex, reproductive or otherwise, unless they are picked out by one of the helicopter and yacht owning elite to be sexual servants and/or baby-carriers. Sort of a non-religious handmaid’s tale.”
Any particular “What Next?” is not even getting at the root of the problem here. How can a political party expect to get anything accomplished if we constantly dealing with hypothetical “What Next” arguments? Besides the fact that the bell can’t be unrung with regard to Age of Consent laws or any of Arvin’s dopey comments, we’d be a party forever going down the rabbit hole of how far to take libertarianism, while real world problems go unsolved.
The solution goes far beyond getting rid of Vohra.
1. Explicitly disavow anarchism in the platform.
2. Dump anyone who’s primary purpose isn’t wining elective office. #1 will go a long way to doing that, but we need an LP who’s members singular desire is to win elective office in order to move public policy in a libertarian direction.
At that point, the lunatics who want to blather on about abolishing age of consent laws or calling servicemembers murderers can self-select out of the party.
Jesus fucking Christ. You don’t understand “reasonable people,” aka “voters,” at all, do you? What they’ll think they remember is that “the LP is the party of them thar PEDDO-files.”
You’re not seriously suggesting that if we just ignored Vohra’s comments, the mainstream media and the dinosaur parties would ignore it too? Or that they would take the charitable route and understand he wasn’t making those comments in his role as Vice Chair, but just as an average citizen? No one could plausibly suggest that.
I don’t understand how not doing anything about this, just letting his comments stand as is, wouldn’t be seen by the average voters as the party tacitly okaying pedophilia. We just stick our heads in the sand and hope no one brings it up? wtf?
Aren’t they having a meeting to remove him from the LNC? Is it that I messed up by saying “party” instead of “LNC?” Either way, I don’t really care if I used the wrong word on an internet comment section when it’s clear what the topic is; Arvin’s removal from the LNC. I agree with the comment Paulie made above, Arvin’s statements on this are going way beyond age of consent laws.
I should’ve paid more attention to it because before I thought it was hypocritical for some of the people on the LNC emails to be outraged by this and not the other problems with the LP, but now I think it’s appropriate to be upset about this and I understand exactly what he was saying. My hope is that some of these people upset now will then focus on the nazis when this is done, but I’m still skeptical of this.
To follow up on my comment of 15:06: I do understand that my suggestion will cause many, many genuine, hardworking anarchists/radicals to leave the party, but I have no idea who those genuine people are and who the petulant, undisciplined self-aggrandizers are until they open their dopey mouths, and at that point, as I noted, the bell can’t be unrung. The only way to ensure the dopes stay out of the party is to make sure they self-select out before joining.
Some people just don’t seem to understand how p.r. works in the real world: had we had any representation at all in, say, Congress, even one member, Vohra’s comments would have been instant news and would have been all over the cable news networks until we got rid of him. It would have gone down no other way. The only reason its taking so long is because there is no public pressure on the party. If there was, he would have been gone A LONG time ago.
If you place several zeros after the decimal, there is a probability that Vohra’s comments could be noticed by MSM or someone running against the LP. That probability rises – I don’t know off hand by how many orders of magnitude – when a big chunk of the party insists on focusing on the Vice Chair’s personal comments made in an unofficial setting. Without looking it up, I have no idea who the Vice Chairs of the D, R, G, C etc parties currently are much less what stupid things they may have said. And two of those parties get a lot more media attention than we do.
Anthony,
“You’re not seriously suggesting that if we just ignored Vohra’s comments, the mainstream media and the dinosaur parties would ignore it too?”
History says absolutely.
The mainstream media and dinosaur parties didn’t bat an eye when the party’s 2008 presidential candidate suggested, in the largest newspaper in Georgia, that state law required the government to distribute child porn on demand at taxpayer expense.
And before that, the mainstream media and dinosaur parties didn’t bat an eye when one of the other candidates tried to stir up shit about the pre-Barr front-runner having said stuff similar to what Vohra is saying in a book on libertarian solutions to social problems.
From what I’ve heard, at one point in the 70s, a local or state party shared an office with NAMBLA. Harsh reaction from within the party. From the mainstream media and dinosaur parties, not a peep.
The way to solve a PR problem that’s internal to the party is not to go insane and do your damnedest to call that PR problem to the attention of the mainstream media and dinosaur parties. Which is exactly what the wreckers have conned some members, who have in turn bullied the LNC, into doing.
Anon-Tipper, sorry, I thought you meant from the party. Yes, he can be removed from the LNC if a majority of the LNC gets lobotomies and smoke crack before the meeting. But no amount of brain mutilation or drug consumption can remove him from the party. He can remove himself from the party by rescinding his certification. That’s the only way.
ad,
Prolly so. Look at how the Rs had to explain Roy Moore. And Trump. And Bannon.
Look at how so many pols had to resign in the wake of #metoo. Allegations were enough.
IF Ls want to be in a position of making change — a big IF — who they associate with politically becomes a vtal consideration.
IF, OTOH, they want to remain a tiny echo chamber where outrageous, out-of-bounds statements are not heeded, well, we’ve seen how that’s been working for 45 years or so.
Anthony,
Before you continue your call to turn the Libertarian Party into the Reform Party, you might want to read your history and see how that turned out. Hell, they came within one vote of nominating me for VP in 2016. Is that the LP you really want?
Anthony: “The solution goes far beyond getting rid of Vohra.”
I have to be honest, most of the problems seem to stem from the “radical” members unfortunately.
“Anon-Tipper, sorry, I thought you meant from the party.”
No worries, I should’ve been clearer
Continuing my 15:37 comment…
At least that’s been my impression, there’s just been a lot of toxicity with the LvMI and it’s not looking good that many people that call themselves anarchists have been defending them lately.
TK,
You didn’t show up in Bohemia, NY in 16, as I recall, which may have been your downfall. That Reform Party was a vestige of the 90s Reform Party.
But you seem to keep employing the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is either a slavish, literal, dogmatic adherence to the NAP, or there are NO principles whatsoever. This is untrue. It’s useful to have principles to guide us in the here and now. These principles need not dictate each and every step toward freedom, which itself is a rather murky goal.
Lol, his emails just keep getting worse:
“1. Is there a bylaws demanding empathy? Nope.
2. Is there some objective reason to believe that political effectiveness
requires empathy? Nope.
3. Has empathy held our movement back, in that it leads people to refuse to
speak out against things like government school use, and focus on things
that are nice, like issues no one on earth, including most libertarians,
know about or care about? Yes.”
“Strength of will, willingness to accept the suffering of those who
collaborated with the state, is what is required to see that through.”
“Want to see the results of empathy? Take a look at our last presidential
candidate’s response to a mother’s incompetence, and her son’s bad
decisionmaking. We need less empathy, not more, for this movement to do
what it needs to.”
Sounds rather Nietzschean. Could take of the Uberman be far behind?
paulie,
If you place several zeros after the decimal, there is a probability that Vohra’s comments could be noticed by MSM or someone running against the LP. That probability rises – I don’t know off hand by how many orders of magnitude – when a big chunk of the party insists on focusing on the Vice Chair’s personal comments made in an unofficial setting. Without looking it up, I have no idea who the Vice Chairs of the D, R, G, C etc parties currently are much less what stupid things they may have said.
1) We are no threat to the dinosaur parties at this time, that is why this is not being reported on. You can rest assured, if this occurred during an election season, and we had even ONE candidate threatening for a US Congress seat, this would most assuredly be brought up to that candidate. Surely the dinosaur party candidates opposed to our candidate would be bringing it up.
2) ” That probability rises – I don’t know off hand by how many orders of magnitude – when a big chunk of the party insists on focusing on the Vice Chair’s personal comments made in an unofficial setting.”
First of all, I don’t care what the setting is. He’s the Vice Chair. The comments could have been surreptitiously recorded at a private family gathering and the LP would have no option other than to throw him out on his ass immediately. If you don’t like that you are the Vice Chair 24/7 and everything you say and do reflects upon the Party, then don’t run for Vice Chair. Anyone that immature shouldn’t be in a leadership position anywhere. Teachers regularly get fired for posting inappropriate material on Facebook FROM THEIR PERSONAL TIME. Grow up, Vohra.
3) “Without looking it up, I have no idea who the Vice Chairs of the D, R, G, C etc parties currently are much less what stupid things they may have said.”
Do you want to instantaneously find out who the Vice Chair of the Democratic Party is? Have him post something on Facebook saying,
“Vohra claimed that it was preferable for a fourteen-year-old to be impregnated by an adult, because then they would be less likely to collect welfare. In another comment, he insisted that child molestation was morally indistinguishable from homosexuality, and accused gay members of the party of “hypocrisy” if they disagreed. In others, he insisted the abuse of children as young as nine should be left to the discretion of their parents.”
You’ll know inside the hour who the Vice Chair of the Democratic Party is, and he/she would be taken out back and disemboweled by said party by the next day. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
rc,
one of the supreme ironies I meditate on is how so many in the LP wax poetically about the free market and its power to solve the problems of resources allocation, then turn around and demand that the voters can have any variety of libertarianism as long as it is black, and not look around them and see how organizations…with a brand image to defend…in relatively free industries would handle a situation like Vohra. As you pointed out, for many of them, allegations alone were enough.
Anon-Tipper,
“I have to be honest, most of the problems seem to stem from the “radical” members unfortunately.”
Of course. I’m sure many…MOST of them….mean well, but how do we know which is which before they spout off? We don’t. All I know is …genuine radical or not…I have someone telling me that winning elections either isn’t important, isn’t the most important thing, or is something we should try to avoid.
Frankly, an organization that keeps someone like that around is just asking for trouble. Maybe not from ALL of them, but surely some of them.
Anthony,
One of the supreme ironies I meditate on is how someone who seems relatively smart, like you, could be so completely and abysmally ignorant of the basics of realpolitik, yet so obsessed with riffing on it.
It reminds me of the exchange between Congressman Springer and Speaker Reed:
Springer: As for me, Mr. Chairman, in the words of an eminent American statesman, “I would rather be right than be president.”
Reed: The gentleman from Illinois needn’t worry, Mr. Chairman. He’ll never be either.
lol, well, the anecdote you relate is funny, but I think I’ll stick with my analysis, if the alternative is that dumping Vohra proves we are the party of pedophiles and keeping him around proves we aren’t.
Anthony,
Oh no, I agree with you, I’ve seen too much vitriol from the “radical” people to have much sympathy for them in general. It’s an uphill battle for the majority of libertarians to have to dissuade people that we’re not all like the extremely loud radicals.
Do you even know what the law of the excluded middle is? lol. A fallacy of the excluded middle typically is denoted as “a false dilemma.” He is not giving a false dilemma. The one who is presenting that is you.
ad: as long as it is black
me: Nice analogy.
And once this NAPster dogma is seen for what it is, we generally hear about the Founders, their intentions, and the relevant Bylaws clauses. And then non-True Believers are told, effectively, “Ya don’t like it, there’s the door.”
Rather than address the wisdom of the foundational documents and the ideas they codified, NAPsters make a might-makes-right argument, or more kindly, the it’s-a-voluntary-organization point.
Kinda tedious, actually.
That might be a winning issue in Alabama….
“I think I’ll stick with my analysis, if the alternative is that dumping Vohra proves we are the party of pedophiles and keeping him around proves we aren’t.”
Exactly. You’re unable to identify and ween distinguish between real-world alternatives. You live in a fantasy world that you’ve convinced yourself is real politics.
“Rather than address the wisdom of the foundational documents and the ideas they codified, NAPsters make a might-makes-right argument, or more kindly, the it’s-a-voluntary-organization point.”
I had a bet with myself that you’d bring your imaginary opponents in somewhere around this point. Now I owe myself a steak dinner.
What’s tedious is people who make welfare state arguments supporting pro-kidnapping, pro-deportation positions who then pretend to be morally outraged over welfare state arguments for sexual behavior preferences. Or, what really gets mundane are far right pecker woods pretending to be in “the center.”
It brings me joy to trigger joy in you, Brother Knapp!
RC,
It brings me joy that I get a steak dinner out of your utter predictability 😀
rational people AKA “voters” doesn’t necessarily follow. There’s a tons of political science literature out there that –> rational people do not vote OR voting
is the least rational act a person can doat best is only the most rational irrational act a person can do.dL,
He is using “rational people” as a proxy for “people he wants to appeal to,” aka voters.
Meanwhile in Florida:
I wish I had listened to that guy who tried to talk me into buying FacePalmCoin when it was still going for 23 cents.
Alison Foxall voted against removing Ramsey. tbh, I wouldn’t trust anyone that saw literal nazi propaganda and didn’t vote to remove him.
If it was, Roy Moore would be Senator right now. It’s not.
I bet myself a few finger-bangs that several people would make predictable points that they always do whenever a discussion thread here gets to this length, as well as many other times. Damn, I’m sore….at least the first couple of hours of it were enjoyable, though.
Gina,
JPEG or it never happened.
Damn it.. I was just about to say video or it didn’t happen.
Yeah, people will justify that human trafficking(and child trafficking) by appealing to a freakin welfare state argument. I don’t agree at all with Vohra’s welfare state rationalizations vis a vis child agency, but then again, I start with a principle that the welfare state is not rationalization for what can acceptably be done to others.
tk: your utter predictability
me: Why thank you. It’s an attribute that springs from my appreciation for consistency and my dogged perseverance of the truth.
Silly me — I assumed it was more along the lines of blaming faeries for queering all your sure-thing bets at the track.
I’ve never gotten the sense that Capozzi is homophobic.
Neither have I. Maybe Freud is hiding in my keyboard tonight. Or maybe that’s just a cigar.
yep, just a cigar.
“yep, just a cigar.”
I don’t understand where you all think you’re going with that.
Gina,
Well, maybe I’m just happy to see you.
Wow, I’m really going to hell, aren’t I?
Gina,
Silly, good-natured, repartee is all it is. Tom and Paulie are fun to chat with, and things sometimes spin off on absurd tangents.
Yeah, kind of like this.
Yes, there was a time when I was annoyed hearing the Holy Rites of the High Church of the Immortal NAP. Nowadays, it’s more neutral, more like white noise.
Anthony Dlugos wrote (1/18/2018 at 3:06 pm):
I’m avoiding commenting on Vohra because I am on the Judicial Committee.
However, I can’t let this ridiculous statement go by. It’s clear from his earlier statements that Anthony doesn’t give a damn about libertarian principles / issues and would support any random authoritarian as long as he has a shiny badge (as best analogized by Starchild who pointed out Anthony wants to draft the most “talented” football players, even if their explicit goal is to score for the other team), but this statement about purging the radicals / anarchists is really par for the course with the moderates / so-called pragmatists.
The Libertarian Party exists to give voice to the statement of principles and platform. FULL STOP.
It seems a lot if johnny-come-latelys are drooling over the LP’s volunteer base, ballot access, and fundraising, so they want to come seize those resources for their moderate party. I’m going to use a legal term of art here: go fuck yourself.
The LP’s bylaws are clear: we have a party purpose, and it is not to win elections by dumping libertarian ideas for mainstream conservatism or progressivism. It takes a 7/8 vote to amend the statement of principles and a 2/3 vote to amend the party purposes. The chances of changing that document to purge radicals and anarchist ideas from the party are precisely zero. Yet keyboard commando assholes like you keep spouting your mouth sabatoging the LP and wasting everyone’s time instead of getting off your ass and actually working to elect someone to office — or starting your own damn party devoid of principles.
I serve on the bylaws committee, which is actually reporting out a propsal to amend the party purposes. But even that proposal does not suggest purging radicals or winning elections by jetisoning libertarianism.
I find that your entitled sense that a party which has existed for 45 years should kick out half its members and completely change its focus to cater to some jerk is disgusting. Go peddle your shit to the Green Party or the Constitution Party.
If the delegates are ever stupid enough to adopt a platform that contradicts the statement of principles (alienating all the radicals), those changes will be immediately overturned by the judicial committee — as they should be.
Dunno, Rev – you’d know better than I would.
Santa Monica?
Like I said at 16:52,
“we generally hear about the Founders, their intentions, and the relevant Bylaws clauses. And then non-True Believers are told, effectively, “Ya don’t like it, there’s the door.””
Like clockwork, I tell you! 😉
A few hundred volunteer sigs on the weekends in Ohio would be a great start. If socially phobic, validate instead.
RC,
Do you reject statism as to live in the freedom of Nozick’s children?
Do you reject the glamour of coercion and refuse to be mastered by taxation?
Do you reject Hobbes, the father of totalitarianism and the prince of Leviathan?
Do you reject Bill Weld and all his empty promises?
“Blessed is the man that endureth DUI checkpoints: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of … hey, wait, we don’t do crowns around here.” — Knapp 17:29
“The Libertarian Party exists to give voice to the statement of principles and platform. FULL STOP.”
Nope. It exists TO IMPLEMENT AND give voice to the statement of principles and platform.
But the former isn’t very likely from candidates who can’t bring themselves to convincingly do the latter.
Yes, Bob. We have a party that was founded and ran for 45 years for one purpose. Now a few johnny-come-latelys want to seize those resources accumulated with decades of blood, sweat, and tears, employing them for a completely different purpose. The correct response for that is: go fuck yourself.
You can pretend the bylaws don’t exist or they say something different or you are king of the LP all you want, but that will never make it true.
A much better path is to get off your ass and form your own damn party rather than trying to steal and subvert a party that will never jetison all its principles or purge half its members.
Anon-Tipper wrote: “I liked this comment from Carol Moore on the Jack News article by Andy Craig:…
However, let’s not forget the context….”
After this latest note to LNC from Vohra, 2 LNC supporters have thrown up their hands and I give up myself. He basically says he hasn’t been radical enough on age of consent. argh…
I’m afraid his problem is something that only a good astrological analysis of 5/9/79 can resolve. 😉 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvin_Vohra
(If I let you read mine, Carol would make perfect sense to you 🙂
Whoops, my email address was messed up in my last comment so it’s in moderation, I’ll just repost it:
Ha! I can’t believe someone edited his wiki page already! I posted some of Arvin’s recent emails. He really went to crazy town in them, almost sounded like an alt-righter.
Hmmm, I would say Hegel is the father of modern totalitarianism, and Hobbes should only partially be rejected. Hobbes is something like:
(i) The State is an artificial construct and there is a clear division between civil society and the State
(ii) Politics and morals are agreements between exclusively self-interested, rational agents.
(iii) For Self-interested agents it is rational to defect from an arrangement of total conflict, accepting a radical alternative, if necessary
The Lockean liberal would disagree with Hobbes over the existence of the Hobbesian state of nature. The libertarian w/ Hobbes over where it actually resides.
Hegel is merely Hobbes’s imp, the methods of dealing with which are explicated in Der HegelHammer. Say three Hail Rose Wilder Lanes and give up beer for a week if you desire absolution for your error.
cm: You can pretend the bylaws don’t exist or they say something different or you are king of the LP all you want, but that will never make it true.
me: Actually, I think you and Knapp are more-or-less correct in your interpretation of the Tablets from the Great 20-Somethings + Hospers Founders meant, along with the tweaks from Murray “Fetuses are Parasites” Rothbard and Bill “Under-Secretary of Education” Evers.
I happen to think the structure was deeply flawed, and it is a millstone that banishes the LP to the fringes in perpetuity. I consider this to be a shame, since I believe the LP could and should be a FAR more effective force for advancing peace and liberty.
I am certainly no king; this is simply my opinion. I’m glad there is an LP, because it allows me to sometimes vote when the L candidate is not spouting what I consider to be non-fringe ideas.
Ya know…..
TK,
Sometimes, I can’t tell if you are kidding, but:
tk: Do you reject statism as to live in the freedom of Nozick’s children?
me: Did he have children? I vaguely recall he was gay…I think Roy Childs told me he was…not that there’s anything wrong with that. But, no, I don’t “reject” statism, because I am too influenced by the Tao, the first L book. Resistance is futile, and more importantly, counter-productive. Statism is certainly sub-optimal, though, as I see it.
tk: Do you reject the glamour of coercion and refuse to be mastered by taxation?
me: No, I don’t reject anything (see above). I’m not a fan of coercion and I’d like to see a lot less of it. Ditto for taxation. But I do pay taxes, reluctantly. I’d like to see them lower, a lot lower, were it up to me.
tk: Do you reject Hobbes, the father of totalitarianism and the prince of Leviathan?
me: Again, no. That’s not the Taoist way, after all. I can’t say that Hobbes is as much of the heavy as you portray him. Anyone who says “The first and fundamental law of Nature, which is, to seek peace and follow it,” is OK by me out of the gates.
tk: Do you reject Bill Weld and all his empty promises?
me: No. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting him and talking with him in his home. Obviously scary smart. Despite his superior intellect, I don’t agree with about many things. I think he’s sincerely a fan of Hayek, which I view as a good start.
tk: “Blessed is the man that endureth DUI checkpoints: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of … hey, wait, we don’t do crowns around here.” — Knapp 17:29
me: True. I don’t think anyone has the right to drive drunk on the public’s roads, if that’s what you’re getting at. The “scholars” at LvMI seem to have a very different take on this and so many issues.
How many of the commentators here have read this?
https://71republic.com/2018/01/15/questioning-age-of-consent-laws-in-america-arvin-vohra/
that other phobia…
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2018/01/lnc-vice-chair-arvin-vohra-once-again-stirs-controversy-calls-for-removal-with-age-of-consent-comments/#comment-1730151
Robert Capozzi said: “me: No. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting him and talking with him in his home. Obviously scary smart. Despite his superior intellect, I don’t agree with about many things. I think he’s sincerely a fan of Hayek, which I view as a good start.”
Can you tell us how it is that you ended up inside Bill Weld’s home?
Andy,
IIRC, Bob is a Long Islander and Weld is too (at least part-time). All Long Islanders know each other because of their overlapping CFR, country club, and grocery store rewards program memberships. Yes, I think I read that somewhere.
tk,
Close. I was living in the DC metro area at the time. When visiting my Mom on LI (she lived a few blocks from WW), the opportunity to meet him presented itself.
Andy,
When I met you and Paulie in MD, did I give off a CFR vibe? I’m not a member, to be clear. I’ve not looked closely down that rabbit hole, but I note that some think it’s part of a Rothschild plot. Sounds kinda bad. I’m not part of it, nor am I a member of the JBS.
dL,
I’m really not sure if you can’t grasp a very simple concept: I listen to those whom I sometimes/often disagree with. Carlson, Maddow, and Harris. I don’t live in an L bubble. Sometimes, Maddow has some interesting dives into subjects; Harris may be the most articulate human being I have ever heard; I’ve actually dialed back listening to Carlson in recent weeks, as he’s become a broken record. I listen to stuff like this when preparing for my day or when driving. Your feedback has been noted; there’s no need to bang an irrelevant drum.
In that clip, Steyn goes way over the line when he expresses concern about AZ’s ethnic make-up. I view him as a propagandist. I’d say most of cable news is now undisguised propaganda.
more to dL,
Last year, I listened to Alex Jones, especially when Roger Stone was on. Jones seems certifiable to me, and Stone is certainly a cagey cat.
I was beside myself that Trump got the nomination and won the election. In any context I could think of, the guy should be nowhere near the levers of government power. What seemed obvious to me was apparently not obvious to strong minorities.
While I’m not a fan of Jones or Stone, they gave me some insight into the scary Trump phenomenon.
make that in 2016 I listened to Infowars.
re: Chuck Moulton comment of 11/18/2018, 21: 08.
Can’t we all just get along?
First, I did not, nor have I ever called for purging radicals/anarchists. Far be it from me to try and figure out why an anarchists would want to be the member of a political party anyway, but what I did call for, and have called for, as you can see from my post, is for the platform to disavow anarchism. Those are two different things.
I want two groups self-selected out of the this political party: people who don’t care about winning, and genuine anarchists who cannot sacrifice their principles in order to move public policy in a libertarian direction. Neither should want to be in a political party anyway. Whatever reason they have to be a member, it can’t be good. Its either not well thought out, or for outright self-aggrandizing, destructive purposes.
“It’s clear from his earlier statements that Anthony doesn’t give a damn about libertarian principles…”
You’re right, I don’t. If my choice is between “libertarian principles” and getting a few non-violent weed smokers out of federal prison or saving a few innocent Pakistani from death by drone, then guess what? The “libertarian principles” are getting tossed out with yesterday’s garbage. Sorry to break it to you, but in the political arena only, my strategy is far more effective than yours.
Furthermore, I have the moral high ground here, you don’t. I don’t give a sh*t about 7/8th votes and 2/3rds votes and statements of principle and party history. F*ck all that sh*t. There are nonviolent drug offenders languishing in prison right now, and Pakistani children hiding in fear right now. I’m not going to tell them we can’t help because we have a Statement of Principles.
which one is it, Bob?
“I want two groups self-selected out of the this political party: people who don’t care about winning, and genuine anarchists who cannot sacrifice their principles in order to move public policy in a libertarian direction. Neither should want to be in a political party anyway.”
Well, that’s easily accomplished.
Step 1: Stop fantasizing that these two groups exist in the party.
Step 2: Realize that since these two groups don’t exist in the party, they have in fact already self-selected out of the party.
There, see how easy that was?
Anthony, bruh…
1. Explicitly disavow anarchism in the platform.
2. Dump anyone who’s primary purpose isn’t wining elective office. #1 will go a long way to doing that
you wanna purge literacy, too?
dL,
I see no contradiction. As I see it, effective propaganda has to have truth in it. So, when I listen to propaganda outlets, I get a sense of how they weave truth into their political agendas. It’s also the case that part of my mind allows for the possibility that Maddow, say, is 100% right. I might become a progressive if only I heard a better case for that philosophy.
I also view my dalliances with the right and left to be kind of opposition research. By listening to other sides, I tighten my own arguments, finding places where my old positions might need some revising or repackaging.
One of the takeaways from the first L, Lao Tzu, taught us is to get comfortable with paradoxes. There’s yin in yang, and yang in yin. Randian/Rothbardian deviationism teaches the simplistic, unworkable good v. evil model. I’m over it, although, again, maybe if I listen to more Tom Woods podcasts, he might bring me back into that fold.
Unlikely, but possible.
A) they both exist.
Disavowing anarchism in the platform will draw out the anarchists unwilling to sacrifice. Chuck’s response to my post proves it. Any anarchist willing to sacrifice a future state-free society shouldn’t have any problem with disavowing anarchism in the platform.
B) I’ll rephrase my comment about winning to my preferred way of putting it: I want people who don’t make winning their primary concern to self-select out of the party. In my experience, the only people who object to that are genuine anarchists who don’t want to sacrifice or fringe lunatics who know their stances can’t win.
ad,
I call myself a theoretic asymptotic anarchist/applied lessarchist. I can imagine that an actual anarchist could participate in a de-fringed libertarian party. S/he would simply have to overlook some things as transitional.
IIRC, I think MNR got the “governments — when instituted” language included in the SoP. This is madness! It was a deal-breaker for him if the documents didn’t contain anarcho-code.
I’d think that most anarchists would recognize that statelessness is not happening anytime soon. Rolling back the state might be something they’d enjoy, particularly if they like the game of politics.
Instead, Rothbardians and Longites often take their requirement for “principle” in a hyper-literal way.
‘”I can imagine that an actual anarchist could participate in a de-fringed libertarian party. S/he would simply have to overlook some things as transitional.”
I agree with that 100%. How can we ensure the ones who can’t don’t want to be associated with the party? I’m all ears on that.
“IIRC, I think MNR got the “governments — when instituted” language included in the SoP. This is madness! It was a deal-breaker for him if the documents didn’t contain anarcho-code.”
And, as you point out, its a sop to a faction that is vanishingly small, would be replaced 1,000-fold by lessarchists not yet in the party and replaced several million-fold in terms of dollars. And a 40-year millstone around the party’s neck.
Anthony,
The anarchists who are in the party either
1) are willing to sacrifice their principles in order to move public policy in a libertarian direction, or
2) don’t believe that they HAVE to sacrifice their principles in order to move public policy in a libertarian direction.
Otherwise they wouldn’t be in the party.
So that’s one group you’ve fantasized into the party that isn’t in it.
The other is people who don’t care about winning. I agree that I was mistaken. That group does exist. You’re one of its members.
For the LP, “to win” is “to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles.” That’s the party’s purpose. Anything that does that is winning. Anything that doesn’t do that is losing.
Is winning ELECTIONS on way of winning, aka accomplishing the party’s purpose? Yes.
Is winning elections an IMPORTANT way of winning, aka accomplishing the party’s purpose? Absolutely.
Is winning elections with candidates who neither implement nor give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles a way of winning, aka accomplishing the party’s purpose? No, it’s the opposite of winning. It’s just a particularly masturbatory way of losing.
Would it be possible to change the party’s purpose? Sure — all you have to do is convince 2/3 of the delegates to a national convention to amend the bylaws and specify a different purpose or purposes.
Would it be possible to amend the platform to disavow anarchism? Maybe. There would be two ways to go about that:
1) Get 7/8 of the delegates to a national convention to change the Statement of Principles, which clearly allows for anarchism, then get 2/3 of the delegates to a national convention to pass a plank disavowing anarchism; or just
2) Get 2/3 of the delegates to a national convention to amend the platform to disavow anarchism, then convince a majority of the Judicial Committee not to overturn it on appeal (Rule 5, Section 7) even though it obviously conflicts with the SoP.
Of course, either of those is about as likely as getting the House of Lords to accept those old papers you found in your attic explaining why you, and not Charles or his progeny, are the legitimate heir to the throne of England. So you might want to consider other options:
a) Adjusting your estimate of the importance/primacy of election victories so as to account for the reason the LP pursues election victories; or
b) Convincing the LP ad hoc to run the kind of candidates you want to run whether they match the purpose or not; or
c) Finding or starting a party that meets your requirements better than the LP does or is likely to.
As a naturally pragmatic person, I’ll go with b). Its definitely the easier path. We can then honor the SoP in the breach, rather than in the observance. My preference about getting the SoP changed or getting a convention to disavow anarchism is a pipe dream at this time, of course.
But the anarchists are wrong on 2). Of course, I implore them to change my mind by winning elections.
“And, as you point out, its a sop to a faction that is vanishingly small, would be replaced 1,000-fold by lessarchists not yet in the party and replaced several million-fold in terms of dollars. And a 40-year millstone around the party’s neck.”
The “get rid of the anarchists” has had its way in all but name for more than a decade now (starting with gutting the platform of anything to the “fringe” side of Bob Dole in 2006), including three presidential nominations, with no such results.
You guys are sort of like the Democrat social programs types: “This hasn’t worked and shows no sign of working. Obviously, we need to do more of it so that it will start working.” Three years later. “This hasn’t worked and shows no signs of working. Obviously …”
boy, that’s a winning coalition convention…
Looks like they’re going to try for next weekend for an electronic meeting on the Vohra issue, but some people have schedule conflicts. And Vohra has not sent out anymore “hot take” emails on the lnc list.
I think Vohra started taking trolling/hot take advice from Petersen, but he’s just not as good at it.
Anthony,
I think a lot of the problems with people like that could be solved by alienating the LvMI, they generally throw a fit and threaten to leave when their gods are blasphemed, there are, however, still a number of the Hoppean cultists even after the events last year, I’ve seen LvMI and Hoppe posts on the radical caucus facebook page (and a 9/11 conspiracy meme on a state RC page) and there’s the Mises Caucus.
I really don’t understand all this “trying to change” a Party to what you want it to be. If you don’t like it, start your own Party and invite those who agree with you to join.
It’s not easy, but it is simple, and then consensual, which is libertarian.
LOL, I can see it now- Alt (said with disdain to be derogatory) – Libertarian Party.
Anthony,
my last comment on this thread is in regards to the uncompromising types subject, sorry if it looks like I was just replying randomly
Anon-Tipper,
We definitely need to alienate the LvMI Caucus.
I have no interest in trying to purge anarchists or create some no-anarchists litmus test. That would just be silly.
But…. any anarchist who would leave the party if it didn’t explicitly cater to anarchism, is no loss worth mourning.
It doesn’t explicitly cater to anarchism. It just agrees to leave the anarchist/minarchist question unanswered.
“It doesn’t explicitly cater to anarchism. It just agrees to leave the anarchist/minarchist question unanswered.”
oh, thank god. The voting public will be so relieved.
“Anon-Tipper
January 19, 2018 at 11:01
Anthony,
I think a lot of the problems with people like that could be solved by alienating the LvMI, they generally throw a fit and threaten to leave when their gods are blasphemed, there are, however, still a number of the Hoppean cultists even after the events last year, I’ve seen LvMI and Hoppe posts on the radical caucus facebook page (and a 9/11 conspiracy meme on a state RC page) and there’s the Mises Caucus.”
Well, considering that I’m the founder a Libertarian for 9/11 Truth group, and a long time reader of LewRockwell.com and Mises.org.
Well, considering that I’m the founder a Libertarian for 9/11 Truth group, and a long time reader of LewRockwell.com and Mises.org. I strongly disagree.
AD,
The voting public isn’t going to be relieved because the public doesn’t give a tinker’s damn what any party’s platform or statement of principles says.
At the very outside unlikely most, they pay attention to a candidate’s policy proposals.
Mostly they pay attention to whether or not he got caught in a motel room with a dead girl or a live boy, and if so how entertaining his excuse is.
And that latter factor is becoming more and more important ever since Monica Lewinsky — politics as salacious entertainment. It might have done Johnson some good to plant some media mojo about “so, what was it like to get divorced after the press caught you fucking around on your wife? Do you think it was harder on you than it was on Trump, or on Hillary Clinton having to make that call from the other side of things?”
As long as LP candidates’ proposals aren’t so far out there — OMG SMOOSH THE STATE LOL — that they distract attention from the circus, there’s plenty of room for both moderate and radical policy proposals to gather in the people who care about that. But moderate or radical, if they’re against the party’s platform, then the circus aspect is all there is and the party gets nothing out of it.
“Well, considering that I’m the founder a Libertarian for 9/11 Truth group, and a long time reader of LewRockwell.com and Mises.org. I strongly disagree.”
Well, of course you would. But we’re talking about libertarians here, not about whackjob “make sure nobody named Pedro visits anyone else because REASONS” authoritarians here.
“The voting public isn’t going to be relieved because the public doesn’t give a tinker’s damn what any party’s platform or statement of principles says.”
I agree.
I’ve seen Monica look worse than she looks these days. You go girl!
Anthony Dlugos said: “Furthermore, I have the moral high ground here, you don’t. I don’t give a sh*t about 7/8th votes and 2/3rds votes and statements of principle and party history. F*ck all that sh*t. There are nonviolent drug offenders languishing in prison right now, and Pakistani children hiding in fear right now. I’m not going to tell them we can’t help because we have a Statement of Principles.”
Yeah, and your guy Bill Weld, who supported both wars in Iraq, recently said in an interview with Reason that he thinks that the US should “sabre rattle” sometimes and show its military might by engaging in air strikes.
“robert capozzi
January 19, 2018 at 08:11
tk,
Close. I was living in the DC metro area at the time. When visiting my Mom on LI (she lived a few blocks from WW), the opportunity to meet him presented itself.
Andy,
When I met you and Paulie in MD, did I give off a CFR vibe? I’m not a member, to be clear. I’ve not looked closely down that rabbit hole, but I note that some think it’s part of a Rothschild plot. Sounds kinda bad. I’m not part of it, nor am I a member of the JBS.”
I never said that you were a member of anything, or a part of any nefarious plot. I just asked how it is that you were able to meet Bill Weld inside his house. Can you tell us the backstory on this, and what happened while you were there? Also, when did this happen?
Anthony Dlugos: “There are nonviolent drug offenders languishing in prison right now”
LP platform: “[W]e favor the repeal of all laws creating ‘crimes’ without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes”
Gary Johnson: “We are not espousing the legalization of any drugs outside of marijuana”
Oh, as for the CFR, I don’t think that one necessarily needs to look too deeply into it to figure out that it is bad. Why? It is a club whose membership includes lots of mainstream politicians and other mainstream movers and shakers. They are about as ruling establishment as you can get. Do you like the ruling establishment? Do you have any problems with the way the ruling establishment operates? If the answers to these questions is no, then this alone should send up red flags for anyone who is a member of the CFR, or for anyone who surrounds themselves with CFR members.
Thomas Knapp said: “Gary Johnson: ‘We are not espousing the legalization of any drugs outside of marijuana’”
If Gary Johnson had framed this as an incremental step towards completely ending the War on Drugs, I’d have had less of a problem with it. He could have said something like, “We want to show the country and the world that legalizing marijuana can work, and if we are proven to be correct, which I believe that we will be, we will then move toward ending the war on other drugs.” Unfortunately, this was not how he framed it. He made it sound like only marijuana should be taxed and regulated (which, from a libertarian perspective, is a watered down stance on marijuana), but that other drugs had to be kept illegal, and that we don’t even know how legalizing other drugs would work.
So all Gary Johnson did was hop on board what has now become a popular trend, that is taxing and regulating marijuana, but when it came to the War on Drugs, he and Bill Weld basically justified the war on other drugs.
I don’t have a problem with a candidate offering incrementalist proposals, but those incrementalist proposals should at least point in the direction of the overall goal, which in this case should have been an end to the War on Drugs.
I’d have had less of a problem with it. He could have said something like, “We want to show the country and the world that legalizing marijuana can work, and if we are proven to be correct, which I believe that we will be, we will then move toward ending the war on other drugs.
That’s essentially what he did, Troofer. He suggested that de-scheduling marijuana would result in a “quantum leap” understanding about how we deal with all drugs. That’s about as far as your going to be able to take it, especially in the midst of a campaign.
re: TK at 12: 47.
Yea, so?
We might be able to get the nonviolent weed smokers out and marijuana de-scheduled if we nominate a pair of ex-governors with a moderate message and a commitment to work with Congress generally speaking.
NO drug offender…weed or otherwise…is getting released from prison if we nominate the catastrophically unqualified with an extremist message that tells the average voter that, if you vote for this neophyte, not only are all nonviolent drug offenders getting release and all drugs immediately legalized, but all foreign military bases are getting shut down, the Fed and & IRS are getting closed, social security is getting abolished, all public schools are closing shop, and, oh yeah, age of consent laws are being abolished, and this is all being done by executive diktat, because the anarchist candidate in question has no intention to work with anyone in the federal government on anything.
well, that’s not entirely accurate. Proggies often demonstrate a continued active interest in the 1980 LP platform and freely publicize it quite often. You know, back when David Koch was the VP candidate.
“Anthony Dlugos
January 19, 2018 at 13:11
‘I’d have had less of a problem with it. He could have said something like, ‘We want to show the country and the world that legalizing marijuana can work, and if we are proven to be correct, which I believe that we will be, we will then move toward ending the war on other drugs.’
That’s essentially what he did, Troofer. He suggested that de-scheduling marijuana would result in a ‘quantum leap’ understanding about how we deal with all drugs. That’s about as far as your going to be able to take it, especially in the midst of a campaign”
That’s not exactly what he did. He and Weld were pressed on the issue of legalizing other drugs, and they clearly said no, even when pressed on the issue.
Also, a lot of the country has already moved to legalizing marijuana, or at least “taxing and regulating” it, so Johnson/Weld were not breaking any new ground here. All they did was jump on what had already become a popular trend. This was not pushing a bold libertarian agenda, or even much of an incrementalist libertarian agenda. I fail to see how jumping on board with a trend that was already happening without them really did anything to advance the cause of liberty.
Pot worked pretty well for thousands of years until the progressive era made it illegal a century ago for the explicit purpose of brown people social control.
“Anthony Dlugos
January 19, 2018 at 13:12
re: TK at 12: 47.
Yea, so?
We might be able to get the nonviolent weed smokers out and marijuana de-scheduled if we nominate a pair of ex-governors with a moderate message and a commitment to work with Congress generally speaking.
NO drug offender…weed or otherwise…is getting released from prison if we nominate the catastrophically unqualified with an extremist message that tells the average voter that, if you vote for this neophyte, not only are all nonviolent drug offenders getting release and all drugs immediately legalized, but all foreign military bases are getting shut down, the Fed and & IRS are getting closed, social security is getting abolished, all public schools are closing shop, and, oh yeah, age of consent laws are being abolished, and this is all being done by executive diktat, because the anarchist candidate in question has no intention to work with anyone in the federal government on anything.”
If the Libertarian Party, and its candidates, would get more active in promoting jury nullification, something which I have been pushing for many years, this would go a long way toward ending the War on Drugs regardless of whether or not Libertarians get elected. It would of course be great to get more Libertarian elected, but reality is that the LP is not anywhere close to being able to elect anyone President, and this is true regardless of who the party puts on its presidential ticket. Even electing a Libertarian to a US House seat would be a tall order for the LP.
We never heard a peep out of Johnson/Weld about jury nullification, and Johnson’s 2012 VP running mate, Jim Gray, actually came out against fully informing juries about their right to nullify laws.
dL: plagiarize my own arguments
me: Not sure what you mean here. I would say we all develop our positions on issues based on arguments we hear from others. Even in the narrow band of L schools, there is some slight differences in positions.
The only exception is you, only because I really don’t see which school you gravitate toward, and I mostly just see you tear other people’s positions down, with no real engagement or attempt to persuade to dL-ism. Perhaps you do elsewhere, but I’ve not seen any constructive discussion coming under your pseudonymous handle.
“We might be able to get the nonviolent weed smokers out and marijuana de-scheduled if we nominate a pair of ex-governors with a moderate message and a commitment to work with Congress generally speaking.”
Well, no. We DID nominate a pair of ex-governors with a moderate message and a commitment to work with Congress generally speaking. And we know what happened.
Yes, I know that at various points Johnson/Weld name-checked Portugal, talked about medicalization (bad idea, but not unsellable), etc. And if they had been willing to guts it out and get people to see their position as “let’s legalize marijuana now, and see what happens,” I would certainly have been cool with that, I’d have been quite happy with that “moderate” position, which is pretty much what several states had already done, what several more are doing now, and is at the perfect edge of the Overton Window to open it.
Instead, they choked and made their talking point, first on that CNN town hall as noticed by the media, then on their web site, “We are not espousing the legalization of any drugs outside of marijuana.”
Which, in English, was telling voters “we’re not serious. We’re not willing to offer you anything you don’t already have or are about to get. We’re just doing a political remake of those old Bob Hope and Bing Crosby ‘On the Road to …’ movies so our sisters can see us on TV and tell their friends what funny guys their brothers are. Go back to worrying that the candidate you hate most will win and vote for that candidate’s major party opponent.”
In addition to which, they were flat-out running against their own party’s explicit platform plank on the issue, which means the party didn’t even get a decent word in edgewise for FUTURE elections. The only good part about THAT was that at least they were advertising their campaign as “two Republican governors running an independent campaign,” which may have reduced their negative impact on the party a little bit and made the Republicans, instead of us, look like a bunch of sad sack milquetoast me-too amateurs.
dL-ism==liberty, which is a presumption and needs no defense. If you don’t subscribe to that, you are not even a liberal, much less a libertarian.
Absolutely…I tear down the authoritarian pretenses when I find them. And its a target rich environment …
tk quoting j/w website: “We are not espousing the legalization of any drugs outside of marijuana.”
me: You’re reading way too deeply into this statements, seeing dragons where there are none. It’s simply a true statement — they weren’t. They didn’t bind themselves or others in the future from revisiting the rest of illegal drugs.
This would be true of MANY controversial issues. I don’t recall their position on SS, but if they said, “We believe the SS retirement age should be raised starting 10 years from now,” and then said “We don’t espouse abolishing SS,” that doesn’t mean that they or future Ls might well espouse such abolition (which I think would be a bad idea unless or until other conditions are met).
Anyone else counting LNC noses on this? Agree or disagree with these projections? Why or why not? Who do you think are the likely yes votes, likely no votes and persuadables at this point?
My guess is that the removal motion will pretty much be out of gas by the time they can get a meeting firmly scheduled. I don’t have the Policy Manual in front of me, but my recollection is that it only takes five members objecting to the schedule to force a re-schedule of an electronic meeting. So if the opponents play their cards correctly, they can force the can to be kicked down the road until the next actual LNC meeting.
dL: dL-ism==liberty, which is a presumption and needs no defense. If you don’t subscribe to that, you are not even a liberal, much less a libertarian.
me: Thanks, a bit vague, but thanks.
I advocate maximal peace and liberty and minimal government interference in private matters, or some such. I’m broadly with the “cosmotarians,” with a bit more of a green-tinge and predisposition to incorporate Georgist insights.
The other schools that I’d ID are: Rothbardians, Longites, and constitutionalist Paulistas. I might also count hawkish Randroids to some extent. That seems fair enough, but I’m flexible on how to characterize the L universe.
I can’t seem to categorize you in any of these, mostly because of your vagueness. Things you attack doesn’t give me enough information about your positions, only about what seems to set you off.
votes needed to defeat…
The requirement is 2/3 of the entire committee to suspend, meaning 12 affirmative votes. Non-voters are effectively voting no, because a vote of, say, 11 to 0 fails.
RC,
I don’t see what’s vague at all about dL’s approach. That approach is:
If the question is “should people be forbidden to do X?” the DEFAULT answer is no and the burden of argument rests on the shoulders of the advocates of that prohibition, not on its opponents.
I assume that LNC members are getting quite a bit of email on the matter of Mr. Vohra. I just sent all of them a short, not particularly argumentative, note myself. For those who want to do likewise, here’s a handy dandy list of the addresses so you don’t have to individually copy them from the LNC web site. I’ve taken the liberty of replacing “@” with ” at ” in the addresses so as to hopefully frustrate spam email harvesters, but you can fix that with a quick find/replace in any decent text editor.
Chair at lp.org
vicechair at lp.org
treasurer at lp.org
secretary at lp.org
william.redpath at lp.org
sam.goldstein at lp.org
starchild at lp.org
daniel.hayes at lp.org
joshua.katz at lp.org
caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
steven.nielson at lp.org
ed.marsh at lp.org
steven.nekhaila at lp.org
elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
dustin.nanna at lp.org
jeffrey.hewitt at lp.org
james.lark at lp.org
trent.somes at lp.org
David.Demarest at lp.org
sean.otoole at lp.org
whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
erin.adams at lp.org
patrick.mcknight at lp.org
larry.sharpe at lp.org
TK,
Thanks for asking. Rothbardians tend to answer specific issues in a discernible way, Longites another, Cosmotarians another, Paulistas another. Do you see?
At 30,000 feet, they all might say something like what dL says. I need more granularity, if he (i think) would be kind enough to share.
RC,
I think that’s easily enough explained — the granularity you are looking for exists in the sects you name. dL isn’t one of the sectarians. He’s the catholic instance.
TK,
Yes, I think he may well be the head of Opus Dei! Betcha he’s got a cat-o-nine-tails hanging in his closet. 😉
Possibly a Jesuit. Definitely not a Dominican.
🙂
Not Catholic, catholic.
I could be wrong, but I’m not aware of that many determined no votes who are also opposed to having the meeting/vote take place. Some people are likely no votes, but in favor of the meeting. On the other hand it’s hard to iron out a time when everyone is available, so it’s likely that rather than objecting to the time of the meeting some people will just miss it due to their own schedule, which will effectively raise the percentage of the vote that has to vote for removal if it is to pass… if I understand the rules correctly.
The next actual LNC meeting is in April, so I expect they will probably be able to schedule something well before that.
Paulie,
I’m aware of at least one wavering yes vote whose main concern is the one I keep bringing up. That concern is: Does the LNC want to spend half its time, until the sun burns out, deciding whether or not to remove members every time someone gets mad?
For any LNC members with that concern, the optimal course is to not even let it get to the point of a meeting and a vote. Each incremental success — getting some noise, getting a motion, getting a vote, winning the vote — for those making these demands makes it that much more likely that they’ll be back next week, and the week after that, and the week after that, demanding yet another head on a pike each week.
The most effective way to shut that shit down would have been for everyone demanding that their rep or an at-large sponsor a motion to get the reply “you can’t be serious, that’s dumb.”
The second most effective way would have been for the motion to not get enough sponsors.
The third most effective way is for the sponsors to never be able to convene a meeting.
The least effective way is for the motion to lose at a meeting.
“Unfortunately, it seems Libertarians who don’t like some of the scandals above are also the individuals who increase the reach of the scandals by sharing them, re-posting them, and commenting about them on social media.”
I just don’t understand that statement.
Anthony,
OK, I’ll explain it.
Arvin Vohra says something on Facebook that makes you go “Oh, Jesus — if everyone heard about that, it would damage the party.”
So you go out and make sure everyone hears about it.
The problem with Wes saying this is that he has applied this same logic to people telling other people in the party that the Florida party is being taken over by alt-righters. I agree that the scandals shouldn’t be spread around on facebook, but with Wes, it seems that he wants everyone to bury their head in the sand and not even mention problems to other party members.
Right. I live in an alternate reality where the dopes on 24-hour cable news or our competition in the political arena wouldn’t bring it up if we were actually a player on the political scene.
I’m not inclined to wait until we are one before we get our sh*t together. Fix our habits first. And if you are in a leadership position, that means not saying stupid stuff to anyone, anywhere, for any reason.
We don’t have to keep doing this until the sun burns out. Once the catastrophically self-destructive learn to shut their traps or not run for leadership positions, we have a better chance to ensure that only professionals concerned with growing the party are in such positions. Its possible that we would periodically have to deal with self-aggrandizing dipsh*ts, but all large organizations do. Sticking our heads in the sand is not an option.
Furthermore, Arvin himself admitted he’s doing this partly to drive moderate supporters of former Gov. Gary Johnson out of the party.
So, yeah, I’m also not inclined to just ignore him.
I think that the people who are going on endlessly about Arvin are amplifying all the negative impacts on party image that they claim to be worried about, although as I have also indicated Arvin has said some things that I think are not just wrong but bizarre. He’s not screwing up his actual vice chair duties such as they are from what I can see, he’s not claiming to speak for anyone except himself when he says this stuff, and the convention will be coming up in just a few short months. On the other hand that amplifying is not going to go away, so unless and until there is a removal vote the clamor for one will just increase.
Burying head in sand and hoping the fascist entryists go away on their own and/or that no one notices them and/or that they see the error of their ways and become ex-fascists is a historically proven way to get taken over by fascists. The only way countries, parties, movements and scenes have fought back fascist incursion any time anywhere that I know of is by actually fighting back, often physically and at the very least in a determined and forthright way.
As far as the other things Wes mentions what was the mysterious death in the hotel? I don’t remember that.
It’s not too complicated. Wes is at HQ. He doesn’t like getting angry phone calls and emails. He doesn’t like to hear about scandals when he is asking donors for money. He wants things to be smooth and drama-free.
paulie,
did he or did he not “tell gay people they’re morally indistinguishable from child molesters” as Andy Craig reported above?
and we’re supposed to not do anything about it because he is not screwing up his vice chair duties and we should just wait until the Convention? I don’t think so.
Finally, he IS speaking for the entire party when he assumed the position of Vice Chair. Anytime, anywhere, up to including whispering it in bed to no one other than his sexual partner.
He doesn’t like getting angry phone calls and emails. He doesn’t like to hear about scandals when he is asking donors for money. He wants things to be smooth and drama-free.
Then his goddamn problem is with the dipsh*t Arvin.
“As far as the other things Wes mentions what was the mysterious death in the hotel? I don’t remember that.”
Marc Feldman.
“He doesn’t like getting angry phone calls and emails. He doesn’t like to hear about scandals when he is asking donors for money. He wants things to be smooth and drama-free.”
Exactly. Which is why I’m trying to track down a few donors to send messages to the LNC:
“Shut down this ‘remove Vohra’ horseshit or not one more goddamn dime.”
paulie: “As far as the other things Wes mentions what was the mysterious death in the hotel? I don’t remember that.”
Wasn’t that the presidential candidate? The one that said that “I’m that libertarian” speech? I think he might have been some sort of doctor, he looked a little like David Friedman.
Oh, beat me to it on the hotel death guy!
One important thing to understand is that what we’re dealing with is an Outrage Mill working to create and exploit outrage (also known as “recruiting and useful idiots and handing them megaphones”) to weaken the party because they can’t take it over in New Orleans, as is their announced goal, unless they’ve already put it into a state of disarray.
This is their third attempt in less than a year. The first two got shut down without too much damage.
And Anthony, these guys are NOT the guys you want to see running the party.
I don’t think that anyone answered my hypothetical question above about what if someone on the LNC used racial or ethnic slurs, or say gay slurs, but they did so in a way that did not violate any libertarian principles?
Once again, I’m not saying that anyone should do this, as I think that it would be bad marketing and in bad taste, but I’m just throwing out this as a hypothetical to see whether or not others in the party would think that this should be grounds for removal from office.
Say that an LNC member (or state committe member) said, “I think that ______ (fill in gay slur) should be able to get married, but I don’t think that those _______ (fill in gay slur) should be able to force private bake shop owners to bake cakes for them.”
I am sure that everyone here can use their imagination to come up with other examples.
So should somebody be removed from office for using nasty language even though what they said did not violate any libertarian principles?
Also, what if an LNC member does not use any racial or ethnic or gay slurs, but they use George Carlin’s Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television? Should a person be removed for cussing?
Hypothetical question to dL, TK, and PF:
If the US unemployment rate was 40%, would you still advocate open borders?
There’s now a motion to censure Arvin on the lnc email list: http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011610.html
I haven’t read through the rest of it to see it was sponsored, etc.
It looks like it will be challenged and probably won’t happen
“If the US unemployment rate was 40%, would you still advocate open borders?”
As of December 2017, the US work force was 154 million and the US population was 326 million.So yes, if unemployment went down by 13%, I’d still favor open borders.
For some reason, I managed to get Rhode Island’s numbers (154,000 work force) and mistake it for 154 million US. Sorry about that. Snark works better with real facts.
My real position is that yes, if the US unemployment rate was 40%, I would still want people to move across the borders without impediment so that Americans could go find jobs elsewhere.
Capital, including human capital, moves to where it can be best invested. Unless it’s prevented from doing so by thugs with guns.
Yes, to flee the United States to find a new life.
Yes, it’s obvious to anyone but Bob.
universal
apparently, that LessAnarchy mental contraption acts as a cognitive inhibitor. Maybe we have finally found something the FDA should regulate…
Thomas Knapp said: “My real position is that yes, if the US unemployment rate was 40%, I would still want people to move across the borders without impediment so that Americans could go find jobs elsewhere.”
That’s great that you want to open your own private property borders to everyone on the planet (so long as the people entering your property don’t infringe on the rights of those outside your property in the process). but you don’t have a right to do this on the property of the rest of this land mass.
So called “open borders” is completely inconsistent with property rights, and would not exist in a private property anarcho-capitalist society. It is no coincidence that this is an issue pushed by left wing commies and New World Order globalists.
“Capital, including human capital, moves to where it can be best invested. Unless it’s prevented from doing so by thugs with guns.”
Thugs with guns. You must mean how you want to use the guns of the state to force multi-culturalism onto the rest of the population, property rights be damned. Forced integration is not libertarian.
Mass immigration is really working out well in Europe right now (sarcasm intended). It is working out so well that it has caused a huge increase in crime and welfare consumption, and polls indicate that most Europeans are getting fed up with it.
Belgium: 77% ‘no longer feel at home’ in Muslim ‘invasion’
https://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2018/01/19/belgium-77-no-longer-feel-at-home-in-muslim-invasion
From the article: “A new study reveals that an overwhelming majority of Belgians believe that Muslim refugees are taking over their nation, with more than three out of four saying the migrants have taken away their sense of home.
After years of welcoming Muslim refugees with open arms, most Belgians are now fed up with Muslim immigrants taking from the welfare system, refusing to assimilate and spreading violence throughout the western European nation.”
Stories like this have become all too common thanks to mass migration of hostile people from third world countries.
Iranian immigrant strangled allotment secretary with lawnmower cord after charity gave him his own plot, court hears
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/08/iranian-immigrant-strangled-allotment-secretary-lawnmower-cord/
From the article: “An Iranian immigrant strangled an allotment secretary with a lawnmower cord after a charity gave him his own plot, a court has heard.
Grandmother Lea Adri-Soejoko, 80, was attacked at the allotments where she worked and strangled with cords from a lawnmower and one from her own anorak.
Police found her body hidden in a shed after they heard her mobile phone ringing.
Rahim Mohammadi, 40, is accused of killing the ‘pillar of the community’ in Colindale, northwest London, last month.”
dL,
More like one of a kind. Probably the most serviceable basket for my purposes is Longite, although your malicious style is more Rothbardian.
If you believe that Longism or dL-ism is universally grokked, I suggest you consider getting out more.
tk,
Yes, employment participation rates seem the better measure. Funny how Trumpers seemed to get that before the election, and now don’t.
Yes, if you view the border between RI and CT as equivalent to the border between the US and Canada, mine is a nonsense question. After a few bong hits in the dorm room, I see it, too.
Yes, when capital crosses a national border, I can’t think of any attendant risks to the citizenry of the invested country. I can think of attendant risks to the citizenry from excessive or unchecked immigration. I don’t see them as equivalent, at least not in the context of nations and the rule of law.
Other than my general support for the language in the LP’s migration plank and that I don’t think anyone can go anywhere anytime, I’ve taken no position on the matter. I’m thinking about it.
Thanks for the feedback.
RC,
It’s at times like these that one wonders whether you’re really out of it at the moment or being intentionally obtuse.
Upper-case Catholic refers to the Christian religious domination.
Lower-case catholic means universal/all-embracing. Not “universally grokked,” just universally descriptive.
The over-arching (aka catholic) liberal (aka libertarian) default proposition is “you don’t need permission for X.” It places the burden of argument on the people wanting to prohibit or control X.
The different sects you name are all different ways (some better, some worse, depending on who you ask) of arguing that proposition.
“That’s great that you want to open your own private property borders to everyone on the planet (so long as the people entering your property don’t infringe on the rights of those outside your property in the process). but you don’t have a right to do this on the property of the rest of this land mass.”
EXACTLY.
It’s great that you want to close your own private property borders to everyone on the planet (whether or not the people entering your property have infringed on the rights of you or anyone else or not), but you don’t have a right to do this on property that is not yours. And “the rest of this land mass” falls into two categories:
1) Property that is owned by other people who don’t owe it to you to ask your permission; and
2) Vast swathes of unowned/unhomesteaded property, violently held out of ownership by a criminal gang, over which Pedro from Guadalajara and Pierre from Quebec and Nguyen from Ho Chi Minh City and Stephan from Bonn and !Nixau from Namibia have exactly as much right to travel over it or homestead it as you do — or as you don’t.
Under your logic, you have precisely zero right to leave your yard and travel over or loiter on unowned/unhomesteaded gang turf like “public” streets, sidewalks, etc. And yet you seem to do so with some regularity, and occasionally even get into confrontations with gang enforcers about your alleged right to do so.
tk,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Your use of “universal” may be understood intra-LM. It certainly strikes me as a serviceable enough description at an abstract level, though I’m not quite sure it can be deemed “universal.” I don’t find dL’s evasiveness and ad hominem attacks to be especially productive. I think he (?) claimed to be a Georgist, a Bastiat-onado, and digs the work of some European dude (not Hoppe) whom I’d never heard of previously, iirc.
Especially given his (?) evasiveness and my bottomless curiosity, I was hoping to elicit some clarification. I’ve again failed, as he (?) continues in his (?) ad hominem ways.
RC,
You still don’t seem to be understanding the meaning of “catholic” “universal.” No, it’s not “intra-LM.” It’s exactly the opposite. It may be right or may be wrong, but its SCOPE is all-encompassing.
RC,
You’re thinking of Anthony de Jasay (born in pre-WWII Hungary, now retired at 90-something in France), whose work is unfortunately not as well-known in the American libertarian movement as it should be.
Well, since you broached the topic of evasiveness, I’ll use it as a segue to point out you never answered my question.
Highly recommended. Open-mindedness can be quite liberating.
I’d say most of cable news is now undisguised propaganda.
And while your at it, maybe you can answer this question, too. Why do white supremacists love tucker carlson?
https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/954432032146247681
Richard Spencer says he likes Tucker because of his “open-mindedness.”
Well, I like the writings of a lot of European dudes, and Je Jasay is certainly one of them. However, he is one the few that are still alive.
Wow!
Alison’s Foxall’s comment got to the lnc email list: http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011643.html
I posted it above, but she voted NO on removing Ryan Ramsey after the nazi propaganda post.
Looks like Frank Caprio might have left the LPF for the Constitution Party?
If so, good riddance. Can he by any chance give Ramsey, Brandi and Chris Rose a lift on his way there?
And the rest of the EC member that voted to keep Ramsey tbh.
No voters: Foxall, Peele, Avi, Sanders, Lebovitz, Elliott, Nekhaila.
I forgot about Chris Rose, because of him, there’s this video on an official LP county affiliate page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TNapk6q0xI
Complete with confederate flags, a neo-nazi publication (The Revolutionary Conservative, Augustus’), a militia group (3%’ers), and the Sons of the Confederate Veterans!
“Looks like Frank Caprio might have left the LPF for the Constitution Party?”
He changed his voter registration in Florida from LPF to something else. In Florida, membership in the state LP requires that if one is registered to vote, it be LPF.
My understanding is that the state executive committee has voted to “accept his de facto resignation” from the party. Presumably that would include resigning all appointments by/in the party.
However, if he remains a national member, the question becomes whether or not LPF gets to replace him on the national platform committee position to which they appointed him.
If nobody does anything else, and if he doesn’t take part in the platform committee discussions and vote on its motions, then the alternate (me) can do so in his place.
If he is still a national member and still considers himself a platform committee member, then presumably there will have to be some discussions within LPF about what to do about it, and with national about what can be done and by whom.
here is a bit of funny news….
The Washington State Executive Committee has passed a motion calling for Arvin’s removal….. but nobody can produce a copy of the motion.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/16699853814/permalink/10155919329738815/?comment_id=10155919920743815&reply_comment_id=10155919939213815¬if_id=1516492554382128¬if_t=group_comment
“He changed his voter registration in Florida from LPF to something else…”
Thanks for the explanation. I guess this situation hasn’t happened before?
I have just sent the members of the LNC the following email.
My understanding is that my state party has just passed a motion calling for the removal of the vice chair. I am rather disappointed in their doing so or at least how they have gone about passing this motion. I would point out that those that have spoken to can not produce a copy of the motion.
My expectation is that if an Officer is to be removed that they be given a fair hearing where the causes justifying their removal and evidence supporting the causes as well as a defense by the officer are presented.
Here is where the Washington State Executive Committee seems to have gotten it backwards. The expectation of justice here in the United States states you have a hearing before passing judgement. Not the other way around.
I trust that the LNC will follow the precedence demonstrated in the attempt to remove Angela Keaton from the LNC and provide a fair hearing before judgement is passed by the LNC.
Thank you,
Stephen Meier
dL,
I answered the propaganda question at 09:50.
As for Tucker Carlson love from white supremacists, you’d have to ask them. I don’t “love” him, as I’ve explained before. If anything, I’m somewhat disappointed in him, as he seemed to be moving into the L orbit not all that long ago.
I don’t “love” Rachel Maddow or Sam Harris, either.
This doesn’t mean that I don’t learn anything from them, both in terms of facts and analysis, and how they and those in their camp position and spin things. Don’t you ever learn things from people you sometimes or even often disagree with?
I’ve explained this to you before. I hope this clears things up for you.
lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
9:03 PM (2 minutes ago)
to Libertarian
We have an electronic mail ballot.
Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at
11:59:59pm Pacific time.
Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public
comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and
sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and
candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas.
-Alicia
—
I have a response from Caryn that states Washington has passed a motion for her to support sensor and removal and then claims that is different from my understanding.
No Caryn, that is exactly my understanding.
My understanding is that the Washington State Excom has instructed you to participate in a lynching before a hearing. The question Caryn is are you going to do so?
The motion appears to be the precursor to a hearing, at least for Roberts folks. My recollection of the attack on Angela Keaton is that there had to be a motion on the floor with adequate notice before anything else could happen.
George,
Thanks, I fail how to see that this could proceed without a hearing before the LNC. I wonder if Arvin’s opponents are ready for a spirited defense.
For those that seek to by pass this step… I expect much public embarrassment.
(Likely incomplete) list of state parties who have called for Vohra’s removal, through either a statement from their chairs or vote of their state cmtes.:
NV, WA, MT, WY, CO, KS, WI, IL, IN, OH, KY, PA, NJ, SC, AK, HI, IA
Ah em informally calling for a suspension of Caryn Ann Harlos membership in the Libertarian Transparency Caucus for her willful hiding of the Washington State Libertarian Executive Committee’s motion to sensor and Remove Arlin without trial as the National Committee Vice Chair.
Ether she gets Transparency or she doesn’t and so far she is being very opaque.
Andy Craig, without a stated motion from the Libertarian Party of Washington I am going to contest their inclusion in their list. I am considering a law suite against the Washington State Party, the LNC and our regional representative.
“Charles Schaefer I’m pretty sure myself and the rest of the incompetent state committee were voting on a motion to advise CAH to support removal of Arvin Vohra, but there are minutes and I believe these calls get recorded so if anyone wants to argue over technicalities go for it. I’m confident our advice was intelligible to the person whom it was for.”
I am really interested in hearing if Caryn did participate in the call and what she had to say.
“The motion appears to be the precursor to a hearing, at least for Roberts folks.”
If I’m understanding steve m correctly, part of his problem is that rather than demanding that Caryn Ann work to get a motion to censure or remove Arvin considered, leading to a hearing, states are demanding that Caryn Ann support censure or removal itself, and are making that demand prior to there being a hearing. They don’t want the matter considered, they want a pre-determined outcome. Interesting perspective.
There is nothing to learn from race-baiting profiteers like Carlson…of course, other than how to spin his arguments. And you’ve been spinning his immigration arguments on this forum. It is what it is.
dL: And you’ve been spinning his immigration arguments on this forum. It is what it is.
me: Sorry you feel this way. The truth is I don’t agree with TC, although it IS the case that he asks some good questions.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on your definition of what “is” is! For you, you may believe that I’m somehow in lockstep with TC because I sometimes watch his show; support the LP’s plank of immigration, (which is not a 100% open borders position); and ask open-borders Ls some of the questions that TC does about the data.
As a matter of realpolitick and ethics, I think DACA should happen. TC is calling it “amnesty,” which I find to be wrong-minded.
So it may well be that it is what it is…for you. However, you have some of your facts wrong, and it sounds to me like you are wildly overreacting.
—–
TC is calling it “amnesty,” which I find to be wrong-minded.
—–
What, is “amnesty” a dirty word or something? My own dislike for it is about it implying that the people receiving it did something wrong, but DACA in particular could be considered a “temporary amnesty” insofar as it falls under the president’s Article II power of reprieve.
TC,
Yes, thanks for clarifying. Yes, the implication that those covered by DACA did something wrong is what I point to as well. Some of it is the vibe I get from TC’s delivery…there’s an edge to it when he says it that feels accusatory to me.
No, amnesty is not per se a dirty word, agreed.
Frankly, calling the DACA set “Dreamers” also sounds off to me. If the point is that came to the US as children and were therefore not complicit in their parents’ decision, it seems incorrect to call them Dreamers, which would imply that they WERE complicit in the decision.
RC,
They’re called “DREAMers” for two reasons:
1) Because they’re the population covered under the proposed DREAM (“Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors”) Act; and
2) Because a promotional propaganda aspect of that legislative title was obviously to tie them into “the American dream.”
Thomas,
“They don’t want the matter considered, they want a pre-determined outcome.”
that isn’t part of my problem that is the entire problem.
The Washington State Excom members that I have communicated with seem to expect that the LNC will remove Arvin and that it is up to the Judicial Committee to give him his hearing.
Remove from office then try him.
TK,
Yes, I get it. Problem is-the American Dream is about people CHOOSING to come to the US for a better life.
The Dreamers didn’t choose.
The propaganda is at cross purposes.
RC,
I don’t personally find the propaganda especially compelling, but no, it isn’t about the “Dreamers” “choosing.” It’s about them being here DESPITE not choosing, so why not let them pursue the American dream instead of being douchenozzles about it.
The LP’s immigration plank is a conflicted statement.
Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
The first sentence is libertarian. The second is the 2006 addition that many libertarians argued would be used as authoritarian poison pill, a warning you have so aptly demonstrated to be absolutely valid based on your recent posts here. To wit:
I maintain it can be appropriate for a nation to check who is coming into the nation, and to ensure that taxpayers are not unduly burdened by such entry
Say that immigration was fairly easy, but each immigrant was bonded, signed off they could not receive welfare benefits, and had to pay tuition for their children to go to public school? Violate any of those and the funds held in escrow were used to deport those who broke the terms of their green-card status?
Absent a relevant example of a well-functioning borderless society that protects private property and the rule of law, I’m going to go with the vast majority on this one.
But crossing a border involves a meta-association with all the citizens of the nation. in the borders of a nation, there are a set of laws that should, at least, be designed to maintain domestic tranquility. While I disagree with most of the laws in the US, they are in place.
Of course, there’s no such thing as “the libertarian position,” since many Ls have many views on borders. Unless it’s changed recently, the LP’s position is basically mine, and it’s not 100% open borders.
I think you claimed that immigrants were net taxpayers according to some studies, but I noted that that didn’t include the public schools and public health resources they consume. It’s possible they are indeed net taxpayers, but I believe more data is necessary to reach that conclusion.
Although, even there, it still could be prudent to shift immigration policies to encourage/require a check in and perhaps other terms and conditions as a means to maximize the productivity and contribution of immigrants AND to screen out more effectively the less desireable would-be immigrants.
Are you telling us you think free migration in Europe is working out well? Hmm, if so.
I can tell the difference, but I refer to something called risk and exposure. In the current setup, new immigrants do represent a financial risk to taxpayers. The rewards of allowing more people into our collective condo complex could be greater than the risks, but there’s no doubt that many immigrants use public health and education services.
Today there were no doubt immigrants — legal and illegal — sending their kids to government schools and using emergency rooms for primary medical care. So, no, it’s not a fear of what might happen, it actually happens every day. I could ask you why you tolerate that freedom restriction for other taxpayers?
If the US unemployment rate was 40%, would you still advocate open borders?
I’m sorry you feel that way. I read the preamble and Article 1, Section 8 differently than you do, apparently.
I’m guessing that plank addition originally wasn’t sold in the way that you are selling it now. What you are selling is virtually identical to Trump, Carlson and the HoppeBot peckerwoods. It is anti-immigrant entryist poison pill. And contrary to your postmodernist gobbledygook, you are not in the majority in the citizen collective condo complex. You might have the majority among the Charlottesville tiki torchers, but you are not in the majority elsewhere. And you certainly not in the majority of libertarians.
The obvious intent of that bit of the platform plank was to indicate that if some guy swims across the Rio Grande wearing a suicide vest and screaming “Allahu Akbar!” it’s OK to do something about it.
The way the Hoppebot entryists have been using it is to interpret it as meaning that that the LP believes that if there are a thousand al Qaeda members in Syria, everyone from Syria can be considered to “pose a credible threat to security, health or property.”
The latter explains why that clause was a poison pill. Sooner or later, someone was going to be able to use it to advertise the LP’s position as being the exact opposite of what it is.
Wow!
So many topics.
So many comments.
Let me add: Libertarians arguing about Libertarian “grouping/groups” is not very libertarian- though I’m sure, with the exception of the one being argued about, it is voluntary so that keeps it libertarian, sorta.
I don’t do face book or any other social media (though I have seen a face book page or 3), but, it seems to me (an outsider but self professed libertarian- tho paulie will disagree, LOL) everyone would be better served to ignore social media commentary, since we all know it’s Russian influenced……LOL
It’s worse than that. Anyone, particularly anyone non-European, is a threat to security, health and property by mere virtue of the “welfare state.” Molyneux argued in that recent debate that there were too many guns in the US to allow open immigration; otherwise, the threat of violent revolution loomed if immigrants were denied welfare benefits. The other Hoppen argument made by Molyneux is that citizen interconnectivity more or less invalidated libertarian property rights and freedom of association. Because there is nothing that you do that does not affect the collective. So, its not really your private property to control and invite whom you please.
It’s why I called Molyneux a gun-grabbing, property-grabbing proggie.
do,
I was in the room when that plank was drafted. Richard Spencer was not in the room! ? it was not my idea — I took point on deleting the private nukes clause. I voted for language because it seemed reasonable at the time, and it still does.
If bonding immigrants – which may be original, not sure – is a bad idea, I’m open to hearing why.
Or just keep doing a poor Trump imitation, making wild, bullying accusations.
d L, not do
I’m not aware that the Sunshine/Transparency Caucus has a formal membership, and I started it…or is there another one?
d L,
fwiw, I agree with you about Molyneux. His views are out-of-bounds there.
I get the sense that you think I’m drinking buddies with Richard Spencer, but I find the alt right, Cantwells of the world FAR MORE wrong-minded than other NAPsters like Longites.
that is why i was informally calling for her removal….
a way of saying that if she considers herself to be a member then she should walk the walk.
Fair enough, steve m.
robert capozzi,
If 40% of the US workforce lost their jobs within such a short time that they were still eligible for unemployment compensation and were bothering to register with that agency to receive payments and provide periodic proof that they were seeking new employment, do you really believe more people would be clamoring to get into the US? I suspect there would be a lot more people trying to leave the US than enter if and when that was to happen.
But, if more people were still clamoring to enter the US than leave at that point, I think their entry would be a good thing, in that they would create more and better paying jobs for those already here that would not come to exist if they stay out.
“If bonding immigrants – which may be original, not sure – is a bad idea, I’m open to hearing why.”
Bonding them against what kind of behavior?
Bond payable to whom on the triggering behavior?
And why should such a bond scheme be limited to people who come into an area? Why not require it of anyone in the area, even if they were born in that area?
If we’re talking about crime here, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports say that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes. So the native population would be the more obvious first target for bonding — especially since they’re already nicely documented for ease of compelling the bond agreement/payment.
wow Libertarians discussing bondage…. kinky
steve m,
Well, you can always use your safe word if necessary 😉
steve m: wow Libertarians discussing bondage…. kinky
Me: Only if all agree. Otherwise it’s perverted.
I was aware you had something to do with that plank. That is why I bothered to collect your comments.
Wasn’t Spencer passing himself off as a libertarian/ Ron Paul supporter back then? If he had been in that room, I doubt anyone would have blinked an eye.
Your statement here at IPR:
Yes, when capital crosses a national border, I can’t think of any attendant risks to the citizenry of the invested country. I can think of attendant risks to the citizenry from excessive or unchecked immigration. I don’t see them as equivalent, at least not in the context of nations and the rule of law.
is in direct contradiction to the LP text:
Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.
So, rather than rescind the text, it was instead amended with a statement sold as:
if some guy swims across the Rio Grande wearing a suicide vest and screaming “Allahu Akbar!” it’s OK to do something about it.
but then used as a poison pill to legitimize any anti-immigrant dreck as the mainstream libertarian position.
It is precisely why I despise words like “reasonable” and “sensible.” Your views on immigration and welfare are neither reasonable nor sensible nor “mainstream.”
Hmm, you regularly throw out charges of Napster, “fringe” and assign blame to “purists” for LP spectacles. So you certainly can throw a punch. But you can’t take one.
My guess is that if challenged, the SJW caucus will run–not walk–to the nearest safe space under cover of a right-wing victim identity whine.
Thomas Knapp said: “Bonding them against what kind of behavior?
Bond payable to whom on the triggering behavior?
And why should such a bond scheme be limited to people who come into an area? Why not require it of anyone in the area, even if they were born in that area?”
Bonding entrance is actually an idea I had for my Libertarian Zone concept (which is for a private property contract based anarcho-capitalist society/covenant community). People who want to live in the Libertarian Zone sign a contract which spells out the terms for living in the Libertarian Zone, and some type of similar contract could apply to visitors. Everyone could post a bond (possibly in cryptocurrency), and if they violate the terms of the contract, the contract dispute could be taken to the Libertarian Zone association, which would consist of all the Libertarian Zone contract signers, and if, after a fully informed jury trial, the Libertarian Zone jury found a person guilty of contract violation, the guilty party would have to pay restitution, and/or be expelled from the Libertarian Zone. If the guilty party refuses to pay and/or leave, the bond they paid would go to a bounty, and anyone could act as a bounty hunter, that is anyone in the Libertarian Zone, or, if the guilty party flees the Libertarian Zone, anyone else in the world, would be able to collect the bounty on the head of the Libertarian Zone contract violator. If the contract violator refuses to leave the Libertarian Zone, they would be physically removed, via violence if necessary. If they owe restitution and refuse to pay, bounty hunters would be authorized to seize their assets and give it to the aggrieved party in the dispute. The Libertarian Zone would not have any police as we know them, but some people may chose to hire private security guards, but the security guards would operate under the same terms of the Libertarian Zone contract as everyone else. Every Libertarian Zone contract signer could also have the option of acting as a contract enforcer, and they would be eligible to collect a bounty for doing so. I doubt that there’d be much crime in a Libertarian Zone, but even in a Libertarian Zone, some crime is likely to happen sometimes, so if there were enough of a market for it, some people may chose to act as full time contract enforcers/bounty hunters, anyone would be able to fill this role, and get paid for doing so via the bounty system.
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/
Reality is that we do not live in a libertarian anarcho-capitalist society, so we are stuck with a government solution, much like since live in a society where the government monopolizes fire fighting, if a fire breaks out, we are generally stuck with having to rely on government to fight the fire.
Government controls the land, either what it outright considered to be public property (as in property managed by government, and paid for by the resident taxpayers), or private property (or whatever passes for private property) is heavily regulated by government. We also are all bound together under a system of government (whether you like this or not is not relevant for purposes of my point here), and who enters the country can gain access to the political system (via the Naturalization process), and under Birthright Citizenship, any offspring they produce while here is automatically considered to be an American citizen, and therefore can gain access to the political system here when they reach the age of 18. So who enters the country is quite relevant as it can have a very real impact on the political system in this county (whether you like it or not). Also, since a system of government welfare programs and other government services has come into existence, whoever enters the country can gain access to these programs/services, and this has a direct impact how tax money is allocated, and it creates pressure to increase taxes.
Like I pointed out in previous messages here, considering that government exists, and government controls the land and infrastructure, whatever migration/immigration policy that is in place is going to be a government policy, including a policy that says, “Hey government, leave the door open so anyone can enter, no questions asked.” This is still a government policy, and this policy impacts the rest of the people who are already here. Some immigration can have positive effects, but some immigration can also have negative effects. A democratic welfare state acts as a magnet to attract people who want to take advantage of this system, and this has a negative effect on most of the existing population (unless perhaps one is a politician or government bureaucrat or a part of some lobby that is benefiting from this). Also, those who oppose this policy have no “op out” button, as in they are forced to pay taxes to support this, they are forced to share the public infrastructure, they are forced to associate with people whom they may otherwise chose to not associate due to anti-discrimination laws, and, they can’t even realistically secede from the US and the US government would almost certainly act to crush an secession movement.
So therefore, there are no realistic options on the table that does not involve lobbying the government to adopt a reasonable immigration policy, because as long as government exists, any policy that is in place is a government policy, so the policy that is in place should not overwhelm, or threaten, the existing population. This means the government should not attract welfare seekers, or engage in a policy that causes wild shifts in demographics, or otherwise invite people who hold ideologies that are hostile to much of the existing population. Some people may say something like, “Well we can’t trust government to do these things right.” My response to this is maybe so, but as I pointed out above, the governments in Japan, Poland, Israel, Lichtenstein, and Luxembourg, are not attracting or facilitating large numbers of destructive immigrants. A law was recently passed in Switzerland to ban any immigrant who collects welfare from obtaining Swiss citizenship, and Switzerland is not bringing in lots of problem causing migrants as have other countries in Europe like Germany, France, the UK, Sweden, Belgium, etc… So if other countries are capable of having an immigration policy that does not overwhelm or threaten the existing population, there is no reason why there can’t be one here. Even if some people sneak in anyway, those people, or their offspring, do not have to be rewarded with any government welfare or services or by being granted American citizenship (which gives them access to the political system, which means that they can gain political power, and vote against the interests of much of the existing population).
The true libertarian solution to this problem is to privatize all of the land and resources presently held by government, in as fair a manner as possible among the existing citizens of the country, repeal all taxes and abolish the state, and then leave migration/immigration up to private property owners. We are a long way from having an option like this even being on the table. So given this reality, the only options on the table involve the state, and, as I already pointed out, advocating that the state leave the door open for everyone to enter, no questions asked, is still a statist program, and since we live in a democratic welfare state with forced association laws, it is a very destructive statist program.
“:If we’re talking about crime here, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports say that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes. So the native population would be the more obvious first target for bonding — especially since they’re already nicely documented for ease of compelling the bond agreement/payment.”
This depends on which immigrants, and which members of the native population, that it is to whom you are referring. Some immigrant groups have a low crime rate, while other immigrant groups commit lots of crimes, far above that of most of the native population. Also, you have to look at the crime rates of the offspring of immigrants, as under the idiotic interpretation of Birthright Citizenship, these people are counted as American citizens (and I have noticed that this is often conveniently left out of the statistics of those who promote the mass immigration agenda).
dL said: “Wasn’t Spencer passing himself off as a libertarian/ Ron Paul supporter back then? If he had been in that room, I doubt anyone would have blinked an eye.”
Some people who supported Ron Paul went on to become Bernie Sanders supporters.
Most of the people who supported Ron Paul are still in the libertarian and/or constitutionalist camp(s), but some of them splintered off in different directions.
pf: If 40% of the US workforce lost their jobs within such a short time that they were still eligible for unemployment compensation and were bothering to register with that agency to receive payments and provide periodic proof that they were seeking new employment, do you really believe more people would be clamoring to get into the US?
me: Keep in mind that the participation rate is still in the low 60s now, so those who are not-employed remain at a multi-decade high RIGHT NOW. It’s nearly 40% of working age NOW.
Check out Ray Dalio’s 40/60 analysis. The top 40% of the US population is doing VERY well, but the bottom 60% are struggling.
Ideally, we’d have Harlos Nonarchy Pods in place for those who want to opt out of society. For the rest of us sharing this national condominium, is there a point where our current citizens are hurting SO MUCH that it would be wise to check the supply of new immigrants in any time frame? Could the INCREMENTAL introduction of a labor force distort it, particularly in light of the so-far unaccounted for social costs of INCREMENTAL taxpayer-funded education, and health services, as well as INCREMENTAL welfare in its various forms?
Remember, PF, all the action is on the margin.
Despite dL’s wild accusations, I’m not taking a position on this. I’m simply asking the question, and resisting my residual, dogmatic, knee-jerk reactions.
My understanding is that illegal immigration was down in 17, despite the fact that the UE rates are down. I’m not sure what that tells you, but it tells me this is a more complex situation than NAPster if/then syllogisms seem highly unresponsive and just phone-it-in dogma.
Now this is not to say that the Longite NAPster position is not optimal…it might be. Culturally I find the Molyneux/Hoppe view so disgusting I might want to side with you Longite NAPsters as a rhetorical antidote. I don’t mostly because I prefer a more open-minded, engaged approach to politics.
“I’m simply asking the question, and resisting my residual, dogmatic, knee-jerk reactions…I prefer a more open-minded, engaged approach to politics.”
Sir! Recheck your attitude. It will get you nowhere fast in the libertarian movement! Either you slather NAPsterism on everything including your Reuben sandwich, or you high-tail it to the Reform Party.
tk: Bonding them against what kind of behavior?
me: Potentially for illegal behavior, potentially for taking tax dollars for public health or public education or public welfare.
tk: Bond payable to whom on the triggering behavior?
me: Might deport them. Might charge them for using tax dollars.
tk: And why should such a bond scheme be limited to people who come into an area? Why not require it of anyone in the area, even if they were born in that area?
me: With the Harlos Nonarchy Pod option in place, the rest of us would be consenting to the rule of law. I could imagine we could once again be a welcoming place, but terms of residency would be “no welfare, no crimes” by the immigrant. After a time, they could apply for full citizenship and get their bond back.
Current citizens are already members of the “condo association,” unless they chose the Nonarchy Pod option.
dL: I was aware you had something to do with that plank. That is why I bothered to collect your comments.
me: Well, at the time, I wasn’t crazy about the check-in language. It was offered by the constitutionalist/Paulista element, mostly from TX, iirc. However, it did and does seem reasonable to me, which is a concept that’s widely accepted by advocates of jurisprudential theory (the reasonable man standard.) My views have evolved somewhat. I admit that I once viewed fetuses to be parasites, too, so I’m generally pleased with my evolution.
I’m still a work in progress! How about you?
dL: Wasn’t Spencer passing himself off as a libertarian/ Ron Paul supporter back then? If he had been in that room, I doubt anyone would have blinked an eye.
me: As more of cosmotarian in the John Mackey/Drew Carey mold, I’m not the best person to ask. I doubt it, though, since in 06 RP1 was an obscure back-bencher. iirc, Spencer was more of 08 rEVOLution vintage, I think.
dL: is in direct contradiction to the LP text:
me: Well, your either/or thinking is part of why I am no longer a NAPster. Take the two sentences in the plank in concert AND consider the current state of affairs AND consider economic and ethical considerations THEN come forward with ideas that move us in a lessarchist direction, is my MO.
To briefly answer some questions;
All of this has been discussed openly on the LNC list but some folks prefer to act as if there is some great secret.
1. I inquired to a trial in case of suspension. I was told that because our Bylaws provide a different course it is not required. I disagree. Since there is no live motion yet there is no ruling of the Chair. Arvin has the right to trial if he wishes and I will support an appeal if it said he does not have that right.
2. The state Chairs gave me instructions on how to proceed right now. That presumes all facts remain the same. Trial or no trial things come up in debate which change things and then I would be reporting to them for any additional instructions just as I did in the Ohio ballot access encumbrance debate.
It is very clear to me and I find it quite sad that those who dislike parliamentary maneuvering are trying to use it when others simply agree. It’s a straightforward common-sense open relationship I have with the Chairs of my Region.
Lastly, I am not the secretary of LPWA and until their minutes are duly certified I’m not the one to give the formal wording of their motion. I was not part of the debate and merely waited verbal instructions which I received.
I was invited to that meeting by the Chair as a guest to be on hand to answer questions. I was asked to give the background from my perspective which I did after first openly disclosing my opinion and urging them to realize that all accounts have a bias and this is mine.
I was asked two additional questions. One regarded the procedural state of any motion right then on the LNC and the other having to do with whether or not this was a real concern before Merissa started on her complaints.
That was it.
Just because someone disagrees does not give any right for the personal attacks these have turned into by some.
Carol Moore aka “Anon Tipper”- you seem to be obsessed with this Nazi thing. A quick Google Search of your name suggests that you may be projecting. Actual statements made by Carol Moore, judge for yourselves (this is one of about 4 websites that came up that indicated “anti-semite” Carol Moore, and I wasn’t even searching for that! Just searching for her name and libertarian.
“Sharon would love to have Hamas killing American troops, just like he’s delighted to see them killing Jews, since it makes his facist (sic) goals of “leibenstraum” (sic) and grabbing the rest of Israel that much easier by inflaming the public.”
“I’m getting tired of turning on the news first thing in the AM and seeing the TOP story is what is going on in Israel. And it disgusts me to have to watch a congressional sub-committee dominated by pro-Zionists reaming Bush for the TINY little bit he is doing to try to keep the Israelis from driving the Arabs out of what little is left of Palestine, which the goyim obviously dare not ask ANY question of the Bush official that might be interpreted as criticism of Israel. And we’ve seen how Bush is back to Kissing Sharon’s Ass. (Plug for Carol Moore products deleted.)”
“And Mr. Sass wonders why this issue keeps coming up here.. If the Israel’s (sic) just kept their oppression over there, it would be far less annoying.”
“Dealing with the nefarious influence of Israel Firsters on Congress and in the media (which is mostly owned and/or controlled by pro-Zionists, mostly Jews) has got to be a prime goal of the peace movement — but good luck, with left and right wing pro-Zionists ready to yell anti-semite at the drop of a hat. Even the Buddhist Peace group I went to recently was dominated by pro-Zionist Jews. ARGHGH!!!”
“… Meanwhile Israel keeps building up it’s 400 nuke arsenal and can now deliver them any where on earth.”
“Anyone else want to concentrate on nonviolent SECESSION from our Special Interest (corporations, labor union, military-industrial, Zionist) controlled government??”
CM
WTF? I have never said anything remotely that questionable related to Jewish people. You even said Zionist Controlled Government, pretty sure that’s an actual Nazi phrase? Leave me and my family alone – people keep sending me screenshots of your ridiculous drivel without realizing that I am too busy actually building affiliates, volunteering for the party, and trying to ignore you people. Feel free to contact our affiliates we’ve helped build in what was previously a completely barren region, who are actually made up with diverse executive committees of women, men, a Jew, and I even think one fellar is gay. No black people yet, but feel free to use that as your next headline. I’m sure they will be so delighted to hear that you are the next resident Nazi hunter, seeking a diversity quota to make sure the non-existent white nationalist infiltration is at bay. Have fun fighting the Zionist Government. Lol
Goalpost moving. Lots of people work for cash under the table, in grey or black markets, or live off others or work in the home and have no desire to work for pay. Some are disabled, some are independently wealthy, some are beggars. It’s not all that relevant to the level of unemployment per se.
True. That’s due to all the government red tape and government-funded or aided and abetted upward redistribution of wealth. Immigration restrictions are a part of that as well.
No, because more immigrants help increase the number of jobs and average pay for those who were already here as well, so it would be the best time to get rid of immigration restrictions…whenever the people currently here are hurting the most.
Not that there’s ever a bad time.
Brandi,
I am not Carol Moore. I’ve mentioned where I lived and some of my political opinions on this site feel free to cross reference.
Now I remember why I try to stay anonymous online, I don’t want far right nut jobs like you and Ramsey trying to track me down in real life.
I get it, I would be defensive too if there were multiple pictures of me online next to someone with white-power symbols and a public facebook comment praising Hitler.
pf: Goalpost moving. Lots of people work for cash under the table, in grey or black markets, or live off others or work in the home and have no desire to work for pay. Some are disabled, some are independently wealthy, some are beggars. It’s not all that relevant to the level of unemployment per se.
me: Sorry, I believe you misunderstand my basic point. Putting a number on it is merely for illustrative purposes. Is there a point when so many US citizens are so bad off due to any number of factors, like AI, that the supply of new workers makes large percentages of Americans un- or barely-employable?
That’s a question, not a position, to be clear. I can’t say there ISN”T such a point, and where that point might be. More later…
pf: True. That’s due to all the government red tape and government-funded or aided and abetted upward redistribution of wealth. Immigration restrictions are a part of that as well.
me: Possibly, but you are making an empirical claim that I am not sure has been proven. If it HAS been, I’d like to see it. I especially question the ideal that the middle and down are benefiting from unrestricted immigration. I am pre-disposed to agree that national wealth might be maximized, but that the benefits of immigration accrue disproportionally to the top 40%.
Maybe Ls should simply not care, in that ugly, social Darwinist way that one sees among Ls too often.
Again, I am not offering the “right” answer, or even any answer. I’m thinking out loud.
pf: No, because more immigrants help increase the number of jobs and average pay for those who were already here as well, so it would be the best time to get rid of immigration restrictions…whenever the people currently here are hurting the most.
me: Read Dalio. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/our-biggest-economic-social-political-issue-two-economies-ray-dalio/
Look at average wage distributions. Then let’s talk.
I’ve looked at it, and I stand by what I said. My answer to your question “Is there a point when so many US citizens are so bad off due to any number of factors, like AI, that the supply of new workers makes large percentages of Americans un- or barely-employable?” is still no no matter how many different times and ways you ask it. Immigration has the opposite effect on the availability of jobs for non-immigrant USians than you are implying here. No, I do not care to find the stats again but there are more than enough references on this that I have given in past threads or that you can find if you look around at openborders.info
More immigration has really been working out well and is really benefiting the economies of Sweden and Germany…..not!
Actually, yes it has. You should stop believing the raving racist nutbags who claim otherwise.
pf,
Thanks. Perhaps I will. I’ll be interested in seeing how they address the plummeting labor participation rates and declining incomes at the lower end.
Andy,
The German economy is in its 14th straight quarter of growth.
Anon Tipper is not Carol Moore…
I wasn’t invited LOL, but I did a quick incomplete read of
me: Read Dalio. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/our-biggest-economic-social-political-issue-two-economies-ray-dalio/
This stood out:
In Summary
Average statistics camouflage what is happening in the economy, which could lead to dangerous miscalculations, most importantly by policy makers. For example, looking at average statistics could lead the Federal Reserve to judge the economy for the average man to be healthier than it really is and to misgauge the most important things that are going on with the economy, labor markets, inflation, capital formation, and productivity, rather than if the Fed were to use more granular statistics. That could lead the Fed to run an inappropriate monetary policy. Because the economic, social, and political consequences of an economic downturn would likely be severe, if I were running Fed policy, I would want to take this into consideration and keep an eye on the economy of the bottom 60%. By monitoring what is happening in the economies of both the bottom 60% and the top 40% (or, even better, more granular groups), policy makers and the rest of us can give consideration to the implications of this issue. Similarly, having this perspective will be very important for those who determine fiscal policies and for investors concerned with their wealth management. We expect the stress between the two economies to intensify over the next 5 to 10 years because of changes in demographics that make it likely that pension, healthcare, and debt promises will become increasingly difficult to meet (see “The Coming Big Squeeze”) and because the effects of technological changes on employment and the wealth gap are likely to intensify. For this reason, we will continue to report on the conditions of “the top 40%” and “the bottom 60%” separately (as well as on the averages), and we encourage you to monitor them too.
………………
The federal reserve is THE problem, not immigrants.
You guys advocating against immigration are smarter than your advocacy lets you be.
Migration, it’s derivative immigration, is natural as sleep. Not only has it always existed, it’s necessary.
Forcing, (by law), others to do what you want has ramifications- next time it’ll be something you don’t want to happen to you happen.
The above quote from the link provided is trying real hard to paint a picture which may or may not be accurate. It looked a lot like recruiting for a college education to me.
We at one time in our History were a relatively free country where hard work and dedication was all that was required to become the top 40%- we were, if you will, a near excellent portrait. The portrait had some minor flaws, but it was for the most part picture perfect. The flaws were exaggerated and exacerbated and made normal- when law makers see these flaws they try to change the portrait instead of fixing the flaws. Of course that’s what they would do since it was law makers exacerbating the flaws making them exaggerated- “a” result of those efforts are the federal reserve accompanied by the income tax act. Both serve the exaggeration and offer fodder for lawmakers to continue and expand their exacerbations.
Part of that expansion is what we call welfare. Another part we call foreign policy. The foreign policy being welfare for the upper 40% and their ‘investment’ monies.
Imagine a world without the federal reserve financing the welfare of either group. Immigrants had nothing to do with the creation of the bank that finances the wealth, or the welfare.
The new golden rule- he who has the gold wins- exacerbated by law makers who are complicit, if not blatant, in their ruining the portrait while the few flaws remain. That isn’t on the backs or shoulders of immigrants.
DL wrote: “Anon Tipper is not Carol Moore…” Since I haven’t paid too much attention to what A.T. wrote, I’ll have to take your word for it. 😉
But seriously, sounds like Brandi has caught the hyper-hysterical ranting disease from Ramsey.
I read in one of his ranting bios they only became lovers in last couple years. Maybe she’ll get smart and find someone more mellow for her family.
DJ: The federal reserve is THE problem, not immigrants.
me: This seems overstated to me. I can buy that Fed policy enables the welfare/warfare state.
DJ: You guys advocating against immigration
me: To be clear, I am not doing so. I’m thinking out loud about how a lessarchist might advance an agenda on immigration that may have become as intractable as the life/choice issue. I don’t think that even Andy is “against” immigration, btw.
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011702.html
https://docs.lpf.org/ec-emails/
Alison Foxall has responded to the lnc about the immigration article. Ramsey had apparently sent them an email before here that is about 10 pages long and changes font sizes every paragraph. I haven’t bothered to read it, but it can be found in the second link above.
LOL, life is too short to read all that drivel. I did find of which you speak.
pf,
So far I’m agreeing with most of what I’m reading on Caplan’s site. Though it doesn’t address what I think is possible: There could and should be MORE immigration but that the exposures can be minimized far better than they are now.
Do you believe the standards for citizenship are too tight, too lax, or just right?
Citizenship as opposed to non-citizens working in the territory that some call the US, that is.
I don’t particularly care about citizenship rights. If the migrant bashers want to make it harder to become a citizen in exchange for making it easier to enter and stay in the territory that the US regime claims as its turf I’d go for that bargain in a heartbeat.
pf,
Do you see the world as divided into “migrant bashers” and “enlightened completely open borders advocates”? Does one restriction make a person a “migrant basher” by your way of thinking?
As with anything else it is a dimmer, not binary.
pf,
Excellent.
Reading more of Caplan’s website, I’m not finding a counter to my “exposure” argument. In theory, I agree with this:
“….a Nozickean government would have no grounds for preventing them from entering the country. So long as they were peaceful and did not steal, trespass on private property, or otherwise violate the rights of other individuals, their entry and their actions would be none of the state’s business.”
Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders,
Joseph Carens
quoted on openborders.info
…but if you view the state as a condo association (that ideally can be opted out of via Harlos Nonarchy Pods), and the state offers what we could call “stolen” services like health, education, and welfare/transfer payments, there is a risk associated with incremental immigrants.
I really don’t see why NAPsters nor anyone else would oppose increased immigration with immigrants required to be bonded and precluded from receiving what most Ls would call stolen money.
tk: The German economy is in its 14th straight quarter of growth.
me: Counter-factuals are pesky. Had Germany been more selective in its immigration policies, could its growth have been higher?
I think it’s possible. You?
The Libertarian Party of Washington has a requirement of 7 days notification before an emergency meeting of the State Executive Committee can be held. The notification of the January 20th meeting was sent out on January 14th so the earliest such a meeting could gather would be January 21st…. but the emergency meeting was held on January 20th a day early.
Ah don’t suppose Caryn would care to add an explanation of the rush to violate the state bylaws would she?
Caryn Ann Harlos
January 21, 2018 at 17:30
To briefly answer some questions;
All of this has been discussed openly on the LNC list but some folks prefer to act as if there is some great secret.
1. I inquired to a trial in case of suspension. I was told that because our Bylaws provide a different course it is not required. I disagree. Since there is no live motion yet there is no ruling of the Chair. Arvin has the right to trial if he wishes and I will support an appeal if it said he does not have that right.
2. The state Chairs gave me instructions on how to proceed right now. That presumes all facts remain the same. Trial or no trial things come up in debate which change things and then I would be reporting to them for any additional instructions just as I did in the Ohio ballot access encumbrance debate.
It is very clear to me and I find it quite sad that those who dislike parliamentary maneuvering are trying to use it when others simply agree. It’s a straightforward common-sense open relationship I have with the Chairs of my Region.
Lastly, I am not the secretary of LPWA and until their minutes are duly certified I’m not the one to give the formal wording of their motion. I was not part of the debate and merely waited verbal instructions which I received.
I was invited to that meeting by the Chair as a guest to be on hand to answer questions. I was asked to give the background from my perspective which I did after first openly disclosing my opinion and urging them to realize that all accounts have a bias and this is mine.
I was asked two additional questions. One regarded the procedural state of any motion right then on the LNC and the other having to do with whether or not this was a real concern before Merissa started on her complaints.
That was it.
“Just because someone disagrees does not give any right for the personal attacks these have turned into by some.”
Ah claim the right to accuse you of participating in a meeting that violated the bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Washington. I am thinking that meeting was held for your benefit. Yes we both should be disturbed.
Caryn Ann Harlos,
stated “I was not part of the debate and merely waited verbal instructions which I received.”
Of which I have asked on several occasions what were your instructions?
with all do respect can those engaged in other discussions rather then those specifically relating to this thread move them elsewhere?
—–
tk: The German economy is in its 14th straight quarter of growth.
me: Counter-factuals are pesky. Had Germany been more selective in its immigration policies, could its growth have been higher?
I think it’s possible. You?
—–
Yes, it’s possible. It’s also possible that if Germany had embarked on projects to dye the sky chartreuse and the rivers lavender, its growth could have been higher. That doesn’t mean those are sensible ideas.
Every state intervention in the economy distorts the economy.
Immigration regulation is a state intervention in the economy.
Thomas Knapp said: “Immigration regulation is a state intervention in the economy.”
Yeah, especially when leftists and globalists flood 1st world democratic welfare states with Marxists and welfare leeches from third world countries, all done under the guns of the state to force this agenda on the existing population.
Andy,
Yes — when something that hasn’t happened and isn’t happening now anywhere outside your fevered imagination happens, it will be happening.
In the meantime, we have the very real problem of what to do with native-born ultra-statist authoritarians like you.
Hey, I know a guy who owns a helicopter. Interested in a free ride?
“Yeah, especially when leftists and globalists flood 1st world democratic welfare states with Marxists and welfare leeches from third world countries, all done under the guns of the state to force this agenda on the existing population.”
Is that Xenophobic Andy? The statement actually sounds too composed,, concise, and bereft of capitalized words and links to dopey YouTube videos to be the Andy I know.
tk: Every state intervention in the economy distorts the economy.
me: This includes every law. Laws against murder distort the murder market. Laws in one nation-state cause its citizens to flee to another. Laws against turning away uninsured patients from hospitals distorts the health-care market. Laws requiring parents to educate their children and laws requiring public education distort the education market.
If we view governments as condo associations (as opposed to gangs), I maintain Ls would be more able to engage in a broader civil discourse. We want the condo association’s rule to have a light a touch as possible. But we do want the overall facility to be clean, well-maintained, and as crime-free as possible.
Others (morearchists) might want the condo association to have strict rules about just about everything.
If we severely limit the exposures that incremental immigrants represent to taxpayers, the case for more resident aliens increases. It isolates the haters from the taxpayers and would-be crime victims.
RC,
Yes, I agree that if we view governments as something they are not (as opposed to what they are), Ls would be more able to pretend that fantasy is reality.
It seems to me that pretending a gang is a condo association cedes a lot of undeserved moral authority to the gang, to the detriment of the gang’s victims.
tk,
And this leads us to an unreconcilable situation. You believe that governments are gangs, and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, correct? The vast majority, who are not anarchists and who cannot conceive of a functional stateless set-up, disagree with you, by all indications.
This leads to you posing as Moses. Thus far, the tablets you offer the unwashed have not been well-received! 😉
more…
Of course, most disagree with many of the strictures put in place by the condo association. We can even notice that the association sometimes victimizes residents.
The leap you invite us to take, however, requires a lot of faith.
It’s not that I believe governments are gangs.
It’s that I notice governments are gangs.
Whether or not the world could work without gangs is a different question entirely.
Some people also disagree with me that gravity works, too.
Or at least they did until they tested that proposition from 40 stories up.
Presumably those who haven’t done so are less than certain concerning their opinion on the matter.
tk,
Yes, if you want to call the condo management association a “gang,” that’s not “wrong,” it’s just histrionical. The residents can fire the property manager or the head of maintenance.
Gang members cannot be fired by non-gang members. Gang members are answerable only to the gang.
Is our control over the condo association staff imperfect?
Fuck yeah!
robert capozzi
January 21, 2018 at 21:51
DJ: The federal reserve is THE problem, not immigrants.
me: This seems overstated to me. I can buy that Fed policy enables the welfare/warfare state.
……………..
He who has the gold makes the rules. If anything it’s underestimated regardless of how it’s stated.
The federal reserve not only enables, it’s existence exacerbates problems and the “policies” created and because of it expand the results which is what the article you linked charted and presented a case around. It is apparently a big part of the economics behind your immigration argument/thoughts.
No problem is solved until the root cause is determined. Band aids (restrictions, exceptions, rules, laws, caveats etc.) won’t stop arteries from draining the life blood.
DJ: You guys advocating against immigration
me: To be clear, I am not doing so. I’m thinking out loud about how a lessarchist might advance an agenda on immigration that may have become as intractable as the life/choice issue. I don’t think that even Andy is “against” immigration, btw.
……………
Caveats make the simple complicated. Restrictions are caveats. Exceptions are caveats- inserting/asserting fears as a viable reason for the caveats result in an altruistic endeavor becoming altruism which is altruistic filtered through human emotion, rendering the altruistic moot. In this case that emotion is fear of what ‘may’ occur, allowing if not demanding something be done. That something usually never goes away no matter how egregious.
The fears don’t allow consideration of results other than the presented. It’s similar to the marijuana issue. The fears created used race as a selling point to those who were predisposed to accepting race as a stigma or threat. When in fact, the feared may not happen just as likely as it will. Humans who haven’t experienced freedom like we believe we have could just as easily become libertarian as not. If not that’s because libertarian are outnumbered and the message not made clear. To restrict the offer of freedom here, which is what this country used to represent puts out that light on the hill, without exception.
In fact, the war on terror is sold in large part as kill them there not here. < fear of the "may" happen.
I respect your thinking out loud, btw vs creating exceptions resulting in restrictions.
dj: In this case that emotion is fear of what ‘may’ occur, allowing if not demanding something be done.
me: I don’t see it that way. Some immigrants do use public money right now. It’s not a mere “fear,” it’s a reality. The empirical question of whether in total immigrants are taxpayers or tax-consumers, net, is challenging and, I’d say, far from settled. But even if it WERE settled, there is still the question of optimizing the net benefits of immigrants by reducing their use of tax dollars.
“Keep it simple, stupid,” is an appealing approach on a lot of levels. But the situation we’re discussing doesn’t strike me as “simple.” Although bonding immigrants might qualify as the simpler approach.
TK, RC……
The simple answer, IMNSHO, is “rules” for the governors, “enforced” by the governed- (no matter what label is chosen or assigned) tags and labels are immaterial and detractors. The US exists. It is a model, albeit losing its appeal, but a model none the less. The analogies with the tags and labels is cute, but ineffective. The bottom line is the Truth has been disregarded by the governors and not taught to the governed. Truth is simple, and constant. All else evolves and is meant to obfuscate the obvious.
The best teacher is example. The example the US is setting is not desirable (do as we say or we’ll kill you), to ostensibly set you free and bring democracy to the masses. I haven’t seen that in the rules for the governors. < example of the many available
Arguing nuance(s), even as an exercise, is entertaining and good brain exercise for the few, but does little to help spread Truth to the many.
RC: I don’t see it that way. Some immigrants do use public money right now. It’s not a mere “fear,” it’s a reality. The empirical question of whether in total immigrants are taxpayers or tax-consumers, net, is challenging and, I’d say, far from settled. But even if it WERE settled, there is still the question of optimizing the net benefits of immigrants by reducing their use of tax dollars.
Me: Without the federal reserve financing the policies they wouldn’t exist. Taxes or forced payments to anyone, immigrant or native are part and parcel to the problem.
RC: “Keep it simple, stupid,” is an appealing approach on a lot of levels. But the situation we’re discussing doesn’t strike me as “simple.” Although bonding immigrants might qualify as the simpler approach.
Me: It is simple. It’s made complicated by intervention financed by, you guessed it, the federal reserve.
More-
RC: Some immigrants do use public money right now.
Me: “Some” does not equal all. The fear being spread is that a majority does/will. That ‘may’ be true, but it’s just as likely it isn’t. I prefer the positive. Naive? Perhaps. But also I’m 70 and that’s given me a lot to reflect on- some people are good, some people are bad. No laws will ever change that. However, the financing can be curtailed.
Not to cut this short, but I have some errands to run. I look forward to more discussion.
One other thing- “public money”. How did money get to be public and why?
Some immigrants using welfare does not mean all, but the statistics indicate that a super-majority of modern day immigrants (and their offspring) are in fact using welfare, and after gaining citizenship, super-majorities of them are voting in favor of increasing the welfare state and restricting gun rights.
Bringing in large numbers of foreigners who are hostile to liberty is part of the plan to destroy what is left of freedom in this country.
“Bringing in large numbers of foreigners”
Well, if you don’t want to bring in large numbers of foreigners, don’t.
For the most part, they bring themselves in. And until unless they actually DO infringe on your rights, as opposed to you fantasizing that they statistically might, them bringing themselves in is none of your fucking business, any more than it’s their business when you migrate to McDonald’s or to a streetcorner to collect ballot signatures.
robert capozzi commented .. If we view governments as condo associations (as opposed to gangs), I maintain Ls would be more able to engage in a broader civil discourse. We want the condo association’s rule to have a light a touch as possible. But we do want the overall facility to be clean, well-maintained, and as crime-free as possible. … Others (morearchists) might want the condo association to have strict rules about just about everything.
I guess I’m a mooreachist. Ha ha.
Even under Obama, I don’t think the state was forcing immigrants on Americans. In Europe, it’s the flood of immigrants really blow back from their supporting US (or French re: Libya) interventionism and imperialism over the last 160 plus years. I do think there’s some truth to idea lefties think a bunch of immigrants will give them more power. But that’s naive cause they eventually will elect their own immigrant leader who may screw the indigenous population. (That’s what native americans think of George Washington, after all.)
The LP Platform does ignore rights of communities to refuse immigrants, but that’s implicit in self-determination. And I don’t think it’s immigration platform is likely to be initiated as long as the nativists keep power. Or until US govt destroys itself, the more inevitable result. And that’s where libertarian alternatives will become most necessary and opportune, if we can just remember to put some of energy into focusing on that inevitability.
“…Since there is no live motion yet …”
It is not obvious to me how this is correct. There appears to be a motion with four co-sponsors. Someone has called for a live electrical meeting to discuss and amend the motion. An effort is under way to fix a date. There is a not-yet-live motion from Alicia Mattson specifying a cause.
oh, “government is a gang” is a far more prevalent view than “government is a condo association”…lol
government is a gang.. 415,000 google results
https://www.google.com/search?q=government+is+a+gang
government is a condo association.. Zero google results
https://www.google.com/search?q=“government+is+a+condo+association”
Organized crime frequently had the support of local residents, whether out of fear of the organized criminals themselves, or protection from OTHER organized criminal syndicates or the government on occasion.
In any case, you aren’t going to get such people to vote for anarchists. They want some set of criminals in charge. It is what it is.
The Libertarian Party is constrained in a way that philosophical libertarian outlets would not be: it is constrained by the current mindset of the voters.
That doesn’t mean there is no place for the delivery of a more uncompromising libertarian vision. In fact, I implore radicals and anarchists to do so…outside of the electoral arena. As you move the general mindset of the populace to entertain and even accept radical libertarian ideas, those of us willing to hear the voters out and meet them where they are at, sacrificing a freer society that we might perfer, will get them to accept what we can. That is a separate skill, and absolutely necessary in the electoral arena.
and yes, this might be in direct contradiction to what some of the founders of the party had in mind, and so what? Wrigley Gum used to sell baking powder, now they sell gum.
Exactly, in addition to Andy’s stats being total bullshit from disreputable sources and the exact opposite of what is actually happening with immigration.
Then way-morearchy becomes not only plausible but more or less inevitable. Very bad idea.
“…Since there is no live motion yet …”
Censure motion is live and votes are being counted. E-meeting dates are still being decided as of the last time I checked, which was yesterday.
Politics is not dry goods. Politically, the better analogy would be the repubs…the party of Lincoln is now the party of Strom Thurmond
“Politics is not dry goods.”
At the electoral level, its much closer to dry goods than pure philosophy.
“the better analogy would be the repubs…the party of Lincoln is now the party of Strom Thurmond.”
you want me to concede that we might have to blow up the Libertarian Party and start over at some point down the line? Fine, I agree. So what?
Anthony, have you ever opened up a poly sci or economics textbook?
you welcome to start your own own party…If politics was merely dry goods, it would be pretty easy. Why don’t you start your own if it is as easy as dry goods?
“Anthony, have you ever opened up a poly sci or economics textbook?”
Yes, I have. Have you ever actually listened to a voter?
“you welcome to start your own own party”
No, I think I’ll stay. You are aware who won the nomination last year, right?
“…If politics was merely dry goods, it would be pretty easy.”
Not sure why that follows. Its an ultra-competitive, essentially zero-sum industry. Its not easy at all. In fact, if it was about philosophy, it would be comparatively easier, because there is no question libertarianism is right. But, alas, we are stuck with the voters’ faulty thinking.
More idiotic comments from Tom Knapp in. regard to immigration. Unlike Knapp, I am not dealing with what might happen, I am dealing with what is happening. Statistical reality indicates that super-majorities of modern day immigrants (and their offspring) use government welfare and other services, and vote to increase the welfare state and enact gun more gun control laws, at a rate that is higher than the existing population. The net impact of this is that it is pushing the country toward bigger and bigger government.
His comment about me traveling around the country to get candidates or issues on the ballot is also absurd. Like a resident of a condominium complex, as a “citizen” of this country (and no, I do not really believe in government, but whether any of us like it or not, this is how the world is presently arranged and this is not going to change any time soon), who has some ancestors that were here before the American Revolution, some of whom actually fought in the revolution as revolutionaries. I have the legal right to travel throughout the land territory known as the USA, and I have the right to use the public commons, which is in part paid for out of my tax dollars, and I have the right to engage in 1st amendment protected activities, which includes free speech and petitioning the government, and if not for people like myself doing this, people like Tom and other posters here would not have anyone or anything for which to cast their votes.
I believe that the public commons/infrastructure of a country is for the use of the resident taxpayers (ie-“citizens”), and not for everyone on tbd planer to exploit, much like the commons of a condominium complex is for the people who own units in the condominium and not for the general public.
I do think that foreigners should be able to use the public commons/infrastructure of the USA under certain conditions, but they do not have the same right to use it as does an American citizen (and I do not agree with the current interpretation of Birthright Citizenship that says anyones whose mother crosses the border and pops them out as a baby is automatically an American citizen).
Andy,
Thanks for being relatively brief this time in lying out your justifications, as dumb and contra reality as they are, for being an authoritarian nationalist.
Could you similarly concisely explain why it is that you believe authoritarian nationalism is compatible with, or even constitutes, libertarianism?
Somebody wrote: oh, “government is a gang” is a far more prevalent view than “government is a condo association”…lol
Mea culpa. I was thinking in terms of SHOULD BE, not currently is.
pf: Then way-morearchy becomes not only plausible but more or less inevitable. Very bad idea.
me: “Condo association” is my description of what government is and has always been. I’m open to other descriptions. They may well sometimes behave like “gangsters” and we both agree they are doing WAY too much. Yes, the trend is morearchy. but I sure HOPE that the trend can be reversed.
To do so, it seems obvious that lessarchists would need to sell sellable ideas. Running against drivers licenses; disbanding the federal government; and legalizing sex with children — “charming” as these proposals might be — are unsellable, in my estimation. In fact, toxic understates — more like radioactive like Nagasaki was moments after the blast.
Pauli wrote: “Then way-morearchy becomes not only plausible but more or less inevitable. Very bad idea.”
That’s true in any libertarian philosophy, majority or supermajority rule, representative or direct democracy, term limited, FIJAed, sunset laws, etc etc etc reform notions society. So you need all the reform aspects you can get – but members of community having a true ethical core of “do unto others” and kick out those who “screw unto others” is necessary or freedom won’t happen…
robert capozzi
January 22, 2018 at 15:38
me: “Condo association” is my description of what government is and has always been. I’m open to other descriptions.
Sorry, Robt, the idea of “condo association” (or homeowners association” or more recently “co-housing”) has been a model of alternative governance for some libertarians for many decades. You can’t just co-opt and redefine the term.
tk: And until unless they actually DO infringe on your rights, as opposed to you fantasizing that they statistically might, them bringing themselves in is none of your fucking business, any more than it’s their business when you migrate to McDonald’s or to a streetcorner to collect ballot signatures.
me: To accept your analysis, the commons need to be viewed as wide open and lawless. Anyone can go anywhere anytime. There apparently can be no terms and conditions, according to your perspective. Indeed, as currently structured, immigrants can utilize taxpayer-funded services with impunity.
You apparently offer this as a workable model. I find it unworkable. It strikes me as especially wrong that taxpayers must pay for services used by non-citizens with no conditions. Since we have irrefutable evidence that immigrants do use these services to some extent, it seems to be virtually certain that new immigrants will in aggregate use these services as well.
Do you believe that taxpayers should be empowered to choose who benefits from their tax dollars?
RC,
In order for there to be a commons, there would have to be some kind of agreement as to what constitutes said commons and how it is to be administered.
A street gang’s turf claims do not constitute such an agreement.
That’s part of the problem with your “condo association” analogy. There was never any original owner to sell the condos, nor was there an agreement between original owners to create such an association. It’s just a few guys who have stockpiled machine guns at the door and on the third floor telling everyone else what to do.
“Do you believe that taxpayers should be empowered to choose who benefits from their tax dollars?”
I believe that taxpayers should be empowered to tell the muggers to go fuck themselves.
Absent that, while I have preferences as to how the muggers spend my money, I’m not going to pretend that this was some kind of charitable donation I made. The muggers may pay attention to my preferences. But I doubt it. After all, they’re muggers.
TK,
My, aren’t we exacting!
To satisfy your standards, this would have to be done by either contractually selecting the Harlos Nonarchy Pod or “condo association” inclusion.
Might get cumbersome….
It’s not “my” standards. It’s obvious standards as to what constitutes an agreement.
If I belong to a condo association, here’s what happened:
1) Someone who owned the property and the materials built the condos.
2) I bought a condo either from that original owner, or from someone in a chain from that original owner to me, and I agreed prior to the purchase to belong to the condo association, abide by its rules, and make use of its processes in disputes over e.g. the common areas; or, I inherited that condo from someone who agreed to pass it on to me only per my agreement to those same conditions.
In the case of the United States of America, the founding fathers did not buy up a bunch of property and sell it under certain conditions to willing buyers. They just asserted their power, and the power of a tiny fraction of the people already living in condos they had homesteaded from wilderness or bought from people who did, over everyone not already living in those condos but on subsequent generations even in condos that hadn’t been built and that when they were built would again be built on property homesteaded by the builders or bought from prior homesteaders, not necessarily from anyone who had ever been part of the condo association.
Even Thomas Jefferson noticed that they were silly to try to bind subsequent generations, born, raised and living on property that had never belong to the “condo owners,” to those alleged owners’ rules.
When and if the US government establishes some kind of rightful claim in property to the land it claims to own, whether for itself or allegedly as an administrated commons, I’ll feel bound to recognize their rules as something more honest than the turf claims of a street gang that I’ll knuckle under to when necessary, use when useful, and ignore when possible.
An outsiders perspective of the Libertarian Party-
Most here seem to be dues paying members, I’m not, thus “outsider”, though I live as best I can to libertarian beliefs/philosophy based on ‘my’ perceptions/perspectives and when addressed politically, I call myself ‘a’ libertarian to specifically distance myself from a group.
I see a lot of divisiveness in the “factions”….. by definition a faction is an esoteric adventure, and creates groups, which again, by definition are collectives, which negate the rights of the Individual since one has to defer in order to be part of the group. It (groups, factions) is a diametric opposite of ‘this’ libertarian who advocates for Individual rights which I believed libertarians did.
Libertarian need not be esoteric. In fact shouldn’t be. It is a very simple concept which isn’t spelled
e a s y.
Again, from an outsiders perspective: Don’t y’all think a cohesiveness would be simpler to sell? I’ve stated here before, what I see here reminds me of Democrat and Republican Party heads. Intentional dividing (factions) to somehow strengthen an argument….. it ain’t working on me- an outsider and I consider myself personally libertarian. How would a Democrat or Republican voter view y’all?
Win hearts, minds will follow.
I had an idea y’all may want to consider, and I’d donate what I can to the cause (if that means anything).
Stop with “the plank” crap. Rally round freedom, publicly and privately. Educate based in Truth.
What is Truth you ask- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed- rights are not granted or installed on an assembly line and can only be taken away through force or coercion.
The Constitution was crafted to ‘help’ ensure the rights of the Individual were not infringed on by a tyrannical entity called gov’t.
This can, of course, be elaborated on- as long as it retains the basic concept- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights Endowed- as in inherent which pre-date the Constitution. It is ‘the’ document meant to keep the elected from being tyrannical. It recognizes a few ‘rights’ as being verboten* and lists them in The Bill of Rights. It’s meant to help ensure respect for Individuals be held in high esteem and no where does it give authority to change the meaning of words to circumvent the job elected to do; RE PRE SENT…… do the bidding of others, i.e., to serve.
We the people are the others. We are the masters they are the servants.
*ver·bo·ten
f?r?b?tn,v?r-/
adjective
adjective: verboten
forbidden, especially by an authority.
Pool all your resources (yes I’d donate) to take out full page ads in major newspapers expressing the Truth. Start with USA Today and branch out from there as resources are made available.
I’m a fan of the founders philosophical thoughts so I have to add some I like;
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Thomas Jefferson
The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government. Thomas Jefferson
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/lists/authors/top_10_thomas_jefferson_quotes
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. Thomas Jefferson
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/thomas_jefferson
Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. Thomas Jefferson
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/thomas_jefferson
I sincerely believe… that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/thomas_jefferson
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. Thomas Jefferson
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/thomas_jefferson
And my two favorite
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable;
that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/thomas_jefferson
The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/thomas_jefferson
hoppeBot…quack, quack
tk,
Channelling Spooner again? 😉
A literalistic case could be made for VA, MA, PA, and KY. iirc, the first three commoonwealths represented the vast preponderance of the US population in 1776.
We simply disagree that social orders need to be (or could be) as literalistically defined as you require.
OK, so the “condo agreement” was ratified by what, a fraction of one percent of the populations of those states?
tk,
A bit out of my depth, but the territory was colonized by the crown, iirc, and then settlers subdivided the colony. The underlying land could be construed as a commonwealth, “condos” in the “condo association” known as VA, PA, or MA, later KY.
Strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no basis for a condo association! Supreme condo power derives from a mandate from the tenants, not from some farcicial aquatic ceremony! You can’t expect to wield supreme condo power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!
We could add ME and VT to the list.
You’re “right.” We should all be paying the Native Americans rent!
dj: Don’t y’all think a cohesiveness would be simpler to sell?
me: Yes. The “esoteric” aspects of the LP were (unfortunately, IMO) woven into the party’s founding documents. This has made the LP a lesser vehicle for increased-liberty advocacy than it might be, as energies tend to be more focused on high theory over effective retail politics. The esoteric language was protected by the 88 or so Founders with parliamentary and bylaws “depth charges.” Attempts to simplify the LP’s message have been hamstrung or blunted by years of parliamentary squabbling.
Personally, I was a member for many years, but I allowed myself to lapse, given the resistance to do real politics.
So far as I can tell, the focus on hand-wringing over effective retail politics in the LP is exclusively, or nearly so, the domain of the “pragmatists.” Their plans never work, and it’s never because their plans suck, it’s always because the radicals won’t pretend that their plans will work. When it’s effective retail politics times the radicals are too busy walking precincts to hold the pragmatists’ hands and tell them “there, there, maybe your fantasies will come true if you click the ruby slippers together a little harder and say ‘there’s no place like 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue’ a little bit louder.”
well, if the message is let’s attack immigrants and brown people, ineffective retail messaging is a good thing
dL: if the message is let’s attack immigrants and brown people, ineffective retail messaging is a good thing
me: True, as damaging as advocating the right to private nukes and having sex with children.
“When it’s effective retail politics times the radicals are too busy walking precincts ”
lol, sure they are.
Like the ones that just got a recall of the mayor and council-members in Oxnard, CA on the ballot, and are hitting the pavement to actively campaign for the Libertarian candidate. Or the elected Libertarian mayor of Calimesa, CA, who just saved a ton of money by switching to a volunteer fire department, and is currently mounting a credible bid for county board. Or the elected Libertarian member of the Rhinelander, WI school board who’s blocking tax increases there. Or the elected Libertarian council members in Burnsville, MN, and Copperton, UT, and Long Beach, WA, and the elected Libertarian *majority* council in Crystal City, MN. And of course, let’s not forget the state senator running for re-election as a Libertarian in Nebraska, and the appointed Libertarian chair of the Indiana Public Defender Commission, and umpteen other Libertarian officeholders who have nothing to do with the “rads.” Or, if you want to dismiss the presidential ticket, how about the Libertarians who stuffed rallies with 1000+ people all across the country for the 2016 ticket, in cities that usually struggle to get a dozen people to turn up for an LP event.
Oh wait… none of those things were done by the supposed “radicals” who you claim are the only people who do effective retail & local politics in the LP.
But yes, I’m sure the “um technically it’s ephebophilia!” caucus is just racking up the wins. I look forward to reading about them on IPR. Maybe James Weeks will get elected Sheriff next time.
of course, no one on this forum has advocated any such thing. You, on the other hand, have been quacking like an Imperial Kludd from the local HoppeBot klavern…
Anthony,
I don’t know all of the people in question, but I do know some of them, and yes, some of them are radicals.
It’s interesting that you would characterize a mayor who eliminated a government organization and replaced it with volunteers as some kind of moderate.
dL: You, on the other hand, have been quacking like an Imperial Kludd from the local HoppeBot klavern…
me: I’m sorry you feel this way. I think you are skipping words in the sentences I write, fabricating narratives in your head. Not sure, but it could be a case of reaction formation.
tk: It’s interesting that you would characterize a mayor who eliminated a government organization and replaced it with volunteers as some kind of moderate.
me: To me, that’s moderate. Most if not all of Long Island — not exactly a hotbed of nonarchists — has volunteer fire departments. Always did. It’s a fairly common thing in some areas. One source says 69% of firefighters are volunteers in the US.
Fire departments that have volunteers still receive taxpayer funding. Also, I think that these fire departments do have at least a few paid people on staff.
Guys, there are always exceptions to the rule. That’s why “rules” are often as not ineffective and should not be relied on as the norm or used as anything other than circumstantial/anecdotal evidence.
Snarky comments are not very effective either IF cohesiveness is the desired direction. Of course if it isn’t then all the arguing in the world, no matter who the smartest man in the room is, there will be very little “effective” traction gained….. there is a simple solution, but, ego’s will have to be left at home.
You guys are ALL very intelligent, make valid points, well read, etc. It makes absolutely NO sense to be so intentionally divisive if ‘gains’ in the electorate is what is sought. This is a ‘public’ forum. It may not have but a few visitors, but, every one counts, or no one counts…. (that’s a quote from a Michael Connelly character, Harry Bosch). I read as well. But, I stay away from political absolutist, regardless of their pedigree, who demand the “group” must adhere.
Yes, I know, paulie has decided I don’t count, but, that’s his loss, and a contribution to the problem I see as an outsider, which I will stay because you’re no different as a “group” than any other political Party- ego driven.
Group: Collective. Being a ‘part’ of, or member of means, by definition, you MUST defer to another/others desires wants and wishes which is 180deg out from exercising your Individual agenda in YOUR pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness. IF you ‘choose’ to be a part of, or a member of, that is the price you pay. Why would anyone do that? To further a “cause”? Really? What cause is that? Our “group” is no different from any other “group” but we have a different label?! We STILL demand others do as we say or you don’t count. Wow. I can’t wait to join that group.
IF, on the other hand, you did as this outsider suggested above there would be no need for a group with off-shoot, divisive groups or ego’s deciding “an” agenda. Liberty, especially personal, is enticing. Truth is constant and will manifest itself in ways unimaginable. Bullshit rhetoric meant to be divisive will manifest divisive Bullshit. We’re living the result. The Concrete evidence. It’s not anecdotal or circumstantial. You want to change the world, or the political landscape? Be the change you want to make. Doing the same thing as other groups makes you no different,you just wear a different label.
Unless I missed it, it looks like people here have still not addressed my hypothetical question above in regard to what is a Libertarian Party committee member used racial or ethic or gay slurs, but the context where they used the slurs did not violate any libertarian principles. I also asked what if a Libertarian Party committee member used lots of cuss words.
I suspect that people here are avoiding these questions because they know that if they say that they think that an LNC or state committee member should be removed for using racial or ethic or gay slurs, or for cussing/using foul language, that it could be used against them on related issues concerning comments made by LNC members or state committee members, especially the current situation with Arvin Vohara.
Once again, I am not saying that I think that LNC or state committee members should use such language (I would have less of a problem with general cussing than I would with the use of racial or ethnic or gay slurs), but I do think that this question is relevant.
So are people here going to answer these questions, or are they going to dodge them like intellectual cowards?
Should read, “what if a Libertarian Party committee member….” above.
Thomas L. Knapp
January 22, 2018 at 19:55
So far as I can tell, the focus on hand-wringing over effective retail politics in the LP is exclusively, or nearly so, the domain of the “pragmatists.”
…………….
I hate to tell you this, but, that is part and parcel to “groups”.
There need be no hand wringing over anything- retail politics is R and D politics. Different rhetoric to sell the same bullshit-> The “group” majority (Party leaders) decides what is and what isn’t.
I came to that conclusion several years ago while listening to a talk radio show. A caller asked the host; what can we do? The host told him, keep doing what you’re doing. It made me think, what can we do? It dawned on me; The question was worded wrong. It used “we”. In thinking about that I recalled every radio show I heard had a caller who asked a host the same thing. They were asking for a “collective” answer- to spell out Individual effort. That won’t work. “Retail politics” is the evidence, the ‘results’ of where we are as a society is also evidence.
I decided the question should be worded as, and the host should have responded with: What can “I” do? That led me to a whole different way of thinking/addressing the ills of our time. My ‘style’ of thinking led me to a little soliloquy called: “I” will Survive- in spite of, if not to spite the “will” of the people.
(An aside- Ben Franklin said; “If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect.” )
To continue:
“I” choose my path in life. “I” accept the responsibility of the outcome. “I” choose to dis-avow co-dependence on an alleged knowledgeable Individual or entity who professes a moral authority of absolving personal responsibility and deems himself worthy of making decisions for me. “I” must survive. “I” cannot allow it’s demise.
The acceptance of personal responsibility to put forth Individual effort will perpetuate Freedom and Liberty, for all, creating the greater good, Naturally.
“I” is the spirit of The Individual. It is The Individual who pursues his Life. It is The Individual who exercises Liberty through Individual effort. It is The Individual who succeeds in achieving Happiness. The right to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness is endowed by a Creator, to an Individual. Those are guaranteed to be protected, defended and upheld within the borders of These United States, by the Supreme law of this now Nation, constituted specifically for that purpose.
(with this summary)
Words mean things.
Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth.
George Washington
Andy: So are people here going to answer these questions, or are they going to dodge them like intellectual cowards?
Me: Hiding in, or behind a “group” is cowardice, period.
Cohesiveness is not necessarily the desired direction. It is certainly not an overriding trump. The LP ostensibly operates by the Dallas Accord, meaning that the question of whether the state should or should not exist lies outside the scope of LP politics. An attendant corollary of that accord is an implied silence vis a vis libertarian anarchist abridgments by LP candidates. However, that accord does not mean silence over liberal violations(the Johnsoncrats) or liberal violations in the name of libertarianism(the hoppeBots). It is my contention that sans a viable LP classic anarchist contingent, the so-called minarchist body will simply slide into a trailing indicator of the conservative gutter.
“Snarky comments are not very effective either IF cohesiveness is the desired direction…there is a simple solution, but, ego’s will have to be left at home.”
There’s your problem. Cohesiveness is not important to many party members. That smacks of coercion, and they won’t be coerced! No distinction is made between the private entity of the Libertarian Party, where ego has to be set aside, and the public sphere, where the flowering of your ego should be allowed as long as you don’t hurt anyone and don’t take their stuff. Hence, I’ll take my clothes off on live t.v., because demonstrating freedom is more important than demonstrating competence.
“It makes absolutely NO sense to be so intentionally divisive if ‘gains’ in the electorate is what is sought.”
There are party members who call “gains in the electorate” secondary, or explicitly suggest its counter to the party mission.
Jack news recently published articles mocking Julian Assange’s hygiene and praising Trump for the most successful presidential first year since Ronald Reagan. If I actually concurred with that sentiment, you would have a hard time convincing me why I shouldn’t vote republican. Great Job!
“It is my contention that sans a viable LP classic anarchist contingent, the so-called minarchist body will simply slide into a trailing indicator of the conservative gutter.”
Contradicted by the Johnson-Weld nomination.
If electorate gains were my chief and overriding concern, I would have been voting democratic in the early part of the millennium, then switched to the republicans 4 years ago and would now be looking to switch back to the Dems to catch the next wave.
“Unless I missed it, it looks like people here have still not addressed my hypothetical question above in regard to what is a Libertarian Party committee member used racial or ethic or gay slurs, but the context where they used the slurs did not violate any libertarian principles. I also asked what if a Libertarian Party committee member used lots of cuss words.”
I’ll answer your question: said person should be removed. Libertarian principles are irrelevant in the matter. All those principles indicate is that such a person should not be prosecuted by the state for what they say. The Libertarian Party can remove such a person just for being a dipsh*t.
The Jack News
https://www.thejacknews.com/about/featured-writers/
grades Trump’s 1st year
https://www.thejacknews.com/politics/grading-president-trumps-first-year-in-office-is-tough/
Observation stands.
Anthony, thanks for answering the question.
I look forward to reading responses from other posters regarding this issue.
“If electorate gains were my chief and overriding concern, I would have been voting democratic in the early part of the millennium, then switched to the republicans 4 years ago and would now be looking to switch back to the Dems to catch the next wave.”
I’ve never meant to suggest that libertarian principles don’t matter. I’m suggesting that…for the Libertarian Party specifically…they should be secondary to the primary purpose of winning elective office. Those principles are always there, hopefully ensuring our candidates don’t run too far afoul of libertarianism in their drive to win, but I would be the first one to admit that, given winning is the primary concern, it is a certainty that sometimes they will. But this is the trade-off we have to make in electoral politics.
This is a different standard, than, say, the Mises Institute, where adherence to principle becomes the most important thing because there aren’t discrete contests called elections periodically conducted in the “think tank” world that essentially determine who is “right” and who is “wrong.” (who wins and who doesn’t).
I am told by Harley riders I know that the famous “choppy” sound that HD motorcycles make is the result of an engineering trade-off that causes the cylinders to fire at uneven intervals. It is less than efficient, but the sound is so associated with the brand image that changing it is unthinkable by the company.
The Libertarian Party…not the philosophy, and not libertarian organizations outside the electoral arena…needs to accept the “defects” in thinking that the typical or likely voter gives us. That’s the only way to win elective office and move the country in a libertarian direction.
It is possible for those set of defects to “roll back” in the future, such that the LP and its candidates can offer even more optimal libertarian solutions, but to operate in the electoral arena you have to have a sense for what those current defects are, not ignore them and suggest your going to turn the voters, the overwhelming majority of whom are rationally ignorant, into radicals, or even just moderate libertarians like myself, in the span of an election cycle no more than a few months long.
If your first instinct is to correct those defects in the “engine” (i.e., voter) to perfectly efficient operation, electoral politics is not your field. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying your participating in the wrong arena.
Yech. What a disgrace. I think it may be time for me to completely dissociate myself from any party or movement that has anything but utter contempt for reich wingers, racists, ethno-nationalists, right wing authoritarians, the Alt Right, white supremacists, and Drumpf (but I repeat myself). They are the enemy, and if someone is deluded into thinking otherwise they are not my ally, period.
Jack News isn’t an arm of the LP, though.
Agreed. Either remove and renounce any such people, or let them have what’s left of the party, as there should never be any co-operation with them on anything.
dL: The LP ostensibly operates by the Dallas Accord,
me: Ostensibly, sure. How many of the “signatories” of the “Dallas Accord” are still alive? Still in the LP? What percentage of the current membership were “Dallas Accord” “signatories”? I’ll bet: a tiny percentage.
If true, why should current members abide by an “Accord” made in a smoke-filled room in the 70s?
“why should current members abide by an ‘Accord’ made in a smoke-filled room in the 70s?”
They don’t have to. They choose to. If they want to stop, all they have to do is get 7/8ths of the delegates to a national convention to undo the effect of the accord as expressed in the statement of principles.
“Agreed. Either remove and renounce any such people, or let them have what’s left of the party, as there should never be any co-operation with them on anything.”
The real question is how we prevent such people from wanting to be part of the party in the first place? Booting Vohra now is no permanent solution. I just think its a better idea than keeping him around.
The real solution is making the dipsh*ts and self-aggrandizers stay away from the get-go.
“The real solution is making the dipsh*ts and self-aggrandizers stay away from the get-go.”
The best way of doing that is having a strong party message. Not necessarily a radical message, although that’s my personal preference, but a clarity of purpose rather than the last 10 years of “who do we pretend to be this week to see if we can peel a few of the fringers off the big parties?”
paulie: “Yech. What a disgrace. I think it may be time for me to completely dissociate myself from any party or movement that has anything but utter contempt for reich wingers, racists, ethno-nationalists, right wing authoritarians, the Alt Right, white supremacists, and Drumpf (but I repeat myself). They are the enemy, and if someone is deluded into thinking otherwise they are not my ally, period.”
Agreed. It’s getting really discouraging having to deal with the right-wingers. There’s so many people that want to twist libertarianism into something it’s not to the point that I’m actually concerned about what’s going to happen in the future. Just look at the end of this interview Sharpe gave to Reason recently (http://reason.com/archives/2018/01/14/selling-freedom).
I really really don’t want the LP to try to “turn” nazis, wtf, there’s no use, just reach out to normal people. And he’s “fine” with a white-nationalist being on the LNC as long as they “denounce” violence, NO! libertarians are fine with white-nationalist EXISTING, as in we don’t believe they should be punished by the government for their thoughts, but we can’t BE white-nationalists! WTF!
This is just case #102038493202893 of why I think Hoppean cultists have forever tainted (some parts) of libertarianism and should be dealt with immediately.
Anthony: “The real question is how we prevent such people from wanting to be part of the party in the first place?”
Permanent and persistent alienation of the LvMI and anyone associated with them. Remove any references to the LvMI et al from the party’s website, remove them from any flyers, etc. bar them from events. (Florida LP just had DiLorenzo at their meeting, he is (or as least was) part of the League of the South who are now outright nazis).
Take strong positions on issues that piss them off, mainly immigration and states rights (in a similar line that Sarwark did on that interview with the Lions of Liberty that pissed off the Paulbots).
Just straight up start calling Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Rockwell et al. neoconfederates, make informational guides as to the differences between libertarians and neoconfederates.
tk: They choose to.
me: Consciously? I wonder what percentage of the current membership read, reviewed, and understood the fine print?
Kinda like Ts&Cs online. My guess is most don’t read that fine print, either.
Getting away with legalistic gotchas gets away with nothing. It’s a sure-fire way to build ill will.
Anon-Tipper,
I’m pleased you brought up that Sharpe article in Reason, because that ending bothered me as much as it bothered you.
I preface this by saying I think Mr. Sharpe is quite possibly the single best messenger the Libertarian Party (as opposed to libertarianism) has ever had. His background, upbringing and past, his political wandering and then arrival in the LP, and the frequently poignant way he delivers his message is…I mean, he practically covers all the bases, and he does it with positivity. I don’t know if there is an ethnic or demographic group that Mr. Sharpe doesn’t appeal to. This is why Governor Weld said we need more people like Larry running for office.
That’s why what he says at the end of that interview is so perplexing. Its a campaign killer, IMHO, if he ever got traction and some opponent wanted to bring it up.
That’s to say nothing of what it says about the LP. I don’t want those lowlifes around me. Frankly, I’m not sure why Larry doesn’t understand that he would gain far more votes by saying, I hate defending those lowlife’s right to free speech, but I feel so strongly about that right, that I will do it. That being said, I don’t want them anywhere near my party, my family, or my friends.
RC,
Is there a Taoist way of expressing “it is what it is?”
The LP is what it is. Certain aspects of it are amenable to change. Certain aspects of it are difficult to change. Certain aspects of it are very difficult to change.
This isn’t anything you don’t know. In 2006, you and Carl Milsted plumbed the limits of what could be changed and in what directions. Milsted was disappointed with the results and left. You formally left, I think, but you’re still holding on to the disappointment of what the limits turned out to be.
I don’t have anything against the kind of party you seem to want. Heck, I might even join such a party.
But the Libertarian Party that we have is what it is. Its purpose is in fact its purpose, that purpose is king-hell difficult to change, and trying to get it to function against that purpose without changing it is the very definition of dysfunction.
My purpose in asking the questions about whether an LNC member or an LP state committee member should be removed from their position for using racial and/or ethnic and/or gay slurs, or for using foul language/cussing, was to see if party members believed that somebody should be removed for engaging in free speech that was impolite/nasty.
I don’t think that an LNC member or state committee member, or anyone else, should be removed for light and transient causes. It would be unhealthy for the party to create an atmosphere where everyone is afraid to speak their mind because anytime somebody says something that another person does not like, they could face the risk of removal.
Having said this, I think that there are certain instances where a person could say things that could be grounds for removal. I think that Wayne Allyn Root should have been removed for the LNC back in 2012 when he started openly campaigning for Mitt Romney, a candidate from another political party who was not even remotely inline with libertarian principles. I recall there being talk of removing Root from the LNC for doing this, but it did not happen. Fortunately, Root ended up resigning and quitting the party, after the calls for his removal from party members increased.
I don’t feel like looking it up now, but was there an actual LNC vote on whether or not to remove Wayne Root from his position on the LNC, or was there only talk of a vote, but it never made it to the stage where the LNC actually voted on it?
Supporting a candidate from outside the LP who is far outside of the libertarian quadrant on their issues stances and record, particularly when the LP has a candidate running against them (I don’t think much of Gary Johnson, but that is still no excuse to support Romney, and ironically, Root actually supported Johnson for the LP nomination), should be grounds for removing a person from a position in the LP.
Removing somebody from a position in the party due to issue stances gets into a stickier territory. There are some issues where libertarians don’t agree, and which have been hotly debated among libertarians for decades. Anarchy vs minarchy, abortion, immigration, Intellectual Property, pragmatism vs purity, etc… Should Libertarians throw a tantrum and call for removal if somebody who is on a different side of an argument than they are on an issue where libertarians have been arguing for years says something with which they disagree? I don’t think that this would be very healthy for the party or the movement. There ought to be some room for debate and discussion.
Having said this, how far outside of the Libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart does a person have to stray before there is just cause to remove said person? There is a line between disagreeing on an issue where even libertarians disagree, and an issue stance being outside the range of libertarianism.
I think that there was just cause to remove both Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as being candidates for the party in last year’s election, as both of them outright campaigned against the LP’s platform on multiple planks, and both of them gushed over one of their opponents in the race, Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton. (weld practically endorsed Clinton) I could see a case for having kept Gary Johnson on the ticket, since removing him could have put ballot access at risk in states where the LP has to put the name of candidates on the petition, and where candidate substitution is not allowed (I think that at least some of these states do allow for candidate substitution for VP candidates). It was not long after the national convention before Bill Weld started making statements that were against the LP’s platform and libertarianism in general, so it is possible that Weld could have been removed from the ticket without putting ballot access at too much of a risk if there were any states that did not allow for candidate substitution for VP candidates.
If Weld had been removed from the ticket, I think that it would have been a big positive for the LP. The LP would have looked like a party that takes its principles seriously, instead of “The Party of Principle” statement just being an empty slogan. It would have also sent the message to Gary Johnson of shape up or ship out. If Weld had been removed and replaced by somebody who is actually a libertarian, like say Larry Sharpe or Will Coley, or by anyone else who could reasonably be considered to be an actual libertarian, I think that it would have pushed Johnson to at least sound more libertarian, and it would meant that a higher percentage of the public could have heard an actual libertarian message for the Libertarian Party’s candidate for Vice President instead of the anti-liberty crap that was spewed out by Bill Weld.
” preface this by saying I think Mr. Sharpe is quite possibly the single best messenger the Libertarian Party (as opposed to libertarianism) has ever had….”
Agreed! I’ve seen him on a local tv show and he was talking about his campaign, I thought he was just the kind of person we needed, then I saw this interview and…now I’m reconsidering voting for him.
I really don’t get this “freedom of association” mangling happening here, they think everyone should want to associate with everyone at anytime, but then are okay with a private business discriminating, but then at the same time are upset that someone doesn’t want nazis in the LP! It doesn’t make any sense!
“I’m not sure why Larry doesn’t understand that he would gain far more votes by saying, I hate defending those lowlife’s right to free speech, but I feel so strongly about that right, that I will do it. ”
Yup, this is all that really needs to be said about this, no need to try to “convert” them.
Exactly. If the LP can’t take this position it will not be long before it is completely taken over by them. There are way too many historical precedents of how these infiltrators operate. Whenever they infect a host, it’s just like a virus.
Mr. Sharpe, by inclination and career choice, is in the business of Winning Friends and Influencing People. He’s very good at it.
I completely understand his desire to “turn” anyone and everyone. The problem with that with respect to “white nationalists” is that that particular stain never washes completely off. No matter how convincing your conversion, people are always going to wonder if you still believe that crap. It’s the political equivalent of being a convicted pedophile. Even if you really have changed, people are going to keep one eye on you, and question the judgment of the people who hang with you. So I’d consider recruiting in that area to be very unlikely to produce a positive return on investment.
True, and further, it produces a massively negative return, even if the investment is zero.
“I really don’t get this “freedom of association” mangling happening here, they think everyone should want to associate with everyone at anytime, but then are okay with a private business discriminating, but then at the same time are upset that someone doesn’t want nazis in the LP!”
I think there is two possible explanations for the F of A mangling you are talking about:
1) Many party members conflate libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. They are two different things, and they are not even of the same type. This is a private organization with a mission of winning elective office in order to move public policy in a libertarian direction. We no more have to associate with nazis than a college football team that runs a spread passing attack has to give scholarships to players who operate a wishbone running offense in high school in order to “convert” them to our offensive philosophy. That doesn’t make a lick of sense.
2) Everyone and their mother knows Mr. Sharpe wants to the 2020 LP nomination, but tactically, I think his comments with regard to white nationalists is a way of demonstrating he can be friends to all factions within the party, in order to cobble together enough delegates to win the nomination.
Leaving aside what anyone here thought of Governor Johnson’s “Bake The Cake” position, his strategy makes perfect sense: there was no point in taking a position in the run-up to the convention that makes his subsequent general election campaign non-viable, or opens himself up to attack on “what about a no N**gers allowed sign,” or some such thing later.
Bite the bullet now, and if it costs you the nomination, it wasn’t a nomination worth having anyway.
Thomas Knapp said: “So I’d consider recruiting in that area to be very unlikely to produce a positive return on investment.”
The same could be said about anyone. Will Coley is trying to recruit Muslims into adopting libertarianism, and there is not much of a libertarian contingent in the Muslim world. Others are trying to recruit left wing socialists, like people who supported Bernie Sanders and/or Ralph Nader, into libertarianism.
Libertarianism is about the Non-Aggression Principle and property rights. Libertarianism takes no stand on social lifestyle preferences, beyond do not infringe on the person or property of others. This leaves a lot of room for different lifestyle preferences, including lifestyle preferences that a lot of people don’t like.
I agree with Mr. Sharpe, spread the libertarian message to everyone and influence everyone to adopt the Non-Aggression Principle and a respect for property rights. Is it possible that you’ll have more success with some groups than others? Sure. Regardless of what group you are talking to I don’t expect everyone in that group to adopt libertarian principles, but at least some of them will, and it is beneficial for the overall cause of liberty to have as many people as possible adopt libertarian principles, including those who have lifestyle choices that are not popular with a lot of people.
Libertarianism is not about getting people to adopt your lifestyle preferences, it is about getting people to stop initiating force and fraud. If people stop initiating force and fraud, but they continue with a lifestyle choice of which you do not agree, that is better than them initiating force and fraud (or supporting political candidates and policies that initiate force and fraud).
Andy,
Way to miss my point entirely.
Anthony Dlugos said: “2) Everyone and their mother knows Mr. Sharpe wants to the 2020 LP nomination, but tactically, I think his comments with regard to white nationalists is a way of demonstrating he can be friends to all factions within the party, in order to cobble together enough delegates to win the nomination.”
Maybe Mr. Sharpe just really believes in reaching out to everybody with the libertarian message.
“Leaving aside what anyone here thought of Governor Johnson’s ‘Bake The Cake’ position, his strategy makes perfect sense: there was no point in taking a position in the run-up to the convention that makes his subsequent general election campaign non-viable, or opens himself up to attack on ‘what about a no N**gers allowed sign,’ or some such thing later.”
When you run for political office, you need to be prepared to answer difficult questions, and as a libertarian, you may get asked questions where a libertarian answer is considered to be outside the realm of political correctness or commonly accepted norms (since libertarianism is outside the political norm). Ron Paul was asked some of these type of questions, and he did a much better job fielding them than Gary Johnson did. See how Ron Paul handled questions about the Civil War, and about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I posted the clip here several times before of Ron Paul being interviewed by black comedian/talk show host DL Hughley, as during that interview, the subject of the Civil War came up, and Ron Paul ended up winning over Hughley with his response to the question. Ron Paul didn’t come off sounding like an unprincipled patronizing dipshit like Gary Johnson did.
Random members of the public whom I have encountered who saw that Stossel debate were more impressed with the performances of Austin Petersen and John McAfee than they were with Gary Johnson.
Then he should join us in making white nationalists anathema, since any association with them drives away a lot more people than it brings in, and secondarily because they are thoroughly repulsive and even those of us who have been in the LP for decades for the most part want nothing else to do with it if that’s who the party is going to be recruiting.
Anthony: “I think there is two possible explanations for the F of A mangling you are talking about:”
These are about the same reasons I was thinking. We should be very concerned with the second is true though.
tk: The LP is what it is.
me: True. As you know, I love truth.
My generous interpretation is that the Founders were unconscious or semi-conscious when they claimed they were seeking a world of liberty, and then put all sorts of strange, unworkable ideas in the Bylaws and SoP. The effect is a bait-and-switch operation.
Shrinks say that repressed memories fester in our consciousness, and manifest in behavioral and even physical dysfunction down the line. In order to address the dysfunction, it needs to be unearthed and viewed with clear eyes.
The LP should expiate the deep-seated dysfunction, continues to be my urging. Seems unlikely, but then Donald Fucking Trump is now president, so I think anything’s possible.
Other than that, I just hope that there are enough people in the LP with the patience and resources to nominate Ls who I can vote for.
“Maybe Mr. Sharpe just really believes in reaching out to everybody with the libertarian message.”
I believe in reaching out to them to.
“You bunch of lowlife white trash losers will get the same protections I afford to people who’s opinions are actually well thought out and rational. Now, kindly f*ck off. I don’t want your support.” Or something like that.
As an aside, does Mr. Sharpe know whats going down in Florida? Those statement in the Reason article is his response?
“As an aside, does Mr. Sharpe know whats going down in Florida?”
He knows, he answered one of the emails during the chain that was going on when Paul Stanton left. He said something along the lines of “if so and so says that there isn’t a problem, then leave it alone.”
Robert Capozzi said: “My generous interpretation is that the Founders were unconscious or semi-conscious when they claimed they were seeking a world of liberty, and then put all sorts of strange, unworkable ideas in the Bylaws and SoP. The effect is a bait-and-switch operation.
Shrinks say that repressed memories fester in our consciousness, and manifest in behavioral and even physical dysfunction down the line. In order to address the dysfunction, it needs to be unearthed and viewed with clear eyes.”
Robert, you have been going on and on for years about the Libertarian Party allegedly “booby trapping” itself when it form back in the early 1970’s with its statement of principles, and that it is for this reason that the Libertarian Party has not gotten further ahead.
If you really believe this, instead of sitting around complaining about it for all of these years, why don’t you find some like minded people, and go form another political party?
“As an aside, does Mr. Sharpe know whats going down in Florida?”
Well, he was a speaker at the same Florida convention as Augustus Invictus, the convention where some nob decided to decorate the evening festivities with shouts of “white power,” so I’m guessing the answer is yes.
He also went on Ramsey’s show so the answer is definitely yes.
ok, wow. That all only makes the following excerpt from the article even worse:
Reason: This year there has been a lot of discussion about whether there’s a pipeline between libertarians and the alt-right.
Sharpe: Yup.
Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark has been drawing some bright lines.
It’s a really bad idea. It’s a really bad idea. Why would I tell anyone to leave my party? How can I turn you if I can’t talk to you? Come, even white nationalists, come
It’s pretty stupid, or disingenuous, to not realize that being welcoming to some people makes us less welcoming to others. Or that being welcoming to white nationalists and the alt right drives a hard wedge between us and a potentially receptive audience which is much, much larger than white nationalists and the alt right.
I support the right of those who don’t believe in showering to not shower.
They’re not going to be at the top of my list to invite to meetings in small rooms.
AD,
My reading of that is that LS is applying his management-consulting mindset to the problem. My sense is that it does not port to politics.
It’s pretty obvious to this outsider that cohesiveness isn’t an objective, but, convincing different “factions” of the Party that what they want doesn’t help the Party’s message- which is prerequisite to ‘a’ cohesive.
SMH
When standing in the forest (the Party) it’s difficult to see the trees (Individual members). From a distance outside the forest all the trees (the Party) can be seen. THAT is ‘a’ cohesive. Like it or not.
So, what does the forest represent? Divisiveness? Or cohesiveness? What does an outsider see? A forest- until he wanders into it. Then he sees a circus. A myriad of personalities fighting for recognition- Individual trees fighting for sunlight so they can grow. (“Fighting” being the operative). He can see the ‘character’ of the trees. The character determines the outsiders desire to join the cohesive. But, if he has to fight for sunlight why would he join?
Maybe that’s one the reasons this outsider prefers the desert. I can see my enemies from a long ways away. “My” enemy is anyone who wants to deprive me of sunlight, regardless of their excuse. Trees in a forest don’t have that privilege.
A “movement”, by definition requires “group think”- cohesion is a requirement. Party, is by definition a “group”, generally of like minded people. Some (very few it seems) consider themselves an Individual and are shunned, or made light of or spoken of in the pejorative.
IF libertarianism is all its cracked up to be (not saying I don’t think it is, just asking the question), and getting people elected is a goal, then how can cohesiveness not be a part of the ‘agenda’? Why is a Party even necessary if cohesiveness isn’t a desire?
That may be a reasonable interpretation, RC, but I’m with TK: there are some people who provide nothing to the room when the consultin’ goes down, and I’m with paulie that, in the annals of organization behabior, this would be as clear a case of “addition by subtraction” as I have ever come across.
That’s a pretty accurate analogy to white nationalists. An even better one might be:
I support the right of those who believe in rolling around in highly radioactive nuclear waste to roll around in highly radioactive nuclear waste.
They’re not going to be at the top of my list to invite to meetings in small rooms.
I think that is relevant to this discussion, but not in the way that you think. It would be more accurate to analogize that the very elements of the LP’s foundation that you want to get rid of are exactly like that choppy sound, even if we were to agree that they make the LP less efficient as a purely political vehicle for winning elections – they’re so associated with the brand image of the LP that changing them is unthinkable by the party.
Y’all wanna get people elected? Think outside the box.
Party politics is the epitome of “the box”.
There is a saying in racing- follow him in, follow him off.
Following what other Party’s are doing is just that.
There is another saying in racing- copy the winners until you start winning then look for more speed on your own.
There have been some local wins, right?
Observation is wonderful tool in racing as well. Watch your driver! Adjust til he is comfortable and he’ll be fast.
It ain’t rocket science.
I’m not interested in 100% efficiency. I am interested in the LP chop buzzing “anti-authoritarian” instead of “white power.”
The racists need to be physically removed from the LP, so to speak.
And yesterday.
The main reason that the Libertarian Party does not elect more people to office is because there are not enough Libertarians who are willing to get up off of their asses and do the work necessary for more Libertarians to get elected to office. There are plenty of winnable races out there at the city/town and county level, as well as for seats in state legislatures, where Libertarians could have a realistic shot at winning, but they don’t win because there are not enough Libertarians out there who are focused on winning these races.
It is true that the D’s and R’s have stacked the deck against minor party and independent candidates, and I think that they are not beyond rigging elections, but even with these obstacles in the way, it is still possible for Libertarians to win at the local and/or state legislature level, and I don’t think that “they” are going to outright rig every election (at least not yet anyway).
At this point, there is another Harley analogy, especially in reference to the Libertarian Party.
“If I have to explain you won’t understand”.
Yet, hours and hours are spent explaining….
Milstead’s vision of a liberal party would probably exist in a multi-party scenario with a different voting system. Bob’s preference of a conservative party already exists in the current system..the GOP.
AD,
Definitely “haters need not apply” is the only viable and reasonable stance.
tear down the wall and abolish the pigs….is that simple enough?
“Gina
January 23, 2018 at 17:39
And yesterday.”
Gina, I asked you this before, but which Libertarian state party is it of which you are a member? You seem to have a lot of opinions about what goes on in the LP, yet I’ve never heard of you.
I’m thinking that “Gina” may be a fake name, and may be “in drag” (so to speak, not that there is necessarily anything wrong with a person dressing that way so long as they are not initiating force or fraud).
Lots of mysterious posters have popped up here with lots of concern/opinions about what happens in the LP over they years, yet when asked about who they are and in what state party they are a member, they give vague answers, or dodge the questions completely, and then they usually disappear, unless they pop up again under another fake name.
Works for me.
“Gina, I asked you this before, but which Libertarian state party is it of which you are a member? ”
None of your business. Am I being detained?
“You seem to have a lot of opinions about what goes on in the LP, yet I’ve never heard of you.”
I don’t give a shit if you heard of me or not. Wait, I do, I would prefer creepy weirdos like you not know where I live. The vibe you give off to me is “stranger danger.” I think of you as a good candidate for the next Timothy McVeigh or Jack the Ripper.
“I’m thinking that “Gina” may be a fake name, ”
I’m thinking I don’t care whether you think it is fake or not. If something I said is hard to understand people are free to ask questions and I’m not interested in picking up any stalkers or engaging in ad hominem arguments.
“Lots of mysterious posters have popped up here with lots of concern/opinions about what happens in the LP over they years, yet when asked about who they are and in what state party they are a member, they give vague answers, or dodge the questions completely, and then they usually disappear, unless they pop up again under another fake name.”
So what? Does anyone besides you care? Maybe it makes your job as a government plant a little harder but tough shit.
And in case that was unclear maybe this will clear it up for you…
Selling Freedom…
lol..tech evangelism. In a nutshell, this is tech evangelism:
1.x == the greatest thing since sliced bread
2.x== 1.x was dog shit, here’s why it stunk. Here’s why the 2.x upgrade is really the sliced bread.
rinse, repeat. Employs a lot of people for the tech conferences for sole purpose of tech conferences. It rarely makes our lives easier…or better.
“I think that is relevant to this discussion, but not in the way that you think. It would be more accurate to analogize that the very elements of the LP’s foundation that you want to get rid of are exactly like that choppy sound, even if we were to agree that they make the LP less efficient as a purely political vehicle for winning elections…”
Alright,paulie, I’ll give you some solid debating points for throwing my analogy right back at me, reinterpreted.
Whether you guys want to admit it or not, you are “sowing seeds”.
Mostly of discord, but seeds none the less. Anarchist vs minarchist…and other “factions”.
It’s be a pretty safe bet that minarchist would happen first….hopefully at least, since anarchy would bring about a real catastrophe. My 5 year old grandson’s grandson ‘might’ get to enjoy it given the environment I see here and the world we live in. Although, historically, kids are resilient and very adaptable…. they will adapt, or die. That’s Nature. Which would you have? I’m old enough to remember the selling point/talking point (using fear) “better dead than red”…. which would you choose for your grand kids?
Do any of you realize the world we live in? Seriously.
We already have a foundation that’s pretty damn liberal (am I allowed to say that?) IF the rules were adhered to…. what’s that you say? About rules? Do you believe there will never be rules? Do you think anarchy would bring about a rule free world? Really? Do we not out number the rule makers?
The rules we have? The Constitution, as intended, as written, to inhibit rule makers actions against the populace to help prevent tyranny.
Do any of you support the 10th amendment center? Just curious about how serious any of you are.
It’s enjoyed helping keep the rule makers in check.
I have a Master’s Degree in Political Debate from Internet University of Cyberia. That makes me a certified master debater 🙂
“Do any of you support the 10th amendment center?”
Define “support.” I read their stuff, I flog their stuff to my newsletter readers, and while I don’t consider 10th Amendment state nullification the end-all-be-all, I don’t have a problem with it when it seems like a liberty-maximizing strategy.
dl: tear down the wall and abolish the pigs….is that simple enough?
Me: Yes. Good luck!
TK: Define “support.” I read their stuff, I flog their stuff to my newsletter readers, and while I don’t consider 10th Amendment state nullification the end-all-be-all, I don’t have a problem with it when it seems like a liberty-maximizing strategy.
Me: I donate money. Good for you!
I’ll agree with it not being an end-all be- all but, it is at least an effort I’ve not seen anywhere else and at least in it’s emails claims to be doing good. I’ve been on the mailing list since it’s inception…. don’t know a lot about it other than the initial correspondence at it’s inception which seemed sincere.
I don’t recall if I’ve ever donated to them. Most orgs get five or ten bucks out of me at some point, if nothing else.
Anthony Dlugos wrote:
This is another example of your delusional thinking.
You seem to want to be a part of the “winning” party, where policians will throw their principles (and their own mother) under the bus for a vote. The rest of us support the Libertarian Party because we support libertarian principles.
Of course you see Obama as right because he was elected and Trump as right because he was elected and Roy Moore as right when he was elected twice to the Alabama Supreme Court. I — and everyone else here but you — emphatically disagree. A politician is not right because he wins and a politician is not wrong because he loses. A policy is not right because it is implemented and a policy is not wrong because it is not implemented.
You see no distinction whatsoever between “is” and “ought”. Everything “is” must be “ought” in your sick worldview.
I never have and never will support a candidate who is not libertarian so I can be on the “winning” team. In that case the “winning” team would entail voting for someone who is going to score for the other side. Helping authoritarians subvert liberty is not to my benefit; it is to my detriment.
Everything you say about jetisoning libertarianism to get elected is not just wrong, it is batshit crazy. Like Andy level crazy.
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/04/winner-party-keeps-on-winning/
How am I ctazy? I support libertarian principles, and I agree that candidates should not abandon principles for the sake of winning elections. I do not think that the Libertarian Party should nominate unprincipled candidates like Bob Barr, Wayne Root, Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, etc….
“How am I crazy?”
Lo, if we could but count the ways.
“I support libertarian principles”
LOL. Sure you do.
Selling Freedom…
‘I Don’t Want an Amash or Massie Right Now’
When the liberty-minded people on the left and the right see that as an actual power bloc, they’ll come to us. But they’ll come to us three, four, five years from now when we’ve built up their trust. I don’t want them to rush to us now, or they’ll take over our party. We’ll become Republican lite or Democrat lite. But if we build up an infrastructure, we won’t. That’s three or four years.
You don’t want Jeff Flake coming to the party right now?
No, not at all.
Interesting.
I don’t want [a Michigan Rep. Justin] Amash or [Kentucky Rep. Thomas] Massie either right now. I want them, but not now. They come now, we will rally around them, do whatever they say, however they say it. I don’t want that.
Reads like Sharpe doesn’t want any competition. There is no difference between now and 4 years from now, and anyone selling you on a down the road libertarian moment party construct that can then better welcome defectors is selling you snake oil. What a load of BS. The only criterion for defection is if the defector agrees with the LP platform.I don’t care where they come from or the timing of it. Jeff Flake shouldn’t be anywhere near the LP because he is an patriot act loving, security state deferring authoritarian. It has nothing to with whether or not he is a rally cry competitor to Larry Sharpe.
Selling Freedom
Reason: This year there has been a lot of discussion about whether there’s a pipeline between libertarians and the alt-right.
Sharpe: Yup.
Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark has been drawing some bright lines.
It’s a really bad idea. It’s a really bad idea. Why would I tell anyone to leave my party? How can I turn you if I can’t talk to you? Come, even white nationalists, come. If I can turn you, I’ll turn you. My hero is that guy Daryl Davis. You know that guy? He’s one of my brothers who was out there trying to get KKK members to turn. And he keeps their hoods as a trophy. He’s turned like 44 of them in 30 years. That’s my hero.
Daryl Davis was turning KKK members who held those beliefs out of cultural ignorance. Davis was not re-turning ACLU members who had defected to white supremacy. If someone like that does defect, you have virtually no chance of ever turning them back. The same holds for LP members. They are not acting out of ignorance. And if they are still hanging around, they aren’t there to be re-educated. They are there to wreck.
You have to hand it to the Winner Party. Their method for disciplining problem officers is very simple: You lose, you’re out. It’s as simple as that, no muss, no fuss. No hundreds of hand-wringing comments on dozens of threads on their national committee discussion list about whether, when or how to censure or suspend the vice chair. No dozens of state parties passing motions about it, no dramafests on facebook. You either win or you don’t. Simple, clean, elegant.
Fully concur…
I didn’t..and I do.
dL said: “‘I don’t want [a Michigan Rep. Justin] Amash or [Kentucky Rep. Thomas] Massie either right now. I want them, but not now. They come now, we will rally around them, do whatever they say, however they say it. I don’t want that.’
Reads like Sharpe doesn’t want any competition.”
My guess would be that the reason that he does not want them now is not because he does not want more competition for the LP’s presidential nomination in 2020, but rather because for the last three presidential elections, the LP has run people who had been heavily associated with the Republican Party, and he wants the LP to break that cycle, for at least one election. If this is his reason, I agree with him.
If another former Republican does run for the nomination, I would hope that this person is at least a pretty solid libertarian. The last thing that the LP needs in 2020 is another Republican Lite presidential ticket.
Damn. Bates ripped’em a new asshole. Good job.
“How much do you have to hate immigrants…”
They hate ’em a lot.
“Reads like Sharpe doesn’t want any competition. There is no difference between now and 4 years from now, and anyone selling you on a down the road libertarian moment party construct that can then better welcome defectors is selling you snake oil. ”
100% agreement.
I speculate, with regard to your comment on the competition, that he made his comments in the Reason article about welcoming Nazis and not kicking anyone out of the party not because he is a Nazi or white nationalist (obviously), or a sympathizer thereof, but because he must feel like he can’t afford to start losing potential 2020 delegates at all, e.g., being unwelcoming of white nationalists might cause others in the party to think “maybe he won’t have my back either.” So, he doesn’t piss of the nationalists.
Unfortunately, the party pays the price.
ls: Why would I tell anyone to leave my party? How can I turn you if I can’t talk to you?
me: Good and fair questions. Talking with people one strenuously disagree with can be valuable and honorable. That doesn’t mean, however, that one needs to ASSOCIATE with those one vehemently disagrees with.
Any organization — including a party — is engaged in reputation management to some extent. Maintaining some latitude and room for internal disagreement makes tons of sense to me. However, if public-positions of some members so damages the reputation, excluding them from membership seems in bounds to me.
WHERE the line is a great question…as an onlooker, I don’t have the answer. But I’d think that the LP would want to exclude — if possible and fairly done — David Duke, the president of NAMBLA, and other way-out-of-bounds figures.
Now, if David Duke were to renounce his Haterade, were he contrite about just how wrong-minded he was, etc., I’d think membership might be an option. I think his history would make him not someone who should ever be a candidate or officer.
Adam Bates , damn boy, well fucking said!
Andy: “the LP has run people who had been heavily associated with the Republican Party,”
Anthony:”but because he must feel like he can’t afford to start losing potential 2020 delegates at all, e.g., being unwelcoming of white nationalists might cause others in the party to think “maybe he won’t have my back either.” So, he doesn’t piss of the nationalists.”
So his strategy for the LP to not become a Republican Lite party is to then court the same people they have been courting, i.e. white-nationalists, racists, anti-immigration types?
I’m guessing that reaction was prompted by this recent video. When the video was posted,
ICEthe Gestapo arrested members of the immigrant-aid group No More Deaths for harboringjews“illegals” as retaliation. Simply read the youtube comments to see the disgusting evil of conservatism.rc@0957 today: exactly
Agreed!
Doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me. Those people are seeing success with NSGOP. What do they need the LP for?
For the “Master Debaters”:
“Most people think that winning the argument is what matters, not learning the truth. He who regards conversation as a battle can win only by being an antagonist, only by disagreeing success, whether he is right or wrong.”
Excerpt from Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren’s how to read a book originally published in 1940 solely under Adler’s name.
I came by the quote in a review on line from The Federalist web site.
Anon-Tipper: So his strategy for the LP to not become a Republican Lite party is to then court the same people they have been courting, i.e. white-nationalists, racists, anti-immigration types?
paulie: Doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me.
see, I don’t think its his strategy for the LP. Its his strategy for landing the 2020 LP nomination, and its incredibly short-sighted, not only for his nomination, but for any chance at general election campaign publicity he might have if he wins the nomination (“Come, white nationalists, come.” Is anyone dumb enough to think that wouldn’t be brought up by an enterprising media talking head?), and for the party itself.
Chuck M writes:
“Of course you see Obama as right because he was elected and Trump as right because he was elected and Roy Moore as right when he was elected twice to the Alabama Supreme Court. I — and everyone else here but you — emphatically disagree. A politician is not right because he wins and a politician is not wrong because he loses.
You seem to want to be a part of the “winning” party, where policians will throw their principles (and their own mother) under the bus for a vote.”
You’re starting to misquote me, Chuck!
A) I put “right” and “wrong” in quotes in my original post for obviously ironic reasons. Winning candidates aren’t actually right and wrong, but they are the ones who get to enact policies, so a political party should operate under my ironic assumption. As I have stated many times before, the electoral arena isn’t for everyone, but if you choose to enter it, winning must be your ultimate goal, otherwise you are gonna get crushed, every time, and you’ll never accomplish anything…IN THAT ARENA.
B) As I noted in my original post, I did not say principles didn’t matter, I said they were secondary to winning. So, I’m not “throwing principles under the bus.” I may not love you as much as my mother Chuck, but I can assure you I would never throw you under a bus.
Peace, brother!
Mr Sharpe told Reason http://reason.com/archives/2018/01/14/selling-freedom
“..My hero is that guy Daryl Davis. You know that guy? He’s one of my brothers who was out there trying to get KKK members to turn. And he keeps their hoods as a trophy. He’s turned like 44 of them in 30 years. That’s my hero…”
Sharpe’s being very naive. It’s one thing to oppose and soften bigotry in someone you meet informally a few times and can’t really follow up on. Will he go back to his old crew? Will he listen to racist Trump supporters ranting vs. immigrants and Arabs and saying “let’s nuke them all?” Or will he get involved with psychopaths like “family man” Ryan Ramsey who is a very clever operator. Ramsey appears to be all things to all people. Through his crazy conspiratorial rants and accusations against other libertarians, it’s clear to most he’s quite nuts; however, those seduced by his personal influence in the FL LP don’t seem to realize he’s quite unglued.
Which reminds me of two quick points:
*I’m quite sure I saw a post on Ramsey’s page or Vets caucus in early August ’17 saying he’d love to go to Charlottesville, but the baby was coming soon. By the time it became a Chris Cantwell extravaganza, of course, he turned against it. (Have screenshots of much of what he wrong last summer before he was largely kicked off FB but filed too many places to look right now.)
*In a quick look at my screenshots, I did find a couple Ramsey jems like “nuke mecca” and calling “WN” a “Jew CIA asset.”
The latter being funny since I finally read Brandi’s rant against me more carefully and realized she was reacting to a 14 year old Libertarians 4 Peace post of mine back when the referenced Steve Sass was making slimy sexualized death threats to me on that and a MD LP list (before both bounced him). I made one very angry intemperate reply, so I know how one stupid thing you wrote can be used against you forever!
Happily, Carol and the whole peace movement became very skilled at speaking constructively about the Israel Lobby ove the next few years. And in 2005 peace groups started doing yearly conferences and protests outside yearly AIPAC conferences in DC. I was intimately involved in organizing some of these and have lots of videos and photos of most of them.
Of course, Brandi was probably making goo goo eyes at other high schoolers back in 2002-2003 when the pro-Israel neocons so successfully pushed for Iraq war all over major media. I’m sure she’s more aware now a days as the same characters push for the US to do Israel’s dirty work and attack Iran, another multi trillion dollar US war, one like North Korea which easily could lead to world nuke war.
Andy wrote: “My guess would be that the reason that he does not want them now is not because he does not want more competition for the LP’s presidential nomination in 2020, but rather because for the last three presidential elections, the LP has run people who had been heavily associated with the Republican Party, and he wants the LP to break that cycle, for at least one election. If this is his reason, I agree with him.”
That’s certainly the reason I’d rather have a libertarian from the LP!!
Sharpe probably has multiple motivations, and hopefully that is one.
ad: I did not say principles didn’t matter, I said they were secondary to winning.
me: Another way of putting this is that principles inform us and effective political persuasion determines whether our ideas and policy prescriptions prevail or not. For a movement to be sustained, it requires both.
Principles without effective persuasion might get one past the Pearly Gates, but life on earth will degenerate if virtue continues to recede. Effective persuasion with principles can lead to policy wins, but the victory is hollow and continued degradation.
Means and ends need to work together.
Trump’s a pretty clear case of all means with no real True North. ZAPster Ls are all ends with almost no consideration for means. Socialists and progressives have tended to balance their principles and persuasion, and for the most part they have been prevailing for 100 years.
Chuck Moulton wrote: ” If the delegates are ever stupid enough to adopt a platform that contradicts the statement of principles (alienating all the radicals), those changes will be immediately overturned by the judicial committee — as they should be.”
iNTERESTING! Obviously it hasn’t worked for them removing all sorts of important information and even whole classes of rights, including the right of childrens to attain maturity and seek other guardians.
Would it work for removing the “Ommissions” plank which they REALLY want to get rid of, second only to the abortion plank. (Did they call for getting rid of Immigration last time or just wantering it down.)
So it would take some affirmative statist thing for Judicial Committee to ax it: like support for national sales tax or “outlawing abortion” or saying the US could establish numbers limits on yearly immigration or saying that we should go to war overseas eve if it ONLY was to defend “close allies”.
Your thoughts??
Andy wrote:
“My guess would be that the reason that he does not want them now is not because he does not want more competition for the LP’s presidential nomination in 2020, but rather because for the last three presidential elections, the LP has run people who had been heavily associated with the Republican Party, and he wants the LP to break that cycle, for at least one election. If this is his reason, I agree with him.”
A) The last three candidates for the LP nomination were not “heavily” associated the Republican Party. They were considered defectors or apostates from the GOP and its philosophy for various reasons. Barr may have subsequently gone back to the GOP, but both Johnson and Weld were and are still portrayed as politicians unable to align themselves with the nationalist, xenophobic GOP.
Ironically, the one previous LP candidate who IS probably most “heavily” associated with the GOP, especially now considering his frequently anti-immigration positions, is one of Andy’s neoconfederate heroes, Ron Paul.
B) I think Andy doesn’t want the likes of Amash and Massie around for the same primary reason that Sharpe doesn’t want them around: its competition. Its got little to do with philosophy. Andy is smart enough to know qualified candidates rules out the lunatic fringe catastrophically unqualified loons he supports. A steady stream of defectors from the dinosaur parties rules out the Kokesh of the world and starts turning the LP into a professional organization.
“Trump’s a pretty clear case of all means with no real True North. ZAPster Ls are all ends with almost no consideration for means. Socialists and progressives have tended to balance their principles and persuasion, and for the most part they have been prevailing for 100 years.”
150% agreement.
Anthony:”see, I don’t think its his strategy for the LP. Its his strategy for landing the 2020 LP nomination, and its incredibly short-sighted, not only for his nomination, but for any chance at general election campaign publicity he might have if he wins the nomination (“Come, white nationalists, come.” Is anyone dumb enough to think that wouldn’t be brought up by an enterprising media talking head?), and for the party itself.”
Ah I see. Agreed, this is incredibly stupid way to secure a nomination and we’re in a really bad place with the party if this is what he thinks will help him. I think I’m at the point where I will not be voting for him this November, I do not want to enable this behavior.
https://www.facebook.com/libertarianheathen/posts/2062289860671275
According to Ramsey Sharpe sent him a message around the time of the vote to remove him. (Probably didn’t happen, but it’s interesting that Ramsey and Brandi seem to like him.
Brandi’s comment: “We need lots more Larrys willing to be kind to people and teach them.”
Uh, get your own support group, sorry, but a political party is not the appropriate venue for white-nationalists in denial that needs tips on how to cover up their beliefs.
who is Brandi?
Ramsey’s girlfriend or wife, I haven’t followed it enough. She has some position in the Florida party now, she was featured on the “Libertarians Against Fascism” site because she’s friends with Brien James and there’s a couple pictures online of her in a “white-power” shirt.
She also recently went on a Ramsey like rant in this thread a couple of days ago.
He says wife.
Anthony Dlugos said: “B) I think Andy doesn’t want the likes of Amash and Massie around for the same primary reason that Sharpe doesn’t want them around: its competition. Its got little to do with philosophy. Andy is smart enough to know qualified candidates rules out the lunatic fringe catastrophically unqualified loons he supports. A steady stream of defectors from the dinosaur parties rules out the Kokesh of the world and starts turning the LP into a professional organization.”
No, I’m not interested in them running for the LP’s presidential nomination in 2020 because I’m tired of the LP turning into the home for washed up Republicans, and I’m really tired of the Republican Lites.
The only exception that I can think of in this category would be Andrew Napolitano, because he puts out a strong libertarian message, he’s an excellent writer and speaker and he carries himself very well in interviews and debates, and he’s one of the most well known libertarians in the country.
I would add Ron Paul to this, but he announced for the 2012 election that he’s retired from running for political office, and I think that he’s getting a bit too old for it as well. The elder Dr. Paul is still a workhorse for liberty even in retirement from running for political office.
I am not completely opposed to former Republicans running as Libertarian Party candidates, if the Republicans in questions are sufficiently libertarian enough (as in they have to be what I’d call plausibly libertarian, and not like Bob Barr or Gary Johnson or Bill Weld or etc…). I do think that there is a danger in the LP running too many former Republicans though, even if they are good, and that is that the Libertarian Party can become too identified with the Republican Party in the minds of some of the public. So I don’t think that the Libertarian Party should run Republican cast offs all the time.
Anthony Dlugos said: “A) The last three candidates for the LP nomination were not “heavily” associated the Republican Party. They were considered defectors or apostates from the GOP and its philosophy for various reasons. Barr may have subsequently gone back to the GOP, but both Johnson and Weld were and are still portrayed as politicians unable to align themselves with the nationalist, xenophobic GOP.”
I don’t think that any of these people were ever legitimate libertarians. Also, Bill Weld donated money to the Republican candidate for Governor of New Hampshire in 2016, who was running against a Libertarian Party candidate for Governor, in a race where the vote percent for the LP candidate for Governor was going to determine whether or not the LP remained a ballot qualified party for 2018. While being the LP’s candidate for Vice President, during a campaign stop in New Hampshire, the Libertarian Party candidate for Governor (who was also a sitting state legislator) organized an event where Bill Weld was able to speak in front of the New Hampshire, and then Weld “thanked” him and other Libertarians, by only allowing Republican candidates to speak at this event. Also, last year when the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts was having its state convention (note that Bill Weld lives in Massachusetts). Bill Weld attended a Republican Party fundraiser that was held on the same day instead of going to the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts State Convention.
Weld may still be a Libertarian Party member, but he’s not a libertarian, and the Libertarian Party would be better off without him.
Anthony Dlugos said: “Ironically, the one previous LP candidate who IS probably most “heavily” associated with the GOP, especially now considering his frequently anti-immigration positions, is one of Andy’s neoconfederate heroes, Ron Paul.”
Ron Paul actually quit the Republican Party after he and his delegates got screwed over at the Republican National Convention in 2012. Ron Paul become a Life Member of the Libertarian Party back in the 1980’s, and he never revoked his membership in the LP, so even though Ron Paul is heavily associated with the Republican Party, he is also a long time member of the Libertarian and is still a member to this day, and if you look at his record, he is way more libertarian than Bob Barr, Wayne Root, Gary Johnson, Jim Gray, and Bill Weld.
I wish that Ron Paul would have run for President on the Libertarian Party ticket in 2008 and/or 2012, but even so, my point above remains in that I don’t think that the Libertarian Party should always run candidates who are heavily associated with the Republican Party. I don’t mind if it happens sometimes, if the candidate can pass what I’d consider to be a reasonable libertarian litmus test, but if running candidates who are heavily associated with the Republican Party is all that the Libertarian Party does, then the party will become overly associated with the Republican Party, and will be known as the home for cast off Republicans.
Andy: The only exception that I can think of in this category would be Andrew Napolitano, because he puts out a strong libertarian message, he’s an excellent writer and speaker and he carries himself very well in interviews and debates, and he’s one of the most well known libertarians in the country.
I would add Ron Paul to this, but he announced for the 2012 election that he’s retired from running for political office, and I think that he’s getting a bit too old for it as well. The elder Dr. Paul is still a workhorse for liberty even in retirement from running for political office.
I am not completely opposed to former Republicans running as Libertarian Party candidates, if the Republicans in questions are sufficiently libertarian enough (as in they have to be what I’d call plausibly libertarian, and not like Bob Barr or Gary Johnson or Bill Weld or etc…). I do think that there is a danger in the LP running too many former Republicans though, even if they are good, and that is that the Libertarian Party can become too identified with the Republican Party in the minds of some of the public. So I don’t think that the Libertarian Party should run Republican cast offs all the time.
Me: Well stated!
I would welcome Amash, Massie, Paul2, Flake, or lots of other Republicans and Democrats to join the LP and run as LP candidates — but only if they run on libertarian positions.
It’s ridiculous that delegates let candidates embrace surveillance, the drug war, big new taxes, etc. I don’t expect candidates to be 100% libertarian in all their positions, but I do demand that they emphasize the positions they want less government / more freedom and shut the hell up about their deviations. Unfortunately, Gary Johnson liked to make his authoritarian streak his flagship issues.
It’s funny how some people think that “libertarian Republicans” are libertarian – but only if they take the authoritarian big government position on regime border enforcement, as if regime borders were legitimate property lines, which would imply the regime legitimately owns the whole country and everything in it. No thanks! Keep that crap in the NSGOP along with the uterus police, transphobia, “Christian” theocracy, etc.
pf,
If the US border is not tantamount to a “property line,” what is it? Please provide the answer that you believe would be a good answer offered by the LP’s 2020 nominee who is trying to maximize votes and general appeal.
(I think we all get the ZAPster answer.)
Yeah and keep that neo-confederacy, white power BS over on the Republiklan side with Donald Trump too please.
rc,
If I want to be diplomatic, I would say it’s a demarcation between administrative divisions, much as the borders between cities, counties and states are. If I want to be less diplomatic, it’s a gang turf line. But whatever it is, it is most definitely not a legitimate property line.
pf,
reporter: Demarcation? You don’t see the US/Canada border as different than the border between AL and MS, is that right?
The US got along without heavy enforcement at the US/Canada border until the early 2000s, and the same was true at the US/Mexico border until the late 1960s/early 70s. People came and went largely as they wished. The same is now true between European countries, which are nevertheless still sovereign, just as the US was prior to the advent of nation of origin limitation quotas in the 1920s, which were based on open racial and ethnic animosity.
Not everything Gary Johnson said was by any means brilliant. But this was:
“My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders.” – Gary Johnson
reporter: There’s a difference between “heavy: or “light” enforcement and whether you see no difference between Canada and Michigan. You are running for president of the US. Do you or do you not recognize the US borders?
GJ (not an actual quote this time): Well, when I ran for Governor, I didn’t call for detaining people at the borders with Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Utah or Oklahoma. But you can rest assured both myself and the governors and citizens of all those states recognized those state lines before, during and after my terms as Governor. I believe we would have been just fine had we treated the borders with Chihuahua and Sonora states, Mexico the same way.
reporter: Interesting and unique perspective. When you were governor of NM, do you think the taxpayers of NM should pay for the education of children residing in Trinidad, CO? Should the taxpayers of NM pay for Trinidad, CO residents coming over to Raton, NM to use the emergency room there for their primary health care?
btw, PF,
In the late 70s, I was stopped crossing the US/Canada border and turned around. One of my passengers at the time was a Pakistani exchange student.
You mean they don’t now? I did not know emergency rooms turned people away based on place of residency now. For that matter if someone who overstayed a tourist or student or work visa has an emergency, as far as I know they have a right to be treated at the emergency room under current law.
I think you were the exception. I remember crossing the US/Canada border multiple times in the 1980s with very little impediment. I doubt I could cross it at all now, at least without sneaking through.
The video shows officers that are the exact opposite of the concept that the purpose of the police should be to provide food for the hungry and directions for the lost
The claim that immigrant’s children get free education is bullshit.
Education is paid for by property taxes and immigrants both legal and illegal pay as much in property taxes as US citizens. When you pay rent the property tax is part of the rent.
Libertydave,
No the amount of rent paid is based upon demand and supply. A change in property tax doesn’t automatically cause the amount of rent to increase or decrease.
For example, if there is more demand then supply rents go up to where demand drops off. Increasing the property tax doesn’t increase the demand and therefor rent wont increase it is that the property owner will make less. Similarity if property taxes drop, the land lords wont decrease rents if the have an adequate number of people who want to rent their property.
What changes in property taxes do is change the willingness of investors to build more rental units or convert rental units to other uses. These are much longer time span effects.
steve m
Are you trying to tell me that landlords don’t use the costs of maintaining a property, including property tax, to determine how much they charge in rent? If a landlord can’t cover the cost of maintaining a property with the rent he will either unload the property, use the property for something else, or go out of business. Which means that the portion of the rent that immigrants pay is used to pay the property taxes. Which means that immigrants are paying as much as everyone else into the school system.
Was that a reporter from the “Free Liberal”? Are address verfication checks for emergency room care an example of the type of “imagination, warmth, and community” that are needed to evolve the transpartisan vision for the next century? lulz
Gerogist rents should increase with any increase in the unimproved market value of the property. Georgist rents should be the source of public goods financing. You know, for things like schools and hospitals. And it would spare us the spectre of sedentary farts on social security and medicare(by far, the largest source of government transfer payments welfare) pontificating about the welfare transfer payments consumption by people still young enough to travel from point A to B.
dL,
The only way to establish the unimproved market value of the property is for the property to be sold. So even stipulating to the desirability of a Georgist tax for the sake of argument, the only way for such a tax to be objectively obsessed would be for it to be a flat tax per unit, i.e. an acre is an acre is an acre. Tax on an acre in the middle of the Mojave, $X. Tax on an acre in midtown Manhattan, $X.
Back in the day, my family had a lake cabin in Canada used for summer vacations. It was an informal crossing only, no visa/passport checks. Obviously, in the 60s/70s, Canada was a welcoming destination for American draft dodgers. Obviously, such informality ceased with the creation of the community condo regime, AKA the 9-11 national security state
That’s not the only way to establish value. Property can be appraised. Just like it is done today. Current tax assessment relies on the appraised value. Mortgage lenders require an appraised value of the property to confirm/substantiate the sale price for any new buyer. Of course, there is an entire industry dedicated to insuring valuable property that pegs the insured amount on an appraised value.
well, i don’t subscribe to objective value. I’m a subjective/marginal value type of guy. I would pay a lot more for an (unimproved) acre on Manhattan than for the same acre in Butte Montana…just as I would I pay a lot more for a bottle of water in the desert after a 3 day thirst than I would pay for one at home with a nicely functioning private well
“Current tax assessment relies on the appraised value”
Yes, as appraised by the state’s assessor.
I’m sure that no government employee would ever conform his value assessments to political goals or anything like that.
Well, certainly. That’s possible. But that’a a different problem than the one you originally posed. And it certainly wouldn’t be a new problem. Keep in mind, Georgist rent is meant as a replacement for taxation on labor and capital. It’s not meant to be added on top of the current system of taxation. If it’s merely added on top, it is domed to automatic failure. If it’s a replacement, I think the systematic government rent-seeking would be a lot less of a problem than the current system.
Georgism is more of a liberal idea than a libertarian one. My contention is that Georgism is necessary condition, though not a sufficient one, for a quote/unquote “liberal state.”
PF,
I see you avoided the question of education costs entirely. LD tried to address it. However, last I looked at the subject, there is a MASSIVE subsidization of most government education costs among citizens. The childless pay taxes for educating children. The affluent tend to pay far more in taxes than the less well off.
The costs of illegal aliens with children probably represents a significant burden to taxpayers. I suspect that most illegal aliens are not wealthy, so taxes or rents they pay are generally low, so it seems quite likely that they are net tax-consumers of education if they have children. It seems more likely that NEW illegal aliens represent a significant financial risk to taxpayers, I suspect. I have not found a study indicating otherwise.
Don’t you agree that net taxpayers have the right to protect themselves from additional incremental tax burdens?
pf: You mean they don’t now? I did not know emergency rooms turned people away based on place of residency now. For that matter if someone who overstayed a tourist or student or work visa has an emergency, as far as I know they have a right to be treated at the emergency room under current law.
me: No. If COans cross the border to get “free” healthcare in NM, this means that NMans are subsidizing COans.
ZAPsters generally use the word “right” in a more exacting fashion. Do you believe that anyone has the “right” to be treated in an emergency room?
“Well, certainly. That’s possible. But that’a a different problem than the one you originally posed. ”
Not really.
An appraisal does not establish value.
An actual offer to buy, whether accepted or refuse, establishes the upper and lower ranges of value of the property to the prospective buyer and possible seller, although not to anyone else.
Anything else is just a guess. And the ability to generate compulsory revenue on that guess is an invitation to every form of corruption (“give me $50 and I’ll cut the assessed value by 10%”) and economic nonsense (“hey, if we just pretend that all of the properties in town are worth twice as much as they’d likely sell for, we will have enough tax revenue to build a dodgeball stadium that will pay for itself tenfold in economic impact!”) imaginable.
RC,
“Don’t you agree that net taxpayers have the right to protect themselves from additional incremental tax burdens?”
Absolutely. I’m glad we agree on implementing separation of school and state and repealing the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.
dL: Are address verfication checks for emergency room care an example of the type of “imagination, warmth, and community” that are needed to evolve the transpartisan vision for the next century?
me: Said nothing about checks. But, while it’s been a long time since I’ve been to the emergency room, but I seem to recall that they ask for the patient’s address, and perhaps driver’s license, and insurance card and/or credit card.
If tax-financed subsidization becomes a major impediment to freedom, it seems within bounds to ask whether taxpayers can and should protect themselves from further financial exposure. I doubt free-liberal Ls would disagree with this. Bastiat and Lao Tzu would likely agree, too!
tk,
In theory, I would like to see the separation of school and state, but I find the idea politically unripe.
A citizen’s dividend is also unripe, along with Harlos Nonarchy Pods, but I do see the CD as a possible solution to the emergency-room dilemma, at least for citizens. Non-citizens? Possibly the bonding of immigrants works. I stipulate that there’s NO perfect solution to such things.
“In theory, I would like to see the separation of school and state, but I find the idea politically unripe.”
You might want to take a closer look. It’s ripening.
Over the last few months, supporters of the failing “public” education system have begun rolling out scare stories to justify more regulation of the increasingly popular homeschool option “for the children.”
While voucher, tax credit, and charter school schemes are pretty poisonous as such — they increase government involvement in previously “private sector” areas as the price of “school choice” — they’re quickly moving toward the center of the Overton Window, and you’ll see the “public education” advocates increasingly grudgingly supporting those options as a firewall against the elimination of their preferred option versus actual private education.
Or, to put it a different way, once the “tax-funded school choice” movement has won, the fight won’t be “tax-funded school choice” versus “tax funded ‘public’ education” any more. It will be both of those against homeschooling and truly private sector education.
tk,
I’m aware. All positive developments.
It does to the mortgage lender(lendable value) and the insurance company(insured value). Without it, you aren’t buying anything(unless you are paying 100% cash) nor insuring anything.
Offers to buy do not establish anything. Buying a house is not like buying a stick of gum. There a third parties involved when you buy a house. Bank/Mortgage lender, homeowners insurance, flood insurance assessment, etc. A real estate appraisal assessment, as heuristic practice, entails a comparative analysis of 3-5 properties of similar type sold within the same location within the same time frame.
Anecdotally, when I was in the mortgage lending business(back in the late 90s), state assessed property values lagged well behind the actual market values. I imagine in a Georgist regime, that wouldn’t be the case. They would be more accurate.
So, insurance is, by definition, a corrupt industry conceptually predicated on fraud, given that reimbursements for loss are determined more or less by appraised/assessed value? There is an entire profession known as the insurance appraiser/adjuster.
https://www.sokanu.com/careers/insurance-appraiser/
The appraisals of mortgage lenders and insurers are the value that those people posit on that property for their purposes. It may or may not correspond to the value that the actual owner or a prospective buyer will place on the same property. Does that constitute fraud? No, but it does open the door to fraud (i.e. selling a more expensive policy based on an over-appraisal, burning down an over-appraised house and collecting more than it would actually have sold for, etc.).
That’s why basing a land tax on the “value” of the land is a dumb idea. Under such a system, your tax is whatever a guy with a shiny badge says it is this week.
The alternative — an acre is an acre is an acre is an acre — still sucks because guys with shiny badges are robbing you, but at least they’re robbing you, and everyone else, in the same amount and you have regime certainty instead of trying to figure out which plot they’ll say is worth $5 and which plot they’ll say is worth $5 million.
Are you suggesting there is an inherent incentive incompatibility problem with mortgage lending and insurance?(i.e, the mortgage lenders and insurance companies only serve themselves). Wouldn’t that suggestion imperil the very practicality of private property itself? Otherwise, very few would be able to afford straight up full cash purchases for property and the complete carry of risk(accidents, bad storms, fire) that would wipe most out financially with a blink of an eye.
“Are you suggesting there is an inherent incentive incompatibility problem with mortgage lending and insurance?”
No, I am suggesting that value is subjective and highly variable to purpose while an acre is an acre is an acre is an acre is not as thusly vulnerable to fuckery by tax authorities. I didn’t think there was anything unclear about it.
Well, an acre to an acre is the old economic superstition of objective value. Subjective/marginal value is not the same things as arbitrary value, and the thing you describe could just as easily be arbitrarily applied to objective value as it could to subjective value.
Economically, land differs from other capital goods in that there is no tax “deadweight loss”, so there is no distortionary economic effect from the taxation, and even a “greed” for tax dollars would produce much better government outcomes than the shit policies than we get now. The one place that could certainly use a good dose of georgist policy today is San Francisco, the birthplace of Henry George’s theorem.
In any event, libertarianism, like economics, is a positive science. In other words, we look at the practice, not the theory in the textbooks. And one can get a good summary( a sober assessment) of the policy in practice, here.
http://www.henrygeorge.org/rem4.htm
What you say would happen doesn’t happen in the real world. What does happen is that the policy, when implemented, eventually gets blunted by the countervailing policies of traditional government taxation. When it comes to competing against the traditional parasitic organization of plunder , it loses out.
“Well, an acre to an acre is the old economic superstition of objective value.”
No, it isn’t. It’s not an expression of value at all, superstitious or otherwise.
There is an objective definition of an acre. It’s a unit of land area equal to 4,840 square yards. It’s an acre whether it’s an acre of oceanfront on Big Sur, or an acre of prime office location in Manhattan, or an acre of farmland in Kansas.
There is not an objective definition of the value of any of those acres. But they’re all acres.
we were talking about it’s value, not it’s physical dimensions…red herring. Then again, I’m left wondering how a topic that starts with Arvin Vohra ends up as a debate on Georgism. It’s supposed to end with Hitler, not Henry George.
I don’t always have time to run down every rabbit hole.
Nope. The presence of undocumented workers raises the living standard of those already previously here far more than enough to make up for any and all such burdens. I’m not going to chase down statistics on demand. I post them here when I come across them and they are linked in a variety of past threads, and at various places at openborders.info. If you haven’t come across them you haven’t spent enough time there and/or you don’t follow the links I have posted in past threads often enough.
If you follow that logic you would need border checkpoints and movement visas between states, counties, cities, etc. The dust bowl, white flight, and other such phenomena come to mind.
Nevertheless it is true that it is a right under current laws. It doesn’t matter if you are from another state or country or if your papers are in order, if you have a medical need the emergency room is obligated to treat you under current law regardless of whether libertarians agree that such a right should exist.
They can ask anything they want, but that doesn’t mean they can refuse treatment if a patient doesn’t tell them or if the address is out of state or out of country and the ID is expired or lost. If there’s no insurance card or credit card, they still get treated.
Within the present system, it’s a compensation for other actions of the state which cause the price of medical care to spiral way, way upwards through the regime’s regulation and cartelization of the medical market, through tying insurance to routine medical care and insurance to employment, through government spending on medical care, etc, etc, etc. … while at the same time that same regime massively redistributes wealth upwards and through its tangle of red tape keeps the poor from rising out of poverty (with occupational licensing laws and many other things). In return, crappy “free” medical “emergency” care is one of the system’s safety valves.
I wouldn’t be a libertarian if I believed the result of a free society would be sick people dying in the streets because they can’t afford medical care. Nor do I think that’s a vision of freedom that will gain popular appeal. My belief is that a free society will make much better medical care than we have now much more affordable for a lot more people and that voluntary mutual help will take care of those who still can’t afford it much better than the regime’s crappy, uncaring, bureaucratic nightmare of a grotesque parody of charitability does today.
Ultimately, I don’t believe in any right to “free” emergency room medical care, but it’s not at the top of the things I would get rid of; rather, I would start with getting rid of a lot of what goes into driving people into those emergency room seats, often for routine care and in most cases with neither the ability nor intention to pay the exaggerated prices being theoretically charged.
Give it time.
“we were talking about it’s value, not it’s physical dimensions…red herring. Then again, I’m left wondering how a topic that starts with Arvin Vohra ends up as a debate on Georgism”
We were talking about whether a tax on value or at a tax on physical dimensions is worse.
Tax assessor A: “The value of this acre is $1 million dollars unless you hire my brother to mow it, in which case it will be worth $100,000.”
Tax assessor B: The size of this acre is 4,840 square yards, unless you hire my brother to mow it, in which case it will still be 4,840 square yards.”
pf,
THIS IS IMPORTANT.
quoting me: The costs of illegal aliens with children probably represents a significant burden to taxpayers.
quoting pf: Nope. The presence of undocumented workers raises the living standard of those already previously here far more than enough to make up for any and all such burdens.
ME: Notice the difference. “…aliens with children probably…”
I accept the Caplan site’s assertion that illegal aliens raise national wealth. I recall one of the profs saying that it SLIGHTLY does. In Caplan’s newest work on education, we’re reminded of how expensive EDUCATION is for taxpayers.
You sidestep this point.
I’d appreciate a response to this non-Rabbit Hole point.
As for “rights,” I don’t think anyone has the “right” to be treated in the emergency room. Rather, it’s a “legal obligation” of hospitals to treat those who come into their facilities. Personally, ethically, I would think that hospitals should do so. But when that rare event becomes commonplace, something else has gone wrong.
tk: There is not an objective definition of the value of any of those acres. But they’re all acres.
me: OK, why do you feel that an “objective definition” is so important for something like land rents?
“OK, why do you feel that an ‘objective definition’ is so important for something like land rents?”
Look, Henry George’s early followers were honest and called their proposal the single TAX. One difference between that TAX and actual rent is that with rent there’s not a monopoly landlord with whom one cannot negotiate and from whom one cannot escape. It’s a tax, not rent.
I’ve already made it quite clear why I think that a flat tax on an objectively measured unit of land is not as bad as a variable tax based on a questionable estimate of “market value.” The latter puts the matter in the hands of people who can easily be wrong, who can presumably be corrupted, and who are almost certain to at least sometimes be influenced by political considerations. The former solves those particular problems by taxing everyone the same on the basis of indisputably commensurable units.
An acre on the Big Sur is 4,840 square yards. An acre outside of Indio is 4,840 square yards. An acre in Chicago’s Loop is 4,840 square yards, as is an acre in north St. Louis County, an acre in Tulsa, and an acre in Baton Rouge. Which takes the question “how much tax on this particular parcel?” out of the hands of people who could game it for their own benefit, or for political reasons, or just fuck it up.
Just as an example of how a land VALUE tax would be gamed, consider the current situations in which favored developers negotiate tax breaks for themselves with city councils. How much easier would it be to make a quiet deal (“the assessor will value your land at $100 after you buy it, even though we know you’re paying $100k for it”) than to negotiate a bunch of Tax Increment Financing and so forth?
And how much easier would it be for those same favored developers to stop other developers than it is now? When I sat in city council meetings and listened to the twists they went through to make sure a state legislator of one party couldn’t build on the land he owned next to a big development owned by the mayor’s silent partner, it was pretty complicated and obvious what they were doing. But with a land “value” tax, all they’d have to do is have the un-favored developer’s land assessed as being worth ten times its actual likely market value to make his project economically non-viable.
And a tax on physical dimensions is economic superstition…
Well lawn maintenance has nothing to do with the unimproved value. Nonetheless, your contention that Georgism would simply incentivize assessors to arbitrarily inflate the unimproved value of property by orders of magnitude has never happened. And there are economic reasons why they wouldn’t have the incentive to act so arbitrarily. There is a detailed compiled history of land valuation world-wide:
https://www.amazon.com/Land-Value-Taxation-Around-World-Economic/dp/0631226141
with a summary here:
[Public Rent Collection In Practice]
http://www.henrygeorge.org/rem4.htm
dL,
You’re one to talk about red herrings. This is your second one in only a few posts:
“your contention that Georgism would simply incentivize assessors to arbitrarily inflate the unimproved value of property by orders of magnitude”
I’ve contended no such thing, as you well know if you’ve actually read my posts.
What I’ve contended is that a tax based on an inarguable objective measurement in commensurable units is less likely to be fucked up, and less possible to game up or down for any reason, than a tax based on subjective valuations by political officials.
tk,
You make a good point. The appraisal process is subject to gaming the system.
OTOH, an acre in Manhattan is worth more than an acre in Barrow, AK. Less productive land being taxed/leased at the same rate as the most productive land seems to lead to some undesirable outcomes. Marginal land would abandoned in the extreme. We all might end up living in skyscrapers.
Georgism is another construct, and I submit it should be recognized as such. In my case, Georgism was the pathway that led me to viewing the nation-state as a condo association. That wouldn’t foreclose the possibility of dissolving the association when it’s ripe, and allowing full-blown statelessness to blossom. That would be somewhere far down the asymptote.
RC,
“OTOH, an acre in Manhattan is worth more than an acre in Barrow, AK.”
Maybe, maybe not — your particular choices make that one very arguable. If I want to build an equipment shed to service my oil rigs, I’m probably going to be willing to pay more for an acre to build that shed on in Barrow than I would pay for it in Manhattan. On the other hand, if I’m wanting to open a high-end jewelry shop, Barrow probably isn’t on my list of good locations.
Yes, any tax is going to distort perceived land valuations. But a flat tax on acreage would:
1) Provide some regime certainty. The city council doesn’t get to just suddenly decide my land is worth twice this year what it was last year and thereby double my taxes. That’s not to say the rate won’t change, but at least the number that rate is based on won’t.
2) Become a fixed, known in advance embedded cost. If the tax is $10 an acre, I can buy an acre outside of Albuquerque with the intention of building a house if that land is worth $10/year plus its sale price, and not have to worry that my house plan will be blown to hell because oil is discovered ten miles south of me or Disney decides to open a theme park ten miles north of me. Again, rates might go up, but sudden changes in property values around me won’t affect my tax bill.
I doubt we’d all end up living in skyscrapers. A lot of people will pay a bit of a premium to live far away from others. Unless the tax rate is truly obnoxious, presumably a farmer will pay it and farm in Kansas since farming in a Manhattan skyscraper isn’t a very sound plan. Ditto for people wanting to use land for mineral/petroleum extraction, or who need to be near jobs that aren’t in skyscraper-filled areas.
While I see both sides of the argument (dl and TK) and it is semi-entertaining to anyone ‘interested’, the current tax arguments taking place here ain’t gonna happen. That’s the reality. Those in charge of revenue generation enjoy too much power. The current argument is too complicated for people to understand. The comparisons/analogies, while simple, are way outside what voters will ‘look for/connect with’ in a presentation in a televised national debate forum. That’s assuming it would ever get that far, which I don’t think it would. Besides that, the arguments are a band aid on a severed artery. The artery requires surgery to ‘tie off the artery’.
No problem (bleeding profusely) is solved without getting to the root (a severed artery) of the problem.
Getting to the root of the problem makes sense. OTOH, when was the last that was made manifest, politically speaking?
RC: Getting to the root of the problem makes sense. OTOH, when was the last that was made manifest, politically speaking?
Good question. It could be said as the ink was drying on The Constitution. However, I think it depends on the timeline. In the current argument here, I’d say 1913, which led eventually to the congress critters and ALL POTUS criiters recognizing an unlimited credit card is the answer to “political” prayers. IF any of those critters ever read Davy Crockett’s “farmer Bunce” story I’d be surprised. If they did and still behave the way they do I’d say they are vile people who chose to believe their celebrity status ‘entitles’ them to power not granted and use intentional misinterpretation to sell their bullshit- example: authorization of military force = declaration of war. Another, and my pet peeve; “The will of the people is a mandate” for a cause de jour.
Of course the “farmer Bunce” story didn’t have itself to reflect on, but those who the story was directed at (congress critters) have not evolved beyond the immaturity of spoiled kids and egotistical know it all’s who believe their own rhetoric about themselves. Their education failed in regards to their main job= (to be succinct) represent to prevent.
tk: I doubt we’d all end up living in skyscrapers.
me: Agreed. It’s called overstatement for effect. The point is that marginal land would likely go off line and abandoned. That’s a manipulation, too.
The best we can hope for is a strong bias for NEUTRAL manipulation, and for checks and balances to minimize biased manipulation. We could have default annual adjustments of, say, 10% changes to the previous year’s appraisal. San Diego land rents might only go up by 10% while Buffalo’s goes down 10% annually, for ex.
No, I clearly said that any negative impact is outweighed by the impact of their parents on the overall economy, and doubly so by the impact of the children as they become educated and move on to work in better paying jobs, start business, innovate, etc. No, I don’t feel like fishing for statistics.
That’s correct. Which means that legally the people seeking treatment have a right to that treatment. Whether they should or should not have such a legal right is a separate question.
Yes, I think that they should if and whenever they can. Obviously it is possible that there will be times and places where it becomes impossible to do that but generally, I think most hospitals know about what level of charity care to expect they will have to provide and are still capable of turning a profit or staying afloat if they are non-profit.
Yes, something definitely has gone wrong with the US health care system. Mary Ruwart provides a good diagnosis of what that is in Healing Our World, which I have posted in past threads.
I haven’t actually been counting votes but my sense is that the censure motion will pass. Has anyone been paying closer attention? I think the electronic meeting has fallen short by one vote of gaining enough co-sponsors yet again (to consider removal and perhaps alternate censure language) but I may be wrong, I’m not sure if the deadline has passed.
pf: No, I clearly said that any negative impact is outweighed by the impact of their parents on the overall economy, and doubly so by the impact of the children as they become educated and move on to work in better paying jobs, start business, innovate, etc.
me: Missing my point. Let me try again.
Say that illlegal aliens add 1% to GDP.
Say that half of all illegal aliens have school-age children and half don’t. Given the public expense of public education, that half that has kids might be (0.5)% and the half that don’t add 1.5%.
Get it, now?
I didn’t miss your point, I just disagree about the numbers and believe it’s still a net positive even with school age children. I don’t feel like digging up numbers though. It’s already more time than I wanted to spend on that tangent right now.
“Rights” are inherent. They pre-date all legal systems.
Legally entitled isn’t spelled a r i g h t.
pf: believe it’s still a net positive even with school age children.
me: I don’t believe the subject has been researched. It’s an oversight not to take into consideration education and healthcare costs.
Perhaps we can circle back to the subject when and if such data is forthcoming….
Paulie,
This is my best guess.
Based upon the censure motion and emails..
9 Yes
4 No
3 ?
1 Abstain
Nicholas Sarwark Chair ABSTAIN
Arvin Vohra Vice Chair NO
Tim Hagan Treasurer YES
Alicia Mattson Secretary YES
William Redpath At Large YES
Sam Goldstein At Large YES
Sam is co-sponsoring the meeting for suspension
Starchild at large NO
Daniel Hayes at large likely YES
Joshua Katz at large ?
Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 YES
Ed Marsh Region 2 NO
Elizabeth Van Horn Region 3 YES
Jeff Hewitt Region 4 YES
Jim Lark Region 5 ?
David Demarest Region 6 NO
Whitney Bilyeu Region 7 ?
Patrick McKnight Region 8 YES
RC,
George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan addressed the question of education costs in the 1980 presidential debates. Bush asserted, and Reagan agreed that since they are going to be here anyway, it’s better both for them and for the American economy if they can read, write and do arithmetic than if they’re kept illiterate and innumerate.
Robert Capozzi wrote:
When I interned at Cato the spring of 2006 there was a march on the capitol protesting insufficient Katrina relief funding. Our intern coordinator told us all to stop work for the day: 10,000 copies of “Not Yours to Give” were being printed up and we would hand them out to the protesters and go door to door in the office buildings distributing them to congressional staffers. We were all pretty excited. We dropped everything and lined up at the door to pick up our share and head to the hill.
At that point our boss told us he was joking — that such an action would be monstrously callous and he couldn’t believe we would go along with that plan. As it turned out the interns were far more radical than staff.
I think 6 is the requisite number. Am I wrong?
Is it 6 calling for a meeting and not just 6 agreeing to a day and time?
6 calling for a meeting for the purpose of considering removal and/or censure at a certain date and time, if I understand correctly.
Censure is already being voted on by e-ballot, but some people who support censure oppose the current wording, so censure could still be on the agenda of the e-meeting.
The meeting would need a quorum…. I don’t have a count of number of members calling for the meeting but am under the impression that Caryn doesn’t think it is going to happen.
Van Horn seems unhappy with the wording of the current censure motion so might vote against.
Fwd: Investigation of complaint against Arvin Vohra pursuant to LNC Policy Manual Section 2.01(4)
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011778.html
Hi all –
For the purposes of transparency, I am forwarding this to the list. It is
my understanding that as the person whom the complain was against, I have
the right to make these findings public.
-Arvin Vohra
Vice Chair
Libertarian National Committee
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180126/93004859/attachment-0001.pdf
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011781.html
Elizabeth Van Horn wrote
[Ooh, transparency. Good idea. With that in mind, Starchild, do you
know who wrote this second reworded censure motion?
This one: “Move to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas.”
Because, I think the writer would want to be given credit for rewording
a censure motion. Don’t you think?]
To which I would like to add…
Me too because it is brilliantly worded.
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011627.html
I put forth the following motion and seek co-sponsors.
“Move to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an inflammatory and sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders and candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those ideas.”
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
LNC Electronic meeting – Friday, February 2 @ 9:00 pm Eastern
Starchild has taken ownership of the wording of the motion.
[I wrote it, as it sounds like you already know. I don’t care about getting “credit”; I haven’t even decided whether I will vote for the motion myself. I suggested this language to Daniel mainly because some of the previous language struck me as anti-radical, and I didn’t want to see us go down that path.
Do you actually support transparency in publicly disclosing the investigation results Elizabeth? Saying “Ooh, transparency. Good idea” sounds kind of sarcastic, but it can be hard to tell via email.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee]
cm,
I didn’t write: “IF any of those critters ever read Davy Crockett’s “farmer Bunce” story I’d be surprised.”
DJ did.
tk: George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan addressed the question of education costs in the 1980 presidential debates. Bush asserted, and Reagan agreed that since they are going to be here anyway, it’s better both for them and for the American economy if they can read, write and do arithmetic than if they’re kept illiterate and innumerate.
me: You surprise me, TK. Citing Bush 41 and RR as definitive?
Recall that I’m a big believer in truth, and I subsume my biases and defer to truth. As a practical matter, that means identifying untruths as a means to bracketing toward truth, which is an elusive thing, given imperfect information. I don’t defer to president’s opinions.
I’m pro-immigration and pro-taxpayer and pro-domestic tranquility. It seems clear to me that taxpayers are bearing a greater burden than some academics would have us believe. The flaws in the analysis could be leading to flawed conclusions. This has led to policies that are out of balance.
RC,
I don’t know that I’d call that Bush/Reagan observation definitive, but it does make some sense, at least if you believe “public education” should be continued at all:
The kid is here, like it or not. Where do you want him to be from 8am-3pm? Learning to read and write, or getting up to no good on the street? In which case are the costs ultimately higher?
A quick Google search says that the estimated fraction of K-12 students who are “illegal immigrants” is 1.4%. How much does that increase the cost of “public” education?
It isn’t increasing costs by requiring new infrastructure build-out. Public school enrollment has been fairly flat for years, and would likely be descending if they didn’t keep lowering the age at which pre-K programs are offered (when our children were young, our school district came up with a pre-K program that was pretty obviously just an excuse to re-open a closed school building and keep on a few teachers who weren’t ready to retire yet but who had no place in K-12 because that student body was shrinking).
At 1.4%, it isn’t appreciably increasing class size such that more teachers need to be hired. In a school district with a thousand students altogether, that would be 14 students, scattered across grades. At a class size of 20, which is pretty small, it’s one extra student per seven classrooms.
If these students have an unusually high ratio of special needs, including but not limited to English as a Second Language, is that all cost and no benefit? When I was a kid, I was not the only student in my Spanish class who enrolled partly because I had friends who spoke Spanish at home.
One complaint I’ve heard is about the supposed ratio of “illegal immigrant” kids on the “free school lunch” program, but it’s important to remember that that program is a welfare program for American farmers, not for students. It does have the effect of filling stomachs, but if the food wasn’t being given to the kids, the ag lobby would find some other excuse to get the government to buy it from them so as to prop up prices, even if that meant soaking it in diesel and setting it on fire.
The censure motion wording is heroic: “for repeated public comments which have presented libertarian ideas …”
Along with the counsel’s brief, it pretty much puts the LNC into the position of deciding whether or not to punish Mr. Vohra for being a libertarian.
Yes, I realize there are other perspectives. But in addition to being incorrect, those other perspectives haven’t been as well-argued. They pretty much come down to “OMG! Do Not Like! Throwing Myself on Floor and Holding My Breath Until I Get What I Want!”
If I was Ms. Van Horn, I’d be upset that people were looking at what I was doing, too. Maybe even upset enough to question my own wisdom for doing it.
tk: The kid is here, like it or not. Where do you want him to be from 8am-3pm?
me: Thanks for the thoughtful comment. In isolation, GHWB and RR’s take makes some sense to me, too. 1.4% sounds small, too. However, the lens I use to assess government’s relations to the citizenry is massive national debt and government growing as a percentage of GDP.
Further, if the information on openborders.info is correct and illegal aliens are a slight net positive to the US economy WITHOUT taking into account the costs of educating and providing healthcare to illegal aliens, a more precise accounting MIGHT cause the net to disappear and possibly tip over into a net negative outcome. I’d like to see a more thorough analysis.
If there’s a problem, it strikes me that there is no one correct solution. But if there’s a problem, denying it is unhelpful to the cause of lessarchy and ultimately even anarchy.
“if the information on openborders.info is correct and illegal aliens are a slight net positive to the US economy WITHOUT taking into account the costs of educating and providing healthcare to illegal aliens, a more precise accounting MIGHT cause the net to disappear and possibly tip over into a net negative outcome”
Or it MIGHT cause the net to increase, depending on whether the “costs” net out positive or negative.
Let’s suppose that “healthcare to illegal [sic] aliens” has been part of the motivation for the increase in number of emergency rooms, and in staff and equipment for same (in the five years that I’ve lived where I live, two new free-standing ERs have been built within maybe five miles of my home).
The obvious place to look for cost effects is “well, they had to build those new ERs, and staff them, partly because there’s an undocumented immigrant population dropping by for medical care and not paying.”
Then again, there are also non-undocumented-immigrants who are making it to the ER after coronaries, strokes, accidents, etc. and surviving, paying huge medical bills, then going back to work and contributing to GDP — people who, by the time they made it another 5 or 10 miles downtown to the main ER, would have been dead.
Trying to do accurate cost accounting for conflicting government policies affecting large populations is probably impossible. Which is why it’s better to let the market coordinate all of it — who comes, who goes, who gets what — than hand that power off to government.
Having a hard time following exactly what’s happening, I’ve only looked at the email archive occasionally (and there seems to be ten different threads about this there). Looks like there’s a motion to censure, an electronic meeting to remove, and a report from an investigation? But it looks like that there’s problems with the wording of the motions that might make them void?
Anon-Tipper,
Yes, it’s a mess.
The people who started it were hoping for a mess. Vohra’s head on a pike would be a victory for them, but so is just causing as much ruckus as possible.
The people who pressed it don’t want a mess — they just want removal.
The people against removal know that a mess is their best chance of putting a stop to it. Thus the censure motions, the poison pill language to the effect that Arvin is advocating libertarian ideas (no one wants to be seen as removing him for doing that), the forking resolutions, the attempts to stop a meeting, etc.
So basically, a mess benefits everyone but the moderates who got gamed into making one in the first place.
well, for the sake of argument, what you accused me of would be a straw man, not a red herring
CM: At that point our boss told us he was joking — that such an action would be monstrously callous and he couldn’t believe we would go along with that plan. As it turned out the interns were far more radical than staff.
Me: That’s a damn shame, but not surprising. I wonder if the “news” would have picked up on it?
Of course, now days, who “it” belongs to is debatable. I contend it belongs to the federal reserve and “we the people” pay the fed for allowing us to use it in income tax. helluva deal- for the fed and politicians.
tk: Trying to do accurate cost accounting for conflicting government policies affecting large populations is probably impossible.
me: With precision, certainly.
There’s certainly NO cost accounting for the benefits of the rule of law, either. Nor is there a precise accounting of which form of jurisprudence or the specific rule of law that is employed in any territory otherwise known as a nation-state.
And yet there’s near-universal agreement that HAVING a rule of law facilitates a civil order. The condo association’s board has set some rules for entry into and working in the condo complex for this territory. Some of the rules are counter-productive, others might be neutral, others might even in theory be positive.
My sense is that almost none of the condo-owners want anyone to enter anytime for any purpose. I do sense that a more-neutral, fair, and national-wealth enhancing changes to immigration could be taken seriously by the condo-owning population.
There is no condo association. The desirability of rule of law is an interesting question, but it is an indisputable fact that no, not everyone supposedly covered by a particular set of rules consented to that set of rules either initially or by way of buying into a set of restrictive covenants.
Georgism is not the nation-state condo association. Henry George was laissez-faire. What you are repeating is the Hoppebot taxpayer collective garbage.
Bob and DJ, sorry for my misattribution.
tk: There is no condo association.
me: Obviously, it’s a metaphor.
tk: The desirability of rule of law is an interesting question, but it is an indisputable fact that no, not everyone supposedly covered by a particular set of rules consented to that set of rules either initially or by way of buying into a set of restrictive covenants.
me: True, Lysander. 😉 I suspect that universal consent (or not) is going to happen anytime soon. I suppose it’s possible, but I cannot imagine a scenario where it could to happen in the distant future. We are where we are, and the situation is degenerating, in my estimation.
Instituting the Harlos Nonarchy Pod option would be a means to institute a consensual civil order, but it might even be more futile.
Does that mean we’re doomed? I’d like to think not.
…is NOT going to happen anytime soon.
RC,
Yes, I know that it’s a metaphor. But underlying assumptions matter. There are only two essential resemblances between a condo association and a nation-state:
1) There are rules; and
2) There are processes for making and enforcing those rules.
But the same is true of a prison.
dL: Georgism is not the nation-state condo association. Henry George was laissez-faire.
me: Did HG address what he would do in the case where a person refused to pay his or her ground rent?
If a property owner refused to pay the ground rent, then the property owner loses the private claim on that property. Pretty simple. And to point out: a private claim of property is a private claim, i.e, there are no condo association rules to follow on the use on the property, no zoning restrictions, etc. Your analogy of Georgism to a condo/home owners association is ignorant drivel. Clearly, you have never read Henry George. George’s preface to his book, Progress and Poverty:
What I have done in this book, if I have correctly solved the great problem I have sought to investigate, is, to united the truth perceived by the school of Smith and Ricardo to the truth perceived by the school of Proudhon and Lasalle; to show laissez faire(in its full true meaning) opens the way to a realization of the noble dreams of socialism…
Pro-tip: Maybe you should spent more time reading the source material rather than imagining how to float your own narcissistic constructs in the Hoppean gutter.
d L. the property owner loses the private claim on that property
me. Please elaborate on what you mean by “loses.” Do you mean someone TAKES the claim? What entity does the taking?
This discussion has taken leave of reality. Some time ago.
Sorry George, but I can’t find Reality on the map?
Further news from reality….
Alicia Dearn from San Diego CA has joined in the call for the ouster of Vohra…. An interesting development because Alicia is a member of the LNC Judicial Committee. Which would be expected to hear an appeal if a suspension passed the LNC.
Alicia Dearn is from St. Louis, Missouri.
T K at 1/27/18, 13:35 writes:
“So basically, a mess benefits everyone but the moderates who got gamed into making one in the first place.”
We didn’t get gamed. Vohra indicated part of his reasoning for his descent into madness was to scare away the moderates. I take him at his word, let’s get it on.
Anthony,
You and your moderate/centrist faction got played like a fiddle. The wreckers tricked you into attacking the party. Then the radicals managed to make you clearly state that yes, that’s what you’re doing. So now your choice is whether you want to be merely embarrassed (by being forced to side with the radicals) or completely discredited (by continuing your attack on the party).
The radicals are the ones getting gamed by a self-aggrandizer looking for publicity.
Who’s attacking the party? I want the self-aggrandizer in question, who made a moral equivalency between being gay and being a pedophile, out of his leadership position. That’s all.
The wreckers used your panic over the possibility of Facebook posts on libertarian groups getting escalated into the public arena to get you to escalate Facebook posts on libertarian groups into the public arena.
They assumed, correctly, that you would be horrified by the possibility of a public discussion of the libertarian position on age of consent laws and think such a discussion was bad for the party — but that your panic would cause you to foment just such a discussion.
The radicals were content to discuss it amongst themselves, but aren’t unhappy that you let yourselves get gamed into taking it public.
The radicals owe the wreckers a debt of gratitude for doing what the radicals couldn’t do themselves: Getting the moderates to publicly proclaim that the Libertarian Party opposes age of consent laws.
There is an Alicia Dearn who is Executive Chair of the San Diego Libertarian Party. She is an attorney and has offices in San Diego and Saint Louis. What are theoddsthey aredifferent people?
Very strange — she’s supposedly planning to run for US Senate from Missouri.
“The wreckers used your panic over the possibility of Facebook posts on libertarian groups getting escalated into the public arena to get you to escalate Facebook posts on libertarian groups into the public arena.
They assumed, correctly, that you would be horrified by the possibility of a public discussion of the libertarian position on age of consent laws and think such a discussion was bad for the party — but that your panic would cause you to foment just such a discussion.”
A) As I noted, many of the things he said, like equating homosexuality with pedohpilia were stupid and ignorant on their face. Whether such things got out into the public arena or not, I’d want him out of his leadership position anyway.
B) In any case, he is in a leadership position in an organization that WANTS what we stand for to get out into the public arena. That’s the whole point. If he is a political ignoramus stupid enough to make his recent statements a priority, he is catastrophically unqualified for the job.
C) there is no public and private distinction if you are in a leadership position in a political party. Everything you said and do anywhere at any time for any reason must be considered for public digestion. If you don’t like the terms of that arrangement, you are not ready for the job.
D) As I have mentioned before, while there is risk that trying to extricate the dope from his position will create publicity, that pales in comparison to the publicity that could result from not doing anything about it, even if he were to eventually get removed via election at the convention. The worry about adverse publicity that might result from a vote from removal also has to be weighed against not doing anything at all, and giving a green light to other stupid people to say even more stupid stuff. Even if Vohra doesn’t get removed from his position, this process will serve as an example to others to not be idiots if they are going to take a leadership position.
E) The wreckers didn’t need to explain anything to me regarding the idiocy of a leader in a political party broaching the subject of age of consent laws. Common sense tells me its brain dead dumb in a political sense.
Anthony,
That’s a very long way of saying that, having been fooled, you are now totally committed to remaining fooled.
That’s OK. It would be cooler if you were knowingly doing the radicals’ work for us, but if the price of you continuing to do that work is respecting your self-imposed ignorance, it’s a price I’m willing to pay.
failed attempt at a psychological ploy.
I’m not sure there is anything to debate here. I don’t want anyone in a leadership position of the LP saying what he says, whether its gets out or not, but said leader should assume that not only is it going to get out, but that he or she wants it to get out. So again, I’m not sure there is anything to debate here, because I work from a standing assumption that what a party leader or candidates says, in any context, they WANT to get out into the public arena.
In other words, there is no “discussing among yourselves,” not when you are in a leadership position. Nowhere. You should just assume that even your bedroom banter with your significant other is going to get out publicly, let alone a facebook or twitter post.
I am sure you disagree with that. Oh well. No time like the present to start laying down the new rules for our leaders, and try to alarm me about possible negative publicity is irrelevant, because we need the rules. Once they are set, those who want to be a leadership position will be aware of minding themselves, and those who are unable to will self-select out of even considering a leadership role.
The rules are already set.
The question is whether or not Vohra broke them.
He clearly didn’t.
And right now the LNC is voting on whether or not to censure him for “comments which have presented libertarian ideas.”
Which begs the question in exactly the opposite direction that you want the LP publicly portrayed.
Heckuva job, Brownie.
I wouldn’t think anyone needs to be told to not be an idiot or you’ll get bounced, but I guess Vohra does. I don’t need that written in a rule book. If we could get him removed, the precedent would be set, whether its carved in stone or not.
And like I said, psychological ploys don’t work with me, so I’m okay with the censure vote even with that dopey poison pill, because my primary concern is to raise the costs of being an idiot whilst in a leadership position. So maybe radical or not, we can all support the censure vote. Everyone wins!
“I wouldn’t think anyone needs to be told to not be an idiot or you’ll get bounced”
Oh, you won’t get bounced.
And it’s not that you NEED to be told you’re being an idiot. It’s that it’s fun telling you and then seeing you try desperately but unsuccessfully to credibly deny it.
what’s the problem here? I’m for the censure. Aren’t you, based on the text you referred to?
Anthony,
I’m against the censure motion because I don’t think libertarians should be censured for libertarians.
That doesn’t mean I can’t take pleasure in the unintended positive side effects of the motion, of which there are several.
Age of consent. “by reason of insanity” is entirely not the same as ‘age of consent”. If person A walks up to person B in a restaurant, person B sitting with person A’s wife who person B has seduced and lured off to New York months ago, and fires multiple rounds into person B, then (in the historical case) person A is about to become the first American to get off on ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ other than under the McNaughton rule. (actual historical case. A was a distinguished Buffalonian. B was a famous New York architect. There is a motion picture about this.)
However, there is more or less uniform agreement that blowing away person B was some degree of murder, which is malum per se. The ‘not guilty by reason of…” has only to do with what we do with person B, not with whether or not an improper act was committed.
In contrast, absent an age of consent law, no one can tell if carrying on with someone else is a criminal act, no matter how old you are. It just depends on how good your defense attorney is, and how deranged the jury is.
Eliminating age of consent is simply a terrible idea. The contrary is an example of the points at which our party’s anarchist wing has taken leave of its senses.
Dr. Phillies,
Your obvious confusion isn’t evidence of anyone’s insanity. And it has nothing to do with the party’s “anarchist wing,” as minarchy would also presumably support actually proving crimes rather than driving numbers out of hats.
Thank you for reminding us of your wing’s theology.
On the other hand, I am seeing proposals that the LP should run Mary Ruwart again, in which case the interesting statements in her book will undoubtedly show up.
“I’m against the censure motion because I don’t think libertarians should be censured for libertarians.”
Well, its your opinion whether what he has said is libertarian or not; I don’t think there is anything libertarian about what Vohra has been saying since he went off the reservation.
In any event, since he is a position of leadership, he has more to consider than his own opinion, as I have noted above. Since he is apparently incapable of that, I advocate for his removal and/or censure. He can go back to being a civilian and be free to say whatever he wants. Yes, he voluntarily gives up that right when he moves into a position of leadership in the LP. I’m sure you disagree, and that’s fine. More people think like me than they do you. Very few people want to be part of a voluntary organization where self-indulgence and permanently theoretical discussions carry the day.
For proof of the latter, look no further than Dr. Phillies comments above. He’s hardly a moderate, was adamantly opposed to Johnson/Weld, and you got HIM disagreeing with you. This is why it is so easy dealing with Radicals: I’m not smarter or better-read. Its just simply rope-a-dope until the radicals punch themselves out and have EVERYONE disagreeing with them expect other Radicals. Even then they just keep swinging at each other.
That’s why I don’t care about the poison pill phrasing in the censure. Only radicals think that’s important. They think they’ll end up making a point. They won’t. The only thing that will matter is who voted for censure of a person advocating for pedophilia and who did not. This is the political arena operates, Libertarian or otherwise.
Which is why I can take pleasure in the vote too: we’ll know exactly who else is off the reservation with Vohra.
Still smarting over the ass-whipping you took from Ruwart in 2008 even after trying and failing to make that dog hunt, huh?
Anthony,
The resolution says what it says. And what it says is that Vohra is to be censured for “comments which have presented libertarian ideas.”
It’s not about what you or I think is libertarian. The resolution specifically says that Vohra’s ideas are libertarian.
Nobody in the instant case “advocated for pedophilia.” Period.
If you have to lie to make your point, your point doesn’t deserve to be made.
In other news, the DNC finally launched a program sort of like LNC “sustaining membership,” only you just get a card, no newsletter. And it only costs $10 to “become a card-carrying Democrat.”
She was, but the letter identifies her as the current chair of San Diego.
Anthony,
Have you read the Oliver Hall report?
no. what is that?
It’s the brief from the LNC’s general counsel demonstrating that Vohra violated neither the bylaws nor the policy manual.
The Hall report also contains the “disputed” remarks that the VC made.
I included a link to it in my comment of 0:33 Jan 27th
Caryn Ann Harlows is none to happy with it.
“Thank you Oliver. I do think giving an opinion on our Bylaws, Platform,
and RONR (and you are just wrong there IMHO- and are not a parliamentarian
that I know of) is out of bounds.
And whether intended or not, it has unduly influenced members on a question
which is not a legal question.
Since we now can’t unsee what has been seen, there is a skilled attorney
who is a member, who does not have a conflict and believes there is cause,
that I would like to ask to submit an opinion if he would do so gratis. I
haven’t asked him so he may decline but I think this is the only way we can
even this field.
Unwittingly Oliver, you have inserted a scorpion in our member debates and
there is some resentment over it in my Region, particularly so far Alaska
(members).”
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011820.html
Oliver Hall is also associated with “The Center For Competitive Democracy” and is someone that the LNC would be good not to lose the support of.
http://www.competitivedemocracy.org/
“Oliver Hall, Director, is founder and legal counsel to CCD. Mr. Hall graduated from Kenyon College in 1995 and Boston University School of Law in 2005. He is author of “Death by a Thousand Signatures: The Rise of Restictive Ballot Access Laws and the Decline of Electoral Competition in the United States,” published by the Seattle University Law Review, and he has also written for Counterpunch and the Philadelphia Inquirer. A member of the Massachusetts and District of Columbia Bars, Mr. Hall is also admitted to practice before the federal courts for the District of Columbia, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and North Dakota, the federal courts of appeals for the 3rd Circuit, 8th Circuit, 11th Circuit and D.C. Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States.”
it is worth while reviewing some of the cases CCD has been working on.
http://www.competitivedemocracy.org/legal-action/
Reason by insanity is fitness to stand for criminal trial, whereby “age of consent” is fitness to contract. The two do share a similarity in that each in any given instance can be established or debunked by examination/cross-examination.
What is law? Following Bastiat, “it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.” Phillies’ conservative trope “It just depends on how good your defense attorney is, and how deranged the jury is” is exactly what the law is, if you prefer to be bawdy about it.
Age of consents laws are an abridgment of that right to lawful defense. Because there is no uniform age limit for fitness to contract. For example, and these are real world examples: consider the case of a 15 year schoolgirl in the school yard versus a 15 year old working in a male adult entertainment club as a stripper. The latter case: a girl who makes more money in tips than Dr. Phillies salary, a girl who doesn’t live at home…is this girl is incapable of consenting to sexual exchange? I would hope one could find a decently competent attorney and a reasonably sane jury(obviously, the defense would have to be on the lookout to exclude the George Phillies of the world from the selected 12) to successfully defend against an overly zealous state prosecution.
By the same token, the case of the stripper would probably differ from the case of the school girl. That one would not be as easy. Perhaps it would be a case of a person in authority taking advantage of that authority to manufacture consent from a student who otherwise was not ready to give it.****
But that is what “the law” is…
****
I’m assuming an age discrepancy in each instance. If we are talking about comparable ages, then forgetaboutit. You are in the wrong fucking party if you want prosecute 16 year olds for having sex with 15 year olds.
“If we are talking about comparable ages, then forgetaboutit. You are in the wrong fucking party if you want prosecute 16 year olds for having sex with 15 year olds.”
Amen to that.
Now, anyone who equates that to Vohra’s unhinged, hard-right comments on the matter is in the wrong f*cking reality. (not implying anyone in particular there, just making a distinction between a reasonable…albeit potentially politically dangerous…argument about not criminalizing teenage sex, and Vohra’s mentally unhinged delusions, implying the outright abolishment of age of consent laws, and implying government tests of financial stability before one can engage in sex acts).
I haven’t read these alleged hard right comments. I read the original facebook post and then 71liberty article penned by Vohra. As I’ve commented previously, I thought he advanced some ludicrous social conservative rationalizations for age of consent abolition, but I read no slurs.
Joshua Katz, Alicia Mattson, Sam Goldstein and William Redpath have all ether voted no or switched to no.
The censure motion will fail
FYI, the Oliver Hall memo on status of Merissa Hamilton’s complaint is here: http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180126/93004859/attachment-0001.pdf
Unforuntately, it looks like censure wouldn’t work too good since Arvin defends being obnoxious ala Trump’s success.
There can be such a thin line between being intelligently provocative and just stupid. Arvin’s just falled on stupid side a few times too many. ;-(
FYI: The US government now expects children to represent themselves in federal court. The government certainly treats consent age(fitness to contract) as a discretionary matter.
Yesterday heard from Tucker Carlson on Faux News by me:
Question to pro-immigrant guest: “If low wage workers from Mexico increase the wealth of the US, why isn’t Mexico rich?”
So if naughty 8 and 9 year olds are playing doctor, will Merissa Hamilton prosecute the older ones for “hebephilia”?
OOPS! Just looked the word up and it’s not everyone under puperty it’s 11-14 year olds! Geez, keep us confused, Merissa…
Definition: “Hebephilia is the sexual preference for early adolescent children (those roughly ages 11 to 14). Some evidence suggests that hebephilia is a distinct and discernable erotic age preference .”
Quickly read the doc. Now I know why I never found any gay slurs allegedly made by Vohra. There weren’t any.
This is the alleged quote comparing homosexuality to pedophilia? Laugh the fuck out loud. Hell, Reed College could learn a thing or two from the LNC SJW caucus(i.e., right wing pro-lifers that sit on the LNC).
If the low-rent trash broadcast by Fox News is supposed to increase the knowledge of the US population, why isn’t Fox News knowledgeable?
—–
Question to pro-immigrant guest: “If low wage workers from Mexico increase the wealth of the US, why isn’t Mexico rich?”
—–
Capital, including human capital, tends to flow to where it can be most profitably invested.
The answer to your question is the same as the answer to the question “if the ’49ers struck gold in California, why couldn’t they have just stayed home in Virginia and struck gold there?” They went to where the gold was, just like Mexican workers go to where the work is.
“Hell, Reed College could learn a thing or two from the LNC SJW caucus(i.e., right wing pro-lifers that sit on the LNC).”
I don’t see any correlation between this and right-wing/pro-life.
The shared characteristic of the Get Vohra Brigade’s supporters on LNC is a gullible tendency to fall into, or perhaps in some cases a venal willingness to exploit, moral panic.
FYI: I’m not sure where it comes from (Facebook, Twitter, etc), but here is info on Vohra comparing homosexuality to pedophilia:
“In another comment, he insisted that child molestation was morally indistinguishable from homosexuality, and accused gay members of the party of “hypocrisy” if they disagreed.”
As the article subsequently points out, its Vohra who is at odds with the Platform, since it only allows for intimate relations between “consenting adults:”
https://www.thejacknews.com/politics/state-libertarian-parties-demand-removal-of-arvin-vohra-for-comments-on-child-molestation/
welp, I’ll restate my previous point, and now even more forcefully: There is no way Tucker is that dumb. That’s as clear an indication that he is playing to his crowd, and frankly it must be working, because I hear only Hannity is beating him in the ratings for cable news shows.
“As the article subsequently points out, its Vohra who is at odds with the Platform, since it only allows for intimate relations between ‘consenting adults'”
OK, so you’ve managed to mis-read the platform in at least two important ways:
1) It does not define “adults” as “persons of an age exceeding that of the number drawn out of a hat by a politician.” There has been considerable discussion in both the party and the movement, as well as in society at large, concerning what it means to be an “adult” and in none of the three areas where it is discussed is the hat-number method largely considered dispositive (in society at large, for example, plenty of people can be found who assert that you magically become an adult, regardless of age, when accused of a crime, or that “if you’re old enough to drive and vote and join the military you’re old enough to buy a drink”).
2) The existence of a plank advocating for X in the platform does not translate to the platform “not allowing for” things not mutually exclusive with X.
There is zero case that Vohra’s discussion of age of consent conflicted in any way with the platform, or that it violated anything in the policy manual.
The Get Vohra Brigade’s case boils down entirely to “we got gamed into a moral panic by people who were using us to damage the party.”
try posting “fuck the pigs” on a pro-life social media feed. That’s not to say there is 1-1 relationship between the pro-life position and right-wing butthurt(i.e., social conservatism), but there is a high degree of correlation/predictability.
TK: always thinking like a radical.
“OK, so you’ve managed to mis-read the platform in at least two important ways:
It does not define “adults” as “persons of an age exceeding that of the number drawn out of a hat by a politician.” There has been considerable discussion in both the party and the movement, as well as in society at large, concerning what it means to be an “adult” and in none of the three areas where it is discussed is the hat-number method largely considered dispositive…”
I haven’t misread it. You just ignore what the overwhelming majority of the people in this country are going to take the word “adult” to mean in this context. They got zero problem with a number drawn out of a hat by a politician if the alternative is no number at all.
Now, of course, people are going to disagree about what “adult” means EXACTLY, but there is no damn way they are going to take it to mean what Vohra implies in his various unhinged comments.
This is why I keep saying that…in the political arena, as opposed to a philosophical one…its so easy to play rope-a-dope with Radicals. They will argue themselves right into a minority position, and then what does it matter who is right and who is wrong? Who’s arguing that Governors Johnson & Weld did not occasionally run afoul of plumb-line libertarianism, let alone the radical variety? I’m certainly not. What difference did it make? I saw no lighting bolt coming from the great Rothbard in the Sky striking them dead.
Anthony D wrote: “FYI: I’m not sure where it comes from (Facebook, Twitter, etc), but here is info on Vohra comparing homosexuality to pedophilia:”
I believe Anthony is right that Vohra said something else that was really stupid comparing the two. I won’t go searching for it, but there’s a good chance it is quoted in the Counsel’s review linked above.
“In another comment, he [Vohra] insisted that child molestation was morally indistinguishable from homosexuality, and accused gay members of the party of “hypocrisy” if they disagreed.”
What difference does it make what the scholarly literature says on age of consent when the dipsh*t Vohra makes a comment like that? What difference does it make what the various arguments by the learned experts are? This is politics, man. No one wants to be around someone so anti-social. I would be embarrassed to forward that to any of my gay friends outside of the Libertarian Party. They would be horrified by such a comment.
Now, if someone wants to tell me that I am reading the gay population wrong regarding that comment, or that I am reading parents in general wrongly, and parents…even ones who have real problems with throwing a 17-year old boy in jail for taking a sexy pick of his 15-year old girlfriend…would largely be okay with a discussion of the abolishment of age of consent laws…then to that someone, given that we are in an arena that determines winners and losers by some form of election, even within the party, I say “bring it on.”
All I have to do is keep them talking. After they have whittled their own faction down to 6% of the party, they can go on muttering about how we are running afoul of THEIR conception of the LP Platform.
Anthony,
Is your argument that Vohra is at odds with the platform, or is your argument “OMG I AM IN MORAL PANIC SOMEONE PLZ STOP PEOPLE FROM POSTING ON FACEBOOK BCUZ WHAT WILL PEOPLE THINK?!?!?!”
The former is what you SAID your argument was, until I pointed out that that argument was meritless, at which point you switched back to the latter.
Please make up your fucking mind.
I wrote: “If we are talking about comparable ages, then forgetaboutit. You are in the wrong fucking party if you want prosecute 16 year olds for having sex with 15 year olds.”
Dlugos’ response: Amen to that.
Dlugos then wrote::
As the article subsequently points out, its Vohra who is at odds with the Platform, since it only allows for intimate relations between “consenting adults:”
Someone is confused….
Carol Moore/Secession.net stated…
“I believe Anthony is right that Vohra said something else that was really stupid comparing the two. I won’t go searching for it, but there’s a good chance it is quoted in the Counsel’s review linked above.”
That is not cool. If you have an accusation to make make it and provide quotes so the rest of us can read it as well. Otherwise drop the innuendo.
I did search and I could not find further reference.
I believe he is at odds with the platform. You believe he is not. I don’t believe my argument is meritless, but I have no need to continually debate the merits of the argument with you when I know that I can eventually effectively beat the Radical position…on any issue…with sheer numbers, as long as they keep talking.
This is a political party, there isn’t any other way to look at it.
No it is not. There is no comment that supposedly involved “collective deprecation” other than the one I quoted above.
Anthony,
Kruschev was wrong when he announced “we will bury you.”
I’m not.
You don’t have a position to beat anyone with. You keep changing yours. And contrary to whatever school taught you politics, drawing a different position out of the hat depending on the time of day ain’t that popular with anyone…
Haha. You think the people who object to throwing 17-year old sexually active utes into jail are not only prepared to discuss the complete abolishment of Age of Consent laws, but to buy that argument from a man broaching that subject the way Vohra has, a man who previously called Servicemembers “accessories to murder” once they are reminded such an argument is not in contradiction to the platform (which we have previously agreed no one cares about?”
To quote Marco from Tropoja,
“Good Luck.”
“You keep changing yours.”
Nope. As I noted, I think Vohra’s comments are in opposition to the platform. Now, what’s the point of continuing an argument that is not going to change anyone’s mind? Given the rules of engagement, I have no need to. Vohra’s own words will sink him, and anyone associated with him, regardless of what argument they try and make. If you are in the minority, by definition you lost.
“And contrary to whatever school taught you politics, drawing a different position out of the hat depending on the time of day ain’t that popular with anyone.”
And good luck to you trying to argue to the members of the LP…and the larger populace in this country…that since Age of Consent laws are “drawn out of a hat,” they should be abolished.
Keep talking. Rope-a-dope, rope-a-dope. ‘Round and ’round we go.
Quoth Anthony:
“I think”
The available evidence militates strongly against that claim.
haha. Keep punching, boys! I’m just cowering on the ropes taking the philosophical blows from people much smarter and well-read than I in what they haven’t yet realized is a popularity contest.
now, please another right jab telling me how “adult” could mean, “nine-year old.”
Anthony,
And you just keep fantasizing that you’re going to be carried to a position at Cato on the shoulders of “moderate libertarians” without having first learned at least a little something about practical politics.
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011573.html
“Some objectivists have similarly argued that when a person can take on the
responsibilities of adulthood, they have the right to make their own
decisions. I like that idea. **I would extend it by saying that those who
cannot take on those responsibilities don’t have those rights.** Those who
have kids they cannot afford, and then have 15 more they cannot afford, are
violating that. I don’t think the state should be involved. I also don’t
think the state should subsidize that behavior through welfare, as it has
been doing for decades (and yes, welfare does include government schools).”
This part: “I would extend it by saying that those who
cannot take on those responsibilities don’t have those rights.” from the above is pretty bad, tbh.
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011821.html
“At the same time, Ron Paul advocated ending the drug war in the 1980s, when
it was hard to do. His statements were seen as outrageous, politically
inexpedient, and incredibly inflammatory. And that courage formed the
underpinning of the Ron Paul revolution, a political movement many times
the size of the LP.”
But, the more important issue is the Ron Paul apologia.
Is this the quote everyone is talking about?
http://i0.wp.com/independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/26731734_1518239098271877_4310402994761032320_n.jpg
The biggest reason is Mexican regime red tape.
Arguably, since it doesn’t say “only.” For example, if it said that adults should not be denied the right to own guns, that doesn’t say children have to be denied the right to own guns, it just leaves that possibility open – as well as the possibility that they wouldn’t be.
Agreed
Answer:
The Condo Association rules in Mexico have been and may still be more counter-productive than they have been in the US.
There’s nothing that is anything like a “condo association” at the national level in either Mexico or the US, nor should there be (condo associations don’t scale well to that level), but otherwise you are correct.
Mexico is moving in the right direction though. I was flipping channels the other day and caught former Mexican president Fox saying that since NAFTA the wealth disparity between the average USian and the average Mexican has shrunk from 10:1 to 5:1. Supposing Trump’s wall is built, how long before its main function will become to keep USians out of Mexico?
“And you just keep fantasizing that you’re going to be carried to a position at Cato on the shoulders of “moderate libertarians” without having first learned at least a little something about practical politics.”
What Vohra has been doing, then the Radicals defense of his lunacy, is effective practical politics?
Yikes.
pf,
I do believe I agree with you that condo associations don’t scale well, except we have no meaningful counter-factuals, at least not what we might call first-world nations. I can’t draw any conclusions from pockets of nonarchy currently functioning. Nation-state associations that stick to a few baseline peacekeeping functions tend to experience superior material outcomes for most of its citizens.
“What Vohra has been doing, then the Radicals defense of his lunacy, is effective practical politics?”
I didn’t say that.
The radicals are certainly using practical politics to limit the damage that the wreckers and their dupes in the Get Arvin Brigade do to the party, but that has almost nothing to do with Vohra’s “lunacy” except to the extent that it was the instrument that the wreckers used to fool you into stomp on your own testicles in public.
How many elections have you won as a candidate or campaign manager? How many winning electoral campaigns — hell, how many electoral campaigns, win OR lose — have you even been a minor moving part of? Have you ever worked a convention floor for an issue or candidate or slate or caucus? Stood in freezing rain to put yourself or someone else on a ballot? Applied for an appointed position in government? Worked a phone bank? Walked a precinct? Worked a polling place?
Have you ever privately communicated with LNC members who have seen you do those things, year after year, in the expectation that they’ll give a tinker’s damn as to your “practical” opinion?
Because I know people who have.
“paulie Post author
January 30, 2018 at 16:10
There’s nothing that is anything like a “condo association” at the national level in either Mexico or the US, nor should there be (condo associations don’t scale well to that level), but otherwise you are correct.”
Every country in the world has immigration and naturalization laws. This is they way that the world is arranged, whether anyone likes it or not.
Given that this is the present state of the world, governments should not have a policy regarding immigration and naturalization that overwhelms, and/or is a threat, to the existing population. If hordes of people are entering the land mass where you live, and they are getting on welfare and sucking up taxpayer funded services, committing crimes, and after being made citizens, they engage in block voting which is against the interests of much of the existing population, and is leading the country further down the road to becoming a socialist hellhole, then there is something wrong with your country’s immigration policy, and it is not even really an immigration policy, it is an invasion policy, which is being led by Marxists and New World Order globalists, and any self professed libertarian who supports what these Marxists and New World Order cretins are doing is acting as a useful idiot for their nefarious, anti-liberty agenda.
Andy,
So are the Marxists and New World Order cretins to blame for your support for a nefarious, anti-liberty agenda, or are you someone third group’s useful idiot?
Oh, never mind, I forgot that you’re a Hoppebot. So Marxist, then.
Rope a dope? Really? That’s mailing it in for a paycheck when there is nothing left in the tank…
That’s a very poor excuse. At one time they all had slavery, absolute monarchy, etc. The US did best economically before it had any restrictions on immigration to speak of, and naturalization is besides the point, at least for me. I really don’t care that much if you make the naturalization laws even worse, if entering and staying in the US is made easier at the same time.
Your other paragraph is, of course, complete nonsense which I have thoroughly debunked in many past threads, so I won’t bother to do so yet again.
pf: The US did best economically before it had any restrictions on immigration to speak of,
me: Depends on what you mean by “best.” National wealth grew at a faster rate in the 19th century, yes, but I’m not sure that’s particularly instructive. Start-ups often have rapid growth that tempers as it matures. It may still be growing faster on an absolute basis. Microsoft was founded by a college dropout, but it seems likely that most hires now have at least a BA or BS.
Standards change over time as circumstances change.
Now it may be that the US should have open borders, but ancient history is fairly easily discounted as not especially relevant.
Arvin’s statements will affect the LP as a candidate, and not as a LNC member. If the media takes them, then Arvin will affect the remaining LP candidates in Maryland. Rather than addressing campaign issues, the media will force the LP candidates to react to his statements.
Brand equity problem.
Steven,
So what you’re saying is that the media might talk to Libertarian candidates in Maryland for once?
If the Maryland LP would rather be ignored, I supposed they could nominate someone else, then, right?
Has anyone kept up with the counts?
The censure motion has had a number of people switch votes. What’s the current count?
The electronic meeting has a number of people who have called for it to be cancelled. How many so far, and how many are needed?
It appears the copyright troll’s rewritten censure split the SJW caucus, and Mr. Hall’s legal memo drained whatever momentum remained.
Mexico doesn’t have the per capita income of the US, but then again, given, say, their relatively free market cash exchange health care system(that’s orders of magnitude less expensive than the US system), one doesn’t need to earn a US-level income to live a comfortable life down there.
yeah, the Baltimore Sun is going to be all over this like chanel grand extrait on shit…
OK, I did a little FB search and found a screenshot of the quote I was thinking about, which evidently is the one only referred to above.
Vohra wrote circa January 11-12 :
“Pick one: “It’s totally natural for two men to have sex.” “It’s an abomination for a 25 year old man to have sex with a 15 year old women (sic).” This ludicrous hypocrisy I’m seeing is a fascinating bit of psychology.”
To verify you can search the hundreds of postings/response on his page around those few days. I took short cute and did searched FB “Arvin Vohra homosexual” and clicked comments on “Jo lo Jeffrey” posting and found screen shot there. Sounds like one I read before and discussed above.
My thoughts: I think it’s easy to see how someone could misinterpret it as being a slur vs gays, since it barely makes any sense. (Starting with: “pick one.”)
However, it SHOULD have been quoted, NOT described, in all criticisms of him, so it’s clear he’s just being dumb and irresponsible and not really insidious. (Unless that’s one definition of insidious?)
He’s definitely very sloppy in discussing sensitive issues and just doesn’t care to be corrected. Very sad. And extremely annoying.
I had not seen that one, but it is not inconsistent with what had previously written. It’s not a slur, but it is a bad non sequitur. Like I previously stated, I thought his social conservative rationalizations against age of consent were ludicrous. If he was a perpetual one trick pony on this issue, I would think he is dog whistling anti-gay bigotry. But as it stands, no. That being said, there is a distinction between censuring speech and recommending speech. And his argument on the topic of age of consent is NOT one that I would recommend.
Further note on Vohra’s bad analogy. When I was mid 20 something male, I did both. Well, almost. The gay sex I got paid for. So, technically, that was illegal. And the teenage girls were 16+. But they were also strippers/dropouts.. When I taught high school(at age 26), I stayed away from that nonsense. Because I’m not an idiot.
I’m a libertine’s libertine, nonetheless I think a 25+ dude trolling the schoolyard or the mall for middle school girls is not psychologically natural. I would think the dude has some fucked up issues relating to women.
status quo logical fallacy. Of course, LessAnarchy is nothing but an exercise in the status quo fallacy to legitimize the tyranny of the day…
Well, that’s one down.
Some of those who voted for censure would likely vote against removal.
At least one or two of those who voted against censure presumably did so because they think only removal will do.
Removal isn’t going to happen either.
There could also be a censure motion with different wording at the e-meeting on Friday, if that happens and if removal fails to gather 2/3. Does censure also require 2/3?
“There could also be a censure motion with different wording at the e-meeting on Friday, if that happens and if removal fails to gather 2/3.”
No, there couldn’t. Electronic meetings are only allowed to deal with the issue they are called for. Unless censure was in the call for the meeting, it’s not an option.
It was in the call for the meeting.
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011811.html
Ah — OK. I thought the original call for meeting only encompassed removal.
I still think they’ll lose.
aj: Every country in the world has immigration and naturalization laws. This is they way that the world is arranged, whether anyone likes it or not.
dL: status quo logical fallacy. Of course, LessAnarchy is nothing but an exercise in the status quo fallacy to legitimize the tyranny of the day…
me: Without is, there can’t be an ought.
Lessarchy — as I practice it — spends little-to-no energy contemplating ideal social constructs in specific. It does proceed from general statements about the ought, dispassionately describes the is, and spends most time on the means toward the end. In a sense, means and ends are one, for each positive step is virtuous.
Hume’s Is-Ought fallacy.
The way one avoids that fallacy(moving from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones) is to instead derive an OUGHT NOT from the IS. There’s is nothing “ideal” or prescriptive about that.
No, you spend 99% of your time in passionate defense of the status quo(IS). The schtick
“In an ideal world, …BUT –>([insert defense of status quo HERE] OR [insert attack against changing it HERE])
is an old con game.
So, for example: ICE deportations.
dL: ICE deportations is an example of what the government should NOT be doing
Bob: “Well in an ideal world, there would be no ICE, BUT…condo homeowners association”
of course, arguing that the ideal world would produce more or less exactly the same thing we see now.
And if you are really passionate about it, like you’ve been, then it is fair to ducktype*** you for what you really are: xenophobic nativist.
*** if it walks, swims and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck
dL,
No, actually, I generally don’t speak of things like “in an ideal world.” I don’t know what an ideal world is. I don’t oppose deportations in principle IF they are justified.
I would only say that I seek a world where liberty and peace are maximized. I’m not sure what that actually looks like, and I find it arrogant when others do. I’m more interested in undoing coercion in the near term as long as domestic tranquility is reasonably maintained.
You’re jumping to conclusions that are simply unwarranted.
I’m guessing censure is substantive enough to require 2/3 but does anyone here know for sure?
I am of the opinion that censure is like anyother motion and only requires a majority. Anyother then tossing an officer out.
In an ideal world, i would be king and you lesser humans wouldn’t disturb my peace with your petty squabbling.
If you don’t get what i mean look up on you tube the song.
Every other day i have the blues
You do it all the time.”I am reflexively pro-immigration” OR “I advocate maximal peace and liberty and minimal government interference.” Those positions must exist in some idealized world because in this one, you use them as a mere empty qualifier before spending 99.9% of your time attacking those very things.
Authoritarians rarely, if ever, announce themselves as authoritarians. Authoritarianism is always practiced in the name of freedom and/or security.
dL: Those positions must exist….
me: Must? As in there are NO other options?
I see it differently. I don’t spend time constructing SPECIFIC constructs. In general, I’m for maximal freedom SO LONG AS it also maximizes peace. For example, a ZAPster might stand for abolishing SS tomorrow. A lessarchist sees that as grandiose and unpeaceful, since millions of people survive on SS benefits.
There is almost no way that SS will be abolished tomorrow, and politically such advocacy is likely to foreclose any meaningful communication with anyone other than fellow ZAPsters. Taking the position of immediate abolition will likely alienate even those who share a generalized sense that maximizing liberty is a north star.
Ideas CAN have consequences. However, unripe ideas are bitter.
Authoritarians rarely, if ever, announce themselves as authoritarians. Authoritarianism is always practiced in the name of freedom and/or SECURITY. lulz
red herring. This thread is about age of consent and immigration(the apparent Godwin’s law endpoint for any libertarian discussion thread these days). The only one who brings up social security is you. Are on you on social security and medicare, Bob? Are you worried immigrants are going to crowd you out of your social security check? You use peace and security as pretext for authoritarian policies, but those policies bring out the mass demonstrations and protests. So, I don’t think you’re all that concerned with peace and tranquility.
dL,
I’m ok with age of consent laws remaining where they are, mostly because I consider it an unripe issue.
I’m not sure what my position on near-term adjustments to immigration policies should be. I’m highly inclined to naturalize DACA designees. I don’t think anyone can go anywhere anytime. I do think that social costs and security issues can and should be factored into lessarchistic policy changes.
I’m disappointed that the starkness of SS abolition was not helpful to you to illustrate the futility of applying the ZAPster dogma to the here-and-now of our politics. Creating SS was a mistake, but undoing mistakes is a different challenge than identifying mistakes. (No, it was not personal in my case, as I don’t receive SS. Why do you want to make things personal?)
More hot air.
And,. by the way, Tom, your candidate lost, and ensured Barr’s nomination.
Dr. Phillies,
Both of my candidates lost.
The only thing that ensured Barr’s nomination was the votes of the delegates.
RC,
Vis a vis “ripeness,” it seems to me that that’s far more important in campaigns for public office than it is in other political areas. That is, candidates have to talk about what the public cares about, while in e.g. lobbying functions that doesn’t matter quite as much.
Case in point: Age of consent laws.
Until very recently, those laws varied widely around the country, from lows of 13 and 14 in Alabama and Hawaii to highs of, IIRC, 21 for females in one state (lower for males). It wasn’t unusual in the first half of the 20th century for people to get married at 14 or 15. In fact, I remember at least one 15-year-old from my high school graduating class getting married in the 1980s (as you might suspect, there was a pregnancy involved).
And then some people who thought that the age should be 18 everywhere got together and lobbied legislators to make it so. My recollection is that that movement started because Georgians of a “marry your daughter off early” religious bent were taking their daughters across the state line into Alabama to marry them at 13.
There was no great public hue and cry for it. Just some interested people working on it.
The world is probably not going to end if libertarians decide to lobby for a return to the status quo of a decade or so ago.
tk: The world is probably not going to end if libertarians decide to lobby for a return to the status quo of a decade or so ago.
me: Agreed. Ls have historically advocated a range of unripe positions, so one more will just keep Ls on the fringes. It certainly won’t drag the mainstream in a lessarchist direction.
I don’t spend any time on the use of politics to abolish SS. I could care less about it. Very low priority.That quasi ponzi scheme will eventually run its own course. Of course, it will run it up against it much sooner under immigration restrictionism than free migration.
I think the issue w/ age of consent laws is how they were used in a “zero-tolerance climate” to manufacture a swollen sex offender registry, with many of the offenders being teenagers. The discretionary aspect of the laws have only been further exacerbated in the digital medium age, with things like sexting and the ubiquity of device cameras. Now quite a bit of it revolves around the depiction of sex being illegal when the sex itself might not be. That’s about as arbitrary as one can get.
Of course, the status quo of a decade ago is now unthinkable. Of course, today’s status quo would have been unthinkable a decade ago, and if one had warned/predicted today’s status quo a decade ago, one would have been dismissed as a fringe crack pot. And that’s how politics works…
Bob,
Why am I not surprised that you entirely missed my point about differing definitions of “ripeness” for different political activities?
The issue of raising the age of consent was never “ripe” in the electoral arena. I don’t recall a single political campaign ever centered around “elect me to raise the age of consent,” nor was the public marching in the streets and calling for it at any time that I noticed it. The people who wanted it done just put together a lobbying effort and made it happen, without a great deal of drama other than a few hand-wringing “for the chilllllllllllldren” committee hearing testimonies that hardly anyone noticed.
Ditto for lowering or eliminating it. Until and unless I see dueling demonstrations of voting-age adults over the issue, I wouldn’t recommend that any Libertarian candidate make the issue a part (or at least a big part) of his or her campaign platform. But putting together model legislation and hitting up state representatives to pass it? I also don’t recall that the Democrats and Republicans who moved that “un-ripe issue” in the other direction and in the same way thereby moved themselves to the fringes.
yep..”human sex trafficking” is another example of something completely manufactured from an interest group(s) lobbying effort.
interesting.
From TK and dL in this thread I get reasoned analysis of the problems regarding overactive prosecution of sex crimes and an understanding of the fact that there is no reason for Libertarians to make an issue of abolishing age of consent laws since there is no demand for it from the voters.
from Vohra, I get inflammatory comments arguing that gay people are hypocrites because they see a difference between two adult males having sex and a 25-year old male having sex with a 15-year old female.
one of these methods might get voters to listen to us when we suggest ruining a 17-year old boy’s life over a sexting pic is wildly overzealous.
Anthony,
If you’re going to attack Vohra’s arguments, you could at least attack his actual arguments instead of some shit you made up in place of his actual arguments.
What you are getting from me is a recommendation vis a vis strategy.
What you are getting from Vohra are some comments on Facebook about an issue with no political or electoral strategic context. Whether those comments are good or bad, right or wrong, isn’t relevant to practical politics. Their only practical political dimension is their use by some wreckers to fool you into calling for the LP to publicly take a ball peen hammer to its own figurative testicles.
As of this comment, 199 to go to hit 1,000.
I think he was calling libertarians(or socially conservative libertarians) hypocrites. However, his analogy was a non sequitur.
Yeah, like I’ve previously said(for the umpteenth time), there is difference between censuring speech and recommending it. However, I also think some of the clusterfuck reaction on this matter was residual targeting for what Vohra previously had said about the military and the police.
I’m not making anything up. No one upset with Vohra is making anything up.
Vohra’s Facebook comment posted in the original article herein said its hypocritical to think two men having sex is natural but a 25-year old man and a 15-year old woman having sex is an “abomination.”
Vohra has significant numbers of people in the party upset with these comments, several gay members have told me if they wanted to deal with such an attitude, they could have joined the GOP.
“Whether those comments are good or bad, right or wrong, isn’t relevant to practical politics. ”
Vohra is in a leadership position. Anything he says and does anywhere is practical politics. If he doesn’t like those terms, resign his leadership position.
“However, I also think some of clusterfuck reaction on this matter was residual targeting for what Vohra previously had said about the military and the police.”
I agree. I also don’t necessarily see a problem with it. If your modus operandi is to go on a sustained campaign of bomb heaving, don’t be surprised when people are going to package it all up, get sick and tired of your shtick, and want you gone, even if they might agree at some level on some of the issues. (i.e., I myself am opposed to the military adventurism in our foreign policy. On the other hand, I’m not going to support the tactic of trying to reduce our foreign policy footprint by calling all servicemembers “accessories to murder.”
Anthony,
Well, you’re making SOMETHING up.
In one of your versions, he accuses gay men of being hypocrites for thinking a certain way about age-different relationships.
In another of your versions, he accuses everyone who thinks a certain way about same-sex relationships of being hypocrites if they think differently about age-different relationships.
The latter is the version that corresponds to the truth. The first one, you just made up.
Signed,
An accessory to murder who owns up to and feels shame for it instead throwing a tantrum because Arvin Vohra noticed it
“In one of your versions, he accuses gay men of being hypocrites for thinking a certain way about age-different relationships.
In another of your versions, he accuses everyone who thinks a certain way about same-sex relationships of being hypocrites if they think differently about age-different relationships.”
Right you are. He’s such a self-aggrandizing dipsh*t, there are multiple angles for multiple audiences to get pissed off by his inflammatory comments lo’ these many months. Its almost like his real intention isn’t to change minds, its just to throw bombs and draw attention to himself.
That was from a comment that was screen saved, not a from a post. Assuming the comment was not photoshopped, my guess is that it was made in response to a social conservative. So, Vohra was probably calling the social conservative a hypocrite. Unless the comment was crystal clear without any need of context(e.g, “go fuck yourself, faggot”), it’s a bit unfair merely poach a singular comment without context as a slur.
Vohra’s previous comments on the police turned to be pretty prescient vis a vis Maryland politics. Contrary to the musings to some on the board, the metro page of the Baltimore Sun will not be covering Vohra’s facebook comments on age of consent. Instead, I imagine it is focused right now on covering what some are calling one of the worst “law enforcement” scandals in American history. Organized thuggery.
https://www.theroot.com/baltimore-cops-kept-toy-guns-to-plant-just-in-case-they-1822546984
Vohra is runnig for Senate last I heard. If he wants controversy, he could go after his Senator for his attacks on the first amendment
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/19/u-s-lawmakers-seek-to-criminally-outlaw-support-for-boycott-campaign-against-israel/
This attack would also be left outreach. One of the very sharp divides between Democrats and Republicans is support for Israel or not support for Israel. not-support being the Democratic side of things.
agree…
“One of the very sharp divides between Democrats and Republicans is support for Israel or not support for Israel. not-support being the Democratic side of things.”
In some alternate universe, perhaps.
In this universe, mainstream Democrats will occasionally make a friendly noise toward the Palestinians while doing their damnedest to be even more “pro-Israel” than Republicans. And as your link demonstrates, Vohra’s opponent resembles that remark.
“So, Vohra was probably calling the social conservative a hypocrite. Unless the comment was crystal clear without any need of context(e.g, “go fuck yourself, faggot”), it’s a bit unfair merely poach a singular comment without context as a slur.”
Serious question: isn’t that how adult politics works? I may be wrong, but I see the Democrats and Republicans doing that all the time, with stuff a lot less inflammatory than what Vohra has been saying.
Frankly, I don’t have a problem with it either. I don’t have a problem with gay people seeing Vohra’s comments and thinking, “I’m not so sure I can trust this guy once he gets elected.” That is, they are not going to take the most charitable interpretation of any candidate’s comments, they are going to take the LEAST charitable interpretation.
Thus, I have no problem with parties interpreting the comments and policy positions of opposition parties/candidates in the worst possible light. They mangle comments into wildly unfavorable statements that bear almost no relation to the original statement. And you know what? It works.
Do we intend on operating like voters are gonna give us a benefit of the doubt they give no one else? wtf?
now live State Of The Union with Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan, Michael Knowles, and Jeremy Boreing
PEW POLL: Huge GOP Majority Favors Israel Over Palestinians, Democrats Support Has Plunged
Widest Gap In 40 Years
Photo by Michael Jacobs/Art in All of Us/Corbis via Getty Images
ByHank Berrien
January 23, 2018
Out of touch again, Tom:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/26260/pew-poll-huge-gop-majority-favors-israel-over-hank-berrien
A new Pew Research Center Poll confirms what has seemed patently obvious for years: Democrats have abandoned the state of Israel while Republicans are staunch supporters of the Jewish state.
The poll found 79% of Republicans sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians; only 27% of Democrats felt similarly. That 52% gap is the largest since 1978. GOP voters have soared in their preference for Israel since 2001, when that figure was 50%, while in that same period their preference for the Palestinians dropped from 15% to a measly 6%. Democrats’ support for Israel has dropped from 38% in 2001 to the present 27%; their preference for the Palestinians has remained relatively constant from 21% to 25%.
dL: That quasi ponzi scheme will eventually run its own course. Of course, it will run it up against it much sooner under immigration restrictionism than free migration.
me: Perhaps. Unfortunately, you seem to see the issue as all black or all white. If one person is not allowed to migrate into the US, it seems that = “immigration restrictionism.”
I happen to think it’s possible for the US to be far more welcoming than it is now and at the same time we could collectively limit financial exposure from would-be migrants who pose a financial risk to taxpayers down the line.
tk: But putting together model legislation and hitting up state representatives to pass it?
me: I would not oppose a single-interest group (preferably one without the “libertarian” in its name) pressing for changes to age-of-consent laws. I can say I’d personally not be interested, since I have no position on the subject and I don’t see it as a pressing social issue.
Bringing troops home from S Korea or cutting federal spending strike me as far more important — even urgent — matters to attend to.
The optics of a political party or candidate pushing such an unripe idea are poor, in my judgment.
um, no, that’s not how partisan politics works. Republicans do not police themselves from the vantage point of democratic talking points…and vice versa. I don’t much good to say about either party but they do have hides thicker than .00000000000000001mm. You like to use football analogies. Well, shrinking violets shouldn’t play contact sports.
“Republicans do not police themselves from the vantage point of democratic talking points…and vice versa.”
They police themselves from saying things the democrats would twist into something that could cost them votes…and vice versa. When they don’t, and someone from one of those teams says something twistable in any way, the opposition pounces on it immediately. So much so that voters regularly bemoan the insipid, vague speeches of politicians.
And we aren’t talking about a vaguely problematic “basket of deplorables” or Mitt Romney saying “47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income taxes are “dependent on the government,” or Obama referring to certain people who “cling to their guns and their religion. The stuff Vohra said is over-the-top inflammatory and would be catastrophic for a party with more public coverage than we currently do. And if you think otherwise, I would strongly urge you not to play the contact sport of politics, because you are leading with your chin and are gonna get your ass handed to you before you know what hit you.
RC,
“The optics of a political party or candidate pushing such an unripe idea are poor, in my judgment.”
I agree 100%.
The Libertarian Party is not yet strong enough to make the public care about a particular issue. The public (under the influence of more powerful opinion leaders) decides what issues are “ripe.”
Libertarian candidates best serve themselves by building their campaign platforms around the issues the public says are important in the election, and offering the boldest libertarian proposals that they judge the voters can stomach.
Libertarian candidates best serve the party by framing those proposals in language that get the LP’s platform and statement of principles into the discussion. For example, if taxes are on the table, and the best the LP candidate thinks he can sell to voters is a rate cut, he can still try to get taxation as such, either (on his judgment call as to sale-ability) generally (“taxation is theft,” etc.) or in detail (heavy-handed tax bureaucracies, forcing employers to act as collectors, spending v. revenue/debt, etc.) into the discussion.
And it’s always worth remembering that windows, including the Overton Window, usually are opened from their edges.
In this thread? We’re at 915 before I post this one, so less than that.
—–
“Republicans do not police themselves from the vantage point of democratic talking points…and vice versa.”
They police themselves from saying things the democrats would twist into something that could cost them votes…and vice versa
—–
You should probably get out more. Both parties LOVE saying things that the other party will attack. They work 24/7 to get their opponents to throw a ginormous hissy. That was a trend even before Trump, but he’s definitely put gas in its tank. They know that getting attacked by the other party will strengthen the resolve of their base. A big part of Trump’s 2016 strategy was hanging out the bait and hoping Clinton lunged for it. The base already had its mind made up — the drama was about getting the base off its ass and to the polling place.
Now, does that necessarily work for the Libertarian Party? No.
Our base is half a million or so votes in a presidential election. Anything more is either a lot of work (Clark 1980, Johnson 2012) or sheer dumb luck (Johnson 2016 — when a large percentage of the populace hates both major party candidates, a few more will throw a protest vote at a third party even if — in some cases BECAUSE — the guy doesn’t know what a Leppo is).
So, getting them to attack us is harder, because they know that they’re better off just not paying attention to us at all.
But it’s something we should work on. There’s nothing in the LP arsenal that’s as disgusting as “legitimate rape.”
—–
As of this comment, 199 to go to hit 1,000.
In this thread? We’re at 915 before I post this one, so less than that.
—–
I think my comment was 901, so I must have meant 99 to go.
” Both parties LOVE saying things that the other party will attack.”
Not if there is no way to defend your cockamamie statements. Trump was ready with the counter-punch that kept Hillary off-balance.
Vohra’s stupidity is just sticking your chin out waiting to get knocked the f out.
Irrelevant. Vohra was neither a candidate speaking to the public nor a party official representing the party to the public. He was just some guy posting something on Facebook that you would never have noticed or let yourself get fooled into throwing a tantrum over if some internal wreckers hadn’t played you like a hayseed rube gets played by a 3-card Monte scammer at the county fair.
Wait a minute…you are claiming Republicans police themselves mentally with ” but what will Elizabeth Warren think?” before opening their mouths?…or Bernie Sanders pauses for “but what will Trump, Jr think?” before posting on facebook. I’m actually laughing out out loud as I type this. lulz…
Vohra’s comments regarding the police is called leading with an anticipatory left hook when it comes to Maryland politics. Nailed it…
Wait a minute…you are claiming Republicans police themselves mentally with ” but what will Elizabeth Warren think?” before opening their mouths?
Nope. I’m claiming they police themselves mentally with, primarily:
“What will the voters think?” Most specifically, what will the voters we don’t yet have think.
and secondarily,
“what can Elizabeth Warren twist this into that will cause the voters we don’t yet have to not vote for us?”
Of course, in the specific case of Vohra, its tough to apply such standards, because no politician would be stupid enough to stick his chin so far out as to call ALL servicemembers “accessories to murder,” or argue for the abolishment of age of consent laws, in part by equating adult sex between two males with a sexual encounter between a 25-year old man and 15-year old woman.
tk: And it’s always worth remembering that windows, including the Overton Window, usually are opened from their edges.
me: Freedom’s window is CLOSING. Lessarchists recognize this, and are pushing back to halt the closing and then to re-open it.
“Freedom’s window is CLOSING. Lessarchists recognize this, and are pushing back to halt the closing and then to re-open it.”
You’re the only person I know who describes himself as a lessarchist, and mostly what I see you “pushing back” against is any suggestion that it the closing window should be pushed back against at all. “Wouldn’t be prudent.” “Well, just because they came for the Jews and the gays and the commies, let’s not get all worked up about the possibility of them coming for us. People might think we’re weird.”
TK,
Sorry you feel that way.
I definitely believe the window should be as open as possible. Abolionist anarchists could be characterized as wanting to smash the window to bits.
Generally speaking, argument depends on both participants having first made up their minds what position they are actually arguing…
Gotta have a window. Gotta keep it open. Can’t open it too far, though. Wouldn’t be prudent…at this juncture. There’s a thousand points of scary lights out there
dL: Wouldn’t be prudent…at this juncture.
me: True!
Plus, even if — on some abstract level — ZAPster-style nonarchism was the “correct” political configuration, the odds of it being made manifest are slim to none. Dreaming that dream is a near-certain setup for failure.
Rolling back the scope and scale of the State on an across-the-board basis may not be a wildly popular viewpoint, it’s not a position that most fair-minded people would rule out as completely out of bounds.
Caryn stated…
“I am using words the way people heard them and that was the implication of what he said.”
Which is telling us that Caryn is for lynching Arvin not for what he said but rather for how she interprets what he said and howshe thinks others will interpret Arvin’s words.
This isn’t about a crime of speech. This is a crime of Arvin being guilty because of the thoughts of others.
How much more twisted from libertarian ideals can you get.
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/2018/011848.html
“Abolionist anarchists could be characterized as wanting to smash the window to bits.”
Well, yes, they could be characterized that way on “would you press the magic button if it existed?” grounds. But the abolitionist anarchists in the LP understand that the button doesn’t exist and are in that context functionally just a consistent version of what you claim to be — lessarchists.
tk: abolitionist anarchists … are…lessarchists.
me: Yes! True!
Abolitionist anarchists generally are in my view guilty of TMI. If they have theoretical views about some a stateless ideal but they know that theirs is an acquired taste, they could dial back their theory and dial up a reasonable program that builds bridges to a wider audience. The abolitionist’s impulse is to stake out extreme positions that are too far out to be sold, leaving them in a no-man’s land between the ZAPster ideal and political viability.
(Note that I’ve changed NAPster to ZAPster and thus far, I’ve received no objections. Am I to take it that ZAPster is not triggering for you?)
RC,
Neither NAPster nor ZAPster are triggering to me. I know quite a few people who use ZAP or 0AP as opposed to NAP and the real ones don’t resemble your imaginary ones any more so than under the other acronym.
And, of course, whines when anyone else returns the favor. Patented right-wing victim butthurt…
Wouldn’t it be MoreAnarchist? LessAnarchy, as a term, has never made much sense to me unless you favor more authority. Maybe it’s a postmodernist term for conservatism.
Not lessanarchist, lessarchist.
hah…2 years here, and I just figured it out. lulz on me.. A LessArchy mass movement apparently will require the masses to be brighter than me
Especially an asymptotic parabolic non-euclidean one.
pf,
I’ve never revealed it, but the asymptote is highly likely to have perturbations!
astigmatic…
i don’t have a problem with people interpreting what others say for themselves. I have a problem with political purges that over turn the convention elections of party officials.
Steve m, you sound like the people who did not the Recall Gray Davis petition, or any other recall petition I have ever worked.
The purpose of a recall petition is the same purpose that a removal process exists for LNC members in the LP’s By-Laws. I am glad that there is a removal process.
Should Arvin Vohara be removed for his comments about Age of Consent? If I were voting on this, I would have to look into it more before I cast my vote, but at this time, I am leaning against his removal over this.
Should read, “did not like…” above.
“The purpose of a recall petition is the same purpose that a removal process exists for LNC members in the LP’s By-Laws. I am glad that there is a removal process.”
Every so often Andy makes sense.
Gray Davis was not removed by the Democratic National Committee for “presenting Democratic ideas.” He was removed by the voters who elected him.
Vohra is being attacked by a faction of the Libertarian National Committee for, in the words of the censure motion, “presenting libertarian ideas.” The idea for that didn’t come from the convention delegates who elected him. It came from a conservatarian publication and a group led by a guy who joined the LP because the GOP didn’t nominate Ted Cruz.
Andy,
As i remember and i was therea voted that the Gray Davis recall was an election that allowed the same set of voters recall him as elected him. Not the same thing as if the California legoslature were tohave voted him out.
Gray Davis was voted out by the California voters not by the California legislature.
Did the LNC finally decide to have a meeting this evening? The email exchange was confusing.
Steve and Tom, I am not aware of the Libertarian. Party having a process to remove am LNC member through a membership vote or a petition (outside of convention elections). Assuming that I am correct that no such process exists, the only way to get rid of an LNC member is for fellow LNC members to vote them off. If there is no process for general party membership to do this, perhaps there should be.
Like I said above, if I were voting on whether or not to remove Vohara over these charges, I would probably vote against it.
Having said this, I am glad that a removal process exists, and there are others cases I can think of where people should be, or should have been, removed.
I just find the whole, “You are trying to overturn the election results,” argument to be weak. It reminds me of those Democrats who wanted to keep Gray Davis in office, and the same argument has been used by everyone who opposed every recall of scumbag politicians on which I worked.
There is no process for American voters to remove a US President in between elections. The only way to get rid of a President is for the US Congress to initiate an impeachment.
yes at https://lp.adobeconnect.com/ going on now
there is supposed to be a phone option too but I can’t find the number and pin; anyone here have it?
Manning being in the race will bring in media. Those 15 minutes might include the lp candidate. Arvin could affect the entire lp ticket and the state party.
Todd akin destroyed his brand with one statement on rape.
Just a thought.
Thomas Knapp said: ” and a group led by a guy who joined the LP because the GOP didn’t nominate Ted Cruz.”
Who is this guy?
Conference Code: 7509417927
Conference Number(s):
USA: +1-8668149555
Andy the removal of Gray Davis at least put the vote to the same body as voted him in… In the first place.
I find it weak that a small group has the power to override the larger group for reasons of interpreted speech.
I would vote to remove those who are overridding the larger group.
The claim these people are making is that if they don’t they will lose financial support. Well as one of the major financial supporters… If the do they lose my support.
Removal fails 8-8
motion fails
Censure passes by 9-7
Marc Montoni 10:07pm Feb 2
Motion to censure passed.
Nays: Starchild, Vohra, Hayes, Demarest, Lark, Nekhaila, Bilyeu
Ayes:McKnight, Starr, Mattson, Redpath, Harlos, Van Horn, Katz, Goldstein, Hagan
Meeting is now adjourned after voting down public comment.
what a waste of libertarian party time and resources….
wording of the motion?
“Steve m
February 2, 2018 at 22:59
Andy the removal of Gray Davis at least put the vote to the same body as voted him in… In the first place.
I find it weak that a small group has the power to override the larger group for reasons of interpreted speech.
I would vote to remove those who are overridding the larger group.
The claim these people are making is that if they don’t they will lose financial support. Well as one of the major financial supporters… If the do they lose my support.”
This is the mechanism that the Libertarian Party’s By-Laws have for removing an LNC member. There is not other mechanism for removing an LNC member of which I am aware.
So your reasoning is faulty.
There may well be legitimate reasons to remove somebody from the LNC. if this is the only mechanism that the party has for removing an LNC member, this is what we have to work with as of the current By-Laws.
If you want to create another mechanism to remove an LNC member, then show up at the National Convention in New Orleans and submit it to a vote of the delegates, and if you can get enough delegates on board with your idea you can get it added to the By-Laws.
The fact that you don’t like that the removal vote can only be done by LNC members is a separate issue from whether or not an LNC member should be removed.
http://www.lncregion1.com/?p=938 has the wording. It was the same as the motion to suspend just changed to censure.
Region 1 including Washington State LNC Representative Caryn Ann Harlos fails to push her political putsch against the Convention elected Vice Chair Arvin Vohra….
She lost on removal and won on censure.
I replied to the region 1 link paulie provided but mu comment is awaiting approval. Bets that it isn’t?
“steve m
February 2, 2018 at 23:48
Region 1 including Washington State LNC Representative Caryn Ann Harlos fails to push her political putsch against the Convention elected Vice Chair Arvin Vohra.”
Like I said above, I would probably have voted against removing him had I been on the LNC, but the fact that he was elected by convention delegates is irrelevant.
Should Congress never impeach a President because they were elected?
If an LNC member does something that merits removing them, then by all means, the other LNC members should vote to remove that person, and I think that a good case can be made that there have been people on past LNC’s that should have been removed, and there are people on there right now where a good case could be made to remove them.
Bill Weld should have been removed as the LP’s VP nominee. I don’t give a shit if the delegates voted for him. There was a solid case to remove him (and Johnson too for that matter) because he openly and grossly campaigned against the LP’s platform on multiple occasions, he heaped praise upon, and practically endorsed one of his election opponents, Hillary Clinton, and, as the LP’s VP candidate, he donated money to the Republican candidate for Governor of New Hampshire, who was running against a Libertarian Party candidate for Governor in a race where the outcome determined ballot access for the LP of NH in 2018, and he also prevented Libertarian Party candidates from speaking, while allowing Republican candidates to speak, at a campaign event in New Hampshire, as the Libertarian Party’s VP nominee.
Harlos will write stuff like
[As the world turns: i.e, soap opera]
https://www.facebook.com/notes/caryn-ann-harlos-libertarian-activist/the-latest-in-as-the-lnc-turns/358562167886733/
but in looking at the thread view on the LNC mailing list, she is responsible for ~ 75% of the posts on the Vohra matter…Drama queen, indeed.
Andy,
What is faulty is the suspension of a party official for cause when the cause is just the interpretation of their statements which don’t actually match their statements.
You might as well demand the removal of an elected party official for their choice of tie color.
chaq tIq vo’ nuv yInDaj yab Dotlh clarity not arvin vohra nathan larson mIS wej tear qeylIS qa’
Andy,
Congress should never impeach a president for what she says only for what she does.
hell, if congress could override the voters we would be a parliamentary system of government rather then what ever the fuck we are.
a get it… the libertarian party should do what ever Andy demands… that would make it a free party…
which would be ok with me if Andy would concede to me being the king.
FYI: The republican congress did try to impeach Clinton for what he said(under oath) about what he did, not what he did.
Paulie,
“She lost on removal and won on censure.”
Oh, she’s going to lose on censure, too.
Andy,
“Who is this guy?”
I can’t ever remember his name. The Mises Caucus guy who’s running for chair.
Yes, the censure vote apparently passed. Readers who don’t like it can advance to the judicial Committee. As the bylaws that describe election by delegates also describe removal by the LNC, one is as valid as the other.
“The Mises Caucus guy who’s running for chair.” Is this the fellow from Washington, or is there a third candidate for Chair now?
“Yes, the censure vote apparently passed.”
Yep.
“Readers who don’t like it can advance to the judicial Committee.”
Unlikely and unnecessary. Better to merely calculate and exact some kind of penalty for bad behavior from McKnight, Starr, Mattson, Redpath, Harlos, Van Horn, Katz, Goldstein, and Hagan. Presumably that price would vary as 1) some of them were ringleaders, some merely henchpersons; and 2) for some of them such bad behavior is a pattern while for others it is an obviously brain-fart-based exception.
“As the bylaws that describe election by delegates also describe removal by the LNC, one is as valid as the other.”
The bylaws do not require cause for election. They do require cause for removal. “Posted something on Facebook that some people didn’t like” doesn’t come anywhere close to a reasonable definition of “cause.”
The coup attempt failed. The attempt to enshrine the coup attempt as something other than what it was has, temporarily, succeeded. Emphasis on “temporarily.”
“FYI: The republican congress did try to impeach Clinton for what he said(under oath) about what he did, not what he did.”
The Republican Congress didn’t “try to” impeach Clinton. The Republican Congress DID impeach Clinton.
I never said that the LP should do whatever I demand. I believe my ideas are good, but I recognize that the LP is an organization, and whenever you deal with an organization, there are going to be people with different ideas, so some compromise is in order.
George Philles: ““The Mises Caucus guy who’s running for chair.” Is this the fellow from Washington, or is there a third candidate for Chair now?”
I believe that “The Mises Caucus guy” is the guy from Washington, Joshua Smith. I don’t know if he’s actually part of them, it seems that they support him though.
Hmm. For some reason, I keep thinking the guy in question is named Heise or Heinz or something like that. The one who joined the LP and started the Mises Caucus last year after being disappointed that the GOP didn’t go with his libertarian hero, Ted Cruz. Is he not running for chair?
congress in the bicameral sense…the conviction obviously failed in the senate
Impeachment is the congressional equivalent of indictment, and is done by the House. The House did impeach Clinton. Then he was acquitted of the charge.
Saying that Congress “tried” to impeach Clinton is like saying that the state of California “tried” to charge OJ Simpson with murder. No, they didn’t try, they actually did so. And then the jury acquitted him.
Joshua Smith.
No, he is supporting Joshua Smith for Chair, Merced for Vice Chair, and allegedly a full slate of other candidates whose names I don’t know, at least in this context. Is is Heiss or Smith who has the Ted Cruz fetish?
I think it’s Heiss (sp?). The remarks about how recently he came to the LP and why are in a podcast that there was an IPR post about, otherwise I probably wouldn’t have noticed it.
Votes for removal:
Yes: McKnight, Redpath, Harlos, Van Horn, Starr, Goldstein, Mattson, Hagan
No: Starchild, Vohra, Hayes, Demarest, Lark, Katz, Nekhaila, Bilyeu
Katz switched to a yes on censure.
According to a post in one of the FB groups Larry Sharpe has now resigned as Region 8 LNC alternate because removal did not pass. As far as I know he has not resigned from the party and still plans to run for Governor, unless I missed additional announcements.
Yes, Mr. Sharpe has resigned as a regional alternate on the LNC.
Hopefully he will continue his gubernatorial campaign, as public speaking and other campaign activities are something to which he seems well-suited.
As far as being on the LNC goes, he was a train wreck on grounds other than his negative influence in at least two party-wrecking attempts, starting with his advocacy of blowing the LNC’s budget on marketing and hoping it paid for itself, rather than paying down the LPHQ mortgage ASAP.
Michael Heise was supporting Rand Paul’s run in the Republican primary. Prior to that he was a Ron Paul supporter. He joined the LP after Rand Paul’s campaign for President fizzled out. He was a small “l” libertarian activist for years before joining the LP.
Of the yes voters, McKnight is not running for re-election.
Rand Paul is emphatic that he is a conservative, not a libertarian. And he is an honest man. He is an opponent of abortion and gay marriage, for starters. On the other hand, he is a real conservative, who is opposed to the surveillance state.
I think that outside of Anthony Dlugos, nobody else here had the courage to answer my hypothetical question about what if an LNC member used racial or ethnic or gay slurs, but they did so in a manner that did not violate any Libertarian principles.
I am not saying that I think that anyone should do this, as I think that it would be bad marketing, so I am just asking the question.
My guess is that if somebody did this, people like Tom Knapp, dL, etc…, would be calling for their removal. They have likely been dodging this question because they do not want to admit it.
Andy,
Your guess is wrong.
I don’t “dodge” your questions. Most of the time, I simply ignore anything you have to say because I limit the amount of crazy I voluntarily expose myself to each day.
My answer to your question is that no, LNC members should not be censured or removed for Facebook posts in which they are neither speaking for the party nor advocating or admitting to an initiation of force. Outside of that or some overt act (stealing money, stabbing someone, etc.), the convention election process is the proper venue for removing LNC members and the LNC exceeds its brief when it attempts to do so. Opinions which bother people — even if in my opinion they SHOULD bother people — are not “cause” under any reasonable interpretation of the term.
dL wrote (2/3/2018 at 12:55 am):
Setting aside the Vohra matter (which I still won’t comment on while on the JC just in case another suspension vote passes later), I generally agree with Caryn Ann Harlos on LP matters. I do strongly disagree with her persistent logrolling welfare for candidates in her region.
That said, her frequency of posting to the LNC list is insane. It’s like she has no internal monologue.
I strongly disagree with her model of a regional representative as someone who should take polls on everything to decide how to vote. LNC members were elected to vote their conscious and make decisions.
Even if I bought into the regional representative as an empty vessel for direct democracy model, it makes no sense to me whatsoever why she keeps relaying every conversation or directive from any chair in her region to the LNC. This probably accounts for half of her emails to the list.
I suppose it’s technically allowed for an LNC member to determine her votes by asking chairs or polling members or watching the weather channel, but that doesn’t mean the LNC should be subjected to weather reports every 2 hours. She should aggregate all of that information and vote, not bore everyone at great length with how the sausage is made.
All that said, I suppose wasting hours / days of my life reading pointless things is still better than the other LNC members who are laconic while always voting wrong.
Also,Chuck, the censure motion is an LNC decision, and can be appealed to the Judicial Committee if someone can fabricate, err, craft, something resembling a set of grounds. I have no plans for doing this. Perhaps Comrade Knapp will have a sudden inspiration.
Caryn might be much better suited, if she were on the LNC next term, to serve as Secretary.
This is now the 4th article in IPR’s 9.5 year history to get 1,000 or more comments.
The voice of the people, huh? More like the noisy neighbor who tells everyone what you are doing and when confronted about it, feigns the offense “I’m only expressing the concerns of the community.”
Secretary, hmmm….
Dr. Phillies,
As the victim of the censure motion, presumably Mr. Vohra can appeal it if he chooses to, as what it actually is (a failed suspension motion that collapsed mid-field and got re-named “censure” so that it could be dragged, in full cardiac arrest, into the end zone and called a “success”).
My only interest in the matter is seeking to impose a credibility/electability price on LNC members, other party officials, and other would-be party officials who were silly, incompetent or dishonest enough to back suspension or censure.
“Caryn might be much better suited, if she were on the LNC next term, to serve as Secretary.”
Actually, that’s a pretty good idea, I think.
“My only interest in the matter is seeking to impose a credibility/electability price on LNC members, other party officials, and other would-be party officials…”
Same goal here, different targets.
“What? You’ve pulled out your sword to fight with these worthless servants? Turn around, Benvolio, and look at the man who’s going to kill you.”
“Same goal here, different targets.”
True. But the same silliness and lack of judgment that got you onto the side you’re on will frustrate your efforts. You’re capable of breaking some of the china, but living in a fantasy world as you do, you’re just not capable of the coordination required to tear the building down, let alone rebuild it to your liking.
Actually, Vohra himself cannot appeal. He could appeal a suspension. The appeal, which does not require Vohra’s permission, is in the bylaws as “Upon appeal by ten percent of the delegates credentialed at the most recent Regular Convention or one percent of the Party sustaining members the Judicial Committee shall consider the question of whether or not a decision of the National Committee contravenes specified sections of the Bylaws. ”
You may recall this one with respect to Lee Wrights. If the part of the radical caucus or whoever that supports Vohra cannot generate that amount of support, there is a message.
But we may thank Andy for providing the link to the Mises caucus By the way, they got the gentleman’s last name wrong. In Ludwig von Mises, the von is part of his last name.
Readers who consult the site will find they currently have candidates for chair and vice chair, who I will be voting against.
“George Phillies
February 4, 2018 at 00:18
What are the views, DL, of the Mises caucus?”
Here is the website for the LP Mises Caucus.
http://lpmisescaucus.com/
I spoke to Michael Heise yesterday. He said that members of the LP Mises Caucus generally agree, but that they do have some differences among their membership ranks as well.
This “Mises” Caucus is a menace and must stopped. We need to make sure they do not take over the LP.
Andy Craig describes their standpoint best at https://www.thejacknews.com/featured/libertarians-alt-right-ludwig-von-mises-would-not-like-institute/
I think they are more suited to being Trumpublicans or Constitution Party supporters and should be encouraged in those directions.
I saw something on FB that in addition to Larry Sharpe, Trent Somes also resigned from LNC. However I do not see anything like that on the LNC list itself. Anyone know for sure?
“Actually, Vohra himself cannot appeal. He could appeal a suspension.”
In other words, he can appeal. The “censure” was a failed suspension that was nonetheless acted upon.
“If the part of the radical caucus or whoever that supports Vohra cannot generate that amount of support, there is a message.”
There is certainly a message, and it has nothing to do with “amount of support.” The “censure” is a croaking whine of “we failed in our attempt to damage the party and hold it up to maximum public ridicule, but we hope you’ll pretend we succeeded.” Why would the party’s supporters give that bullshit the time of day?
Dear Tom,
Words have meanings. A censure is not a suspension. Suspension is a term of art.
George
George,
Yes, suspension is a term of art. So is censure. In this case, it means “we tried and failed to suspend you but we have to pretend we did SOMETHING, so …”
Whether or not he’ll try to appeal it, I don’t know. I rather doubt it. But if he does, I’ll be money that the Judicial Committee will determine that it comes under their appellate authority vis a vis LNC actions versus individual LNC members.
As far as anyone else appealing it, I don’t see why the opponents of the witch hunt would. The witch hunt failed to generate more than an official whine.
The only benefit I could see as Caryn being LNC secretary is that she would no longer be representing Washington State.
the censure motion reminds me of an old Monty Python skit…
“That’s not a censure motion that’s a suspend motion with the word suspend crossed out and censor written in in crayon.”
then crossed out a second time to correct the spelling to censure.
nah, this one
Draft minutes of feb 2 meeting are out. Guess what the motions didn’t even mention the latest issue as cause.
Whereas, Vice Chair Arvin Vohra’s public discourse has repeatedly included inflammatory and insulting
remarks which bring the Party, its candidates, and its principles into disrepute;
Whereas Mr. Vohra’s remarks have destructively stereotyped party members and large segments of
the population, a behavior completely at odds with our Party’s philosophy of recognizing and treating
people as individuals; and
Whereas, Mr. Vohra’s comments have caused wide-spread offense, and the result is that the LNC, its
committees, and Party affiliates are distracted from productive activities;
Therefore, be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee censures Arvin Vohra.
Inflamatory remarks… Arvin that you should wear as a badge of honor.
Let it be known that the LNC has taken a position against talking about difficult issues because of their fear of the political repercussions.
We can put the claim of party of principle in the trash bin.
Inflamatory remarks…
Isn’t the expression “Taxation is Theft” an inflamitory remark? Yes… Ok who else in the party should we censure?
The part of this censure motion I consider most objectionable is “Mr. Vohra’s remarks have destructively stereotyped party members”. Unless there are remarks of his that I haven’t heard about (i.e. which were not raised as a justification for the censure) which fit that characterization, I think it is a flat-out false statement. I said as much during the LNC teleconference meeting, and no one in favor of censure bothered to dispute it.
Other people choosing to (falsely) stereotype LP members based on Arvin Vohra’s remarks – if nothing else is learned from this episode, it should be that LP members aren’t all on the same page about everything – is not the same thing as Vohra stereotyping party members himself, “destructively” or otherwise. The language of the motion completely glosses over that distinction, and in doing so, I think it affirms a falsehood.
My biggest issue with the censure, however, remains the double standard of the LNC not censuring people like Bill Weld and Wayne Allyn Root for actual un-libertarian remarks. If censure wasn’t called for in those cases, it most certainly wasn’t called for in the case of our vice-chair making remarks which were libertarian but simply expressing them in a sometimes tactless and inartful manner.
Thank you Starchild… This party does have some great beer still in it.
Trying to judge the Get Vohra Campaign on the basis of whether or not his remarks were “inflammatory” misses the point. It was never about Vohra, or about Vohra’s remarks. It was about doing as much damage to the party as possible by panicking the gullible.
“Let it be known that the LNC has taken a position against talking about difficult issues because of their fear of the political repercussions.”
Leaving aside your whitewashing of Vohra’s inflammatory comments the past year or so by calling it “talking about difficult issues,” I would suggest that if you can’t understand that what a party or its candidates “talk about” has to be constrained by potential political repercussions, you are in the way wrong field.
This observation has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of whatever position you are taking. If you find yourself unable to circumscribe what you want to say, then pick an avenue for political activism that does not depend on popular consent (i.e., the ramifications of your statements on electoral success). This is not an attempt at a purge. I’m simply telling you that you’ll be happier in an avenue of political activism where vote maximization is irrelevant.
“My biggest issue with the censure, however, remains the double standard of the LNC not censuring people like Bill Weld and Wayne Allyn Root for actual un-libertarian remarks. If censure wasn’t called for in those cases, it most certainly wasn’t called for in the case of our vice-chair making remarks which were libertarian but simply expressing them in a sometimes tactless and inartful manner.”
Starchild, electoral politics is a people business, not a philosophy business. If you truly cannot understand why the double standard you point out exists…and it does exist…you are in the way wrong arena as well. No offense intended. By and large, people just don’t want to be around anti-social bomb throwers like Vohra. They’ll be okay with, or otherwise acquiesce to less than doctrinaire political positions from someone who seems to carry themselves with some level of professionalism. And yes, even a huckster like Root will be given more leeway that a “principled” (from your perspective) a-hole like Vohra.
This is the reality of electoral politics. Frankly, its the reality of the overwhelming majority of human institutions. There are very few organizations that can operate successfully where being an a-hole is condoned and deviation from dogma is censured. Generally, they are called cults.
“field”? lol…
The patented Dlugos lecture(talking out your ass to people about things you have no demonstrated experience with)
I have plenty of experience with the radical/anarchist wing of the party.
Almost invariably, three things stand out about them. Two of them are that they are better read in terms of libertarian philosophy than I am, and they are smarter than me.
That would be a problem if those two things weren’t accompanied by a third attributes: they are somewhere on the spectrum of sociability that ranges from a mere predilection to downplay the forming of human relationships that is the sinew of electoral politics (excused as being “principled.”), to a
general disagreeableness. to outright misanthropes.
There are some areas of life where none of that would matter. But in electoral politics, its fatal. In that field, no amount of knowledge of libertarianism or brute intelligence will overcome a disposition that causes you to prefer Arvin Vohra over William Weld. This is why it is the fallback position of the radical/anarchist set to refer to the history of the party or the intentions of the founders. Its a tacit admission by the radical that 1) they’re outnumbered and 2) they aren’t changing. Indeed, they’re gonna double down on being disagreeable.
As I said, all you have to do with such an opponent is to keep them talking. They’ll punch themselves out defending a tactically insignificant hill (in this case, Mount Vohra), confident in the notion that party history, the intent of the founders, or the Dallas Accord will save them.
It won’t.
Anthony,
I think what dL was pointing out that you know nothing about electoral politics.
On that, I have to disagree with him.
If you just knew nothing about electoral politics, you might be teachable.
But since you’ve convinced yourself that your fantasies about electoral politics, which run contra to reality and real-world experience in nearly every respect, constitute knowledge and make you an expert, you probably aren’t.
I forgot one other attribute: hubris.
I must live in a fantasyland where Governors Johnson and Weld, who everyone would agree know less about “principled” libertarianism than Perry, got their ass kicked last May in Orlando, or won and had their nomination rescinded via internal party machinations I know nothing about.
Good luck thinking defending a guy like Vohra is a route to electoral success, either inside the party or in the electorate at large. Starchild is admittedly flummoxed why no attempt to censure Weld was made when such an attempt was made vis a vi Vohra. Explaining why it happened is besides the point if you are not going to take a lesson from it. Yea, a lot more people in the party were far more offended by Vohra’s statements than Governor Weld’s or Johnson. What of it? You gonna accept that reality or explain it away? And I don’t understand electoral politics? lol.
And I got news for you: this reality will only get worse for you the larger the party gets. Anyone who thinks like a radical is:
1) already in the party.
2) never going to join a political party
3) far too expensive to locate, convert, and enroll in the party.,
There are ten thousand who think like me out there for every one that thinks like a radical. The idea that what a leader in a political party posts on Facebook is off-limits for criticism exists nowhere outside the radical “party of principle” fringe of the LP. In the normal political world, anything you say or do is incorporated into what people think of you. Hell, in the normal world, PERIOD, what you say anywhere for any reason is incorporated into what people think of you.
The only real question is what people think a statement like “all servicemembers are accessories to murder” says about you if you utter it or defend the utterer. If you think that it would have salutary effects, again I say, good luck and please keep talking.
???
If you are trying to say “radicals” are anti-social, well just come out and say it(instead of resorting to the style of the botched opening remark at the Reed College symposium on diversity) . But I think you are making assumptions about people you don’t know…assumptions that in many cases are not valid.
Anthony Dlugos said: ” no amount of knowledge of libertarianism or brute intelligence will overcome a disposition that causes you to prefer Arvin Vohra over William Weld. ”
I’d prefer fresh doggie doo doo in a yard with flies on it over William Weld.
“But I think you are making assumptions about people you don’t know…”
Yes I am. And? People make assumptions about people they don’t know all the time. Who knows Donald Trump beyond the things he says in public and puts on social media. People made assumptions about him based on his comments. Companies go on Facebook to review what candidates for a job post there. They then make assumptions about that person, and then decide whether to hire them or not.
“Good luck thinking defending a guy like Vohra is a route to electoral success”
It was never about “defending Vohra.”
Nor was it about “radical” versus “moderate.”
It was about defending the party from the attack on it that Vohra’s Facebook posts were used by a particular kind of radical (the rightist extremist entryist kind) to fool you into participating in.
Fortunately, the adults were able to minimize the damage done by your idiot tantrum.
Let the record show Andy agrees with Starchild that Weld should have been censured and Vohra not censured. I’m cool with that distinction myself.
Anthony Dlugos said: “Starchild is admittedly flummoxed why no attempt to censure Weld was made when such an attempt was made vis a vi Vohra.”
It is called a double standard.
It was never about “defending Vohra.”
It was always about defending or removing/censuring Vohra. It never was and never will be about anything else, no matter what poison pull is put in the censure.
“It is called a double standard.”
Which I admitted.
No, Weld shouldn’t have been censured. He should have been removed.
Weld was speaking as a candidate. Vohra was not.
Weld was running 180 degrees against the platform of the party that nominated him in a public video interview.
Vohra was making comments that were at the very outside most extreme orthogonal to the platform of the party on libertarian Facebook groups.
It’s the difference between “Weld was found leaning over the body with his hands on the knife handle and blood all over his shirt” and “someone said that Vohra urinated behind the gas station.”
Just to point out, both Knapp and Starchild are former “service members.” While I imagine Arvin’s remarks wouldn’t go down too well with current service members, I imagine they might find a bit more receptive audience with former service members. My observation: the ones who tend to really get butthurt over something like that are ones who have never been in the armed services.
Weld should be kicked out of the Libertarian Party. The man is so far from being a libertarian, that there is really no place for him in the LP.
“While I imagine Arvin’s remarks wouldn’t go down too well with current service members, I imagine they might find a bit more receptive audience with former service members. My observation: the ones who tend to really get butthurt over something like that are ones who have never been in the armed services.”
Ahh! A testable hypothesis! Now we are getting somewhere! Given that we are in the electoral arena, anyone want to propose a metric for how we can prove or disprove it?
Actually, I think you may have made a tacit admission of how (popular support), and already explained away the results of said popular appraisal of the comment, by trying to exclude people who don’t think like you in the data set (the ” ones who have never been in the armed services…” whose support counts just the same as anyone else, I think).
“Anthony Dlugos
February 5, 2018 at 10:29
‘It is called a double standard.’
Which I admitted.”
Why the double standard? Is it because Bill Weld has a “shiny badge” from the state?
So we should not have any ethical standards? The standards should be that different standards apply to different people?
Bill Weld is not a minarchist. He’s not a moderate libertarian. He does not even qualify as a libertarian leaner, in my opinion. I really see no argument in favor of him even being involved in the party at all.
Starchild February 5, 2018 at 01:41 wrote:
“The part of this censure motion I consider most objectionable is “Mr. Vohra’s remarks have destructively stereotyped party members”. Unless there are remarks of his that I haven’t heard about (i.e. which were not raised as a justification for the censure) which fit that characterization, I think it is a flat-out false statement. I said as much during the LNC teleconference meeting, and no one in favor of censure bothered to dispute it. ”
Carol responds: I think it was Vohra’s one statement that soldiers are all murderers, plus other criticisms of veterans – plus a desire to reach out to high school students with that message. Maybe LNC members didn’t want to admit to Starchild that they were still on the “worship the military” bandwagon.
Here’s a REALLY good video from a soldier who talks about how Americans killed freely in Iraq/Afghanistan. “Ex-Marine Shatters Myth of Joining the Military” https://youtu.be/sEU7PLX9oYs
I put it in Larry Sharpe’s FB page just as a reminder we aren’t all blind to their militaristic bull shit. I see on his FB page he served in Okinawa. In what capacity? Communications? Anyway, the only military crimes he probably was aware of were the rapes and occasional murders of local women, some of which made the US media.
Let’s face it, some of those “libertarian” veterans from recent wars ARE murderers who killed in part out of bigotry and US supremacy. They don’t want anyone to talk about it, except when they get together with their “blood brothers” and boast about it. They also feel they are superior to mere civilians like most of us.
“Thomas L. Knapp
February 5, 2018 at 10:32
No, Weld shouldn’t have been censured. He should have been removed.”
Yes! Physically remove Bill Weld from the Libertarian Party.
Physically remove the Hoppeans, from the party, from the country and from the planet.
“Why the double standard? Is it because Bill Weld has a “shiny badge” from the state?”
The marketplace of electoral politics creates it. We have no more control over that than Pepsi does over the fact that people prefer sweet soft drinks. Having that shiny badge is part of it, and will always be part of it. If this double standard upsets you, you are in the wrong field, because its not going to change, not until some sort of singularity occurs, the result of which is that people prefer a “principled” a-hole like Vohra over a moderate but generally agreeable fellow like Governor Weld.
“paulie Post author
February 5, 2018 at 10:47
Physically remove the Hoppeans, from the party, from the country and from the planet.”
Well then you must want to get rid of me, and a bunch of other hardcore libertarians, which would actually make the Libertarian Party a lot less libertarian.
I am not attached to any one person in a “cult of personality,” but yes, I would put Hans-Hermann Hoppe on a list of libertarians who I believe have done a lot of good work.
He’s not even remotely close to being a libertarian.
If the members of the Libertarian Party lived in a covenant community, and Bill Weld came along and moved into the covenant community, which would require him to sign a contract (which is symbolized by the party’s statement of principles), and then once in the covenant community, Bill Weld violated the terms of the contract (like he did after he got the LP’s VP nomination, and he started running against the party’s platform on multiple fronts, and he went so far as practically advocating that people vote for Hillary Clinton), would it not be proper to say that Bill Weld should be physically removed from the Libertarian Covenant Community?
Weld violated the contract. There have to be some consequences to violating the contract, otherwise, the contract is meaningless.
But I may be too extreme in calling for them to be physically removed from the planet, even though it would be really nice, since space settlement is not very practical yet. Perhaps a remote corner of Antarctica, or maybe they could take over Guantanamo Bay?
Perhaps the Hoppeans should petition their hero Putin to let them have Novaya Zemlya?
Tom Woods like the work of Hoppe. Andrew Napolitano made some positive comments about Hoppe at the recent Mises Institute event in New York City in 2017. Larry Sharpe quoted Hans-Hermann Hoppe on his Facebook page (I don’t know how into Hoppe Sharpe is, but he must of liked the quote, or else he would not have posted it to his Facebook page).
So I suppose that this means that Tom Woods, Andrew Napolitano, and Larry Sharpe should not be in the Libertarian Party, because if you say anything positive about Hoppe there should be no place for you in the Libertarian Party, even though Hoppe was good friends with and an understudy of Murray Rothbard, who was an early member of the Libertarian Party, and was a very influential member of the Libertarian Party, and who is still one of the most influential libertarian writers. Murray’s nickname was even “Mr. Libertarian”. So if Murray Rothbard was alive today, some people would apparently say that there’s no place for him in the Libertarian Party?
Shame on all of them.
Here, I think this should clear it up for you and anyone else who is still confused:
https://www.thejacknews.com/featured/libertarians-alt-right-ludwig-von-mises-would-not-like-institute/
Read that article, then read it again, several times if need be.
The paleo/alt right cancer needs to be removed from the LP and the libertarian movement as quickly and thoroughly as possible. Otherwise, actual libertarians should stop calling ourselves that, let the Hoppeans have the party and “libertarian” name, and go do something else completely.
Any form of cooperation or coexistence with them in the same party or movement should now be completely over. It should have been over a long time ago.
What Paulie said, except for the part about abandoning the name “libertarian” to the Hoppebots. I’ll be damned if I’ll let that Marxist twat and his dupes have the name.
Even Adam Kokesh said that he agrees with Hoppe on decentralization of political power and on the concept of covenant communities. Adam still pushes for “open borders” into a state, and I think that his thinking on this is muddled (see his debate against Stefan Molyneux on borders and immigration that is posted here), which puts him at odds with Hoppe on a policy issue under the current construct under which we presently live, but even so, Adam found some areas of agreement with Hoppe, so I suppose that this means that there should be no place for Adam Kokesh in the Libertarian Party either (under Adam’s presidential platform, he is calling to shut down the federal government, which would send all issues, including borders/immigration policy, back to the states, which would become 50 different countries if his presidential platform were to be enacted), because if you say anything good about Hoppe you are a bad guy who should be drummed out of the Libertarian Party.
“if you say anything good about Hoppe you are a bad guy who should be drummed out of the Libertarian Party.”
Not necessarily. The useful idiots are always a bigger problem than the actual bad guys.
I would say that a libertarian who has been fooled, but who at some point in the near future pulls his head out of his ass and stops trying to justify the monumentally stupid idea of Hoppe’s authoritarian twaddle as “libertarianism” might eventually live it down. As long as they’re continuing to help the mis-named “Mises Caucus” attack the party and everything it stands for, though, it’s war.
I just thought of two more people who have made positive comments about Hoppe.
Investment adviser and entrepreneur Doug Casey. I think that he was briefly involved with the LP years ago, but even though he’s not involved with the LP, he is a prominent and respected small “l” libertarian. I wish that Doug Casey was involved in the LP because the party could use another wealthy donor (although Casey is disgusted with the current direction of the LP, and he was not a fan of Gary Johnson at all), and I think that Casey would be an excellent candidate for office. Casey has spoken at the Freedom and Property Society events, which was an organization started by Hoppe, and I think that Casey is a member of the organization.
Walter Block. He said that he considers Hoppe to be a friend. They have debated on immigration, but then Block said that he supports open immigration if everything was privatized (as in all land and infrastructure was turned over to private hands). This is essentially what Hoppe’s position is, so I wonder if Block just can’t bring himself to admit that Hoppe is right. Whatever the case may be, Block said that he regards Hoppe as a friend (note that Block has also spoken at Freedom and Property Society events), so by being friends with Hoppe, I suppose that Walter Block should also be banned from the LP.
And before anyone brings this up, yes, I know that Walter Block endorsed Donald Trump for President, but he did it as a lesser of two evils endorsement, as he perceived Trump to be less bad than Clinton. Block doesn’t think much of Gary Johnson, and he did not consider Johnson to be a viable choice. I do not agree with Block for endorsing Trump, but I also do not agree with those who voted for Gary Johnson, but I don’t automatically throw everyone under the bus who says or does something with which I disagree. I evaluate each situation, and I think that Walter Block has done a lot of good work, so I am not going to disregard everything he’s done because he endorsed Trump, just as I am not disregarding everyone who voted for Gary Johnson.
mur·der
?m?rd?r/
noun
noun: murder; plural noun: murders
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
“the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer”
synonyms: killing, homicide, assassination, liquidation, extermination, execution, slaughter, butchery, massacre; More
manslaughter;
literaryslaying
“a brutal murder”
informal
a very difficult or unpleasant task or experience.
“my first job at the steel mill was murder”
synonyms: hell, hell on earth, a nightmare, an ordeal, a trial, misery, torture, agony
“driving there was murder”
verb
verb: murder; 3rd person present: murders; past tense: murdered; past participle: murdered; gerund or present participle: murdering
1.
kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
“somebody tried to murder Joe”
……………
Unlawfully I can agree with (after the fact). The premeditation I have to question; Whose?
The Military is taught to follow orders. That is the premeditation by soldiers. Often when placed in situations of high stress the premeditation is self-preservation. Period. The label assigned to the dead doesn’t matter when confronted with do or die.
I’m currently reading “Word of Honor”. It’s fiction with a lot of truth. Officers premeditate. Enlisted are not allowed to. Officers officers premeditate. Enlisted aren’t allowed to. Officers are held to a higher standard, allegedly, especially when a scapegoat is necessary. The Military has a different standard than civilian. It has to.
Is it a good idea to go to High Schools and make them aware? I don’t think so. That’s premeditating at it’s most basic. Should it be made “public” knowledge? By all means. It will trickle down to High Schools.
‘If’ schools in general, and High Schools in particular would focus their education founded in “self-evident Truth” (if and when the Constitution is discussed) they would learn to think for themselves with no need for premeditation by another to coerce them into war except as a last resort to preservation. But, there is a reason only the young are called into service…. that is premeditated. They generally speaking won’t question.
I personally don’t care what others think/believe. But, I have age and great hindsight on my side. Yes I served. USN 65-68, aged 17 thru day before I was 21. USS Yorktown CVS 10, MM3 (e4). I never questioned. I didn’t even know Vietnam existed until my Mother said, I hope you don’t have to go to Vietnam. We went to the South China Sea several times. We went to North Korea when the Pueblo was captured.
I never heard one person (there were 3400 aboard) question why.
I’ve had infrequent discussions with people who were in the Army and Air Force in Vietnam. Some were ambivalent, some defensive. Neither felt, or thought what they did was premeditated, they followed orders or self-preserved. I’m not defending unlawful so don’t go there. I’m merely presenting an outsiders view of the discord seen here and “a” result of said discord. What is that result you may ask.
Outside the premeditated (with the help of hindsight) very narrow box of presumption by a few know it alls.
One huge reason not to vote for him.
Of course, he had it exactly backwards, but that’s besides the point. Actually asskissing for Trump and Bannon (as well as Putin) is far from uncommon in the Rockwellian orbit.
As a donor, he is notorious for making pledges and not following through on them.
Yep!
DJ, keep in mind, Vohra’s original (long) open letter is here:
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/05/arvin-vohra-an-open-letter-to-current-and-former-members-of-the-u-s-military-please-forward-to-any-who-may-be-interested/
noting the terms, “murder,” premeditated murder” are not found. The open letter is not all that different from what one might have gotten in the past from a long-winded Ron Paul stump speech.
To be fair, Kokesh’s position on immigration is the Milton Friedman position…
Happily, Hoppe has NOT destroyed the concept of radical decentralization and self-determining communities.
He just should NOT be referenced by them EXCEPT to criticize him for the bigoted way he promotes the idea.
I really haven’t read him much, but was pretty disgusted by the worst of him which was pointed out by some critics of libertarianism trying to make us all look bad. Guess I’ll have to get out the barf bucked at some point and read more.
This is now the second most commented on article in IPR history.
dL February 5, 2018 at 12:29 wrote:
Unlawfully I can agree with (after the fact). The premeditation I have to question; Whose?
DJ, keep in mind, Vohra’s original (long) open letter is here:
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/05/arvin-vohra-an-open-letter-to-current-and-former-members-of-the-u-s-military-please-forward-to-any-who-may-be-interested/
noting the terms, “murder,” premeditated murder” are not found. The open letter is not all that different from what one might have gotten in the past from a long-winded Ron Paul stump speech.
Carol responds: Obviously those looking for a complaint were not going to react to his saner later compilation of thoughts, but to the more thoughtless memes and angry retorts.
I just hope today’s soldiers are given at least an hours discussion of the Nuremberg Principles and other international laws, not to mention military law. Evidently they weren’t given much info in Vietnam, per the above. A few soldiers have been indicted in the years since which is a minor wake up call to others, at least.
The biggest issue for libertarians is NOT letting those who enjoyed killing, hate civilians, and worship the military to become influential in the movement. I think we have a right to ask the obviously aggressive ones their experience and if they killed for fun and profit. (As diplomatically – or sneakily? – as possible of course. ha ha)
And their enablers are everywhere, be it other military guys – and gals – who themselves never did such things and may not have been in action so can barely imagine it. Civilian males who don’t want anyone to think they are a wimp or against national defense. Civilian women who feel sympathetic for the plight of soldiers and vets and don’t like to think about fact some of them enjoy killing. Or women who are afraid to criticize men about anything, and certainly not about possibly being rapists and murders!
“but was pretty disgusted by the worst of him which was pointed out by some critics of libertarianism trying to make us all look bad.”
Yup, even people like Will Wilkinson who should know better (he’s being duplicitous) over-samples from rothbardian/hoppean anarcho-capitalism to criticize us, it’s such an easy target and allows them to ignore the stronger (and even more popular) arguments.
TK: “What Paulie said, except for the part about abandoning the name “libertarian” to the Hoppebots. I’ll be damned if I’ll let that Marxist twat and his dupes have the name.”
I refuse too. I just use the term hoppean cultist and make sure to point out how they are extremely different from the rest of libertarians (even though there are a lot of differences, nothing is as big as the one between the cultists and everyone else).
Paulie:” Actually asskissing for Trump and Bannon (as well as Putin) is far from uncommon in the Rockwellian orbit.”
Because they’re neo-confederates and always have been, they’ve been hiding under the libertarian label to gain legitimacy.
Yep, I think you are correct.
In prior censure votes by the LNC has there been a charging document – something on the order of on Date xx-xx-xxxx, LNC member (name) said: ” (quote) ” or did (description of what was done).
I found that missing from the debate in the electronic meeting.
The effect of that seems to me to now be that anyone responding to ANY complaint about something Arvin did or said prior to that meeting can now say: “The LNC censored him for that.”
Utah made a request of our region rep to provide a charging document prior to asking us to vote on whether to suspend or remove. Unfortunately that was described as “being on the fence” and then a “NO” vote. To be clear, while we discussed various options in a telephone call, our bottom line was to ask for the specific charges to be fully explicated before asking for our recommendation to our regional rep.
It seems to me that the absence of such a charging document could be grounds for appeal to the judicial committee.
Also, it would appear from the following that it is legal for girls 12 years old and older to be married in the USA.
https://www.vividmaps.com/2018/02/legal-marriage-age-girls-country.html
As the father of three daughters, I find that age to be rather absurdly low.
Joseph G. Buchman,
Chair UTLP
That map is absurd. One town in one county in one state could make the whole map say something.
There was a time when it wasn’t all that unusual- and from what little I’ve read about Mormons it was fairly common.
I personally wouldn’t marry somebody that young…. not enough in common to talk about.
I don’t have daughters, but, I have seen the way some kids dress. Just like their mothers. Slutty.
Jerry Lee Lewis married a 13 y/o. She supplied the story for the movie “Great Balls of Fire”….she was portrayed as really loving him. He’s a bit eccentric, but, to each their own.
CM: The biggest issue for libertarians is NOT letting those who enjoyed killing, hate civilians, and worship the military to become influential in the movement. I think we have a right to ask the obviously aggressive ones their experience and if they killed for fun and profit. (As diplomatically – or sneakily? – as possible of course. ha ha)
Me: Thought policing. Is that a Party plank? Andy wants to use it on the immigration issue as well. You have a right to ask, that’s true, but they have a right to refuse to be policed into a corner. Believe it or not, some people (me for example) have completely changed my thought process on a number of issues. I am an anomaly no doubt and it is anecdotal. But painting with a broad brush is thought policing. That is so main stream (D and R tool to sell fear). What’s to fear? Truth? Lies? Pot? Terror? Poverty? Infiltration? Undue influence?
That’s what happens when group think is in control. Yes, it is a Party which requires deferring- just like the military. In the Military it is prerequisite- it is a must for self-preservation and objective achievement.
It is demanded and punished when not adhered to up to and including banning (discharge). Would they be banned from voting Libertarian?
You guys are so non-freedom it’s befuddling. You all want freedom as long as the exercisers meet your criteria…..and, you paint with a broad brush while arguing esoterically. Makes absolutely no sense.
One might wonder whether that 12 year old datum for the USA is correct. It certainly is not correct in Massachusetts, not that I find the question interesting.
Just to point out, ThoughtCrime is a criminal act of mind not properly engaged in DoubleThink. ThoughtCrime is:
(i) ability to detect logical errors
(ii) ability to grasp analogies
(iii) ability to avoid GroupThink
The ThoughtPolice, a secret police, surveils the population looking for evidence of those not properly self-deluded(those who do not practice protective stupidity).
Libertarianism is often (despairingly) described as herding cats, meaning that individuals who subscribe to it play (i),(ii),(iii) against one another, Now, DJ, you can’t eat your cake and have it, too. You can’t complain about (i),(ii),(iii) undermining cohesiveness, as you have done before, and yet throw up ominous warnings about the “ThoughtPolice,” as you are doing here.
A libertarian ThoughtPolice is not an insistence on principle that can be logically and rationally defended, even if one insists that one’s principle on the mater is the only principle that a libertarian could have.
A libertarian ThoughtPolice consists of those who cannot logically defend their positions(violate 1 && ii), and instead attack another’s principle on the grounds of groupthink, overton window, the people, the children, my constituents, my followers…This is a violation of (iii).
The following is wrong. Most states have it 18. A few have it at 19 or 21. Below that, parental consent is required. 16 is pretty much the floor for that, although Texas apparently still allows shotgun weddings at 14.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-child-marriage-united-states-20170211-story.html
claims…..
“While most states set 18 as the minimum marriage age, exceptions in every state allow children younger than 18 to marry, typically with parental consent or judicial approval. How much younger? Laws in 27 states do not specify an age below which a child cannot marry.
Unchained At Last, a nonprofit I founded to help women resist or escape forced marriage in the United States, spent the past year collecting marriage license data from 2000 to 2010, the most recent year for which most states were able to provide information. We learned that in 38 states, more than 167,000 children – almost all of them girls, some as young 12 – were married during that period, mostly to men 18 or older. Twelve states and the District of Columbia were unable to provide information on how many children had married there in that decade. Based on the correlation we identified between state population and child marriage, we estimated that the total number of children wed in America between 2000 and 2010 was nearly 248,000.”
Joe,
===In prior censure votes by the LNC has there been a charging document – something on the order of on Date xx-xx-xxxx, LNC member (name) said: ” (quote) ” or did (description of what was done).===
First… where? I have not found any such thing in the past records. But I did ask for a formal trial and charges and was told, multiple times, that it was not required because of our Bylaws. I disagreed then and I disagree now. Arvin didn’t insist on one (he should have IMHO), not for a censure btw, but for a suspension. We issued a censure to Assemblyman Moore without a charging document. A censure is not a disciplinary action (see Katz last LNC post explaining the parliamentary ins and out of that and the footnote on the first page of Chapter 20 of RONR.
==I found that missing from the debate in the electronic meeting.==
I was told it was not needed.
==The effect of that seems to me to now be that anyone responding to ANY complaint about something Arvin did or said prior to that meeting can now say: “The LNC censored him for that.”==
I think the meeting made clear that we were not censuring him for any specific “core idea” (though some certainly would) but for overall behaviour. In the meeting, ideology was completely separated out.
==Utah made a request of our region rep to provide a charging document prior to asking us to vote on whether to suspend or remove.==
I find this a bit odd Joe. You did ask if there would be one. I said I would attempt to have them be more specific. Each attempt at that was met with either an obvious ideological bent (or could have been used so) or I was told it was not necessary. During that conversation you did give me a yes “using my judgment” but said you would LIKE to see a charging document. You did say that for a formal vote you would need that, but that Utah’s instructions right then were to use my judgment which would be yes. Part of the confusion (and there is a certain gentleman on FB who is particularly transfixed by me) is that the term “State X said X” is being used by people multiple different ways. For some they take it to mean that there was a formal vote of some body with such and such decision. Some states did do that. Others did not. I made it clear that I asked the “State Chairs” and over and over I said “my Chair said such and such.” When I shorten that to “State X said such and such” I am still referring to the Chairs. It is not my business – I do not interfere with intra-affiliate disputes – how the Chair made that decision. Alone or by a vote. Per our regional agreement, I am accountable to the Chairs. The Chairs are accountable to the state body. So, in keeping with my clearly stated practice – when you and I spoke and you gave me the green light to use my judgment (and did express a desire to see specific charges), that is the Utah State Chair directing me.
== Unfortunately that was described as “being on the fence” and then a “NO” vote.==
Wait a second here Joe. First, your vice chair wrote me and said Utah was a no. But it turned out that such email was either misunderstood or worded confusingly and it was just a personal opinion. I took it to mean that you instructed him to write me. That is why I copied you on my response. Then I asked you if Utah was firm in its decision and you said “what decision?” — that is the point that I wrote in my regular email to the chairs that Utah was down as a no – but right now has not made a decision – and I needed to speak with the chair. Then we spoke. And you gave me a green light. Then after reviewing more information, you changed your mind – which is perfectly fine. So from my POV Utah in my poll went from no-no decision wait to talk to the chair-yes-no. Which is what I reported.
==To be clear, while we discussed various options in a telephone call, our bottom line was to ask for the specific charges to be fully explicated before asking for our recommendation to our regional rep.==
To be clear, at the end of the first discussion you told me to do what I thought best and that you supported my judgment but would like to see something formal before asking “Utah to issue an official statement.” That is different than making a recommendation to me.
I am surprised to be find out from a post on FB that something was said on IPR that wasn’t said directly to me. This year has been full of surprises.
==It seems to me that the absence of such a charging document could be grounds for appeal to the judicial committee.==
For a suspension? Yes I think it would. I think it would have been fatal as well. But the LNC did not agree with me (when I say the LNC, I do not mean every single person, but those that are parliamentarily knowledgeable and no one else objected to the lack of one – just me).
A friend said to me “Caryn Ann, I didn’t know that the LP politics could be so dark…..” I can’t agree more.
But one fantastic thing I got out of all this. I understand the Oregon situation better. Oregon? Yes… while I have a definite position that is different to what the EC decided, I see how easily things are recast in sinister motives etc, that I do not impute bad dealing to anyone. They were just wrong. And in this situation, some of the LNC was wrong, and some of us were right. But no one was acting wrongly. It is scary how easily things can be portrayed differently in a backwards view that was not what happened in the present. It makes me question everything we hear on the national stage…. are these bad things we hear about really real? Or just fitting pieces into a puzzle that they wouldn’t have fit into originally. With the scary thing being that no one is ill-meaning, but our interpretive lenses blur perception.
Joe hit a nerve.
“I am surprised to be find out from a post on FB that something was said on IPR that wasn’t said directly to me. This year has been full of surprises.”
I think I can take credit for this one.
if anyone cares to read it… the face book thread is
https://www.facebook.com/groups/16699853814/permalink/10155959426693815/?comment_id=10155961381103815¬if_id=1517691200180115¬if_t=group_comment&ref=notif
Here is another fun quote from Caryn….
“A censure is not a disciplinary action”
well it sure ain’t an atta boy.
lol
She has a point there.
Caryn Ann,
The first step in getting past your massive fuck-up is acknowledging that it was a massive fuck-up. As long as you continue to defend your part in the “Get Arvin Vohra” attack on the party, you remain in attack mode against the party.
dl: The ThoughtPolice, a secret police, surveils the population looking for evidence of those not properly self-deluded(those who do not practice protective stupidity).
Libertarianism is often (despairingly) described as herding cats, meaning that individuals who subscribe to it play (i),(ii),(iii) against one another, Now, DJ, you can’t eat your cake and have it, too. You can’t complain about (i),(ii),(iii) undermining cohesiveness, as you have done before, and yet throw up ominous warnings about the “ThoughtPolice,” as you are doing here.
Me: What I said isn’t an ominous warning, and certainly no secret that Andy and the lady I responded to were/are using “what may happen” (their thoughts vs what another “may” think or do) as the “principle” to effect their desires. It’s pointing out a blatant disregard, which could and may well scare off outsiders who are curious, and it has already built factions in the Party which is opposite a cohesiveness.
dl: A libertarian ThoughtPolice is not an insistence on principle that can be logically and rationally defended, even if one insists that one’s principle on the mater is the only principle that a libertarian could have.
Me: LOL….. okay, whatever. Do you remember what started this thread?
dl: A libertarian ThoughtPolice consists of those who cannot logically defend their positions(violate 1 && ii), and instead attack another’s principle on the grounds of groupthink, overton window, the people, the children, my constituents, my followers…This is a violation of (iii).
Me: I apologize. Should I have said language police? I had no idea that others principles were the question in the Libertarian Party. I believed (when first coming here) that a Libertarian Party would be focused on Individual rights and freedom. I was wrong. It’s focus seems to be on Individual “principles” that don’t jibe with someone else’s. So, group think is required- similar to the military, which I find ironic when (in this instance in particular) the military was used an an example of less than desirable. I find it ironic since the military is an antithesis to the Individual and the epitome of group think.
Cohesive doesn’t mean group think, necessarily, but is a requirement of a Party which leads to group think ultimately because at some point a “principle” has to be set aside.
I’m not wanting cake, never mind eating it. I’m giving an outsiders perspective.
dl: Just to point out, ThoughtCrime is a criminal act of mind not properly engaged in DoubleThink. ThoughtCrime is:
(i) ability to detect logical errors
(ii) ability to grasp analogies
(iii) ability to avoid GroupThink
Me: LOL. Okay. I apologize for not being properly engaged. Thanks for the heads up.
dl: DJ, keep in mind, Vohra’s original (long) open letter is here:
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/05/arvin-vohra-an-open-letter-to-current-and-former-members-of-the-u-s-military-please-forward-to-any-who-may-be-interested/
noting the terms, “murder,” premeditated murder” are not found. The open letter is not all that different from what one might have gotten in the past from a long-winded Ron Paul stump speech.
Me: I read the letter when it was posted here and thought he was quite eloquent and said so at the time.
In the definition of murder premeditated is a given which is why I posted it and questioned it, because the lady I responded to used the word.
Caryn Ann,
Given your interpretation of Vohra’s words…facebook comments tending to be a hash that can be difficult to follow….your reaction was entirely reasonable. Censuring Vohra was a plausible response. You should, however, realize, that the radical libertarian position … which I think is not sensible … for many years has been to eliminate age of consent laws.
George
“the radical libertarian position … which I think is not sensible … for many years has been to eliminate age of consent laws”
Both “radical” libertarians and “moderate/pragmatic” libertarians understand that sexual activity is the province of those who are competent to consent and that sex with someone who isn’t competent to consent is by definition non-consensual.
Since drawing a number out of a hat does not tell us whether or not any particular individual is competent to consent, age of consent laws do not accomplish the objective of separating crime (non-consensual sex) from non-crime (consensual sex). All they do is give prosecutors a pass so they don’t have to actually prove their cases.
Major public policy issue for candidates? In most elections/jurisdictions, probably not.
But the position is not a “radical” versus “moderate/pragmatic” conflict. “Moderate” is not a synonym for “gutless.”
“Major public policy issue for candidates? In most elections/jurisdictions, probably not.”
Not hard if I am an opponent of a radical candidate, whether in an internal party contest or in an actual election, to just bring it up and make said radical respond. He/She will torpedo his/her own campaign.
“Not hard if I am an opponent of a radical candidate, whether in an internal party contest or in an actual election, to just bring it up and make said radical respond. He/She will torpedo his/her own campaign.”
See, this is where you most openly display your complete lack of understanding of practical politics.
In 1997, I ran for city council in a city of 100,000. My platform was not especially radical. Its centerpiece:
I wanted to reform a money-losing part of the city-owned utility, a bus service that few people used and that ran at a $9 million annual loss even with several million dollars in federal funding. The big money-loser was the on-call service for the handicapped. I noted out that the city could issue each qualified rider a daily cab voucher for less than the cost of providing the service itself. And while I didn’t advocate for it, I also noted that given the small size of non-handicapped ridership, the city could also buy and insure cars for them more cheaply than running a bunch of bus routes with two people on the bus, sometimes including the driver.
But when the daily newspaper ran its candidate profiles, they covered one, and only one of my issues, one way down the list. It was a little bit radical for the time, although a number of cities have since adopted it: I wanted to make marijuana the lowest law enforcement priority.
And worse, they didn’t cover my actual arguments for it — the murdered 12-year-old who had “every available officer” looking for her the week she was missing, being raped and killed, but somehow there were officers “available” for more than 20 marijuana busts and a big gambling ring takedown; and the lady who waited 45 minutes for police to arrive after her stalker hit her in the head with a shovel and left her for dead and she crawled into the house and dialed 911.
Instead, they ran a pretty in-depth overview of the radical libertarian case for eliminating all drug laws.
And then I got 20% of the vote and carried 1/3 of the precincts on a budget 1/3 of the winner’s and 1/10 of the second place finisher’s.
Not as good as Allan Weiss in Texas, who ran for a utility district seat on a platform of abolishing the district, won the seat, and talked one of the other two members into voting 2-1 to abolish it, which then happened.
And not as good as Doug Burlison, one of my campaign volunteers, who ran in the NEXT election, won a seat, and served several terms.
But not bad. And I’m guessing that if they had covered the “moderate” parts of my platform, I wouldn’t have done nearly as well.
The only way the LP gets anywhere is by selling how it is DIFFERENT from the other offerings, not by cowering in a corner and hoping nobody notices.
I would guess a major party candidate trying to bait a minor party candidate would be tactical error and a potential boon to the underdog. Low reward/high risk to the major party candidate. High reward/No risk to the minor party candidate. I imagine the peanut gallery would mock the major party candidate’s campaign manager…the dimwit who wanted use a major party candidacy as a platform to call out a radical libertarian. Of course, that would be secondary to the fact the donors would have already filleted that nitwit’s azz…
‘Moderate’ is also not a synonym for ‘so open-minded that your brains fell out’.
Please keep it up. You are doing a fine job of demonstrating that anarchism is inconsistent with liberty or libertarianism.
It has nothing to do with anarchism. It has to do with whether you support due process and the American system of justice, or whether you believe that the state magically makes everything right by pulling numbers out of hats. One of those is compatible with libertarianism. The other isn’t.
Ah believe the Utah Chairman hit it squarely on the nose.
There were no charges and no opportunity to mount a defense. Is this is how the Libertarian Party governs it self why should we trust them with governing the country?
Since when did the end justify the means become the motto of the LP?
Now Caryn accused me of being obsessed with her. She has it wrong I am obsessed with good party governance and that means not having regional reps being dishonest with their state parties and being dishonest with the rest of the LNC.
Thomas has it right, that Caryn was the primary person pushing for this on the LNC and she must change her ways and atone for her past behavior before she should be in anyone’s good grace.
On the issue of underage sex…… The laws are nuts. An adult can’t have sex with a minor but can marry one. However you personally feel about the issue…. if you don’t discuss it you won’t fix it and we will have another decade gone by and another quarter million girls married before they are 18 some as young as 12.
Anthony Dlugos writes in part (February 5, 2018 at 08:18), “If you truly cannot understand why the double standard you point out [of censuring Arvin Vohra for intemperate remarks while ignoring Bill Weld’s un-libertarian remarks] exists… and it does exist…you are in the way wrong arena.” He also describes me as being “flummoxed” by the double standard.
I find this strange, because I didn’t describe the double standard of censuring Vohra for intemperate remarks but not Weld for un-libertarian remarks as some kind of mystery, I simply objected to it.
Anthony’s attitude toward it, on the other hand, seems to be like that famously voiced in the Bruce Hornsby song: “That’s just the way it is, some things’ll never change.” He doesn’t defend the LNC’s going after Vohra but not Weld, but simply argues that I must accept it as a given, otherwise I’m just not realistic enough to be in politics. Nothing you can do about it, so just get with the program.
Sorry, but I reject that kind of thinking. If we know something is wrong, we should speak out against it, not help reinforce it by treating it as inevitable. Political leadership isn’t about jumping on the bandwagon of popular opinion, it’s about being ahead of the curve, taking correct positions before they are popular, and moving debate and ultimately policy in that direction.
I also disagree with the characterization of Arvin Vohra as an “a-hole”, which Anthony kind of implies is justification for the double standard of who got censured. I’m not sure whether Anthony has ever met Arvin, but I have, lots of times. In person I’ve found him to be a nice guy. Regardless, likeability is an even worse criteria for censuring Libertarian leaders than is poor judgment. For political action to be legitimate, it must be based on correct ideas. Substituting anything else as the basis – popularity, practicality, geography, etc. – undermines that legitimacy.
??? no idea what point George has supposedly made here…
if the libertarian party had been so afraid of being confrontation they wouldn’t have supported legalize pot and gay marriage…
and been non-existent rather then non-effective.
“if the libertarian party had been so afraid of being confrontation they wouldn’t have supported legalize pot and gay marriage…”
We’re the Party of Principle, not the Party of Confrontation for Anti-Social A-Holes. Believe it or not, there are multiple ways to make a point about the over-prosecution of sex crimes without implying to gay people that they are hypocrites if they have a problem with a 25-year old man having sex with a 15-year old woman.
I have an idea: how about me and whoever ends up in New Orleans go out into the streets or somewhere where gay people congregate and take them that comment by Vohra and ask what they would think about a candidate for office who makes that comment. If more than one in twenty are okay with it, I’ll donate $1,000 to Vohra’s campaign.
The Libertarian Party is an outreach organization, not a member services organization. If we are pissing off our intended audience (voters) we are failing, regardless of how “libertarian” you think the comment is.
“Believe it or not, there are multiple ways to make a point about the over-prosecution of sex crimes without implying to gay people that they are hypocrites if they have a problem with a 25-year old man having sex with a 15-year old woman.”
This is the second time you’ve tried that one. The first time could have been misinterpretation, but now that you know better, it’s just making shit up.
“The Libertarian Party is an outreach organization, not a member services organization.”
Precisely. And the outreach message that the dupes in the Get Vohra Brigade did their damnedest to get out to the public on behalf of entryist wreckers — fortunately with little success — is “our party is all about throwing idiotic public tantrums over Facebook posts.”
No one disputes what Vohra posted. As I said, lets take it to the streets of New Orleans and ask members of the general public what they think of the statement, if they find it objectionable or not. I am perfectly content with accepting what we find out.
Somehow, I think the response of the radical set that it was a Facebook post not meant for public consumption is pretty much a tacit admission of what the public would think of it. As is the fact that the the censure.
I tend to think “sticking your head in the stand” is not the best way to run an organization. I’m not going to wait for something the a-hole says to actually get out into the public before I do something about the a-hole, when he has shown himself perfectly capable of being an a-hole to people inside the party.
“No one disputes what Vohra posted.”
Well, you do. You got it wrong once, I corrected you, and you acknowledged the correction. Now you’re back to pretending he said something different.
The argument about Vohra isn’t about “radical” versus “pragmatic.” It’s between “actually pragmatic” and “thinks that throwing public temper tantrums about Facebook posts is pragmatic.”
I’m perfectly fine with taking the EXACT Facebook post Vohra wrote that starts with “Pick One” screenshot in the original article to the general public and see what they think of something like that coming from a political candidate, allowing them to interpret it however they want. We’ll see what we see.
I agree that the argument is not between radical and pragmatic. Its between a proactive mindset to root out douchebaggery and a desire to stick one’s head in the sand and hope no one hears about it.
Well, maybe you should do that.
You keep saying the equivalent of “he’s saying blondes who think brunettes are dumb are hypocrites,’ when in fact he’s saying “redheads who think that blondes are dumb but brunettes are smart are hypocrites.”
If you can’t even accurately describe what he said, why should anyone give a tinker’s damn about your opinion of what he said?
“We’ll see what we see.”
Well, no, you’ll see what you want to see, which is what you’ve fantasized. Because that’s what you always see.
No one needs to describe what he said. We have a screenshot of what Vohra actually said. Present it to members of the public and see what THEY say about it. If the public has no problem with it, I’m willing to say I was wrong, And that has nothing to do with what I think, other than the fact I think most people will think, “what an asshole,” which is why I thought action should be taken against him.
As an aside, early in 2017, Vohra made it known that he intended to be more bold in his messaging, so I’m not even sure if it is relevant that it is on Facebook in some sort of “private” discussion. Vohra may be perfectly okay with any of his statements getting out into the public, which makes the fact that it hasn’t yet reached the public a moot point, and the fact that our attempt to censure him may put it in the public a moot point as well, since he may have intended the statements for public consumption.
Has Vohra actually ever responded by saying he didn’t mean these statements for public consumption?
Or did he respond by just trying to explain his comments, which tacitly admits he stands behind the comments, and wants attribution?
Just what principles do you the libertarian party stands for? Certainly no for fairness and justice. Not when innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations replace fair hearings.
Inferences, sure. For example, when you previously compared “principle” to banging club ass, I inferred from the way you put that you likely have never pulled any ass from a club. However, I wouldn’t assume that simply from the fact you identify as a moderate. Generally speaking, assuming social prowess, or lack thereof, simply based on one’s politics only serves as a basis to make an inference vis a vis the one doing the ASSuming.
Just a note. Arvin Vohra will be speaking at the Missouri LP convention this February 24. All are welcome to join us. I posted in the February monthly the details of the convention.
Anthony Dlugos writes (February 7, 2018 at 11:24), “No one needs to describe what he said. We have a screenshot of what Vohra actually said. Present it to members of the public and see what THEY say about it. If the public has no problem with it, I’m willing to say I was wrong,”
Anthony, this sounds like it could be an interesting and worthwhile experiment, if we get some additional information from people in order to put their responses in context of their overall political views, and use the opportunity to educate members of the public about libertarian ideas rather than just exposing them to a single meme that you yourself apparently think is terribly harmful to our cause and even I agree was poorly crafted messaging. That would be inviting undue critical scrutiny of that one meme in isolation, which would not be a fair test of public reaction.
Therefore I suggest a two-step poll:
1) Respondent takes the Nolan Chart quiz
2) Respondent rates 10 different memes posted by Libertarians on social media about controversial topics, including 9 memes posted by others, and the one posted by Arvin, rating each one from +5 for loves it/strongly agrees with it to -5 for hates it/strongly disagrees with it, with 0 being neutral, and any memes not rated tallied as the respondent responding neutrally
Write each respondent’s Nolan Chart score on the page where they’ll rate the memes, and have them fill it out on their own and drop it in a box when they’re done, so that our respondents will see we’re guaranteeing the privacy of their responses and they can tell us what they really think. We’ll poll an even number of respondents, with you picking half of them and me picking half of them.
If you agree to these conditions, I’m willing to go out on the street and conduct the experiment with you in the French Quarter in New Orleans where there’s lots of foot traffic and we can discuss the results over drinks afterward, comparing people’s reactions to the various memes with each other and with their Nolan Chart scores.
My predictions are:
1) That the Arvin meme in question will not be a major outlier in terms of getting way stronger negative reactions on average than any other meme; and
2) That people who score in the libertarian upper half of the chart (the people we want to reach) will view it much more favorably on average than people who score below the central line (in the authoritarian half of the chart)
Excellent suggestion, Starchild. I am willing to work with you, or anyone else who would be interested, in putting this project together for a YouTube video.
I wonder if these white nationalists only embrace the WHITER individuals with Latino names, accents, features, etc. And what do Latinos do if there darker brothers are rejected. Interesting to see how stupidity operates…
OOPS. Meant that for another thread I thought was open mentioning FL Parkland school shooter’s affiliation with white nationalist group…
Women tend to be past their prime by age 25 and well on their way to the wall by age 30. And as Donald Trump put it, ‘It’s check-out time for women at 35′.
If a girl isn’t allowed to get married till age 18, then her husband is missing out on several years of her nubile prime. That’s a pretty big deal, considering that she doesn’t have all that many years before she becomes fat and wrinkly.
The debate about the marriageable age has focused mainly on girls’ alleged need to be mature enough to consent, and for some reason has totally ignored men’s need to have an attractive wife for at least a significant portion of the life that they will share together, so that he won’t feel ripped off.
Also, if they’re planning on having a large family, then it’s best that they get married early, since women’s fertility peaks in their early and mid-20s, and it’s going to take several years to produce all the children they want to have. Currently, the fertility rate in the U.S. is 1.84 births per woman, which is not even enough to replenish our population. That isn’t sustainable. Early marriage would help address that issue.
“Women tend to be past their prime by age 25…”
Says who?
Women’s sexual peak is on average later than that.
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2007422,00.html
“University of Texas psychologist David Buss wrote the article, which appears in the July issue of Personality and Individual Differences, with the help of three graduate students, Judith Easton (who is listed as lead author), Jaime Confer and Cari Goetz. Buss, Easton and their colleagues found that women in their 30s and early 40s are significantly more sexual than younger women. Women ages 27 through 45 report not only having more sexual fantasies (and more intense sexual fantasies) than women ages 18 through 26 but also having more sex, period. And they are more willing than younger women to have casual sex, even one-night stands. In other words, despite the girls-gone-wild image of promiscuous college women, it is women in their middle years who are America’s most sexually industrious.”
Female peak earnings, much like males, are in the 40s-60s
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/files/2017/08/17/pay%2520growth.png&imgrefurl=https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/17/when-youll-earn-the-most-in-your-career.html&h=795&w=1096&tbnid=FewM7zW_aPpFRM:&tbnh=152&tbnw=211&usg=__EpK5jSAyftlO3RkYePdg-vpJu18%3D&vet=10ahUKEwjR5sv6-7TaAhURI6wKHWN4ARgQ9QEILTAA..i&docid=EEHvSXvrEeuUCM&client=opera&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR5sv6-7TaAhURI6wKHWN4ARgQ9QEILTAA
Without looking it up, I’ll guess that peak wealth accumulation is even later than that.
Women live on average longer then men.
Women who choose not to have children live even longer and earn more.
“and well on their way to the wall by age 30. ”
Wall? What wall?
“And as Donald Trump put it, ‘It’s check-out time for women at 35?.”
Trump is a pig who should be roasted on a spit and fed to other pigs, or just fed to other pigs alive. Nothing he says should ever be taken seriously.
“If a girl isn’t allowed to get married till age 18, then her husband is missing out on several years of her nubile prime. That’s a pretty big deal, considering that she doesn’t have all that many years before she becomes fat and wrinkly.”
That would only make sense if gratifying males was all that mattered. Of course men get fat and wrinkly too, but so what? In reality, men aren’t needed at all, as women are far better at pleasuring each other and we have an overpopulation problem as it is. As technology develops further, men can be eliminated altogether as women can just be cloned without having to go through childbirth. Already, we can harvest all the sperm we need from boys going through puberty and then euthenize all males (only a small portion of whom need to be preserved that long anyway) and use them for biofuel. I’m being facetious here, but it would make “sense” in the same sort of way Larson’s proposals would.
“totally ignored men’s need to have an attractive wife for at least a significant portion of the life that they will share together, so that he won’t feel ripped off.”
Yes, pedophiles’ need to have an attractive wife who is too immature to consent is more important than non-initiation of force. In your fantasy world only, of course. In reality, men are not the only ones who feel ripped off as their partner ages and becomes less attractive.
“Also, if they’re planning on having a large family, then it’s best that they get married early, since women’s fertility peaks in their early and mid-20s, and it’s going to take several years to produce all the children they want to have.”
Again, we have a severe overpopulation problem, so if you are going to go around wholesale violating consent, rather than doing so in ways that will encourage more irresponsible breeding, why not institute something like China’s previous one child policy, but with the added stipulation that, say, 80 or 90% of the children who don’t get aborted have to be female? Women who insist on having a boy-child could enter a lottery to be allowed to have one.
” Currently, the fertility rate in the U.S. is 1.84 births per woman, which is not even enough to replenish our population. That isn’t sustainable. Early marriage would help address that issue.”
It isn’t an issue, and if it was, it would be solved by open borders, which would have the added benefit of speeding up “white genocide” (LOL). But really, there are way too many of us already, so a few centuries of negative population growth would be preferable to other solutions which have been proposed such as a massive world war, global epidemics, and so on. If negative population growth is happening organically, all the better.