LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra once again stirs controversy, calls for removal with age of consent comments

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_convention

If 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_convention

Finally, 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:

https://www.facebook.com/LYCaucus/videos/2072363812983410/?hc_ref=ARQPHS2XFsbc5i-b9n3GgNyZ0r6EX1J8QQY3_vViVrHuusEj8PIf4Ti2Rz8eGboAazk

“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:

That’s it as of this time, but stay tuned for further developments.

577 thoughts on “LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra once again stirs controversy, calls for removal with age of consent comments

  1. Thomas Knapp

    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.

  2. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    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!!

  3. Matthew Cholko

    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.

  4. Caryn Ann Harlos

    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.

  5. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Oh excuse me. “Libertarian” and “supposed radical.”

    pfffttt

    Good thing my identity isn’t dependent upon the ratification by others.

  6. paulie Post author

    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.

  7. dL

    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.

  8. paulie Post author

    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.

  9. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  10. paulie Post author

    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.

  11. dL

    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.

    Yes, because the standard behavior today for “serious and electable politicians” is porn star chasing white supremacism.

  12. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  13. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  14. DJ

    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.

  15. Andy

    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?

  16. Andy

    I will say that libertarianism is about property rights and the Non-Aggression Principal, and that is it.

  17. Andy

    “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.

  18. Gina

    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…

  19. Luke

    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.

  20. robert capozzi

    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.

  21. dL

    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.

    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.

  22. dL

    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

  23. itdoesntmatterttomuch

    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.

  24. Thomas Knapp

    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.

  25. Thomas Knapp

    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.”

  26. Thomas Knapp

    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.

  27. paulie Post author

    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.

  28. George Phillies

    “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.

  29. Thomas Knapp

    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).

  30. Jill Pyeatt

    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.

  31. Andy

    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.

  32. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  33. George Phillies

    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/

  34. DJ

    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?

  35. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    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.

  36. Jill Pyeatt

    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.

  37. dL

    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.

    I noticed that, too…

  38. dL

    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’s the usual suspect cadre ensuring the LP remains a safe space for the next republican who will head the LP ticket.

  39. Andy

    “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?

  40. Thomas Knapp

    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

  41. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    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.

  42. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    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.”

  43. DJ

    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.

  44. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    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.)

  45. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.”

  46. Kim Ruff

    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.)

  47. Jill Pyeatt

    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.

  48. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  49. Anon-Tipper

    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?

  50. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  51. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  52. paulie Post author

    So far as I know, this one hasn’t any seconds either.

    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.

  53. Andy

    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.

  54. paulie Post author

    If I recall correctly, there was a motion on Florida that received no seconds.

    There was discussion of Florida. I don’t remember a motion, even without a second.

  55. paulie Post author

    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?

    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.

  56. paulie Post author

    It’s the usual suspect cadre ensuring the LP remains a safe space for the next republican who will head the LP ticket.

    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.

  57. paulie Post author

    Meanwhile, Vohra is running for US Senate in the same race as Chelsea/Bradley Manning,

    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.

  58. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  59. Andy

    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.

  60. Andy Craig

    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.

  61. Andy Craig

    “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.

  62. steve m

    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.

  63. paulie Post author

    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.

  64. DJ

    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

  65. Andy

    “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.

  66. Andy

    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,

  67. Andy

    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.

  68. Andy

    “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..”

  69. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    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.”

    🙂

  70. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  71. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    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…

  72. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    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!

  73. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  74. robert capozzi

    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? 😉

  75. wolfefan

    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.

  76. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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?”

  77. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  78. robert capozzi

    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.

  79. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  80. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  81. dL

    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.

    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.

  82. dL

    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 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.

  83. dL

    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?

    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.

    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?

  84. Andy

    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.

  85. paulie Post author

    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?

    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.

  86. paulie Post author

    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.

    You think Harlos is in that category?

  87. Kim Ruff

    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.

  88. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  89. Kim Ruff

    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.”

  90. robert capozzi

    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.

  91. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  92. dL

    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.

    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.

  93. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  94. robert capozzi

    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.

  95. dL

    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.

    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.

  96. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  97. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  98. dL

    That sort of “if criteria x and y are true, then z is the permissible outcome” is elegant in theory,

    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

  99. dL

    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.

    My experience is that if people want a republican, they will vote for a republican. You would think that would be a trivial observation.

  100. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  101. dL

    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.

  102. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  103. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  104. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  105. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  106. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  107. dL

    Given the wide swath of area in the middle ceded by the two dinosaur parties

    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.

  108. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  109. dL

    The purpose of any political party is to win elections.

    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.”

  110. robert capozzi

    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.

  111. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  112. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  113. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.”

  114. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.”

  115. dL

    I didn’t say nothing else matters. I said everything else is secondary. Without a primary goal of winning elections, all this other stuff,

    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.

  116. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  117. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  118. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  119. Anthony Dlugos

    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!!

  120. Andy Craig

    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.

  121. Andy Craig

    ***[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.

  122. DJ

    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.

  123. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.”

  124. robert capozzi

    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?

  125. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.”

  126. robert capozzi

    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.

  127. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  128. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  129. paulie Post author

    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.

    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?

  130. paulie Post author

    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 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.

  131. robert capozzi

    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.

  132. dL

    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.

    You are two decades behind the times. That conventional wisdom(general election move to the center) went out of the window with Karl Rove.

  133. dL

    “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.

    well, you can try running this media buy past your donor class

  134. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  135. robert capozzi

    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.

  136. George Phillies

    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.

  137. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  138. paulie Post author

    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.

    Excellent point.

  139. dL

    That may well be YOUR perception of TeamGuv, and you validate your pre-conception with quotes (I’m guessing) that make your point.

    You assume wrong. I’m mocking your(and Dlugos’) position…

  140. dL

    [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.

    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…

  141. Andy

    “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.

  142. Andy

    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.

  143. Andy

    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.

  144. paulie Post author

    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?

  145. robert capozzi

    dL: You assume wrong. I’m mocking your(and Dlugos’) position…

    me: Droll. It’s too far from accurate to resonate.

  146. dL

    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?

    https://www.thejacknews.com/politics/state-libertarian-parties-demand-removal-of-arvin-vohra-for-comments-on-child-molestation/

    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.

    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.

  147. dL

    me: Droll. It’s too far from accurate to resonate.

    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.

  148. paulie Post author

    Apparently, the topic of Johnson has relevance to the topic.

    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.

  149. robert capozzi

    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.

  150. paulie Post author

    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.

  151. Andy

    “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.

  152. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  153. dL

    Certainly I have my moments where my wit is dull

    well, watching Tucker Carlson sharpens the sphincter, not the brain…

  154. dL

    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.

    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.

  155. Anthony Dlugos

    ‘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.

  156. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  157. robert capozzi

    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.”

  158. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  159. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  160. robert capozzi

    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!

  161. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.”

  162. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  163. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  164. robert capozzi

    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.

  165. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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?

  166. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  167. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  168. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  169. robert capozzi

    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.

  170. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  171. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  172. paulie Post author

    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.

    All you are doing is making them and everyone else think you are a crazy obsessed stalker type.

  173. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  174. Anthony Dlugos

    well, I can’t say I disagree with that at all, TK. That’s pretty damn well stated if you asked me.

  175. dL

    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?

    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.

  176. robert capozzi

    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.

  177. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  178. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  179. dL

    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.”

    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.

  180. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  181. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  182. dL

    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.

    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

  183. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  184. dL

    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.”

    i.e, Bill Clinton.

    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.

    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.

  185. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  186. Kim Ruff

    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.

  187. George Phillies

    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.

  188. Andy

    “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.

  189. DJ

    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?

  190. robert capozzi

    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.

  191. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  192. robert capozzi

    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.

  193. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  194. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    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.

  195. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  196. robert capozzi

    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.

  197. robert capozzi

    tk: And as a result, he had to go to the Supreme Court to get the election result overturned.

    me: Cryptic. Please elaborate.

  198. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    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.

  199. robert capozzi

    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.

  200. robert capozzi

    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?

  201. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  202. dL

    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.

    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!

  203. dL

    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.

    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.

  204. robert capozzi

    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!

  205. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  206. robert capozzi

    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.

  207. dL

    Highly recommended. Open-mindedness Allowing your mind to serve as open garbage dump can be quite liberating.

    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.

  208. robert capozzi

    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.

  209. dL

    me: Note that YOU said 2000.

    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.

    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.

    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…

  210. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  211. dL

    It does if you are comparing payments by, and government transfers to, immigrants to those of natives. Which is what you were doing.

    Bob’s open mind has liberated him from the responsibility of factual retention…

  212. dL

    He ran against McCain in the primaries. Obviously you missed that part.

    nah, I remember. In fact, I distinctly recall the Bush firewall in SC that relied in accusing McCain of fathering an illegitimate black child…

  213. paulie Post author

    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.

  214. Andy

    “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.

  215. robert capozzi

    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.

  216. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  217. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  218. robert capozzi

    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.

  219. Anon-Tipper

    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.

  220. Anon-Tipper

    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.)

  221. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  222. robert capozzi

    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?

  223. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  224. dL

    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.

    Well, you know how the old soviet system worked. One day the purger, the next, the purged…

  225. dL

    Do you disapprove of SH as well?

    Apart from being a blood thirsty lunatic, he gives credence to the notion that atheism is itself just another religion.

    Is there a dL approved media source?

    slashdot… I would also recommend rational review, but i believe i did wear out my welcome there…

  226. Andy Craig

    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.

  227. Andy

    “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?

  228. George Phillies

    ” 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.

  229. Andy Craig

    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.

  230. Andy Craig

    I only mentioned the platform, because it was claimed Vohra didn’t contradict it, when that’s plainly untrue.

  231. Anon-Tipper

    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.

  232. ATBAFT

    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.

  233. Andy Craig

    @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.

  234. Anon-Tipper

    ” 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.)

  235. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  236. Andy

    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.

  237. George Phillies

    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.

  238. paulie Post author

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    9:07 AM (15 minutes ago)

    to lnc-business
    Dear All,

    Ms. Harlos, Mr. Katz, Mr. Redpath, Mr. Goldstein, Mr. McKnight, and
    Ms. Van Horn have requested that the LNC hold an electronic meeting
    for the purpose of considering suspension of Mr. Vohra.

    Pursuant to the LNC Policy Manual, Section 1.02(7)(e), the request for
    an electronic meeting must specify the date and time of the meeting in
    addition to the topic(s) to be addressed. That date and time is
    required to be at least 7 days in the future from when the meeting is
    called.

    My recommendation would be for the people who would like the
    electronic meeting to agree on a convenient time to hold the meeting
    and resubmit their request with that date and time. I’m happy to
    respond to inquiries about my availability to preside over such a
    meeting, though the body could also elect a chair pro tem for this
    meeting if I am unavailable at the requested date and time.

    All members who are interested in how electronic meetings are called,
    cancelled, and conducted are encouraged to read Section 1.02(7) of the
    Policy Manual. http://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/20171209_LNC_Policy_Manual.pdf

    Yours in liberty,
    Nick

  239. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    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…

  240. Anon-Tipper

    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.”

  241. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  242. Anon-Tipper

    “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.

  243. Anon-Tipper

    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.

  244. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  245. Anon-Tipper

    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.”

  246. paulie Post author

    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

  247. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  248. Anthony Dlugos

    I’m not sure I understand. The people who want Vohra removed put him up to making his dopey comments lo’ these many months?

  249. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  250. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  251. Andy Craig

    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.

  252. Anon-Tipper

    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

  253. paulie Post author

    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.

  254. paulie Post author

    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.

    So, again, are you including, for example, Harlos or Hayes here?

  255. Anon-Tipper

    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.

  256. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  257. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  258. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  259. Anthony Dlugos

    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?

  260. Anon-Tipper

    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.

  261. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  262. paulie Post author

    You’re not seriously suggesting that if we just ignored Vohra’s comments, the mainstream media and the dinosaur parties would ignore it too?

    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.

  263. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  264. robert capozzi

    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.

  265. Thomas L. Knapp

    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?

  266. Anon-Tipper

    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.

  267. Anon-Tipper

    “Anon-Tipper, sorry, I thought you meant from the party.”

    No worries, I should’ve been clearer

  268. Anon-Tipper

    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.

  269. robert capozzi

    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.

  270. Anon-Tipper

    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.”

  271. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  272. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  273. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  274. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  275. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  276. Anon-Tipper

    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.

  277. dL

    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.

    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.

  278. robert capozzi

    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.

  279. dL

    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.

    That might be a winning issue in Alabama….

  280. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  281. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  282. dL

    Kinda tedious, actually.

    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.”

  283. dL

    You don’t understand “reasonable people,” aka “voters,”

    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 do at best is only the most rational irrational act a person can do.

  284. Thomas L. Knapp

    dL,

    He is using “rational people” as a proxy for “people he wants to appeal to,” aka voters.

    Meanwhile in Florida:

    Legislation that would punish local governments that don’t fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities drew support from Libertarian Alison Foxall and criticism from Democrat Margaret Good during a candidate forum for the state House District 72 race Tuesday.

    I wish I had listened to that guy who tried to talk me into buying FacePalmCoin when it was still going for 23 cents.

  285. Anon-Tipper

    Alison Foxall voted against removing Ramsey. tbh, I wouldn’t trust anyone that saw literal nazi propaganda and didn’t vote to remove him.

  286. Gina

    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.

  287. dL

    Meanwhile in Florida:…

    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.

  288. robert capozzi

    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.

  289. robert capozzi

    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.

  290. robert capozzi

    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.

  291. Chuck Moulton

    Anthony Dlugos wrote (1/18/2018 at 3:06 pm):

    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.

    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.

  292. robert capozzi

    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! 😉

  293. paulie Post author

    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.

    A few hundred volunteer sigs on the weekends in Ohio would be a great start. If socially phobic, validate instead.

  294. Thomas L. Knapp

    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

  295. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  296. Chuck Moulton

    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.

  297. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    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 🙂

  298. Anon-Tipper

    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.

  299. dL

    Do you reject Hobbes, the father of totalitarianism and the prince of Leviathan?

    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.

  300. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  301. robert capozzi

    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…..

  302. robert capozzi

    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.

  303. Andy

    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?

  304. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  305. robert capozzi

    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.

  306. robert capozzi

    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.

  307. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  308. dL

    Highly recommended. Open-mindedness can be quite liberating.

    I’d say most of cable news is now undisguised propaganda.

    which one is it, Bob?

  309. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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?

  310. dL

    First, I did not, nor have I ever called for purging radicals/anarchists.

    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?

  311. robert capozzi

    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.

  312. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  313. robert capozzi

    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.

  314. Anthony Dlugos

    ‘”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.

  315. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  316. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  317. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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 …”

  318. dL

    I also view my dalliances with the right and left to be kind of opposition policy position research. By listening to other sides, I tighten plagiarize my own arguments, finding places where my old positions might need some revising or repackaging.

  319. dL

    I call myself a theoretic asymptotic anarchist/applied lessarchist.

    boy, that’s a winning coalition convention…

  320. Anon-Tipper

    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.

  321. Anthony Dlugos

    I think Vohra started taking trolling/hot take advice from Petersen, but he’s just not as good at it.

  322. Anon-Tipper

    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.

  323. DJ

    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.

  324. Anon-Tipper

    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

  325. Andy Craig

    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.

  326. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  327. Andy

    “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.

  328. Andy

    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.

  329. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  330. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  331. Anthony Dlugos

    “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!

  332. Andy

    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.

  333. Andy

    “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?

  334. Thomas L. Knapp

    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”

  335. Andy

    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.

  336. Andy

    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.

  337. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  338. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  339. dL

    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.

    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.

  340. Andy

    “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.

  341. dL

    We want to show the country and the world that legalizing marijuana can work…

    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.

  342. Andy

    “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.

  343. robert capozzi

    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.

  344. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  345. dL

    persuade to dL-ism.

    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.

    I mostly just see you tear other people’s positions down

    Absolutely…I tear down the authoritarian pretenses when I find them. And its a target rich environment …

  346. robert capozzi

    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).

  347. paulie Post author

    Andy Craig
    January 19 at 3:14am (FB)

    While there are several unknowns, by my tentative count there are only four, maybe five, firm no votes on removal. It would take six no votes to defeat the motion, assuming all 17 are present and vote. There are seven or eight confirmed-yes or leaning-yes. (2/3 needed = 12 yes votes).

    It could go either way, but I was originally pretty dismissive myself of the chances it could pass. I’d now call it a toss-up.

    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?

  348. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  349. robert capozzi

    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.

  350. George Phillies

    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.

  351. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  352. Thomas L. Knapp

    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

  353. robert capozzi

    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.

  354. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  355. robert capozzi

    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. 😉

  356. paulie Post author

    lnc-votes@hq.lp.org via googlegroups.com
    12:56 PM (1 hour ago)

    to Libertarian
    Dear LNC:

    While many statistics for the LP are better than comparable years of recent times, it seems we keep having a series of public relations scandals accompanied with lots of outrage.

    The convention stripper, the mysterious death in the hotel, Aleppo, Hillary, the No More Pauls meme, the 2017 Satanic Panic, the Alt-Right, the fascists, are soldiers murderers, are public school teachers and students welfare queens, and of course the current topic, age of consent, come to mind.

    I don’t like the scandals and wish they’d stop happening.

    Something tells me my wish may not come true when I look at all the sources for scandals.

    There’s the concept of “reach” on social media. Some things reach a large audience, and some things don’t reach many people.

    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.

    While some of the scandals are inadvertent, the possibility of reaching a large audience might also inadvertently be inciting scandals by opportunists.

    I was wondering if perhaps the Social Media Process Review Committee or some other committee could take on the task of doing some research on best practices related to damage prevention and reach on social media. Perhaps they’d find some information that would be helpful. Cultural changes are very difficult, but perhaps they could find some information that might help encourage a more positive culture among Libertarians on facebook, and sharing of the good stuff while shunning the bad stuff. I’m not asking for top-down directives, just some practices, that when shared, might get buy in from the Libertarian grassroots.

    I’ve swept several scandals under the rug over the years. You can’t list those–for an obvious reason.

    I do think it’s a long shot to think we can change the culture. Scandals in Libertarian circles have been erupting since I joined the party 20 years ago, and they happen in the other parties, too.

    But, I think it’s possible things could be improved a bit.

    Regardless, I plan to keep plugging along.

    Take care,


    Wes Benedict, Executive Director
    Libertarian National Committee, Inc.

  357. paulie Post author

    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.

    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.

  358. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  359. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  360. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  361. Anon-Tipper

    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.

  362. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  363. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  364. paulie Post author

    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.

  365. paulie Post author

    I just don’t understand that statement.

    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.

  366. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  367. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  368. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.”

  369. Anon-Tipper

    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.

  370. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  371. paulie Post author

    Matt Murphy shared his first post.
    New Member · 18 mins
    Can we remove Sarwark too?

    Why is Sarwark working to promote a film produced by a child sex predator? The same Daniel Thompson in this article (arrested for paying 14 year old girls for sex as well as multiple other predator type things) is the producer for the upcoming “I am Gary Johnson” film.

    At what point will the LP leadership decide to distance itself from this type of shit?

    https://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2548266

    Paulie CannoliGroup Admin Exactly how and how much is Nicholas J. Sarwark working to promote this film? Is he aware of Daniel Thompson’s arrest and “multiple other” vague whatever? Is he aware that Daniel Thompson is the producer of this film? If he is aware of these things when did he become aware of them? Has Daniel Thompson been convicted, or have a prior history, or multiple accusers? I am asking these questions because I don’t know the answers to any of them. Do you know them or are you just working yourself up in a lather and throwing out accusations?

    LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 2m

  372. Andy

    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?

  373. Andy

    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?

  374. robert capozzi

    Hypothetical question to dL, TK, and PF:

    If the US unemployment rate was 40%, would you still advocate open borders?

  375. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  376. dL

    Hypothetical question to dL, TK, and PF:

    If the US unemployment rate was 40%, would you still advocate open borders?

    Yes, to flee the United States to find a new life.

  377. dL

    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.

    Yes, it’s obvious to anyone but Bob.

  378. dL

    Not Catholic, catholic.

    universal

    apparently, that LessAnarchy mental contraption acts as a cognitive inhibitor. Maybe we have finally found something the FDA should regulate…

  379. Andy

    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.”

  380. Andy

    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.”

  381. robert capozzi

    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.

  382. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  383. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  384. robert capozzi

    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.

  385. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  386. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  387. dL

    Especially given his evasiveness

    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.”

  388. dL

    You’re thinking of Anthony de Jasay

    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.

  389. Gina

    If so, good riddance. Can he by any chance give Ramsey, Brandi and Chris Rose a lift on his way there?

  390. Anon-Tipper

    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!

  391. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  392. Anon-Tipper

    “He changed his voter registration in Florida from LPF to something else…”

    Thanks for the explanation. I guess this situation hasn’t happened before?

  393. steve m

    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

  394. robert capozzi

    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.

  395. paulie Post author

    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

  396. steve m

    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?

  397. George Phillies

    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.

  398. steve m

    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.

  399. Andy Craig

    (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

  400. steve m

    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.

  401. steve m

    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.

  402. steve m

    “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.

  403. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  404. dL

    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.

    which presented libertarian ideas in inflammatory manner to the sensibilities of right-wing christian conservatives
    -Alicia, previously rebuked copyright troll

  405. dL

    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?

    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.

  406. robert capozzi

    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.

  407. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    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.

  408. robert capozzi

    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.

  409. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.”

  410. steve m

    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.

  411. robert capozzi

    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.

  412. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  413. dL

    support the LP’s plank of immigration, (which is not a 100% open borders position);

    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:

    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.

    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.

  414. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  415. DJ

    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

  416. dL

    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.”

    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.

  417. robert capozzi

    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.

  418. paulie Post author

    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.

    I’m not aware that the Sunshine/Transparency Caucus has a formal membership, and I started it…or is there another one?

  419. robert capozzi

    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.

  420. steve m

    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.

  421. paulie Post author

    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.

  422. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  423. DJ

    steve m: wow Libertarians discussing bondage…. kinky

    Me: Only if all agree. Otherwise it’s perverted.

  424. dL

    I was in the room when that plank was drafted.

    I was aware you had something to do with that plank. That is why I bothered to collect your comments.

    Richard Spencer was not in the room!

    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.

    I voted for language because it seemed reasonable at the time, and it still does.

    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.

    “Unless it’s changed recently, the LP’s position is basically mine”

    It is precisely why I despise words like “reasonable” and “sensible.” Your views on immigration and welfare are neither reasonable nor sensible nor “mainstream.”

    Or just keep doing a poor Trump imitation, making wild, bullying accusations.

    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.

  425. dL

    a way of saying that if she considers herself to be a member then she should walk the walk.

    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.

  426. Andy

    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).

  427. Andy

    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.

  428. robert capozzi

    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.

  429. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  430. robert capozzi

    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.

  431. robert capozzi

    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.

  432. Caryn Ann Harlos

    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.

  433. Brandi

    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

  434. paulie Post author

    Keep in mind that the participation rate is still in the low 60s now,

    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.

    The top 40% of the US population is doing VERY well, but the bottom 60% are struggling.

    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.

    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?

    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.

  435. Anon-Tipper

    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.

  436. robert capozzi

    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.

  437. paulie Post author

    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

  438. Andy

    More immigration has really been working out well and is really benefiting the economies of Sweden and Germany…..not!

  439. robert capozzi

    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.

  440. dL

    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.
    red herring gobbledygook

  441. DJ

    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.

  442. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    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.

  443. robert capozzi

    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.

  444. robert capozzi

    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?

  445. robert capozzi

    Citizenship as opposed to non-citizens working in the territory that some call the US, that is.

  446. paulie Post author

    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.

  447. robert capozzi

    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?

  448. robert capozzi

    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.

  449. robert capozzi

    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?

  450. steve m

    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?

  451. steve m

    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.

  452. steve m

    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?

  453. steve m

    with all do respect can those engaged in other discussions rather then those specifically relating to this thread move them elsewhere?

  454. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    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.

  455. Andy

    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.

  456. Thomas L. Knapp

    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?

  457. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  458. robert capozzi

    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.

  459. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  460. robert capozzi

    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! 😉

  461. robert capozzi

    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.

  462. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  463. robert capozzi

    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!

  464. DJ

    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.

  465. robert capozzi

    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.

  466. DJ

    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.

  467. DJ

    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.

  468. DJ

    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.

  469. Andy

    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.

  470. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  471. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    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.

  472. George Phillies

    “…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.

  473. dL

    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.

    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”

  474. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  475. dL

    the state offers what we could call “stolen” services like health, education, and welfare/transfer payments
    military contracts, intelligence, IP, energy, IP, banking, farm subsidies, drugs, science, labor, transportation, pensions, commerce, insurance, infrastructure, housing, health, education, social security, medicare. medicaid…etc
    , there is a risk associated with incremental immigrants there is little risk in extrapolating that those who scapegoat immigrants as criminals are bigots

  476. Anthony Dlugos

    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.

  477. paulie Post author

    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.

    Exactly, in addition to Andy’s stats being total bullshit from disreputable sources and the exact opposite of what is actually happening with immigration.

  478. paulie Post author

    If we view governments as condo associations

    Then way-morearchy becomes not only plausible but more or less inevitable. Very bad idea.

  479. paulie Post author

    “…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.

  480. dL

    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.

    Politics is not dry goods. Politically, the better analogy would be the repubs…the party of Lincoln is now the party of Strom Thurmond

  481. Anthony Dlugos

    “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?

  482. dL

    At the electoral level, its much closer to dry goods than pure philosophy.

    Anthony, have you ever opened up a poly sci or economics textbook?

    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?

    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?

  483. Anthony Dlugos

    “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.

  484. Andy

    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).

  485. Thomas L. Knapp

    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?

  486. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    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.

  487. robert capozzi

    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.

  488. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    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…

  489. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    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.

  490. robert capozzi

    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?

  491. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  492. Thomas L. Knapp

    “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.

  493. robert capozzi

    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….

  494. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

  495. DJ

    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

  496. dL

    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.

    hoppeBot…quack, quack

  497. robert capozzi

    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.

  498. robert capozzi

    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.

  499. Thomas L. Knapp

    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!

  500. robert capozzi

    We could add ME and VT to the list.

    You’re “right.” We should all be paying the Native Americans rent!

  501. robert capozzi

    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.

  502. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.”

  503. dL

    So far as I can tell, the focus on hand-wringing over effective retail politics i

    well, if the message is let’s attack immigrants and brown people, ineffective retail messaging is a good thing

  504. robert capozzi

    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.

  505. Andy Craig

    “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.

  506. dL

    me: True, as damaging as advocating the right to private nukes and having sex with children.

    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…

  507. Thomas L. Knapp

    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.

Leave a Reply

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